Pilot's Political Orientation

Don't you people know that nothing you say is going to change any
minds?

I doubt that.

Okay, so no one mentioned ANYTHING except abortion. So does that mean that
only the pro choicers are voting liberal, and they are single issue voters?

That is of course a non logical claim, but worth mentioning. Anyway...

Your stance on abortion will invariably come down to valuing the life of the
child over the woman's ability to remove the worlds most incredible
trespassers - the unborn.

Don't believe me?

Pro lifers are often more anti sex than they are anti abortion. That is why
they rely on the fact the woman's participation in copulation was voluntary
to deny her control over her body to remove the fetus. However, her will is
completely nullified in cases of rape, yet they still deny her an abortion.

If you deny exceptions for rape, then you are saying that volition is not a
factor.

If you allow exceptions for rape, you are justifying homicide of an innocent
third party. What kind of crap is that? Seriously, there is no logic in
this at all unless you live in some warped world where women who willingly
have sex are to be punished by pregnancy. Sounds sadistic to me.

On The Other Hand...

There is no denying that a fetus is a living human. The only arguments
against this can all be described as "semantic claptrap."

So, where does this bring us?

To the point where people who cannot reach this logical conundrum without
hours of banter continuously drone on, and on, and on because they KNOW they
are right.

You cannot take one side or the other without denying the other sides point
which pretty much puts you in an extremist camp of one side or the other
unless you chicken out and claim "faith". "Faith" based laws are almost
universally believed to be unconstitutional, even by most christians.

As for the post I am responding to- this completely fallacious line of
reasoning that because I am a man, I can have no fear of the impending
change in the laws against abortion. Therefore, I am supposedly wrong in my
opinion.

I respond - Bull!

I believe that the conservatives cannot enact a prohibition of abortion
without losing power in the next election. They know this, and therefore,
will not try it. Its just not worth giving up the entire rest of the issues
to protect that one isssue. Even if the pro-lifers were to succeed, it
would quickly be switched back at the next election if not sooner.

Lastly, the fact that I am a man does not exempt me from having a valid
viewpoint on matters of abortion. My view is that the status quo is
acceptable anyway, so stick your reactionary left wing claptrap...

My idea is that if you are going to be born into slavery, you are better off
not being born. If you have no right to prevent others from invading your
body, you are a slave. Male pregnancy is an eventual medical possibility.
Therefore, male or female, if your parent(s) have no right to abortion, you
will neither. You are being born into slavery. Being unborn, the parent
bearing you is the obvious choice as guardian and should be able to make
this decision on your behalf, as well as their own.










"Pete" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Dude" wrote:

a really important plot point:

The liberals have been much more successful in redistributing the
wealth,
than the conservatives have been in controlling my body.

As soon as this changes, I will vote the other way.

Given that you're a man, this is pretty much a non-sequitur. You can't
ever have an abortion. (Nor can you be forced NOT to have one)
--
Robots that make smelly farts?
That doesn't make any sense!

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?


"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...


Dude wrote:

snip


Perhaps, but what about the argument that escalating college costs are a
direct result of too much government subsidy. Why did he need college,
because he didn't get an adequate high school education? Was this due
to
the effect of the liberalization of public schools?

My high school was adequate, but one does not become a Mechanical
Engineer without going to college. Many of the engineers I graduated
with had some kind of public assistance. Think about this the next time
your doctor orders a MRI to diagnose your ailment. It would be pretty
tough to do if some of us that actually design and build the things you
use everyday weren't motivated by something other than money.


All this post points out is that the government has gotten way too
involved
in our lives without any supporting evidence that we would not be better
off
without that involvement. We don't know that the author would not have
been
better off without college.

That's not the point. This was, and is, NOT about me! That is a
selfish attitude, and one I choose not to take. When will there be a
general realization that, for all of it's faults, the government
intervention that you so quickly dismiss provides many necessary items
that WE ALL use every day. There may be no supporting argument to say
that WE are better off, but the opposite is not the case. There are
many supporting arguments indicating that WE would be worse off if there
were no government (read general public) intervention. The people that
are fond of spouting that we "should let the Free Market Economy work
(our fearless leader included) seem to forget that we have done this in
the past. And it gave rise to things like Love Canal, horrible child
labor situations, Company Stores, and Slavery. Please recognize that
this government intervention that you speak of is exactly the
intervention that brought these and many other horrific "features" of
the "Free Market Economy" to an end.

snip

--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

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