Pilot's Political Orientation

"darwin smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...

It was a question asked in such a way as to imply that the "answer"
was completely
obvious - there is no fight against gay marraige.


There isn't. Gays marry regularly and have done so for quite some time.



I therefore treated
the comment as
a statement being expressed in the form of a rhetorical question.

Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is
perfectly obvious -
there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you
please explain to me
why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and
"Bush the
Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay
marriage"/


Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.



I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.


All abortion procedures performed today cause the deliberate death of the
child. That is murder by any reasonable definition.



Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

By the way, I see that you didn't bother to address my comments about
birth control,
sex education, and generally being around when Suzy really needs the
help. Let me
know when you're ready and willing to discuss the _complete_ topic of
abortion,
and have moved beyond just casting judgement on those who happen to
disagree
with you.


Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion
procedures.

wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:


wrote:

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:



Yes, I did that for years when I owned my 182, the the comment said the
"average" G/A guy. The average G/A pilot doesn't fly IFR very often at all.

Matt


If that's the case, why does AOPA continue to push so hard for all those GPS approaches
to small airports?



Because they support all GA aviation, not just the average 182 pilot.

Matt


Earlier you said "average G/A" pilot, now you're saying "average 182 pilot." So, does that
mean that G/A, overall, needs all those small airport GPS approaches?



I was following the comment that was in an earlier message in this
thread, that I think you wrote, that said "The average G/A guy who flys
a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system."

Matt

darwin smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Pete" wrote in message
...


Then why the fight against gay marriage?




What fight against gay marriage?

You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you
might have
with this statement.





Why the fight against abortion?




Because all current abortion methods kill a child. When an abortion
procedure is developed that does not kill the child the fight against
abortion will end.

Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting
to prevent abortions,
with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall
under the general
category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about
them through
something called "sex education".

While I am firmly pro-choice, I am willing to admit that the
anti-abortion side (which is
not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point.

Yes, just like pro-choice sounds a lot better than pro-death, which is
what the position really is.


Most anti-abortionists
I've encountered, though, have absolutely no interest in preventing the
procedure. What
they want to do is _stop_ it, because prevention is much harder and
involves other
things that the anti-abortionists are uncomfortable with - things like
making sure that
teenagers know the "facts of life", or that all women have affordable
access to birth
control and health care.

If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your
chance to prevent an
abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it
prevention.

Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware
of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant.


Matt

darwin smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Anti-abortion IS pro-life.

Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother?

Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all
that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is
guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk
in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing
a death to save the possibility of a death. I'm still not sure that is
a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most
abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That
isn't morally acceptable.


Matt

How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them.


Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all.

What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in
link.net:


"Judah" wrote in message
...

Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them.


Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all.

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

By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are smart
and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting for the
welfare check you lose.

Judah wrote:
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?

You have to be kidding. Have you read any economics aside
from Marx?

"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.

"darwin smith" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present.

I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view.

Here are some 9nteresting comments from the founder of Planned Parenthood:

It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world
to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others;
which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of
human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that
are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to
render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11
Margaret Sanger

"To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of
segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder
of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace")

I thing even you can see how applied Darwinism is murder, Smith.