 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 4:34 pm Post subject: OT: politics on the list |
 |
|
Greetings Bob,
I will focus on why I feel your comments fall more into the category of political discussion rather than representative of any quantifiable system of cause and effect which could lead to an irrefutable conclusion.
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
I disagree that people naturally strive improve an art that benefits them. Many people engage in behaviors that damage, rather than benefit themselves. In addition it assumes that people are correct in their assessment of what truly benefits them. Many choices carry both penalties and benefits, no clear definitions here.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
I believe that having someone who is not driven by maximizing profit overseeing the behavior of those who are is a good thing. A few examples are: Nuclear waste; the food and water supply; some sectors of the financial industry; some facets of the health care industry; some sectors of the transportation industry. Others disagree, no quantifiable answer here.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
If taxation is the same as extortion then this statement is correct. I don't think there is any question that some people will disagree with this. How does one decide which is correct, or perhaps it's not an either/or decision.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Anarchy is the only form of government which does not depend on some sort of coercive entity in society. All other's involve vesting some members of the society with power. History has shown that those with power use it to benefit themselves. How many and with how much power is another question that does not have a clear cut answer.
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
"The law" is written by those who already have power, to facilitate holding on to what they have and to accumulate more. "Rights" vary from one place to another and from one time to another. What they are or should be is no easy question. Many would argue that humans don't act "honorably" whether in power or in resistance to power. The definition of "honorable" may differ between parties involved.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
The amount of paper required may or may not be a good thing. Certainly the regulatory body may have made some mistakes. This need for paper is also driven by our legal system, and the need to CYA. How much paper is the right amount? Who decides that?
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Here again, the question arises: Government regulation or legal cya by the manufacturer driving the decisions?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
Unless all regulation and inspection by parties not driven by the profit motive are eliminated, there will be an ongoing discussion about what amount is the right amount.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
The definition of "Liberty" is far from simple. Like other buzz words, it is defined differently in different places at different times.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
Being attentive to the actions of those with power is paramount. Which actions are good and which are bad is subject to discussion.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
No one would argue that stopping bad behavior by elected citizens is a bad thing. What makes the concept political is the need to define what is "bad behavior".
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
I suspect that there are people out there who's obvious conclusion would conflict with yours. And those people will site a different set of causes and effects which were never a matter of debatable conclusions.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Political discourse is an absolute necessity for determining what government behavior should be. It is sad that in the USA a significant percentage of the citizens fail to participate.
I do not believe adding the unavoidable conflict that surrounds political debate to this list will do anything to increase citizen participation, and it WILL pollute the non political discussions as they take place on the list and will leave useless garbage in the archives.
I posted this to answer Bob's question, and do not wish to engage in any further discussion on this topic.
do not archive
[quote]--
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine [b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
uuccio(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:55 pm Post subject: OT: politics on the list |
|
|
I agree with Bob's point of view and I also agree with Raymond's points. Maybe it would be wise to try and keep the political opinions to a minimum and focus on what this list does best. (It being a community of human beings there will inevitably be some overlap which is difficult and maybe undesirable to eliminate).
On Nov 25, 2013, at 1:32, rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net (raymondj(at)frontiernet.net)> wrote:
[quote] Greetings Bob,
I will focus on why I feel your comments fall more into the category of political discussion rather than representative of any quantifiable system of cause and effect which could lead to an irrefutable conclusion.
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
I disagree that people naturally strive improve an art that benefits them. Many people engage in behaviors that damage, rather than benefit themselves. In addition it assumes that people are correct in their assessment of what truly benefits them. Many choices carry both penalties and benefits, no clear definitions here.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
I believe that having someone who is not driven by maximizing profit overseeing the behavior of those who are is a good thing. A few examples are: Nuclear waste; the food and water supply; some sectors of the financial industry; some facets of the health care industry; some sectors of the transportation industry. Others disagree, no quantifiable answer here.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
If taxation is the same as extortion then this statement is correct. I don't think there is any question that some people will disagree with this. How does one decide which is correct, or perhaps it's not an either/or decision.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Anarchy is the only form of government which does not depend on some sort of coercive entity in society. All other's involve vesting some members of the society with power. History has shown that those with power use it to benefit themselves. How many and with how much power is another question that does not have a clear cut answer.
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
"The law" is written by those who already have power, to facilitate holding on to what they have and to accumulate more. "Rights" vary from one place to another and from one time to another. What they are or should be is no easy question. Many would argue that humans don't act "honorably" whether in power or in resistance to power. The definition of "honorable" may differ between parties involved.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
The amount of paper required may or may not be a good thing. Certainly the regulatory body may have made some mistakes. This need for paper is also driven by our legal system, and the need to CYA. How much paper is the right amount? Who decides that?
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Here again, the question arises: Government regulation or legal cya by the manufacturer driving the decisions?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
Unless all regulation and inspection by parties not driven by the profit motive are eliminated, there will be an ongoing discussion about what amount is the right amount.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
The definition of "Liberty" is far from simple. Like other buzz words, it is defined differently in different places at different times.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
Being attentive to the actions of those with power is paramount. Which actions are good and which are bad is subject to discussion.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
No one would argue that stopping bad behavior by elected citizens is a bad thing. What makes the concept political is the need to define what is "bad behavior".
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
I suspect that there are people out there who's obvious conclusion would conflict with yours. And those people will site a different set of causes and effects which were never a matter of debatable conclusions.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Political discourse is an absolute necessity for determining what government behavior should be. It is sad that in the USA a significant percentage of the citizens fail to participate.
I do not believe adding the unavoidable conflict that surrounds political debate to this list will do anything to increase citizen participation, and it WILL pollute the non political discussions as they take place on the list and will leave useless garbage in the archives.
I posted this to answer Bob's question, and do not wish to engage in any further discussion on this topic.
do not archive
| Quote: | --
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ronburnett(at)charter.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:40 am Post subject: OT: politics on the list |
|
|
What am I missing here? I don't see any of this as political as it has all happened as beaurocrats from all times have written rules from every administration since the 1920s and the CAA. It isn't political but just common sense as rules, laws and opinions are written, then enforced.
Happy thanksgiving to all and let's enjoy our freedom to fly and build airplanes!
Ron Burnett
Sent from my iPadMay you have the blessings of the Lord today.
On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:54 AM, Sacha <uuccio(at)gmail.com (uuccio(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]I agree with Bob's point of view and I also agree with Raymond's points. Maybe it would be wise to try and keep the political opinions to a minimum and focus on what this list does best. (It being a community of human beings there will inevitably be some overlap which is difficult and maybe undesirable to eliminate).
On Nov 25, 2013, at 1:32, rayj <raymondj(at)frontiernet.net (raymondj(at)frontiernet.net)> wrote:
| Quote: | Greetings Bob,
I will focus on why I feel your comments fall more into the category of political discussion rather than representative of any quantifiable system of cause and effect which could lead to an irrefutable conclusion.
. . . a microcosmic peek into a fundamental component
of the human condition. People naturally strive to
advance the state of any art that produces benefit
to themselves. Some are better than others . . . hence
examples of exemplary achievement by individuals in
all walks of life and range of endeavors.
I disagree that people naturally strive improve an art that benefits them. Many people engage in behaviors that damage, rather than benefit themselves. In addition it assumes that people are correct in their assessment of what truly benefits them. Many choices carry both penalties and benefits, no clear definitions here.
A second class of individual emerges when you give a
person a JOB of worrying about risks they do not
share, technologies they do not practice, and
rewards they do not reap by responding to a free-market
demand for their product. They too believe that
they're doing a good thing and their supervisors
make sure that the most talented among them enjoy
progressively greater returns for their efforts . . .
irrespective of no demonstrable value-added.
I believe that having someone who is not driven by maximizing profit overseeing the behavior of those who are is a good thing. A few examples are: Nuclear waste; the food and water supply; some sectors of the financial industry; some facets of the health care industry; some sectors of the transportation industry. Others disagree, no quantifiable answer here.
The problem is that those returns must be
acquired from someplace, usually from those
who earned it by being a practicing participant
in the first class of individuals. The second
class thrives on some form of extortion unlike
individuals of the first class who must promote
their time, talents and resources to willing buyers.
If taxation is the same as extortion then this statement is correct. I don't think there is any question that some people will disagree with this. How does one decide which is correct, or perhaps it's not an either/or decision.
In some societies, the forms of extortion are
openly, forcefully and liberally applied. Nobody
would argue that the perps are despots and thugs.
But the most crafty of despots get themselves
elected or appointed to high office and they
call themselves senator, judge, officer or some
other honorific. Their tools of extortion are perhaps
less violent but no less effective . . .
Anarchy is the only form of government which does not depend on some sort of coercive entity in society. All other's involve vesting some members of the society with power. History has shown that those with power use it to benefit themselves. How many and with how much power is another question that does not have a clear cut answer.
Irrespective of the vehicle by which the despot
advances the state of their particular art, we
can be certain that in the absence of well
administered just law it WILL grow. The incursion
into one's fundamental right to be left alone
may be slower but lacking honorable resistance,
it nonetheless advances. The despot is patient
and in no particular hurry . . . they don't
have to produce anything of value for a living.
"The law" is written by those who already have power, to facilitate holding on to what they have and to accumulate more. "Rights" vary from one place to another and from one time to another. What they are or should be is no easy question. Many would argue that humans don't act "honorably" whether in power or in resistance to power. The definition of "honorable" may differ between parties involved.
I have been an inside witness to growth in
the state of the worrying arts practiced by those
who are paid to worry about airplanes for over 50
years. I can recall no instance wherein some
intrusion of that art has receded or otherwise
been scaled back. On the TC side of the house
it's still growing. I judge that over half
the selling price of an airplane is the outgrowth
of no-value-added overhead promulgated by
the thrashing of great piles of paper.
The amount of paper required may or may not be a good thing. Certainly the regulatory body may have made some mistakes. This need for paper is also driven by our legal system, and the need to CYA. How much paper is the right amount? Who decides that?
I support that argument with the following observation:
When I went to work at Cessna in 1964 my boss
bought his mother a new Ford Falcon. . . 6-cyl,
stick shift, and a heater that worked pretty
good for $2500. That car should cost about $18,500.
Okay, what can you buy for that kind of money
today? . . . a much more efficient, better equipped
and longer lasting vehicle than the '64 Falcon.
The price of a C150 was about $5K. Inflation
effects tell us that the 2013 costs for a
similar airplane should be on the order of $37K
What can you buy for $37K in a new airplane?
Even forgiving the out-the-door price of a 2013
2-place airplane, has it become less expensive
to maintain, operate, or will it last longer?
Why the big difference between airplanes and cars?
Here again, the question arises: Government regulation or legal cya by the manufacturer driving the decisions?
Before anyone gets too worked up about having brought
politics into the discussion, I suggest that
there is nothing political about it. If you see
two individuals in a violent confrontation, does
it matter that they are members of any particular
faction or belief? Or does it suffice to observe that
somebody (perhaps both) have put their hands
on the person or property of another individual
without permission? It's about simple thuggery by
one individual on the liberty of another . . .
or if you will . . . one class of individuals upon
another.
Thomas Paine noted 200+ years ago that there
are certain advantages to a monarchy . . . at
least the citizen knows the source from which
his misery comes. We are witnessing the demise
of our arts by the work-product of millions
in the employ of dozens of agencies all paid
to worry about something or another . . . and
using the force of law to assuage their concerns.
Unless all regulation and inspection by parties not driven by the profit motive are eliminated, there will be an ongoing discussion about what amount is the right amount.
It's been hat-danced around here on the List
often and usually discouraged by excited
prohibitions on 'political discussions'. I humbly
suggest that simple-idea of liberty is as
fundamental as gravity, ohms-law, Reynolds
numbers, friction, modulus of elasticity and
the speed of light.
The definition of "Liberty" is far from simple. Like other buzz words, it is defined differently in different places at different times.
It follows then that being attentive to the protection
or destruction of liberty is no more political
than finding out why some relay contacts were
sticking in the roll trim system of a Beechjet.
Being attentive to the actions of those with power is paramount. Which actions are good and which are bad is subject to discussion.
I do wish our brethren in the UK luck in
dialing back the forces that arbitrarily
restrict their freedoms to build and fly
perfectly satisfactory airplanes. Airplanes
that are probably less risky than those
produced in paper-bloated factories.
Present trends plotted into the future suggest
that it's a condition that we too will face
in the not too distant future . . .
I have suggested that the phenomenon I
explored is just as firmly grounded in
the simple-ideas of irrefutable fact
as any discussion of physics. This is
not about opinion but observable, repeatable,
cause and effect . . . i.e. historical fact.
We've had discussions on the List about
the behaviors of several suppliers to
the OBAM aviation community wherein
'customers' offered value-y in
agreement to accept value-x from
a 'supplier'. Cases were value-x was
never delivered . . . or failed to
meet expectations but without warranty.
How is that different than an individual
seeking value-votes from their 'customers'
in exchange for a return of value-liberty . . .
and then at best failing to deliver or even
worse becoming antagonistic to their oath
of office?
The fact that Case I is a matter of consumer
fraud not specifically related to government
and the Case II relate to behaviors
of government does not make the behaviors
of citizens in government any less egregious.
The ever increasing effects of some
behaviors will not go away by labeling them
'political' and banning it from consideration
in favor of more pleasant thoughts and
goals. It's like standing in front of your home
watering the flowers with a hose while the
burning house behind you would benefit greatly by
an application of water from that same hose.
No one would argue that stopping bad behavior by elected citizens is a bad thing. What makes the concept political is the need to define what is "bad behavior".
Allowing things to continue on their present
course has an obvious conclusion. This was
never a matter of debatable opinions but
a pattern of cause and effects that have
repeated countless times throughout recorded
history. Volumes of study have been published
but alas . . . seldom taught in contemporary
systems of education.
I suspect that there are people out there who's obvious conclusion would conflict with yours. And those people will site a different set of causes and effects which were never a matter of debatable conclusions.
Thanks for the reminder, I will talk to Matt
about the second website.
Political discourse is an absolute necessity for determining what government behavior should be. It is sad that in the USA a significant percentage of the citizens fail to participate.
I do not believe adding the unavoidable conflict that surrounds political debate to this list will do anything to increase citizen participation, and it WILL pollute the non political discussions as they take place on the list and will leave useless garbage in the archives.
I posted this to answer Bob's question, and do not wish to engage in any further discussion on this topic.
do not archive
| Quote: | --
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine
|
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
ot;">www.aeroelectric.com
books.com"">www.buildersbooks.com
quot;">www.homebuilthelp.com
quot;">www.mypilotstore.com
">www.mrrace.com
ot;">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
lectric-List"">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
//forums.matronics.com
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:10 am Post subject: OT: politics on the list |
|
|
Good Morning Ron,
I agree that more and more regulation is the norm for anything new to the scene, but that does not make it good!
Bob wants the freedom to advance the art without the do gooder intervention. Raymond wishes for a superior power to be sure he does not develop any beyond what big brother will want. That is and always will be the battle between the lovers of individual freedom and those who know our business better than we do. (Or at least, think they do.)
Those who are tasked with retaining the status quo can always find a good reason to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 11/25/2013 12:41:52 P.M. Central Standard Time, ronburnett(at)charter.net writes:
| Quote: | What am I missing here? I don't see any of this as political as it has all happened as beaurocrats from all times have written rules from every administration since the 1920s and the CAA. It isn't political but just common sense as rules, laws and opinions are written, then enforced.
Happy thanksgiving to all and let's enjoy our freedom to fly and build airplanes!
Ron Burnett
|
[quote][b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
raymondj(at)frontiernet.n
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:00 pm Post subject: OT: politics on the list |
|
|
Greeting Old Bob,
I feel obligated to state that I disagree with your characterization of me. Just as a matter of record. Of course you're entitled to your opinion. I just wish you had sited the statements that lead you to your conclusion, so others may judge the correctness of it.
| Quote: | Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
"And you know that I could have me a million more friends,
and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine |
On 11/25/2013 01:10 PM, BobsV35B(at)aol.com (BobsV35B(at)aol.com) wrote:
[quote] Good Morning Ron,
I agree that more and more regulation is the norm for anything new to the scene, but that does not make it good!
Bob wants the freedom to advance the art without the do gooder intervention. Raymond wishes for a superior power to be sure he does not develop any beyond what big brother will want. That is and always will be the battle between the lovers of individual freedom and those who know our business better than we do. (Or at least, think they do.)
Those who are tasked with retaining the status quo can always find a good reason to do so.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
In a message dated 11/25/2013 12:41:52 P.M. Central Standard Time, ronburnett(at)charter.net (ronburnett(at)charter.net) writes:
| Quote: | What am I missing here? I don't see any of this as political as it has all happened as beaurocrats from all times have written rules from every administration since the 1920s and the CAA. It isn't political but just common sense as rules, laws and opinions are written, then enforced.
Happy thanksgiving to all and let's enjoy our freedom to fly and build airplanes!
Ron Burnett
|
[b]
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
