Pilot's Political Orientation

S Green wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

darwin smith wrote:

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Anti-abortion IS pro-life.


Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all
that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is
guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk
in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing
a death to save the possibility of a death. I'm still not sure that is
a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most
abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That
isn't morally acceptable.


Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either.

I agree, which is why only the government should have such authority,
not the individuals who were wronged. That latter would be revenge, the
former is not.


Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime.

Sorry, but killing and murder aren't the same. Killing in defense of
one's own life is not murder and is moral.

Matt

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."



I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system.




That's a much different scenario. I question though if the "average G/A
guy" and the rest of the statement can really go in the same sentence.


Matt

Let's see here...

14 hours per day
x 7 days per week
=================
98 hours per week.

That's pretty damned close...



wrote in :



Judah wrote:

Put it in perspective.

At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per
year.

The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a
day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week.

Not possible. That would grossly violate the flight-time limitations
in Part 121. In any case, the airline pilot is a surrogate for the
airline company and the hundreds of paying customer using those ATC
services.



If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are about
250,000 100-hour per year GA planes.

There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines.

The airline fleet is probably somewhere around 4,000 aircraft with an
average daily ultilization of 12-14 hours per day.



The only real way to fairly and equitably split the cost of the system
is to charge for the time used. It is probably not really practical to
do that for a variety of reasons. But gas consumption probably
delivers a good measure of time a plane spends in the air, and as such
using the system, it is probably a fairly good place to put the tax to
cover that cost.

You seem to be complaining that an approach controller at BDL whose
salary is mostly being paid by the 350 Airline flights per day he
sequences in should not also provide sequencing a few times a year to
Skylark nearby if they would publish a GPS approach and paint some
lines on the runway.

Hmmmmm...

And perhaps the police who are patrolling my neighborhood shouldn't
help you if you get mugged and are from out of town?

wrote in :



"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:

The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year
doesn't begin to pay for the system.


But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few
grass runways, and a good map and compass! :-)

Matt

Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna
182's that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with
control towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports without
control towers; all supported by center equipment, controllers, FAA
approach designers, expensive flight inspections, etc., etc.

Judah wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other
people's assets?

By creating wealth.

Ex Nihilo?

Perhaps you mean 'Creatio Ex Nihilo', create something out
of nothing.

If so, you claim that the value of labor = zero.

Marx would not approve.

I would hardly call Libertarians very conservative. While the free market
position could
lead one to think that ... the general approach of us being able to do our
own thing
as long as we don't interfere with others exercising that same freedom is a
long way
away from the ultra conservative approach. They want to control our every
action
and make our moral judgements for us. The Libertarians I know .. like me ..
believe
in maximum liberty and minimum government to the extent that it's practical.
The problem
with the Republicrats is one wants to control our bank account and one wants
to
control our bedroom. With Libertarians .. at this point .. having little
practical political
power we're forced to choose between the extreme right or the extreme left.

http://www.libertarian.org/policy.html



"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .
Go he
http://www.libertarian.org/index2.html

The Hoover Institute is the leading libertarian think tank in America and
it
is very conservative. In fact, outside the Hoover Institute libertarians
have had little power in the US since FDR's Presidency began.
Libertarians
inside the Republican Party were responsible for the "balanced budget" we
had a few years ago.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in
message
...

So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about
property
rights
and states' rights

Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis
of a
republic.

(originally created to protect slavery)

Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to
war
over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone
was
willing to leave things be for a while.

and protecting
large corporations while espousing populist principles.

The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party
insistthey
address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central
government,
but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist
tendancies.

And you have the
'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press,
disarming
the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in
other
countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.'

Racism has always been the Democrats' product.

wrote:

The last I recall, in the now-five-year-old program for 500 GPS approaches a
year, some 70-80% of those were established (and are being established) for
airports that have no commercial operations except perhaps for a very
infrequent Part 135 arrival.

It does not follow that an airport without Part 121 and
infrequent Part 135 operations has no economic value.

"S Green" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"Judah" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in
:


"Judah" wrote in message
...
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's
assets?

By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are
smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home
waiting
for the welfare check you lose.


Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so
wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke!

In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of
thousand
dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although
he
might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is
brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available.

But not as a science teacher.

There are teaching jobs available that pay extremely well. The opportunity
is available.

Do we want good science teachers teaching our kids or is it OK to low
ambition morons doing it instead?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

S Green wrote:
"Doug Carter" wrote in message
...

Conservatives object to excessive government spending,
especially when it is used to force social engineering.

and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then?

The Iraq war is part of a long belated response to world
wide terrorism.

Your inference that establishing conditions that give
peoples a chance to escape from dictatorships is 'social
engineering' is valid and I stand corrected.

I should have said that "conservatives object to excessive
government spending, especially when it is used to
increase dependence on welfare or inappropriately create
monopolies that displace free enterprise."

"Chicken Bone" wrote in message
news.com...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message

Jefferson godless?

Apparently deists are thought to be godless.

By whom?

By those who, like Dan Luke, want to portray Jefferson as godless in order
to further their own political agenda of excluding religious views from the
political forum.

Matt Whiting wrote:

wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:


I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."



I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped
(with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small
airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system.




That's a much different scenario. I question though if the "average G/A
guy" and the rest of the statement can really go in the same sentence.


Sure it can. The operative phrase is: "the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equippe (with IFR
GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small airports..."

You reduced that to "average G/A guy..." which perhaps changes the meaning.