If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message ... The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week. Oh, I think you're a bit high there. If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are about 250,000 100-hour per year GA planes. AOPA puts the general aviation fleet at about 205,000 aircraft, and the average time per aircraft per year at 144 hours. There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines. Oh, no, it's not even close to that. AOPA puts the airline share of the 215,000 strong civil US fleet at 4%, that would be about 8600 aircraft. 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. What makes that fair? The system wasn't created to serve general aviation, it was created to serve the airlines. If general aviation didn't exist the system would still be needed to serve the airlines and it wouldn't be much smaller than it is now. |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message ... Freedom for who? For everyone. And from what? The natural constraints on freedom are other people's freedom. |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
"S Green" wrote in message ... Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either. Agreed, and no reasonable person advocates that. Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime. Not always. Killing another person in self-defense is not murder. Capital punishment id not murder. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Tarver Engineering wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message hlink.net... Please point out those parts of "Origin of Species" that are false. Chances are you'll either find out that scientists have already recognized the error, Yes, nearly all of science knows Darwin's "Origin of species" is completely false. That is why I provided you with two other brances of science: Physics demonstrating a theory with repeatable and demonstrable resilts applied to Cosmology, Geology falses Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard physical evidence and then from within the church of Darwin itself, Jay Gould replaces Darwin's work with a thirteen hundred page treatise trying to reconcile the obvious undisputable falshoods within Darwin's "Origin of species". All of the scientific community knows what is being taught in school is a lie. Stop teaching Darwin's religion as science in public schools. So far, nothing in your response above even comes close to answering my questions. I asked you to point out where you believe Darwinian theory is in error. You respond with a bunch of hand-waving that claims "this group shows its false, and that group shows its false, and blah-blah-blah." Since I don't accept the "because they said so" argument from people who count (such as those in political office), why do you think I'll accept that argument from someone I don't know from Caesar? If you're unwilling to tell us where you think Darwinian theory is wrong, are you at least willing to tell us what you think Darwinian theory says? By the way, while repeatability is a significant component of a scientific theory, its not a necessary or even a sufficient component. Otherwise, there could be _no_ theories of the universe. The _necessary_ and _sufficient_ condition required in order for a hypothesis to become a scientific theory is that the hypothesis must lead to predictions that can be proven false. "The moon is made of green cheese", for example, meets this test. You can prove the theory wrong by going to the moon and seeing what it's made of. Can your favorite creation "theory" predict the development of anti-biotic resistant bacteria? Rich Lemert |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
"L Smith" wrote in message link.net... This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics, where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the topic is impossible. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex. If we were discussing abortion procedures, we would be talking about things like D&C, partial-birth abortions, and the like. The discussion was about abortion, not procedures. You obviously misunderstood the discussion. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... No doubt about it, and I did not imply that. Nonetheless, a 3,000' runway at Podunk, Iowa, with two GPS approaches, represents a signifgicant federal subsidy to the users of that airport. I can't find Podunk in the Iowa airport directory. Not by city or airport name. Where is this airport? What is the dollar amount of the federal subsidy for a 3,000' runway and two GPS approaches at this airport? Those users who use it in conjunction with their business or perhaps for an Angel flight, etc, indeed contriubute to the economy. Don't the users who fly solely for recreation also contribute to the economy? The guy who uses it to fly for $100 hamburgers (or, are they $200 hamburgers these days?) is getting subsidized without his flight contributing very much to the economy. How is he getting subsidized? |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"Otis Winslow" wrote in message .. . 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. It is liberals that wish to control other people. The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't give a damn why you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and therefore if you do anything other than carry that child to term you are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to do so, of course, we'll just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell if you don't." The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant, that's not important any more. The fact is that you are, and you may have to make a very difficult choice. All we can do for you now is tell you what choices are available and what there probably consequences are. The choice, however, is something only you can make." Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't interested in controlling others? Rich Lemert |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
"darwin smith" wrote in message link.net... The conservative viewpoint: "With very few exceptions, we don't give a damn why you're pregnant. The fact is that you are, and therefore if you do anything other than carry that child to term you are a baby-killer. We won't _force_ you to do so, of course, we'll just make your life (and that of everyone around you) hell if you don't." The liberal viewpoint: "We don't really care why you're pregnant, that's not important any more. The fact is that you are, and you may have to make a very difficult choice. All we can do for you now is tell you what choices are available and what there probably consequences are. The choice, however, is something only you can make." Now, why do I have a problem believing that conservatives aren't interested in controlling others? It appears it's because you are a person of low intelligence. You have the liberals telling her she has complete control over the baby, even to the point of killing it, and the conservatives telling her she does not have that control. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
"L Smith" wrote in message hlink.net... This seems to be boiling down to an argument over semantics, where you choose to define terms in such a way as to give you the moral high ground. Given that, please define, as precisely as possible, how you define a "gay marriage" and how it differs from a same-sex marriage. It appears that your definition is not in agreement with how the general population interprets the term, and until we understand your definition any meaningful discussion on the topic is impossible. Marriage is the union of a man and woman as husband and wife. When at least one of the persons is gay you have a gay marriage. Same-sex marriage cannot exist because marriage, by definition, requires persons of opposite sex. 1) Extending this argument, there is therefore no need for Bush's proposed constitutional amendment, since by definition there can be no same-sex marriage. 2) This is indeed the traditional definition currently accepted in the western world. It is far from a universal definition, though. Until fairly recently Mormon's believed firmly in polygamy, and polygamy is still a common practice in much of the world (the general rule being that you had to be able to support the entire family if you elected to have more than one wife). And IIRC, polyandry is an acceptable approach in parts of Tibet and other areas where life is considered so hard, more than one "wage earner" is required to support a family. 3) Many traditions are good, but that doesn't mean they should be unchangable. All traditions should be examined periodically to see if they still make sense. 4) If we accept your definition, then the question we need to ask is "what is your view on same-sex civil unions?" This is, after all, what's usually being referred to when most people are talking about "gay marriage". Rich Lemert |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their position on freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it. 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? 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? 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". Perhaps your definition of "conservative" is correct in theory. But like the old Soviet Union's ridiculous claim to "communism", the practical truth of our current administration is far from that theory. Tariffs on Steel? From a "conservative administration"? Not likely! - Andrew |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
Pilot's Political Orientation | Chicken Bone | Instrument Flight Rules | 317 | June 21st 04 06:10 PM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |