DaVinci

I hope you meant "lost". I agree, the problem is if the best you can do is not be the other guy, thats pretty sad. And that can only get you so far...And into office was that distance. So now the Dems have been saying about how much better they could do since they are not the Repubs. Now they have to put up, or they also will fall since the next group will not be them as well.

Nope, thats it. Some only want it to apply to others.

Kinda goes against something you said just a week ago, "I don't think the level of fitness is that much better than that of civilians. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2515301#2515301 I love how you present thoughts but don't bother to back any of them up. I also love how you took your unhappy military service and assume that it is the same for everyone.That your failed attempt to use the military as an escape and later regret you choice makes you think anyone who does not agree with you is not as smart as you.

I did, you migt try answering questions asked instead of avoiding them.

Yes and so is the stock market, home ownership and aslew of other things you ignore since you don't like them even if most economists think they are good indicators of the economy. Total BS, use facts to support your economic rants, not just personal opinion. FACT: Home ownership is higher than EVER. FACT: stock market is higher than ever.

Same as 9/11. No, over done. The fact is that the true insurgents are a small part of the population. Killing millions to get a few thousand is not a good move. Plus public sentament would turn. No would you accept it?

And I ask again...Would you say the same of Democrats like Kerry? Pelosi? Clinton? If not then your bias is showing.

And as stated before the US is not really adding to that in any number worth mentioning. You would be better spent trying to control China (Their paln didn't work) or India. Fact is the *US*can support an increased population. In fact there are less wage earners NOW than a few years ago. And the adults today are ALREADY having less kids than before. So your target group is off. You may not like overpopulation, but your plan will not work. So, lets say a person has a third child and cannot pay your FEE? Manditory Abortions? China did it.

He clearly was mad. He was also clearly a genius. But that does not mean he was sane. No sane person would try to kill what 6 Million people?

Nice..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Thanks, Do not continually offer holy things to people who devour them, reject them, and turn them back to you lacerated and torn apart. You know what I believe he’s saying? I believe he’s saying that you only need to present the gospel to a certain point and when then people become abusive and blasphemous, it’s time to cease at that point, at least, the offering. There is a limit. At some point you need to walk away. But I find many times people who can't give an answer use this kind of line...Kinda like telling a whuffo they just can't understand skydiving. And thats fine. But then I don't think the religious should enter debates and ask for things they cannot or will not provide either IMO. I enjoy religious debates.....I learn stuff. But I don't accept "just because" as an answer. And that is why I have a hard time believing in a religion.

You don't have to use good sources, but it hurts your cause to use crappy one IMO. Right, but we were taking about a definition, not an overview. I glance at Wikipedia when doing papers for school, but only to get an idea, or look for a link to a better source. Every Instructor for the last year has told me that Wikipedia is not to be used a reference since it can be edited by anyone to say anything they want.

Hitler was also loony. He also claimed that the Aryans were superior/Jews were evil...Just cause he said it, do you think that makes it true? I don't, I think he was a lunatic not really worthy of give any credence too. Which is why I don't go to church...The only place filled with more people that say one thing and do another is DC.

So IMO not all use fees are bad. And I would agree that safety issues should never be short changed. How does the budget look for ATC? Do they need money? If so would you rather see: 1. Increased general taxes to pay for the cost 2. More user fees. 3. A higher tax on fuels ect? I think a combination of the three would be the best mix...But I am open to new information.

A good number of teachers do not allow the use of wikipedia for your info. Even the creator of the site says that http://chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation

I am very aware of the costs to run an airline. I am a pilot in addition to being a skydiver.

How about landing fees?

Thank you, that was a great answer. Do you have any source to show that the current system generates enough money?

Really? Why do you think it was even brought up then?...sheesh. Nope and still have not. Nice that you jumped in though...Next time bring chips or something useful. Same to you, you keep just avoid giving any real answers. Misdirection at its best.

Hey. I DIDN'T MISS IT THE FIRST TIME. I aksed a question...Are you this rude to your students when they ask a question?

Fair, but can you ask the CDC to do research for you for no cost? Certain basic things should not be user only as you have pointed out, but you think users have no responsibility for paying for the things they use? Kallend had a great answer, but does it cover the whole cost?

Edit it and type "ZERO"

It would be equally as stupid. However, calling someone a NAZI IMO is worse.

So you don't think that when I go to a park I should pay a entrance fee either?

OK, but that is not an arbitrary number of children .Tell me, why did you choose two, not three or one? Simple, if I can afford them, feed them, take care of them, then it is clearly OK. If I can't afford one then it is not OK. Also the Social Security system is based on CURRENT workers paying for the CURRENT group or retired workers. Due to the Baby Boomers stepping out the current work force has a greater amount to pay since....And here is something you missed....They had LESS kids than their parents did. Also, as Kallend pointed out, limiting the number of children didn't work for China...What makes you think it would work here? So my primary point is as long as I can afford them, then I am ADDING people to pay taxes, not adding people to draw taxes. (BTW I have no kids, nor do I plan on having them) My secondary point is what business is it of yours if I can afford and want more kids? My third point is it didn't work for China...What makes you think it will work here. My fourth point is that it is a GLOBAL problem, and the US is not the leading producer of people and we have been able to support them so far. Your concerns being set on the US will not help India's problem.