My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
views on GA and ATC privatization.

I was wondering what people think about how GA will be affected by the
new government, on things like ATC privatization, user fees,
presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues the creation
of the previous government, or do they transcend politics and are here
to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any hope that
things will return to what they were before 2000 (except fuel price, of
course)?

Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a
great way to determine how that person will approach all
issues. IMHO.

I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.



"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| My voting decision was influenced in large part on which
candidates
| supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked
for their
| views on GA and ATC privatization.
|
| I was wondering what people think about how GA will be
affected by the
| new government, on things like ATC privatization, user
fees,
| presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues
the creation
| of the previous government, or do they transcend politics
and are here
| to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any
hope that
| things will return to what they were before 2000 (except
fuel price, of
| course)?
|

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
> supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
> views on GA and ATC privatization.

I'm amazed that you put GA at the top of your issues list. I don't know
where you fit into the political spectrum (nor do I really care), but
consider the following issues:

* Foreign policy
* Terrorism
* Economic policy
* Energy policy
* Abortion
* Environmental policy
* Education
* Health care

Would you have really voted for a candidate whose views on the above issues
were contrary to yours just because they supported GA?

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
> pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
> power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
> I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
> first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a
> great way to determine how that person will approach all
> issues. IMHO.
>
> I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.
>
>


I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.

Roy Smith wrote:
> "Andrew Sarangan" > wrote:
> > My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
> > supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
> > views on GA and ATC privatization.
>
> I'm amazed that you put GA at the top of your issues list. I don't know
> where you fit into the political spectrum (nor do I really care), but
> consider the following issues:
>
> * Foreign policy
> * Terrorism
> * Economic policy
> * Energy policy
> * Abortion
> * Environmental policy
> * Education
> * Health care
>
> Would you have really voted for a candidate whose views on the above issues
> were contrary to yours just because they supported GA?

No, I didn't say GA was the only issue. GA was one of the issues, among
others, some of which you have listed above. Others you have not listed
are the war in Iraq and political corruption.

The candidates position on these other issues are well known because
they talk about it in public, and is on their websites. You don't know
their position on GA unless you call them and ask. AOPA had a list on
their website on candidates who support GA, but I found some of that
information to be inaccurate.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
> supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
> views on GA and ATC privatization.
>
> I was wondering what people think about how GA will be affected by the
> new government, on things like ATC privatization, user fees,
> presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues the creation
> of the previous government, or do they transcend politics and are here
> to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any hope that
> things will return to what they were before 2000 (except fuel price, of
> course)?
>

Hard to say as few politicians actually do after they are elected what
they said before being elected. I'll venture a guess that things may be
a little less restrictive on the security side under the Democrats, but
I think they will be more likely to hit us in the pocket book with user
fees.

At least until the next domestic terrorist attack which will become much
more likely once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan prematurely, which
likely will happen with the Democrats in control of Congress.


Matt

Andrew Sarangan wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>>Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
>>pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
>>power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
>>I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
>>first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a
>>great way to determine how that person will approach all
>>issues. IMHO.
>>
>>I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
> to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
> members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.
>

The connection is liberty, pure and simple. Liberty allows us to fly
private aircraft relatively unencumbered (not so true in the northeast
anymore unfortunately). And liberty allows us to possess firearms
privately. More importantly, however, is possessing firearms privately
helps us preserve liberty. They are all intimately related in my opinion.

As to the AOPA/NRA overlap, I have no idea the stats there. I have been
a life member of the NRA for probably 20 years and a member for probably
34 years in total. I've been an AOPA member for 28 years.


Matt

Guns and the right to keep and bear arms are matters of
individual freedom. Aviation is about freedom. NASCAR is
about freedom. Golf is about freedom.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
A Congressperson who supports, really supports, civil rights
understands that the right to keep and bear arms is an
individual right to self-defense, self-determination and a
guarantee of political power.

It is a test, like a "little moron" joke is a test of
American citizenship. Americans understand the humor.




"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
| > pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely
return
| > power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
| > I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
| > first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms
is a
| > great way to determine how that person will approach all
| > issues. IMHO.
| >
| > I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.
| >
| >
|
|
| I never understood the connection between aviation and
guns. A good way
| to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are
also NRA
| members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very
little overlap.
|

we agree on that.


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
| Andrew Sarangan wrote:
| > My voting decision was influenced in large part on which
candidates
| > supported GA. I called each candidate's office and
asked for their
| > views on GA and ATC privatization.
| >
| > I was wondering what people think about how GA will be
affected by the
| > new government, on things like ATC privatization, user
fees,
| > presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these
issues the creation
| > of the previous government, or do they transcend
politics and are here
| > to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any
hope that
| > things will return to what they were before 2000 (except
fuel price, of
| > course)?
| >
|
| Hard to say as few politicians actually do after they are
elected what
| they said before being elected. I'll venture a guess that
things may be
| a little less restrictive on the security side under the
Democrats, but
| I think they will be more likely to hit us in the pocket
book with user
| fees.
|
| At least until the next domestic terrorist attack which
will become much
| more likely once we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan
prematurely, which
| likely will happen with the Democrats in control of
Congress.
|
|
| Matt

I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
dollars, and 2) with more legislation. So we have 20,000 plus gun laws.
Still have a problem? Just pass some more. Lather, rinse repeat. Have
problems with terrorists hijacking airliners? Have every GA pilot file a
flight plan in the ADIZ. Still worried? Ban GA flights over Chicago.

Most of this is feel good nonsense for soccer moms who don't have the
inclination or ability to use reason. Washington DC's gun laws forbid
anyone not named Carl Rowan from personal possession of a handgun, but you'd
better watch where you walk after dark. "Shall issue" jurisdictions have
shown a decrease in gun violence because while criminals aren't particularly
moral creatures, they aren't stupid. If I am going to prey upon others, do I
want to choose one who I know will be unarmed, or one who might be able to
fight back?

The ADIZ stuff has been beaten to death here and elsewhere. It's now mostly
just a trap for the unwary and unlucky. I believe it adds nothing to the
safety of GA pilots or our earthbound bretheren. But it sure makes you pay
attention to the health and well-being of your transponder.

As for the election, I think this is the beginning of the end of America's
leadership role in world affairs. In the next two years, Syria and
Hizballah will invade Israel and overthrow the government in Lebanon, Iran
will move to control Iraq, Turkey will also move into northern Iraq. The
current Iraqi leadership will move its assets to Switzerland and abdicate.
China will invade and take over Taiwan. The United States and Britain will
suffer more terrorist attacks domestically and against our interests abroad.
North Korea and Pakistan will provide the means. "We" will stand by
watching and complaining, but our rhetoric will be unmatched in the history
of the world.


> I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
> to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
> members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.
>

"Jim Macklin" > writes:

> Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
> pre-9/11 status.

Then aviation will never return to pre-9/11 status, as the war on
terror is an illusory one that can be sustained indefinitely, like the
war on Eastasia or Eurasia. Of course, that was the idea all along.

> Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
> power since seeking more power is their goal in life.

Politicians in general never return power unless forced to do so, no
matter what their party affiliation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Matt Whiting writes:

> The connection is liberty, pure and simple.

The most important liberty is freedom of speech, and since people are
giving that up willingly, other liberties tend to follow.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:13:45 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:
> Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to pre-9/11 status.

But the only way to win that is to wipe every camel ****in' Bedoin off the
face of the planet... It is highly unlikely that we are willing to go to
that effort...

> I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment first and
> aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a great way to determine
> how that person will approach all issues. IMHO.

Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
with is 'negotiable'...

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:49:25 -0800, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
> to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
> members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.

I'm an AOPA member -- mainly because I like to read the magazine, I
suspect...

I'm not an NRA member... They're a bit too liberal for my tastes...

Grumman-581 writes:

> But the only way to win that is to wipe every camel ****in' Bedoin off the
> face of the planet... It is highly unlikely that we are willing to go to
> that effort...

There will always be terrorists. That's why the "war on terror" is
ideal for demagogues and potential dictators: it's a war that isn't a
war, a war that has no identifiable enemy, and best of all, it's a war
that cannot be won, so it lasts forever and justifies the eventual
elimination of all civil liberties. Goering knew this, and apparently
the current U.S. administration knows it, too.

> Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
> with is 'negotiable'...

Your little gun won't help you against a well-armed military. Your
best bet is to control who commands the military, not to try to fight
against it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The news media is talking about the Iraq Study Group and
saying that part of the "new plan for Iraq" is to get Iran
and Syria to "help." What nonsense. Iran has won, why
would they change now?

Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous and
soon we will have a real world war being fought with nuclear
weapons and chemicals.

For those who do not know the history, the USA won the Viet
Nam war and had a peace treaty signed in Paris. But the
Congress was supposed to support the South. But the first
time a vote came up for money to supply food, medicines and
ammunition to the South, Congressional Democrats refused to
support the treaty obligation.
A few weeks later the North rolled their tanks into Saigon
[ Ho Chi Min City].

The American people have elected a Congress that promised to
do the same thing again. Adolph Hitler is laughing, Osama
is smiling and the western world is asleep.



"LWG" > wrote in message
...
|I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal
belief that any
| problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really
mean my and your)
| dollars, and 2) with more legislation. So we have 20,000
plus gun laws.
| Still have a problem? Just pass some more. Lather, rinse
repeat. Have
| problems with terrorists hijacking airliners? Have every
GA pilot file a
| flight plan in the ADIZ. Still worried? Ban GA flights
over Chicago.
|
| Most of this is feel good nonsense for soccer moms who
don't have the
| inclination or ability to use reason. Washington DC's gun
laws forbid
| anyone not named Carl Rowan from personal possession of a
handgun, but you'd
| better watch where you walk after dark. "Shall issue"
jurisdictions have
| shown a decrease in gun violence because while criminals
aren't particularly
| moral creatures, they aren't stupid. If I am going to prey
upon others, do I
| want to choose one who I know will be unarmed, or one who
might be able to
| fight back?
|
| The ADIZ stuff has been beaten to death here and
elsewhere. It's now mostly
| just a trap for the unwary and unlucky. I believe it adds
nothing to the
| safety of GA pilots or our earthbound bretheren. But it
sure makes you pay
| attention to the health and well-being of your
transponder.
|
| As for the election, I think this is the beginning of the
end of America's
| leadership role in world affairs. In the next two years,
Syria and
| Hizballah will invade Israel and overthrow the government
in Lebanon, Iran
| will move to control Iraq, Turkey will also move into
northern Iraq. The
| current Iraqi leadership will move its assets to
Switzerland and abdicate.
| China will invade and take over Taiwan. The United States
and Britain will
| suffer more terrorist attacks domestically and against our
interests abroad.
| North Korea and Pakistan will provide the means. "We"
will stand by
| watching and complaining, but our rhetoric will be
unmatched in the history
| of the world.
|
|
| > I never understood the connection between aviation and
guns. A good way
| > to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are
also NRA
| > members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very
little overlap.
| >
|
|

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
>> pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
>> power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
>> I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
>> first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a
>> great way to determine how that person will approach all
>> issues. IMHO.
>>
>> I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.
>>
>>
>
>
> I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good
> way to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
> members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little
> overlap.
>
I don't personally know any pilots that don't also own a gun. Limited
sample size, and hardly random, but it leads me to the opposite guess
regarding overlap.

Neil

Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:

> My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
> supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
> views on GA and ATC privatization.
>
> I was wondering what people think about how GA will be affected by the
> new government, on things like ATC privatization, user fees,
> presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues the
> creation of the previous government, or do they transcend politics
> and are here to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any
> hope that things will return to what they were before 2000 (except
> fuel price, of course)?
>
There doesn't seem to be many differences in GA post 2000. The only things
that come to mind are a few "permanent TFRs" and taller fences around
airports. ATC privatization and user fees are driven by economic matters,
basically the intersection of opinions about where the government should
be spending its money and a loss of the notion of a "common good". In some
ways, this is more similar to states selling their roads to private
companies and other idiot-driven modes of thinking. Unfortunately, as we
"dumb down" our society, those kinds of things are likely to expand.

Neil

On 12 Nov 2006 19:49:25 -0800, "Andrew Sarangan" >
wrote:

>Jim Macklin wrote:
>> Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
>> pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
>> power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
>> I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
>> first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a
>> great way to determine how that person will approach all
>> issues. IMHO.
>>
>> I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.
>>
>>
>
>
>I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
>to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
>members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.

Its like the canaries miners carried into coal mines. If the canary
croaked, it warned the miners of toxic gas. They weren't that
concerned that bird died, but they were concerned about the gases.

If the government ignores the clear intent of the Bill of Rights and
infringes on the right to bear arms, it is a warning that those in
power do not believe you have rights unless the majority agrees with
those rights.

Those who believe it is OK to deny law abiding citizens their 2nd
amendment rights because others have an irrational fear of armed
citizens (hoplophobia) will also deny you your right to fly because of
others irrational fear of airplanes used as weapons or simply out of
class envy.

The bottom line is either politicians believe in a republic with
unalienable rights or they believe in mob rule, otherwise known as
democracy.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Look at GA in any socialist country.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
> supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
> views on GA and ATC privatization.
>
> I was wondering what people think about how GA will be affected by the
> new government, on things like ATC privatization, user fees,
> presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues the creation
> of the previous government, or do they transcend politics and are here
> to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any hope that
> things will return to what they were before 2000 (except fuel price, of
> course)?

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Matt Whiting writes:
>
>
>>The connection is liberty, pure and simple.
>
>
> The most important liberty is freedom of speech, and since people are
> giving that up willingly, other liberties tend to follow.

Nobody gave that up.

I would think that if we monitor the web sites of the aviation alphabet
groups that have lobbyists in DC we can get a better feeling for the future
of GA than we can by exchanging opinions in a newsgroup.

Bob Gardner

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
> supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
> views on GA and ATC privatization.
>
> I was wondering what people think about how GA will be affected by the
> new government, on things like ATC privatization, user fees,
> presidential TFRs, Washington ADIZ etc.. Were these issues the creation
> of the previous government, or do they transcend politics and are here
> to stay regardless of whoever is in power? Is there any hope that
> things will return to what they were before 2000 (except fuel price, of
> course)?
>

Newps writes:

> Nobody gave that up.

There are lots of things you can't say without going to jail these
days. All in the name of "safety."

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Nobody gave that up.
>
>
> There are lots of things you can't say without going to jail these
> days. All in the name of "safety."

Nonsense.

"LWG" > wrote in message
...
>I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
>problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
>dollars,

By extension that could be taken to imply:

More funding for runway improvements and ATC staffing, more funding for
collision-avoidance, sheer-warning and wx determination, etc.

-c

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Andrew Sarangan > posted:
>
> I don't personally know any pilots that don't also own a gun. Limited
> sample size, and hardly random, but it leads me to the opposite guess
> regarding overlap.

Probably, although I own guns and have never been an NRA member. They don't
represent me. I do however support their fundamental logic which is "Don't
pass more gun laws when you don't enforce the ones we already have."

-c

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.13.05.30.30.141581@DIE-

> Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
> with is 'negotiable'...

Unfortunately, the southern fireeaters pretty much thought the same. See
Edwin Ruffin.

(You'll probably have to look that one up.)

-c

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:47:31 -0800, gatt wrote:
> I do however support their fundamental logic which is "Don't pass more
> gun laws when you don't enforce the ones we already have."

Which is why I consider them a bunch of ****in' liberals... They should
be demanding that all the laws that came after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED be
removed since they are *all* unconstitutional...

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:49:25 -0800, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
>
>>I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
>>to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
>>members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.
>
>
> I'm an AOPA member -- mainly because I like to read the magazine, I
> suspect...
>
> I'm not an NRA member... They're a bit too liberal for my tastes...

That's a good one!

Unfortunately, they do more for our gun rights than any other group I
know of, liberal or otherwise.


Matt

How many soccer moms are worried about runway length (once the plane arrives
at the gate and they can get their butts out of the seat)?

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LWG" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
>>problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
>>dollars,
>
> By extension that could be taken to imply:
>
> More funding for runway improvements and ATC staffing, more funding for
> collision-avoidance, sheer-warning and wx determination, etc.
>
> -c
>

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Guns and the right to keep and bear arms are matters of
> individual freedom. Aviation is about freedom. NASCAR is
> about freedom. Golf is about freedom.
> http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
> A Congressperson who supports, really supports, civil rights
> understands that the right to keep and bear arms is an
> individual right to self-defense, self-determination and a
> guarantee of political power.
>
> It is a test, like a "little moron" joke is a test of
> American citizenship. Americans understand the humor.
>

I dislike the fact that flying is being compared to gun ownership. I
see very little similarity. One is a mode of transportation, and the
other is a weapon. You can't assume that all pilots support gun
ownership, any more than you can expect all stamp collectors to be gun
supporters.

Freedom is not without its boundaries. A good example is airplane
noise. When neighbors start complaining about airplane noise, you have
to do something about it. Arguing with them about our freedom to fly is
not going to get you anywhere. We can't infringe on other peoples
freedom just because we like to fly. The same thing goes for guns.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:30:43 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
> That's a good one!

I'm totally serious...

> Unfortunately, they do more for our gun rights than any other group I
> know of, liberal or otherwise.

Yeah, it's kind of like they are ****ing on the forest fire and the
leftists are throwing gasoline on it...

Newps writes:

> Nonsense.

Ask the Secret Service.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>>Guns and the right to keep and bear arms are matters of
>>individual freedom. Aviation is about freedom. NASCAR is
>>about freedom. Golf is about freedom.
>>http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
>>A Congressperson who supports, really supports, civil rights
>>understands that the right to keep and bear arms is an
>>individual right to self-defense, self-determination and a
>>guarantee of political power.
>>
>>It is a test, like a "little moron" joke is a test of
>>American citizenship. Americans understand the humor.
>>
>
>
> I dislike the fact that flying is being compared to gun ownership. I
> see very little similarity. One is a mode of transportation, and the
> other is a weapon. You can't assume that all pilots support gun
> ownership, any more than you can expect all stamp collectors to be gun
> supporters.
>
> Freedom is not without its boundaries. A good example is airplane
> noise. When neighbors start complaining about airplane noise, you have
> to do something about it. Arguing with them about our freedom to fly is
> not going to get you anywhere. We can't infringe on other peoples
> freedom just because we like to fly. The same thing goes for guns.

I didn't see any such thing suggested. Where did you come up with this
idea from what was written above?

Matt

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:30:43 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>That's a good one!
>
>
> I'm totally serious...

I know you were serious, but it was still funny. Even funnier since you
were serious.

>
>>Unfortunately, they do more for our gun rights than any other group I
>>know of, liberal or otherwise.
>
>
> Yeah, it's kind of like they are ****ing on the forest fire and the
> leftists are throwing gasoline on it...

So you'd rather we have nobody doing anything?

Matt

> > Nonsense.
>
> Ask the Secret Service.

What can't we say today that we *could* say in 2000?

What rights have I lost due to anything done in the War on Terror?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Nonsense.
>>
>>Ask the Secret Service.
>
>
> What can't we say today that we *could* say in 2000?
>
> What rights have I lost due to anything done in the War on Terror?

I don't know that you have lost any rights, but I've lost two that I can
think of quickly. I've lost the right to land at Washington National
airport. Luckily, I made one flight in there in the last 90s so I have
that in my logbook. It was a real neat trip. I had to fly in at night
as I couldn't get an IFR reservation before 7:00 PM and this was in the
winter. I had to hold briefly over the city waiting for a hole in the
airline traffic, but the view was priceless and I'd have held another 10
minutes given the chance.

I also lost the right to land at Meigs Field and I never did get in there.


Matt

> What rights have I lost due to anything done in the War on Terror?

The right to fly over your nation's capital. The right to fly past the
Space Shuttle when it is not being launched. The right to carry Napa
and Sonoma wine home in your carry-on baggage. The right to carry a
swiss army knife on an airliner (or anywhere, and forget about it when
you board an airliner). The right to read what you want in a public
library without disclosing that action to the government. The right to
be free in one's homes, telephones, computers, internet, and private
life from search. The right to face your accusers and know the charges
against you.

That's what I could think of in a minute and a half. There's more.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Nonsense.
>
>
> Ask the Secret Service.

Nice answer. You made the allegation now support it. And I have talked
to the Secret Service, two weeks ago when they were up in the tower for
Bush's arrival and two weeks before that for Cheneys arrival. You are
full of crap.

> > What rights have I lost due to anything done in the War on Terror?
>
> The right to fly over your nation's capital. The right to fly past the
> Space Shuttle when it is not being launched. The right to carry Napa
> and Sonoma wine home in your carry-on baggage. The right to carry a
> swiss army knife on an airliner (or anywhere, and forget about it when
> you board an airliner).

Let's take the silly ones first:

1. I recently flew over Washington, DC. It was bone-simple.

2. With only a few airworthy space shuttles left -- and a political
climate that makes replacing them impossible -- I see nothing wrong
with restricting the airspace around Cape Canaveral.

3. I'm sure I can buy wine anywhere.

4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has proven to be a "bad
thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common sense" category.

> The right to read what you want in a public
> library without disclosing that action to the government. The right to
> be free in one's homes, telephones, computers, internet, and private
> life from search. The right to face your accusers and know the charges
> against you.

Now on to the meatier examples:

1. The library rule will be overturned. Luckily, it's so unworkable,
in practice, that it is not used.

2. I hadn't heard that US citizens could have their homes searched
without due process. Are you referring to wire tapping overseas phone
calls?

3. I hadn't head that US citizens could be held without charges being
brought.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

| 4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has proven
to be a "bad
| thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common
sense" category.
|
Mr. Dillon, Mr. Dillon, the outlaws are going to rob the
stage when it gets out of town, what should we do?
Take the guns away from the passengers to avoid violence.


A very few people ever carried weapons on airliners, an even
smaller number hijacked airplanes to Cuba. The government
banned guns on airliners. That ban made 9/11 easy and
possible since any weapon, even box cutters [which were
legal at the time] to take over the airplane.

If weapons, per se were evil, why does having an armed air
marshal work?



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ps.com...
|> > What rights have I lost due to anything done in the War
on Terror?
| >
| > The right to fly over your nation's capital. The right
to fly past the
| > Space Shuttle when it is not being launched. The right
to carry Napa
| > and Sonoma wine home in your carry-on baggage. The
right to carry a
| > swiss army knife on an airliner (or anywhere, and forget
about it when
| > you board an airliner).
|
| Let's take the silly ones first:
|
| 1. I recently flew over Washington, DC. It was
bone-simple.
|
| 2. With only a few airworthy space shuttles left -- and a
political
| climate that makes replacing them impossible -- I see
nothing wrong
| with restricting the airspace around Cape Canaveral.
|
| 3. I'm sure I can buy wine anywhere.
|
| 4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has proven
to be a "bad
| thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common
sense" category.
|
| > The right to read what you want in a public
| > library without disclosing that action to the
government. The right to
| > be free in one's homes, telephones, computers, internet,
and private
| > life from search. The right to face your accusers and
know the charges
| > against you.
|
| Now on to the meatier examples:
|
| 1. The library rule will be overturned. Luckily, it's so
unworkable,
| in practice, that it is not used.
|
| 2. I hadn't heard that US citizens could have their homes
searched
| without due process. Are you referring to wire tapping
overseas phone
| calls?
|
| 3. I hadn't head that US citizens could be held without
charges being
| brought.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

On 14 Nov 2006 07:59:14 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has proven to be a "bad
>thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common sense" category.

No, letting only SOME people carry weapons on airliners has proven a
bad thing, letting EVERYONE go armed has not.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

Newps writes:

> Nice answer. You made the allegation now support it. And I have talked
> to the Secret Service, two weeks ago when they were up in the tower for
> Bush's arrival and two weeks before that for Cheneys arrival. You are
> full of crap.

You don't know what you've lost until it's gone, and sometimes even
then it takes a while to discover it. But you can't get it back.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Nice answer. You made the allegation now support it. And I have talked
>>to the Secret Service, two weeks ago when they were up in the tower for
>>Bush's arrival and two weeks before that for Cheneys arrival. You are
>>full of crap.
>
>
> You don't know what you've lost until it's gone, and sometimes even
> then it takes a while to discover it. But you can't get it back.

So a non answer. Beautiful. Got any other drivel you'd like to spew?

> Let's take the silly ones first:

No freedoms are silly when they are taken away.

> 1. I recently flew over Washington, DC. It was bone-simple.

Did you really? I just got off the phone with the Leesburg FSS to check
my info. They tell me that ABSOLUTELY NO VFR flight is permitted in the
FRZ, except for based aircraft whose pilots have undergone a background
check, received a PIN number for that flight, received permission for
conducting that flight, and have previously visited the airport (there's
one in particular, but I didn't ask) IN PERSON to make application,
which means driving in the first time. This is not "bone simple".

IFR flight is not permitted either, unless one is going into National,
and in that case you must land outside the ADIZ and pick up an armed
flight marshall who will fly aboard your aircraft while you fly into the
FRZ.

I remember you made a big deal out of going to Dulles, for a special
event where the way was paved for you. But that's not the same as
flying over the Nation's Capital. Washington DC is =inside= the FRZ.

So, tell me. What exactly =did= you do?

> 2. With only a few airworthy space shuttles left -- and a political
> climate that makes replacing them impossible -- I see nothing wrong
> with restricting the airspace around Cape Canaveral.

Why? Perhaps a little one mile ring to keep people who can't maneuver
an airplane with that degree of precision away, but if you think this
keeps intentional harm away from the complex, that is laughable.

> 3. I'm sure I can buy wine anywhere.

So what? The freedom to carry =my= wine in =my= carry-on is not a silly
freedom. Besides, many of the wines one can get in California are not
available anywhere else. There just isn't enough made. I don't want
the government telling me what wine I can drink, which is what
effectively happens.

I guess you wouldn't understand though. You drink beer. :)

The wine rule came about because wine is a liquid, and somebody tried to
use liquid explosive. Ever played with powdered sugar around a heat
source?

> 4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has proven to be a "bad
> thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common sense" category.

People carrying weapons is not a Bad Thing. It is only when Bad people
carry weapons where Good people can't that it's a Bad Thing. And a
Swiss Army Knife is not a weapon, except in the sense that anything can
be used as one (including a pencil).

The PA airliner didn't make it to the White House because Good People
fought the terrorists back. The solution is to keep weapons away from
Good People. Hmmm. Common sense?

> Now on to the meatier examples:
> 1. The library rule will be overturned. Luckily, it's so unworkable,
> in practice, that it is not used.

Really? You must get more use out of your time machine than you do out
of the Pathfinder. I don't see any reason for the government to
overturn the library rule, and it's the government that made it. All
they have to do is keep quiet about it. As it is, most people aren't
aware of it, and many that are are of the opinion that "if you aren't
reading anything bad, you have nothing to worry about."

How do you know that the library rule is not used? Part of the rule is
that the librarians are NOT ALLOWED TO SAY when it's been used.

> 2. I hadn't heard that US citizens could have their homes searched
> without due process. Are you referring to wire tapping overseas phone
> calls?

Anybody can have their homes searched without due process if the feds
use the magic words "national security". I'm also referring to aspects
of "home" that are not geographical, such as the contents of your hard
drive (which may be seized and searched if you try to bring a laptop on
an airliner), the expanded wiretapping and internet tapping
surveillance, and other tramplings of what we once considered private.
These measures are being pushed through without much resistance, in the
name of National Security. Each one passed makes it easier to pass the
next one.

> 3. I hadn't head that US citizens could be held without charges being
> brought.

If the charges are based on National Security, the government could deem
them too secret to present to you. I have no first-hand experience with
this, but I am no longer convinced that we are not all vulnerable to it.

We're going to win the war on terrorism just like we won the war on drugs.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Nov 13, 2:49 am, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

> Iran has won, why
> would they change now?

Iran is in its present position of strength (but not by a long shot
could it be called a winning position) because the Neocons decided to
go after a man and a country that presented no real threat to the US.
The idea that Saddam Hussein (an atheist socialist!) could have even
wanted to help Osama bin Laden (a religious fanatic) is a joke that
only the Neocons didn't get. Ironic, but true.

They ignored Iran (already presenting a threat - its nuclear program is
not new) and North Korea (ditto), and put 90% of the US military's
might into Iraq (with disastrous consequences for all involved, but
that's another story). Any 2nd-amendment-supporting red-blooded
Americans who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq need to
re-examine their (no doubt default) patriotism, because going into Iraq
was _not_ in the best interests of this country - economic, diplomatic,
military, or otherwise. We've succeeded in weakening our military
position in the world, we've alienated allies, we've ****ed the
national budget, and we've left ourselves exposed to nuclear threats
from countries that we could've taken care of in a second if we hadn't
wasted all that time, money, and human life in Iraq.

Could bin Laden have wished for anything more? If what the Neocons have
done isn't treason, then nothing is. George Bush may as well have taken
a list of demands from bin Laden, bowed his head, and said, "It shall
be done."

> Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous and
> soon we will have a real world war being fought with nuclear
> weapons and chemicals.

That's not true - terrorism hasn't won. What would it mean for
terrorism to win, anyway? True, bin Laden has played Bush, the Neocons,
and the right in general like a piano and gotten much of what he
wanted. But you can't argue that you haven't lost any rights and say
terrorism has won - it's a contradiction. You've got most of your
rights, and you're right in believing that the fact that you're a white
male protects you from the consequences of the rights you are losing.
Unless a white male does something really stupid, like get caught
fighting alongside the Taliban, there's no way the US government will
lock him up and throw away the key. Only a major change will threaten
your inalienable right as a white male to be given preferential
treatment by the US govt. But you're arguing that a major change is
happening.

So maybe you _should_ be worried.

Marc

"Jose" > wrote in message
...
>> Let's take the silly ones first:
>
> No freedoms are silly when they are taken away.
>
>> 1. I recently flew over Washington, DC. It was bone-simple.

>Did you really? I just got off the phone with the Leesburg FSS to check my
>info. They tell me that ABSOLUTELY NO VFR flight is permitted in the FRZ,
>except >for based aircraft whose pilots have undergone a background check,
>received a PIN number for that flight, received permission for conducting
>that flight, and have >previously visited the airport (there's one in
>particular, but I didn't ask) IN PERSON to make application, which means
>driving in the first time. This is not "bone >simple".

>IFR flight is not permitted either, unless one is going into National, and
>in that case you must land outside the ADIZ and pick up an armed flight
>marshall who will >fly aboard your aircraft while you fly into the FRZ.
>
>I remember you made a big deal out of going to Dulles, for a special event
>where the way was paved for you. But that's not the same as flying over
>the Nation's >Capital. Washington DC is =inside= the FRZ.
>

<SNIP>

AFAIK, the Capitol and the White House have always been under a P-XXXX
designation, have they not?

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

> AFAIK, the Capitol and the White House have always been under a P-XXXX
> designation, have they not?

Yes, there are teeny prohibited areas around those two buildings. The
rest of our Captal was unencubered until we got the Class Bravo. Even
then, all it required was a clearance, just like around any large airport.

The FRZ is thirty miles across, and covers the entire city.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> AFAIK, the Capitol and the White House have always been under a P-XXXX
>> designation, have they not?
>
> Yes, there are teeny prohibited areas around those two buildings. The
> rest of our Captal was unencubered until we got the Class Bravo. Even
> then, all it required was a clearance, just like around any large airport.
>
> The FRZ is thirty miles across, and covers the entire city.
>
> Jose

Point made...

Jay B

> I remember you made a big deal out of going to Dulles, for a special
> event where the way was paved for you. But that's not the same as
> flying over the Nation's Capital. Washington DC is =inside= the FRZ.

Well, the way into the Washington ADIZ wasn't paved for us -- we had to
do everything by the book. It took ten minutes, tops, and was no more
difficult than filing any other kind of flight plan.

Now, if you're talking about flying over the White House or the
National Mall, well, duh.

> > 2. With only a few airworthy space shuttles left -- and a political
> > climate that makes replacing them impossible -- I see nothing wrong
> > with restricting the airspace around Cape Canaveral.
>
> Why? Perhaps a little one mile ring to keep people who can't maneuver
> an airplane with that degree of precision away, but if you think this
> keeps intentional harm away from the complex, that is laughable.

You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone around the
Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a no-fly zone
is appropriate?

> > 3. I'm sure I can buy wine anywhere.
>
> So what? The freedom to carry =my= wine in =my= carry-on is not a silly
> freedom.

Yes, it is. And it's just another impetus to spur the growth of GA, in
any case.

> Besides, many of the wines one can get in California are not
> available anywhere else. There just isn't enough made. I don't want
> the government telling me what wine I can drink, which is what
> effectively happens.

And if a terrorist smuggles four "bottles" of explosives on the plane,
killing everyone on board, well, that's just acceptable collateral
damage? After all, your merlot was an excellent year!

Gimme a break.

> I guess you wouldn't understand though. You drink beer. :)

Exactly. ;-)

> The wine rule came about because wine is a liquid, and somebody tried to
> use liquid explosive. Ever played with powdered sugar around a heat
> source?

Not recently.

> > 4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has proven to be a "bad
> > thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common sense" category.
>
> People carrying weapons is not a Bad Thing. It is only when Bad people
> carry weapons where Good people can't that it's a Bad Thing. And a
> Swiss Army Knife is not a weapon, except in the sense that anything can
> be used as one (including a pencil).
>
> The PA airliner didn't make it to the White House because Good People
> fought the terrorists back. The solution is to keep weapons away from
> Good People. Hmmm. Common sense?

No, the solution is to make all airline passengers fly naked. I'd fly
on THAT airline.

;-)

> > 1. The library rule will be overturned. Luckily, it's so unworkable,
> > in practice, that it is not used.
>
> Really? You must get more use out of your time machine than you do out
> of the Pathfinder. I don't see any reason for the government to
> overturn the library rule, and it's the government that made it. All
> they have to do is keep quiet about it. As it is, most people aren't
> aware of it, and many that are are of the opinion that "if you aren't
> reading anything bad, you have nothing to worry about."
>
> How do you know that the library rule is not used? Part of the rule is
> that the librarians are NOT ALLOWED TO SAY when it's been used.

Because the librarians around here protested it when it first was
announced, and declared that it would not be followed. Remember, Iowa
City has gone so far as to declare itself to be a "Nuclear Weapons-Free
Zone", and is the only city in America to elect a card-carrying member
of the communist party.

No one rounded up the librarians when they said that, and no one will.
It's a dumb, unenforceable, unworkable law, that will fall by the
wayside like the 200,000 other stupid laws we've got on the books that
no one obeys.

> > 2. I hadn't heard that US citizens could have their homes searched
> > without due process. Are you referring to wire tapping overseas phone
> > calls?
>
> Anybody can have their homes searched without due process if the feds
> use the magic words "national security". I'm also referring to aspects
> of "home" that are not geographical, such as the contents of your hard
> drive (which may be seized and searched if you try to bring a laptop on
> an airliner), the expanded wiretapping and internet tapping
> surveillance, and other tramplings of what we once considered private.
> These measures are being pushed through without much resistance, in the
> name of National Security. Each one passed makes it easier to pass the
> next one.
>
> > 3. I hadn't head that US citizens could be held without charges being
> > brought.
>
> If the charges are based on National Security, the government could deem
> them too secret to present to you. I have no first-hand experience with
> this, but I am no longer convinced that we are not all vulnerable to it.
>
> We're going to win the war on terrorism just like we won the war on drugs.

You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative responses that
make any more sense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.


"Marc Adler" > wrote in message
ups.com...
| On Nov 13, 2:49 am, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| > Iran has won, why
| > would they change now?
|
| Iran is in its present position of strength (but not by a
long shot
| could it be called a winning position) because the Neocons
decided to
| go after a man and a country that presented no real threat
to the US.
| The idea that Saddam Hussein (an atheist socialist!) could
have even
| wanted to help Osama bin Laden (a religious fanatic) is a
joke that
| only the Neocons didn't get. Ironic, but true.
|
| They ignored Iran (already presenting a threat - its
nuclear program is
| not new) and North Korea (ditto), and put 90% of the US
military's
| might into Iraq (with disastrous consequences for all
involved, but
| that's another story). Any 2nd-amendment-supporting
red-blooded
| Americans who supported the invasion and occupation of
Iraq need to
| re-examine their (no doubt default) patriotism, because
going into Iraq
| was _not_ in the best interests of this country -
economic, diplomatic,
| military, or otherwise. We've succeeded in weakening our
military
| position in the world, we've alienated allies, we've
****ed the
| national budget, and we've left ourselves exposed to
nuclear threats
| from countries that we could've taken care of in a second
if we hadn't
| wasted all that time, money, and human life in Iraq.
|
| Could bin Laden have wished for anything more? If what the
Neocons have
| done isn't treason, then nothing is. George Bush may as
well have taken
| a list of demands from bin Laden, bowed his head, and
said, "It shall
| be done."
|
| > Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous
and
| > soon we will have a real world war being fought with
nuclear
| > weapons and chemicals.
|
| That's not true - terrorism hasn't won. What would it mean
for
| terrorism to win, anyway? True, bin Laden has played Bush,
the Neocons,
| and the right in general like a piano and gotten much of
what he
| wanted. But you can't argue that you haven't lost any
rights and say
| terrorism has won - it's a contradiction. You've got most
of your
| rights, and you're right in believing that the fact that
you're a white
| male protects you from the consequences of the rights you
are losing.
| Unless a white male does something really stupid, like get
caught
| fighting alongside the Taliban, there's no way the US
government will
| lock him up and throw away the key. Only a major change
will threaten
| your inalienable right as a white male to be given
preferential
| treatment by the US govt. But you're arguing that a major
change is
| happening.
|
| So maybe you _should_ be worried.
|
| Marc
|

Why not have all airline passengers fly sedated and strapped
in a straight jacket?

Or arm all pilots and passengers, search for bombs and
profile passengers to fins and screen the known risks.

But actually looking for a Muslim terrorist is some how
religious intolerance. It seems that when there is a bank
robbery and the media reports a white man, with a beard,
5-10-6 feet wearing a T-shirt and ball cap, or a Hispanic
male as the suspect it's is OK, but when they don't report a
description, we "know" it was a black man.

Airplane hijacked by little white haired lady with knitting
needles, we know it was a woman. But if they say riots in
Paris, cars burned, police station burned by "youths" we
know it was Muslim youthful terrorist wannabes.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> I remember you made a big deal out of going to Dulles,
for a special
| > event where the way was paved for you. But that's not
the same as
| > flying over the Nation's Capital. Washington DC is
=inside= the FRZ.
|
| Well, the way into the Washington ADIZ wasn't paved for
us -- we had to
| do everything by the book. It took ten minutes, tops, and
was no more
| difficult than filing any other kind of flight plan.
|
| Now, if you're talking about flying over the White House
or the
| National Mall, well, duh.
|
| > > 2. With only a few airworthy space shuttles left --
and a political
| > > climate that makes replacing them impossible -- I see
nothing wrong
| > > with restricting the airspace around Cape Canaveral.
| >
| > Why? Perhaps a little one mile ring to keep people who
can't maneuver
| > an airplane with that degree of precision away, but if
you think this
| > keeps intentional harm away from the complex, that is
laughable.
|
| You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone
around the
| Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a
no-fly zone
| is appropriate?
|
| > > 3. I'm sure I can buy wine anywhere.
| >
| > So what? The freedom to carry =my= wine in =my=
carry-on is not a silly
| > freedom.
|
| Yes, it is. And it's just another impetus to spur the
growth of GA, in
| any case.
|
| > Besides, many of the wines one can get in California are
not
| > available anywhere else. There just isn't enough made.
I don't want
| > the government telling me what wine I can drink, which
is what
| > effectively happens.
|
| And if a terrorist smuggles four "bottles" of explosives
on the plane,
| killing everyone on board, well, that's just acceptable
collateral
| damage? After all, your merlot was an excellent year!
|
| Gimme a break.
|
| > I guess you wouldn't understand though. You drink beer.
:)
|
| Exactly. ;-)
|
| > The wine rule came about because wine is a liquid, and
somebody tried to
| > use liquid explosive. Ever played with powdered sugar
around a heat
| > source?
|
| Not recently.
|
| > > 4. Letting people carry weapons on an airliner has
proven to be a "bad
| > > thing." I believe this restriction is in the "common
sense" category.
| >
| > People carrying weapons is not a Bad Thing. It is only
when Bad people
| > carry weapons where Good people can't that it's a Bad
Thing. And a
| > Swiss Army Knife is not a weapon, except in the sense
that anything can
| > be used as one (including a pencil).
| >
| > The PA airliner didn't make it to the White House
because Good People
| > fought the terrorists back. The solution is to keep
weapons away from
| > Good People. Hmmm. Common sense?
|
| No, the solution is to make all airline passengers fly
naked. I'd fly
| on THAT airline.
|
| ;-)
|
| > > 1. The library rule will be overturned. Luckily, it's
so unworkable,
| > > in practice, that it is not used.
| >
| > Really? You must get more use out of your time machine
than you do out
| > of the Pathfinder. I don't see any reason for the
government to
| > overturn the library rule, and it's the government that
made it. All
| > they have to do is keep quiet about it. As it is, most
people aren't
| > aware of it, and many that are are of the opinion that
"if you aren't
| > reading anything bad, you have nothing to worry about."
| >
| > How do you know that the library rule is not used? Part
of the rule is
| > that the librarians are NOT ALLOWED TO SAY when it's
been used.
|
| Because the librarians around here protested it when it
first was
| announced, and declared that it would not be followed.
Remember, Iowa
| City has gone so far as to declare itself to be a "Nuclear
Weapons-Free
| Zone", and is the only city in America to elect a
card-carrying member
| of the communist party.
|
| No one rounded up the librarians when they said that, and
no one will.
| It's a dumb, unenforceable, unworkable law, that will fall
by the
| wayside like the 200,000 other stupid laws we've got on
the books that
| no one obeys.
|
| > > 2. I hadn't heard that US citizens could have their
homes searched
| > > without due process. Are you referring to wire
tapping overseas phone
| > > calls?
| >
| > Anybody can have their homes searched without due
process if the feds
| > use the magic words "national security". I'm also
referring to aspects
| > of "home" that are not geographical, such as the
contents of your hard
| > drive (which may be seized and searched if you try to
bring a laptop on
| > an airliner), the expanded wiretapping and internet
tapping
| > surveillance, and other tramplings of what we once
considered private.
| > These measures are being pushed through without much
resistance, in the
| > name of National Security. Each one passed makes it
easier to pass the
| > next one.
| >
| > > 3. I hadn't head that US citizens could be held
without charges being
| > > brought.
| >
| > If the charges are based on National Security, the
government could deem
| > them too secret to present to you. I have no first-hand
experience with
| > this, but I am no longer convinced that we are not all
vulnerable to it.
| >
| > We're going to win the war on terrorism just like we won
the war on drugs.
|
| You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative
responses that
| make any more sense.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|
|

On Nov 14, 5:18 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

> And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
> to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
> regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
> war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
> Congress.

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans. The Republicans had their turn,
made a mess of it, and now the Democrats are at the plate. They won't
do any better, but in any case this kind of partisan political debate
isn't useful. People seem more interested in defeating the other party
(whichever that may be) than defeating the forces that are against the
US.

> Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
> a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
> President?

Sounds pretty paranoid. There aren't going to be any attacks in a few
weeks.

> BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
> since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
> war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
> support.

Nothing wrong with that.

Marc

> Well, the way into the Washington ADIZ

The Washington ADIZ is not over our Capital. I have been in the ADIZ
many times. There's nothing under it but trees and suburbs.

We have lost the freedom to fly over our Capital. This is strictly
9-11. For a long time we lost the freedom to fly over NY and Boston. I
won't even talk about Chicago.

> You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone around the
> Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a no-fly zone
> is appropriate?

The teeny ones that existed prior to 9-11 were appropriate.

>>The freedom to carry =my= wine in =my= carry-on is not a silly
>> freedom.
> Yes, it is.

There are no silly freedoms. What if it were beer?

> And if a terrorist smuggles four "bottles" of explosives on the plane,
> killing everyone on board, well, that's just acceptable collateral
> damage? After all, your merlot was an excellent year!

"If only one child is saved...". Yes, it's acceptable collateral
damage. Goddamnit, LIVING is risky. You think the terrorists can't
figure out another way? Gimme a break.

>>Ever played with powdered sugar around a heat source?
> Not recently.

It's an explosive. Somebody will try it, and powders will be banned.
Pretty soon we'll all fly naked in handcuffs.

> I'd fly on THAT airline.

Somebody might pick their nose. :)

> No one rounded up the librarians when they said that, and no one will.

No. But they will ask a librarian for records, and she will comply or
not. If she refuses, she'll go to jail. If she breaks the secret,
she'll go to jail. It is not at all unenforcable. It is only needed
sometimes, and those times you can be sure it will be enforced.

>>We're going to win the war on terrorism just like we won the war on drugs.
> You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative responses that
> make any more sense.

Accept the fact that life is risky. Accept the fact that freedom is
lost long before security is gained. Go from there. Somewhere in your
Holy Book there is a passage on that; something to do with cheeks. :)

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Nov 14, 5:29 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

> But if they say riots in
> Paris, cars burned, police station burned by "youths" we
> know it was Muslim youthful terrorist wannabes.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that's going to lose this war.

Doesn't anybody realize anymore that it takes intelligence (as in
"smarts" not "information") and not just expensive machinery to win a
war?

The day patriotism and nuanced thinking are mutually exclusive is the
day we really will have lost.

Anyway, none of this has to do with flying. I'm outta this thread.....

Marc

Jay Honeck writes:

> You don't think it's appropriate to have a no-fly zone around the
> Kennedy Space Center? Tell me, Jose, where DO you think a no-fly zone
> is appropriate?

Wherever there are other things in the air that can cause conflicts,
such as balloons, projectiles (for military practice), and so on.

Just forbidding overflight out of concerns about "terrorists" isn't
justified, at least not as long as they can still drive into the area
in vehicles or navigate into it with boats.

> No, the solution is to make all airline passengers fly naked. I'd fly
> on THAT airline.

No, the solution is to profile and interrogate passengers, rather than
search their luggage. It's not what they are carrying that counts,
it's what they intend to do with it.

> You may be right, but I haven't heard any alternative responses that
> make any more sense.

There are many alternatives, such as the ones I've mentioned above.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jose writes:

> No. But they will ask a librarian for records, and she will comply or
> not. If she refuses, she'll go to jail. If she breaks the secret,
> she'll go to jail. It is not at all unenforcable. It is only needed
> sometimes, and those times you can be sure it will be enforced.

I've heard of libraries that regularly announce that they haven't been
told to provide records (which is legal). One day they stop
announcing that, and you know that the government demanded someone's
records.

> Accept the fact that life is risky. Accept the fact that freedom is
> lost long before security is gained.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Fear is routinely used
to undermine freedom.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Jim Macklin > posted:

> And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
> to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
> regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
> war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
> Congress.
>
> Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
> a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
> President?
>
> BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
> since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
> war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
> support.
>
You do realize that it's dangerous to fly with that stuff you're drinking,
don't you?

Neil

Truth serum?



"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
> posted:
|
| > And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the
Democrats
| > to support the President and the troops took a back seat
to
| > regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost
the
| > war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
| > Congress.
| >
| > Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here
in
| > a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
| > President?
| >
| > BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless
office
| > since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can
fight a
| > war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
| > support.
| >
| You do realize that it's dangerous to fly with that stuff
you're drinking,
| don't you?
|
| Neil
|
|

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Then aviation will never return to pre-9/11 status, as the war on
> terror is an illusory one that can be sustained indefinitely, like the
> war on Eastasia or Eurasia. Of course, that was the idea all along.
>
> > Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
> > power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
>
> Politicians in general never return power unless forced to do so, no
> matter what their party affiliation.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
the time. And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
every day.

Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.

Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
the Democrats here.

Skylune out.

Skylune writes:

> Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
> might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
> attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
> the time.

Those attacks were much more damaging psychologically than in any
other way, which was precisely the intent. Terrorists don't have the
means to do much real damage, so they have to settle for spectacular
and isolated incidents and rely on the resulting hysteria to do their
work for them. If they had the means to do real damage themselves,
they'd be military forces, not terrorists. Organizations with
established military forces don't need terrorists.

> And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
> every day.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in the United States since
2001?

> Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
> these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.

I wish that were true.

> Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
> there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
> the Democrats here.

The flavors of censorship are different, but the trends are
unfortunately the same. But the people are kept afraid, so that they
never question the loss of liberty.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler" >
wrote:

>
>I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
>of govt were dominated by Republicans.

To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
being President Bush.

In the Congress, the GOP did control the House, but has never had a
working majority in the Senate. They did get to chair committees, but
there were always enough RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) like Snow,
Chafee, Hagel and others on any issue to prevent a successful
legislative agenda in Congress.

Likewise, thought a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court were
appointed by Republicans, most were confirmed by Democrat controlled
Senates and previous Presidents didn't even try, after Bork, to
appoint a Justice who stuck to original intent in interpreting the
Constitution as that does not pass the Democrat litmus test on Roe V
Wade. (You could argue whether the principles of Roe are correct, but
there is no rational argument that the decision was not legislation
from the bench) So, in effect, only Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts
are Justices as the GOP would choose them. The rest are either far
left liberals like Ginsburg or White or RINO justices like Souter and
Kennedy. There has never been an original intent Supreme Court in our
lifetimes.

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Recently, Don Tabor > posted:

> On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler" >
> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
>> of govt were dominated by Republicans.
>
> To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
> being President Bush.
>
[...]
>
> So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
> hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.
>
Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

Neil

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:58:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote:

>> So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
>> hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.
>>
>Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
>even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

No one's policies got implemented. Hardly anything at all has gotten
done other than bipartisan pork barrel spending.

Go ahead, name one major domestic program change since the original
tax cuts.

Social Security Reform died. Renewed offshore and inshore oil
exploration blocked. Medicare reform replaced by a prescription drug
program that was more than the GOP wanted but less than they feared
Dems might get if they didn't pass it. Fundamental tax reform studied
to death and nothing done.

The last 4 years have been little more than housekeeping with no major
programs advanced beyond committee.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Don Tabor > posted:
>
>> On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler" >
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
>>> of govt were dominated by Republicans.
>>
>> To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
>> being President Bush.
>>
> [...]
>>
>> So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
>> hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.
>>
> Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
> even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.
>
> Neil
>
>

A *******ization of the two which is pretty much what our government has
been since, well, forever.

"DonSideB" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:58:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote:
>
>>> So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
>>> hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.
>>>
>>Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
>>even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.
>
> No one's policies got implemented. Hardly anything at all has gotten
> done other than bipartisan pork barrel spending.
>
> Go ahead, name one major domestic program change since the original
> tax cuts.
>
> Social Security Reform died. Renewed offshore and inshore oil
> exploration blocked. Medicare reform replaced by a prescription drug
> program that was more than the GOP wanted but less than they feared
> Dems might get if they didn't pass it. Fundamental tax reform studied
> to death and nothing done.
>
> The last 4 years have been little more than housekeeping with no major
> programs advanced beyond committee.
>
> Don


And this is a good thing. For an even better example look at the majority of
the Clinton administration. Dem in the White House and a mixed Congress.
Nothing major got passed and no one was really worried about anything
getting passed. The country had a great time and rode the dot com bubble for
about as long as any bubble could ever hold together.

Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more laws?

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

>Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more laws?

Yes, HR 25

Don

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>>Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
>>laws?
>
> Yes, HR 25
>
> Don
>
>

Don't hold your breath.

Isn't that the Fair Tax bill?



"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
| <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
|
| >Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really
need any more laws?
|
| Yes, HR 25
|
| Don
|
|

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
> laws?

It's what I've been saying for a long time -- laws should automatically
expire after a year and the politicians should have to debate and pass
them again if they want them to be renewed... At the very least, it should
keep them busy enough that only the important ones are kept around and
they have less time to come up with new bull**** ones... Sometimes, the
best thing that the legislature can do is do nothing...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:51:16 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>Isn't that the Fair Tax bill?
>


Yes, it is. www.FairTax.org I am the State Director for Virginia for
the AFFT volunteers.

It would fix so many things that are wrong well beyond the tax system
itself.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

It is now at least 28 months away and more if the voters
don't turn out the Democrats in 2008.


"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:51:16 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >Isn't that the Fair Tax bill?
| >
|
|
| Yes, it is. www.FairTax.org I am the State Director for
Virginia for
| the AFFT volunteers.
|
| It would fix so many things that are wrong well beyond the
tax system
| itself.
|
| Don
|
|
| Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
| "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:00:48 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:

>It is now at least 28 months away and more if the voters
>don't turn out the Democrats in 2008.

Actually, if we can get the Dems to take a serious look at it, the
FairTax has much to offer from their perspective. Unlike the current
system, which places a hidden tax burden of 28.34% on the backs of the
working poor (7.65% FICA plus 22.4% loss of purchasing power of the
remainder of their income), the FairTax truly untaxes the poor.

It will also recover many of the outsourced manufacturing jobs their
union workers are losing.

I would not be a bit surprised to see the Dems rename it and make it
their own.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

I heard an interesting argument a few years ago that the primary purpose of
the tax laws in America is to redistribute wealth, which is of course
obvious. But the second is much more subtle: To keep people from ever
figuring out how much they pay. I have this discussion with my kids. I ask
them to tell me how much they are paying in taxes, and we look at things
like receipts and cell phone bills. Then I tell them about property taxes,
income taxes, excise taxes and the like. If the people ever really figured
out what they paid to the government, there would be another revolution.

> Actually, if we can get the Dems to take a serious look at it, the
> FairTax has much to offer from their perspective. Unlike the current
> system, which places a hidden tax burden of 28.34% on the backs of the
> working poor (7.65% FICA plus 22.4% loss of purchasing power of the
> remainder of their income), the FairTax truly untaxes the poor.
>
> It will also recover many of the outsourced manufacturing jobs their
> union workers are losing.
>
> I would not be a bit surprised to see the Dems rename it and make it
> their own.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
> "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:49:35 -0500, "LWG" >
wrote:

>I heard an interesting argument a few years ago that the primary purpose of
>the tax laws in America is to redistribute wealth, which is of course
>obvious. But the second is much more subtle: To keep people from ever
>figuring out how much they pay. I have this discussion with my kids. I ask
>them to tell me how much they are paying in taxes, and we look at things
>like receipts and cell phone bills. Then I tell them about property taxes,
>income taxes, excise taxes and the like. If the people ever really figured
>out what they paid to the government, there would be another revolution.

Its worse than you think.

It's too easy to get hung up on who writes the check to the government
and miss where the burden really falls. Keep in mind that the real
burden is on the person who has to trade more of his life and labor
for what he needs.

By far the largest tax burden any of us bears is the tax component
hidden in the price of goods and services. No business, or individual,
has a money tree from which to pluck his tax dollars. Every dime
income tax on businesses or individuals is passed on down the chain of
production to add to the price of whatever is being sold. That is our
true tax burden, the loss of purchasing power when we buy what we
need. On average, that is 22.4% for Federal. Add in State and local
and the real tax burden, hidden in the price of goods and services, is
between 40% and 48%. And it is 100% regressive, applied to the first
dollar of income, no exemptions, no deductions.

And yeah, if people had the economic savvy to see that, there would be
another revolution.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

The Dems don't care a whit about the poor, they just want
their votes. To that end the current tax system is tweaked
to transfer money to the poor. That is why the "rich" [read
college grads with jobs] pay 75% of the revenue and the poor
pay less than 10%.


"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:00:48 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
|
| >It is now at least 28 months away and more if the voters
| >don't turn out the Democrats in 2008.
|
| Actually, if we can get the Dems to take a serious look at
it, the
| FairTax has much to offer from their perspective. Unlike
the current
| system, which places a hidden tax burden of 28.34% on the
backs of the
| working poor (7.65% FICA plus 22.4% loss of purchasing
power of the
| remainder of their income), the FairTax truly untaxes the
poor.
|
| It will also recover many of the outsourced manufacturing
jobs their
| union workers are losing.
|
| I would not be a bit surprised to see the Dems rename it
and make it
| their own.
|
| Don
|
|
|
| Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
| "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more laws?

276?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

> laws should automatically
> expire after a year and the politicians should have to debate and pass
> them again if they want them to be renewed...

They'll happily do that on our dime.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> I ask [my kids]
> to tell me how much they are paying in taxes, and we look at things
> like receipts and cell phone bills. Then I tell them about property taxes,
> income taxes, excise taxes and the like. If the people ever really figured
> out what they paid to the government, there would be another revolution.

Actually, inflation creates many of the taxes by itself. If you buy an
investment property (or stock or gold or anything), and inflation
happens, then even if that property has not changed its value with
respect to salaries, bread, land, and other "cost of living" things, it
will have gone up in price. When you sell, you reap what is erroniously
called a "capital gain", even though you haven't gained anything. It
should more correctly be called a "Capitol gain". You get more dollars,
but you need more dollars to pay the same rent.

If you just keep your dollars, their value goes down. If you put your
dollars in the bank, you get interest (to keep up with inflation) but
you get taxed on the interest. The way out of it is to simply do all
your financial transactions directly in gold.

That's against the law. I wonder why.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 04:24:38 +0000, Jose wrote:
> They'll happily do that on our dime.

Well, we're paying them the same whether they come up with new laws or
they do nothing... I'm enough of a realist to know that in many cases, the
best we can hope for is for them to accomplish *nothing*... I'm sure that
there are quite a few thousand laws on the books that really don't need to
be there...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:10:54 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote:

>It's what I've been saying for a long time -- laws should automatically
>expire after a year and the politicians should have to debate and pass
>them again if they want them to be renewed... At the very least, it should
>keep them busy enough that only the important ones are kept around and
>they have less time to come up with new bull**** ones... Sometimes, the
>best thing that the legislature can do is do nothing...

I was thinking that the best way would be a word limit. Say, a million
words of law at the State level, the same for local, and perhaps half
a million words of law at the Federal level.

That way, if they want to pass a new law after the limit is reached,
they have to find something else to remove.

Don

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...

>>
>> Social Security Reform died. Renewed offshore and inshore oil
>> exploration blocked. Medicare reform replaced by a prescription drug
>> program that was more than the GOP wanted but less than they feared
>> Dems might get if they didn't pass it. Fundamental tax reform studied
>> to death and nothing done.
>>
>> The last 4 years have been little more than housekeeping with no major
>> programs advanced beyond committee.
>>
>> Don
>
>
> And this is a good thing.

Not fixing broken **** is a "good thing"?

Okay, but next time I hear you bitching....

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:40:37 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
>> laws?
>
> It's what I've been saying for a long time -- laws should automatically
> expire after a year and the politicians should have to debate and pass
> them again if they want them to be renewed... At the very least, it should
> keep them busy enough that only the important ones are kept around and
> they have less time to come up with new bull**** ones... Sometimes, the
> best thing that the legislature can do is do nothing...
>
> --
> "Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"
>

I understand where you are coming from with that but there is one
significant problem. The country would become so unpredictable that no
business could function. The economy likes stability. The founding fathers
did not design the system to include a full time legislature. They need to
meet for a limited time every year and then get the hell back to the real
world.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
>> laws?
>
> 276?
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

236.. I was doing the math in my head and thinking of 76.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
>>> laws?
>>
>> 276?
>>
>> --
>> Bob Noel
>> Looking for a sig the
>> lawyers will hate
>>
>
> 236.. I was doing the math in my head and thinking of 76.
>

230 that time I still had the 6 in my head.

> That way, if they want to pass a new law after the limit is reached,
> they have to find something else to remove.

A verb, Senator! We need a verb!

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
>>> laws?
>>
>> 276?
>>
>> --
>> Bob Noel
>> Looking for a sig the
>> lawyers will hate
>>
>
> 236.. I was doing the math in my head and thinking of 76.
Well, you're still wrong; it's 230.

Get a cheap calculator...or a pencil and paper.

Hell, use your fingers and toes.

:>~

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Let's face it, the country is 276 years old do we really need any more
>>>> laws?
>>>
>>> 276?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Bob Noel
>>> Looking for a sig the
>>> lawyers will hate
>>>
>>
>> 236.. I was doing the math in my head and thinking of 76.
> Well, you're still wrong; it's 230.
>
> Get a cheap calculator...or a pencil and paper.
>
> Hell, use your fingers and toes.
>
> :>~

please note that I made the correction to 230 right after I sent that post.

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> 230 that time I still had the 6 in my head.

:-)

ya know I was just having a little fun....

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

The top fifty percent of wage earners pay 97% of the total amount of federal
income tax collected. That's after Bush's tax cuts for "the rich." Before,
the top fifty percent of wage earners paid only 95%.


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> The Dems don't care a whit about the poor, they just want
> their votes. To that end the current tax system is tweaked
> to transfer money to the poor. That is why the "rich" [read
> college grads with jobs] pay 75% of the revenue and the poor
> pay less than 10%.
>
>

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..
> The top fifty percent of wage earners pay 97% of the total amount of
> federal income tax collected. That's after Bush's tax cuts for "the
> rich." Before, the top fifty percent of wage earners paid only 95%.
>
>
Only something like 40% of government revenue comes from income taxes.

from personal income taxes. Other money is from corporate
taxes, fees charged for licenses, leases and sales. There
are even interest payments to the government.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "LWG" > wrote in message
| . ..
| > The top fifty percent of wage earners pay 97% of the
total amount of
| > federal income tax collected. That's after Bush's tax
cuts for "the
| > rich." Before, the top fifty percent of wage earners
paid only 95%.
| >
| >
| Only something like 40% of government revenue comes from
income taxes.
|
|

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> from personal income taxes. Other money is from corporate
> taxes, fees charged for licenses, leases and sales. There
> are even interest payments to the government.

Not to mention FICA and other employment taxes. Hell, FICA is now 7.65%,
just up from 6.7. It was half a percent until the 1950's. Like postage,
there's no end in sight. Recall that though something like 40% of workers
pay no INCOME tax, they still pay in the form of other "fees" (see how much
tax you pay on your phone bill, cell phone, utilities...).

Last thought: Less than 20% of the Federal budget is constitutionally
authorized. That means the 80% is ILLEGAL (The Constitution is the LAW, not
suggestions.)

>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "LWG" > wrote in message
> | . ..
> | > The top fifty percent of wage earners pay 97% of the
> total amount of
> | > federal income tax collected. That's after Bush's tax
> cuts for "the
> | > rich." Before, the top fifty percent of wage earners
> paid only 95%.
> | >
> | >
> | Only something like 40% of government revenue comes from
> income taxes.
> |
> |
>
>

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:56:27 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>Not to mention FICA and other employment taxes. Hell, FICA is now 7.65%

FICA is 15.3%, unless you can show me some difference between the
money your employer sends in your name and the money he sends as his
matching contribution.

You never have control of either half, nor the option to not pay it,
and both halves eventually fall on the customer who buys what you or
your employer sell.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

That's only half of FICA, self-employed pay both halves.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| > from personal income taxes. Other money is from
corporate
| > taxes, fees charged for licenses, leases and sales.
There
| > are even interest payments to the government.
|
| Not to mention FICA and other employment taxes. Hell, FICA
is now 7.65%,
| just up from 6.7. It was half a percent until the 1950's.
Like postage,
| there's no end in sight. Recall that though something like
40% of workers
| pay no INCOME tax, they still pay in the form of other
"fees" (see how much
| tax you pay on your phone bill, cell phone, utilities...).
|
| Last thought: Less than 20% of the Federal budget is
constitutionally
| authorized. That means the 80% is ILLEGAL (The
Constitution is the LAW, not
| suggestions.)
|
| >
| > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > |
| > | "LWG" > wrote in message
| > | . ..
| > | > The top fifty percent of wage earners pay 97% of the
| > total amount of
| > | > federal income tax collected. That's after Bush's
tax
| > cuts for "the
| > | > rich." Before, the top fifty percent of wage
earners
| > paid only 95%.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | Only something like 40% of government revenue comes
from
| > income taxes.
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

Federal taxes are 20% of Gross National Product and that has not
changed much in many years. States are another 5% and local is another
few percent. Anyway, the amount is well known, its no secret. Taxes are
a fact of life, lets face it the govt has to get its money from
somewhere.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
> That's only half of FICA, self-employed pay both halves.

True enough. I was refering to the perceived taxes that your average Joe
pays, and even then they're just numbers on his pay stub and tax form.

Give him a refund (of his own money) of a few hundred $$ at the end of they
year and he's ecstatic.

The government appetite for cash (to **** away) is more ravenous and far
more hysterical than a major heroin addict. Of course, that addiction is
LEGAL and encouraged.


> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | ...
> | > from personal income taxes. Other money is from
> corporate
> | > taxes, fees charged for licenses, leases and sales.
> There
> | > are even interest payments to the government.
> |
> | Not to mention FICA and other employment taxes. Hell, FICA
> is now 7.65%,
> | just up from 6.7. It was half a percent until the 1950's.
> Like postage,
> | there's no end in sight. Recall that though something like
> 40% of workers
> | pay no INCOME tax, they still pay in the form of other
> "fees" (see how much
> | tax you pay on your phone bill, cell phone, utilities...).
> |
> | Last thought: Less than 20% of the Federal budget is
> constitutionally
> | authorized. That means the 80% is ILLEGAL (The
> Constitution is the LAW, not
> | suggestions.)
> |
> | >
> | > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> | > ...
> | > |
> | > | "LWG" > wrote in message
> | > | . ..
> | > | > The top fifty percent of wage earners pay 97% of the
> | > total amount of
> | > | > federal income tax collected. That's after Bush's
> tax
> | > cuts for "the
> | > | > rich." Before, the top fifty percent of wage
> earners
> | > paid only 95%.
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > | Only something like 40% of government revenue comes
> from
> | > income taxes.
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>

"Doug" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Federal taxes are 20% of Gross National Product and that has not
> changed much in many years. States are another 5% and local is another
> few percent.

Federal and state are, combined, about 40% of GNP (and that adds back
government salaries which is double counting). It's (state, local, federal,
off budget) about $5.5 trillion of a $13T GNP.

> Anyway, the amount is well known, its no secret. Taxes are
> a fact of life, lets face it the govt has to get its money from
> somewhere.

And robbers need to eat so they, too, must get it from somewhere.

Hey, the statists must LOVE you!

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Skylune writes:
>
> > Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
> > might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
> > attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
> > the time.
>
> Those attacks were much more damaging psychologically than in any
> other way, which was precisely the intent. Terrorists don't have the
> means to do much real damage, so they have to settle for spectacular
> and isolated incidents and rely on the resulting hysteria to do their
> work for them. If they had the means to do real damage themselves,
> they'd be military forces, not terrorists. Organizations with
> established military forces don't need terrorists.
>
> > And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
> > every day.
>
> How many terrorist attacks have there been in the United States since
> 2001?
>
> > Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
> > these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.
>
> I wish that were true.
>
> > Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
> > there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
> > the Democrats here.
>
> The flavors of censorship are different, but the trends are
> unfortunately the same. But the people are kept afraid, so that they
> never question the loss of liberty.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake, authored by
Winston Smith?

You believe that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks were damaged
mostly psychologically?

You believe terrorist don't have the means to do much "real damage?"

My opinion: It is good thing that you stick to simulations, and you
have a true friend in John Francois Kerry.

Skylune out (and apologies again to the others for my interloping here)

Don Tabor wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:00:48 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote:
>
> >It is now at least 28 months away and more if the voters
> >don't turn out the Democrats in 2008.
>
> Actually, if we can get the Dems to take a serious look at it, the
> FairTax has much to offer from their perspective. Unlike the current
> system, which places a hidden tax burden of 28.34% on the backs of the
> working poor (7.65% FICA plus 22.4% loss of purchasing power of the
> remainder of their income), the FairTax truly untaxes the poor.
>
> It will also recover many of the outsourced manufacturing jobs their
> union workers are losing.
>
> I would not be a bit surprised to see the Dems rename it and make it
> their own.
>
> Don
>
>
>
> Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
> "R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Cool. Nice to see another Freeper elsewhere.

Skylune writes:

> You believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake, authored by
> Winston Smith?

No, I believe they are pointless, and do a disservice to the U.S.
military. This is particularly true of the war in Iraq, which reminds
me of another famous, useless, and deadly war in Southeast Asia some
years ago.

> You believe that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks were damaged
> mostly psychologically?

No, but just about everyone else was. The objective was, after all,
to maximize the psychological effect.

> You believe terrorist don't have the means to do much "real damage?"

Yes. Terrorism is what a pressure group uses when it doesn't have
access to serious military firepower. Most terrorists, if they had a
large standing military at their command, would skip the terrorism and
blast away. This is why large sovereign states rarely engage in
terrorism (unless they wish to avoid responsibility): they have the
firepower to exert their will militarily.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Skylune writes:
>
> > You believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake, authored by
> > Winston Smith?
>
> No, I believe they are pointless, and do a disservice to the U.S.
> military. This is particularly true of the war in Iraq, which reminds
> me of another famous, useless, and deadly war in Southeast Asia some
> years ago.
>
> > You believe that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks were damaged
> > mostly psychologically?
>
> No, but just about everyone else was. The objective was, after all,
> to maximize the psychological effect.
>
> > You believe terrorist don't have the means to do much "real damage?"


You may find the following article, written by Mark Steyn, interesting.
He talks about the demographic trends sweeping across Europe, and the
growing influence of Islamism, which will become the dominant
religious/political force in all of Western Europe within the next
several decades due in part to low birth rates in Europe, but mostly
due to current policies of Western European welfare states, which will
collapse under their own weight.

Please do not call the US for assistance this time, as happened during
the last totalitarian regime in the 30s, and post 1940, where the US
was all that stood between the USSR and Western Europe. Study up on
sharia, and look up the word "dhimitude:" those are the stakes. Good
luck.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760

Skylune out.

> No, I believe they are pointless, and do a disservice to the U.S.
> military. This is particularly true of the war in Iraq, which reminds
> me of another famous, useless, and deadly war in Southeast Asia some
> years ago.

If you believe that the Viet Nam war served no purpose, you clearly
haven't studied the history of the Cold War, nor have you understood
why America won it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Skylune" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Skylune writes:
>>
>> > You believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake, authored by
>> > Winston Smith?
>>
>> No, I believe they are pointless, and do a disservice to the U.S.
>> military. This is particularly true of the war in Iraq, which reminds
>> me of another famous, useless, and deadly war in Southeast Asia some
>> years ago.
>>
>> > You believe that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks were damaged
>> > mostly psychologically?
>>
>> No, but just about everyone else was. The objective was, after all,
>> to maximize the psychological effect.
>>
>> > You believe terrorist don't have the means to do much "real damage?"
>
>
> You may find the following article, written by Mark Steyn, interesting.
> He talks about the demographic trends sweeping across Europe, and the
> growing influence of Islamism, which will become the dominant
> religious/political force in all of Western Europe within the next
> several decades due in part to low birth rates in Europe, but mostly
> due to current policies of Western European welfare states, which will
> collapse under their own weight.
>
> Please do not call the US for assistance this time, as happened during
> the last totalitarian regime in the 30s, and post 1940, where the US
> was all that stood between the USSR and Western Europe. Study up on
> sharia, and look up the word "dhimitude:" those are the stakes. Good
> luck.
>
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
>
> Skylune out.
>

There was also over the last 3 days a very interesting series on NPR's
Morning Edition talking about the rise of anti immigration in Europe.

> If you believe that the Viet Nam war served no purpose, you clearly
> haven't studied the history of the Cold War, nor have you understood
> why America won it.

We won the cold war because Russia ran out of money first. Their system
could not sustain the massive spending necessary to defend themselves
against the threat they percieved us to be. Our economy =was= able to
do so.

We have a similar situation now regarding the Islamic states. However,
we're likely to be on the wrong end of it.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

> We have a similar situation now regarding the Islamic states. However,
> we're likely to be on the wrong end of it.

Our fathers and grandfathers had the fortitude to fight the good fight,
over the long haul. That's how we made it through the Depression,
World War II, Korea, Viet Nam, and winning the Cold War in general.

If we end up losing this current war, it will be simply because we
lacked the will to fight. I, for one, do not want my daughter being
forced to wear a head-dress, nor do I wish to have my government ruled
by mullahs.

Given the general ignorance of history that is displayed by our
populace, I'm afraid it's going to come to something like that before
people wake up to the danger. In the meantime, I take solace in
knowing that Americans can continue to stress over what Paris Hilton is
wearing, and who won the last NASCAR race.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> If we end up losing this current war, it will be simply because we
> lacked the will to fight.

No, it will be because we have the attitude that fighting... anything...
is better than thinking.

> ...Americans can continue to stress over what Paris Hilton is
> wearing, and who won the last NASCAR race.

In your frustration here, I am with you.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jay Honeck writes:

> If you believe that the Viet Nam war served no purpose, you clearly
> haven't studied the history of the Cold War, nor have you understood
> why America won it.

I understood that vast numbers of Americans serving in the military
died needlessly in that war, and that some people have spent the last
several decades trying to rationalize that completely pointless loss
of life. At least I'm willing to admit that they died for nothing.
And their grandchildren are now doing the same in Iraq.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Jay Honeck writes:

> If we end up losing this current war, it will be simply because we
> lacked the will to fight. I, for one, do not want my daughter being
> forced to wear a head-dress, nor do I wish to have my government ruled
> by mullahs.

This is not a winnable war. Iraq will disintegrate into civil war.
Saddam's dictatorship, however cruel it may have been, was able to
keep internal conflicts in check. Now that that controlling influence
is gone, chaos is the most probable result, with or without an
American presence.

None of this has any influence on American security or well being.
Iraq is a basket case, like so many other countries in the region. It
threatens no one, and as it falls apart in its own internecine
bickering it becomes even less of a concern for the rest of the world.

> Given the general ignorance of history that is displayed by our
> populace, I'm afraid it's going to come to something like that before
> people wake up to the danger.

The United States pulled out of Vietnam with no harmful consequences
at all. Iraq is the same. The sooner the U.S. leaves, the better off
the U.S. will be. Iraq itself is doomed in any case.

> In the meantime, I take solace in
> knowing that Americans can continue to stress over what Paris Hilton is
> wearing, and who won the last NASCAR race.

I worry that they seem so inclined to do so.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

> I understood that vast numbers of Americans serving in the military
> died needlessly in that war, and that some people have spent the last
> several decades trying to rationalize that completely pointless loss
> of life. At least I'm willing to admit that they died for nothing.
> And their grandchildren are now doing the same in Iraq.

World history and events are so intertwined, and so much more than what
you are describing, that I just don't know where to start.

Viet Nam and Iraq (especially) can only be understood if you understand
them in the context of World War I (at least), and everything else that
is now happening (and has already happened) can only be discussed
intelligently with someone who understands this long-term world view.

Your tight focus on geographic disputes is simply too narrow -- and I
don't have time to explain why. Maybe someone else here can enlighten
you.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jose,

> No, it will be because we have the attitude that fighting... anything...
> is better than thinking.
>

I like that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On 21 Nov 2006 11:37:32 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>Your tight focus on geographic disputes is simply too narrow -- and I
>don't have time to explain why. Maybe someone else here can enlighten
>you.

I already did explain the larger picture, it just bounced right off.

Don

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
> "Skylune" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> Skylune writes:
> >>
> >> > You believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake, authored by
> >> > Winston Smith?
> >>
> >> No, I believe they are pointless, and do a disservice to the U.S.
> >> military. This is particularly true of the war in Iraq, which reminds
> >> me of another famous, useless, and deadly war in Southeast Asia some
> >> years ago.
> >>
> >> > You believe that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks were damaged
> >> > mostly psychologically?
> >>
> >> No, but just about everyone else was. The objective was, after all,
> >> to maximize the psychological effect.
> >>
> >> > You believe terrorist don't have the means to do much "real damage?"
> >
> >
> > You may find the following article, written by Mark Steyn, interesting.
> > He talks about the demographic trends sweeping across Europe, and the
> > growing influence of Islamism, which will become the dominant
> > religious/political force in all of Western Europe within the next
> > several decades due in part to low birth rates in Europe, but mostly
> > due to current policies of Western European welfare states, which will
> > collapse under their own weight.
> >
> > Please do not call the US for assistance this time, as happened during
> > the last totalitarian regime in the 30s, and post 1940, where the US
> > was all that stood between the USSR and Western Europe. Study up on
> > sharia, and look up the word "dhimitude:" those are the stakes. Good
> > luck.
> >
> > http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
> >
> > Skylune out.
> >
>
> There was also over the last 3 days a very interesting series on NPR's
> Morning Edition talking about the rise of anti immigration in Europe.

OK: Since this is off-GA topic, I guess it is ok to respond. (?) I
did not hear that series on NPR, but I will check out their website.

I have been following the situation developing in the Netherlands,
though, where certain brave politicians have called for the banning of
burquas in public places. Brave guys those Dutch!

But I think what Steyn is saying is this anti-immigration attitude is
futile, because the European Welfare States such as France and Germany
absolutely depend upon immigration in order to support their social
welfare systems. Such immigration naturally comes from the East, where
populations are predominantly Muslim. My relatives in Germany have
been complaining for years about the Turks, for example. Problem is,
with such low birth rates, immigrants are needed to work, pay taxes,
and support these countrie's social welfare systems.

In time, these countries will become primarily Muslim, as Steyn points
out. France, and to a lesser degree, Germany, seem to be acquiesing to
this reality, while the Dutch and England seem to be making some
efforts to at least assimilate the immigrants into the culture.

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jose,
>
> > No, it will be because we have the attitude that fighting... anything...
> > is better than thinking.
> >
>
> I like that.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

So did Neville Chamberlain. He was a "thinker," and had a nice
document to wave around when he got off the plane. Of course,
totalitarian regimes see this stuff as a joke and a demonstration of
weakness. I believe it is dangerously naive to think that radical
Islamists, religious totalitarians, can be reasoned with. Which is not
the same as agreeing with W that the war in Iraq is necessarily the
central front on the war on terror. It better not be, because we
certainly cannot "win" that war in any traditional sense. I mean, who
would surrrender? But we can, and must win the very real war on
terror. With or without Europe.

MX schreibt:
>
> The United States pulled out of Vietnam with no harmful consequences
> at all. Iraq is the same.

Tell that to the Cambodians.

Do you seriously believe there will not be genocide and ethnic
cleansing if we just pull up stakes in Iraq?

Any comment on the Steyn article?

> But we can, and must win the very real war on
> terror.

What constitutes "winning"?

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose,

> What constitutes "winning"?
>

One might look at the war on drugs for hints... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Recently, Thomas Borchert > posted:

> Jose,
>
>> What constitutes "winning"?
>>
>
> One might look at the war on drugs for hints... ;-)
>
So... to win the war on terror, we have to get the terrorists to cut us in
on their action? ;-)

Neil

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:44:04 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> But we can, and must win the very real war on
>> terror.
>

The war is not on terror, it is on Islamic Fascism. Terror is just a
strategy.

>What constitutes "winning"?

The danger they pose to my grandchildren is eliminated.

I can think of three outcomes that would provide that.

Bush's Plan A, to bring the rule of law and capitalism to the Muslim
world still could work. Free, prosperous capitalists do not send their
sons and daughters halfway around the world to kill their customers.

Failing that, a general middle east war between Sunni and Shia could
divert their attention from us toward killing each other for a few
hundred more years. This appears to be Rumsfeld's Plan B.

But if neither of those works, then we will have to sequester them by
air and sea and destroy their technological base to the point they
are incapable of harming us. That would involve killing a couple of
hundred million Muslims directly, and many more by starvation if they
are locked out of the world economy, so I certainly hope we do not
abandon Plan's A and B without giving them a good chance to work.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Recently, Don Tabor > posted:
>
> Bush's Plan A, to bring the rule of law and capitalism to the Muslim
> world still could work. Free, prosperous capitalists do not send their
> sons and daughters halfway around the world to kill their customers.
>
Then, why are we killing people in the Middle East? Are we not "free,
prosperous capitalists"? In case you are unaware, they are both our
suppliers *and* our customers.

Neil

Don,

> Free, prosperous capitalists do not send their
> sons and daughters halfway around the world to kill their customers.
>

Uhm, that's exactly what the US is doing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Don,
>
>> Free, prosperous capitalists do not send their
>> sons and daughters halfway around the world to kill their customers.
>>
>
> Uhm, that's exactly what the US is doing.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Strange that someone that lives in a country that would probably be speaking
Russian by now had we not sent our sons and daughters to your continent and
kept them there for the better part of a century would bitch now that we are
doing it somewhere else against a new enemy.

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
....
>
> Strange that someone that lives in a country that would probably be
> speaking Russian by now...

You assume he thinks that would be a bad thing.

>had we not sent our sons and daughters to your continent and kept them
>there for the better part of a century would bitch now that we are doing it
>somewhere else against a new enemy.

Gig,

> would bitch now that we are
> doing it somewhere else against a new enemy.
>

And exactly where in my post did I do that?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:25:45 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>Strange that someone that lives in a country that would probably be speaking
>Russian by now had we not sent our sons and daughters to your continent and
>kept them there for the better part of a century would bitch now that we are
>doing it somewhere else against a new enemy.
>

and this does not give the second next generation any rights? should we
Europeans shut up forever and let you spy on us and steal from us forever
[1]? Or should we stand up - thanking for the support and help your
grandparents and maybe also parents gave - and walk our own way?

[1] pleeze. nor aguing about this. it has been proved and you won't believe
it anyway.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

> The war is not on terror, it is on Islamic Fascism. Terror is just a
> strategy.

Uh... I'd be happy if the Islamic Facists stayed where they were. I
would not be happy if Catholics blew up abortion clinics. The war is on
terrorism.

>>What constitutes "winning"?
> The danger they pose to my grandchildren is eliminated.

How do we know the danger is gone?

> Bush's Plan A, to bring the rule of law and capitalism to the Muslim
> world still could work. Free, prosperous capitalists do not send their
> sons and daughters halfway around the world to kill their customers.

But that is exactly what =we= are doing under plan A.

> Failing that, a general middle east war between Sunni and Shia could
> divert their attention from us toward killing each other for a few
> hundred more years. This appears to be Rumsfeld's Plan B.

A successful terrorism attack requires very few people.

> But if neither of those works, then we will have to sequester them by
> air and sea and destroy their technological base to the point they
> are incapable of harming us.

Killing Muslims doesn't eliminate terror. It just changes the source.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> [1] pleeze. nor aguing about this. it has been proved and you won't believe
> it anyway.

People who really know something about who is "stealing" from who generally
aren't allowed to talk about it openly.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>>Nonsense.
> >>
> >>Ask the Secret Service.
> >
> >
> > What can't we say today that we *could* say in 2000?
> >
> > What rights have I lost due to anything done in the War on Terror?
>
> I don't know that you have lost any rights, but I've lost two that I can
> think of quickly. I've lost the right to land at Washington National
> airport. Luckily, I made one flight in there in the last 90s so I have
> that in my logbook. It was a real neat trip. I had to fly in at night
> as I couldn't get an IFR reservation before 7:00 PM and this was in the
> winter. I had to hold briefly over the city waiting for a hole in the
> airline traffic, but the view was priceless and I'd have held another 10
> minutes given the chance.
>
> I also lost the right to land at Meigs Field and I never did get in there.

I must have missed that "right" in any of the Constituional amendments.
Seaplanes still welcome..JG

writes:

> I must have missed that "right" in any of the Constituional amendments.

The authors of the Consitution tended to think along the lines of
everything being permissible, except that which was prohibited ... and
not the other way around. So it is not necessary to explicitly list
rights in the Constitution, it is only necessary to explicitly list
prohibitions. The only reason rights are listed is to counter
widespread abuses--by people who think it's okay to outlaw anything
that isn't guaranteed by the Constitution.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.