Hillary's Amendment

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.

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

"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

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"

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_0...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... :-)

--

BlueSkyzz wrote:




You get rid of one, and another pops up!

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_0...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?

"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_0...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.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


BlueSkyzz wrote:




You get rid of one, and another pops up!

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_0...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. :~)

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_0...senate_03.html

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

--

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.