Hillary's Amendment [Archive]

Brien K. Meehan

August 21st 05, 12:59 AM

"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.

Matt Barrow

August 21st 05, 01:05 AM

"BlueSkyzz" > wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote:
>
> > You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >
> > http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
>
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
> rec.aviation.piloting,

PILOTING!!!

How would this,

"A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."

....be off topic?

> not alt.bash.hillary.

Truth hurts, huh?

Bob Noel

August 21st 05, 01:11 AM

In article om>,
"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote:

> In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.

Let's have a show of hands of all those that believe that the conclusions of
such a study will be scientifically sound, logical, and not politically
motivated...

(>-{

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Matt Barrow

August 21st 05, 01:11 AM

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> "Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
>
> In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
>

It sounds like they've already drawn their conclusion and are looking for
ways to force-fit supporting data.

George Patterson

August 21st 05, 01:30 AM

Brien K. Meehan wrote:
> "Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
>
> In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.

Lautenberg and Schumer have taken every opportunity for decades to shut down GA
and GA airports. Any study that those two have a hand in is poisoned from the start.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

john smith

August 21st 05, 02:40 AM

BlueSkyzz wrote:
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
> rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.

This has nothing to do with D's and R's.
Hillary is the primary sponsor and introduced it so it gets her name.
You introduced the political aspect, so we know where you stand on the
issue!

Dave Stadt

August 21st 05, 04:43 AM

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> "Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
>
> In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
>

You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these
work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the
conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would
come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.

Brien K. Meehan

August 21st 05, 08:57 AM

If you believe that, you're a bigger fool than me.

The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
do anything.

The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
their opponents by being able to implement any changes.

Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.

Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
pro-GA.

Martin Hotze

August 21st 05, 12:07 PM

On 20 Aug 2005 16:59:06 -0700, Brien K. Meehan wrote:

>(...)large populations and critical infrastructure areas
>should GA aircraft be stolen and used as a weapon."
^^^^

why don't omit "GA" and let the big airliners have the fight?

.... ahhh. maybe money?

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

Gary Drescher

August 21st 05, 12:34 PM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
> You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these
> work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the
> conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would
> come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.

Huh? Even if you had some basis for construing Democrats to be more opposed
to GA than Republicans, why would the amendment's *sponsorship* matter?
Shouldn't we look instead at who *voted* for the amendment? (It passed
unanimously.)

--Gary

Jay Honeck

August 21st 05, 02:09 PM

> Huh? Even if you had some basis for construing Democrats to be more
> opposed to GA than Republicans, why would the amendment's *sponsorship*
> matter? Shouldn't we look instead at who *voted* for the amendment? (It
> passed unanimously.)

Gary's right.

Hang them all!

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

BlueSkyzz

August 21st 05, 04:24 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "BlueSkyzz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>john smith wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You get rid of one, and another pops up!
>>>
>>>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
>>
>>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
>>rec.aviation.piloting,
>
>
> PILOTING!!!
>
> How would this,
>
> "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
> aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
> Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
> of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
>
> ...be off topic?

Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.

>>not alt.bash.hillary.
>
>
> Truth hurts, huh?

LOL! Guess you'll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won't you?
And you're obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
regime. Ah well, ignorance is bliss... :-)

--

Newps

August 21st 05, 06:13 PM

BlueSkyzz wrote:

>>>
>>>
>>>> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html

>
>
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.

How does the above statement insinuate anything political?

Matt Barrow

August 21st 05, 06:17 PM

"BlueSkyzz" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "BlueSkyzz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>john smith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >>>
> >>>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> >>
> >>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
> >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> >
> >
> > PILOTING!!!
> >
> > How would this,
> >
> > "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
> > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in
the
> > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the
Department
> > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> >
> > ...be off topic?
>
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension.

Try writing coherently.

> My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.

Calling it Hillary's amendment is political insinuation?

> LOL! Guess you'll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won't you?
> And you're obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
> regime. Ah well, ignorance is bliss... :-)

Speaking of comprehension, try keeping to the topic which is a proposed risk
assessment study.

You've got a wrap on ignorance: Gore, Kerry and Hillary all have said we
should be paying $5 a gallon for gas. Gore, largely, even campaigned on it,
wrote a book on it...

Try removing your head from your anal cavity and I see some big time
Freudian projection coming from your end.

Matt Barrow

August 21st 05, 06:20 PM

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> BlueSkyzz wrote:
>
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
>
> >
> >
> > Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
> > complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
>
>
> How does the above statement insinuate anything political?

It's what he WANTS to see.

You snipped the other irrelevant blather he pulled out of his ass. :~)

joe

August 21st 05, 06:40 PM

Bullsh*t Blue sky ..... Keep em coming.. And we all need to be
writing our senators. This DC ADIZ is a bunch of crap. Maybe you are
not effected.... yet......

BlueSkyzz wrote:
> john smith wrote:
>
> > You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >
> > http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
>
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
> rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.
>
> --

George Patterson

August 21st 05, 07:56 PM

BlueSkyzz wrote:
>
> My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.

What insinuations? Hillary introduced this ammendment, so the title is correct.
The ammendment replaces another more onerous one, so that statement that this
one popped up after we managed to eliminate another one is also correct. The OP
hasn't insinuated a damn thing.

You need to be complaining to yourself for reading things in that aren't there.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson

August 21st 05, 08:00 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> why don't omit "GA" and let the big airliners have the fight?

They've already tackled that situation. Now certain people want to impose the
same restrictions on small aircraft.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Greg

August 22nd 05, 02:18 AM

BlueSkyzz wrote:

> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "BlueSkyzz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>john smith wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >>>
> >>>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> >>
> >>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
> >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> >
> >
> > PILOTING!!!
> >
> > How would this,
> >
> > "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
> > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
> > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
> > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> >
> > ...be off topic?
>
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.

Political insinuations.....like your not-thinly-vailed reference to gasoline
prices and a REGIME? Apparently your dissuasion from political insinuations is
quite maleable, dependent on whose politics might be discussed.

>
>
> >>not alt.bash.hillary.
> >
> >
> > Truth hurts, huh?
>
> LOL! Guess you'll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won't you?
> And you're obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
> regime.

Huh? One post ago you were saying, "Please KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF THIS
NEWSGROUP" (emphasis added) immediately after somebody pointed out that the Jr.
Senator from NY has filed a very anti AVIATION amendment in the US Senate. Two
paragraphs ago you were heavily objecting to "political insinuations." Now you
suddenly morph from your "keep your politics out" tune to referring to certain
"connections to the current regime."

I'm curious, who is this regime you speak of, and would said regime happen to
include the aforementioned Senator who I believe did vote for many things,
including authorizing certain activities in the middle eastern region of the
world.

> Ah well, ignorance is bliss... :-)

Oh Blue, do educate us, the little people, who aren't worthy to understand your
great teachings and important objections to pointing out anything political,
unless it is political speech approved by . . . . you.

Greg

August 22nd 05, 02:20 AM

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:

> "Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
>
> In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.

Right. Well this is admittedly a wild-assed guess, but I would suppose
the "conclusions" of such a study are already known quite clearly.

Dave Stadt

August 22nd 05, 05:24 AM

"Brien K. Meehan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> If you believe that, you're a bigger fool than me.
>
> The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
> the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
> do anything.
>
> The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
> the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
> the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
> sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
> gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
> their opponents by being able to implement any changes.
>
> Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
> bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.
>
> Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
> truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
> unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
> pro-GA.

Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.

cjcampbell

August 22nd 05, 10:42 AM

One more reason to move away from the east coast.

Clay

August 22nd 05, 03:05 PM

The Cival War is still going. It has shifted from North vs. South.
Damn east and west coast Yankee politics pulling at the good ole boys
in the middle.

George Patterson

August 22nd 05, 03:11 PM

cjcampbell wrote:
> One more reason to move away from the east coast.

Other way 'round. You can't vote against them if you don't live here, and even
if you live in Iowa, you're stuck with the consequences of they way they vote on
issues. Want to change things, move here.

Of course, about the only thing that'll get Lautenberg out of the picture is death.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Newps

August 22nd 05, 03:45 PM

George Patterson wrote:
> cjcampbell wrote:
>
>> One more reason to move away from the east coast.
>
>
> Other way 'round. You can't vote against them if you don't live here,
> and even if you live in Iowa, you're stuck with the consequences of they
> way they vote on issues. Want to change things, move here.

Nah, sorry. It's like the Israelis and Palestinians fighting for the
most god forsaken ****ty land there is. You want to live that way go
right ahead. The only TFR's we worry about out here are the summer
forest fires and the occasional Presidential visit.

Matt Barrow

August 22nd 05, 04:07 PM

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.
>
What a disgusting puke!

My bet: McCain doesn't run AGAINST Hillary in '06, he runs WITH her
(especially if he doesn't get the Repub nomination).

Andrew Gideon

August 22nd 05, 05:21 PM

Newps wrote:

> TheÂ*onlyÂ*TFR'sÂ*weÂ*worryÂ*aboutÂ*outÂ*hereÂ*are Â*theÂ*summer
> forest fires and the occasional Presidential visit.

They can mandate that your airports spend enough money on security that they
close. They can tack user fees onto...well, anything ("flushing pending
while we weigh your excrement for tax purposes; please stand by").

Perhaps the time of regional elections for national office should be past.

- Andrew

W P Dixon

August 22nd 05, 05:37 PM

McCain may as well run with Hillary, because he can not win the south no
matter what his party. He shot himself there during his last run. He would
have been the nominee and probably the President if he would have kept his
trap shut in South Carolina.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>>
>> Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.
>>
> What a disgusting puke!
>
> My bet: McCain doesn't run AGAINST Hillary in '06, he runs WITH her
> (especially if he doesn't get the Repub nomination).
>
>
>

sfb

August 22nd 05, 06:57 PM

Hillary and the three midgets are pandering to the anti crowd that wants
to close the nuclear powered electric generating stations at Indian
Point.

Newps

August 22nd 05, 08:07 PM

Andrew Gideon wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>The only TFR's we worry about out here are the summer
>>forest fires and the occasional Presidential visit.
>
>
> They can mandate that your airports spend enough money on security that they
> close.

Hey this is the West. Our security
concerns/worries/taxes/proposals/knee jerk reactions are all diminishing
and have been for a while. The only thing that changed post 9/11 is the
FBO now locks their door to the parking lot after 11 pm.

Dave Stadt

August 22nd 05, 11:01 PM

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> >
> > Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.
> >
> What a disgusting puke!
>
> My bet: McCain doesn't run AGAINST Hillary in '06, he runs WITH her
> (especially if he doesn't get the Repub nomination).

I hear ya.

Matt Whiting

August 22nd 05, 11:47 PM

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>
>>Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.
>>
>
> What a disgusting puke!
>
> My bet: McCain doesn't run AGAINST Hillary in '06, he runs WITH her
> (especially if he doesn't get the Repub nomination).

Which makes sense since he is a Democrat at heart. I still can't figure
out why he just doesn't change parties and make it official.

Matt

Ken Chaddock

August 23rd 05, 12:54 AM

Greg wrote:

> "Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
>
>
>>"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
>>(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
>>Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
>>to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
>>populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
>>stolen and used as a weapon."
>>
>>In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
>>that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
>>actually study it, they might find that out.
>
>
> Right. Well this is admittedly a wild-assed guess, but I would suppose
> the "conclusions" of such a study are already known quite clearly.

Too true...but they have a point...put even a small thermonuclear
device in a Cessena 150 and.... :-O !

....Ken

W P Dixon

August 23rd 05, 04:24 AM

Well,
It seemed McCain was doing very very well with southern voters. They
(myself included) respected and admired his courage through Vietnam. He had
it made for sure...then he went and told the people of South Carolina they
should take down the Battle Flag. His numbers went into the trashcan
overnight and he never did recover and lost the south and the nomination.
Seems people in the south thought he had as much right to tell South
Carolina what flag to fly on the Statehouse grounds as people in South
Carolina telling Arizona to fly pink underwear on their flagpole. Just did
not go over well.

Patrick

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote
>
>> He would
>> have been the nominee and probably the President if he would have kept
>> his
>> trap shut in South Carolina.
>
> Refresh my memory?
>

Jay Honeck

August 23rd 05, 04:57 AM

> Hey this is the West. Our security concerns/worries/taxes/proposals/knee
> jerk reactions are all diminishing and have been for a while. The only
> thing that changed post 9/11 is the FBO now locks their door to the
> parking lot after 11 pm.

Hey, we got a new key pad for one of our two "security gates" after 9/11.
(I don't think it was related, actually. The old one just broke.)

Of course, the code buttons are the ones with "finger dirt" on them (so
they're quite clearly visible) -- and the "code" is in numeric order, low to
high. Any doofus could figure it out on the first or second try.

Not that it matters. The fence sits two feet off the ground in most areas.
My kids roll under it rather than go through the gate to get to the
terminal... As usual, the main thing that keeps people out of the airport
environment is the cold, impersonal nature of the place. (Which does a good
job of discouraging future pilot trainees too, sad to say.)

No, nothing has changed here since 9/11, either, except during election
years. Then we can't spit without hitting a candidate, and TFRs hit Iowa
like Scud missiles...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans

August 23rd 05, 05:14 AM

"W P Dixon" > wrote

> He would
> have been the nominee and probably the President if he would have kept his
> trap shut in South Carolina.

Refresh my memory?

George Patterson

August 23rd 05, 05:34 AM

Newps wrote:
>
> The only thing that changed post 9/11 is the
> FBO now locks their door to the parking lot after 11 pm.

And what will happen to that FBO if this commission causes Congress to order
that you have to go through airline-class security before being allowed to fly
your plane? Schumer, who happens to be one of the sponsors of this bill, is on
record as saying that that's what should be done.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

cjcampbell

August 23rd 05, 07:58 AM

No point in trying to vote against any of them. Just move away.
Watching their tax base disappear can have a salutary effect on
politicians. Heck, why do you think we call the Washington State
Legislature the Idaho Economic Development Council? I bet that Jeb Bush
is very grateful to the governors of both parties of those states that
just passed huge estate tax increases.

Gig 601XL Builder

August 23rd 05, 03:26 PM

"Ken Chaddock" > wrote in message
news:OAtOe.152206$wr.3134@clgrps12...
> Greg wrote:
>
>> "Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
>>>(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
>>>Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
>>>to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
>>>populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
>>>stolen and used as a weapon."
>>>
>>>In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
>>>that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
>>>actually study it, they might find that out.
>>
>>
>> Right. Well this is admittedly a wild-assed guess, but I would suppose
>> the "conclusions" of such a study are already known quite clearly.
>
> Too true...but they have a point...put even a small thermonuclear device
> in a Cessena 150 and.... :-O !
>

....Put even a small thermonuclear device in a __________________ (Insert
Transport Medium Of HERE) and....:-o !

Newps

August 23rd 05, 04:10 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> No, nothing has changed here since 9/11, either, except during election
> years. Then we can't spit without hitting a candidate, and TFRs hit Iowa
> like Scud missiles...

That would suck. Democrats don't bother to campaign here, they can't
win. Our one Congressman sent us all a letter in April of 2004 and said
that was the last we'd be hearing from him as far as campaigning was
concerned. He didn't spend a nickel after that and still clobbered the
tomato can the Democrats offered up. If you didn't watch the national
news and therefore didn't have to watch the ads of Bush and Kerry you
would never have known there was an election.

Newps

August 23rd 05, 04:11 PM

George Patterson wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>>
>> The only thing that changed post 9/11 is the FBO now locks their door
>> to the parking lot after 11 pm.
>
>
> And what will happen to that FBO if this commission causes Congress to
> order that you have to go through airline-class security before being
> allowed to fly your plane? Schumer, who happens to be one of the
> sponsors of this bill, is on record as saying that that's what should be
> done.

It'll never pass.

George Patterson

August 23rd 05, 04:36 PM

Ken Chaddock wrote:
>
> Too true...but they have a point...put even a small thermonuclear
> device in a Cessena 150 and.... :-O !

Put a thermonuclear device in a Ford Escort and.... :-O ! It can carry a bigger
one than the Cessna can.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson

August 23rd 05, 04:37 PM

Newps wrote:
>
> It'll never pass.

Let's hope you're right.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

Andrew Gideon

August 23rd 05, 06:19 PM

George Patterson wrote:

> Put a thermonuclear device in a Ford Escort and.... :-O ! It can carry a
> bigger one than the Cessna can.

It is rational to do a security assessment in a relative way. Would you
really expect rationality from such a study?

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon

August 23rd 05, 06:22 PM

W P Dixon wrote:

> should take down the Battle Flag

I don't recall this. What is "the Battle Flag"?

- Andrew

Jay Beckman

August 23rd 05, 07:01 PM

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>
>> should take down the Battle Flag
>
> I don't recall this. What is "the Battle Flag"?
>
> - Andrew

The "Stars and Bars" ... Confederate Flag

W P Dixon

August 23rd 05, 07:22 PM

Actually,
The "Stars and Bars" was a different flag, but don't fret..alot of people
get them confused. The Stars and Bars was the nickname of the first flag of
the Confederate States (March 1861- May 1863), but it was a reason the
Confederate Army adopted the Battle Flag. During a heated battle the Stars
and Bars could look like the Stars and Stripes, and the soldiers wanted a
flag they could see and recognize in battle. The Battle Flag never flew for
the Government of the Confederate States, it only flew on the field of
battle for the men fighting . And just for the history lessons sake ;) the
Battle Flag was really a square shaped flag, the copies you see today of it
would actually be a Naval Jack.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:zvJOe.124599$E95.85385@fed1read01...
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>>W P Dixon wrote:
>>
>>> should take down the Battle Flag
>>
>> I don't recall this. What is "the Battle Flag"?
>>
>> - Andrew
>
> The "Stars and Bars" ... Confederate Flag
>

Jay Beckman

August 23rd 05, 08:38 PM

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Actually,
> The "Stars and Bars" was a different flag, but don't fret..alot of
> people get them confused. The Stars and Bars was the nickname of the first
> flag of the Confederate States (March 1861- May 1863), but it was a reason
> the Confederate Army adopted the Battle Flag. During a heated battle the
> Stars and Bars could look like the Stars and Stripes, and the soldiers
> wanted a flag they could see and recognize in battle. The Battle Flag
> never flew for the Government of the Confederate States, it only flew on
> the field of battle for the men fighting . And just for the history
> lessons sake ;) the Battle Flag was really a square shaped flag, the
> copies you see today of it would actually be a Naval Jack.
>
> Patrick
> student SPL
> aircraft structural mech

Thanks for the clarification...

Jay B

George Patterson

August 23rd 05, 08:42 PM

Andrew Gideon wrote:
>
> It is rational to do a security assessment in a relative way. Would you
> really expect rationality from such a study?

No. Given the history of two of the sponsors (Lautenberg and Schumer), I expect
an attempt to railroad legislation that will make light aircraft a thing of the
past in the U.S..

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[email protected]

August 23rd 05, 11:21 PM

....and Vice Presidential fishing trips??

Roger

August 24th 05, 03:28 AM

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:53:17 GMT, BlueSkyzz >
wrote:

>john smith wrote:
>
>> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
>>
>> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
>
>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
>rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.

In this particular case it's the same. It's a bill that could have
dire consequences for general aviation depending on how the results
are interpreted.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com