Pilot's Political Orientation

Dude,

I'd be interested in taking this discussion off-line. (Great topic, but
hardly appropriate for these ng's. My apologies to the groups.) Please
respond to the address below if you like.

Thanks.

Dan

Dude wrote:
Dan,

You are in the fortunate position of pointing out the obvious. Yes many of
the engineers are a result of public assistance. What we cannot know is
would there be less or more of them without that assistance. We also cannot
know how many of them had there creativity stifled in the process of
becoming engineers. Not all inventors had formal engineering training after
all.

You have not even approached my argument.

Of course, I am in the fortunate position of having an unassailable, ivory
tower sort of argument. You cannot disprove it without changing the world.
Good Luck!

Perhaps if you could find a controlled study?


snip



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Dave Stadt wrote:

Thank goodness we do not have a democracy.

It amazes me how few people really understand this, and the logic behind it.
The nonsense over Iraq is a good example. Everyone speaks of "Democracy in
Iraq" as if this were an absolute good.

Fortunately, the current administration in Iraq isn't quite as foolish as
they appear. They are working to put protection of minorities into the new
social fabric. I've doubts, though, that they can succeed w/o spending a
generation or two in place, and even that may not be enough.

After all, as I wrote above, few people even in the States understand this.
Of the few that do, many of these are against it. The idea of "judges
don't make law", aside from displaying a lack of understanding of common
law, presumes that the democratically elected officials (representing "the
majority") are pretty much free to pass any law.

We here should be especially sensitive to this. The majority would be happy
to do away with GA. In the scheme of things (ie. as compared to other
mandates that would pass a majority poll), this is but a small thing. But
I'd hope it would be enough to sensitize GA participants to the dangers
when the majority is permitted to impose their own moral code - or even
noise preferences - upon the minority in an unlimited way.

- Andrew

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...

I'd love for this to be so, but the evidence claims otherwise. Why is a
conservative administration against the right of people to marry?


It isn't.

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and you refuse to
acknowledge that anything you don't understand can be right. By
definition, unfortunately, you're stuck in your own small-minded little
world.

I know this because in another post you wrote:

Of course, if they made real sense, they'd make sense to me.

Not only is that arrogant, but it's incredibly childish. Tough as it may be
for you to believe, you are not the center of any universe but your own.




I can see their rational in the case of abortion, even if I don't
agree. But not even a single cell is harmed if a same-sex
couple marries. Why would anyone care?


Because if the meaning of marriage is altered, assuming for the sake of
argument government has that authority, then every marriage is altered.

I could see your reasoning were marriage being redfined in such a way that
some set of people marriaged pre-redefinition would be not married
post-redefinition.

That's not the case.

Did the right to vote change when it was granted to those not white
landowners?




Why, under a supposedly conservative administration, have we
American citizens held in violation of the law merely by defining them
as soldiers in a foreign army? Yes, deal with them. But deal with
them in a fashion consistent with our values...or give up the claim to
being "for freedom".


What the hell are you talking about?

Either you don't follow the news (ie. cases before the US Supreme Court) or
you're playing one of your pedantic games. I don't care which, frankly.

- Andrew

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can be no
"conservative activist judges".

Ah....yeah, okie dokie.

No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.

The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative today
often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is a perfect
example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate free market
(steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.

I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
applicable.

Unfortunately.

- Andrew

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
can be right.


There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

Andrew Gideon ) wrote:
: Tom Sixkiller wrote:
:
: Since conservative philosophy precludes judicial activism there can
: be no "conservative activist judges".
:
: Ah....yeah, okie dokie.
:
: No, he's not being his usual self here. He's right.
:
: The problem is with the label. Those calling themselves conservative
: today often fail any reasonable test. The current US administration is
: a perfect example, with a history of actions that (for example) violate
: free market (steel tariffs) and states' rights (education) principles.
:
: I'm not sure what they should be called, but "conservative" is not
: applicable.
:
: Unfortunately.
:

The conservative* who supported gays in the military ("You don't have to
be straight to shoot straight") would probably be classified a liberal today.

A better term for neoconservatives is neo-Jacobins:

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/ryn.htm
VDARE.com: 10/21/03 - New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins

"New Book Blasts America's Neo-Jacobins
By Paul Craig Roberts

Do you want to know why President George W. Bush's focus on the war
against terror was redirected to war against Iraq and the Muslim
Middle East? Read Professor Claes G. Ryn's new book, America the
Virtuous: Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire.

Professor Ryn is a learned, insightful, and courageous scholar who
ably explains the ideas that are destroying our country.

These ideas are the property of neo-Jacobins. Professor Ryn calls the
ideas "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." Neo-Jacobins are
known to Americans as neoconservatives, a clever euphemism behind
which hides a gang of radicals who stand outside of, and opposed to,
the American tradition. The US has been subverted from within as these
counterfeit conservatives hold the reins of power in the Bush
administration.

Professor Ryn shows that Jacobins have not a drop of conservative
blood in their veins. For example, the Jacobins' concept of morality
is abstract and ahistorical. It is a morality that is divorced from
the character of individuals and the traditions of a people.

Jacobins are seduced by power. The foundation of their abstract
morality is their fantastic claim to a monopoly on virtue. Secure in
their belief in their monopoly on virtue, Jacobins are prepared to use
force to impose virtue on other societies and to reconstruct other
societies in the Jacobin image.

Jacobin society is a centralized one that subordinates individuals and
their liberties to abstract virtues. In short, it is an ideological
society imbued with assurance of moral superiority that justifies its
dominance over others, including its own citizens.

Virtue gives Jacobins a mandate to rule the world in order to improve
it. Opposed to the American Republic that is based in traditional
morality and limits on power, the Jacobin agenda is to remake America
into an empire capable of imposing virtue on the world..."


The Bush administration's foreign policy is run by a group of men from
the Project for a New American Century:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm
Statement of Principles

"June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have
criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They
have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks.
But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of
America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding
principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences
over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives.
And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain
American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership

[snip]

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not
be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to
build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security
and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes
Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle
Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz
Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz"


--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

* Barry Goldwater

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...

You cannot see it because you only know what you know, and
you refuse to acknowledge that anything you don't understand
can be right.


There is nothing about this issue that I do not understand.

I'm fascinated by this idea. How do you prove to yourself that all you
understand is all there is to understand?

- Andrew

James Robinson wrote:
Joe Young wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Joe Young wrote:

Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
the majority rule?

I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
least the last decade.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll010702.html

This one seems to have some different stats?????........??

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm


I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
you.

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?
I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
data to match the outcome they desire to report.


Matt

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

No originally.



Not originally? Of course it did. See article 1, section 8, clause 1.



Right you are. I thought this came into being with the 16th amendment.
That seems superfluous, given your reference above. Since article 1,
section 8, clause 1 seems pretty general with regard to taxation, I'm
now curious why the XVI amendment was necessary.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:

James Robinson wrote:
Joe Young wrote:

James Robinson wrote:

Joe Young wrote:

Every poll shows the vast majority of the American public apposes
abortion. If that is the case in a democracy, shouldn't
the majority rule?

I'm not sure what polls you are reading, but here is a link that shows
the opposite, i.e. support for legal abortions at about 53 percent, and
opposition at 43 percent. They state this has been the trend for at
least the last decade.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Da...oll010702.html

This one seems to have some different stats?????........??

http://christianparty.net/abortiongallup.htm


I prefer ABC news as a less biased source than an advocacy group, thank
you.

Was is ABC or CBS that staged the Chevy pickup truck exploding gas tank?

Neither. That was NBC.

I don't trust any of the news organizations anymore. Almost every one
has been caught doing something like this when they can't get the real
data to match the outcome they desire to report.

You just have to be skeptical. At least there is an editorial board,
and they have to answer to the FCC. If you want manipulated data, just
look at any number of sites on internet, which don't have to answer to
anybody.