Pilot's Political Orientation

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

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

"Tony Cox" wrote in message
link.net...

I suspect the results would have been more illuminating had
they included the Libertarians and Greens as options.


How so? They'd both be included in the 19.79% that voted independent.



Wrong, I'd bet the majority og the 19.79% voted either Dem or Republican
in
the last election.

Most people who claim to be independents --- aren't.

Chicken Bone wrote:
Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.

Weak troll, it's not hard to get this group riled up over politics.

What difference does political affiliation make anyway? People can still
have decent qualities despite being republicans.

----

In rec.aviation.owning Chicken Bone wrote:
Flightinfo.com asked for pilots political orientation.

Results:

Democrat 22.97%
Republican 57.24%
Ind. 19.79%

http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthr...threadid=21699


--
Liberalism is Communism one drink at a time. - P.J. O'Rourke

If you are under thirty and aren't a Democrat, you have no heart.

If you are over thirty and aren't a Republican, you have no brain.

Or so I've been told...

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

wrote in message
...

If you are under thirty and aren't a Democrat, you have no heart.

If you are over thirty and aren't a Republican, you have no brain.

Or so I've been told...

Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man
who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Churchill was a smart man, but I don't agree with him on this one. The
point seems to be that one's personal needs become more important than
the needs of the group after a certain age. I don't believe liberals
are that brainless, nor conservatives that heartless.

While it may happen to many people, for me it is nonsense. I am far
more liberal---and sure of myself in choosing so---since I turned 30.

Frankly since I began acquiring things like houses and airplanes, I have
realized how important these things are and how short life is. I have
realized that there is nothing magic about me that makes me deserve
these things more than other people.

I would rephrase it to say that anyone who is over 30 and is still a
liberal has done some important thinking about their rights and
responsibilities. Same goes for conservatives, I just don't agree with
the conclusions they came to. Que sera sera.


Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man
who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even
more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have
and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't
managed to earn and have much.

There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now
I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to
play
Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
own stuff.

Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it
to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and
provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff.

They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will
be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will
use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals.

The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W.

"Musky" wrote in message
...
Churchill was a smart man, but I don't agree with him on this one. The
point seems to be that one's personal needs become more important than
the needs of the group after a certain age. I don't believe liberals
are that brainless, nor conservatives that heartless.

While it may happen to many people, for me it is nonsense. I am far
more liberal---and sure of myself in choosing so---since I turned 30.

Frankly since I began acquiring things like houses and airplanes, I have
realized how important these things are and how short life is. I have
realized that there is nothing magic about me that makes me deserve
these things more than other people.

I would rephrase it to say that anyone who is over 30 and is still a
liberal has done some important thinking about their rights and
responsibilities. Same goes for conservatives, I just don't agree with
the conclusions they came to. Que sera sera.


Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any
man
who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."

"Otis Winslow" wrote in message
.. .
Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even
more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have
and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't
managed to earn and have much.

There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now
I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to
play
Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
own stuff.

Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it
to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and
provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff.

They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will
be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will
use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals.

The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W.

Didja ever notice how liberals are more than willing to take other peoples
assets and redistribute them but are more than willing to keep their assets
to themselves.

I don't feel guilty. I feel fortunate. And I look at the whole
picture. I've worked hard to get a degree, develop a career, and have a
comfortable lifestyle (that fortunately includes a plane). However, I
also recognize that, due to the fact I grew up in a poor family in a
poor town, you all paid for half my college education. (I paid the
other half.) Thank you! That "Robin hood Government" you speak of took
a small piece of your hard earned money and invested it in me. Guess
what? I paid more in taxes last year than I received in 4 years of
financial aid. Sounds like a good investment to me. What did you get
for your money? A very productive member of society who recognizes
that, thanks to a government that believes that an educated populous is
critical, I am able to visit a doctor when I need one. And get a
plumber when I need one. DO you think that the oft-touted "Free Market
Economy" will generate all of the necessary services we all need and
use? Not likely. Only the ones that are profitable. Think of that the
next time you visit a government educated doctor. Or the next time you
kid goes to a government funded school. Or the factory in your town is
kept from dumping toxic waste in your backyard because a government
funded EPA official keeps them from doing it. I realize that there is
certainly waste in government, but let's keep the whole picture in mind.


Otis Winslow wrote:
Why is it that Liberals always feel guilty for what they have? And even
more worrisome is why do Liberals feel guilty for what OTHERS have
and want to take it away from them and give it to someone who hasn't
managed to earn and have much.

There was a time when I didn't have anything. I worked hard and now
I have things. I want to keep them. They're mine. I don't want Liberals to
play
Robin Hood with my stuff and give it to those not inclined to get their
own stuff.

Liberal govt has no legal right to take stuff from one group and give it
to another. They have a right to take from us enough to operate govt and
provide for our physical security. That's it. No Robin Hood stuff.

They know that at some point we will have had enough and their **** will
be in the wind. THAT is why they don't want us to have guns. We will
use them to defend our stuff. Now THAT scares them Liberals.

The very guiltless and Libertarian Otis W.

"Musky" wrote in message
...

Churchill was a smart man, but I don't agree with him on this one. The
point seems to be that one's personal needs become more important than
the needs of the group after a certain age. I don't believe liberals
are that brainless, nor conservatives that heartless.

While it may happen to many people, for me it is nonsense. I am far
more liberal---and sure of myself in choosing so---since I turned 30.

Frankly since I began acquiring things like houses and airplanes, I have
realized how important these things are and how short life is. I have
realized that there is nothing magic about me that makes me deserve
these things more than other people.

I would rephrase it to say that anyone who is over 30 and is still a
liberal has done some important thinking about their rights and
responsibilities. Same goes for conservatives, I just don't agree with
the conclusions they came to. Que sera sera.



Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any

man

who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."







--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

Actually, it's probably not. This from the authoritative Churchill Centre
website http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...fm?pageid=112:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a
conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record
of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University
makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed
to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he
have talked so disrespectfully of [his wife] Clemmie, who is generally
thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message
...

Actually, it's another from Winston Churchill (who as I remember
changed political party himself, probably at age 30).

Actually, it's probably not. This from the authoritative Churchill Centre
website http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/...fm?pageid=112:

"If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not
a
conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." There is no record
of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University
makes this comment: "Surely Churchill can't have used the words attributed
to him. He'd been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he
have talked so disrespectfully of [his wife] Clemmie, who is generally
thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?"

And remember most people here are using the term Liberal in its modern
American meaning. It seems to have been coined on the spot by GHWB as an
intended insult against Dukakis and adopted by both sides as a shorthand
for, at best, "social democrat". If you want to use the term disparagingly
you also imply it includes fellow-travelers like socialists (again, not
using the contemporary European definition) and anarchists. It's very
confusing when we don't even agree on the lexicon.

The British inter-war Liberal party espoused elements of contemporary social
democracy, to be sure, without the overhead of being in thrall to the
unions. Today, they largely represent the rump of the British, umm, Social
Democratic party.

-- David Brooks