Presidential TFR @ Kill Devil Hills

[Richard Russell]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
Rich Russell

[Toks Desalu]

Yeah...........what a joke! Nearest airport is 60 miles drive.....If the
president was smart, he would stay away for the sake of thousands of pilots
and citizens!! Excuse my opinion but.......what a joke!
Toks

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
> Rich Russell

[Harry Gordon]

Is this what you call "adding insult to injury?" I guess the only thing that
will be flying at the celebration will be AF-1....

Harry

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
> Rich Russell

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, said:
>Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
>the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
>2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?

Will the Flyer get an exemption, or will they send out the F-16s to shoot
it down?


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Fly the airplane, then work the problem"
-- Rick Grant (quoting RCAF pilot training)

[Neal]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 23:47:14 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
Tomblin) wrote:

>Will the Flyer get an exemption, or will they send out the F-16s to shoot
>it down?

Naw, they'll just use baseball bats to knock it out of the air



sorry, couldn't resist.

[Ray Bengen]

Gotta make sure every pilot in the country doesn't vote for him, no ?

He has to know what he's doing to us. Forcing us to drive 50 miles when
he's around.

A disgrace and a shame.

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
> Rich Russell

[Blanche]

Take the announcement (the TFR) then get Phil Boyer's comments and
quote. Send to every television, radio and newspaper in your area.
This is nothing more than the same stunt as landing the jet on
the carrier and he walks out wearing a flight suit.

This is even better if you're a registered Republican. Send the
letter to your local Republican committee HQ with a complaint.

He uses the media. You use the media. There are more of us to
make the case to the media.

Even better -- find out who in the local media are pilots. Enlist
them.

[R. Hubbell]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:34:22 -0500 Richard Russell > wrote:

> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
> Rich Russell


It doesn't seem ironic to me, just dumb. Heck he's got Saddam what's the worry?
Oh wait, the crippled, dialysis patient is still a threat.

It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because a
pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing in
the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want to know.


R. Hubbell

[Aardvark]

Blanche wrote:

> Take the announcement (the TFR) then get Phil Boyer's comments and
> quote. Send to every television, radio and newspaper in your area.
> This is nothing more than the same stunt as landing the jet on
> the carrier and he walks out wearing a flight suit.
>
> This is even better if you're a registered Republican. Send the
> letter to your local Republican committee HQ with a complaint.
>
> He uses the media. You use the media. There are more of us to
> make the case to the media.
>
> Even better -- find out who in the local media are pilots. Enlist
> them.
>
I would try to contact Neil Boortz at http://boortz.com/
He might jusr rant about it on air:)
He is a pilot and has had a rant or two on air before.
Call the Neal Boortz Show
Atlanta: 404.872.0750
Elsewhere 1.877.310.2100
8:30 a.m. - 1 p.m. ET on AM750 WSB
M-F

WW

[Dave Stadt]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:34:22 -0500 Richard Russell
> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> > the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> > 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
> > Rich Russell
>
>
> It doesn't seem ironic to me, just dumb. Heck he's got Saddam what's the
worry?
> Oh wait, the crippled, dialysis patient is still a threat.
>
> It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because
a
> pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing
in
> the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want to know.
>
>
> R. Hubbell

I would love to see Ken Hyde and crew cancel the flight of the Flyer at
Kitty Hawk to protest the absurd presidential TFRs. If Boyer was in charge
it might happen but not with EAA in charge.

[Cecil E. Chapman]

> pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing
in
> the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want to know.

Easy to answer that one,,,, he was trying to avoid the likelihood (at the
time) going into combat with the draft by joining the Guard... An 'artful
dodger' :-)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[Big John]

What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?

Do you think they have enough F-16's and weapons to shoot down them
all and if that happened what would those idiots (spelled Liberals) do
to him? He would be smoke politically after they got through in the
liberal press.

I'll probably be put on a watch list for writing things like this but
sometime you have to call a dumb thing dumb.

I voted for him and will again to get that on the recording.

Has anyone tickled the NYT about this shutting down the celebration
by the way?

Big John



On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:34:22 -0500, Richard Russell
> wrote:

>Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
>the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
>2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
>Rich Russell

[Cub Driver]

>It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because a
>pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing in
>the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want to know.

He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
and later in the Texas Air Guard.

What did you fly when you were in the military?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
>home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
>
>Do you think they have enough F-16's and weapons to shoot down them

Perhaps not, but the FAA probably has enough bureaucrats to pull the
certificates on 500 pilots.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Quax]

I have just informed a German TV program about the situation in Kitty Hawk.
Hopefully they will mention it in the evening news.
It's sad to shut down airspace for a "flying" party.

rgds



"Richard Russell" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?
> Rich Russell

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Big John
> wrote:

> What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
> home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?

they'd get flamed for the spelling errors?

;-)

--
Bob Noel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04...
>
> It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because
a
> pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing
in
> the National Guard?
>

He was flying F-102s.

[Dave S]

Ok.. at the risk of interrupting the partisanship here...

What makes you think that if the next prez is a Democrat that the SS..
er Secret Service will not still insist on a 60 mile diameter bubble?

Dave

Blanche wrote:

> Take the announcement (the TFR) then get Phil Boyer's comments and
> quote. Send to every television, radio and newspaper in your area.
> This is nothing more than the same stunt as landing the jet on
> the carrier and he walks out wearing a flight suit.
>
> This is even better if you're a registered Republican. Send the
> letter to your local Republican committee HQ with a complaint.
>
> He uses the media. You use the media. There are more of us to
> make the case to the media.
>
> Even better -- find out who in the local media are pilots. Enlist
> them.
>

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Cecil E. Chapman > posted:

>> pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he
>> doing in the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want
>> to know.
>
> Easy to answer that one,,,, he was trying to avoid the likelihood (at
> the time) going into combat with the draft by joining the Guard...
> An 'artful dodger' :-)
>
Let's not forget the insurance policy... he went AWOL for a year and a
half.

Neil

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Big John
> > wrote:
>
> > What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
> > home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
>
> they'd get flamed for the spelling errors?
>
> ;-)
Imagine if something DID happen; can you imagine how CNN, ABC, etc., would
handle it?

Probably something about Bush being "too dumb to appreciate proper security
measures"...

[Judah]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in
news:A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04:

<snip>
> It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot.
> Because a pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell
> was he doing in the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't
> want to know.
>

Gliding...

[Jay Masino]

Richard Russell > wrote:
> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?

I just sent mail to channels 4, 5, 7, and 9 in the Washington, DC area,
as well as CNN, telling them about this issue and providing the link to
AOPA's article on the subject
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-4-151x.html )

Maybe one of them will put something on TV about it.

-- Jay


__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino/ ! ! !

Checkout http://www.oc-adolfos.com/
for the best Italian food in Ocean City, MD and...
Checkout http://www.brolow.com/ for authentic Blues music on Delmarva

[Brien K. Meehan]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04>...
> Oh wait, the crippled, dialysis patient is still a threat.

Are you ironically saying that UBL is not a threat? Or are you just a
sympathetic fan?

> Don't answer that I really don't want to know.

That much is clear.

[R. Hubbell]

On 16 Dec 2003 06:43:33 -0800 (Brien K. Meehan) wrote:

> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04>...
> > Oh wait, the crippled, dialysis patient is still a threat.
>
> Are you ironically saying that UBL is not a threat? Or are you just a
> sympathetic fan?


You decide.

>
> > Don't answer that I really don't want to know.
>
> That much is clear.

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:42:29 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04...
> >
> > It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because
> a
> > pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing
> in
> > the National Guard?
> >
>
> He was flying F-102s.

That all?


R. Hubbell
>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:39 GMT Dave S > wrote:

> Ok.. at the risk of interrupting the partisanship here...
>
> What makes you think that if the next prez is a Democrat that the SS..
> er Secret Service will not still insist on a 60 mile diameter bubble?


You're really trying to spoil all the fun! We can only hope that the
next president will be more enlightened. And keep up the pressure on
how silly they are in the press and support AOPA.


R. Hubbell

>
> Dave
>
> Blanche wrote:
>
> > Take the announcement (the TFR) then get Phil Boyer's comments and
> > quote. Send to every television, radio and newspaper in your area.
> > This is nothing more than the same stunt as landing the jet on
> > the carrier and he walks out wearing a flight suit.
> >
> > This is even better if you're a registered Republican. Send the
> > letter to your local Republican committee HQ with a complaint.
> >
> > He uses the media. You use the media. There are more of us to
> > make the case to the media.
> >
> > Even better -- find out who in the local media are pilots. Enlist
> > them.
> >
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:04:36 -0500 Cub Driver > wrote:

>
> >It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because a
> >pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing in
> >the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want to know.
>
> He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
> and later in the Texas Air Guard.

How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in fact most
consider that to be the defining metric. So why don't we hear more bragging
about that from Dubya? Is he too humble? *hahaha*

>
> What did you fly when you were in the military?

The point is that I didn't purport to be a military pilot while avoiding
duty.


R. Hubbell

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:42:29 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:A9uDb.13697$pY.1556@fed1read04...
> >
> > It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because
> a
> > pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing
> in
> > the National Guard?
> >
>
> He was flying F-102s.

Hours logged as PIC? Where's the bragging and the boasting? Military pilots
wear their logged hours as a badge of honor. Haven't seen that from Dubya.



R. Hubbell

>
>

[Mutts]

How long do the TFRs last?
All day?
Ceremonial flights are going to be allowed.

Could you not expect the President of the United States
to show up to the centennial of one of the most
important American inventions in all of human history?
The President represents the American People ultimately.
Not just a party. We live in difficult times as far as security
is concerned. we are at war after all. Things are different
for now. It is a unique time in history.

I am also disappointed at some of the disdain from a few fellow pilots
at Bushs service in the National Guard. Bush was a pilot
too. He risked his life serving our country in some capacity. Yes?
Since when is piloting an F-102 something without risk and danger?
It deserves respect regardless of your opinion of the mans
political idealogies. Who is one person to judge anothers persons
quality of service? Just being President puts you in danger every day.
There are politicians that I cant stand who were pilots. But I wouldnt
ever bash their service to the country and I respect another pilot,
for I know what it takes to become one, let alone an F-102.

Im also pretty sure Bush himself does not decide how big the TFRs are.
Of course this should be brought up and Of course I think some
compromises on both sides will work but ripping Bush is over
simplifying things and emotionally convenient.
I think TFRs can get out of hand and the AOPA has been doing the best
they can. Lets work the problem together in a professional manner,
anything less is not deserving of pilots.

[John Harlow]

> What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
> home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?

All those liberal teachers would think pilots could use remedial spelling
lessons.

> Do you think they have enough F-16's and weapons to shoot down them
> all and if that happened what would those idiots (spelled Liberals) do
> to him? He would be smoke politically after they got through in the
> liberal press.

Back away from the radio, John - too much Limbaugh is starting to make you
sound like a moron.

> I voted for him and will again to get that on the recording.

Lol! And you call Liberals "idiots"!

[Robert M. Gary]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >It does however tell me that there's no way he was ever a pilot. Because a
> >pilot would never do that to fellow pilots. So what in hell was he doing in
> >the National Guard? Don't answer that I really don't want to know.
>
> He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
> and later in the Texas Air Guard.

Apparently he did a pretty good job. Under Baby Bush's National Guard
watch there was not a single VietCon attach on Texas. Not quite the
exciting military career his father had.

-Robert

[Michael 182]

Everything can be analyzed on a continuium. Yes, President Bush did server
in the National Guard. There is some question about his motives, hence the
skepticism. On the other hand, he (intelligently) does not aggressively
promote his service for publicity. Whitehouse.gov doesn't even seem to
mention it in the biography page.

As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a war
hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to Nixon's.

See Stephen Ambrose's The Wild Blue.

Michael




"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
> Since when is piloting an F-102 something without risk and danger?
> It deserves respect regardless of your opinion of the mans
> political idealogies. Who is one person to judge anothers persons
> quality of service? Just being President puts you in danger every day.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Apparently he did a pretty good job. Under Baby Bush's National Guard
> watch there was not a single VietCon attach on Texas. Not quite the
> exciting military career his father had.
>

So the purpose of the National Guard was to prevent Vietcong attacks on
Texas?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03...
>
> Everything can be analyzed on a continuium. Yes, President Bush did server
> in the National Guard. There is some question about his motives, hence the
> skepticism.
>

Oh, I'm pretty sure he joined the Guard for the same reason many others did
in that era; to reduce the chances of toting a rifle through Vietnam. I
have no problem with that. The Johnson administration chose a policy of not
sending Guard units to Vietnam, why shouldn't people take advantage of that
policy if they can?

[Mutts]

In article <JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03>,
>As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
>trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a war
>hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
>military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to Nixon's.

Bushs father did not want his WWII service to be used for political advantage
during his campaign. He recently hosted a show about B-25 pilots in Burma.
To this day I still surprise people with the fact that both Bushs were pilots.
A lot of people really havent heard it before.

[Mutts]

In article t>,
>>
>
>Oh, I'm pretty sure he joined the Guard for the same reason many others did
>in that era; to reduce the chances of toting a rifle through Vietnam. I
>have no problem with that. The Johnson administration chose a policy of not
>sending Guard units to Vietnam, why shouldn't people take advantage of that
>policy if they can?
>

You are mis-informed about he National Guard in Vietnam, see below link and
text.
I doubt Bush would have been sent however, The F-102 was not exactly
cutting edge and Bush was not a high time pilot ready for combat.
Im sure he would have went if ordered to however.

http://www.ngaus.org/ngmagazine/sidebar600.asp

The Air National Guard in Vietnam
(June 2000) - Air National Guard units began flying supply missions to Vietnam
in 1965, and the Air Guard was mobilized twice during the Vietnam War.

Eleven squadrons were called up in January 1968 in response to the seizing of
the U.S. Navy ship Pueblo by North Korea, and two tactical fighter squadrons
were, the 166th (Ohio) and the 127th (Kansas) were sent to South Korea.

In May 1968 one aeromedical airservice group and two tactical fighter groups
were federalized.

Four tactical fighter squadrons--the 120th (Colorado), 174th (Iowa), 188th
(New Mexico), and 136th (New York)--deployed to Vietnam. And although not a
Guard unit, the Guard can claim credit for a fifth squadron, the 3755th: 85
percent of this tactical fighter squadron's personnel were Air Guard
volunteers from New Jersey and the District of Columbia.

The Air Force commander in Vietnam, testifying before a Senate committee,
summed up the combat record of these five squadrons:

"I had ... five F-100 Air National Guard squadrons ... Those were the five
best F-100 squadrons in the field. The aircrews were a little older, but they
were more experienced, and the maintenance people were also more experienced
than the regular units. They had done the same work on the weapon system for
years, and they had stability that a regular unit doesn't have."

In addition, a large number of combat-veteran active Air Force pilots joined
the Air National Guard after Vietnam. This group includes Shepperd and Maj.
Gen. E. Gordon Stump, Michigan adjutant general and NGAUS president.




>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
>
> You are mis-informed about he National Guard in Vietnam, see below link
and
> text.
>

No, I'm not misinformed about the Guard in Vietnam. I'm aware that some
Guard and Air National Guard units did serve there. Quite a few units were
called up during the Pueblo crisis, a few went to Vietnam and saw combat.
I've written about that several times in these forums over the years. But
the policy was that Guard units would not serve in Vietnam and with few
exceptions that policy was followed.


>
> I doubt Bush would have been sent however, The F-102 was not exactly
> cutting edge and Bush was not a high time pilot ready for combat.
> Im sure he would have went if ordered to however.
>

The F-102 was the primary interceptor used in Vietnam until about 1970.
Many were flown by ANG volunteers, I believe that program was called Palace
Alert. Bush volunteered for it, but was rejected for low flying time.

[MikeM]

Richard Russell wrote:

> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace?

Bush is an IDIOT!

[Kevin McCue]

No problem with his being in the Air Guard. Too bad he didn't do it
honorably.

--
Kevin McCue
KRYN
'47 Luscombe 8E
Rans S-17 (for sale)




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
...
>
> No problem with his being in the Air Guard. Too bad he didn't do it
> honorably.
>

What do you find dishonorable about Guard service?

[Mutts]

In article t>
>The Johnson administration chose a policy of not
>sending Guard units to Vietnam,


I interpreted the intial post to imply that no guard units at all were sent.
Or Im reading too much into it and jumped to conclusion. Either way thanks for
clearing it up. You obviously have better info then I.
Just wanted to make sure that its clear that guard units did indeed get sent.
Is there evidence of Bushs volunteering for Vietnam duty? I have
heard this before but would like more information about it if possible.

Thanks

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "David Brooks" > said:
>I've been on the planet since George VI was King. That's two sovereigns!
>
>Now *there* was an example of a dim bulb, ill-prepared for his role, who had
>the style and character to lead a nation through an armed conflict. But he
>had a lot of help from his PM.

At least, thank God, it wasn't his brother.


--
"The magic of usenet has never been its technology; and, only in part, its
reach. Its magic -- its power -- is based on the very real human connections
that form 'round its threads of conversation... the relationships that are
kindled, flamed and, on occasion, extinguished and mourned." -deCadmus

[David Brooks]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...

> BTW, I've been on the planet since "Ike" was President. That's 10
> presidents!!

I've been on the planet since George VI was King. That's two sovereigns!

Now *there* was an example of a dim bulb, ill-prepared for his role, who had
the style and character to lead a nation through an armed conflict. But he
had a lot of help from his PM.

-- David Brooks

[Montblack]

("MikeM" wrote)
> Bush is an IDIOT!


Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:

1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
had.

That said, IMHO, history will not be kind to Billary. Bush 43? Too early to
tell....

BTW, I've been on the planet since "Ike" was President. That's 10
presidents!!

(I'm claiming the Eisenhower administration too, even though I was only in
diapers in 1960)

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Gig Giacona]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("MikeM" wrote)
> > Bush is an IDIOT!
>
>
> Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
>
> 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.

Do you have any proof to back up this statement?


> 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
> had.

Or this one for that matter? I was a Lo-Cal TV reporter in Arkansas when he
was Gov here. I spoke with him on many occasions including a 30 minute
interview. While not an idiot he never struck me as particularly brilliant
in any way other than his ability to make every person in his audiance no
matter if there was 1 or 1000 think he was talking to them.


>
> That said, IMHO, history will not be kind to Billary. Bush 43? Too early
to
> tell....

It shouldn't be.


>
> BTW, I've been on the planet since "Ike" was President. That's 10
> presidents!!
>
> (I'm claiming the Eisenhower administration too, even though I was only in
> diapers in 1960)
>

You beat me by 1.


Gig

[David Megginson]

Paul Tomblin wrote:

>>Now *there* was an example of a dim bulb, ill-prepared for his role, who had
>>the style and character to lead a nation through an armed conflict. But he
>>had a lot of help from his PM.
>
> At least, thank God, it wasn't his brother.

Given his brother's political sympathies, there would have been no conflict
between Britain and Germany, and thus, no need for the U.S. to go to war in
Europe. It's a scary thought that Europe probably owes its freedom to
Wallace Simpson.


All the best,


David

[Bob Noel]

In article <qsGDb.18357$pY.9524@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> > He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
> > and later in the Texas Air Guard.
>
> How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in fact
> most
> consider that to be the defining metric.

what military pilots do you hang around with? I've never
met a military pilot that brags about hours.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <KtGDb.18366$pY.5656@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> > He was flying F-102s.
>
> Hours logged as PIC? Where's the bragging and the boasting? Military
> pilots
> wear their logged hours as a badge of honor.

what nonsense.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03>, "Michael 182"
> wrote:

> Everything can be analyzed on a continuium. Yes, President Bush did
> server
> in the National Guard. There is some question about his motives, hence
> the
> skepticism.

Several of my uncles joined rather than waiting to be drafted.
I guess you want to question their motives...

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, MikeM
> wrote:

> > Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> > the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> > 2,000 square miles of airspace?
>
> Bush is an IDIOT!

well, that certainly settles the issue.

--
Bob Noel

[Mutts]

In article >,
says...
>
>("MikeM" wrote)
>> Bush is an IDIOT!
>
>
>Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
>
>1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
>2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
>had.

How did you arrive at that?
And what exactly are the standards to base intelligence of Presidents?
What are the benchmarks? and who decides them? How is it measured?
What types of intelligence are measured? Which ones are important?
What do you base your assesment on? opinion? or data?
Does the secret service give IQ tests and make them public?

My opinion..............

Is it intelligent to let your biological urges override your common
sense and betray your wife, to do it while working? to do it while
in the house of the people? to do it in a place of honor that was
entrusted to you by millions- the oval office? To make yourself vunerable
to blackmail?
Sounds pretty rock stupid to me. People make mistakes though....dont they?
Stupid is as stupid does, oh yeah, I forgot...."That all depends on what *is*
is?" Its how we USE our intelligence. If someone is extremely intelligent,
what good does it do anyone if they are completly self-serving? and put
themselves first over the country?
Im glad that "most intelligent" President is gone, and hopefully no more like
him.

I agree, Clinton will not be looked at kindly by history and deservedly so.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
(Mutts) wrote:

> I agree, Clinton will not be looked at kindly by history and deservedly
> so.

Hey, at least he made President Carter look good.

--
Bob Noel

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:27:50 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

> next president will be more enlightened. And keep up the pressure on
> how silly they are in the press and support AOPA.

I got news for you, AOPA doesn't care about you and I and our flying
freedoms. I know of an aircraft that was in the process of being stolen
and the local police let the guy go. The owner called AOPA to let them
know how well this new system was working and they basically told him that
they didn't care and to take it up with someone else.

So you see, AOPA doesn't really care about silly rules unless it affects
them I suppose. They certainly aren't trying to maintain a list of
failures that they could then suggest better ways of doing things.
Homeland security is a joke and the AOPA doesn't care.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:7oGDb.18330$pY.11414@fed1read04...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:39 GMT Dave S > wrote:
>
> > Ok.. at the risk of interrupting the partisanship here...
> >
> > What makes you think that if the next prez is a Democrat that the SS..
> > er Secret Service will not still insist on a 60 mile diameter bubble?
>
>
> You're really trying to spoil all the fun! We can only hope that the
> next president will be more enlightened.

Not unless we gat an alien being from another planet in the race.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote
>
> > 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has
ever
> > had.
> > --
> > Montblack
>
> You are kidding, right?

We haven't had an intelligent president since Grover Cleveland.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Big John at
wrote on 12/16/03 12:32 AM:

> What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
> home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
>
> Do you think they have enough F-16's and weapons to shoot down them
> all and if that happened what would those idiots (spelled Liberals) do
> to him? He would be smoke politically after they got through in the
> liberal press.

John, if the U.S. military shot down 500 GA planes for doing nothing more
than towing banners, and Liberals chose to criticize it, I wouldn't call
them idiots, I'd call them decent and sensible human beings.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 12/16/03 5:33 AM:

>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Big John
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
>>> home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
>>
>> they'd get flamed for the spelling errors?
>>
>> ;-)
> Imagine if something DID happen; can you imagine how CNN, ABC, etc., would
> handle it?
>
> Probably something about Bush being "too dumb to appreciate proper security
> measures"...

Are you able to cite a single instance of CNN, ABC, et al ever calling the
President "dumb"?

[Philip Sondericker]

in article JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03, Michael 182 at
wrote on 12/16/03 9:40 AM:


> As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
> trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a war
> hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
> military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to Nixon's.

I highly doubt it would have swayed very many voters even if they'd known of
McGovern's war record. Much is made during campaigns of whether a candidate
served or avoided service, but voters have usually already made up their
minds regardless.

Besides, if service in wartime were the benchmark for being an electable
candidate, we'd have a pitifully small pool to draw from.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article et, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 12/16/03 11:09 AM:

>
> "Kevin McCue" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> No problem with his being in the Air Guard. Too bad he didn't do it
>> honorably.
>>
>
> What do you find dishonorable about Guard service?

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm

The documents on this page aren't totally conclusive, but it would appear
from the available evidence that Mr. Bush was AWOL.

[Michael 182]

Maybe I was unclear. I said there was some skepticism, which there certainly
is. I believe if you look at my previous post I was supporting Bush, which,
by the way, I almost never do on any other issue. If that wasn't clear I
wrote it poorly. Given that I never served in the military I am in no
position, nor am I questioning Bush's service. Or anyone else's.

Michael


"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03>, "Michael 182"
> > wrote:
>
> > Everything can be analyzed on a continuium. Yes, President Bush did
> > server
> > in the National Guard. There is some question about his motives, hence
> > the
> > skepticism.
>
> Several of my uncles joined rather than waiting to be drafted.
> I guess you want to question their motives...
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Michael 182]

If I remember correctly, McGovern lost 49 or 50 states, or something like
that. His military record would have made no difference. I just think the
irony is interesting.

Michael

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03, Michael 182 at
> wrote on 12/16/03 9:40 AM:
>
>
> > As an interesting aside, George McGovern, who ran against Nixon (and was
> > trounced, of course) on a strong anti-war platform during Vietnam, was a
war
> > hero during WWII. During his campaign he expressley refused to allow his
> > military service to be discussed, or, more importantly, compared to
Nixon's.
>
> I highly doubt it would have swayed very many voters even if they'd known
of
> McGovern's war record. Much is made during campaigns of whether a
candidate
> served or avoided service, but voters have usually already made up their
> minds regardless.
>
> Besides, if service in wartime were the benchmark for being an electable
> candidate, we'd have a pitifully small pool to draw from.
>

[Michael 182]

Wasn't he on Sesame Street?



"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> We haven't had an intelligent president since Grover Cleveland.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:47QDb.410971$ao4.1343638@attbi_s51...
> If I remember correctly, McGovern lost 49 or 50 states, or something like
> that. His military record would have made no difference. I just think the
> irony is interesting.
>

McGovern's war record was known, he just choose not to trade on it (to his
credit).

While McGovern lost badly (he only carried DC) he also had a political
program similar to Howard Dean's today.

Interestingly, when he quit politics, he owned and operated a hotel back
East, which went bankrupt. He later said, to effect, that "If knew when in
office what I know now, my voting would have been very different.", (he had
a very anti-business voting record).

Tom
-----
F33A @ 00V

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:P4QDb.410361$275.1287518@attbi_s53...
> Maybe I was unclear. I said there was some skepticism, which there
certainly
> is. I believe if you look at my previous post I was supporting Bush,
which,
> by the way, I almost never do on any other issue. If that wasn't clear I
> wrote it poorly. Given that I never served in the military I am in no
> position, nor am I questioning Bush's service. Or anyone else's.
>

Especially since Bob's post is a blatent non-sequitur.

> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <JsHDb.566151$Tr4.1535566@attbi_s03>, "Michael 182"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Everything can be analyzed on a continuium. Yes, President Bush did
> > > server
> > > in the National Guard. There is some question about his motives, hence
> > > the
> > > skepticism.
> >
> > Several of my uncles joined rather than waiting to be drafted.
> > I guess you want to question their motives...
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:p9QDb.67856$8y1.262020@attbi_s52...
> Wasn't he on Sesame Street?
>

No...you're thinking of "Gonzo"; he was president from 1933-1945.

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > We haven't had an intelligent president since Grover Cleveland.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
>
> 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
> 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
> had.
>

Bush is clearly more intelligent than Clinton. Now, you'll of course
disagree with that, but if you examine their administrations you find that
Bush has accomplished more in three years than Clinton did in eight.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hey, at least he made President Carter look good.
>

Carter was a poor president, no question about it. But when Carter spoke I
tended to believe he meant what he said, that he was sincere if misguided.
I never believed a word Clinton said.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm
>
> The documents on this page aren't totally conclusive, but it would appear
> from the available evidence that Mr. Bush was AWOL.
>

So now I just have to sort through those documents to find support for your
position?

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

> 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
> had.
> --
> Montblack

You are kidding, right?
--
Jim in NC

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
> >
> > 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
> > 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has
ever
> > had.
> >
>
> Bush is clearly more intelligent than Clinton. Now, you'll of course
> disagree with that, but if you examine their administrations you find that
> Bush has accomplished more in three years than Clinton did in eight.
>
At least he didn't screw up as much stuff as Clinton did (and yes, he did
lay the ground work for running the 90's boom into the ditch).

I shudder to think what would have happened, post 9/11, if Gore had been in
office.

That said, I'll not vote to re-elect Bush, but I also shudder to think where
we'll end up with Dean, or worse yet, Hillary in office.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article et, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 12/16/03 8:24 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm
>>
>> The documents on this page aren't totally conclusive, but it would appear
>> from the available evidence that Mr. Bush was AWOL.
>>
>
> So now I just have to sort through those documents to find support for your
> position?

I really don't care what you do. Why do you look to me for direction?

Actually, I don't really have a "position" in regards to this issue. I
noticed it had been brought up, and a 10-second Google search found the
above link. There's some interesting information there, for anyone with the
initiative to spend a nanosecond or two on it.

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 19:03:17 -0600 "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 08:27:50 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> > next president will be more enlightened. And keep up the pressure on
> > how silly they are in the press and support AOPA.
>
> I got news for you, AOPA doesn't care about you and I and our flying
> freedoms. I know of an aircraft that was in the process of being stolen
> and the local police let the guy go. The owner called AOPA to let them
> know how well this new system was working and they basically told him that
> they didn't care and to take it up with someone else.
>
> So you see, AOPA doesn't really care about silly rules unless it affects
> them I suppose. They certainly aren't trying to maintain a list of
> failures that they could then suggest better ways of doing things.
> Homeland security is a joke and the AOPA doesn't care.
>


I got news for you. AOPA is not in charge of enforcing the laws. If the
police let the guy go, take it up with the police.



R. Hubbell

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:07:05 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:7oGDb.18330$pY.11414@fed1read04...
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:39 GMT Dave S > wrote:
> >
> > > Ok.. at the risk of interrupting the partisanship here...
> > >
> > > What makes you think that if the next prez is a Democrat that the SS..
> > > er Secret Service will not still insist on a 60 mile diameter bubble?
> >
> >
> > You're really trying to spoil all the fun! We can only hope that the
> > next president will be more enlightened.
>
> Not unless we gat an alien being from another planet in the race.

There is one already, a.k.a. the incumbent, but he's not enlightened.



R. Hubbell

>
>

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:12:49 GMT, Philip Sondericker
> wrote:

>Are you able to cite a single instance of CNN, ABC, et al ever calling the
>President "dumb"?

"He lacks gravitas"

Rob

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:58 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article <KtGDb.18366$pY.5656@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> > > He was flying F-102s.
> >
> > Hours logged as PIC? Where's the bragging and the boasting? Military
> > pilots
> > wear their logged hours as a badge of honor.
>
> what nonsense.

Which part, you mean that he was PIC in F-102s? I am beginning to believe that
too.


R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Bob Noel

[R. Hubbell]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:28 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article <qsGDb.18357$pY.9524@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> > > He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
> > > and later in the Texas Air Guard.
> >
> > How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in fact
> > most
> > consider that to be the defining metric.
>
> what military pilots do you hang around with? I've never
> met a military pilot that brags about hours.


Brag is probably the wrong word but number of hours is a metric that gets
tossed around a bit. But never heard any mention of Dubya's hours as
PIC.


R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Big John]

CD

You could white wash your numbers and have at it.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

It's a way to protest stupidity.

Big John


On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:06:06 -0500, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
>>home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
>>
>>Do you think they have enough F-16's and weapons to shoot down them
>
>Perhaps not, but the FAA probably has enough bureaucrats to pull the
>certificates on 500 pilots.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email:
>
>see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
>and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Big John]

Bob

Good catch. I put the salutation in lower case and incomplete spelling
to show my feelings for the stupidly.

Big John.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:07:38 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Big John
> wrote:
>
>> What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
>> home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
>
>they'd get flamed for the spelling errors?
>
>;-)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
>
> I really don't care what you do. Why do you look to me for direction?
>

I'm not looking to you for direction. You said Bush's Guard service was not
honorable, I asked you what you found dishonorable about it. Instead of
answering you posted a web address.


>
> Actually, I don't really have a "position" in regards to this issue. I
> noticed it had been brought up, and a 10-second Google search found the
> above link. There's some interesting information there, for anyone with
the
> initiative to spend a nanosecond or two on it.
>

If you want to establish any credibility in these forums you have to support
your own assertions.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article et, Steven
P.
> McNicoll at wrote on 12/16/03 8:24 PM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm
> >>
> >> The documents on this page aren't totally conclusive, but it would
appear
> >> from the available evidence that Mr. Bush was AWOL.
> >>
> >
> > So now I just have to sort through those documents to find support for
your
> > position?
>
> I really don't care what you do. Why do you look to me for direction?
>
> Actually, I don't really have a "position" in regards to this issue. I
> noticed it had been brought up, and a 10-second Google search found the
> above link. There's some interesting information there, for anyone with
the
> initiative to spend a nanosecond or two on it.

Well, when you make a claim, it's up to you to support it. Further, it's up
to you to find ALL RELEVANT information, including that info that refutes
your position if it's available.

In this case, such information IS available. So, now it's up to you; let's
see how much of a mature man you really are.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> > Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
> >
> > 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
> > 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has
ever
> > had.

> Bush is clearly more intelligent than Clinton. Now, you'll of course
> disagree with that, but if you examine their administrations you find that
> Bush has accomplished more in three years than Clinton did in eight.


Steven - just jumping in on your post because I deleted the other replies
already.

1. I don't think GW is dumb, stupid or inept.
2. I *do* think raw intellect is something you can get a sense of - much
like charisma, warmth and sincerely.

3. Intellect is not the end all in setting up a successful administration.

4. For example: GW doesn't answer questions with a strong command of the
situation (news conferences/interviews/etc). Clinton owned those situations
for the better part of 8 years. This is where 75% of my "Presidential
Intellect" observations come from.

If there are maybe 10 criteria that Bush, and all former Presidents are
scored on - and intellect is one of them, then I sincerely believe Bush
would rank near the bottom (compared to past Presidents) in that one
category - raw intelligence.

Now it comes down to definitions of intellect.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Cub Driver]

>The point is that I didn't purport to be a military pilot while avoiding
>duty.

No, the point is that you were never a military pilot, while George
Bush was, yet you take it on yourself to impugn his patriotism.

He served two years on active duty. How many did you serve? None,
right?

As for his hours, I believe they are on the web, on the same place I
found out about his military record. Interestingly, he learned to fly
in a Cessna. That was the first I knew that the Air Force used Cessnas
as trainers.

He didn't purport to be a military pilot: he *was* a military pilot.
He wasn't a combat pilot, but that is another matter entirely. Few
F-102 pilots ever served in Vietnam, because F-102s didn't have guns.
The few who went, transitioned to other aircraft.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>I doubt Bush would have been sent however, The F-102 was not exactly
>cutting edge and Bush was not a high time pilot ready for combat.
>Im sure he would have went if ordered to however.

The F-102 was an interceptor only (rockets in a weapons bay--no guns).
A few went to SE Asia but had almost no role to play. I believe that
most 102 drivers who volunteered were transitioned to other aircraft.
None was ordered to go.

More Guard and Reserve pilots served in Vietnam than I believed at the
time. Sometimes this was units being sent over (the New Hampshire Air
Guard was mobilized every December to fly Christmas mail to SE Asia).
Most often it was individuals volunteering and occasionally being
called to active duty.
'
Bush presumably had as many hours as the average pilot, during his two
years on active duty. In any event, pilots transitioned to other a/c
typically went to a training course (the death rate on the graduates
of these courses was particularly high, sometimes 50 percent--see Ed
Rasimus, When Thunder Rolled www.warbirdforum.com/thunder.htm -- one
of the best combat memoirs I have ever read.) Afterward, during the
several years he was an active member of the Air Guard, his flying
time would have been much less, and in the last year or 18 months it
was evidently non-existent.

Still, his service was longer and more intense than mine, and I
suspect longer and more intense than that of 90 percent of the posters
to this board.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Could you not expect the President of the United States
>to show up to the centennial of one of the most
>important American inventions in all of human history?

I emailed him yesterday, "as a pilot and as a Republican," asking him
to stay home.

Sheez. All he has to do is say that if he goes, the Secret Service
will require the airspace to be closed, and that he doesn't want to do
that. He can be there in spirit.

Personally, I'd rather have him working on Iraq than schmoozing in
Kittyhawk.

(I didn't dare use "Kill Devil Hill" in my email. Figured it would be
intercepted.)





all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Joe Johnson]

McGovern carried Massachusetts as well.

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> While McGovern lost badly (he only carried DC)...
<snip>

[Big John]

Hubbel

Single pilot fighters (Duce), you log PIC on all flights unless you
got god as your co-pilot like Scott of Flying Tigers book fame.

Big John

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:09:55 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:28 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:
>
>> In article <qsGDb.18357$pY.9524@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
>> > > and later in the Texas Air Guard.
>> >
>> > How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in fact
>> > most
>> > consider that to be the defining metric.
>>
>> what military pilots do you hang around with? I've never
>> met a military pilot that brags about hours.
>
>
>Brag is probably the wrong word but number of hours is a metric that gets
>tossed around a bit. But never heard any mention of Dubya's hours as
>PIC.
>
>
>R. Hubbell
>
>>
>> --
>> Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <yyRDb.23619$pY.15803@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> > > How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in
> > > fact
> > > most
> > > consider that to be the defining metric.
> >
> > what military pilots do you hang around with? I've never
> > met a military pilot that brags about hours.
>
> Brag is probably the wrong word but number of hours is a metric that gets
> tossed around a bit. But never heard any mention of Dubya's hours as
> PIC.

Well, in my limited experience (I'm not former military, and
I only worked with USAF folks, including numerous current and former
USAF pilots), I've never ever heard one discuss their hours.
I've heard about guys talk about birdstrikes, missions (peacetime
and war), aircraft characteristics, but not the number of hours.

Come to think of it, the only pilots I know of that talk about
hours like they mean anything are student pilots and recently
minted private pilots. Of course, everyone talks about the
crusty old 20,000+ pilots.

--
Bob Noel

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Joe Johnson" > wrote in message
. com...
> McGovern carried Massachusetts as well.
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <snip>
> > While McGovern lost badly (he only carried DC)...
> <snip>

Yup, you're right. DC and Mass.-- and Massachusetts he only carried by about
1%.

(When Mondale ran, he only carried (IIRC), Mass., and his home state of
Minnesota, and only carried that by about 3,000 votes out of something like
2.1 million (and it's said that 50,000 dead people voted in that one, too.)

[Dave]

"Mutts" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> >("MikeM" wrote)
> >> Bush is an IDIOT!
> >
> >
> >Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
> >
> >1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
> >2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has
ever
> >had.
>

I would not have anything bad sad against Bush. Last time I spent Christmas
in Florida was when they were still trying to work out who won the election.
That year I got about $1.40 for each pound sterling.

This year I am getting $1.70 for each pound.

21% not bad. Attaboy Bushie, continue making my day.

Dave

[Dave]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Hey, at least he made President Carter look good.
> >
>
> Carter was a poor president, no question about it. But when Carter spoke
I
> tended to believe he meant what he said, that he was sincere if misguided.
> I never believed a word Clinton said.

Problem with Politicians I never believe them anyway and I pity anyone naive
enough to believe them. Ergo I pity politicians because they have the
unfortunate habit of believing themselves too. In respect of Clinton, I do
not pity him because he did not believe himself and in that respect he was
not your average politician.

Anyway all they want is power.

Dave

[Dave]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:7oGDb.18330$pY.11414@fed1read04...
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 13:05:39 GMT Dave S >
wrote:
> >
> > > Ok.. at the risk of interrupting the partisanship here...
> > >
> > > What makes you think that if the next prez is a Democrat that the SS..
> > > er Secret Service will not still insist on a 60 mile diameter bubble?
> >
> >
> > You're really trying to spoil all the fun! We can only hope that the
> > next president will be more enlightened.
>
> Not unless we gat an alien being from another planet in the race.

Not allowed of course because you need to have been born in the USA. I knew
the system was flawed somehow.

[Dave]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Big John at
> wrote on 12/16/03 12:32 AM:
>
> > What would happen if 500 GA birds showed up towing banners saying "Go
> > home Mr presiden, we want to fly"?
> >
> > Do you think they have enough F-16's and weapons to shoot down them
> > all and if that happened what would those idiots (spelled Liberals) do
> > to him? He would be smoke politically after they got through in the
> > liberal press.
>
> John, if the U.S. military shot down 500 GA planes for doing nothing more
> than towing banners, and Liberals chose to criticize it, I wouldn't call
> them idiots, I'd call them decent and sensible human beings.
>
Does the constitutional right to bear arms extend to fitting up your Warrior
or other suitable flying platform with heat seeking missiles cannon etc so
that you can defend yourself from aggressors? and does your right to protect
yourself override the FARs in that you can modify your plane accordingly.

[C J Campbell]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
| ("MikeM" wrote)
| > Bush is an IDIOT!
|
|
| Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
|
| 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.

Still smarter than you.

| 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
| had.
|

Not saying much. The guy allowed himself to be blackmailed by an intern, for
crying out loud.

If intelligence had anything to do with it, they would make ME president!


--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Wdtabor]

>>
>Does the constitutional right to bear arms extend to fitting up your Warrior
>or other suitable flying platform with heat seeking missiles cannon etc so
>that you can defend yourself from aggressors?

Yes. What part of "Shall not be infringed." do you not understand?

and does your right to protect
>yourself override the FARs in that you can modify your plane accordingly.
>

Let's see, does a regulatory agency override the Constitution?

They may be able to require that the modifications are performed to certain
standards if you wish to overfly populated areas, but the second amendment is
pretty clear.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[John Harlow]

> Does anyone else find it ironic that the President's very presence at
> the celebration of 100 years of powered flight has shut down almost
> 2,000 square miles of airspace? Couldn't he have phoned it in?


Sadly, my letter to CNN pointing this out had no effect. Damn right wing
media continues to kiss Bush's ass. ;)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steven - just jumping in on your post because I deleted the other replies
> already.
>
> 1. I don't think GW is dumb, stupid or inept.
> 2. I *do* think raw intellect is something you can get a sense of - much
> like charisma, warmth and sincerely.
>
> 3. Intellect is not the end all in setting up a successful
administration.
>
> 4. For example: GW doesn't answer questions with a strong command of the
> situation (news conferences/interviews/etc). Clinton owned those
situations
> for the better part of 8 years. This is where 75% of my "Presidential
> Intellect" observations come from.
>
> If there are maybe 10 criteria that Bush, and all former Presidents are
> scored on - and intellect is one of them, then I sincerely believe Bush
> would rank near the bottom (compared to past Presidents) in that one
> category - raw intelligence.
>
> Now it comes down to definitions of intellect.
>

What did Bush do to cause you to conclude he is one of our least intelligent
Presidents? What did Clinton do to cause you to conclude he is one of our
most intelligent Presidents?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Sadly, my letter to CNN pointing this out had no effect. Damn right wing
> media continues to kiss Bush's ass. ;)
>

You think CNN is right wing?

[Booger]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Montblack" > wrote in
message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
> > >
> > > 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
> > > 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has
> ever
> > > had.
> > >
> >
> > Bush is clearly more intelligent than Clinton. Now, you'll of course
> > disagree with that, but if you examine their administrations you find
that
> > Bush has accomplished more in three years than Clinton did in eight.
> >
> At least he didn't screw up as much stuff as Clinton did (and yes, he did
> lay the ground work for running the 90's boom into the ditch).
>
> I shudder to think what would have happened, post 9/11, if Gore had been
in
> office.
>
> That said, I'll not vote to re-elect Bush, but I also shudder to think
where
> we'll end up with Dean, or worse yet, Hillary in office.

So if Dean or Hillary scare you so much, vote for Bush.

[Wdtabor]

>
>What did Bush do to cause you to conclude he is one of our least intelligent
>Presidents? What did Clinton do to cause you to conclude he is one of our
>most intelligent Presidents?
>

Bush's trail is littered with the political corpses of opponents who were sure
they were smarter than him.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:09:32 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article <yyRDb.23619$pY.15803@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> > > > How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in
> > > > fact
> > > > most
> > > > consider that to be the defining metric.
> > >
> > > what military pilots do you hang around with? I've never
> > > met a military pilot that brags about hours.
> >
> > Brag is probably the wrong word but number of hours is a metric that gets
> > tossed around a bit. But never heard any mention of Dubya's hours as
> > PIC.
>
> Well, in my limited experience (I'm not former military, and
> I only worked with USAF folks, including numerous current and former
> USAF pilots), I've never ever heard one discuss their hours.
> I've heard about guys talk about birdstrikes, missions (peacetime
> and war), aircraft characteristics, but not the number of hours.
>
> Come to think of it, the only pilots I know of that talk about
> hours like they mean anything are student pilots and recently
> minted private pilots. Of course, everyone talks about the
> crusty old 20,000+ pilots.


So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
That's what we're talking about.

R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:nB0Eb.27949$pY.9219@fed1read04...
>
> So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
> That's what we're talking about.
>

You appear to be the only one interested in that information.

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:30:46 -0600 Big John > wrote:

> Hubbel
>
> Single pilot fighters (Duce), you log PIC on all flights unless you
> got god as your co-pilot like Scott of Flying Tigers book fame.


So was Dubya's time in a TF-102A or F-102?


R. Hubbell

>
> Big John
>
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:09:55 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:28 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:
> >
> >> In article <qsGDb.18357$pY.9524@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> > > He flew F-102 supersonic jet interceptors, on active duty in the USAF
> >> > > and later in the Texas Air Guard.
> >> >
> >> > How many hours did he log as PIC? Most pilots brag about that, in fact
> >> > most
> >> > consider that to be the defining metric.
> >>
> >> what military pilots do you hang around with? I've never
> >> met a military pilot that brags about hours.
> >
> >
> >Brag is probably the wrong word but number of hours is a metric that gets
> >tossed around a bit. But never heard any mention of Dubya's hours as
> >PIC.
> >
> >
> >R. Hubbell
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> Bob Noel
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 05:32:41 -0500 Cub Driver > wrote:


> No, the point is that you were never a military pilot, while George
> Bush was, yet you take it on yourself to impugn his patriotism.

Again I never purported to be a military pilot. You're relying on fallacies
to bolster your argument because I don' think you've really got an argument.
Dubya's service record is sketchy. The fact that he will ground GA pilots
on the single most important day for GA in 100 years tells me that he can't
really be a pilot. I mean a true pilot, not one that flew around in a military
jet because his Daddy had "friends". His disappearance for 1.5 years is
documented. The trip to Kill Devil is another political stunt, like flying
into Iraq. If he was a real pilot he'd be flying a plane as PIC to Kill
Devil.


R. Hubbell

>
> He served two years on active duty. How many did you serve? None,
> right?
>
> As for his hours, I believe they are on the web, on the same place I
> found out about his military record. Interestingly, he learned to fly
> in a Cessna. That was the first I knew that the Air Force used Cessnas
> as trainers.
>
> He didn't purport to be a military pilot: he *was* a military pilot.
> He wasn't a combat pilot, but that is another matter entirely. Few
> F-102 pilots ever served in Vietnam, because F-102s didn't have guns.
> The few who went, transitioned to other aircraft.
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[C J Campbell]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
| ("MikeM" wrote)
| > Bush is an IDIOT!
|
|
| Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
|
| 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
| 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has ever
| had.
|

What you say may be true, but Reagan was smarter than Clinton. In fact, he
probably still is.

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:49:53 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:nB0Eb.27949$pY.9219@fed1read04...
> >
> > So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
> > That's what we're talking about.
> >
>
> You appear to be the only one interested in that information.


Are you sure? How can you know what readers are interested in?


R. Hubbell

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:9k1Eb.28275$pY.13961@fed1read04...
>
> Are you sure? How can you know what readers are interested in?
>

I can't. But I can tell what writers are interested in by what they write.

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:08:10 -0500, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>Sadly, my letter to CNN pointing this out had no effect. Damn right wing
>media continues to kiss Bush's ass. ;)

Thought it was a "left wing" media trying to get ratings in flyover
country.

See there? Without aviation there wouldn't *be* "flyover country", and
the whole country would have been colored in blue after the last
election. :-D

Rob, will free-associate for food, or block time

[Dennis O'Connor]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message >
> Let's see, does a regulatory agency override the Constitution?


Yes, obviously... The high court has refused to intervene... End of
discussion...

Denny - just as dismayed as you, but a realist...

[Tony Cox]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
> | ("MikeM" wrote)
> | > Bush is an IDIOT!
> |
> |
> | Bush has the great (double) misfortune of being:
> |
> | 1. One of our least intelligent Presidents.
> | 2. Following one of the most intelligent Presidents this country has
ever
> | had.
> |
>
> What you say may be true, but Reagan was smarter than Clinton. In fact, he
> probably still is.
>

Why does everyone seem to think intelligence is particularly
important? The 'smartest' government in UK history was that
of Harold Wilson in the 60's, with 6 Oxbridge stared 1st's in
the cabinet. They proceeded to bugger up everything they
touched (and being socialists, they wanted to touch everything).

Smart people tend to believe they know it all. Give me
superior judgment with a touch of humility any day.

--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Why does everyone seem to think intelligence is particularly
> important? The 'smartest' government in UK history was that
> of Harold Wilson in the 60's, with 6 Oxbridge stared 1st's in
> the cabinet. They proceeded to bugger up everything they
> touched (and being socialists, they wanted to touch everything).
>
> Smart people tend to believe they know it all. Give me
> superior judgment with a touch of humility any day.
>

Smart people abhor socialism.

[Wdtabor]

>
>"Tony Cox" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> Why does everyone seem to think intelligence is particularly
>> important? The 'smartest' government in UK history was that
>> of Harold Wilson in the 60's, with 6 Oxbridge stared 1st's in
>> the cabinet. They proceeded to bugger up everything they
>> touched (and being socialists, they wanted to touch everything).
>>
>> Smart people tend to believe they know it all. Give me
>> superior judgment with a touch of humility any day.
>>
>
>Smart people abhor socialism.
>

Yeah, but people who merely THINK they are smart are its biggest fans.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Tony Cox]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tony Cox" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Why does everyone seem to think intelligence is particularly
> > important? The 'smartest' government in UK history was that
> > of Harold Wilson in the 60's, with 6 Oxbridge stared 1st's in
> > the cabinet. They proceeded to bugger up everything they
> > touched (and being socialists, they wanted to touch everything).
> >
> > Smart people tend to believe they know it all. Give me
> > superior judgment with a touch of humility any day.
> >
>
> Smart people abhor socialism.
>

Oh I don't know about that. Smart people see in
socialism the justifications whereby they can lead the
poor 'proles' who would otherwise (in their opinion) be
clueless.


--
Dr. Tony Cox
Citrus Controls Inc.
e-mail:
http://CitrusControls.com/

[Bob Noel]

In article <nB0Eb.27949$pY.9219@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> > Come to think of it, the only pilots I know of that talk about
> > hours like they mean anything are student pilots and recently
> > minted private pilots. Of course, everyone talks about the
> > crusty old 20,000+ pilots.
>
> So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
> That's what we're talking about.

so, which are you, a student pilot or a newly minted private
pilot?

--
Bob Noel

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 18:47:45 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:9k1Eb.28275$pY.13961@fed1read04...
> >
> > Are you sure? How can you know what readers are interested in?
> >
>
> I can't. But I can tell what writers are interested in by what they write.


That's a good skill to have when using usenet, now if you practiced
what you preached maybe you would have a something salient to add to
the discussion. Or are you more interested in name calling?
Which as everyone knows is just the last resort of someone with no
argument or point to make.


R. Hubbell
>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 19:57:34 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article <nB0Eb.27949$pY.9219@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> > > Come to think of it, the only pilots I know of that talk about
> > > hours like they mean anything are student pilots and recently
> > > minted private pilots. Of course, everyone talks about the
> > > crusty old 20,000+ pilots.
> >


So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
That's what we're talking about.



>
> so, which are you, a student pilot or a newly minted private
> pilot?
>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Montblack]

("Wdtabor" wrote)
> Bush's trail is littered with the political corpses of opponents who were
sure they were smarter than him.



"Smart" is mustering available resources effectively - gett'n the job done,
plays well with others, etc. Intellect is one of those resources.

Then there's the whole EQ vs IQ thing...

Again, this isn't about "smart" (political or otherwise). It's about the
clubs in Bush's bag.

His short iron game might be brilliant. He might be able to out-putt
everyone. His shot selection might be tops. All in all, a pretty good
player - many tourneys won, most opponents defeated.

All of that said, I don't think the guy has much distance on his drives
....IYKWIM. My perception of the guy is: 175 yds is about all you'll get off
the tee from GW. It's not one of his weapons.

With Clinton, I believe the most effective wood in his bag was .....the
scoring pencil - but yes, with his intellect he could *drive for show* with
the best of them.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> What did Bush do to cause you to conclude he is one of our least
intelligent
> Presidents? What did Clinton do to cause you to conclude he is one of our
> most intelligent Presidents?


I'm basing, maybe, 75% of my (most/lease intelligent) observations on verbal
cues. I don't think Bush is a quick thinker. I don't see him as clever. I
see the guy struggle with word choices, comprehension (and also with his
delivery) at press conferences and in interviews.

Keeping with interviews ...I don't get the feeling I'm seeing a deep thinker
in Bush. Instead, it often appears he's doing more reacting and blocking
than thinking and communicating.

Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Eric Miller]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> With Clinton, I believe the most effective wood in his bag was .....the
> scoring pencil - but yes, with his intellect he could *drive for show*
with
> the best of them.

Doesn't matter how far you can hit the ball if you knock it in the wrong
direction :p

Eric

[Dave]

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >Does the constitutional right to bear arms extend to fitting up your
Warrior
> >or other suitable flying platform with heat seeking missiles cannon etc
so
> >that you can defend yourself from aggressors?
>
> Yes. What part of "Shall not be infringed." do you not understand?

>
> and does your right to protect
> >yourself override the FARs in that you can modify your plane accordingly.
> >
>
> Let's see, does a regulatory agency override the Constitution?
>
> They may be able to require that the modifications are performed to
certain
> standards if you wish to overfly populated areas, but the second amendment
is
> pretty clear.
>
> Don


Lighten up I was only taking the ****- you guys are really spooky.

[David Brooks]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...

> I shudder to think what would have happened, post 9/11, if Gore had been
in
> office.

OUR GUY LOST! GET OVER IT ALREADY!

-- David Brooks

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:kv3Eb.28631$pY.15075@fed1read04...
>
> That's a good skill to have when using usenet, now if you practiced
> what you preached maybe you would have a something salient to add to
> the discussion.
>

If you review the thread you'll see that I have added to the discussion.


>
> Or are you more interested in name calling?
>

Why do you ask that? Do you believe I engaged in name calling? If so,
please provide a quote of it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Smart" is mustering available resources effectively - gett'n the job
done,
> plays well with others, etc. Intellect is one of those resources.
>

Based on that, Bush is smarter than Clinton.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm basing, maybe, 75% of my (most/lease intelligent) observations on
verbal
> cues. I don't think Bush is a quick thinker. I don't see him as clever. I
> see the guy struggle with word choices, comprehension (and also with his
> delivery) at press conferences and in interviews.
>
> Keeping with interviews ...I don't get the feeling I'm seeing a deep
thinker
> in Bush. Instead, it often appears he's doing more reacting and blocking
> than thinking and communicating.
>
> Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.
>

So good speaker/lousy policy beats poor speaker/sound policy?

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:04:22 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

> I got news for you. AOPA is not in charge of enforcing the laws. If the
> police let the guy go, take it up with the police.

Read what I posted. I did not say they didn't enforce the law, I said
they should have taken the information down so that they could use it in
the future, i.e. when a new stupid law is proposed they can guide it's
direction by virtue of having proof of what doesn't work.

Must you be contrary with everybody, can't you just read something as it's
posted?

For you I'll say it again, AOPA SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE INFORMATION GIVEN
FOR THE RECORD, IN THE FUTURE THEY CAN THEN USE IT TO GUIDE THE CREATION
OF SOMETHING THAT WORKS.

They refused to listen.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:43:52 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

> So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
> That's what we're talking about.

No, that's what you seem to think military pilots talk about. They don't,
can't you understand that. I know several myself, NOT ONE of them talk
about how many hours they have.

They talk about flying, just like most pilots do, but then I suppose you
measure your manhood by your PIC hours and assume everybody else does?

How old are you anyhow?

[Mutts]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:57:21 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
>
>So good speaker/lousy policy beats poor speaker/sound policy?
>

He didnt get the nickname "Slick Willy" for nothin'.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> > "Smart" is mustering available resources effectively - gett'n the job
done, plays well with others, etc. Intellect is one of those resources.

> Based on that, Bush is smarter than Clinton.


You're now into a review of the different administrations.

I'm smart enough to leave it at that :-)

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll" wrote)
> > Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those
situations.

> So good speaker/lousy policy beats poor speaker/sound policy?


Clinton has always appeared to me to have a bigger engine under the hood -
more available horsepower, etc, than Bush.

Who's the better driver?
Who's got the best pit crew?
Who's got the best sponsor deals? <g>
Who's car handles the best in the corners?
Who gets the best mileage?
Who is the fan favorite?

Horsepower is only one aspect of racing. But in that area, Clinton is
clearly the winner - if more is better.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>
> Clinton has always appeared to me to have a bigger engine under the hood -
> more available horsepower, etc, than Bush.
>
> Who's the better driver?
> Who's got the best pit crew?
> Who's got the best sponsor deals? <g>
> Who's car handles the best in the corners?
> Who gets the best mileage?
> Who is the fan favorite?
>
> Horsepower is only one aspect of racing. But in that area, Clinton is
> clearly the winner - if more is better.
>

So more horsepower/lousy policy beats less horsepower/sound policy?

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:16:36 -0600 "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:04:22 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> > I got news for you. AOPA is not in charge of enforcing the laws. If the
> > police let the guy go, take it up with the police.
>
> Read what I posted. I did not say they didn't enforce the law, I said

You've snipped it out. I don't have the time to search for it. If I remember
the context, it was a silly thing to expect from the AOPA. Enough said.


R. Hubbell

> they should have taken the information down so that they could use it in
> the future, i.e. when a new stupid law is proposed they can guide it's
> direction by virtue of having proof of what doesn't work.
>
> Must you be contrary with everybody, can't you just read something as it's
> posted?
>
> For you I'll say it again, AOPA SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE INFORMATION GIVEN
> FOR THE RECORD, IN THE FUTURE THEY CAN THEN USE IT TO GUIDE THE CREATION
> OF SOMETHING THAT WORKS.
>
> They refused to listen.
>

[Eric Miller]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:43:52 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> No, that's what you seem to think military pilots talk about. They don't,
> can't you understand that. I know several myself, NOT ONE of them talk
> about how many hours they have.
>
> They talk about flying, just like most pilots do, but then I suppose you
> measure your manhood by your PIC hours and assume everybody else does?
>
> How old are you anyhow?

This is a trick question... you want him to answer in hours don't you? =D

Eric

[R. Hubbell]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:19:03 -0600 "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:43:52 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> > So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
> > That's what we're talking about.
>

If you don't want to talk about find another thread, but name calling's
old and tired. Some jocks brag about hours, it gets discussed pretty
regularly by others. Talk to an insurance agent sometime they'll want to know
how many hours. Go to an interview for a pilot job. Guess what? They'll
want to know how many hours.


But for Dubya the numbers of hours is salient and interesting because I'll
bet he has very few hours but just enough to say he was a military pilot.
But how many as PIC? Maybe his hours were in a TF-102.

If you don't like the discussion move along. If you don't have a point
or counterpoint then just find another topic.

R. Hubbell

> No, that's what you seem to think military pilots talk about. They don't,
> can't you understand that. I know several myself, NOT ONE of them talk
> about how many hours they have.
>
> They talk about flying, just like most pilots do, but then I suppose you
> measure your manhood by your PIC hours and assume everybody else does?
>
> How old are you anyhow?
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:49:20 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:kv3Eb.28631$pY.15075@fed1read04...
> >
> > That's a good skill to have when using usenet, now if you practiced
> > what you preached maybe you would have a something salient to add to
> > the discussion.
> >
>
> If you review the thread you'll see that I have added to the discussion.

Please don't suggest I review this thread, once is plenty. :)

>
>
> >
> > Or are you more interested in name calling?
> >

The original's not here, not going to go looking for it either.
I'll stand by my assertion.

R. Hubbell

>
> Why do you ask that? Do you believe I engaged in name calling? If so,
> please provide a quote of it.
>
>

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote

>
> Keeping with interviews ...I don't get the feeling I'm seeing a deep
thinker
> in Bush. Instead, it often appears he's doing more reacting and blocking
> than thinking and communicating.
>
> Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.
>
> --
> Montblack
> http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif
>
>

I for one, will take genuine over slick (willy), any day.
--
Jim in NC

[Cub Driver]

>t he can't
>really be a pilot. I mean a true pilot,

Ah, now you are defining pilot!

Here's what the Boston Globe, which first broke the charges that Bush
was AWOL during the last year or so of his Air Guard tour, concluded
in an editorial:

********************************************

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April
1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
''weekend warriors.''

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent
the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in
flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
release from service.

***********************************************

I conclude that Bush was a pilot and a military man, and that you
aren't much of either.

Plonk!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>They may be able to require that the modifications are performed to certain
>standards if you wish to overfly populated areas, but the second amendment is
>pretty clear.

Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>That year I got about $1.40 for each pound sterling.
>
>This year I am getting $1.70 for each pound.
>
>21% not bad. Attaboy Bushie, continue making my day.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.

Yes, Clinton and Nixon were without doubt our most intelligent
presidents at least since Woodrow Wilson.

Interesting that Clinton became the second president to be impeached,
and that Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Cub Driver
> writes:

>
>>They may be able to require that the modifications are performed to certain
>>standards if you wish to overfly populated areas, but the second amendment
>is
>>pretty clear.
>
>Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.
>
>

SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago. At the
time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

The implication of the only direct ruling on the 2nd is that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms relates specifically to militarily useful weapons.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:00:24 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

> You've snipped it out. I don't have the time to search for it. If I remember
> the context, it was a silly thing to expect from the AOPA. Enough said.

Do you think it was silly of AOPA to develop the airport security program?
Doesn't matter, they did. Now when something isn't working in it and
it's brought to their attention they ignore it.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that when their program failed they are
not interested in why so that they can improve it before the govt.
improves it. Maybe you want the govt. to improve the plan then? That's
what's going to happen if AOPA keeps ignoring it.

I don't care if you are lazy, you should read a posting before replying to
it, or are you just trying ignorant?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >t he can't
> >really be a pilot. I mean a true pilot,
>
> Ah, now you are defining pilot!
>
> Here's what the Boston Globe, which first broke the charges that Bush
> was AWOL during the last year or so of his Air Guard tour, concluded
> in an editorial:
>
> ********************************************
>
> Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April
> 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
> Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
> of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
> hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
> ''weekend warriors.''
>
> Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent
> the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in
> flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
> enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
> logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
> release from service.
>
> ***********************************************
>
> I conclude that Bush was a pilot and a military man, and that you
> aren't much of either.
>
> Plonk!
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:

Awwwwww, Dan!!! Now you've gone an destroyed his delusion.

[Tom Sixkiller]

>That year I got about $1.40 for each pound sterling.
>
>This year I am getting $1.70 for each pound.
>
>21% not bad. Attaboy Bushie, continue making my day.

And you used to get $5, just a generation or so ago.

Thing is, the one to thank for your more recent (temporary) fortune is Alan
Greenspan.

(If you insist on shooting your mouth of, it's best to have a clue ehat
you're talking about.)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.
>
> Yes, Clinton and Nixon were without doubt our most intelligent
> presidents at least since Woodrow Wilson.
>

You might want to read THE ILLUSION OF VICTORY: America in World War I, by
Thomas Fleming to dispel yourself of that myth about Wilson.

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:06:18 -0500 Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
> >t he can't
> >really be a pilot. I mean a true pilot,
>
> Ah, now you are defining pilot!

My original assertion stands. No "real" pilot would put himself above so many
fellow pilots on the most single important day in their history since First
Flight. He would have flown to an alternate and drove in allowing GA to fly.


>
> Here's what the Boston Globe, which first broke the charges that Bush
> was AWOL during the last year or so of his Air Guard tour, concluded
> in an editorial:
>
> ********************************************
>
> Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April


One hand washes the other, eh?

"....
But Bush was serving in a champagne unit that was refuge for the area sons of
privilege. Its ranks included John Conally's son, Lloyd Bentson's son, John
Tower's son, SEVEN Dallas Cowboys, and two sons of the businessman who got G W
Bush into the Guard ahead of hundreds of others on a waiting list."


> 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
> Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
> of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
> hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
> ''weekend warriors.''
>
> Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent
> the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in
> flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
> enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
> logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
> release from service.
>
> ***********************************************
>
> I conclude that Bush was a pilot and a military man, and that you
> aren't much of either.

Most people consider someone that goes AWOL to be a coward.

>
> Plonk!


Name calling and plonking. So you're out of gas, so to speak. I'll
bet you plonk all those that offer opposing views. Nice and tidy, eh?

R. Hubbell


>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:40:46 -0700 "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >t he can't
> > >really be a pilot. I mean a true pilot,
> >
> > Ah, now you are defining pilot!
> >
> > Here's what the Boston Globe, which first broke the charges that Bush
> > was AWOL during the last year or so of his Air Guard tour, concluded
> > in an editorial:
> >
> > ********************************************
> >
> > Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April
> > 1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
> > Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
> > of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
> > hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
> > ''weekend warriors.''
> >
> > Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent
> > the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in
> > flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
> > enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
> > logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
> > release from service.
> >
> > ***********************************************
> >
> > I conclude that Bush was a pilot and a military man, and that you
> > aren't much of either.
> >
> > Plonk!
> >
> > all the best -- Dan Ford
> > email:
>
> Awwwwww, Dan!!! Now you've gone an destroyed his delusion.


You mean Bush's? I don't think he has. But maybe I have done that to
yours and OP? You have my apologies in that case.


R. Hubbell


>
>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 07:50:12 -0600 "Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:00:24 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> > You've snipped it out. I don't have the time to search for it. If I remember
> > the context, it was a silly thing to expect from the AOPA. Enough said.
>
> Do you think it was silly of AOPA to develop the airport security program?
> Doesn't matter, they did. Now when something isn't working in it and
> it's brought to their attention they ignore it.
>
> You don't seem to grasp the fact that when their program failed they are
> not interested in why so that they can improve it before the govt.
> improves it. Maybe you want the govt. to improve the plan then? That's
> what's going to happen if AOPA keeps ignoring it.
>
> I don't care if you are lazy, you should read a posting before replying to
> it, or are you just trying ignorant?
>


I did read the posting, in a perfect world all the things we think should
happen, would happen. Keep supporting the AOPA, don't get too discouraged
if you feel they have failed you in some way. I don't think they have.

(notice I included your posting)


R. Hubbell

[Gig Giacona]

"Matthew P. Cummings" > wrote in message
ray.net...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 21:04:22 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:
>
> > I got news for you. AOPA is not in charge of enforcing the laws. If the
> > police let the guy go, take it up with the police.
>
> Read what I posted. I did not say they didn't enforce the law, I said
> they should have taken the information down so that they could use it in
> the future, i.e. when a new stupid law is proposed they can guide it's
> direction by virtue of having proof of what doesn't work.
>
> Must you be contrary with everybody, can't you just read something as it's
> posted?
>
> For you I'll say it again, AOPA SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE INFORMATION GIVEN
> FOR THE RECORD, IN THE FUTURE THEY CAN THEN USE IT TO GUIDE THE CREATION
> OF SOMETHING THAT WORKS.
>
> They refused to listen.
>

Why do you want AOPA to take notes for you. It wouldn't be used in court it
was all hearsay.

[Rob Perkins]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:14:49 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

>But for Dubya the numbers of hours is salient and interesting because

....because you wish to criticize his military service, possibly in the
name of providing information to support a theory that he wasn't
"really" a military pilot, but traded on it anyway to get office.

> I'll
>bet he has very few hours but just enough to say he was a military pilot.
>But how many as PIC? Maybe his hours were in a TF-102.

So? What, fighter jets with guns are the only airplanes that make a
pilot a military pilot?

Face it: He was a military pilot. Anyone to flies a military trainer
solo is a military pilot. And the conceit offends all of the *good*
pilots in the Materiel Command. You wish to say those people are also
not "real pilots"?

Good gravy. Bush has more hours total in a faster and more complex
airplane than me, and they call *me* a pilot. He had scads more time
in military service than I ever did, and the Air Force gave *me* an
honorable discharge, and called me "military" the whole time I was
enlisted.

Beyond a very thin veneer of partisan political bickering, your case
just doesn't stand up.

Rob

[David Brooks]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> Here's what the Boston Globe, which first broke the charges that Bush
> was AWOL during the last year or so of his Air Guard tour, concluded
> in an editorial:
> ...
> Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent
> the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in
> flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
> enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
> logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
> release from service.

Why was the word "only" inserted in that sentence? "Al Gore, who
enlisted...logged about a month more active service..." sounds a lot better.

I'd have expected more bias from the Globe :-)

-- David Brooks

[Cub Driver]

>SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago. At the
>time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
>amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

SCOTUS?

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)

Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)

.... to name just a few!


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Cub Driver > said:
>>SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago. At the
>>time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
>>amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*
>
>SCOTUS?

Supreme Court Of The United States. It's a standard abbreviation.


--
"The magic of usenet has never been its technology; and, only in part, its
reach. Its magic -- its power -- is based on the very real human connections
that form 'round its threads of conversation... the relationships that are
kindled, flamed and, on occasion, extinguished and mourned." -deCadmus

[Wdtabor]

In article >, Cub Driver
> writes:

>
>SCOTUS

Supreme Court Of The United States

>Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)
>
>Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).
>
>Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).
>
>Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)
>
>... to name just a few!
>

While these do touch on firearms tangelntally, none of them is a direct ruling
on the MEANING of the 2nd amendment WRT individual rights or types of arms
covered.

Miller is that last case to do so, and the plaintiff was dead at the time of
the arguments, so only the government case was heard.

But Miller did affirm the right of the people to bear arms useful in the
militia, which is defined by federal law as all persons not debarred by law
(like convicted felons) capable of bearing arms.

So, if you want to fit your piper with sidewinders or .50 cal Brownings, that
would be protected, but it is doubtful that should you wish to fit it with
derringers or sawed off shotguns, that might be a problem.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:7JaEb.29034$pY.15526@fed1read04...
>
> If you don't want to talk about find another thread, but name calling's
> old and tired.
>

What name calling?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:OOaEb.29036$pY.18178@fed1read04...
>
> Please don't suggest I review this thread, once is plenty. :)
>

It appears you imagined some of it.


>
> The original's not here, not going to go looking for it either.
> I'll stand by my assertion.
>

Your assertion is false.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.
>

The Supreme Court reads the entire Constitution differently, but it's still
pretty clear nontheless.

[Gig Giacona]

Not a single one of the cases cited are 2nd Amendment



"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago.
At the
> >time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
> >amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*
>
> SCOTUS?
>
> Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)

http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1040/
Question Presented
May prison inmates challenge the revocation of their parole after they are
re-released on parole?




>
> Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/99/
Question Presented
Does the fact that guns were found in a locked glove compartment, or the
trunk, of a car, preclude the application of 18 U section 924(c)(1), which
imposes a 5-year mandatory prison term upon a person who "uses or carries a
firearm" "during and in relation to" a "drug trafficking crime"?



>
> Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/835/
Question Presented
Using the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I as justification, can
Congress temporarily require state CLEOs to regulate handgun purchases by
performing those duties called for by the Brady Bill's handgun applicant
background-checks?



>
> Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-833.ZC1.html

Was a 4th Admendment case.





> ... to name just a few!
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email:
>
> see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
> and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 17:19:58 GMT Rob Perkins > wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:14:49 -0800, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >But for Dubya the numbers of hours is salient and interesting because
>
> ...because you wish to criticize his military service, possibly in the
> name of providing information to support a theory that he wasn't
> "really" a military pilot, but traded on it anyway to get office.


No, beause it's pertinent to the discussion.

>
> > I'll
> >bet he has very few hours but just enough to say he was a military pilot.
> >But how many as PIC? Maybe his hours were in a TF-102.
>
> So? What, fighter jets with guns are the only airplanes that make a
> pilot a military pilot?


No because the TF is a two-seater.

>
> Face it: He was a military pilot. Anyone to flies a military trainer
> solo is a military pilot. And the conceit offends all of the *good*
> pilots in the Materiel Command. You wish to say those people are also
> not "real pilots"?


He didn't show his true pilot colors by preventing GA from flying
to Kill Devil. A "real" pilot would have take the limo instead of
ruining the experience for GA just to get one more political stunt
in during an election year.

>
> Good gravy. Bush has more hours total in a faster and more complex

Wait I thought hours didn't matter and no one talked about them! :)

> airplane than me, and they call *me* a pilot. He had scads more time
> in military service than I ever did, and the Air Force gave *me* an
> honorable discharge, and called me "military" the whole time I was
> enlisted.
>
> Beyond a very thin veneer of partisan political bickering, your case
> just doesn't stand up.

What case? That he prevented GA from flying to Kill Devil? Sure it does
and he's not a real pilot because he kept GA from flying to THE celebration
of GA for the last 100 years. I'm thankful that he didn't decide to fly
out to Mojave that day.


R. Hubbell


>
> Rob

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:12:02 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:7JaEb.29034$pY.15526@fed1read04...
> >
> > If you don't want to talk about find another thread, but name calling's
> > old and tired.
> >
>
> What name calling?

Don't take it personally. :)
I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on
a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.



R. Hubbell

>
>

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 20:16:45 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
> "R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
> news:OOaEb.29036$pY.18178@fed1read04...
> >
> > Please don't suggest I review this thread, once is plenty. :)
> >
>
> It appears you imagined some of it.
>
>
> >
> > The original's not here, not going to go looking for it either.
> > I'll stand by my assertion.
> >
>
> Your assertion is false.


Okay I think I see your sentiments, you're looking for a fight.
You will not find one here.


R. Hubbell

>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04...
>
> I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're
on
> a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.
>

Retaining the entire previous message as quoted material would not help you
understand it any better.

You've referred to name-calling several times in this thread, but you cannot
point to any name-calling when challenged on it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:rCqEb.29251$pY.19294@fed1read04...
>
> Okay I think I see your sentiments, you're looking for a fight.
> You will not find one here.
>

I know, you've made it clear that you're not about to support any of your
statements.

[Bob Noel]

In article <aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

> I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're
> on
> a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.

normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts.

--
Bob Noel

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:04:07 -0600, Gig Giacona wrote:

> Why do you want AOPA to take notes for you. It wouldn't be used in court it
> was all hearsay.

Not in court, for the next program they create, or to expound on it to the
police. They need to get training material for the police, and this would
fall right into that category, i.e. when you notice a guy in a plane with
a key jammed into the ignition and lock picks on him, plus a porta potty
next to the plane, hold the guy for questions.

That's what AOPA should be working on, more training for police and how to
spot thieves about to steal or have already stolen a plane. This would
have been a good example. AOPA could have led the training for police,
that's what I'm saying, they could have used this to create a better
program, not for law enforcement, not for court, not for justice. For a
program like the airport watch, but for law enforcement.

[Matthew P. Cummings]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:18:38 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

> I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on
> a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.

That's not how it's done, nor how it should be done. Postings should be
trimmed enough to get the point you're making across.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Rob Perkins at
wrote on 12/18/03 9:55 AM:

> On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:51:43 GMT, Philip Sondericker
> > wrote:
>
>> in article , Rob Perkins at
>> wrote on 12/16/03 9:07 PM:
>>
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:12:49 GMT, Philip Sondericker
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you able to cite a single instance of CNN, ABC, et al ever calling the
>>>> President "dumb"?
>>>
>>> "He lacks gravitas"
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> He lacks seriousness?
>
> Closest I could come. CNN, ABC, et al don't *ever* call the President
> "dumb", they let partisan toadies ("analysts" and "contributors") do
> it for them.
>
> Rob

I still haven't heard anyone on any of those channels call him dumb.

[Cub Driver]

>> Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.
>>
>
>The Supreme Court reads the entire Constitution differently, but it's still
>pretty clear nontheless.

Catch 22. The Constitution says what the Supremes say it does.

If you can get Bush to appoint you, and the Democrats not to
fillibuster you, you can begin to move the interpretation in your
direction, but it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago.
At the
> >time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
> >amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

(Which was in error (primarily because the defense NEVER SHOWED UP), as it
was known as a "Trench Broom" in WW1 and has extensive use in the SA War.

Miller has got to be one of the most bogus SC cases of all time.)

> SCOTUS?
>
> Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)
>
> Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).
>
> Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).
>
> Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)
>
> ... to name just a few!
>
>
Could you give us the Reader's Digest version of those cases?

[R. Hubbell]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:55:58 GMT Bob Noel > wrote:

> In article <aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> > wrote:
>
> > I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're
> > on
> > a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.
>
> normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts.


Not if your reply requires the context of the original post.


R. Hubbell

>
> --
> Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article <L8NEb.31174$pY.17564@fed1read04>, "R. Hubbell"
> wrote:

>I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.
> >
> > normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts.
>
> Not if your reply requires the context of the original post.

few replies do.

--
Bob Noel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:L8NEb.31174$pY.17564@fed1read04...
>
> Not if your reply requires the context of the original post.
>

If you need more context than the average user review the thread.