Pilot's Political Orientation

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Gene Seibel wrote:


Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.

Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...
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



That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."

Correct, but they DID throw quite a few directives towards the people at
Love Canal.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.

The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious
background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.

It's not that it (or any other such) question is all that difficult, but
that emotions run rampant, and cloud out thought.

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Neither was taxation... sigh.


The Constitution does not provide for taxation?

Gig Giacona wrote:
snip



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



That same free market is what caused the MRI you are so proud to be
invented. The government didn't tell anyone "You MUST build the MRI."



You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have an MRI
at this time without public schools? Just where would the developers of
modern technology come from?



--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

"Dan Truesdell" wrote in message
...

You are correct. So the questions should be: Would we even have
an MRI at this time without public schools? Just where would the
developers of modern technology come from?


Private schools.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.


Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?



If that were true abortion would be outlawed. 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?

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...


That's the problem with abortion, it
controls the body of another.


The problem with prohibiting abortion is that it controls the body of
another.

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By religious background
and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.



I think it is a pretty long held principle that you can't exercise your
rights in violation of another's. At least this was the priniciple
prior to the legalization of abortion. This is the exact same reason
you can't exercise your 1st amendment right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded
theater.


Matt

Joe Young wrote:
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
. net...

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

When rights conflict, how do you strike a balance? By
religious background and beliefs? Whose? By "morals?" Whose?

If this were an easy question it would have been resolved long ago.


One wonders why it's a question at all.


Perhaps because we're a democracy rather than a dictatorship?




If that were true abortion would be outlawed. 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?

The woman involved in getting abortion legalized has also opposed it for
many years and tried to get the ruling overturned. You don't hear much
about that either in the popular press.


Matt

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...

Gene Seibel wrote:


Possibly, if I thought it was better. At 53 years old I've pretty well
got my mind set on what I think is better. Others may not agree.
Doesn't mean they are wrong. With TV, books and internet, there aren't
a whole lot of ideas out there that have been kept secret. Most of
what I hear is new packaging for old ideas.

This has been true for at least 2000 years, at least with respect to
things involving people. Technology has advanced dramatically, but
people are pretty much the same as they were in Biblical times.


Human nature hasn't really changed in a lot longer than 2000 years.

I agree. That is why I said AT LEAST 2000 years.

Matt