Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again [Archive]

View Full Version : Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again

Larry Dighera

March 2nd 04, 05:42 PM

Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:11:31 -0500
From:
Subject: AOPA ePilot -- California Airspace Bulletin
X-Originating-IP: [65.125.13.133]
Message-id: >

-------------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Special Airspace Bulletin March 2, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------

A special notice to AOPA members in California

==> ATTENTION PILOTS <==

FAA TO ESTABLISH TFRs OVER LOS ANGELES, SANTA CLARA, AND BAKERSFIELD
AOPA is sending this message to advise pilots in California that
President Bush will be making a series of campaign stops in the state
tomorrow and Thursday. His visit will be accompanied by many flight
restrictions.

Beginning in Los Angeles, there will be a large
30-nautical-mile-radius
temporary flight restriction (TFR) with three 10-nm-radius general
aviation no-fly zones. The TFR will be centered on the LAX VOR's
11-degree radial at 8.7 miles and extend to Flight Level 180. It
will be in effect from 12:25 p.m. local on Wednesday, March 3, to
9 a.m. local on Thursday, March 4. The three no-fly zones will have
different effective times within that period. See AOPA Online for the
full text of the notam
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/1648 ).

The affected public-use airports for Los Angles are Santa Monica
Municipal (SMO), Los Angeles International (LAX), Jack Northrop
Field/Hawthorne Municipal (HHR), Bob Hope (BUR), Van Nuys (VNY),
Compton/Woodley (CPM), Whiteman (WHP), Zamperini Field (TOA), El Monte
(EMT), Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB), Fullerton Municipal (FUL),
Agua Dulce Airpark (L70), and Brackett Field (POC).

In Bakersfield, there will be a 30-nm-radius TFR with one GA
no-fly zone. The TFR will be centered on the EHF VOR's 138-degree
radial at 4.6 miles from 8:40 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. local on Thursday,
March 4. The 10-nm no-fly zone will be active during that same
timeframe. See the full text of the notam
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/1650 ).

The affected public-use airports for Bakersfield are Meadows Field
(BFL), Bakersfield Municipal (L45), Shafter-Minter Field (MIT),
Poso-Kern County (L73), Wasco-Kern County (L19), Elk
Hills-Buttonwillow
(L62), Delano Municipal (DLO), and Taft-Kern County (L17).

And in Santa Clara, there will be a 30-nm-radius TFR with three 10-nm
GA no-fly zones. The TFR will be centered on the SJC VOR's 306-degree
radial at 2.4 miles from 11:20 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. local on Thursday,
March 4. The three GA no-fly zones will have different effective times
within that period. See the full text of the notam
( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/1649 ).

The affected public-use airports for Santa Clara are Norman Y. Mineta
San Jose International (SJC), Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County
(PAO), Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County (RHV), San Carlos (SQL),
Hayward Executive (HWD), Livermore Municipal (LVK), Metropolitan
Oakland International (OAK), San Francisco International (SFO), Half
Moon Bay (HAF), South County Airport of Santa Clara County (Q99),
Watsonville Municipal (WVI), Byron (C83), and Tracy Municipal (TCY).

Because TFR airspace frequently changes, AOPA strongly encourages
pilots to obtain a briefing and CHECK NOTAMS before every flight. TFR
violators will be intercepted and forced to land.

==> HELPFUL WEB LINKS <==

AOPA's Real-Time Flight Planner provides up-to-the-minute graphical
depictions of TFRs ( http://www.aopa.org/flight_planner/ ).
Check the FAA's TFR Web site ( http://tfr.faa.gov ).

Download the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's intercept procedures card
( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf )or review ASF's
"Know Before You Go" program ( http://www.aopa.org/asf/know_before/ ).

==> MAKE SURE YOU'RE PROTECTED <==

SIGN UP FOR AOPA'S LEGAL SERVICES PLAN
Because of the heavy call volume from members and the changing climate
for FAA regulations and increased vigilance, we want to remind you to
consider the AOPA Legal Services Plan protection. For more information
or to start your coverage immediately, call 800/USA-AOPA or visit AOPA
Online ( http://www.aopa.org/info/legalservices7/ ).

==> CONTACTING AOPA <==

Having difficulty using this service?
Contact ( ).

AOPA, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701.
Telephone: 800/USA-AOPA or 301/695-2000
Copyright (c) 2004. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

Cecil E. Chapman

March 2nd 04, 06:03 PM

Yeah,,, just saw it.... Naturally it has to be on the day of my Instrument
Lesson (I'm prepping for a checkride), I fly out of RHV :-(

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

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
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 -
"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:11:31 -0500
> From:
> Subject: AOPA ePilot -- California Airspace Bulletin
> X-Originating-IP: [65.125.13.133]
> Message-id: >
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Special Airspace Bulletin March 2, 2004
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> A special notice to AOPA members in California
>
>
> ==> ATTENTION PILOTS <==
>
> FAA TO ESTABLISH TFRs OVER LOS ANGELES, SANTA CLARA, AND BAKERSFIELD
> AOPA is sending this message to advise pilots in California that
> President Bush will be making a series of campaign stops in the state
> tomorrow and Thursday. His visit will be accompanied by many flight
> restrictions.
>
> Beginning in Los Angeles, there will be a large
> 30-nautical-mile-radius
> temporary flight restriction (TFR) with three 10-nm-radius general
> aviation no-fly zones. The TFR will be centered on the LAX VOR's
> 11-degree radial at 8.7 miles and extend to Flight Level 180. It
> will be in effect from 12:25 p.m. local on Wednesday, March 3, to
> 9 a.m. local on Thursday, March 4. The three no-fly zones will have
> different effective times within that period. See AOPA Online for the
> full text of the notam
> ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/1648 ).
>
> The affected public-use airports for Los Angles are Santa Monica
> Municipal (SMO), Los Angeles International (LAX), Jack Northrop
> Field/Hawthorne Municipal (HHR), Bob Hope (BUR), Van Nuys (VNY),
> Compton/Woodley (CPM), Whiteman (WHP), Zamperini Field (TOA), El Monte
> (EMT), Long Beach/Daugherty Field (LGB), Fullerton Municipal (FUL),
> Agua Dulce Airpark (L70), and Brackett Field (POC).
>
>
> In Bakersfield, there will be a 30-nm-radius TFR with one GA
> no-fly zone. The TFR will be centered on the EHF VOR's 138-degree
> radial at 4.6 miles from 8:40 a.m. to 11:20 a.m. local on Thursday,
> March 4. The 10-nm no-fly zone will be active during that same
> timeframe. See the full text of the notam
> ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/1650 ).
>
> The affected public-use airports for Bakersfield are Meadows Field
> (BFL), Bakersfield Municipal (L45), Shafter-Minter Field (MIT),
> Poso-Kern County (L73), Wasco-Kern County (L19), Elk
> Hills-Buttonwillow
> (L62), Delano Municipal (DLO), and Taft-Kern County (L17).
>
>
> And in Santa Clara, there will be a 30-nm-radius TFR with three 10-nm
> GA no-fly zones. The TFR will be centered on the SJC VOR's 306-degree
> radial at 2.4 miles from 11:20 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. local on Thursday,
> March 4. The three GA no-fly zones will have different effective times
> within that period. See the full text of the notam
> ( http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/notams.html#4/1649 ).
>
> The affected public-use airports for Santa Clara are Norman Y. Mineta
> San Jose International (SJC), Palo Alto Airport of Santa Clara County
> (PAO), Reid-Hillview of Santa Clara County (RHV), San Carlos (SQL),
> Hayward Executive (HWD), Livermore Municipal (LVK), Metropolitan
> Oakland International (OAK), San Francisco International (SFO), Half
> Moon Bay (HAF), South County Airport of Santa Clara County (Q99),
> Watsonville Municipal (WVI), Byron (C83), and Tracy Municipal (TCY).
>
> Because TFR airspace frequently changes, AOPA strongly encourages
> pilots to obtain a briefing and CHECK NOTAMS before every flight. TFR
> violators will be intercepted and forced to land.
>
>
> ==> HELPFUL WEB LINKS <==
>
> AOPA's Real-Time Flight Planner provides up-to-the-minute graphical
> depictions of TFRs ( http://www.aopa.org/flight_planner/ ).
> Check the FAA's TFR Web site ( http://tfr.faa.gov ).
>
> Download the AOPA Air Safety Foundation's intercept procedures card
> ( http://download.aopa.org/epilot/2003/intercept.pdf )or review ASF's
> "Know Before You Go" program ( http://www.aopa.org/asf/know_before/ ).
>
>
> ==> MAKE SURE YOU'RE PROTECTED <==
>
> SIGN UP FOR AOPA'S LEGAL SERVICES PLAN
> Because of the heavy call volume from members and the changing climate
> for FAA regulations and increased vigilance, we want to remind you to
> consider the AOPA Legal Services Plan protection. For more information
> or to start your coverage immediately, call 800/USA-AOPA or visit AOPA
> Online ( http://www.aopa.org/info/legalservices7/ ).
>
>
> ==> CONTACTING AOPA <==
>
> Having difficulty using this service?
> Contact ( ).
>
> AOPA, 421 Aviation Way, Frederick, Maryland 21701.
> Telephone: 800/USA-AOPA or 301/695-2000
> Copyright (c) 2004. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
>
>
>

CriticalMass

March 3rd 04, 01:19 AM

Larry,

For pete's sake (and all the rest of our sakes), give "Baby Bush" a rest
- HERE.

You've well established your anti-Bush political bias in this ng, and,
I imagine, in as many other places as you can. I'm tired of it. I bet
some others are, too. We don't come to this ng to hear about your hate
for "Baby Bush".

This isn't a political forum - get it? There ARE political forums. GO
THERE, when you want to bash "Baby Bush".

We come here to talk about aviation, not "Baby Bush, or any other
politician making news..

To address your specific bitch in this instance, "Baby Bush" is causing
no more inconvenience to GA with his travels and the resulting TFRs than
would any other individual in the same position.

Get over it. Cease and desist with your waste of ng bandwidth.

Tom Sixkiller

March 3rd 04, 08:45 AM

"CriticalMass" > wrote in message
...
> Larry,
>
> For pete's sake (and all the rest of our sakes), give "Baby Bush" a rest
> - HERE.
>
> You've well established your anti-Bush political bias in this ng, and,
> I imagine, in as many other places as you can. I'm tired of it. I bet
> some others are, too. We don't come to this ng to hear about your hate
> for "Baby Bush".

I wonder where he was when Bubba shut down all LA traffic for two hours
while getting a haircut.

>
> This isn't a political forum - get it? There ARE political forums. GO
> THERE, when you want to bash "Baby Bush".
>
> We come here to talk about aviation, not "Baby Bush, or any other
> politician making news..
>
> To address your specific bitch in this instance, "Baby Bush" is causing
> no more inconvenience to GA with his travels and the resulting TFRs than
> would any other individual in the same position.
>
> Get over it. Cease and desist with your waste of ng bandwidth.

Any port in a storm.

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 04, 03:05 PM

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 01:45:47 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>I wonder where he was when Bubba shut down all LA traffic for two hours
>while getting a haircut.

He was governing Texas as I recall. :-)

Not to defend Clinton, but how often did what you assert occur? Was
it a regular fact of life or a single incident?

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 04, 03:54 PM

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:19:33 -0600, CriticalMass > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>Larry,
>
>For pete's sake (and all the rest of our sakes), give "Baby Bush" a rest
>- HERE.

I wasn't aware that you had been elected spokesman for ALL of
rec.aviation.piloting. :-)

>You've well established your anti-Bush political bias in this ng, and,
>I imagine, in as many other places as you can. I'm tired of it.

Perhaps YOU would like to take _responsibility_ for the content of
this newsgroup to which YOU are exposed, and filter out all the
phrases and authors YOU find unpalatable. Or are you really just
looking for an excuse to attack me publicly.

>I bet some others are, too. We don't come to this ng to hear about your hate
>for "Baby Bush".

The only time the word 'hate' has been used in this thread (until now)
is by you. You can characterize my article as hateful if that is how
you perceive it, but the fact is, it's merely FACTUAL. The hate you
perceive is yours; please don't project it onto me.

Perhaps it is baby Bush's audacious airspace grabs that are TRULY
hateful in their arrogant disregard for those he serves.

The notice I posted is on-topic for this newsgroup. Thank you for not
taking exception to the content of my article, as it contains solely
the words of AOPA. The statement made in the article's Subject is
also valid.

To what is it specifically, that you object? Or are you even capable
of articulating your specific objection? Please provide a quote of
the text you find offending from the article that started this message
thread, or apologize.

Perhaps you can point out the modicum of _information_ you provided in
your followup article to which I am replying. I am completely unable
to find any on-topic information in it at all. It seems just an
immature, groundless, publicly taunting rant.

>This isn't a political forum - get it? There ARE political forums. GO
>THERE, when you want to bash "Baby Bush".

IF A POLITICIAN AFFECTS THE NAS, THAT'S ON TOPIC -- GET IT?

>We come here to talk about aviation, not "Baby Bush, or any other
>politician making news..

And you'll notice that the topic of my article is related to the
Presidential TFRs, not political news. Please explain how you feel
TFRs are not aviation related? :-)

It seems that it is you who wishes to raise the issue of the political
nature of this airspace grab. I was content to simply provide the TFR
information for any airmen who might be affected by it, but if you
insist on debating the political aspect, perhaps I can accommodate
you.

>To address your specific bitch in this instance, "Baby Bush" is causing
>no more inconvenience to GA with his travels and the resulting TFRs than
>would any other individual in the same position.

Oh, now you're prescient! How thoughtful of you to share your gift.
:-)

Your complete lack of authority to make such a ridiculous, presumptive
statement about how another individual might act in the future reveals
your obvious lack of critical thinking on this issue. How can you
possibly know what will happen in the future? You don't.

Considering the precedent the President and his gang has now set, the
future is most likely to bring ever more and larger TFRs if the next
president is as uninformed as baby Bush is. Bush's question,
regarding why he wasn't landing at Meigs (shortly after its midnight
destruction) showed how unconcerned he is about GA. Perhaps a GA
pilot in the White House might mitigate such onerous offences against
the NAS.

>Get over it.

I find it difficult to get over a Temporary Flight Restriction that
exceeds 3,000 square miles in area. Perhaps you don't have a problem
with it, but AOPA and I do. This huge TFR that surrounds the leader
of the free world is unreasonable, absurd, and an arrogant intrusion
on the rights of the public whom he serves.

Perhaps your prescience will provide an answer to the question, "will
political TFRs increase or decrease in size and number in the future?"
:-)

>Cease and desist with your waste of ng bandwidth.

Your imperious attempt at groundless censorship, in this most
egalitarian of public forums, reveals your oppressive totalitarian
proclivity.

Cecil E. Chapman

March 3rd 04, 04:19 PM

In an effort towards 'full disclosure' I would be remiss in pointing out
that during one of Clinton's visits he effectively shut down San Carlos
Airport for nearly a week.... and I say this being a great Clinton fan.

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

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
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 -

Cecil E. Chapman

March 3rd 04, 04:21 PM

Well said! And you are certainly on-topic considering what has been going
on with the pop-tfr's all around our country .

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

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
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 -
"

John T

March 3rd 04, 05:05 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> The notice I posted is on-topic for this newsgroup. ...
> The statement made in the article's Subject is
> also valid.

While the content of your post may have been on-topic, your adjectives (ie,
"Baby Bush") is what paints it in a negative light - and the subject line
content was entirely yours.

Further, your subject was not valid since Bush does not make the decision to
close any airspace much less airports due to his travel. Those decisions
are made by bureaucrats - ones that exist regardless of the party
affiliation of the sitting President.

Now, if you'd left out the derogatory "Baby Bush", I'm sure you wouldn't
have engendered the ire of "CriticalMass".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Javier Henderson

March 3rd 04, 05:32 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> "CriticalMass" > wrote in message
> I wonder where he was when Bubba shut down all LA traffic for two hours
> while getting a haircut.

Not all LAX traffic was shut down for two hours. It was a boneheaded
move for sure, and it caused some inconvenience, but it wasn't as bad
as the stories make it up to be.

At any rate, that was just one airport. These 30 nm TFR's are shutting
down a lot of airports.

-jav

CriticalMass

March 3rd 04, 05:36 PM

John T wrote:

>Now, if you'd left out the derogatory "Baby Bush", I'm sure you wouldn't
>have engendered the ire of "CriticalMass".
>
>
>

This particular individual has a history of spewing his anti-"Baby Bush"
rhetoric anywhere and everywhere he can.

Try this - do a quick Google search of "Baby Bush"+dighera. Guess what?

> Re: Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush? (ATC Privatization ...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=0rnrevs6j85sbevk55fdi50nb7hi1lf4gu%404ax.com&rnum=1>
>
> ... the government wants flexibility in administering those "contract
> towers." http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_25a/complete/185172-1.html
> While Baby Bush may have ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jun 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (435 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=0rnrevs6j85sbevk55fdi50nb7hi1lf4gu%404ax.c om&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Wm Buckley on John Kerry
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1f8720t8mfi6d9ubnpuq5oatrs277s1skc%404ax.com&rnum=2>
> ... I'm not so sure about that. Given the Executive spin on the
> intelligence suggesting
> Iraqi WMD, this information underscores baby Bush's lack moral
> veracity. ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Feb 6, 2004 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (23 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=1f8720t8mfi6d9ubnpuq5oatrs277s1skc%404ax.c om&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Blackhawk in chase of Ercoupes at Jefferson Co., WA tonight
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=cl8siusjukif8eqin5c5i9hrj2huvrc8k1%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=3>
> ... That is where we are being lead, and our fellow citizens are too
> fearful to
> protest Baby Bush's military backed, big-business financed power grab.
> ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jul 11, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (85 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=cl8siusjukif8eqin5c5i9hrj2huvrc8k1%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: dsto added to kill file!
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=e194fv0ng0ollt3dlr8nv95ldpap0jttu8%404ax.com&rnum=4>
> ... WOMD. It is baby Bush's possible lies to the American people and
> the world that Kerry want's to hold baby Bush accountable for. ...
> rec.aviation.military
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military>
> - Jun 19, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (17 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=e194fv0ng0ollt3dlr8nv95ldpap0jttu8%404ax.c om&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: presidential TFR - 3,291 statute miles square!
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=a8kjtvk1bamu6msjiaj0h28iljd75qob0k%404ax.com&rnum=5>
> It looks like we're not the only ones who think baby
> Bush's 3,000+ square mile TFRs are too big ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Dec 12, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (21 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=a8kjtvk1bamu6msjiaj0h28iljd75qob0k%404ax.c om&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: FAA Reauthorization Bill Passes Senate
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=2dfnev8icka6d9keffqjvb5o0amvcrjgj2%404ax.com&rnum=6>
> ... If the GOP hadn't exposed Clinton's personal 'affairs' publicly, baby
> Bush would never have been declared president. (Notice I didn ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jun 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (15 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=2dfnev8icka6d9keffqjvb5o0amvcrjgj2%404ax.c om&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Big Kahunas
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5gf2tvs9ar1of3ee99eugaviho0m1sd6rc%404ax.com&rnum=7>
> Probably large[ly] to one-up his father. One is able to hypothesize
> many pragmatic
> reasons for baby Bush's military action, but his daddy got him
> elected. ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Dec 6, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (374 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=5gf2tvs9ar1of3ee99eugaviho0m1sd6rc%404ax.c om&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight ...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=4hh940hf7jgc3i047191olng3qtf71of6m%404ax.com&rnum=8>
> Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:11:31 -0500 From:
> Subject: AOPA ePilot
> -- California Airspace Bulletin X-Originating-IP: [65.125.13.133]
> Message ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Mar 2, 2004 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (4 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=4hh940hf7jgc3i047191olng3qtf71of6m%404ax.c om&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Presidential TFR sidebar
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b8k3ovkg7v8on83r6mttcvs1gv32r91gap%404ax.com&rnum=9>
> ... When will that be? How many months will baby Bush have spent
> cluttering up
> the airspace before that happens? ... - Larry Dighera,
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Oct 6, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (56 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=b8k3ovkg7v8on83r6mttcvs1gv32r91gap%404ax.c om&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: How hard is it to atually call FSS?
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=t6b1ovs6as14hvdlibj0e9nnet7c5b0rij%404ax.com&rnum=10>
> ... time to intercept before the intruder is positioned over the baby
> Bush. -- Irrational
> beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera,
> LDighera@att ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Oct 5, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (26 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=t6b1ovs6as14hvdlibj0e9nnet7c5b0rij%404ax.c om&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: AOPA and ATC Privatization
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lrfbmvgbvp5uuuh6jg3rutq8nrnl9vff90%404ax.com&rnum=11>
>
> ... Chip, ZTL It would appear that Baby Bush is flexing his muscle in
> an attempt to
> get his way in the FAA privatization issue ... - Larry Dighera,
>
> rec.aviation.ifr
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.ifr>
> - Sep 15, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (91 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=lrfbmvgbvp5uuuh6jg3rutq8nrnl9vff90%404ax.c om&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Senators Fault Air Force on Abuse Scandal
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=n14nnvg4u42cddrhomjtnlmk4ugip196tr%404ax.com&rnum=12>
> ... responsible to the DOD IG nor any other government department nor
> branch, I would
> say withholding approval of baby Bush's nominee is ... Larry Dighera,
> LDighera@att ...
> rec.aviation.military
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military>
> - Oct 1, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (5 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=n14nnvg4u42cddrhomjtnlmk4ugip196tr%404ax.c om&rnum=12&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Remember the alternative?? (ATC Privatization)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=WdxGa.2613%24gs5.1560114%40news4.srv.hcvlny.c v.net&rnum=13>
> ... Capt. Doug wrote: Larry Dighera wrote in message > Aren't You Happy
> You Voted For Baby Bush? Remember the alternative? Bore/Loserman. ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jun 13, 2003 by Peter Gottlieb - View Thread (7 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=WdxGa.2613%24gs5.1560114%40news4.srv.hcvln y.cv.net&rnum=13&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: FAA announces 9/11 anniversary airspace restrictions : From ...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=ebfsmuop32ur2eh89ghevnbkoncu0mqh0o%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=14>
> ... from there. I believe Baby Bush's ignominious attempt at "aviation
> security" begins with (the Uncle Tom,) Condoleezza Rice. http ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Aug 29, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (66 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=ebfsmuop32ur2eh89ghevnbkoncu0mqh0o%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=14&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: The Other Side of Profiling
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=ebtflus0ali21stsqhb6bp9b659fuage1n%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=15>
> ... Foreign Minister on his flight may have thwarted a terrorist
> attempt, or (like most
> of the recent tightened security policy implemented by Baby Bush) its
> sole ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Aug 12, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (2 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=ebtflus0ali21stsqhb6bp9b659fuage1n%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=15&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: USAF = US Amphetamine Fools
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=k3gsjvscn5hlte6lcmjov2n3ked24o0ght%404ax.com&rnum=16>
> ... from the world." The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas,
> told the Israeli
> newspaper Ha'aretz that baby Bush made the ... - Larry Dighera,
>
> rec.aviation.military
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military>
> - Aug 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (107 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=k3gsjvscn5hlte6lcmjov2n3ked24o0ght%404ax.c om&rnum=16&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Turn this guy in!!!
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=h5b6gv0n7i9v52d72ai436a6l8odn3daot%404ax.com&rnum=17>
> ... forfeiture, it's constitutional? -) Are you sure you want to raise
> this
> issue in light of baby Bush's Patriot Act? -- "The Constitution ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jul 2, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (48 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=h5b6gv0n7i9v52d72ai436a6l8odn3daot%404ax.c om&rnum=17&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Make comments on the TSA suspension rule!
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=jiqn4v4rn5qulc4pj8inoc33ip42hopqef%40news-server.san.rr.com&rnum=18>
> ... shacks. Then the police could check the certificate number against the
> airmans' database. How big a budget did Baby Bush give Ridge?
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Feb 13, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (32 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=jiqn4v4rn5qulc4pj8inoc33ip42hopqef%40news-server.san.rr.com&rnum=18&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: After you've flown, everything else is, well, dull. (Was: ...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lthi3vcv91p89b5b6b0qd8f5bvpq3ghrlt%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=19>
> ... That is how it has been in the past. Perhaps the future could be
> different.
> Didn't Baby Bush mention coal in his SOTU speech? Now ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jan 30, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (299 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=lthi3vcv91p89b5b6b0qd8f5bvpq3ghrlt%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=19&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: A & E Investigative reports has special on TV tonight...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=vi1qiu8bofk0u82k5ke9jme2vdps4t1p6c%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=20>
> ... Has Baby Bush succeeded in doing away with that notion as well as
> judicial
> due process? Let's not give them another reason to ban us. ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jul 10, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (43 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=vi1qiu8bofk0u82k5ke9jme2vdps4t1p6c%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=20&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN>
>
> Sorted by relevance Sort by date
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&scoring=d>
>
>
> Re: Pakistani? Pilot? No soup for you.
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7h0lhuc18srs4v2cs7n4si9alv297dkira%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=21>
> ... I would phrase it more like, "We have met the enemy, and he is
> military interests
> pulling Baby Bush's strings to obtain power in this time of public
> fear-bred ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jun 26, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (18 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7h0lhuc18srs4v2cs7n4si9alv297dkira%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=21&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: To be able to identify all aircraft that are in the skies ...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=l88q6u0sp24a3kn3a2essg0nefjjvmdp21%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=22>
> ... Baby Bush is going to have to kick those corruption ridden
> faith-based organizations
> in the butt, and put them to work worldwide teaching and rasing the
> living ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Feb 15, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (53 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=l88q6u0sp24a3kn3a2essg0nefjjvmdp21%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=22&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Jr. Expected in Southern California Next Week....
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lnm5qv0cd0idud9kd337otv84l4g9cnt91%404ax.com&rnum=23>
> Baby Bush is expected to arrive in southern California Next Week. VFR
> Pilots
> can expect to be grounded by his temporary TFR of over 3,000 square
> miles.
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Oct 31, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (1 article)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=lnm5qv0cd0idud9kd337otv84l4g9cnt91%404ax.c om&rnum=23&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Need Reference Quickly, Please
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=mrs53vgfoqbsd1ak8hq6g9o94og545kv8i%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=24>
> ... Constitutional government was abandoned in the US long before GWB
> was born. I believe
> Mr. Duniho is referring to Baby Bush's recent revocation of due process.
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jan 25, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (18 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=mrs53vgfoqbsd1ak8hq6g9o94og545kv8i%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=24&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Welcome to Ashcroft's America. No soup for you.
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=k9fnhug0ucfhj8op0jmufj8jm78p4okcj0%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=25>
> ... It's not so much what Baby Bush has done to GA as much as what his
> (military
> influenced) administration has done to your constitutional rights
> (loss of ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jun 27, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (39 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=k9fnhug0ucfhj8op0jmufj8jm78p4okcj0%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=25&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: How about Kerry?
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=76ic10lsm4u78ldc2cgjkioi4o16fq7kc6%404ax.com&rnum=26>
> ... work 14 hours a day and actually have to pay taxes It would seem
> to me that President
> Clinton handed your boy a zero economic deficit, and baby Bush ran it
> up ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jan 27, 2004 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (26 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=76ic10lsm4u78ldc2cgjkioi4o16fq7kc6%404ax.c om&rnum=26&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Al-Qaida targeted Western forests, memo says
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=sn9bhvca5dd7toe3q17pfgfs8frvl3goa5%404ax.com&rnum=27>
> ... Given the gestapo mentality unleashed by baby Bush, it has me
> wondering who will
> be next? ----
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jul 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (29 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=sn9bhvca5dd7toe3q17pfgfs8frvl3goa5%404ax.c om&rnum=27&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: Send your letters to the editor to...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=kmvsfvgp4ruo6g8cl4i621ds0pgji87knd%404ax.com&rnum=28>
> ... 191 square miles of Presidential TFR strangling aviation in the city
> of its birth. How long is baby Bush scheduled to be there?
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jun 28, 2003 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (9 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=kmvsfvgp4ruo6g8cl4i621ds0pgji87knd%404ax.c om&rnum=28&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: How frequent are ramp checks?
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7549iu4uh7b1tn98r2emkm7ha7u7f4362b%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=29>
> Before Baby Bush took away your constitutional rights, the police were
> required
> to have a *reason* (probable cause, suspicion, something) to legally
> stop you ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Jul 4, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (34 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7549iu4uh7b1tn98r2emkm7ha7u7f4362b%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=29&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: TFRs will kill. They're stupid and unnecessary. Are they ...
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1eiibu0mpmmukeur48rnat4uopdvr1kik6%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=30>
> ... Baby Bush's abrupt creation of a new Office of Homeland Security
> <http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/faq-homeland.html>
> underscores the fear and helplessness ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Apr 14, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (63 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=1eiibu0mpmmukeur48rnat4uopdvr1kik6%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=30&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: F-16/cessna crash near sarasota
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=4vul5uk46c88pqb5cppqbeo6kfulbq9eqs%404ax.com&rnum=31>
> ... Hey, we're going to be oil drilling in the wilderness soon (thanks
> to baby
> Bush and his puppeteers), perhaps they'll let you fly lower too. ...
> rec.aviation.military
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military>
> - Feb 1, 2002 by Larry Dighera - View Thread (246 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=4vul5uk46c88pqb5cppqbeo6kfulbq9eqs%404ax.c om&rnum=31&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D30%26sa%3DN>
>
> Re: USAF = US Amphetamine Fools
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=30&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=r41tjvonk5mdias9lsfdu11o9t9vbg6ck0%404ax.com&rnum=32>
> ... to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world." The
> Palestinian prime minister,
> Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that baby Bush made
> the ...
> rec.aviation.piloting
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting>
> - Aug 16, 2003 by Big John - View Thread (94 articles)
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=r41tjvonk5mdias9lsfdu11o9t9vbg6ck0%404ax.c om&rnum=32&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D30%26sa%3DN>
>

He's still got his shorts in a wad from the fact that algore didn't make
it to the White House - after he invented the internet, that is.

Jim Herring

March 3rd 04, 09:17 PM

If John Kerry is elected will you be posting a "Bay Kerry will be Closing Airports
in California" message? Strangely I think not. Bush didn't create the TFR's. Get
over it.

--
Jim

carry on

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 04, 09:27 PM

Oh, now that I see Mr. Mass is posting HTML to usenet, I am beginning
to understand what a clueless newbie he is.

Here's a clue:

http://www.ezine.com/netiquette.html#dont
Don’t get carried away with HTML in newsgroups

Newer news reader software allows users to use HTML to add color,
backgrounds, changing fonts, and other "nifty" things to their
messages. If you are writing a newsy letter to your grandmother
these things are great. ...

And here's another from Mr. Mass' netnews provider:

http://member.newsguy.com/~schramm/nhtml.html
Posting News Using HTML

Please don't.
HTML-formatted postings are not welcomed in newsgroups. While your
software may interpret HTML correctly, there are many newsreading
clients in use, most of which have only minimal ability to
correctly display HTML. Also, HTML postings often include your
message twice: a plain text version is followed immediately by a
version including HTML tags. This extra version of your message
more than doubles the total length of the posting, and adds
unnecessary download time for other newsgroup readers. Between
other users' software's inability to correctly interpret your
posting, and the longer postings costing additional money to
download (much of the world outside the United States doesn't have
free local calling), you're likely to receive complaints if you
post in HTML. These complaints can range from polite to
thermonuclear.

And yet another:
http://www.by-users.co.uk/faqs/newsgroups/netiquette/
never post in HTML unless you are posting to a newsgroup where
this is explicitly stated to be acceptable behaviour.

....

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:36:57 -0600, CriticalMass > wrote
in Message-Id: >:

>
><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
><html>
><head>
> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
> <title></title>
></head>
><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
>John T wrote: 
><blockquote type="cite"
> .com">
> <pre wrap="">Now, if you'd left out the derogatory "Baby Bush", I'm sure you wouldn't
>have engendered the ire of "CriticalMass".
>
> </pre>
></blockquote>
> 
>This particular individual has a history of spewing his anti-"Baby
>Bush" rhetoric anywhere and everywhere he can. 
> 
>Try this - do a quick Google search of "Baby Bush"+dighera.  Guess what? 
> 
><blockquote type="cite"><a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=0rnrevs6j85sbevk55fdi50nb7hi1lf4gu%404ax.co m&rnum=1">Re:
>Aren't You Happy You Voted For Baby Bush? (ATC
>Privatization ... </a> 
> <div>
> ...
>the government wants flexibility in administering those "contract
>towers." <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_25a/complete/185172-1.html">http://www.avweb.com/newswire/9_25a/complete/185172-1.html</a> 
>While Baby Bush may have ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jun 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=0rnrevs6j85sbevk55fdi50nb7hi1lf4gu%404ax .com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (435 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1f8720t8mfi6d9ubnpuq5oatrs277s1skc%404ax.co m&rnum=2">Re:
>Wm Buckley on John Kerry</a> 
> ... I'm not so sure about that. Given the Executive spin on
>the intelligence suggesting 
>Iraqi WMD, this information underscores baby Bush's
>lack moral veracity. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Feb 6, 2004 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=1f8720t8mfi6d9ubnpuq5oatrs277s1skc%404ax .com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (23 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=cl8siusjukif8eqin5c5i9hrj2huvrc8k1%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=3">Re:
>Blackhawk in chase of Ercoupes at Jefferson Co., WA tonight</a> size="-1"> 
> ... That is where we are being lead, and our fellow citizens
>are too fearful to 
>protest Baby Bush's military backed, big-business
>financed power grab. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jul 11, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=cl8siusjukif8eqin5c5i9hrj2huvrc8k1%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (85 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=e194fv0ng0ollt3dlr8nv95ldpap0jttu8%404ax.co m&rnum=4">Re:
>dsto added to kill file!</a> 
> ... WOMD. It is baby Bush's possible lies to
>the American people and 
>the world that Kerry want's to hold baby Bush
>accountable for. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military"
> class="a">rec.aviation.military</a> - Jun 19, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=e194fv0ng0ollt3dlr8nv95ldpap0jttu8%404ax .com&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (17 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=a8kjtvk1bamu6msjiaj0h28iljd75qob0k%404ax.co m&rnum=5">Re:
>presidential TFR - 3,291 statute miles square!</a> 
>It looks like we're not the only ones who think baby 
> Bush's 3,000+ square mile TFRs are too big ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Dec 12, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=a8kjtvk1bamu6msjiaj0h28iljd75qob0k%404ax .com&rnum=5&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (21 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=2dfnev8icka6d9keffqjvb5o0amvcrjgj2%404ax.co m&rnum=6">Re:
>FAA Reauthorization Bill Passes Senate</a> 
> ... If the GOP hadn't exposed Clinton's personal 'affairs'
>publicly, baby 
> Bush would never have been declared president. (Notice I didn ...
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jun 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=2dfnev8icka6d9keffqjvb5o0amvcrjgj2%404ax .com&rnum=6&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (15 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=5gf2tvs9ar1of3ee99eugaviho0m1sd6rc%404ax.co m&rnum=7">Re:
>Big Kahunas</a> 
>Probably large[ly] to one-up his father. One is able to hypothesize
>many pragmatic 
>reasons for baby Bush's military action, but his daddy
>got him elected. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Dec 6, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=5gf2tvs9ar1of3ee99eugaviho0m1sd6rc%404ax .com&rnum=7&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (374 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=4hh940hf7jgc3i047191olng3qtf71of6m%404ax.co m&rnum=8">Baby
> Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight ...
> </a> 
>Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 11:11:31 -0500 From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" </a>
>Subject: AOPA ePilot 
>-- California Airspace Bulletin X-Originating-IP: [65.125.13.133]
>Message ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Mar 2, 2004 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=4hh940hf7jgc3i047191olng3qtf71of6m%404ax .com&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (4 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=b8k3ovkg7v8on83r6mttcvs1gv32r91gap%404ax.co m&rnum=9">Re:
>Presidential TFR sidebar</a> 
> ... When will that be? How many months will baby Bush
>have spent cluttering up 
>the airspace before that happens? ... - Larry Dighera,
><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" </a>
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Oct 6, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=b8k3ovkg7v8on83r6mttcvs1gv32r91gap%404ax .com&rnum=9&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (56 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=t6b1ovs6as14hvdlibj0e9nnet7c5b0rij%404ax.co m&rnum=10">Re:
>How hard is it to atually call FSS?</a> 
> ... time to intercept before the intruder is positioned over
>the baby Bush. -- Irrational 
>beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts. -- Larry Dighera,
>LDighera@att ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Oct 5, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=t6b1ovs6as14hvdlibj0e9nnet7c5b0rij%404ax .com&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D0%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (26 articles)</a>
> </div>
></blockquote>
><blockquote type="cite"><a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lrfbmvgbvp5uuuh6jg3rutq8nrnl9vff90%404ax.co m&rnum=11">Re:
>AOPA and ATC Privatization</a> 
> <div>
> ... Chip, ZTL It would appear that Baby
> Bush is flexing his muscle in an attempt to 
>get his way in the FAA privatization issue ... - Larry Dighera,
><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" </a>
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.ifr"
> class="a">rec.aviation.ifr</a> - Sep 15, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=lrfbmvgbvp5uuuh6jg3rutq8nrnl9vff90%404ax .com&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (91 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=n14nnvg4u42cddrhomjtnlmk4ugip196tr%404ax.co m&rnum=12">Re:
>Senators Fault Air Force on Abuse Scandal</a> 
> ... responsible to the DOD IG nor any other government
>department nor branch, I would 
>say withholding approval of baby Bush's nominee is ...
>Larry Dighera, LDighera@att ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military"
> class="a">rec.aviation.military</a> - Oct 1, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=n14nnvg4u42cddrhomjtnlmk4ugip196tr%404ax .com&rnum=12&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (5 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=WdxGa.2613%24gs5.1560114%40news4.srv.hcvlny .cv.net&rnum=13">Re:
>Remember the alternative?? (ATC Privatization)</a> 
> ... Capt. Doug wrote: Larry Dighera wrote in message
>> Aren't You Happy 
>You Voted For Baby Bush? Remember the alternative?
>Bore/Loserman. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jun 13, 2003 by Peter Gottlieb -
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=WdxGa.2613%24gs5.1560114%40news4.srv.hcv lny.cv.net&rnum=13&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (7 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=ebfsmuop32ur2eh89ghevnbkoncu0mqh0o%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=14">Re:
>FAA announces 9/11 anniversary airspace restrictions : From ...
> </a> 
> ... from there. I believe Baby Bush's
>ignominious attempt at "aviation 
>security" begins with (the Uncle Tom,) Condoleezza Rice. http ...
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Aug 29, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=ebfsmuop32ur2eh89ghevnbkoncu0mqh0o%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=14&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (66 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=ebtflus0ali21stsqhb6bp9b659fuage1n%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=15">Re:
>The Other Side of Profiling</a> 
> ... Foreign Minister on his flight may have thwarted a
>terrorist attempt, or (like most 
>of the recent tightened security policy implemented by Baby Bush)
>its sole ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Aug 12, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=ebtflus0ali21stsqhb6bp9b659fuage1n%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=15&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (2 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=k3gsjvscn5hlte6lcmjov2n3ked24o0ght%404ax.co m&rnum=16">Re:
>USAF = US Amphetamine Fools</a> 
> ... from the world." The Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud
>Abbas, told the Israeli 
>newspaper Ha'aretz that baby Bush made the ...
>- Larry Dighera, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" </a>
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military"
> class="a">rec.aviation.military</a> - Aug 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=k3gsjvscn5hlte6lcmjov2n3ked24o0ght%404ax .com&rnum=16&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (107 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=h5b6gv0n7i9v52d72ai436a6l8odn3daot%404ax.co m&rnum=17">Re:
>Turn this guy in!!!</a> 
> ... forfeiture, it's constitutional? -) Are you sure you want
>to raise this 
>issue in light of baby Bush's Patriot Act? -- "The
>Constitution ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jul 2, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=h5b6gv0n7i9v52d72ai436a6l8odn3daot%404ax .com&rnum=17&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (48 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=jiqn4v4rn5qulc4pj8inoc33ip42hopqef%40news-server.san.rr.com&rnum=18">Re:
>Make comments on the TSA suspension rule!</a> 
> ... shacks. Then the police could check the certificate number
>against the 
>airmans' database. How big a budget did Baby Bush give
>Ridge?
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Feb 13, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=jiqn4v4rn5qulc4pj8inoc33ip42hopqef%40new s-server.san.rr.com&rnum=18&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (32 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lthi3vcv91p89b5b6b0qd8f5bvpq3ghrlt%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=19">Re:
>After you've flown, everything else is, well, dull. (Was: ... </a> size="-1"> 
> ... That is how it has been in the past. Perhaps the future
>could be different. 
>Didn't Baby Bush mention coal in his SOTU speech? Now ...
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jan 30, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=lthi3vcv91p89b5b6b0qd8f5bvpq3ghrlt%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=19&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (299 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=10&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=vi1qiu8bofk0u82k5ke9jme2vdps4t1p6c%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=20">Re:
>A & E Investigative reports has special on TV tonight...</a> size="-1"> 
> ... Has Baby Bush succeeded in doing away with
>that notion as well as judicial 
>due process? Let's not give them another reason to ban us. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jul 10, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=vi1qiu8bofk0u82k5ke9jme2vdps4t1p6c%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=20&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (43 articles)</a>
> </div>
></blockquote>
><blockquote type="cite">Sorted by relevance   <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&hl=en&lr=&ie=UT F-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=N&scoring=d">Sort
>by date</a>
> <div>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7h0lhuc18srs4v2cs7n4si9alv297dkira%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=21">Re:
>Pakistani? Pilot? No soup for you.</a> 
> ... I would phrase it more like, "We have met the enemy, and
>he is military interests 
>pulling Baby Bush's strings to obtain power in this
>time of public fear-bred ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jun 26, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7h0lhuc18srs4v2cs7n4si9alv297dkira%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=21&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (18 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=l88q6u0sp24a3kn3a2essg0nefjjvmdp21%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=22">Re:
>To be able to identify all aircraft that are in the skies ... </a> size="-1"> 
> ... Baby Bush is going to have to kick those
>corruption ridden faith-based organizations 
>in the butt, and put them to work worldwide teaching and rasing the
>living ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Feb 15, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=l88q6u0sp24a3kn3a2essg0nefjjvmdp21%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=22&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (53 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=lnm5qv0cd0idud9kd337otv84l4g9cnt91%404ax.co m&rnum=23">Jr.
>Expected in Southern California Next Week....</a> 
> Baby Bush is expected to arrive in southern California
>Next Week. VFR Pilots 
>can expect to be grounded by his temporary TFR of over 3,000 square
>miles.
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Oct 31, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=lnm5qv0cd0idud9kd337otv84l4g9cnt91%404ax .com&rnum=23&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (1 article)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=mrs53vgfoqbsd1ak8hq6g9o94og545kv8i%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=24">Re:
>Need Reference Quickly, Please</a> 
> ... Constitutional government was abandoned in the US long
>before GWB was born. I believe 
>Mr. Duniho is referring to Baby Bush's recent
>revocation of due process.
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jan 25, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=mrs53vgfoqbsd1ak8hq6g9o94og545kv8i%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=24&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (18 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=k9fnhug0ucfhj8op0jmufj8jm78p4okcj0%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=25">Re:
>Welcome to Ashcroft's America. No soup for you.</a> 
> ... It's not so much what Baby Bush has done
>to GA as much as what his (military 
>influenced) administration has done to your constitutional rights (loss
>of ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jun 27, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=k9fnhug0ucfhj8op0jmufj8jm78p4okcj0%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=25&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (39 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=76ic10lsm4u78ldc2cgjkioi4o16fq7kc6%404ax.co m&rnum=26">Re:
>How about Kerry?</a> 
> ... work 14 hours a day and actually have to pay taxes It
>would seem to me that President 
>Clinton handed your boy a zero economic deficit, and baby Bush
>ran it up ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jan 27, 2004 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=76ic10lsm4u78ldc2cgjkioi4o16fq7kc6%404ax .com&rnum=26&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (26 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=sn9bhvca5dd7toe3q17pfgfs8frvl3goa5%404ax.co m&rnum=27">Re:
>Al-Qaida targeted Western forests, memo says</a> 
> ... Given the gestapo mentality unleashed by baby Bush,
>it has me wondering who will 
>be next? ----
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jul 16, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=sn9bhvca5dd7toe3q17pfgfs8frvl3goa5%404ax .com&rnum=27&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (29 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=kmvsfvgp4ruo6g8cl4i621ds0pgji87knd%404ax.co m&rnum=28">Re:
>Send your letters to the editor to...</a> 
> ... 191 square miles of Presidential TFR strangling aviation
>in the city 
>of its birth. How long is baby Bush scheduled to be
>there?
> 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jun 28, 2003 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=kmvsfvgp4ruo6g8cl4i621ds0pgji87knd%404ax .com&rnum=28&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (9 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=7549iu4uh7b1tn98r2emkm7ha7u7f4362b%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=29">Re:
>How frequent are ramp checks?</a> 
>Before Baby Bush took away your constitutional rights,
>the police were required 
>to have a *reason* (probable cause, suspicion, something) to legally
>stop you ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Jul 4, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=7549iu4uh7b1tn98r2emkm7ha7u7f4362b%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=29&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (34 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=20&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=1eiibu0mpmmukeur48rnat4uopdvr1kik6%40news-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=30">Re:
>TFRs will kill. They're stupid and unnecessary. Are they ... </a> size="-1"> 
> ... Baby Bush's abrupt creation of a new
>Office of Homeland Security
><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/faq-homeland.html"><http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/faq-homeland.html></a> 
>underscores the fear and helplessness ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Apr 14, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=1eiibu0mpmmukeur48rnat4uopdvr1kik6%40new s-server.socal.rr.com&rnum=30&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D20%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (63 articles)</a>
> </div>
></blockquote>
><blockquote type="cite">
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=30&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=4vul5uk46c88pqb5cppqbeo6kfulbq9eqs%404ax.co m&rnum=31">Re:
>F-16/cessna crash near sarasota</a> 
> ... Hey, we're going to be oil drilling in the wilderness soon
>(thanks to baby 
> Bush and his puppeteers), perhaps they'll let you fly lower
>too. ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.military"
> class="a">rec.aviation.military</a> - Feb 1, 2002 by Larry Dighera - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=4vul5uk46c88pqb5cppqbeo6kfulbq9eqs%404ax .com&rnum=31&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D30%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (246 articles)</a>
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22baby+bush%22%2Bdighera&start=30&hl=en& lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=r41tjvonk5mdias9lsfdu11o9t9vbg6ck0%404ax.co m&rnum=32">Re:
>USAF = US Amphetamine Fools</a> 
> ... to eradicate the evil of terrorism from the world." The
>Palestinian prime minister, 
>Mahmoud Abbas, told the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz that baby Bush
>made the ... 
> <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=rec.aviation.piloting"
> class="a">rec.aviation.piloting</a> - Aug 16, 2003 by Big John - <a
> href="http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=r41tjvonk5mdias9lsfdu11o9t9vbg6ck0%404ax .com&rnum=32&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522baby%2Bbush%2522%252Bdighera%26h l%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26start%3D30%26sa%3DN"
> class="a">View Thread (94 articles)</a>
></blockquote>
> 
>He's still got his shorts in a wad from the fact that algore didn't
>make it to the White House -  after he invented the internet, that is. 
> 
> 
></body>
></html>

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 04, 09:57 PM

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:05:19 GMT, "John T" > wrote in
Message-Id: m>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> The notice I posted is on-topic for this newsgroup. ...
>> The statement made in the article's Subject is
>> also valid.
>
>While the content of your post may have been on-topic, your adjectives (ie,
>"Baby Bush") is what paints it in a negative light -

Hmmm... I only see one adjective in the phrase 'baby Bush." Oh
well...

How else is one to differentiate between baby and daddy Bush? The
term 'President Bush' is hopelessly ambiguous. The guy has the stage
presence of a child; I think baby Bush is a fitting sobriquet for him.

>and the subject line content was entirely yours.

Hey, you've been paying attention. :-)

>Further, your subject was not valid since Bush does not make the decision to
>close any airspace much less airports due to his travel. Those decisions
>are made by [other] bureaucrats - ones that exist regardless of the party
>affiliation of the sitting President.

Are you trying to get me to accept that the leader of the free world,
with his finger on the atomic 'button,' lacks the power to change the
size of his >3,000 square mile area TFRs? I'm not buying that; sorry.

>Now, if you'd left out the derogatory "Baby Bush", I'm sure you wouldn't
>have engendered the ire of "CriticalMass".

If Mr. Mass is incapable of accepting my 'baby Bush' appellation for a
prevaricative US President whose sole qualification for the office is
his relationship to a powerfully connected former (one-term) US
President, Mr. Mass' political bias is far more egregious than he
perceives mine to be.

Larry Dighera

March 3rd 04, 10:05 PM

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:17:22 -0600, Jim Herring >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Bush didn't create the TFR's.

He causes them.

Jay Beckman

March 3rd 04, 10:54 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:17:22 -0600, Jim Herring >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >Bush didn't create the TFR's.
>
> He causes them.

Were there no TFR's for the movement of Air Force One prior to 9/11?

Or is it the size of them since 9/11 that upsets people?

(Serious questions from a newbie Student Pilot...not a troll.)

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ

Cecil E. Chapman

March 3rd 04, 11:00 PM

The size is now up to 30 NM, just in case a Cessna 172 at 100 knots cursing
speed tries to chase down AirForce 1
<annoyed smirk> ... sheesh......

I think it made more sense to leave the president's location undisclosed.

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

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
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 -
"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:omt1c.12935$id3.9991@fed1read01...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:17:22 -0600, Jim Herring >
> > wrote in Message-Id: >:
> >
> > >Bush didn't create the TFR's.
> >
> > He causes them.
>
> Were there no TFR's for the movement of Air Force One prior to 9/11?
>
> Or is it the size of them since 9/11 that upsets people?
>
> (Serious questions from a newbie Student Pilot...not a troll.)
>
> Jay Beckman
> Chandler, AZ
>
>
>

Cecil E. Chapman

March 3rd 04, 11:02 PM

oops... make that 'CRUISING' speed

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

Cecil
PP-ASEL
Student-IASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
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 -
"Cecil E. Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> The size is now up to 30 NM, just in case a Cessna 172 at 100 knots
cursing
> speed tries to chase down AirForce 1
> <annoyed smirk> ... sheesh......
>
> I think it made more sense to leave the president's location undisclosed.
>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL
> Student-IASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> 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 -
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:omt1c.12935$id3.9991@fed1read01...
> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:17:22 -0600, Jim Herring >
> > > wrote in Message-Id: >:
> > >
> > > >Bush didn't create the TFR's.
> > >
> > > He causes them.
> >
> > Were there no TFR's for the movement of Air Force One prior to 9/11?
> >
> > Or is it the size of them since 9/11 that upsets people?
> >
> > (Serious questions from a newbie Student Pilot...not a troll.)
> >
> > Jay Beckman
> > Chandler, AZ
> >
> >
> >
>
>

C J Campbell

March 3rd 04, 11:25 PM

This post would have been made by the same Baby Larry that complains about
off-topic posts, eh?

G.R. Patterson III

March 4th 04, 12:31 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Oh, now that I see Mr. Mass is posting HTML to usenet, I am beginning
> to understand what a clueless newbie he is.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame60.html
It's a good likeness of you, Larry.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

G.R. Patterson III

March 4th 04, 12:31 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:17:22 -0600, Jim Herring >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >Bush didn't create the TFR's.
>
> He causes them.

Bull****. The Secret Service causes them.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

G.R. Patterson III

March 4th 04, 12:32 AM

Jay Beckman wrote:
>
> Were there no TFR's for the movement of Air Force One prior to 9/11?
>
> Or is it the size of them since 9/11 that upsets people?

The size. They used to affect the airport at which the president landed. They
were 3 nm instead of 30.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

Jim Herring

March 4th 04, 02:14 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 15:17:22 -0600, Jim Herring >
> wrote in Message-Id: >:
>
> >Bush didn't create the TFR's.
>
> He causes them.

No, his job does. Grow up and get over it.

--
Jim

carry on

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

John T

March 4th 04, 02:19 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Are you trying to get me to accept that the leader of the free world,
> with his finger on the atomic 'button,' lacks the power to change the
> size of his >3,000 square mile area TFRs? I'm not buying that; sorry.

That's about the sum of it, yes. The President takes security advice from
professionals who have a lot of say in how to protect the leader of the free
world. While I agree that it seems ridiculous for this to be the case, we
must face the reality of the situation. Further, if it came to pass that
your favorite President (pick your favorite politician for the sake of
discussion) were assassinated due to a lack of security, what would be your
reaction? Honestly?

With all that said, it is a bit ironic to use the term "leader of the free
world" when freedoms of the very people we say he leads are being hampered
by his mere presence.

> If Mr. Mass is incapable of accepting my 'baby Bush' appellation for a
> prevaricative US President whose sole qualification for the office is
> his relationship to a powerfully connected former (one-term) US
> President, Mr. Mass' political bias is far more egregious than he
> perceives mine to be.

I think you've pretty much removed any need for "perception" of your
position since you've freely admitted to using "Baby Bush" as a derogatory
term. By doing so, you've also done the very thing you've complained about
others doing so often... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[email protected]

March 4th 04, 03:11 AM

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:19:33 -0600, CriticalMass > wrote:

>Larry,
>
>For pete's sake (and all the rest of our sakes), give "Baby Bush" a rest
>- HERE.

snip

CM,

Never try to teach a pig to sing.
It's a waste of your time, and it tends to **** off the pig.

TC

C J Campbell

March 4th 04, 03:24 AM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> To what is it specifically, that you object?

Referring to the President of the United States as "Baby Bush" is extremely
offensive to many people. There is no reason to do it. Introducing such
derogatory terms has nothing to do with the purpose of the news group. It is
even more offensive for you to think that everybody is so stupid as to not
see what you are doing.

C J Campbell

March 4th 04, 03:27 AM

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:20040303185252.7c84ae55@fstop...
>
> Dubya thinks he's important enough to warrant these crazy TFRs. The irony
> of course is that since he is just a puppet (he doesn't even read the
paper)
> if something happened to him the US would carry on as if nothing happened
> anyway. But I'm sure he likes playing president and he might as well live
> it up while he's still in office since he doens't have much time left
> now.
>
> It'll be good to see him go back and retire in Crawford. Glad I don't
> live near Crawford. Imagine a permanent TFR around Crawford.

No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his TFR?

Michael 182

March 4th 04, 03:34 AM

As one of the (few) resident liberals on this forum, I have to take
advantage of a rare opportunity to agree with CJ. While I think President
Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the office.

Michael

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > To what is it specifically, that you object?
>
> Referring to the President of the United States as "Baby Bush" is
extremely
> offensive to many people. There is no reason to do it. Introducing such
> derogatory terms has nothing to do with the purpose of the news group. It
is
> even more offensive for you to think that everybody is so stupid as to not
> see what you are doing.
>
>

Wizard of Draws

March 4th 04, 03:47 AM

On 3/3/04 10:34 PM, in article 1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54, "Michael
182" > wrote:

> As one of the (few) resident liberals on this forum, I have to take
> advantage of a rare opportunity to agree with CJ. While I think President
> Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
> forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
> president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the office.
>
> Michael
>

Seconded.

While I feel that the previous White House resident was not worthy of the
title, I always used and capitalized his proper name and title while he held
the office.
As he is not in office anymore, his name does not warrant capitalization by
me.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic
www.wizardofdraws.com
www.cartoonclipart.com

Jim Herring

March 4th 04, 05:29 AM

Michael 182 wrote:

> As one of the (few) resident liberals on this forum, I have to take
> advantage of a rare opportunity to agree with CJ. While I think President
> Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
> forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
> president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the office.
>

So, you were in a coma during Carter and Clinton. You need to find a real
doctor. As far as Kerry, ask him why he wants to raise taxes and what does he
intend to spend them on. Hint, it is not for the good of the taxpayers or the
country.

--
Jim

carry on

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael 182

March 4th 04, 05:38 AM

I think you missed the point of my post...

Michael

"Jim Herring" > wrote in message
...
> Michael 182 wrote:
>
> > As one of the (few) resident liberals on this forum, I have to take
> > advantage of a rare opportunity to agree with CJ. While I think
President
> > Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
> > forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
> > president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the
office.
> >
>
> So, you were in a coma during Carter and Clinton. You need to find a real
> doctor. As far as Kerry, ask him why he wants to raise taxes and what does
he
> intend to spend them on. Hint, it is not for the good of the taxpayers or
the
> country.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> carry on
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

Ash Wyllie

March 4th 04, 02:10 PM

C J Campbell opined

>"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
>news:20040303185252.7c84ae55@fstop...
>>
>> Dubya thinks he's important enough to warrant these crazy TFRs. The irony
>> of course is that since he is just a puppet (he doesn't even read the
>paper)
>> if something happened to him the US would carry on as if nothing happened
>> anyway. But I'm sure he likes playing president and he might as well live
>> it up while he's still in office since he doens't have much time left
>> now.
>>
>> It'll be good to see him go back and retire in Crawford. Glad I don't
>> live near Crawford. Imagine a permanent TFR around Crawford.

>No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
>what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his TFR?

A 30mi TFR based on Beacon hill would close dozens of airports, including
Shirley(9B4) but not Plymouth(PYM). But just wait 'til he goes on vacation, on
the Cape. MVY and ACK might be included in the TFR. That should provide some
howls of pain from good old Ted.

-ash
Cthulhu for President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

Larry Dighera

March 4th 04, 02:15 PM

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:31:03 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>> Oh, now that I see Mr. Mass is posting HTML to usenet, I am beginning
>> to understand what a clueless newbie he is.
>
>http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame60.html
>It's a good likeness of you, Larry.

In the article to which you followed-up, I dodged nothing. It was
Dave who failed to respond to any of my questions and statements in
his followup article.

C J Campbell

March 4th 04, 02:22 PM

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:27:34 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
> >what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his
TFR?
>
> There's a prohibited area Kennebunkport, Maine (P-67) - 1000' high,
> 2nm diameter, expanded by TFR every time George W. comes and visits
> his family. Is that prohibited area there because of George Bush Sr.
> or Jr.? If we're not doing it for all ex-Presidents, why is this one
> any more special than others? I wasn't flying when it was set up so I
> honestly don't know the answer.
>

It is there because the current President is there frequently, just as there
is a TFR around his home in Crawford even when he isn't there.

Larry Dighera

March 4th 04, 02:44 PM

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54>:

>While I think President
>Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
>forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
>president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the office.

Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.

Other head's of state unworthy of their office have been afforded the
respect and courtesy they deserved. El Duce comes to mind ...

Larry Dighera

March 4th 04, 03:14 PM

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 06:22:28 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:27:34 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
>> >what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his
>TFR?
>>
>> There's a prohibited area Kennebunkport, Maine (P-67) - 1000' high,
>> 2nm diameter, expanded by TFR every time George W. comes and visits
>> his family. Is that prohibited area there because of George Bush Sr.
>> or Jr.? If we're not doing it for all ex-Presidents, why is this one
>> any more special than others? I wasn't flying when it was set up so I
>> honestly don't know the answer.
>>
>
>It is there because the current President is there frequently, just as there
>is a TFR around his home in Crawford even when he isn't there.
>

So you're saying that now it's okay for Prohibited Areas to be
established wherever baby Bush frequents? A TFR is one thing, but
permanent Prohibited Areas are quite another.

Larry Dighera

March 4th 04, 03:14 PM

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:24:26 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> To what is it specifically, that you object?
>
>Referring to the President of the United States as "Baby Bush" is extremely
>offensive to many people.

At last, a sincere answer to a sincere question. Thank you.

I must admit, that in the 1/4 of the lifespan of this republic in
which I have lived, I have never feared a President as deeply as baby
Bush. We've had Generals, Haberdashers, crooks, and lascivious
low-life's carry this nation's baton forward. Thankfully, those
possessed the intellect to "fool most of the people most of the time."
But this arrogantly ignorant, immature nepotist seems to lack the
requisite rational intellect and common sense; I find it difficult to
believe the lackwit ANY of the time. In case you haven't noticed,
many people find baby Bush extremely offensive.

Follow this link to see the stature he brings to the office: :-)
http://www.mybush.org/video/theme_song.mov
"He's the president, the resident who's kinda in charge".

And his TFRs, in excess of 3,000 square miles in area, epitomize his
transparently audacious lack of respect for the fundamental freedoms
and rights of the nation's founding fathers' legacy.

>There is no reason to do it.

Did you follow that link above?

>Introducing such derogatory terms has nothing to do with the purpose
>of the news group.

I know you to have been a contributor of useful, on-topic,
informational content in the past, but your questioning my use of the
phrase 'baby Bush' in the name of the "purpose of the newsgroup" in
light of the downturn in informational content you currently post is
ludicrous. And your finding the adjective 'baby' so derogatory and
offensive reveals your oppressive agenda. Are you a supporter of the
Patriot Act also?

You're just attempting to "rile the critters" as usual.

>It is even more offensive for you to think that
>everybody is so stupid as to not see what you are doing.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, and I surely don't think
_everyone_ is stupid. How did you make that inference? I certainly
did not intend to imply it.

G.R. Patterson III

March 4th 04, 03:23 PM

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> Referring to the President of the United States as "Baby Bush" is extremely
> offensive to many people. There is no reason to do it. Introducing such
> derogatory terms has nothing to do with the purpose of the news group. It is
> even more offensive for you to think that everybody is so stupid as to not
> see what you are doing.

Well put.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

Michael 182

March 4th 04, 03:25 PM

Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that the
Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple and
obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.

Michael

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54>:
>
> >While I think President
> >Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
> >forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
> >president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the
office.
>
> Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.
>
> Other head's of state unworthy of their office have been afforded the
> respect and courtesy they deserved. El Duce comes to mind ...

Jay Honeck

March 4th 04, 03:59 PM

> It is as simple and
> obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.

Wow, are you *sure* you're a liberal, Michael?

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

Michael 182

March 4th 04, 04:12 PM

Let's see, 50 years old, never voted Republican... yeah, I'm pretty sure.
;-)

Michael

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:fnI1c.41903$PR3.827140@attbi_s03...
> > It is as simple and
> > obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.
>
> Wow, are you *sure* you're a liberal, Michael?
>
> :-)
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

CriticalMass

March 4th 04, 04:17 PM

Javier Henderson wrote:

>"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:
>
>
>
>>"CriticalMass" > wrote in message
>>I wonder where he was when Bubba shut down all LA traffic for two hours
>>while getting a haircut.
>>

Careful what you quote, please. "CriticalMass" didn't write that.

John T

March 4th 04, 04:57 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> And his TFRs, in excess of 3,000 square miles in area, epitomize his
> transparently audacious lack of respect for the fundamental freedoms
> and rights of the nation's founding fathers' legacy.

Show me the decision he made declaring a single TFR and you'll have the
beginning of a case.

Larry, I'm all for putting the TFR's back to the way they were pre-9/11. I
really am. But the President is not personally responsible for all the ills
of the nation much less this one which affects a mere 0.2% of the nation's
population - even if all certificated pilots were in the area of a given
TFR.

You're fighting the right battle. It's just that you're fighting the wrong
opponent. The problem isn't the President because I *guarantee* the same
TFR's would and will be implemented regardless of the person or party
holding the office. The problem is with the bureaucrats below. The
President will not and should not concern himself with TFR's any more than
he would or should be concerned with the closing of roads for his motorcade.

If Congress were to get in the act and demand freedom of the airspace, we
*might* be able to start the ball rolling. I'm not optimistic based on the
"justification" required of the FAA for the DC ADIZ, though.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

John T

March 4th 04, 04:59 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> So you're saying that now it's okay for Prohibited Areas to be
> established wherever baby Bush frequents? A TFR is one thing, but
> permanent Prohibited Areas are quite another.

Again, it's not the current President at issue. I propose P-40 as a prime
example of CJ's point.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Jay Honeck

March 4th 04, 08:26 PM

> Let's see, 50 years old, never voted Republican... yeah, I'm pretty sure.

Well, you *could* be a Libertarian...

Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...

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

David Reinhart

March 4th 04, 09:56 PM

If Harry Truman could say "I'll tell you something else: that Richard Nixon is a
lying sonofabitch" what have you got to complain about? Free speech can be
offensive without being either indecent or obscene. If you can't handle that
concept, then *you* have something to get over.

Dave Reinhart

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > To what is it specifically, that you object?
>
> Referring to the President of the United States as "Baby Bush" is extremely
> offensive to many people. There is no reason to do it. Introducing such
> derogatory terms has nothing to do with the purpose of the news group. It is
> even more offensive for you to think that everybody is so stupid as to not
> see what you are doing.

David Reinhart

March 4th 04, 10:01 PM

I'm not sure about that. I live in Massachusetts and I seem to remember that
Maine P area being around for a long time. Anybody got some really old
sectionals around?

Dave Reinhart

C J Campbell wrote:

> "Saryon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:27:34 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
> > >what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his
> TFR?
> >
> > There's a prohibited area Kennebunkport, Maine (P-67) - 1000' high,
> > 2nm diameter, expanded by TFR every time George W. comes and visits
> > his family. Is that prohibited area there because of George Bush Sr.
> > or Jr.? If we're not doing it for all ex-Presidents, why is this one
> > any more special than others? I wasn't flying when it was set up so I
> > honestly don't know the answer.
> >
>
> It is there because the current President is there frequently, just as there
> is a TFR around his home in Crawford even when he isn't there.

Tom Sixkiller

March 4th 04, 10:18 PM

"David Reinhart" > wrote in message
...
> If Harry Truman could say "I'll tell you something else: that Richard
Nixon is a
> lying sonofabitch" what have you got to complain about? Free speech can
be
> offensive without being either indecent or obscene. If you can't handle
that
> concept, then *you* have something to get over.

Well, maybe you could learn to handle concepts correctly; then you'd have
nothing to get over.

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > To what is it specifically, that you object?
> >
> > Referring to the President of the United States as "Baby Bush" is
extremely
> > offensive to many people. There is no reason to do it. Introducing such
> > derogatory terms has nothing to do with the purpose of the news group.
It is
> > even more offensive for you to think that everybody is so stupid as to
not
> > see what you are doing.
>

Bob Noel

March 4th 04, 11:28 PM

In article <GhM1c.43319$PR3.848806@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > Let's see, 50 years old, never voted Republican... yeah, I'm pretty
> > sure.
>
> Well, you *could* be a Libertarian...
>
> Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...

um... does that make me a liberal?

--
Bob Noel

Jay Honeck

March 5th 04, 03:21 AM

> > Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...
>
> um... does that make me a liberal?

Well, I dunno. I've never met a life-long Republican before.

Many (most?) of us started out all starry-eyed, believing that everyone was
equal, and that the only reason some folks were paid more than others was
because of some amorphous "evil" in the world that held back "the people."
"From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs"
wasn't just a Communist slogan -- many of us really believed it, and hoped
to make it a reality.

Those of us who obtained a liberal arts degree in college were REALLY fed
this line, and most of us swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

It usually seems to take some true, harsh life experiences before one
realizes what a crock of sh*t all that really is.

What's that old saying? "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been mugged."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 03:45 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TmS1c.479999$na.1157858@attbi_s04...
> > > Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...
> >
> > um... does that make me a liberal?
>
> Well, I dunno. I've never met a life-long Republican before.
>
> Many (most?) of us started out all starry-eyed, believing that everyone
was
> equal, and that the only reason some folks were paid more than others was
> because of some amorphous "evil" in the world that held back "the people."
> "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs"
> wasn't just a Communist slogan -- many of us really believed it, and hoped
> to make it a reality.
>
> Those of us who obtained a liberal arts degree in college were REALLY fed
> this line, and most of us swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
>
> It usually seems to take some true, harsh life experiences before one
> realizes what a crock of sh*t all that really is.
>
> What's that old saying? "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been
mugged."

Mugged by a bad guy...or just mugged by reality.

"It's said that criminals behave as they do because of their lack of
economic opportunities. Actually, it's more that they have no economic
opportunities BECAUSE they are criminals."

Tom
--
"The aim of public education is not to spread
enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as
many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down
dissent and originality,.." -- H.L. Mencken

Michael 182

March 5th 04, 03:45 AM

Jay,

You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a life long
liberal - I believe that government and industry has a responsibility to
help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting, that
most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste and
transfer costs...

I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300 employees
over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a comfortable
retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year when I
found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well worth it
for the privilege of living in the USA.

For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as anti-business and
anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.

Michael

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:TmS1c.479999$na.1157858@attbi_s04...
> > > Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...
> >
> > um... does that make me a liberal?
>
> Well, I dunno. I've never met a life-long Republican before.
>
> Many (most?) of us started out all starry-eyed, believing that everyone
was
> equal, and that the only reason some folks were paid more than others was
> because of some amorphous "evil" in the world that held back "the people."
> "From each, according to his abilities, to each, according to his needs"
> wasn't just a Communist slogan -- many of us really believed it, and hoped
> to make it a reality.
>
> Those of us who obtained a liberal arts degree in college were REALLY fed
> this line, and most of us swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
>
> It usually seems to take some true, harsh life experiences before one
> realizes what a crock of sh*t all that really is.
>
> What's that old saying? "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been
mugged."
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

John Clonts

March 5th 04, 03:48 AM

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
>... Crawford is 10nm
> up to 18k when he's not there.... So, should we expect P49 and P67 to

6nm, upto 5000 MSL when he's NOT there.

Cheers,
John Clonts
Temple, TX
Currently under TFR 30nm/10nm up to 18k because he "IS" there!

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 03:52 AM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
> Jay,
>
> You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a life
long
> liberal - I believe that government and industry has a responsibility to
> help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting, that
> most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste and
> transfer costs...

The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.

>
> I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
employees
> over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a comfortable
> retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year when I
> found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well worth it
> for the privilege of living in the USA.

You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

>
> For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as anti-business
and
> anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.

Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.

You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his business
after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then what I
know now, my voting records would have been much different."

Tom -- Free marketer/Classical Liberal.

Steven P. McNicoll

March 5th 04, 03:58 AM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
>
> You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist.
>

Modern liberals are socialists.

Michael 182

March 5th 04, 04:06 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
> > Jay,
> >
> > You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a life
> long
> > liberal - I believe that government and industry has a responsibility to
> > help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting,
that
> > most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste and
> > transfer costs...
>
> The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.

I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to help
the less fortunate. Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
extensive charitable contribution structure. Perhaps I lean toward more
redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live in
a society where we ignore hardship.

>
> >
> > I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
> employees
> > over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a comfortable
> > retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year when I
> > found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well worth
it
> > for the privilege of living in the USA.
>
> You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

>
> >
> > For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as anti-business
> and
> > anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.
>
> Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.

What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.

>
> You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his business
> after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then what
I
> know now, my voting records would have been much different."

George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and clearly
a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small businesses
were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his voting
to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my business.
This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican rule.
Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining the
government/business relationship.

Michael

Colleen

March 5th 04, 04:15 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 19:19:33 -0600, CriticalMass > wrote
> in Message-Id: >:
>
> >Larry,
> >
> >For pete's sake (and all the rest of our sakes), give "Baby Bush" a rest
> >- HERE.
>
> I wasn't aware that you had been elected spokesman for ALL of
> rec.aviation.piloting. :-)
>
> >You've well established your anti-Bush political bias in this ng, and,
> >I imagine, in as many other places as you can. I'm tired of it.
>
> Perhaps YOU would like to take _responsibility_ for the content of
> this newsgroup to which YOU are exposed, and filter out all the
> phrases and authors YOU find unpalatable. Or are you really just
> looking for an excuse to attack me publicly.
>
> >I bet some others are, too. We don't come to this ng to hear about your hate
> >for "Baby Bush".
>
> The only time the word 'hate' has been used in this thread (until now)
> is by you. You can characterize my article as hateful if that is how
> you perceive it, but the fact is, it's merely FACTUAL. The hate you
> perceive is yours; please don't project it onto me.
>
> Perhaps it is baby Bush's audacious airspace grabs that are TRULY
> hateful in their arrogant disregard for those he serves.

If you think Bush is bad, just you wait until you're introduced to John F Kerry
this summer. His block has already been tossed into disarray because of his
security, and he's not even President. But then again, what do you expect from
somone who actually had the fire hydrant moved in front of his house. John F
Kerry. A real man of the people. His Massachusetts democrat buddies Marty
Meehan and Ed Markey are already working on federal proposals to severely restrict
general aviation, all under the guise of "security." You can bet with every last
bottle of red (and green) ketchup that they will find a sympathetic ear in a Kerry
White House.

Jay Honeck

March 5th 04, 04:15 AM

> This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
> shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican rule.
> Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
the
> government/business relationship.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard the Republicans
as fiscally Conservative.

Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
desperately need a third party in this country.

A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious baggage,
would win in every precinct.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Colleen

March 5th 04, 04:16 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54>:
>
> >While I think President
> >Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
> >forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
> >president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the office.
>
> Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.

Wrong. Read the constitution, article II, and get back to us when you're clued
in.

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 04:38 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:o9T1c.42536$ko6.377510@attbi_s02...
> > This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
> > shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
> > Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
> the
> > government/business relationship.
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard the Republicans
> as fiscally Conservative.
>
> Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore.

When would that "perhaps" be? Historically?

Once past a second term, "all" members of Congress become spendthrifts.

> Which is why we
> desperately need a third party in this country.

We have a bunch of them; Libertarians (very fiscally conservative, and they
got 1/20th the votes of the very UNFISCALLY CONSERVATIVE...), Green party,
Perotista's, Buchannenits,

> A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious
baggage,
> would win in every precinct.

No, they would not. See above.

If Madison and Jefferson could be resurrected and run in an election they'd
get 5%, even if people knew who they were. If they did manage to win, they'd
be out after one term.

Until America changes between the ears things will NOT change through the
political process.

--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Michael 182

March 5th 04, 04:39 AM

You're right, I'm guilty of my own stereotyping...

Michael

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:o9T1c.42536$ko6.377510@attbi_s02...
> > This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
> > shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
> > Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
> the
> > government/business relationship.
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard the Republicans
> as fiscally Conservative.
>
> Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
> desperately need a third party in this country.
>
> A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious
baggage,
> would win in every precinct.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

Dave Stadt

March 5th 04, 04:45 AM

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 04:47 AM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
> > > Jay,
> > >
> > > You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a
life
> > long
> > > liberal - I believe that government and industry has a responsibility
to
> > > help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting,
> that
> > > most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste and
> > > transfer costs...
> >
> > The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.
>
> I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to help
> the less fortunate.

By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone responsible
for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
themself.

>Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
> extensive charitable contribution structure.

You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
tyrant of recent history preached altruism.

> Perhaps I lean toward more
> redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
in
> a society where we ignore hardship.

You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because it's
a complete inversion.

> > >
> > > I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
> > employees
> > > over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
comfortable
> > > retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year when
I
> > > found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well worth
> it
> > > for the privilege of living in the USA.
> >
> > You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.
>
> It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.

> > > For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
anti-business
> > and
> > > anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.
> >
> > Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.
>
> What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.

Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?

>
> >
> > You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
business
> > after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
what
> I
> > know now, my voting records would have been much different."
>
> George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
clearly
> a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
businesses
> were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
voting
> to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my business.

Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -

> This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
> shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican rule.
> Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
the
> government/business relationship.

There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than there
should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
relationship.

You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride, particularly
with your equivocating.

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 04:50 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
> >
> > You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist.
> >
>
> Modern liberals are socialists.
>

Whether they high-jacked the term "liberal" (in the late 1800's), or call
themselves "Progressive" (actually regressive), you're exactly right.

Thing is, both conservatives AND liberals are heavily altruist/collectivist,
so the overlap is enormous.

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 05:01 AM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...
> > >
> > > The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to
help
> > the less fortunate. Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence
the
> > extensive charitable contribution structure. Perhaps I lean toward more
> > redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
> in
> > a society where we ignore hardship.
>
> Unfortunately that approach has resulted in third and forth generation
> welfare families. Politicians see it as an opportunity to buy votes.
It's
> one of those government programs that is fine in theory but is a disaster
in
> practice.

Quite right...but it's not even good in theory as the theory falls with even
slight scrutiny. A politicians definition of "need" is a fabrication, as is
the solution of _forced_ charity.

A real charity makes use of scarce resources and thus must make a good
determination of real "need" AS WELL AS differentiating between those who
are in "need" thorough no fault of their own, versus the various
self-destructive types.

Michael 182

March 5th 04, 05:45 AM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:B1T1c.177980$jk2.656980@attbi_s53...
> >
> > "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > > news:QJS1c.177934$jk2.656404@attbi_s53...
> > > > Jay,
> > > >
> > > > You seem to confuse being a liberal with being a socialist. I am a
> life
> > > long
> > > > liberal - I believe that government and industry has a
responsibility
> to
> > > > help those in need, that the environment needs extensive protecting,
> > that
> > > > most social programs do enough good to outweigh the inherent waste
and
> > > > transfer costs...
> > >
> > > The RESPONSIBILITY for those is need is those people themselves.
> >
> > I respectfully disagree. It is the responsibility of the fortunate to
help
> > the less fortunate.
>
> By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone
responsible
> for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
> themself.

Why? Everything is not at the extreme. I'm responsible for my wife. She is
responsible for me. We are both still responsible for ourselves. My social
responsibility to help, within the confines of my ability, does not
allieviate anyone's responsibility for themselves. In fact, I'd argue it
increases their responsibility to make something out of the gifts they have
received, as I felt obligated to do with gifts I received in my lifetime.

>
> >Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
> > extensive charitable contribution structure.
>
> You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
> tyrant of recent history preached altruism.

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
concept of duty. But assuming you are just misusing the word, I still don't
get your point. President Bush senior talked of "a thousand points of
light". Was he a tyrant. Sorry - you are losing me here.

>
>
> > Perhaps I lean toward more
> > redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to live
> in
> > a society where we ignore hardship.
>
> You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because
it's
> a complete inversion.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
> > > employees
> > > > over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
> comfortable
> > > > retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year
when
> I
> > > > found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well
worth
> > it
> > > > for the privilege of living in the USA.
> > >
> > > You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.
> >
> > It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.
>
> It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.

Once again, you need to check the dictionary. There is nothing contradictory
about these terms. And citizenship is perhaps the perfect example of their
mutual applicability. In a single sentence, it is my priviledge to have the
rights of American citizenship.

>
> > > > For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
> anti-business
> > > and
> > > > anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.
> > >
> > > Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.
> >
> > What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.
>
> Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?
>
> >
> > >
> > > You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
> business
> > > after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
> what
> > I
> > > know now, my voting records would have been much different."
> >
> > George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
> clearly
> > a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
> businesses
> > were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
> voting
> > to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my
business.
>
> Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -

I'm sorry you can't make the conceptual leap from sentence to sentence.
Perhaps if you had spent more time in public school ;-)

>
> > This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
> > shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
rule.
> > Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in streamlining
> the
> > government/business relationship.
>
> There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than
there
> should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
> relationship.

Well, that's an interesting fantasy land you're proposing, but I live in the
United States. For better or worse, there are constructs and institutions
that are hundreds of years old. Business and government are intertwined.
Education is part of the government's responsibility. You can rail against
it all you'd like, but it is kind of like street person standing on the
soapbox in Times Square. While it may be interesting for a passing moment,
mostly it is ignored and, in the end, of little value.

>
> You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride,
particularly
> with your equivocating.
>

I think I was pretty careful in this whole thread not to deride anyone,
other than a few of your particularly unenlightened comments.

Michael

Tom Sixkiller

March 5th 04, 08:17 AM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...

> > By what logic is it their RESPONSIBILITY. You can't have someone
> responsible
> > for some else without alievating the individuals responsibility for
> > themself.
>
> Why? Everything is not at the extreme. I'm responsible for my wife. She is
> responsible for me. We are both still responsible for ourselves. My social
> responsibility to help, within the confines of my ability,

"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." And you
wonder why we stereotype liberals as socialists? Get a clue, man!!

> does not
> allieviate anyone's responsibility for themselves.

Sure it does.
> In fact, I'd argue it
> increases their responsibility to make something out of the gifts they
have
> received,

Unless you can enforce that it's a non-sequitur.

> as I felt obligated to do with gifts I received in my lifetime.

Again, the DUTY is the part that is patently collectivist/socialist.

>
> >
> > >Almost everyone believe this to some degree, hence the
> > > extensive charitable contribution structure.
> >
> > You're conflating altruism (duty) with benevolence (good hearted). Every
> > tyrant of recent history preached altruism.
>
> There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
> concept of duty.

You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
_IS_ DUTY.

> But assuming you are just misusing the word,

Most definitely I'm not.

>I still don't
> get your point. President Bush senior talked of "a thousand points of
> light". Was he a tyrant. Sorry - you are losing me here.

Actually, he was. And his kids BS about Compassionate Conservatism" is a
sick joke. Once again so it sinks in; FORCED charity is neither charity, nor
compassionate.

>
>
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps I lean toward more
> > > redistribution than you, and different methods. But I don't want to
live
> > in
> > > a society where we ignore hardship.
> >
> > You're version is charity at gun point...coercive. That's sick because
> it's
> > a complete inversion.
> >
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > I am also a confirmed capitalist. I built a company with over 300
> > > > employees
> > > > > over a 15 year period. I sold it for enough money to enjoy a
> > comfortable
> > > > > retirement in my mid 40's, and started another company last year
> when
> > I
> > > > > found retirement boring. I've paid pretty extensive taxes - well
> worth
> > > it
> > > > > for the privilege of living in the USA.
> > > >
> > > > You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.
> > >
> > > It's both a right and a priviledge. They are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> > It's perhaps the perfect example of a contradiction.
>
> Once again, you need to check the dictionary. There is nothing
contradictory
> about these terms.

You better look up some words yourself: A right cannot be revoked, a
priviledge is GRANTED by the good graces of the state. Another aspect of
liberalism is _statism_. Again, you wonder where we get the stereotype?

>And citizenship is perhaps the perfect example of their
> mutual applicability. In a single sentence, it is my priviledge to have
the
> rights of American citizenship.

Jeezmineez!! Where the hell do your dredge up this stuff? In 1850, Horace
Mann, in establishing the public school system in the US under the Prussian
model said that the purpose of public schools is to create good subjects --
evidently you are a prime example.

>
> >
> > > > > For some reason conservatives have stereotyped liberals as
> > anti-business
> > > > and
> > > > > anti-patriotic. Neither is the case.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the evidence is sure strong enough.
> > >
> > > What evidence? This is the stereotype I was referring to.
> >
> > Geez...how much time and bandwdith do you have for examples?
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You may look up George McGovern's quote about the failure of his
> > business
> > > > after retiring from the Senate -- something about "If I'd known then
> > what
> > > I
> > > > know now, my voting records would have been much different."
> > >
> > > George McGovern is a great example. He was a patriotic war hero and
> > clearly
> > > a liberal. His realization that the governmental burdens on small
> > businesses
> > > were too extensive came, unfortunately, too late in his life for his
> > voting
> > > to help the problem. I disliked many government intrusions on my
> business.
> >
> > Now from that...jump off on a tangent to -
>
> I'm sorry you can't make the conceptual leap from sentence to sentence.
> Perhaps if you had spent more time in public school ;-)

Hmm...going from liberal to McGovern's war record..that teach CONTEXT in
public school?

And public schools (see notes about Horace Mann) decidedly DO NOT teach
conceptualization or abstraction. Again, you validate my points. Which is
why I attended private schools for 14 of my 18 years in schools.

>
> >
> > > This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. For all the party line about
> > > shrinking government, it has expanded dramatically under Republican
> rule.
> > > Conservatives have been no more successful than liberals in
streamlining
> > the
> > > government/business relationship.
> >
> > There should not BE a government/business relationship...anymore than
> there
> > should be a religion/government relationship, or a education/government
> > relationship.
>
> Well, that's an interesting fantasy land you're proposing, but I live in
the
> United States.

Is that your right, or a privlidge?

>For better or worse, there are constructs and institutions
> that are hundreds of years old.

An idea isn't good because is OLD anymore than it's good because it's NEW.
Didn't they teach THAT in public schools?

>Business and government are intertwined.

They're not supposed to be. When they are, it's called fascism or socialism.
(There's that stereotype again).

> Education is part of the government's responsibility.

Only for indoctrination (See Horace Mann part again).

>You can rail against
> it all you'd like, but it is kind of like street person standing on the
> soapbox in Times Square. While it may be interesting for a passing moment,
> mostly it is ignored and, in the end, of little value.

Let's see:
False Dilemma http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm

Begging the quetion http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/begging.htm

Argumentum ad populum (Popularity)
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm

>
> >
> > You're doing a fine job of upholding the stereotype you deride,
> > particularly
> > with your equivocating.
> >
>
> I think I was pretty careful in this whole thread not to deride anyone,
> other than a few of your particularly unenlightened comments.

Enlightenment to you means...what? You commit damn every fallacy available
and YOU claim to be "enlightened"? For one thing, modern liberalism is
highly steeped in "Post-Modernism" which utterly DENIES intellect, reason,
enlightenment...

Your every phrase is a tenant of Marxism, and you have to gall to bitch
about liberals being stereotyped as socialists?

Michael, in light of the above, I rest my case and conclude that the
stereotype not only fits, but, if anything, it's an understatement.

Earl Grieda

March 5th 04, 08:25 AM

"Colleen" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > > wrote in Message-Id:
> > <1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54>:
> >
> > >While I think President
> > >Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
> > >forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
> > >president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the
office.
> >
> > Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.
>
> Wrong. Read the constitution, article II, and get back to us when you're
clued
> in.
>

I give up. What's your point? I don't see anything in it that the Supreme
Court will have a say in the electorial process.

Article II
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United
States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years,
and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected,
as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no
Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit
under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for
two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same
state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted
for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and
certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United
States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate
shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all
the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the
greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a
majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more
than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the
House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for
President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on
the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in
choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the
representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose
shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a
majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case,
after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of
votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should
remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them
by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on
which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout
the United States.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States,
at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the
office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who
shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen
Years a resident within the United States.

In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death,
resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said
office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may
by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability,
both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then
act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the
disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a
compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the
period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following
oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called
into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in
writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon
any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall
have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United
States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to
make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he
shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall
appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such
inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the
courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen
during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire
at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of
the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures
as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of
disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may
adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United
States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the
United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Dennis O'Connor

March 5th 04, 12:26 PM

And some of us found Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton offensive... So go
figure...
denny

In case you haven't noticed,
> > many people find baby Bush extremely offensive.

Michael 182

March 5th 04, 02:47 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...
>
> > There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word or
> > concept of duty.
>
> You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
> _IS_ DUTY.
>

I'm just responding to this small section as an example - I'm too bored of
this thread to do more.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the
individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
\Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It. altrui of or to
others, fr. L. alter another.] Regard for others, both natural and moral;
devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to
egoism or selfishness. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.

I know you will find some reason to believe the dictionaries are wrong, but
when you decide words have a different meaning than the dictionaries'
definition it makes it pretty hard for anyone to communicate.

Michael

Jay Honeck

March 5th 04, 02:55 PM

> > Which is why we
> > desperately need a third party in this country.
>
> We have a bunch of them; Libertarians (very fiscally conservative, and
they
> got 1/20th the votes of the very UNFISCALLY CONSERVATIVE...), Green party,
> Perotista's, Buchannenits,

I'm talking a main-stream party. For some bizarre reason, known only to
them, 3rd Party Candidates all seem to be from the lunatic fringe.

WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or whatever
you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
middle-of-the-road platform?

Instead we get the Ross Perots and Ralph Naders of the world. Well-meaning
fringe candidates without a hope or a clue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera

March 5th 04, 03:04 PM

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:57:00 GMT, "John T" > wrote in
Message-Id: m>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> And his TFRs, in excess of 3,000 square miles in area, epitomize his
>> transparently audacious lack of respect for the fundamental freedoms
>> and rights of the nation's founding fathers' legacy.
>
>Show me the decision he made declaring a single TFR and you'll have the
>beginning of a case.

Show me what prevents him from controlling his security, and you'll
have a case. :-)

>Larry, I'm all for putting the TFR's back to the way they were pre-9/11. I
>really am. But the President is not personally responsible for all the ills
>of the nation

Who said baby Bush was responsible for ALL the ills of the nation?
(Straw man argument?)

>much less this one which affects a mere 0.2% of the nation's
>population - even if all certificated pilots were in the area of a given
>TFR.

Are you attempting to suggest that the leader of the free world LACKS
THE POWER to govern the size of the enormous TFRs that surround his
movements?

>You're fighting the right battle. It's just that you're fighting the wrong
>opponent. The problem isn't the President because I *guarantee* the same
>TFR's would and will be implemented regardless of the person or party
>holding the office.

By what authority are you able to make such a guarantee?

>The problem is with the bureaucrats below.

It always starts at the top.

>The President will not and should not concern himself with TFR's any more than
>he would or should be concerned with the closing of roads for his motorcade.

Why not?

>If Congress were to get in the act and demand freedom of the airspace, we
>*might* be able to start the ball rolling.

That's a laugh. From what I've heard, Congress is trying to impose
further restrictions on GA.

>I'm not optimistic based on the "justification" required of the FAA for
>the DC ADIZ, though.

Ummm...

I hope your entire point isn't something like: the President of the
United States of America is entirely powerless to control how his
security is managed. Are you suggesting that he so impotent that he
is a mere puppet being manipulated by bureaucrats? And here I thought
it was the GOP and his daddy who controlled him.

Larry Dighera

March 5th 04, 03:18 PM

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> <1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54>:
>>
>> >While I think President
>> >Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
>> >forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
>> >president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the
>office.
>>
>> Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.
>>
>> Other head's of state unworthy of their office have been afforded the
>> respect and courtesy they deserved. El Duce comes to mind ...
>
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53>:

>Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
>individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that the
>Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple and
>obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.

So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
the TRUTH not dogma.

Baby Bush LIED to the citizens he has sworn to serve to achieve his
(father's?) personal agenda, plunged the nation into debt so severe
that the dollar's value has plummeted to record lows against nearly
every other currency, lied about his preferential treatment while
joyriding in the Coast Guard, gutted the hard fought protections and
freedoms granted US citizens under the Constitution, and you want me
to afford this mendacious, redneck bumbler the respect of the office
of President of the United States?!

I'm sorry, but I'm not so inculcated as to betray my personal values,
and admire the Emperor's nonexistent new attire.

--

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong
enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong
enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over
the government. -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

John T

March 5th 04, 03:27 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> By what authority are you able to make such a guarantee?

Experience.

>> The problem is with the bureaucrats below.
>
> It always starts at the top.

No, it doesn't. The President does not, cannot and should not be involved
in all decisions.

>> The President will not and should not concern himself with TFR's any
>> more than he would or should be concerned with the closing of roads
>> for his motorcade.
>
> Why not?

That's beneath his level of concern.

> That's a laugh. From what I've heard, Congress is trying to impose
> further restrictions on GA.

Notice my use of "if". :)

> I hope your entire point isn't something like: the President of the
> United States of America is entirely powerless to control how his
> security is managed. Are you suggesting that he so impotent that he
> is a mere puppet being manipulated by bureaucrats? And here I thought
> it was the GOP and his daddy who controlled him.

My point is not that the President is powerless. Rather, decisions
regarding his security are beneath his level of conern. We, as taxpayers,
pay a lot of people good money to keep him safe. Those people make the
decisions and the President, if he's even aware of them, is more often than
not well-advised to heed their suggestions. Further, those professionals
(bureaucrats) are there regardless of who the President happens to be.

Again, why should the President be concerned with a temporary restriction on
a small percentage of another small percentage (less than 0.2%) of the
general population? After all, it's only temporary and the security team
says it's a good idea.

I don't expect any President to be overly concerned with such a small
population. If he were, I suspect he wouldn't be very effective in his job.

Now, an argument can be made that emplacing these TFR's - and having to
advertise them ahead of time - actually *decreases* his security since his
position and time of arrival is made known ahead of time. If nobody knows
when he is to arrive or at what airport, the "Bad Guys" would have a harder
time getting to him, wouldn't they?

But the security folks don't listen to me any more than they appear to
listen to AOPA...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Michael 182

March 5th 04, 03:49 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> <GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53>:
>
> >Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
> >individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that
the
> >Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple
and
> >obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.
>
> So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
> brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
> good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
> motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
> their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
> the TRUTH not dogma.

What is so hard about this? Why would you think I would salute Hitler? Are
you equating the Office of the President with the Chancellor of the Third
Reich? I never said every office deserves respect - I was, and am, pretty
specific. The Office of the President of the United States deserves respect.
It is part of the traditions and institutions of our country. Within the
civil confines of that respect we get to work for and vote for a new leader.
Seems like a pretty good system to me.

Michael

Dennis O'Connor

March 5th 04, 03:56 PM

This President, and all other Presidents, have little to nothing to say
about their security. The cone of silence about the President comes with
the job description...And remember, all Presidents are only a temporary
employees, whereas career service bureacrats have the responsibility for
Presidential security and they know they can never be sacked for saying,
"NO!".... So, as long as people have their careers and retirement packages
on the line, he is going to be kept in the center of a bubble...
Said bubble expanded with the President Reagan shooting and it blew up into
a major size bubble the morning of 9/11, when the security bureaucrats were
scared out of their socks over how close the whackos came to drilling the
White House dead center in the West Wing...
denny

G.R. Patterson III

March 5th 04, 07:52 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
> desperately need a third party in this country.

We've got about six, last time I counted. What we *need* is for people to vote
for one of them that isn't Dem or Rep.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

Gig Giacona

March 5th 04, 08:19 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote >
> WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or
whatever
> you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
> middle-of-the-road platform?

She's too busy since Bob got on the Viagra.

Gig Giacona

March 5th 04, 08:36 PM

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote >
> > WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or
> whatever
> > you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
> > middle-of-the-road platform?
>
> She's too busy since Bob got on the Viagra.
>
>

And to follow up my own post I still say that if Bob Dole had shown the same
since of humor during the race that he showed after the race he would be
President now.

GigG

airbourne56

March 5th 04, 09:09 PM

"John T" > wrote in message >

True, which might make all of the presidential TFRs tolerable if he
was traveling on the business of the United States of America. The
trip, however, was primarily or solely for political fund raising
purposes. Given how intrusive it is when he travels, he should step up
and make the sacrifice of staying home unless he has to travel on real
business.

> Further, your subject was not valid since Bush does not make the decision to
> close any airspace much less airports due to his travel. Those decisions
> are made by bureaucrats - ones that exist regardless of the party
> affiliation of the sitting President.

Dave Stadt

March 5th 04, 11:06 PM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:8k12c.121722$4o.162208@attbi_s52...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
> > > wrote in Message-Id:
> > <GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53>:
> >
> > >Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as
an
> > >individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe,
that
> the
> > >Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple
> and
> > >obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.
> >
> > So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
> > brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
> > good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
> > motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
> > their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
> > the TRUTH not dogma.
>
> What is so hard about this? Why would you think I would salute Hitler? Are
> you equating the Office of the President with the Chancellor of the Third
> Reich? I never said every office deserves respect - I was, and am, pretty
> specific. The Office of the President of the United States deserves
respect.
> It is part of the traditions and institutions of our country. Within the
> civil confines of that respect we get to work for and vote for a new
leader.
> Seems like a pretty good system to me.
>
> Michael

The only way a person gets respect is to earn it. It is not appointed,
demanded or institutionalized.

CriticalMass

March 6th 04, 01:37 AM

airbourne56 wrote:

>"John T" > wrote in message >
>
>True, which might make all of the presidential TFRs tolerable if he
>was traveling on the business of the United States of America. The
>trip, however, was primarily or solely for political fund raising
>purposes. Given how intrusive it is when he travels, he should step up
>and make the sacrifice of staying home unless he has to travel on real
>business.
>

I see.

So, *any* President of the United States should "stay home" (where the
hell is that?) if the proposed travel doesn't meet *your* definition of
"real business"?

Or are we still trying to smear "Baby Bush", and haircuts on the LAX
tarmac are A-OK with us good-ole boys with our collective heads on straight?

CriticalMass

March 6th 04, 01:39 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...
>

Ouch!

CriticalMass

March 6th 04, 01:45 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard the Republicans
>as fiscally Conservative.
>
>Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
>desperately need a third party in this country.
>
>A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious baggage,
>would win in every precinct.
>

I like the way you think, Jay.

CriticalMass

March 6th 04, 01:53 AM

Larry Dighera wrote:

>So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
>brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
>good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
>motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
>their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
>the TRUTH not dogma.
>
>Baby Bush LIED to the citizens he has sworn to serve to achieve his
>(father's?) personal agenda, plunged the nation into debt so severe
>that the dollar's value has plummeted to record lows against nearly
>every other currency, lied about his preferential treatment while
>joyriding in the Coast Guard, gutted the hard fought protections and
>freedoms granted US citizens under the Constitution, and you want me
>to afford this mendacious, redneck bumbler the respect of the office
>of President of the United States?!
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm not so inculcated as to betray my personal values,
>and admire the Emperor's nonexistent new attire.
>
>

Here we go again...........Take your medicine, Larry.

Jim Weir

March 6th 04, 03:06 AM

Those are called Democrats with a brain, Jay. And yes, I am aware that we are a
vanishing breed...Harry S. was the last decent one in the Big House.

{;-)

Jim

CriticalMass >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->>
->>A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious baggage,
->>would win in every precinct.
->>
->
->I like the way you think, Jay.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

Tom Sixkiller

March 6th 04, 03:56 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Zx02c.484428$na.1165762@attbi_s04...
> > > Which is why we
> > > desperately need a third party in this country.
> >
> > We have a bunch of them; Libertarians (very fiscally conservative, and
> they
> > got 1/20th the votes of the very UNFISCALLY CONSERVATIVE...), Green
party,
> > Perotista's, Buchannenits,
>
> I'm talking a main-stream party.

If Americans were so inclined, I think there already would be a good third
party.

> For some bizarre reason, known only to
> them, 3rd Party Candidates all seem to be from the lunatic fringe.

(Who you callin' a lunatic?? :~o )

Right about now, I think we'd do good to have TWO parties...the Republicrats
and someone else.

>
> WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or
whatever
> you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
> middle-of-the-road platform?

Ol' Helmet Hair? What makes you think shes fiscally conservative?

>
> Instead we get the Ross Perots and Ralph Naders of the world.
Well-meaning
> fringe candidates without a hope or a clue.

Hey...Perot got, what, 12% of the vote? Nader got , what, 5 or 7%?

In case you haven't noticed, Jefferson and Madison are considered lunatic
fringe by large sectors of the populace, but Karl Marx isn't.

We won't get a fiscally conservative legislative or executive branches until
we have a fiscally conservative POPULACE. Just like government, average
people like to spend other peoples money.

Tom Sixkiller

March 6th 04, 03:58 PM

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > By what authority are you able to make such a guarantee?
>
> Experience.
>
> >> The problem is with the bureaucrats below.
> >
> > It always starts at the top.
>
> No, it doesn't. The President does not, cannot and should not be involved
> in all decisions.
Quite. It's called delegation of responsibility. He's a president, not a
ruler/king (even if he'd like to be).

Tom Sixkiller

March 6th 04, 04:16 PM

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
> > desperately need a third party in this country.
>
> We've got about six, last time I counted. What we *need* is for people to
vote
> for one of them that isn't Dem or Rep.
>
Like I said, what we need is a TWO party system.

Tom Sixkiller

March 6th 04, 04:23 PM

"CriticalMass" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >Nah, only liberals stick with what they believed in their youth...
> >
>
> Ouch!

A lot of people haven't quite gotten the notion of Santa Claus out of their
head.

Here's a few examples:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v23n4/boaz.pdf - "Our Magical
President" (yes, they're interviewing kids, but how many adults hold the
same notions?)

Tom Sixkiller

March 6th 04, 04:30 PM

Tom Sixkiller

March 6th 04, 06:13 PM

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
news:%p02c.118319$Xp.530159@attbi_s54...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...
> >
> > > There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word
or
> > > concept of duty.
> >
> > You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
> > _IS_ DUTY.
> >
>
> I'm just responding to this small section as an example - I'm too bored of
> this thread to do more.
>
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
> n.
> 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
> 2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the
> individual but contributes to the survival of the species.
>
> Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
> \Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It. altrui of or to
> others, fr. L. alter another.] Regard for others, both natural and moral;
> devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to
> egoism or selfishness. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.

Since the "Self" and the "mind" are essentially the same, your seem to find
honor in mindlessness.

"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the

ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first

premise for every truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, _Mein_Kampf_

Maybe thiswill give you some appreciation of why tyranny in the 20th century
was so brutal.

> I know you will find some reason to believe the dictionaries are wrong,
but
> when you decide words have a different meaning than the dictionaries'
> definition it makes it pretty hard for anyone to communicate.

As said, I'd rather refer to the person who coined the word that a
dictionary. It's the intellectually honest thing to do. Nonetheless, as
shown above, you demonstrate better than I ever could exactly where the
liberals stand.

Now, let me conclude by saying if your want to accept responsibility for
someone you have no control over (I expect you didn't run your business that
way), be my guest, that's your right (not a "privilege"), but don't expect
everyone else to engage your own guilt trip -- for that I suggest you confer
with your parents if they are still with us.

Tom
--
"Don’t bother to examine a folly—
ask yourself only what it accomplishes. . . .
It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice,
there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings
.. . . . The man who speaks to you of sacrifice,
speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to
be the master."

Larry Dighera

March 6th 04, 11:15 PM

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:49:24 GMT, "Michael 182"
> wrote in Message-Id:
<8k12c.121722$4o.162208@attbi_s52>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >
>> On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
>> > wrote in Message-Id:
>> <GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53>:
>>
>> >Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
>> >individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that
>> >the Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple
>> >and obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.
>>
>> So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
>> brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
>> good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
>> motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
>> their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
>> the TRUTH not dogma.
>
>What is so hard about this?

Mmm... Your inability to think outside the box?

>Why would you think I would salute Hitler?

Given your espoused adherence to translational convention, I just
thought you might salute the leader of your country if you had been a
German citizen during his reign. Would you have?

>Are you equating the Office of the President with the Chancellor of the Third
>Reich?

Are/were not the holders of both offices the leaders of their
respective countries?

>I never said every office deserves respect - I was, and am, pretty
>specific. The Office of the President of the United States deserves respect.

So you have no respect for the offices of the leaders of the other
nations of the world? Only the USA?

>It [respect for the office of President of the USA] is part of the traditions
>and institutions of our country.

Given that sort of reasoning, you must condone the burning of witches?
The ownership of slaves? Illegal internment of US citizens during
time of war? Com'on man, think for yourself; don't swallow the dogma
without question.

>Within the civil confines of that respect we get to work for and vote for a new leader.

The leader works for the citizenry. You've got it backwards.

>Seems like a pretty good system to me.

Ummm...

airbourne56

March 7th 04, 03:46 AM

CriticalMass > wrote in message >...
> airbourne56 wrote:
>
> >"John T" > wrote in message >
> >
> >True, which might make all of the presidential TFRs tolerable if he
> >was traveling on the business of the United States of America. The
> >trip, however, was primarily or solely for political fund raising
> >purposes. Given how intrusive it is when he travels, he should step up
> >and make the sacrifice of staying home unless he has to travel on real
> >business.
> >
>
> I see.
>
> So, *any* President of the United States should "stay home" (where the
> hell is that?) if the proposed travel doesn't meet *your* definition of
> "real business"?

Exactly. That's great that you got my point so clearly. Without
digressing into a discussion about the corruption of a political
system of financial orgy, if current airspace security requirements
dictate that large swaths of airspace have to be closed down when the
president travels, then travel that is for the sole purpose of
political fundraising should end--no matter the political party of the
president.

The official residence of the President of the United States is the
White House. It's in Washington, D.C. Perhaps you've heard of it?

I distinguished "real business" from political fund raising. Political
fund raising is not the business of the United States of America.
Having airplanes grounded, businesses disrupted, innocent pilots
busted, and travel in the air and on the ground stopped simply so a
politician can raise more money is not an act of sacrifice in a time
of war (not my definition), it's political business as usual.

>
> Or are we still trying to smear "Baby Bush", and haircuts on the LAX
> tarmac are A-OK with us good-ole boys with our collective heads on straight?

There is no "we." No liberal conspiracy, no pointy-headed elite, and
no attempt to smear anyone. Just a person with an opinion--like lots
of other people who post here. I must say that tiresome resurrections
of an event that occurred many years ago--as outrageous as it might
have been--seem to reveal a rather hypocritical proclivity to "smear."

airbourne56

March 7th 04, 04:30 AM

That's my recollection as well. I recall thinking it odd that a
prohibited area remained even after Bush Sr. left office.

You know why the prohibited area wasn't removed? Because even then the
power elite of the Republican party knew that they would install Bush
Jr. into office, but only after letting Clinton stay in office for
eight years leading to such a level of disgust that Bush Jr. would
seem like an improvement. With their keen eye for fiscal
responsibility, same Republican elite secretly arranged with the FAA
to keep the prohibited area to save on chart printing costs.

David Reinhart > wrote in message >...
> I'm not sure about that. I live in Massachusetts and I seem to remember that
> Maine P area being around for a long time. Anybody got some really old
> sectionals around?
>
> Dave Reinhart
>
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > "Saryon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:27:34 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
> > > >what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his
> TFR?
> > >
> > > There's a prohibited area Kennebunkport, Maine (P-67) - 1000' high,
> > > 2nm diameter, expanded by TFR every time George W. comes and visits
> > > his family. Is that prohibited area there because of George Bush Sr.
> > > or Jr.? If we're not doing it for all ex-Presidents, why is this one
> > > any more special than others? I wasn't flying when it was set up so I
> > > honestly don't know the answer.
> > >
> >
> > It is there because the current President is there frequently, just as there
> > is a TFR around his home in Crawford even when he isn't there.

Ted

March 7th 04, 04:54 AM

airbourne56 wrote:

> That's my recollection as well. I recall thinking it odd that a
> prohibited area remained even after Bush Sr. left office.
>
> You know why the prohibited area wasn't removed? Because even then the
> power elite of the Republican party knew that they would install Bush
> Jr. into office, but only after letting Clinton stay in office for
> eight years leading to such a level of disgust that Bush Jr. would
> seem like an improvement. With their keen eye for fiscal
> responsibility, same Republican elite secretly arranged with the FAA
> to keep the prohibited area to save on chart printing costs.

The prohibited area only goes from the surface to 1000 feet, and is hardly a terrible burden. Presidents
are eligilble for secret service protection for their remaining lifetime, and apparently this is part of
the deal. When the Clintons bought property in Chapauqua, they were (according to press reports at the
time) trying to get a "no-fly zone" (aka prohibited area). However their house is very close to the
approach to one of the White Plains runways, and it would have caused major problems at that busy
airport. They backed down on this one, but don't have to worry about loitering snooping aircraft either.

John T

March 7th 04, 09:32 PM

"Ted" > wrote in message

>
> Presidents are eligilble for secret
> service protection for their remaining lifetime, and apparently this
> is part of the deal.

"Were". Clinton is the last President to receive such protection. Bush 43
and later Presidents will not have lifetime Secret Service protection after
leaving office.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Dylan Smith

March 8th 04, 01:56 PM

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Really, it's a privilege of happening to be born in a particular
geographic location. Due to immigration laws, it is very difficult to
choose what country you will live in - it requires considerable effort.
I know - I've done it. It was hard enough to be allowed to live in the
United States for 7 years even with the backing of one of the biggest
employers in the US (IBM). Many countries are much harder to live in by
choice due to immigration restrictions. If you happen to come from the
wrong country, it may be practically impossible to choose to live in the
United States (or Britain, or France, or Australia...) simply because of
your place of birth - something over which you have no choice.

Personally, I learned at a very young age that I
was very lucky to be born in Britain. The vast majority of the world's
population doesn't get the lucky break to be born in a country like
Britain, the United States or other countries with similar societal
construction. The vast majority of the world's population is unlucky
enough to be born in oppressive and/or states of great poverty compared
to the west.

This isn't a commentary on whether this is right or wrong by the way -
just a commentary on how it is.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Tom Sixkiller

March 8th 04, 03:16 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.
>
> Really, it's a privilege of happening to be born in a particular
> geographic location.

Don't confuse "circumstance" with "consequence".

Tom Sixkiller

March 8th 04, 03:27 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.
>
> Due to immigration laws, it is very difficult to
> choose what country you will live in - it requires considerable effort.

Immigration is a priviledge, not a right.

> I know - I've done it. It was hard enough to be allowed to live in the
> United States for 7 years even with the backing of one of the biggest
> employers in the US (IBM). Many countries are much harder to live in by
> choice due to immigration restrictions. If you happen to come from the
> wrong country, it may be practically impossible to choose to live in the
> United States (or Britain, or France, or Australia...) simply because of
> your place of birth - something over which you have no choice.

As above.

> Personally, I learned at a very young age that I
> was very lucky to be born in Britain.

Yet you left and are trying to stay here, right?

>The vast majority of the world's
> population doesn't get the lucky break to be born in a country like
> Britain, the United States or other countries with similar societal
> construction. The vast majority of the world's population is unlucky
> enough to be born in oppressive and/or states of great poverty compared
> to the west.

Living in the USA as a naturla born citizen is a right. A right cannot be
taken away. Immigration is a privildge, which is why an immigrant can be
deported, but a natural born citizen cannot.

> This isn't a commentary on whether this is right or wrong by the way -
> just a commentary on how it is.

Just remember: privileges can be revoked, whether it's flying an aircraft,
driving a car or staying up late when you're a kid.

Further more; the USA _RECOGNIZES_ rights as inherent in human beings. These
are called NEGATIVE rights (rights FROM...not RIGHTS _TO_). Another
*******ization of the word "rights" is "States Rights" -- governments have
POWERS...not rights; only individuals have rights, not groups of
individuals, or any other collection of people. In a group you neither gain
(politically preferred groups), nor lose rights (wealthy, smokers,
pilots...).

Dylan Smith

March 8th 04, 05:10 PM

In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> Immigration is a priviledge, not a right.

....which was precisely what I was saying. The country you have right of
abode in is chosen merely by where you were born; something you have no
choice over. If you choose to live somewhere else, regardless of which
country 'somewhere else' happens to be, it usually requires considerable
effort to achieve this.

If you happen to have citizenship of a country which is nice to live in,
it's not just a right, it's also a privilege (that most of the rest of
the world doesn't get to enjoy). As someone else said, rights and
privileges are not mutually exclusive.

>> Personally, I learned at a very young age that I
>> was very lucky to be born in Britain.
>
> Yet you left and are trying to stay here, right?

No. The first line of my signature shows I live in British territory.

I lived in the US for a few years, but I never pursued permanent
residency, so you are incorrect on both counts. I have no plans to live
in the US again in the forseeable future. Does that mean I don't like
the US? NO! Not at all! I enjoy visiting the US, I only returned from a
trip to Houston (paid for out of my own pocket, not a company trip) last
week, and I'll probably go again this year after the heat of summer has
died down.

I might have the right of abode where I live now. But I feel enormously
privileged to have this right of abode. It's not just about having good
cellular service, a car, regular flying and high speed Internet access
(not to mention a good cup of hot tea and fabulous beer), but also living
in a place of outstanding natural beauty as well as having my basic
human needs met (including freedom of expression and freedom of religion
or lack thereof). Much of the world's population doesn't have their basic
human needs properly met. I am extremely glad I wasn't born somwhere
like North Korea. I hope you are too.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Steven P. McNicoll

March 8th 04, 06:29 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:o9T1c.42536$ko6.377510@attbi_s02...
>
> You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard
> the Republicans as fiscally Conservative.
>
> Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which
> is why we desperately need a third party in this country.
>

Hell, even the Democrats were once fiscally conservative.

>
> A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious
> baggage, would win in every precinct.
>

If that's so why don't Libertarian candidates win?

Steven P. McNicoll

March 8th 04, 06:32 PM

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
>
> Those are called Democrats with a brain, Jay. And yes, I am aware
> that we are a vanishing breed.
>

Not vanishing, extinct.

>
> ..Harry S. was the last decent one in the Big House.
>

Grover Cleveland was the last decent Democrat in the White House.

Larry Dighera

March 8th 04, 07:26 PM

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 08:27:12 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote in Message-Id: >:

>Just remember: privileges can be revoked, whether it's flying an aircraft,
>driving a car or ...

Actually, the US government has taken the position that using our
national airspace is a right. From the Federal Aviation Act of 1958:

Sec. 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace

(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit. -

(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of
airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit
through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the
Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or
issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant
impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or
commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

It is my understanding that driving has been recently held by the
courts to be a right.

G.R. Patterson III

March 8th 04, 07:41 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> It is my understanding that driving has been recently held by the
> courts to be a right.

Really! State or Federal?

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

Tom Sixkiller

March 8th 04, 10:54 PM

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > Immigration is a priviledge, not a right.
>
> ...which was precisely what I was saying. The country you have right of
> abode in is chosen merely by where you were born; something you have no
> choice over. If you choose to live somewhere else, regardless of which
> country 'somewhere else' happens to be, it usually requires considerable
> effort to achieve this.

Actually, my statement about immigration is not really correct. A proper
definition of human (individual) rights would say you have the right to
live wherever you choose (except on property already owned), but that is a
whole different thread in itself. IOW, I support free& open immigration.

I didn't want to get involved in a lengthy, off-topic thread....but the
devil made me do it.

Tom Sixkiller

March 8th 04, 10:58 PM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:o9T1c.42536$ko6.377510@attbi_s02...
> >
> > You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I regard
> > the Republicans as fiscally Conservative.
> >
> > Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which
> > is why we desperately need a third party in this country.
> >
>
> Hell, even the Democrats were once fiscally conservative.

When was ANY party fiscally conservative after about 1820?

>
>
> >
> > A fiscally conservative political party, without all the religious
> > baggage, would win in every precinct.
> >
>
> If that's so why don't Libertarian candidates win?
>
Because they're not "mainstream", I guess. Of course, if libertarians were
mainstream, we wouldn't have these problems in the first place, regardless
of who was in power.

Voters love spending other people's money just as much as politicians do.
That's why they voted for them in the first place.

Larry Dighera

March 9th 04, 01:10 PM

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:27:47 GMT, "John T" > wrote in
Message-Id: m>:

>Now, an argument can be made that emplacing these TFR's - and having to
>advertise them ahead of time - actually *decreases* his security since his
>position and time of arrival is made known ahead of time. If nobody knows
>when he is to arrive or at what airport, the "Bad Guys" would have a harder
>time getting to him, wouldn't they?

Security by obscurity isn't.

Larry Dighera

March 9th 04, 01:13 PM

On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:41:43 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>> It is my understanding that driving has been recently held by the
>> courts to be a right.
>
>Really! State or Federal?
>

If I recall correctly, it was Denny O'Connor who mentioned it in this
newsgroup many months ago.

John T

March 9th 04, 04:37 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Security by obscurity isn't.

That's not necessarily true, but I'm curious why you'd say that when you
seemed to be making the argument that you didn't think Presidential TFR's
are warranted. Are you now saying they are?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Larry Dighera

March 9th 04, 05:15 PM

On Tue, 09 Mar 2004 16:37:22 GMT, "John T" > wrote in
Message-Id: m>:

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>> Security by obscurity isn't.
>
>That's not necessarily true, but I'm curious why you'd say that when you
>seemed to be making the argument that you didn't think Presidential TFR's
>are warranted.

Ask any Unix system administrator.

>Are you now saying they are?

No.

John T

March 9th 04, 06:03 PM

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> Ask any Unix system administrator.

Sure, OS security has so much in common with physical security of a mobile
target. :)

Obscurity *can* help security. If you can blind or confuse the enemies
intelligence efforts (e.g., prevent them from finding the target), you have
taken a big step in disrupting any plans they may be making. In particular,
advertising the existence of Presidential TFR's tells the world where and
when the President will be.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

Newps

March 9th 04, 06:21 PM

John T wrote:

> Obscurity *can* help security. If you can blind or confuse the enemies
> intelligence efforts (e.g., prevent them from finding the target), you have
> taken a big step in disrupting any plans they may be making. In particular,
> advertising the existence of Presidential TFR's tells the world where and
> when the President will be.
>

It's irrelavant. Every local newspaper announces a week or more in
advance that the President will be in town.

Henry Bibb

March 9th 04, 06:56 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:mWn3c.160463$4o.208479@attbi_s52...
>
>
> John T wrote:
>
>
> > Obscurity *can* help security. If you can blind or confuse the enemies
> > intelligence efforts (e.g., prevent them from finding the target), you
have
> > taken a big step in disrupting any plans they may be making. In
particular,
> > advertising the existence of Presidential TFR's tells the world where
and
> > when the President will be.
> >
>
>
> It's irrelavant. Every local newspaper announces a week or more in
> advance that the President will be in town.
>

But, at least, if we left it to local newspapers, the bad guys would have to
go
read them all. This way, there's just one place to look, no?

Tom Sixkiller

March 10th 04, 01:50 PM

"Henry Bibb" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:mWn3c.160463$4o.208479@attbi_s52...
> >
> >
> > It's irrelavant. Every local newspaper announces a week or more in
> > advance that the President will be in town.
> >
>
> But, at least, if we left it to local newspapers, the bad guys would have
to
> go
> read them all. This way, there's just one place to look, no?

In the old Soviet Union they used to do precisely that; damn near everything
from the NY Times to the Podunk Reporter.

Seal Team Six creator Richard Marcinko related in his biography how he got a
write-up in an obscure magazine called "MALE", about the Seals in Vietnam.
Within weeks the VC were posting leaflets offering a reward of 50,000
piasters for his head.

Frank

March 12th 04, 04:54 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

<snip>
>
> What's that old saying? "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been
> mugged."

"...and a Liberal is a Conservative who just got arrested."

(Maybe even more true today in light of the "Patriot Act".)

--
Frank....H

Teacherjh

March 12th 04, 06:15 PM

>>
> What's that old saying? "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been
> mugged."

"...and a Liberal is a Conservative who just got arrested."
<<

A cynic is an optomist that has met reality unexpectedly.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Steven P. McNicoll

March 12th 04, 11:14 PM

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> When was ANY party fiscally conservative after about 1820?
>

If you mean major party, Cleveland (Grover, not Ohio) Democrats in 1890s.
If you mean any party at all, there are fiscally conservative parties today,
they just can't get their candidates elected.

>
> Because they're not "mainstream", I guess. Of course, if libertarians
> were mainstream, we wouldn't have these problems in the first place,
> regardless of who was in power.
>

If Congress and the President adhered to the Constitution it wouldn't make a
lot of difference which party was in power.

Tom Sixkiller

March 13th 04, 02:54 AM

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > When was ANY party fiscally conservative after about 1820?
> >
>
> If you mean major party, Cleveland (Grover, not Ohio) Democrats in 1890s.
> If you mean any party at all, there are fiscally conservative parties
today,
> they just can't get their candidates elected.

Grover had just about as much trouble with his party and the populace as
anyone would in modern times. In the late 1890's there was just about as
much today. The campaigns of William Jennings Bryant are a good example.

>
>
> >
> > Because they're not "mainstream", I guess. Of course, if libertarians
> > were mainstream, we wouldn't have these problems in the first place,
> > regardless of who was in power.
> >
>
> If Congress and the President adhered to the Constitution it wouldn't make
a
> lot of difference which party was in power.

Not quite the right angle -- if the PEOPLE held them to the Constitution, it
wouldn't make a lot of difference. First, most people have zero clue what's
in the Constitution, and secondly, they like getting the goodies.

"One must remember that in a democracy, the _whores_ are us." -- P.J.
O'Rourke, 'Parliament of Whores'.

Tom Sixkiller

March 13th 04, 02:56 AM

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >
> > What's that old saying? "A Conservative is a Liberal who has been
> > mugged."
>
> "...and a Liberal is a Conservative who just got arrested."

And the "liberals" are now saying the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough.
Where were they when all the rest of the legislation was coming down over
the past fifty years?

> (Maybe even more true today in light of the "Patriot Act".)

Want to be a little more specific than just the four second sound bites from
the media?