Pilot's Political Orientation

Judah wrote:

Let's see here...

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

That's pretty damned close...


For the airplane it is. But, you said, and I quote, "The Airline pilot, who
flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses 100 hours of ATC
time in about a week".

"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.

Libertarians are as far to the right as it gets in America.

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.

Libertarians are the extreme right.

"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.

"C J Campbell" wrote:

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.

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Pete" wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
"Joe Young" wrote:

"SNIP"
I am not only pro choice, I am pro-abortion, I believe there should be
a
licensing procedure to ensure prospective parents are up to the task,
physically, emotionally and financially. Until they can prove that,
they
should be chemically sterilized.

Should we also perform a mecry killing on all of our seniors when they
get
to the point the can no longer take care of themselves.

I can't speak for other, but if *I* get to the point that I "need to be
taken care of," you won't need to mercy-kill me, I'll do it myself.

Maybe we should also put down newborns with any physical, mental or
genetic abnormalidies. Surely they would be more inconvenient at
having an healthly, but unwanted baby. We kill millions of the
latter in this country each year...so given your logic, why don't we
just expand the practice a bit. Then we can ultimately expand the
practice a bit more to encompase stupidity...and your ticket will be
up.

No it's not. IMO, a fetus is not a person until it's breathing on its
own. I always am amused by men who oppose abortion, as if they know jack
**** about being pregnant.

You may find this amusing but I do not... It has nothing to do with knowing
"jack **** about being pregnant", it has everything to do with understanding
biology, reproductive physiology...you know science...

Are you suggestion that since I have never been pregnant I could not
possibly have an opinion on this matter...does that also apply to those that
are for abortion?

By the way, if you'd like to punch my ticket, you're welcome to take
your best shot.

I don't think I suggested I would like to "punch your ticket". I simply
pointed out the obvious that if stupidity were a criteria for murder, you
might need to be careful.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:

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.

I certainly would never claim Jefferson was godless. Rather, my point
was that he would not pass the test for religious correctness of the
religious right, whose political agenda is to enlist government in
proselytizing their views.

With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in public
schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically false, makes your
comments projection, Dan.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species"
in public schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically
false,

Bull****.

This is exactly the kind of crap we are getting with the religious
right's political agenda. Folks like Tarver are typical recruits.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Pete" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message
.com...

No, they want to tell you what you can and can't do in your
bedroom, and with your own body. They want to tell you who
you can marry, demand you go to church, but then you catch
them in a motel room doin' what they said not to do.

Conservatives are a bunch of lying liars.


You've bought the propaganda.

The basic difference between conservatives and liberals is their
position on
freedom. Conservatives are fer it, liberals are agin' it.

Then why the fight against gay marriage? Why the fight against abortion?
Why the fight against pr0n?

pr0n? What? Are you a spammer?

In case it has not occurred to you, most liberals also oppose gay marriage.
John Kerry, for example, has gone on record as opposing it. Many liberals
also oppose abortion, and there are a fair number of conservatives that
support it. These issues do not cut cleanly down conservative/liberal
ideological lines, despite efforts on both sides to portray them as such.
There is nothing inherently liberal or conservative about abortion, gay
marriage, or pornography.

It is just flat-out wrong to say that conservatives want to tell you what to
do in the bedroom. Most could not care less. It was not even an issue until
Clinton tried to distract attention from his perjury and corruption charges
by saying that conservatives were trying to regulate his behavior in the
bedroom. They were not; they were interested in his perjury and corruption.
Get over it. Clinton is gone, now.

Actually, it was an issue before Clinton. Before Clinton it was the
conservatives that were screaming that the liberals were trying to regulate
bedroom behavior. When you have extremely anti-family groups like Planned
Parenthood being allowed full access to the schools and children are being
told in public schools to not only ignore what their parents are teaching
them, but are expressly told not to tell their parents what is being taught
there, well, I don't think you have to be on the lunatic fringe to have some
objection to that. Like it or not, most parents feel they should have some
say in how their children are raised.

Most arguments that I have heard against gay marriage are basically
economic. All those legal protections and benefits afforded married couples
were instituted in order to provide a safe, stable environment for raising
children. Providing those benefits to gay couples is both costly and
extremely corrosive to the purpose of marriage. Those people who oppose gay
marriage believe it is not worth the social and economic cost. Many of those
who oppose gay marriage also feel that God does not approve of
homosexuality, but those who think that way tend to believe that is a matter
best left between the individuals involved and God. After all, if God
doesn't like it, there is nothing any of us can do about it. He is free to
send people to Hell or even destroy the whole country like he did Sodom.

But I, for one, do not want to pay for Social Security benefits for married
gay partners until I know where the money is coming from. I also want to
know what effect that allowing gay marriages would have on an already
fragile family structure. There are already too many children being raised
in single parent families. History has shown time and again that this
results in uncontrollable criminal activity. The prisons are full of
parentless children. I am not about to support anything that is likely to
make the situation even worse. The family infrastructure in this country is
broken. I strongly believe that allowing gay marriages will sweep away
whatever remnants remain of the concept of family. That is too high a price
to pay in the name of 'tolerance.'

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


Here we have the crux of what passes for liberalism these days. Idiot.

The assumption is that if you possess something, it must have been stolen
from somebody else. It is astounding that liberals, who claim to be
intellectuals, cannot see the blatant fallacy behind this argument.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:
With the left forcing the teaching of Darwin's "Origin of Species"
in public schools, while knowing full well that it is scientifically
false,

Bull****.

Geological evidence demonstrates that if evolution occurs at all it does so
in a single generation, but that evidence is more likely replacement of one
species by another. Geological evidence also demonstrates that species come
into being rapidly following a global cataclysm. Jay Gould's evolution
reconciliation of Darwin's "Origin of Species" with hard physical evidence
rapidly approaches Creation.

Modern Cosmological theory suggests that the Universe is a vacuum
fluctuation, completely consistent with Creation. Although the contrivance
of an infinite number of parallel universes can be used to produce a secular
solution.

This is exactly the kind of crap we are getting with the religious
right's political agenda. Folks like Tarver are typical recruits.

A little science will drive you away from God, but a lot of science will
bring you right back.

Stop the teaching of religion as science in America's public schools.

Fair enough.

Please replace the words "Airline pilot" with "Airliner" in my original
post.



wrote in :



Judah wrote:

Let's see here...

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

That's pretty damned close...


For the airplane it is. But, you said, and I quote, "The Airline
pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses
100 hours of ATC time in about a week".