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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Doug Carter" wrote in message ... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message et... And the "conservatives" are different, how? Conservatives object to excessive government spending, especially when it is used to force social engineering. Brian Riedl at the Heritage Foundation notes (quoted in part): and the money being spent in Iraq is NOT social engineering then? |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote: 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." I believe I said that. Let me change that to: the average G/A guy who flys a small IFR-equipped (with IFR GPS) a 100 hours a year and often utilizies GPS instrument approach procedures at small airports (of which there are hundreds now, if not thousands) doesn't begin to pay for the system. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Judah wrote: Put it in perspective. At MOST, the 100-hour per year pilot uses 100 hours of ATC time per year. The Airline pilot, who flies back and forth across the country twice a day, uses 100 hours of ATC time in about a week. Not possible. That would grossly violate the flight-time limitations in Part 121. In any case, the airline pilot is a surrogate for the airline company and the hundreds of paying customer using those ATC services. If I remember correctly (as quoted by the AOPA) there are about 250,000 100-hour per year GA planes. There are equally as many 100-hour per week Airlines. The airline fleet is probably somewhere around 4,000 aircraft with an average daily ultilization of 12-14 hours per day. 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. You seem to be complaining that an approach controller at BDL whose salary is mostly being paid by the 350 Airline flights per day he sequences in should not also provide sequencing a few times a year to Skylark nearby if they would publish a GPS approach and paint some lines on the runway. Hmmmmm... And perhaps the police who are patrolling my neighborhood shouldn't help you if you get mugged and are from out of town? wrote in : "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote: The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system. But he doesn't need much of the system either. He needs a few grass runways, and a good map and compass! :-) Matt Well, although that may be true for you, there are lots of Cessna 182's that make a lot of instrument approaches at airports with control towers. Or, even instrument approaches at airports without control towers; all supported by center equipment, controllers, FAA approach designers, expensive flight inspections, etc., etc. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: wrote in message ... Most of it comes from taxes on airline tickets. And airlines generate most of the costs. The average G/A guy who flys a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to pay for the system. The average G/A who flies a Cessna 182 100 hours a year doesn't begin to burden the system. Not since the advent of GPS approaches. Thousands have been issued for small airports, and those cost just as much as a GPS approach for Green Bay Interuniversal Skyport. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. It is all called murder you moron. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Judah wrote:
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets? By making the entire pie larger. Matt |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Stadt wrote:
"Judah" wrote in message ... "Dave Stadt" wrote in m: "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. Ahhh... So that's why my brilliant seventh grade science teacher is so wealthy, and Mike Tyson, who can barely speak english, is so broke! In fact Mike Tyson is broke. His current net worth is a couple of thousand dollars. Tyson didn't sit home waiting for a government check although he might well end up in that situation. If in fact the science teacher is brilliant the opportunity to increase earnings is readily available. And not everyone is driven by wealth creation. A lot of teachers, scientists, etc., really are driven by other motiviations. I know that is hard for many to believe, but it is true. Matt |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
S Green wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... 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. Execution in the name of revenge is not morally acceptable either. I agree, which is why only the government should have such authority, not the individuals who were wronged. That latter would be revenge, the former is not. Deliberately killing a person is murder and is a moral crime. Sorry, but killing and murder aren't the same. Killing in defense of one's own life is not murder and is moral. Matt |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |