more reasons for GA: John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing "Suspected Terrorist" button

[Martin Hotze]

here you have another reason for using GA for travel:

http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

---snip
Subject: I was ejected from an airplane today for wearing a "Suspected
Terrorist" button
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:29:28 -0700
From: John Gilmore >

Your readers already know about my opposition to useless airport
security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various
other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive
measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org).
But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more
useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a
political button on someone's lapel.

My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on
British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got
through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it
taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service
Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I
remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying
that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor
passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by
political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large
images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason
Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist".
You can see the button at:

http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html

(Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.)

The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested,
and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a
"badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a
federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a
political statement and declined to remove it.

They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying
300 passengers on a full flight.

We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at
SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing
to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me
off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court
case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man
who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable".
She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we
could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my
button was in "poor taste".

Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said
that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we
would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked
luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would
have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of
these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering
the mental states of the passengers and crew.

I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first
flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't
understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I
suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about
free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to
see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to
talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any
captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that
said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to
decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common
carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without
discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about
terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to
exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of
terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the
newspapers from it too.

I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons,
perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that
would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I
probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible
buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of
political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but
she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and
she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because
I would not censor myself at her command.

After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for
her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was
curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being
suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being
queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify
ourselves, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities.
Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all
the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The
terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian
theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had
demonstrated that trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't
sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are
turning the country into a police state.

Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't
wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's
because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better
myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been
able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer.
(Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were
traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to
the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane
without her even knowing.)

Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said
that she thought the button was something that the security people had
made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected
terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.

I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the
plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next
to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the
button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it
after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I
could tell.

John Gilmore

PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand:
I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not
willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own
country.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---snap

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Mike Weller]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:34:13 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

<bunch of crap deleted ...

Sir, don't you realize that by wearing that button, you are in fact a
terrorist? It scares passengers and crew, and is completely without
socially or politically redeeming value.

You deserve to walk.

Mike Weller

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
s.com...
>
> Sir, don't you realize that by wearing that button, you are in fact a
> terrorist? It scares passengers and crew, and is completely without
> socially or politically redeeming value.


Mr. Weller, *YOU* scare me. When someone like you can tell others what does
or does not have "redeeming value," we are well on our way towards an
authoritarian state where all our rights are gone.

[Jeff]

hmmm, no one has ever accused me of being a terrorist. I dont feel as tho I
have been treated as, or suspected of being a terrorist.

When I fly commericial, I expect a nice quiet flight, with no drunks or
idiots causing problems with the other passangers or the flight crew. Anyone
who does things to draw attention to themselves and appears to want to get
into a conflict, I would applaud the airline crew for removing that person.

If you wore the pin to get a reaction from people, you got it, why are you
surprised and why are you complaining about the attention you got, was it the
wrong attention?

As for useless security crap that provides no security, well, it must provide
some if you didnt get to fly. People complain that we have no security when
something goes bad, but then you have fools like yourself who complain
because there is security.

Martin Hotze wrote:

> here you have another reason for using GA for travel:
>
> http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html
>
> ---snip
> Subject: I was ejected from an airplane today for wearing a "Suspected
> Terrorist" button
> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 21:29:28 -0700
> From: John Gilmore >
>
> Your readers already know about my opposition to useless airport
> security crap. I'm suing John Ashcroft, two airlines, and various
> other agencies over making people show IDs to fly -- an intrusive
> measure that provides no security. (See http://freetotravel.org).
> But I would be hard pressed to come up with a security measure more
> useless and intrusive than turning a plane around because of a
> political button on someone's lapel.
>
> My sweetheart Annie and I tried to fly to London today (Friday) on
> British Airways. We started at SFO, showed our passports and got
> through all the rigamarole, and were seated on the plane while it
> taxied out toward takeoff. Suddenly a flight steward, Cabin Service
> Director Khaleel Miyan, loomed in front of me and demanded that I
> remove a small 1" button pinned to my left lapel. I declined, saying
> that it was a political statement and that he had no right to censor
> passengers' political speech. The button, which was created by
> political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large
> images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason
> Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist".
> You can see the button at:
>
> http://eminism.org/store/button-racism.html
>
> (Reason hasn't put the current issue online yet, for some reason.)
>
> The steward returned with Capt. Peter Hughes. The captain requested,
> and then demanded, that I remove the button (they called it a
> "badge"). He said that I would endanger the aircraft and commit a
> federal crime if I did not take it off. I told him that it was a
> political statement and declined to remove it.
>
> They turned the plane around and brought it back to the gate, delaying
> 300 passengers on a full flight.
>
> We were met at the jetway by Carol Spear, Station Manager for BA at
> SFO. She stated that since the captain had told her he was refusing
> to transport me as a passenger, she had no other course but to take me
> off the plane. I offered no resistance. I reminded her of the court
> case that United lost when their captain removed a Middle Eastern man
> who had done nothing wrong, merely because "he made me uncomfortable".
> She said that she had no choice but to uphold the captain and that we
> could sort it out in court later, if necessary. She said that my
> button was in "poor taste".
>
> Later, after consulting with (unspecified) security people, Carol said
> that if we wanted to fly on the second and last flight of the day, we
> would be required to remove the button and put it into our checked
> luggage (or give it to her). And also, our hand-carried baggage would
> have to be searched to make sure that we didn't carry any more of
> these terrorist buttons onto the flight and put them on, endangering
> the mental states of the passengers and crew.
>
> I said that I understood that she had refused me passage on the first
> flight because the captain had refused to carry me, but I didn't
> understand why I was being refused passage on the second one. I
> suggested that BA might have captains with different opinions about
> free speech, and that I'd be happy to talk with the second captain to
> see if he would carry me. She said that the captain was too busy to
> talk with me, and that speaking broadly, she didn't think BA had any
> captains who would allow someone on a flight wearing a button that
> said "Suspected Terrorist". She said that BA has discretion to
> decline to fly anyone. (And here I had thought they were a common
> carrier, obliged to carry anyone who'll pay the fare, without
> discrimination.) She said that passengers and crew are nervous about
> terrorism and that mentioning it bothers them, and that is grounds to
> exclude me. I suggested that if they wanted to exclude mentions of
> terrorists from the airplane, then they should remove all the
> newspapers from it too.
>
> I asked whether I would be permitted to fly if I wore other buttons,
> perhaps one saying "Hooray for Tony Blair". She said she thought that
> would be OK. I said, how about "Terrorism is Evil". She said that I
> probably wouldn't get on. I started to discuss other possible
> buttons, like "Oppose Terrorism", trying to figure out what kinds of
> political speech I would be permitted to express in a BA plane, but
> she said that we could stand there making hypotheticals all night and
> she wasn't interested. Ultimately, I was refused passage because
> I would not censor myself at her command.
>
> After the whole interaction was over, I offered to tell her, just for
> her own information, what the button means and why I wear it. She was
> curious. I told her that it refers to all of us, everyone, being
> suspected of being terrorists, being searched without cause, being
> queued in lines and pens, forced to take our shoes off, to identify
> ourselves, to drink our own breast milk, to submit to indignities.
> Everyone is a suspected terrorist in today's America, including all
> the innocent people, and that's wrong. That's what it means. The
> terrorists have won if we turn our country into an authoritarian
> theocracy "to defeat terrorism". I suggested that British Airways had
> demonstrated that trend brilliantly today. She understood but wasn't
> sympathetic -- like most of the people whose individual actions are
> turning the country into a police state.
>
> Annie asked why she, Annie, was not allowed to fly. She wasn't
> wearing or carrying any objectionable buttons. Carol said it's
> because of her association with me. I couldn't have put it better
> myself -- guilt by association. I asked whether Annie would have been
> able to fly if she had checked in separately, and got no answer.
> (Indeed it was I who pointed out to the crew that Annie and I were
> traveling together, since we were seated about ten rows apart due to
> the full flight. I was afraid that they'd take me off the plane
> without her even knowing.)
>
> Annie later told me that the stewardess who had gone to fetch her said
> that she thought the button was something that the security people had
> made me wear to warn the flight crew that I was a suspected
> terrorist(!). Now that would be really secure.
>
> I spoke with the passengers around me before being removed from the
> plane, and none of them seemed to have any problem with sitting next
> to me for 10 hours going to London. None of them had even noticed the
> button before the crew pointed it out, and none of them objected to it
> after seeing it. It was just the crew that had problems, as far as I
> could tell.
>
> John Gilmore
>
> PS: For those who know I don't fly in the US because of the ID demand:
> I'm willing to show a passport to travel to another country. I'm not
> willing to show ID -- an "internal passport" -- to fly within my own
> country.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
> You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
> Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---snap
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
>
> John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
> "Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Big John]

I had a Top Secret clearance while on active duty (now honorably
retired), was Project Officer on the Air to Air nuclear rocket and sat
alert with same, I was trusted with a finger on the trigger. I also
have passed the requirements (FBI investigation into my background)
for a gun carry permit here in TX.

I also voted for George Bush.

Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?


Big John


On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:31:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
s.com...
>> Sir, don't you realize that by wearing that button, you are in fact a
>> terrorist? It scares passengers and crew, and is completely without
>> socially or politically redeeming value.
>
>First of all, the person wearing the button was John Gilmore, not Martin.
>
>As for the effects of wearing the button go, you have slightly more of a
>point. In an environment where passengers are not permitted to joke about
>bombs, it seems a logical extension of the spirit of that rule for
>passengers to not joke about being a terrorist.
>
>However, IMHO Gilmore has the better point. There's no "free speech"
>defense for saying you have a bomb, but clearly by at least one valid
>interpretation of the government's actions, we are all suspected terrorists.
>If Gilmore's button had said "I am a terrorist", that would be like joking
>about having a bomb. But it didn't. It said he's a *suspected* terrorist,
>and given that the government is treating us all like suspects, his form of
>speech seems perfectly valid to me.
>
>Remember, it's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if the
>theater is actually on fire.
>
>Pete
>

[Big John]

Forgot to include the fact that I have had a better (more
comprehensive) background check than 99 % of the individuals who do
the terrorist check at airports.

I'm wondering if this is associated with the 'dumbing down' that has
taken place with affirmative action and the modern school curriculum?

Big John

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 21:55:08 -0500, Big John >
wrote:

>I had a Top Secret clearance while on active duty (now honorably
>retired), was Project Officer on the Air to Air nuclear rocket and sat
>alert with same, I was trusted with a finger on the trigger. I also
>have passed the requirements (FBI investigation into my background)
>for a gun carry permit here in TX.
>
>I also voted for George Bush.
>
>Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?
>
>
>Big John
>
>
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:31:16 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
s.com...
>>> Sir, don't you realize that by wearing that button, you are in fact a
>>> terrorist? It scares passengers and crew, and is completely without
>>> socially or politically redeeming value.
>>
>>First of all, the person wearing the button was John Gilmore, not Martin.
>>
>>As for the effects of wearing the button go, you have slightly more of a
>>point. In an environment where passengers are not permitted to joke about
>>bombs, it seems a logical extension of the spirit of that rule for
>>passengers to not joke about being a terrorist.
>>
>>However, IMHO Gilmore has the better point. There's no "free speech"
>>defense for saying you have a bomb, but clearly by at least one valid
>>interpretation of the government's actions, we are all suspected terrorists.
>>If Gilmore's button had said "I am a terrorist", that would be like joking
>>about having a bomb. But it didn't. It said he's a *suspected* terrorist,
>>and given that the government is treating us all like suspects, his form of
>>speech seems perfectly valid to me.
>>
>>Remember, it's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if the
>>theater is actually on fire.
>>
>>Pete
>>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Mike Weller said:
>Well, I didn't mean to scare you. But my point was that the man
>wearing the button stating "SUSPECTED TERRORIST" was making a
>statement, which to him, might have been witty and clever, but
>actually caused everyone around him to become frightened. For all I
>know, he may have been from the Middle East and was not familiar with
>English. That would have really been hilarious!

So if an American citizen of Arab ancestry was sitting on the same plane
as a narrow minded bigot such as yourself, that person would be a
terrorist just because the narrow minded bigot got scared?



--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"God be between you and harm, in all the empty places that you must walk"

[Roger Halstead]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:17:13 GMT, Mike Weller >
wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:34:13 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:
>
><bunch of crap deleted ...
>
>Sir, don't you realize that by wearing that button, you are in fact a
>terrorist? It scares passengers and crew, and is completely without
>socially or politically redeeming value.
>
>You deserve to walk.

BS...The pendulum has swung too far. This is the kind of BS that
tells me the terrorists have actually won their point.

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)
>
>Mike Weller
>

[james]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...

[snip]

| So if an American citizen of Arab ancestry was sitting on the same plane
| as a narrow minded bigot such as yourself, that person would be a
| terrorist just because the narrow minded bigot got scared?

Terrorism is about terror. The clue is in the question. Say guy [doesn't
matter what race he is] sat next to you holds a gun to your head ? He sits
like this for 10 hours, but doesn't pull the trigger. He hasn't done
anything except scare you. Chances are, you'll do whatever he says. He's
won. Now who's the "narrow minded bigot"? Like I said, it's all about
terror, and you can cause terror by merely *implying* that you can do
something bad. You don't have to do it, you don't even have to say that you
will do it. All you have to do is give someone the idea that you *can* do
it. That is enough.

Going back to the original point of this thread, well done BA. It's not
easy to uphold a principle when there's all this cotton wool wrapped around
anyone who could possibly be offended by what you say or do. Unfortunately,
though, equal rights seems to have gone too far. *Equal* means equal, not
better.

james

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:17:13 GMT, Mike Weller wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 15:34:13 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:
>
><bunch of crap deleted ...
>

well, your opinion is yours, ...

>Sir, don't you realize that by wearing that button, you are in fact a
>terrorist?


really? you read all of the story?

> It scares passengers and crew, and is completely without
>socially or politically redeeming value.
>

oh well. I see. There are enough people out there to support the "give your
freedom away for $DON'T_KNOW_THE_EXACT_REASON__MAYBE_SECURITY ...."

>You deserve to walk.
>

*bah*

>Mike Weller
>

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 12:31:16 -0700, Peter Duniho wrote:

>As for the effects of wearing the button go, you have slightly more of a
>point. In an environment where passengers are not permitted to joke about
>bombs, it seems a logical extension of the spirit of that rule for
>passengers to not joke about being a terrorist.
>

I also more like the latter part of the article where he discusses what
would be appropriate for a button.

>However, IMHO Gilmore has the better point. There's no "free speech"
>defense for saying you have a bomb, but clearly by at least one valid
>interpretation of the government's actions, we are all suspected terrorists.

.... unless proven innocent. Is this the way the system works?

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:42:44 GMT, Mike Weller wrote:

>Well, I didn't mean to scare you. But my point was that the man
>wearing the button stating "SUSPECTED TERRORIST" was making a
>statement, which to him, might have been witty and clever,

so when you fly commercial, you are NOT a _suspected_ terrorist? You are
not guilty unless proven not guilty? They don't confiscate your nail
clipper?

> but
>actually caused everyone around him to become frightened.

So you haven't really read the article. Gilmore asked the people around
him. Only the knee-jerk of captain and an old BA-bitch cared.

> For all I
>know, he may have been from the Middle East

you ARE right. When he is from the Middle East, he SURE MUST BE a terorist.

>Don't throw gasoline on a fire, and you won't get burned.
>

Give up all of your freedom and rights, so you don't have to lose freedom
and any rights.

Is this the new spirit over there? I have to learn that we here also tend
to follow this damned way ...

>Mike Weller

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:49:24 +0100, james wrote:

>Terrorism is about terror. The clue is in the question. Say guy [doesn't
>matter what race he is] sat next to you holds a gun to your head ? He sits
>like this for 10 hours, but doesn't pull the trigger. He hasn't done
>anything except scare you. Chances are, you'll do whatever he says. He's
>won. Now who's the "narrow minded bigot"? Like I said, it's all about
>terror, and you can cause terror by merely *implying* that you can do
>something bad.

true.
And Gilmore did what? In your picture, he was holding the gun?


> You don't have to do it, you don't even have to say that you
>will do it. All you have to do is give someone the idea that you *can* do
>it. That is enough.


Yes, the airlines say to EVERYBODY: you are a terrorist unless proven you
are not.

>Going back to the original point of this thread, well done BA. It's not

well, this was really well done by BA: they gave me the last reason to NOT
fly with them. Their food is lousy, there service is lousy and their flight
attendants are old uggly nagging bitches. Well, mabye they serve in first
class.

>easy to uphold a principle when there's all this cotton wool wrapped around
>anyone who could possibly be offended by what you say or do. Unfortunately,
>though, equal rights seems to have gone too far. *Equal* means equal, not
>better.

BA is same as Tony Blair. Heard his speach in your congress? Never heard so
much bull**** within one single hour and within one single speach.

>james

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 19:51:50 -0700, Jeff wrote:

Thank you for twice fullquoting .... you sure know how to handle things
right ... NOT.

>I just looked at your page,

at _my_ page? I doubt that you understand one single word of german, except
"verboten".

> you know what I hate -- dumb ****s who waste
>millions of dollars in tax money on bull**** law suits.
>
>I am guessing, by your mentality, that you never served in the military.


_me_? you're right. I have chosen the other legal way and spent my time in
social service. well, shocking ...

> You
>talk alot about freedom and wanting it and what you think you should be
>entitled to for not defending it. Why dont you fight the enemies of this
>country as hard as you do your own goverment.

I try to fight _my_ enemies and _maybe_ those of my country. But the USA
aren't my number 1 priority.


>Remember what JFK said, "ask not what your country can do for you, but what
>you can do for your country."
>

To sum it up: Check who is posting something and where the guy (or the gal)
comes from. And maybe you learn to differnciate from a quote and from a
statement.

My personal point that I gave out on the original posting was "here you
have another reason for using GA for travel". I haven't even said that I am
pro or contra Gilmore's arguments.

Have a nice life.

#m

>
>Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> here you have another reason for using GA for travel:
>>
>> http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html
>>
>> ---snip
>> (....)

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[lardsoup]

What an ASSHOLE!!!! Protest your problems with the government to the
government leaders. Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
like pilots and passengers. That's what terrorists do. Attack civilians to
get at the government. Don't want to show ID to get on an airplane? Where
I work we won't let you use a credit card without ID. GEEZ. With all the
problems in the world we have to put up with jerks like this. Like the
other poster said - WALK!

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "lardsoup" > said:
>What an ASSHOLE!!!! Protest your problems with the government to the
>government leaders. Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
>like pilots and passengers. That's what terrorists do. Attack civilians to

Yeah, talking about the government to the people like that. What's your
problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut up
and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
state.

>get at the government. Don't want to show ID to get on an airplane? Where
>I work we won't let you use a credit card without ID. GEEZ. With all the

I suppose asking you actually read the story would have been "what
terrorists do" as well?


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Real Time, adj.:
Here and now, as opposed to fake time, which only occurs there
and then.

[Robert Henry]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> Remember, it's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if the
> theater is actually on fire.

True, but one shouldn't subsequently expect to watch the show.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:42:39 GMT, lardsoup wrote:

> Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
>like pilots and passengers.

I always thought that pilots are not regular people :-)

>Where
>I work we won't let you use a credit card without ID.

well, it is your decision. But the decision of the customer to make
business with you. I would take my business elsewhere if I have the
slightest chance. Free market is a nice thing. :-)

> GEEZ. With all the
>problems in the world

<rant>
Oh yes, please elaborate the problems the world has with the regulations
and demands of the USA. The problem is not _the_ _world_ ...
</rant>
[i]
> we have to put up with jerks like this. Like the
>other poster said - WALK!

Go back to start and read the article first and don't start bashing after
reading the first 10 lines. Ah yes, and try to think of the consequences
this will bring on your every day life.

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[lardsoup]

> What's your
> problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut up
> and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
> state.

I'm not living in a democracy. It's a republic. Fascist state? Get real.
I suppose you protest against traffic signals by crossing again the light
and walking reeeeaaallly slow to hold up traffic. I mean who is the
government to tell you when you can cross the street? Protest to the
government, and in the mean time quit holding up the show. Some of us have
lives to live.

[idkw]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in message >...
> In a previous article, Jeff > said:
> >entitled to for not defending it. Why dont you fight the enemies of this
> >country as hard as you do your own goverment.
>
> He *is* fighting the enemies of this country. He's fighting the people
> like you who'd use the constitution as toilet paper and turn the free-est
> country in the world into a facist police state because they're scared of
> a faceless foe.

Uhm, the foe does have a face, his name is Osama Bin Laden, and he
represents thousands upon thousands of people who would like nothing
more than to turn the U.S. of A. into ash, simply because he told them
that that was a good idea, and they believed him.

You tell me, how exactly are people like this button wearing coward
helping our cause against this very real foe?

[Martin Hotze]

On 20 Jul 2003 07:40:46 -0700, idkw wrote:


>You tell me, how exactly are people like this button wearing coward
>helping our cause against this very real foe?

"our"? who is this "our"?

And who is a coward? My respect to Gilmore that he had the nerve to stick
to his ideals. He could have had an easy flight. Remove the button, saying
"yes ma'am", etc.
There are many people out there who have thrown their ideals south in
favour of _FEELING_ more secure. Aren't you also one of those?

And it all comes down to a matter of viewpoint. I can't second Osama bin
Laden's viewpoints (but there are some valid points, well, ...), but I also
can't follow most arguments of Blair, Bush and some of the other jerks
claiming to fight for FREEDOM and LIBERTY. *bah!*

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Big John]

Aloft

You may be right right on GW? Only after I help elect him to a 2nd
term willl history give the full and true picture of his time in
Office..

I'm supprised at the (small) number of my friends (and enemies) who
express the same opinion as you.

It is nice to be able to dissagree in a civilized manner and tone.

And a nice Sunday to you.

Big John


On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 08:51:38 GMT, "Aloft" > wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> I had a Top Secret clearance while on active duty (now honorably
>> retired), was Project Officer on the Air to Air nuclear rocket and sat
>> alert with same, I was trusted with a finger on the trigger. I also
>> have passed the requirements (FBI investigation into my background)
>> for a gun carry permit here in TX.
>>
>> I also voted for George Bush.
>>
>> Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?
>>
>>
>> Big John
>>
>
>Because you voted for George Bush.
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Aloft wrote:
>
> > Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?

> Because you voted for George Bush.

Last week I got one of those "surveys" that are actually thinly disguised
duns for contributions. This one came from the Democratic party. One of
their top 7 complaints was that the security restrictions put in place by
the Republican party aren't strong enough. The local Dems are pushing for
thumbprints and DNA chips in the driver's licenses.

Thank God Bush is president and not Gore.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:00:30 -0400, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>The local Dems are pushing for
>thumbprints and DNA chips in the driver's licenses.

US government already requested that Europeans have this info in their
passport for travel to the US.
And what are our governments doing? Guess what? They comply. Idiots. At
least I would demand a reciprocal thing.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
"Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[C J Campbell]

Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?

Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet another
Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
London. Although he started in the United States, no US government authority
has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.

Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended to
prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a private
company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner of
that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA a
private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company and
should be allowed to behave as such.

Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the right
of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> ...
> Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
> Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
> individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
> without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended
to
> prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
> fundamental right of freedom of association. ...
>
> Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
> but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. ... Mr. Gilmore's
actions
> are no better than those of the Confederacy during the Civil War ...
> I have little sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black or
Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore for
suing them, and you'd consider him equally "hypocritical" for thereby
challenging BA's "freedom"--correct? Indeed, you'd consider Mr. Gilmore's
wrongdoing to be just as grave as a slave owner's, correct?

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Robert Henry" > wrote in message
news:6cxSa.18920$o54.10838@lakeread05...
> True, but one shouldn't subsequently expect to watch the show.

The TSA lets suspected terrorists onto commercial airliners every day. Why
should Gilmore be any different, just because he's being more obvious about
his status?

[Ron McKinnon]

"lardsoup" > wrote in message
...
>
> > What's your
> > problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut up
> > and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
> > state.
>
> I'm not living in a democracy. It's a republic. Fascist state? Get
real.

The USA is a democratic republic at this point. A representative
democracy. Democracy is about how the decisions are made, or the
government is chosen; a republic is one of the forms such a government can
take. Neither of these are guarantees of freedom. And fascism, though it
is often associated with dictatorship, is more about the policies and
practices of a government, being one that 'exalts' the nation, or the race,
perhaps, above the individual'. But whether or not such a government
becomes in the end a dictatorship, such a government could still conceivably
have in the beginning been democratically elected.

[AES/newspost]

In article <f%ASa.93708$GL4.25281@rwcrnsc53>,
"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote:

> I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
> reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black or
> Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
> disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore for
> suing them,

No inconsistency, for two reasons:

1) JG can choose to wear or not wear his button; he can't chose to be
or not be a certain ethnicity, or to have or not have Jewish ancestors.

2) There are laws, extensive and democratically enacted, about racial
etc discrimination, but none I'm aware of about button wearing.

Interesting to see JG "hoisted by his own arguments", or at least
challenged on the basis of his own reasoning, on this issue.

[Jeff]

The goverment dont tell me what to do. They did when I was in the Army but that
was expected.
nothing about my life has changed since bush took office and the terrorist
attacks. But then, I dont cause problems, I dont look for problems, I know that
you dont cause problems in an airport or an airplane, why do I know, there are
signs all over the airport that say what not to do.

Its my choice to fly or not to fly. I can always walk or drive if I dont want to
abide by the rules at an airport.


Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, "lardsoup" > said:
> >What an ASSHOLE!!!! Protest your problems with the government to the
> >government leaders. Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
> >like pilots and passengers. That's what terrorists do. Attack civilians to
>
> Yeah, talking about the government to the people like that. What's your
> problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut up
> and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
> state.

[Jeff]

take your business else where because you have to show ID to use a credit
card?
Dood, you have issues.



Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 13:42:39 GMT, lardsoup wrote:
>
> > Don't take out your frustrations on the regular people,
> >like pilots and passengers.
>
> I always thought that pilots are not regular people :-)
>
> >Where
> >I work we won't let you use a credit card without ID.
>
> well, it is your decision. But the decision of the customer to make
> business with you. I would take my business elsewhere if I have the
> slightest chance. Free market is a nice thing. :-)
>
> > GEEZ. With all the
> >problems in the world
>
> <rant>
> Oh yes, please elaborate the problems the world has with the regulations
> and demands of the USA. The problem is not _the_ _world_ ...
> </rant>
>[i]
> > we have to put up with jerks like this. Like the
> >other poster said - WALK!
>
> Go back to start and read the article first and don't start bashing after
> reading the first 10 lines. Ah yes, and try to think of the consequences
> this will bring on your every day life.
>
> #m
>
> --
> http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/
>
> John Gilmore: I was ejected from a plane for wearing
> "Suspected Terrorist" button http://www.politechbot.com/p-04973.html

[Jeff]

Very well said - You should be working for a news paper, you write better then
most of them.


C J Campbell wrote:

> Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?
>
> Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
> And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
> note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
> government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet another
> Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
> fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
> London. Although he started in the United States, no US government authority
> has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.
>
> Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
> Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
> individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
> without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended to
> prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
> fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a private
> company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
> presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner of
> that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
> extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA a
> private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
> government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
> government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
> civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company and
> should be allowed to behave as such.
>
> Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
> but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
> rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
> Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
> or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
> those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the right
> of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
> sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.

[Big John]

Is BA a 'common carrier' and what are the rules for common carriers?

If BA is a 'common carrier' what difference who owns it?

Must be someone who can answer these questions?

I might have known years ago, but old age takes it's toll.


Big John


On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:36:00 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?
>
>Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
>And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
>note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
>government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet another
>Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
>fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
>London. Although he started in the United States, no US government authority
>has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.
>
>Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
>Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
>individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
>without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended to
>prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
>fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a private
>company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
>presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner of
>that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
>extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA a
>private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
>government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
>government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
>civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company and
>should be allowed to behave as such.
>
>Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
>but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
>rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
>Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
>or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
>those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the right
>of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
>sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.
>

[S. Culver]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well, Mr. Gilmore is a bitter pill to swallow, isn't he?
>
> Does Mr. Gilmore have the right to wear his button in public? Of course.
> And, for those who blame 'the government' for Mr. Gilmore's treatment, I
> note that Mr. Gilmore was not accused of breaking or violating any
> government regulations. I realize that the Bush haters will see yet
another
> Republican conspiracy to deprive Mr. Gilmore of his civil rights, but the
> fact is that Mr. Gilmore was travelling on a British air carrier flying to
> London. Although he started in the United States, no US government
authority
> has or had a problem with Mr. Gilmore's button.
>
> Does British Airways, as a private company, have a right to limit Mr.
> Gilmore's free speech? I personally think that a private company or
> individual has the moral right to decide who it wants to do business with,
> without any government restriction whatsoever. I oppose all laws intended
to
> prevent 'discimination' of any kind on the basis that they violate the
> fundamental right of freedom of association. IF British Airways is a
private
> company, the British Airways jet is private property, and Mr. Gilmore's
> presence on that private property should be at the pleasure of the owner
of
> that private property. The question remains, however, that given the
> extensive involvement of the British government in British Airways, is BA
a
> private company? I would argue that this is a fundamental problem with
> government intrusion into what should be private enterprise -- that
> government ownership and subsidy systematically deprive people of their
> civil rights. Nevertheless, BA is, on paper at least, a private company
and
> should be allowed to behave as such.
>
> Mr. Gilmore is a hypocrite. He wants freedom for himself as an individual,
> but is not willing to allow that freedom to others. British Airways by all
> rights should be able to choose whether it wants to do business with Mr.
> Gilmore or anyone else who is travelling with him. Mr. Gilmore knows that,
> or at least he should know that. Mr. Gilmore's actions are no better than
> those of the Confederacy during the Civil War -- you cannot claim the
right
> of self-determination while depriving others of freedom. I have little
> sympathy for Mr. Gilmore.
>
>

Well after slogging through all the other (mostly) moronic posts containing
such obligatory propagandistic left-wing phrases like "fascist police state"
and "narrow minded bigot", I'm giving this post the award for having the
most common-sense and defensible premises. Congratulations, sir, for being
just about the only person here that seems to be able to think critically
and logically about this issue.

Now, my opinion on this issue is that tactics like those used by Mr. Gilmore
are a self-fulfilling prophecy and he knows it. He chose to flaunt the
post-9/11 heightened sense of security for the simple juvenile purpose of
being able to scream "fascists" when BA took the pre-determined action that
he wished to protest against. Not only that, but if I were a passenger on
that plane, I certainly wouldn't have looked at him as some kind of "freedom
fighter" or revolutionary who standing up for his rights by fighting the
"oppressive totalitarian state", but rather I would have viewed him as an
immature simpleton that thinks he's making a profound sociological
statement, when all he's really doing is holding up a plane full of people
that don't give a **** about his "cause".


-smc

[Peter Duniho]

"Jeff" > wrote in message ...
> take your business else where because you have to show ID to use a credit
> card?

Let's see now: you seem to feel that making customers show ID in order to
use a credit card is a significant enough demand to bring it up in this
thread. Yet, at the same time, you think someone who chooses not to do
business with someone who makes such a requirement is being unreasonable?

Nothing about your position seems inconsistent to you? Nothing at all?

> Dood, you have issues.

Seems like that applies at least as well to you.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, the airlines say to EVERYBODY: you are a terrorist unless proven you
> are not.

If you really want to drive the last nail in the coffin of commercial
airline service, force them to treat passengers otherwise.

After 9/11, like it or not, most passengers WANT the added "security"
measures that TSA have put in place. I'm sure if you put it to a vote there
would be five Air Marshals on every flight, and "ground-controlled
auto-land" capability on every plane -- stupid though that may be.

The fact that Mayor Daley is walking around a free man after bulldozing an
airport in the name of "increased security" says volumes about the current
attitude of the general public. In "normal" times (I.E.: Pre-9/11), Daley
would have been hauled away in handcuffs for destroying public property in
the middle of the night.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"S. Culver" > wrote in message
...
> Well after slogging through all the other (mostly) moronic posts
containing
> such obligatory propagandistic left-wing phrases like "fascist police
state"
> and "narrow minded bigot", I'm giving this post the award for having the
> most common-sense and defensible premises. Congratulations, sir, for being
> just about the only person here that seems to be able to think critically
> and logically about this issue.
>
> Now, my opinion on this issue is that tactics like those used by Mr.
Gilmore
> are a self-fulfilling prophecy and he knows it. He chose to flaunt the
> post-9/11 heightened sense of security for the simple juvenile purpose of
> being able to scream "fascists" when BA took the pre-determined action
that
> he wished to protest against. Not only that, but if I were a passenger on
> that plane, I certainly wouldn't have looked at him as some kind of
"freedom
> fighter" or revolutionary who standing up for his rights by fighting the
> "oppressive totalitarian state", but rather I would have viewed him as an
> immature simpleton that thinks he's making a profound sociological
> statement, when all he's really doing is holding up a plane full of people
> that don't give a **** about his "cause".


He was wearing a BUTTON, for god's sake. A while ago someone was kicked out
of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion. In each
of these cases, could the respective parties force the patrons to leave?
Sure, they could and they did. However, I wonder what we have come to when
this happens, when many of us are so intollerant of differing opinions. Who
does this remind me of? Are we becoming extremists in our thinking too?

[lardsoup]

Please point out where it says democracy in the constitution.

> The USA is a democratic republic at this point. A representative
> democracy. Democracy is about how the decisions are made, or the
> government is chosen; a republic is one of the forms such a government can
> take. Neither of these are guarantees of freedom. And fascism, though
it
> is often associated with dictatorship, is more about the policies and
> practices of a government, being one that 'exalts' the nation, or the
race,
> perhaps, above the individual'. But whether or not such a government
> becomes in the end a dictatorship, such a government could still
conceivably
> have in the beginning been democratically elected.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Gary L. Drescher" > wrote in message
news:f%ASa.93708$GL4.25281@rwcrnsc53...
| "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
| ...
| > ...
|
| I'd just like to do a quick consistency check here, CJ. By the above
| reasoning, if (hypothetically) BA had ejected Mr. Glimore for being black
or
| Jewish (rather than for his button), then (although I assume you'd
| disapprove of that policy) you'd be equally unsympathetic to Mr. Gilmore
for
| suing them, and you'd consider him equally "hypocritical" for thereby
| challenging BA's "freedom"--correct? Indeed, you'd consider Mr. Gilmore's
| wrongdoing to be just as grave as a slave owner's, correct?
|

That is indeed correct. That does not meant that I approve of such
discrimination -- I merely assert that I think people have an inalienable
right to do business, or not, with anyone they please for any reason. There
is no moral difference between a company that will not do business with
blacks or Jews than a boycott of that business by blacks or Jews or any
other group. I will grant that I would probably honor a boycott against a
discriminatory business, but again I think this is a matter that is better
handled through social pressure than through official legislation. I believe
that government interference in this relationship does more harm than good.
Such laws breed more resentment than tolerance.

Frankly, I have never understood racial discrimination. Such divisions of
humanity have always seemed artificial to me. Why a business would
deliberately cut off a large potential customer base and then insult others
by doing so just seems to me to be really bad business. Nevertheless, I
think a business has a right to be stupid, to put it bluntly.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
|
|
|
| He was wearing a BUTTON, for god's sake. A while ago someone was kicked
out
| of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion. In
each
| of these cases, could the respective parties force the patrons to leave?
| Sure, they could and they did. However, I wonder what we have come to
when
| this happens, when many of us are so intollerant of differing opinions.
Who
| does this remind me of? Are we becoming extremists in our thinking too?
|
|

That is a whole different issue.

While I would say that British Airways has a right to be intolerant of
divergent political opinions, I would also say that their actions exhibit an
extremist point of view. I think their actions also do their business more
harm than good.

To Mr. Gilmore's credit, he does not appear to have resisted being taken off
the airplane. His threat to sue is another matter, since that involves
government enforcement. If Mr. Gilmore had not threatened to sue the airline
I would not have a problem with anything he did. That does not meant that I
agree with his point of view. It does mean that I would not have a problem
with the way that he expressed.

[C J Campbell]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
|
| Is BA a 'common carrier' and what are the rules for common carriers?
|
| If BA is a 'common carrier' what difference who owns it?
|

British Airways is a common carrier, meaning that it holds itself out to
carry passengers and property for hire. It does not mean that British
Airways is community property. After all, a guy who offers to carry loads of
hay with his horse and wagon is a common carrier. Being a common carrier is
no different than any other type of business. Are you saying that just
because someone is a common carrier that he has no right to control over his
personal property?

[Gene Seibel]

Because it's going to take a lot longer than two years to undo the
years of liberal political correctness that says we can't make
judgements about right and wrong, so therefore we must consider
everyone right or everyone wrong.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html

> I had a Top Secret clearance while on active duty (now honorably
> retired), was Project Officer on the Air to Air nuclear rocket and sat
> alert with same, I was trusted with a finger on the trigger. I also
> have passed the requirements (FBI investigation into my background)
> for a gun carry permit here in TX.
>
> I also voted for George Bush.
>
> Why am I treated like a terrorist each time I fly commercial?
>
>
> Big John
>

[Big John]

CJ

Not sure what is legal or not.

If I run a restaurant offering food to the public and I don't permit a
ethnic group to use my facility, will the Govt do anything? Even if
the group are doing high fives, playing their "Boom Boxes" at high
volume and other disruptive things that prevent the rest of the
customers from eating their meals. If I kick them out what happens.

If I go to the airport and buy a ticket on a 'common carrier' can I
say (In lobby or in aircraft) that I don't think GW is a good
president and should be taken out and hanged for the things he is
doing I see every day in the paper, cartoons of GW that I wouldn't
let my young daughter see. If fact just reported today that a cartoon
in CA shows GW being assassinated. Where do you draw the line? Can I
take that cartoon on a flight pined to my coat (free speach)

Since Gilmore didn't run up and down the isle crying out "look at my
button" (didn't cry fire) what is the problem with people in the world
today? I've said before on the thread that I feel like a terrorist
every time I go to fly and have to go through the over reacting check
in.

I carry pen and pencils and credit cards on all of my flights. I met
with my US Representative and demonstrated that the pens and pencils
were deadly weapons and I could kill someone with a stroke of either.
I also demonstrated that I could cut the throat of an individual with
a credit card (basic special forces training). All we have are knee
jerks fueled by the media which is only interested in the bottom line,
not security in the USA.

Long rant. It's hard to put up with idiots and fools.


Big John

CJ. Sorry I tied this rant to your posting to my post. If you don't
agree, please accept my appoligies.


On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 07:58:23 -0700, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>|
>| Is BA a 'common carrier' and what are the rules for common carriers?
>|
>| If BA is a 'common carrier' what difference who owns it?
>|
>
>British Airways is a common carrier, meaning that it holds itself out to
>carry passengers and property for hire. It does not mean that British
>Airways is community property. After all, a guy who offers to carry loads of
>hay with his horse and wagon is a common carrier. Being a common carrier is
>no different than any other type of business. Are you saying that just
>because someone is a common carrier that he has no right to control over his
>personal property?
>

[Ron McKinnon]

"lardsoup" > wrote in message
...
> Please point out where it says democracy in the constitution.
>
> > The USA is a democratic republic at this point. A representative
> > democracy. Democracy is about how the decisions are made, or the
> > government is chosen; a republic is one of the forms such a government
can
> > take.

It is irrelevant whether the US Constitution explicity 'says democracy' to
whether in fact it is one.

The constitution does specify, however, (Artidcle I, Section 2, Clause 1)
that "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second Year by the People of the several States ...", and for the other
house of the legislative branch, the Senate, which "shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof" (Article I,
Section 3, Clause 1). This looks pretty representative-democracy-ish to
me.

[Captain Wubba]

To his *credit*? He was acting like a jackass, and you think it was to
his *credit* that he didn't resist against obviously overwhelming
force when he was booted off the plane for being a jackass? He simply
decided he didn't want to see the inside of a jail. So essentially, he
'believed' in his cause enough to cause consternation for others and
to disobey the captain of the airliner, but lacked the stones to go to
jail for his beliefs. His call...but hardly anything worthy of
admiration.

A remarkable number of Americans seem to think that because they think
they *should* have the right to do something means that they *should*
so that thing. Given the current sensitivity, I think most passengers
would be a bit concerned seeing somebody saunter down to the lav
wearing a button saying 'suspected terrorist'. Is he really a
suspected terrorist? Is he being transported on this plane? If he is,
where are his keepers? Why should the 'rights' of a self-aggrandizing
fool to yelp 'it's sort of a fire!' in a theater trump the rights of
the passengers (many of whom are naturally fearful of flying) to have
a flight that is not unnecessarily fear-inducing?

Obviously BA had the right to boot him. In fact, he agreed to that
right when he purchased a ticket. That isn't in doubt. But what I find
ironic is that this moron is acting like the wounded party because he
didn't get to exercise his 'right' to call attention to himself and
make other people feel uncomfortable. His 'Hey! Look at me! I'm being
clever! LOOK AT ME!' is a pethetic example of the histrionic tendency
that many (often otherwise worthless) people have developed....I guess
if you don't do anything worthy of note, if you can get enough people
to look at you, then that's close enough.

Pathetic.


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> et...
> |
> |
> |
> | He was wearing a BUTTON, for god's sake. A while ago someone was kicked
> out
> | of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion. In
> each
> | of these cases, could the respective parties force the patrons to leave?
> | Sure, they could and they did. However, I wonder what we have come to
> when
> | this happens, when many of us are so intollerant of differing opinions.
> Who
> | does this remind me of? Are we becoming extremists in our thinking too?
> |
> |
>
> That is a whole different issue.
>
> While I would say that British Airways has a right to be intolerant of
> divergent political opinions, I would also say that their actions exhibit an
> extremist point of view. I think their actions also do their business more
> harm than good.
>
> To Mr. Gilmore's credit, he does not appear to have resisted being taken off
> the airplane. His threat to sue is another matter, since that involves
> government enforcement. If Mr. Gilmore had not threatened to sue the airline
> I would not have a problem with anything he did. That does not meant that I
> agree with his point of view. It does mean that I would not have a problem
> with the way that he expressed.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I doubt that too. Not in Chicago. And no politician in their right mind
> would have tried something like that anywhere else.

The mayor of Atlantic City did exactly the same thing about 10 years ago, only
he tore up a taxiway. The first thing anyone knew about it was when someone
got a prop strike taxiing into the damaged area.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> A while ago someone was kicked out
> of a mall for wearing a t-shirt that expressed an anti-war opinion.

No, he and his son were kicked out for bothering the other customers. If he'd
kept his mouth shut, nobody would have cared about his shirt.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> The only ones it "disturbed" was some crewmembers.

Fine. It doesn't pay to disturb people who have the right to kick you off
the plane. And it *really* doesn't pay to tell them where to go when they
try to be reasonable about it.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Peter Duniho]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> The mayor of Atlantic City did exactly the same thing about 10 years ago,
only
> he tore up a taxiway.

If I recall, that airport is still open and the taxiway is repaired. I'd
argue that politician wasn't in his right mind. :)

[Peter Gottlieb]

Lose-lose situation. Any time a business which is starved for customers
kicks one out it is not good.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > The only ones it "disturbed" was some crewmembers.
>
> Fine. It doesn't pay to disturb people who have the right to kick you off
> the plane. And it *really* doesn't pay to tell them where to go when they
> try to be reasonable about it.
>
> George Patterson
> The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
> pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
> James Branch Cavel

[randall g]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:12:00 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>"Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
>> > Yes, the airlines say to EVERYBODY: you are a terrorist unless proven you
>> > are not.
>>
>> If you really want to drive the last nail in the coffin of commercial
>> airline service, force them to treat passengers otherwise.
>>
>> After 9/11, like it or not, most passengers WANT the added "security"
>> measures that TSA have put in place.
>
>Well, I jump into Godwins law ..:
>Hitler was elected with a big majority. Most people loved what he did.


Hitler and the Nazi Party never received more than 44% of the vote in a
German national election - in 1933, the last one held until after
Hitler's death. But you are right that he had plenty of support after
gaining control of the government and becoming dictator.






randall g =%^)> #320 - only 346 short
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos.htm

[C J Campbell]

"Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
om...
| To his *credit*? He was acting like a jackass, and you think it was to
| his *credit* that he didn't resist against obviously overwhelming
| force when he was booted off the plane for being a jackass?

We must be thankful for small blessings. :-)

Seriously, given the nature of this individual, he could well have become
violent. At least he maintained enough of a grasp of reality to know that he
was fighting a losing battle. As I said, he is a hypocrite. You never know
what such people might do.

[Ron McKinnon]

"lardsoup" > wrote in message
...
> Neat. Doesn't matter what the constitution says, so long as the of
> government "looks" the way YOU want it to. How did you define fascism?
>
> >"Ron McKinnon"
> > It is irrelevant whether the US Constitution explicity 'says democracy'
to
> > whether in fact it is one.
<Constitutional cites snipped>
> > This looks pretty representative-democracy-ish to
> > me.

It does matter what the Constitution says, as I clearly stated,
and you excised out. You're missing the point, though it
puzzles me how that could be. It hasn't got anything to do
with how *I* might or might not want it to look, and I feel
you're being disingenuous in saying otherwise.

The point to which I have addressed my comments is that
being a democracy and being a republic are not mutually
exclusive. The point, further, is that one pertains to the form
that the government takes, and the other to the way such
government is chosen.

And, finally, regardless that the US Constitution does not
use the word 'democracy', nor state in so many words
that the Union 'is a democracy', in specifying the manner
in which the members of the legislative branch are chosen
-- directly by the people (of the several States) in the case
of the House of Representatives, and indirectly by the
people (by the legislatures of the several States, in fact) for
the Senate (and the Executive branch), it clearly establishes
the Union as democratic.

[Captain Wubba]

Good point :)

Cap


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Captain Wubba" > wrote in message
> om...
> | To his *credit*? He was acting like a jackass, and you think it was to
> | his *credit* that he didn't resist against obviously overwhelming
> | force when he was booted off the plane for being a jackass?
>
> We must be thankful for small blessings. :-)
>
> Seriously, given the nature of this individual, he could well have become
> violent. At least he maintained enough of a grasp of reality to know that he
> was fighting a losing battle. As I said, he is a hypocrite. You never know
> what such people might do.

[Big John]

Thank GOD for little things.

One can only surmise where that would have led.

Can anyone remember Clinton and Gore getting a tour on TV of the White
House and coming to a picture of Geo Washington and Gore asking who
that was????

Big John


On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 11:15:37 GMT, "lardsoup" > wrote:

>If the US was a democracy, Al Gore would be the President.
>
>
>> it clearly establishes
>> the Union as democratic.
>>
>>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Can anyone remember Clinton and Gore getting a tour on TV of the White
> House and coming to a picture of Geo Washington and Gore asking who
> that was????

How could anyone remember something you made up?

[Big John]

Glad someone else remembers the gaffe.

On second thought it may have been Jefferson vs Washington but the
picture was one that is a well known painting to any school kid taking
American History.

Only saw it on the live show. They never repeated it again that I saw.
Guess it got 'air brushed' from any following showing after review by
the Democrats? <G>

Big John

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 03:28:16 GMT, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>
>> "Big John" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Can anyone remember Clinton and Gore getting a tour on TV of the White
>>>House and coming to a picture of Geo Washington and Gore asking who
>>>that was????
>
>I don't think it was the White House, it was the Capitol. One of the
>funniest damn things I have seen on TV.

[John Galban]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Can anyone remember Clinton and Gore getting a tour on TV of the White
> > House and coming to a picture of Geo Washington and Gore asking who
> > that was????
>
> How could anyone remember something you made up?

Perhaps Big John's details are not on the money, but I do recall the
incident he's referring to. Shows up on TV blooper programs every now
and then.

Politicians of either stripe tend to make these kinds of gaffs
whenever their not reading from a teleprompter.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Big John]

John

I remember that up is up and down is down but sometimes miss the
horizon in between <G>

Big John.



On 23 Jul 2003 16:07:52 -0700, (John Galban)
wrote:

>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
>> "Big John" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Can anyone remember Clinton and Gore getting a tour on TV of the White
>> > House and coming to a picture of Geo Washington and Gore asking who
>> > that was????
>>
>> How could anyone remember something you made up?
>
> Perhaps Big John's details are not on the money, but I do recall the
>incident he's referring to. Shows up on TV blooper programs every now
>and then.
>
> Politicians of either stripe tend to make these kinds of gaffs
>whenever their not reading from a teleprompter.
>
>John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>> it was an election
>> remember some people not allowed to vote in Florida? it was an election.
>> No, no comparison!
>The only people who couldn't vote in Florida (in the 2000 presidential
>election) were too stupid to figure out the ballot.
>
>They weren't barred from voting by any external force.

WRONG! Several hundred (or was it several thousand) people were prevented
from voting because they had the same names as convicted felons, and
Florida had struck them from the voters rolls. Florida had hired a
company to find the felons and remove them, but the company had done
nothing more sophisticated than a name match, so if there was a convicted
felon named John Wayne Smith anywhere in the country, nobody with that
name was allowed to vote in Florida.

And they did the same damn thing in the last congressional election, in
spite of a law suit from the ACLU.

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
"It's 106 light-years to Chicago, we've got a full chamber of anti-matter,
a half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing visors."
"Engage."

[Montblack]

"Jay Honeck"
> The only people who couldn't vote in Florida (in the 2000 presidential
> election) were too stupid to figure out the ballot.


These same ballots were designed by Democrats, monitored by Democrats and
used in the previous election, where a Democrat won.

The ballots were never the issue. In fact, this was a non issue until it was
seized upon by the DMC, pumped up into hysteria and exploited. It was an
invented (and then mass marketed) phony issue - and the Democrats knew it.

Seniors not getting to vote vs. common sense and the law. Dems bet on
manufactured emotion and lost.

Oh, BTW, how many absentee military votes were the Democrats willing to
throw away, in their pursuit of victory in Florida?

This country is in need of a (credible) middle of the road, third party, for
all of the folks out there like me. Is Bull Moose Party still available?

(Needed aviation content)
Theodore Roosevelt flew in an airplane at St. Louis, Missouri, the first
time someone who had served as president had ever flown in an airplane.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O20B22065
TR's 1910 plane ride.

--
Montblack

[Jay Honeck]

> WRONG! Several hundred (or was it several thousand) people were prevented
> from voting because they had the same names as convicted felons

Well, unless you subscribe to the theory that Democrats are more likely to
be related to felons (!), this procedural glitch should have hurt both
parties equally.

You're not REALLY saying that people with the last name as known felons
would be more likely to vote for Gore, are you, Paul? :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Montblack" > said:
>"Jay Honeck"
>> The only people who couldn't vote in Florida (in the 2000 presidential
>> election) were too stupid to figure out the ballot.
>
>Oh, BTW, how many absentee military votes were the Democrats willing to
>throw away, in their pursuit of victory in Florida?

Ok, why is it perfectly ok to throw away the ballots of seniors who "were
too stupid to figure out the ballot", but when they throw away the ballots
of soliders who are too stupid to figure out the procedures[1], that's an
evil Democrat trick?

[1] 680 absentee ballots that were *counted* were found to have voilated
state or federal election law:
344: late, illegible or missing postmarks
183: posted with US (not APO) postmarks
169: voters weren't registerd to vote, failed to sign the envelope, or
had not requested thea ballot.
96: lacked the required signature or address of a witness
38: 19 voters who cast two ballots each
5: received after the 11/17 deadline

Except for the illegible postmarks, all of these people are too stupid to
vote, but they did. And in most cases, their votes were counted because
"canvassing boards in about a dozen Republican-leaning counties had
reconvened for a second round of counting. In each place, longstanding
election rules were bent and even ignored....Again and again, election
officials crossed out the words `REJECTED AS ILLEGAL' that had been
stamped on ballot envelopes."

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~kimai/research/ballots.html

--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
I stayed up all night playing poker with tarot cards. I got a full
house and four people died. -- Steven Wright

[Jay Honeck]

> Except for the illegible postmarks, all of these people are too stupid to
> vote, but they did. And in most cases, their votes were counted because
> "canvassing boards in about a dozen Republican-leaning counties had
> reconvened for a second round of counting. In each place, longstanding
> election rules were bent and even ignored....Again and again, election
> officials crossed out the words `REJECTED AS ILLEGAL' that had been
> stamped on ballot envelopes."

So what you're telling me is that both Republican and Democrat-controlled
election boards used every weapon in their arsenal to assure victory for
their candidate in Florida?

What was that line from Casablanca? "I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that there
is gambling going on in here!" :)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Natalie]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:tbUTa.137897$H17.47830@sccrnsc02...

>
> What was that line from Casablanca? "I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that there
> is gambling going on in here!" :)
> --
We have a saying here, "It's not over until your brother counts the votes."

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> Ok, why is it perfectly ok to throw away the ballots of seniors who "were
> too stupid to figure out the ballot",

You mean "suddenly too stupid."? The same ballot type had been used for
many election cycles.

[Newps]

Did anybody else see the 51 Chevy pickup that some Cubans made into a
boat by strapping empty tanks around the side on the news yesterday and
today? Did you immediately think of Ted Kennedy too?

Ron Natalie wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:tbUTa.137897$H17.47830@sccrnsc02...
>
>
>>What was that line from Casablanca? "I'm shocked -- SHOCKED -- that there
>>is gambling going on in here!" :)
>>--
>
> We have a saying here, "It's not over until your brother counts the votes."
>
>
>

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Newps > said:
>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>> Ok, why is it perfectly ok to throw away the ballots of seniors who "were
>> too stupid to figure out the ballot",
>
>You mean "suddenly too stupid."? The same ballot type had been used for
>many election cycles.

Let me introduce you to the concept of "statistically significant error
rates" some day.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
Speed is life, altitude is life insurance. No one has ever collided with
the sky.

[Montblack]

I thought of my sister, in St. Paul, who has a very, very, very nice 51
Chevy pickup for sale. Green with the original Iowa grain box still on the
back. 99% original condition, great shape - $8,500.
* Cubans not included

--
Montblack

("Newps" wrote)
> Did anybody else see the 51 Chevy pickup that some Cubans made into a
> boat by strapping empty tanks around the side on the news yesterday and
> today? Did you immediately think of Ted Kennedy too?

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
> They would
> have made good additions to our citizenry pool to offset the welfare
> mentality of some of our native born minority groups...

I'd rather offset the racist mentality of some of our native born majority
groups.

--Gary

> Denny

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Gary L. Drescher" > said:
>"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message
...
>> They would
>> have made good additions to our citizenry pool to offset the welfare
>> mentality of some of our native born minority groups...
>
>I'd rather offset the racist mentality of some of our native born majority
>groups.

Well said!


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count & those who can't.

[Dennis O'Connor]

It doesn't matter what you believe about the Florida election laws, or how
you feel about the court rulings, or whether you disliked the hair style of
Ms. Harris, the facts are clear...
The DNC had an aggressive get out the vote campaign and they recruited
heavily from two groups; those who had never voted before, and those who had
become too senile to vote - and bussed them to the polls in herds... As a
result their ballot error rate shot off the graph... Simple case of cause
and effect...

Denny

"Newps" > wrote in message
. net...
>
>
> Paul Tomblin wrote:
>
> > Ok, why is it perfectly ok to throw away the ballots of seniors who
"were
> > too stupid to figure out the ballot",
>
> You mean "suddenly too stupid."? The same ballot type had been used for
> many election cycles.
>

[Big John]

Paul

Statistically how often does one and one not make two?

By the way, are you connected someway with the census bureau?

Big John
An hours pay for an hours work.

Big John

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 21:56:13 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, Newps > said:
>>Paul Tomblin wrote:
>>> Ok, why is it perfectly ok to throw away the ballots of seniors who "were
>>> too stupid to figure out the ballot",
>>
>>You mean "suddenly too stupid."? The same ballot type had been used for
>>many election cycles.
>
>Let me introduce you to the concept of "statistically significant error
>rates" some day.

[Corrie]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in message >...
> In a previous article, Newps > said:
> >Paul Tomblin wrote:
> >> Ok, why is it perfectly ok to throw away the ballots of seniors who "were
> >> too stupid to figure out the ballot",
> >
> >You mean "suddenly too stupid."? The same ballot type had been used for
> >many election cycles.
>
> Let me introduce you to the concept of "statistically significant error
> rates" some day.


Pre-freakin-cisely. Statistically, the election was a dead heat. The
margin of victory was less than the sampling error. The Florida
election laws were not up to the task of handling the situation, so it
went to court. The system worked. Once again, political power in the
world's largest, most vibrant economy, and control of the most
powerful military force the planet has ever seen, traded hands
peacefully. Yes, there were loud arguments. Maybe even a few
fistfights.

But no tanks in the streets. The system WORKED AS DESIGNED. Maybe
the design is flawed, but it WORKED. Dennis Prager made a good point
the other day: Looking around the globe, our society is the exception,
not the norm.


To the point of the original post: You have the right to express your
views. You also have the responsibility to accept the consequences of
expressing them. The KKK has the right to march through downtown
Skokie. They should not, however, be surprised that they have to
clean borsht stains out of their robers afterwards. The fellow with
the button had made his point when the flight crew politely asked him
to remove the button. (They were completely within their rights to do
so - once the door is closed, the PIC is God, right?) To
inconvenience 300 paying passengers, waste several hundred gallons of
fuel, waste the time of any number of personnel who could have been
attending to real issues... if there are any lawsuits coming, I'd
think that he might find himself in need of a defense attorney.

[AES/newspost]

In article >,
(Corrie) wrote:

> Pre-freakin-cisely. Statistically, the election was a dead heat. The
> margin of victory was less than the sampling error. The Florida
> election laws were not up to the task of handling the situation, so it
> went to court. The system worked. Once again, political power in the
> world's largest, most vibrant economy, and control of the most
> powerful military force the planet has ever seen, traded hands
> peacefully. Yes, there were loud arguments. Maybe even a few
> fistfights.
>
> But no tanks in the streets. The system WORKED AS DESIGNED. Maybe
> the design is flawed, but it WORKED. Dennis Prager made a good point
> the other day: Looking around the globe, our society is the exception,
> not the norm.

Pre-cisely precisely (especially the first four lines). Thanks for a
genuinely intelligent posting -- uncomfortably rare in newsgroups, and
probably little appreciated when they do occur.

How come our press and media never make this exact point? Because
they're not intelligent enough to understand it to start with?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>> > They would
>> > have made good additions to our citizenry pool to offset the welfare
>> > mentality of some of our native born minority groups...
>>
>> I'd rather offset the racist mentality of some of our native born majority
>> groups.
>
>How is Denny's observation "racist"?

Saying "native born minority groups" have a "welfare mentality" *isn't*
racist? It's hard to think of a remark that would be more racist.


--
Paul Tomblin >, not speaking for anybody
``Furthermore, [your wishlist item] would end up being the sort of system
feature that we in software engineering call an "SPR generator".''
- Paul S. Winalski

[Newps]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

> In a previous article, "Jay Honeck" > said:
>
>>>>They would
>>>>have made good additions to our citizenry pool to offset the welfare
>>>>mentality of some of our native born minority groups...
>>>
>>>I'd rather offset the racist mentality of some of our native born majority
>>>groups.
>>
>>How is Denny's observation "racist"?
>
>
> Saying "native born minority groups" have a "welfare mentality" *isn't*
> racist? It's hard to think of a remark that would be more racist.

He said "some" and he is correct.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>How is Denny's observation "racist"?
>>
>>Saying "native born minority groups" have a "welfare mentality" *isn't*
>>racist? It's hard to think of a remark that would be more racist.
>
>
> Um, have you spent any time in the urban centers of this country, sir?
>
> I have. Seven years spent collecting money from inner city debtors.
>
> Denny's observation isn't racist. It may be a slam against a particular
> *culture* -- but it ain't "racist".

Good god. Travel to most any indian reservation. Having seen quite a
few myself no one will ever convince me that what is happening to the
indians today isn't 100% their own damn fault. Get off your ass, stop
drinking, get an education and get a career. Until that happens shut
the hell up.

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:pJHUa.156575$H17.55177@sccrnsc02...
> > >How is Denny's observation "racist"?
> >
> > Saying "native born minority groups" have a "welfare mentality" *isn't*
> > racist? It's hard to think of a remark that would be more racist.
>
> Um, have you spent any time in the urban centers of this country, sir?
>
> I have. Seven years spent collecting money from inner city debtors.
>
> Denny's observation isn't racist. It may be a slam against a particular
> *culture* -- but it ain't "racist".

So is it your contention that Denny's "observation" isn't racist, because
e.g. African Americans really do have a "welfare mentality"? Remember,
it's not just certain individuals whom Denny characterized as having that
"mentality", but rather certain "minority groups" overall (though I'm sure
he'd acknowledge so-called exceptions). There's no doubt as to which
minorities you and he are referring to, is there?

And you base your appraisal on an anecdotal sample drawn
exclusively from *recalcitrant debtors*?

--Gary

> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary L. Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. net...
> Good god. Travel to most any indian reservation. Having seen quite a
> few myself no one will ever convince me that what is happening to the
> indians today isn't 100% their own damn fault. Get off your ass, stop
> drinking, get an education and get a career. Until that happens shut
> the hell up.

100% their fault? 100% are lazy alcoholics? 100% have been offered decent
educations, but declined? And having had their culture destroyed when
driven to the brink of genocide doesn't even count as a contributory factor?
It's not even a significant *part* of what is to blame?

At least it's refreshing when the right wing drops its big-tent,
compassionate-conservative public-relations facade and reveals its true
colors. If only Bush, Cheney, et al were to speak as plainly as Newps, we
could have an easy regime change at the next election.

[N3722A]

Actually, it's a republic based on democratic principles ...

We could actually pass amendments to the constitution removing/altering such
stuff as the "right" to free speech (1st amendment.)


"Ron McKinnon" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "lardsoup" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > What's your
> > > problem - you think you're living in a democracy or something? Shut
up
> > > and do what the government tells you like a good citizen of a facist
> > > state.
> >
> > I'm not living in a democracy. It's a republic. Fascist state? Get
> real.
>
> The USA is a democratic republic at this point. A representative
> democracy. Democracy is about how the decisions are made, or the
> government is chosen; a republic is one of the forms such a government can
> take. Neither of these are guarantees of freedom. And fascism, though
it
> is often associated with dictatorship, is more about the policies and
> practices of a government, being one that 'exalts' the nation, or the
race,
> perhaps, above the individual'. But whether or not such a government
> becomes in the end a dictatorship, such a government could still
conceivably
> have in the beginning been democratically elected.
>
>