Kerry's coming to OSH

etc., but if he were to come to OSH I would cheerfully show him around and
try to convert him into an airplane nut - not that I have a snowball's
chance in hell of getting near him in the first place...

That's the point, Denny -- he already IS an airplane nut.

No one has mentioned this, but I think we are EXTREMELY fortunate that we
have two pilots running for our highest office. Even though Bush and Kerry
are diametrically opposed politically, I like to think that anyone who has
flown has the attitude and ability we're looking for in a leader.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Better hope Bush doesn't decide to show up in his rented flight suit and
TFR!

Bush's F-102 flight instructor -- a crusty, old, 270 pound former judo
instructor -- is quoted in this week's Newsweek as saying that "Bush was in
the top 5% of fighter pilots he's ever trained..."

Newsweek also reports that Bush inquired about being transferred to Viet Nam
for combat duty, and was told that (a) the F-102 in which he was rated and
current was considered obsolete for combat operations, and (b) he had too
few flight hours. Thus, his inquiry was rejected.

Sounds like old GW is more legit than some of you like to believe...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
"Dennis O'Connor" wrote:

I am deeply suspicious of any man like Kerry who incites class warfare, envy
politics, punitive taxation of the most productive, character assassination,
etc., but if he were to come to OSH I would cheerfully show him around and
try to convert him into an airplane nut - not that I have a snowball's
chance in hell of getting near him in the first place...


Well, good luck. My point is that the politicians show up for photo ops
and good PR every chance they get, and often they have little to no
interest in YOUR interests when they do show up. If Kerry or Bush or
anyone else decides to show up at OSH, it in no way indicates that they
are actually an advocate of GA. Politicians are necessarily
self-serving above all else. Caution when dancing with the devil.


JKG

In article QgLYb.346535$xy6.1729760@attbi_s02,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
No one has mentioned this, but I think we are EXTREMELY fortunate that we
have two pilots running for our highest office. Even though Bush and Kerry
are diametrically opposed politically, I like to think that anyone who has
flown has the attitude and ability we're looking for in a leader.

I hate to say it, and no offense to the company in this thread, but
there are lots of people in fairly lofty professions who like to go out
and buy, boats, fast cars, etc. only because they can and they'd like
everyone to know it. I've encountered quite a few of those folks in my
short aviation career. Those pilots usually end up dead or dormant
after a few years, the airplane ego having run its course.

It's very difficult to tell what Kerry's or Bush's true feelings are
about GA. It does seem that some of Bush's political advisers feel that
they can score some good PR with the non-flying public by throwing up
restrictions on GA operations whenever they please, and I don't have any
reason to believe that Kerry's political advisers would be any
different. I really believe that it could be a lot, lot worse for us,
like if a trial lawyer were in the White House.


JKG

Jay Honeck wrote:
No one has mentioned this, but I think we are EXTREMELY fortunate that we
have two pilots running for our highest office. Even though Bush and Kerry
are diametrically opposed politically, I like to think that anyone who has
flown has the attitude and ability we're looking for in a leader.

That's silly. There are a lot of bone-head pilots that don't have what
it takes to be leaders. In addition, I don't consider Governor Shrub a
pilot, anymore. Kerry, from all reports, has been an active pilot
(probably not recently, during the election). Shrub hasn't flown since
he left the guard. How much could he love flying if he hasn't even
bothered to do it in 30 years? Money certainly wasn't a problem. In
fact, I don't buy the point you made about his ex-instructor putting him
in the top 5% of his students. If he was that good, he would have kept
flying. To be that good, you have to love it. And if he loved it, he
wouldn't have stopped.

--- Jay


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

http://www.oceancityairport.com/
http://www.oc-adolfos.com/

I don't buy the point you made about his ex-instructor putting him
in the top 5% of his students. If he was that good, he would have kept
flying. To be that good, you have to love it. And if he loved it, he
wouldn't have stopped.

I agree, that's odd.

But I've known a fair number of pilots who quit flying. I don't know how,
or why.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . net,
Dave S wrote:

At the risk of sounding unpatriotic.. I agree with some of what you were
criticizing. America has actively earned the hatred of many abroad by
virtue of our foriegn policy and active meddling in the affairs of other
countries. We have supported former dictators on several occasions who
later we moved to depose when they no longer served our needs. We have a
reputation for being arrogant, impolite, demanding and hypocritical.

There is a difference between the times when we "meddled" in places that
we shouldn't have, such as in Somolia and in Kosovo, and defending
ourselves, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, either way, that's not
why we're hated. We're hated because we are a free nation and, by that
virtue, a productive nation. Productive nations produce wealth.
Problem is, you have to have freedom to have productivity, and there are
a lot of bad guy dictators out there who won't permit their people to be
freely productive. Almost *ALL* of the countries in the Middle East,
except Israel, are guilty of denying freedom to their people, but the
Islamic countries certainly aren't the only ones who are guilty.

"Meddling" is simply a convenient excuse for foreign leaders to deflect
attention away from the real problem, which is most often those foreign
leaders themselves.



JKG

In article . net,
Dave S wrote:
here, I harbor the opinion that we as a collective nation have gone way
out of our way to rub other peoples noses in our percieved greatness. Up
until this most recent presidential administration, I considered myself
pretty solidly aligned with the Republican party, but the most recent
President and his "Go It Alone" stance that he undertook WELL before
9/11 has led me to reconsider my political affiliations.

I'm not sure who's "going it alone" and how you know that the Bush
administration had a "Go It Alone" policy before 9/11. If you're
referring to the Iraq war, it seems to me that we spent a huge amount of
time screwing around with the United Nations if our policy was going to
be "Go It Alone" regardless of what anyone else said. And last time I
checked the facts, we didn't "Go It Alone" in Iraq or Afghanistan anyway.

Our policy should be "Go It Alone" if that's what's necessary to protect
our own interests. If we aren't willing to "Go It Alone" to protect
ourselves then we will eventually cease to exist as an independent
country.



Regardless of the international picture, the greatest threat to the
President (historically speaking) has been from citizens of our own
country. I can't recall a single assasination or attempt on a President
that was proven to have happened from the act of a Foreign national.

The greatest threat to the President and Congress should be from our own
people, though our kind and generous federal government continues to do
what they can to disarm the population.

The founding fathers intended for the people to be able to forcably
overthrow a corrupt or overreaching government. The US Constitution
specifically prohibts the federal government from engaging in most of
the things that it engages in today. However, the US Constitution, as
all governing documents in any democratic society, is only as good as
the people's will to enforce it. The lure of hand-outs and special
interests is too tempting for most people, and that includes the
aviation community.



JKG

In article cGSYb.340944$I06.3556110@attbi_s01, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I don't buy the point you made about his ex-instructor putting him
in the top 5% of his students. If he was that good, he would have kept
flying. To be that good, you have to love it. And if he loved it, he
wouldn't have stopped.

I agree, that's odd.

But I've known a fair number of pilots who quit flying. I don't know how,
or why.

Someone I worked with was an A-10 driver and a test pilot. He
doesn't fly anymore because bugsmasher flying isn't why he loved
flying. A friend who was an F-111 WSO talks about how the flying
I do in my 140 ain't anything like the low level flying he did.

--
Bob Noel

They sent a detachment of 4-6 F-102's to VN on rotation from Japan.
The 'Duce' was built to attack bombers and not fighters and was not a
dog fighting aircraft.

Several were destroyed at Da Nang, where they were based, during a
sapper attack. They never came close to shooting down any MIGS.

Were withdrawn after less than a year.

Big John

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:16:24 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Better hope Bush doesn't decide to show up in his rented flight suit and
TFR!

Bush's F-102 flight instructor -- a crusty, old, 270 pound former judo
instructor -- is quoted in this week's Newsweek as saying that "Bush was in
the top 5% of fighter pilots he's ever trained..."

Newsweek also reports that Bush inquired about being transferred to Viet Nam
for combat duty, and was told that (a) the F-102 in which he was rated and
current was considered obsolete for combat operations, and (b) he had too
few flight hours. Thus, his inquiry was rejected.

Sounds like old GW is more legit than some of you like to believe...