Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
A Must Read
- Thread starter Dubya
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
bramafear
Jr Mint
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Posts
- 62
Timebuilder said:
I totally agree with that assessment. How do we influence that change? Just say No like we did back in the 80's?
Timebuilder said:
Okay, down to meat and potatoes here. If we are in fact the government, who else is there to blame? Secondly, how would you fix Social Security from a strategic point of view?
bramafear
Jr Mint
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Posts
- 62
Timebuilder
Entrepreneur
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,625
By returning to being a moral people. This starts at home, with two different sex, married parents in a committed relationship. Only that situation creates the wall of moral authority for children. Divorced parents are tooo busy trying to win their child's favor, not wishing to be the "bad guy." This is what is meant by the scripture in Proverbs, 22:6-
Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.
The first step would be to agree to stop using fear as a democrat tactic, and agree to engage everyone in a public policy debate on the future of SSI. Right now, the democrats prefer to lie about this issue, because it helps to keep them in power when people who never discuss or read politics are told by Nancy Pelosi that republicans are "planning on kicking deniors out into the street and taking away their healthcare."
And that will not happen anytime soon. Nancy and her friends seem to enjoy lying. It serves their interest in gaining and retaining power.
Last edited:
It amazes me that some of you believe the CEO,s of big oil have any influence over our foreign policy. Using your thinking, is this the reason that Eisner of Disney World fame and CEO of that company, is being ousted as the board chief because he did not try to influence Bush? I guess Eisner was expected to ask Bush to avoid the war because it would hurt the entertainment industry, especially the Disney theme parks.
You who think this way, know nothing about foreign policy if you think “Big Oil” is behind our foreign policy.
You who think this way, know nothing about foreign policy if you think “Big Oil” is behind our foreign policy.
Timebuilder & enigma
You both have interesting interpretations of the Consititution. Like you, I know what it says, but what does it mean.
What I want to know is do you believe that we should have a secular State or one based on some religion. Like the Christian Republic of the United States.
If I understand you interpretation of the Constitution, you're saying that is not permitted. If that is the case, then by what authority would the government make laws that are based on the concepts of a particular religion.
Of course I can't really say a "particular religion" because there are so many different "christian religions" that it is completely impossible for me to determine who they are or what it is that they believe. If they all believed the same thing, I presume there would only by one but that's probably too simplistic.
Anyway, do we have a secular State or do we have a State governed by some religious principle? That's what I want to know.
You both have interesting interpretations of the Consititution. Like you, I know what it says, but what does it mean.
What I want to know is do you believe that we should have a secular State or one based on some religion. Like the Christian Republic of the United States.
If I understand you interpretation of the Constitution, you're saying that is not permitted. If that is the case, then by what authority would the government make laws that are based on the concepts of a particular religion.
Of course I can't really say a "particular religion" because there are so many different "christian religions" that it is completely impossible for me to determine who they are or what it is that they believe. If they all believed the same thing, I presume there would only by one but that's probably too simplistic.
Anyway, do we have a secular State or do we have a State governed by some religious principle? That's what I want to know.
sonofaeagle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Posts
- 45
bramafear
Jr Mint
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2004
- Posts
- 62
While I have been gone...I have been busy
Well, I hope all of my winged friends are doing well and are still up in the air flying... I certainly wish I was
Nice software upgrades to the bulletin board too... nice.
Take a Peek:
AMERICA FIRST!
Due to our role as the World's Care Giver & Superpower, and all of the trappings that go with it, how on earth do you expect the United States to compete with those that do not carry such a burden in the race to the bottom of GLOBALIZATION?
TR would have said, "You wanna talk about trade agreements with the United States, meet me on an Aircraft Carrier, yours or mine?"
http://americafirst2004.blogspot.com/
Enjoy!
Bram
Well, I hope all of my winged friends are doing well and are still up in the air flying... I certainly wish I was
Nice software upgrades to the bulletin board too... nice.
Take a Peek:
AMERICA FIRST!
Due to our role as the World's Care Giver & Superpower, and all of the trappings that go with it, how on earth do you expect the United States to compete with those that do not carry such a burden in the race to the bottom of GLOBALIZATION?
TR would have said, "You wanna talk about trade agreements with the United States, meet me on an Aircraft Carrier, yours or mine?"
http://americafirst2004.blogspot.com/
Enjoy!
Bram
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
There are three personalities here:
The moral, the amoral, and the immoral.
The immoral hates the moral, and attempts to attack them.
The moral recognizes their obligation to fight the immoral.
The amoral can't really tell the difference between the two of them.
So, the amoral criticize the moral. This is because they are the less intimidating of the two to deal with. This is in the naive hope that if the moral are caged, the immoral will respond by backing off as well. The amoral conveniently forget who started it, or look for reasons to justify the immoral's hatred of the moral.
You all know who you are.
The problem:
The immoral think that they are morally superior.
The moral know that they are morally superior.
The amoral don't beleive in moral superiority.
The moral, the amoral, and the immoral.
The immoral hates the moral, and attempts to attack them.
The moral recognizes their obligation to fight the immoral.
The amoral can't really tell the difference between the two of them.
So, the amoral criticize the moral. This is because they are the less intimidating of the two to deal with. This is in the naive hope that if the moral are caged, the immoral will respond by backing off as well. The amoral conveniently forget who started it, or look for reasons to justify the immoral's hatred of the moral.
You all know who you are.
The problem:
The immoral think that they are morally superior.
The moral know that they are morally superior.
The amoral don't beleive in moral superiority.
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
Let's put it this way, mar.
I've never seen a DC-6, and I've never flown in Alaska.
Suppose I convince myself that I am better able to fly one than you, based solely on the fact that I have flown another aircraft that is slightly larger. And besides, its a jet!
We can argue all day, but you are unable to convince me that you are actually more qualified to operate a DC-6.
What is a third party observer supposed to think?
You make the obvious argument - you already fly the aircraft, I do not.
I make an argument that might sound convincing to the third party observer: I have flown more hours, and larger aircraft (for sake of arguement). And besides, its a jet!
(Ooooh!)
This might convince them as well. If they are a moral relativist, or amoral, they may declare it a tie. "You're both equally qualified."
What's the difference? I think I am the superior DC-6 pilot. You know you are. Who is the only person who knows truth, then? Not the immoral (me) or the amoral (3rd party), but the morally correct - you.
How may this be proven? Very difficult. We could go flying, but perhaps I can make enough excuses to cever myself to the observer. Perhaps my less-than-perfect flying will garner me 'underdog' status, and you will come off as an arrogant bully? after all, you have more time in type, and that leads to an "unfair" comparison. See? I'll spin this any way I have to.
If the 3rd party observer is a moral relativist, I have a good chance of winning the argument, or perhaps getting a tie out of it.
If the observer is a moral absolutist, you will win. Even if the observer is a personal friend of mine. Even if it my own dad.
Continued on next post.
I've never seen a DC-6, and I've never flown in Alaska.
Suppose I convince myself that I am better able to fly one than you, based solely on the fact that I have flown another aircraft that is slightly larger. And besides, its a jet!
We can argue all day, but you are unable to convince me that you are actually more qualified to operate a DC-6.
What is a third party observer supposed to think?
You make the obvious argument - you already fly the aircraft, I do not.
I make an argument that might sound convincing to the third party observer: I have flown more hours, and larger aircraft (for sake of arguement). And besides, its a jet!
(Ooooh!)
This might convince them as well. If they are a moral relativist, or amoral, they may declare it a tie. "You're both equally qualified."
What's the difference? I think I am the superior DC-6 pilot. You know you are. Who is the only person who knows truth, then? Not the immoral (me) or the amoral (3rd party), but the morally correct - you.
How may this be proven? Very difficult. We could go flying, but perhaps I can make enough excuses to cever myself to the observer. Perhaps my less-than-perfect flying will garner me 'underdog' status, and you will come off as an arrogant bully? after all, you have more time in type, and that leads to an "unfair" comparison. See? I'll spin this any way I have to.
If the 3rd party observer is a moral relativist, I have a good chance of winning the argument, or perhaps getting a tie out of it.
If the observer is a moral absolutist, you will win. Even if the observer is a personal friend of mine. Even if it my own dad.
Continued on next post.
100LL... Again!
youwantapieceofme??
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 1,533
I believe it boils down to this.
History will always be written by those who are certain that they are right. Never by those who are not.
Both good and evil people are certain that they are right.
One or the other will determine every outcome.
If you are trying to be in the middle, or trying to 'see both sides', guess what? You MIGHT have a better handle on the situation than anyone. BUT - this is a passionless viewpoint, and while you are pondering the nuances:
The other two sides are going to start duking it out without you.
So, pick a side and start fighting, or be relegated to being a historical footnote, the innocent bystander injured by accident in a bar fight.
History will always be written by those who are certain that they are right. Never by those who are not.
Both good and evil people are certain that they are right.
One or the other will determine every outcome.
If you are trying to be in the middle, or trying to 'see both sides', guess what? You MIGHT have a better handle on the situation than anyone. BUT - this is a passionless viewpoint, and while you are pondering the nuances:
The other two sides are going to start duking it out without you.
So, pick a side and start fighting, or be relegated to being a historical footnote, the innocent bystander injured by accident in a bar fight.
737 Pylt
Um....Floats anyone??
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2003
- Posts
- 3,085
Surplus:surplus1 said:
While I don't agree with some of the things you write, you may be on to something. I try to avoid political/religion topics as a general rule of thumb. Our constitution was founded on Christian principles. If we were to institute some of the laws that are primarily muslim culture/religion, we would be opening up a whole new can of worms. I wouldn't even want to go there!
regards,
737
FlyingToIST
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2002
- Posts
- 417
As a person who has ties outside of the "free world" I can tell you that US is suffering from a major "ego" problems and as usual people inside the US cannot see it.
First of all, the "freedome loving" nature of US is completely blown out of proportion as US had either first hand or second hand interventions in dictatorships. The Shah of Iran was nothing but a dictator who supplied the oil for almost free in expense of its country's lack of development. The Pinochet of Chile was US puppet, as the Ferdinand Marcos and Saddam Insane and Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
On the other hand, you may say "if we are so bad, why every freaking person comes to the US?".. It's simple, the normal life in US has got nothing to do with the foreign image and the foreign policy of the USA.
US is based on indivudal excellence, hard work, free speech, democratic freedome. Yet, out foreign policy doesn't advocate these values for the countries I mentioned above.
The coup d'etats that were placed in Pakistan and Turkey in early 80s had one single aim: to form the foundations to Radical Islam and use it against Communism.
You can be Republican, but you cannot be a tru American to see how Wolfowitz was shaking hands with Saddam, Sr. Bush giving speach in Afghanistan to bin Laden and types for their courage.
The minute we hold a respectible foreign policy, the minute we change our modus operandi from bombing innocent people based upon lies, we will be respected a great deal..
And if you ask "why we should be respected? " the answer is simple "you gotta walk the walk if you talk the talk" ..
Cheers..
First of all, the "freedome loving" nature of US is completely blown out of proportion as US had either first hand or second hand interventions in dictatorships. The Shah of Iran was nothing but a dictator who supplied the oil for almost free in expense of its country's lack of development. The Pinochet of Chile was US puppet, as the Ferdinand Marcos and Saddam Insane and Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
On the other hand, you may say "if we are so bad, why every freaking person comes to the US?".. It's simple, the normal life in US has got nothing to do with the foreign image and the foreign policy of the USA.
US is based on indivudal excellence, hard work, free speech, democratic freedome. Yet, out foreign policy doesn't advocate these values for the countries I mentioned above.
The coup d'etats that were placed in Pakistan and Turkey in early 80s had one single aim: to form the foundations to Radical Islam and use it against Communism.
You can be Republican, but you cannot be a tru American to see how Wolfowitz was shaking hands with Saddam, Sr. Bush giving speach in Afghanistan to bin Laden and types for their courage.
The minute we hold a respectible foreign policy, the minute we change our modus operandi from bombing innocent people based upon lies, we will be respected a great deal..
And if you ask "why we should be respected? " the answer is simple "you gotta walk the walk if you talk the talk" ..
Cheers..
ThomasR
Eye of the Storm
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2004
- Posts
- 324
FlyingToIST
I'm not at all sure what it is you just said but it sounded good.
Here's my perception being from America and having a bruised ego:
If it is coming from of the United States it has the capacity to talk out of both sides of it mouth. It can look in two directions at the same time; it can speak and listen simultaneously. It makes complete sense one minute and utter insanity the next. If it is expensive you want it for free and if it is free you are willing to pay millions to be the only one on the block to own one.
People hate your guts because they can't figure out what the hell you are doing or why. You confuse the world and you would be a joke if you weren't so dangerous.
Why talk when you can walk? Wecome to AMERICA!
I'm not at all sure what it is you just said but it sounded good.
Here's my perception being from America and having a bruised ego:
If it is coming from of the United States it has the capacity to talk out of both sides of it mouth. It can look in two directions at the same time; it can speak and listen simultaneously. It makes complete sense one minute and utter insanity the next. If it is expensive you want it for free and if it is free you are willing to pay millions to be the only one on the block to own one.
People hate your guts because they can't figure out what the hell you are doing or why. You confuse the world and you would be a joke if you weren't so dangerous.
Why talk when you can walk? Wecome to AMERICA!
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
