Mounties Electrocute Airline Passenger

Airbus wrote:
Pretty simple.

Don't throw sh*t at the airport... stay alive.



Or is it theat they felt the unruly passenger may be part of a
conspiracy,and his co-conspirators may be arrioving on following flights,
and before you know it hundreds of airport chairs would be hurtling
across Canada causing untold damage and increasing broken glass insurance
rates . . .

And thousands would be dead. I'm tellin' ya it really is simple.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200710/1

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.

Not going to happen.

There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for president,
male and female, Republican and Democrat.

Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she is
doomed.
--
Jim in NC

Burke: Okay, look. This is an emotional moment for all of us, okay? I know
that. But let's not make snap judgments, please. This is clearly,
clearly an important species we're dealing with and I don't think
you or I or anybody has the right to arbitrarily exterminate them.

Unless, of course, they start tossing workstations.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.

Not going to happen.

There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.

Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she
is doomed.

We'll see.


bertie

Morgans wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.

Not going to happen.

There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.

Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she
is doomed.


Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her the least
is the group that votes the most and the group that is the most likely to
vote for her is the group that votes the least.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007102210304216807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-10-21 18:52:48 -0700, Jay Honeck said:

Indeed, if you want to find an 'American' religion, you would have a
tough time finding one that is more 'American' than the Mormons.

This is a comfort?

A Christian religion that preaches democratic values, good citizenship,
and teaches that the Constitution is divinely inspired, yes.

One that taugh the basis of liberty would be better. Every fascist/staist
regime ever taugh "good citzenship".

But their "hereafter" is downright zany.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007102210364375249-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan said:



So, I do not see anyone being particularly pro-business right now.

I prefer pro-free-enterprise over pro-business. Already had plenty of
pro-
big-business politicos in DC and freedom was getting its ass kicked.

Fine. Pro-free-enterprise it is, then.

Using what basis?



Every candidate seems hung up either on the war in Iraq or on abortion
or building a fence on the border, none of which is critical to
financial growth. Every one of them has expressed trade protectionist
views which range from disturbing to downright alarming. Whatever
happened to "Free trade and free men!" which was the historical battle
cry of the GOP? Who carries that banner today?

Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing away my
vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the borders
to trade

Ummm, like Clinton's NAFTA?

is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and reduced to fretting
over stem cells and illegal aliens.

The north was already industrialized by 1860...they were using tariffs to
keep that advantage over south (i.e., forcing the south to "buy American"
even then).

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
news:2007102210383750073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
On 2007-10-22 01:16:39 -0700, Bertie the Bunyip said:



You need a new guy. One who will truly represent your values and lead
you on to a better and brighter republican future in the tradition of
Ronald Reagan.


Too bad foster Brooks is gone.

Bertie

A Ronald Reagan would be too much to hope for. Barry Goldwater would do.

A Barry Goldwater would be even better than a Reagan.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Morgans wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote

You'd best get used to the idea that it's going to be hillary.

Not going to happen.

There are far too many that are not ready to vote for a woman for
president, male and female, Republican and Democrat.

Add to that, her association of the former Clinton president, and she
is doomed.


Yep, looks like about half the "likely voters" feel that way.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1376

And what's real bad for Hillary is that the groups that likes her the
least is the group that votes the most and the group that is the most
likely to vote for her is the group that votes the least.
i.e.: single females, particularly single moms.

On 2007-10-22 11:54:47 -0700, Jim Logajan said:

C J Campbell wrote:
On 2007-10-21 22:44:53 -0700, Jim Logajan said:
Beats me. According to you the powerless party I've been throwing
away my vote on also isn't what I thought it was.

It certainly is not what it used to be. The party that preserved the
Union, industrialized the North, abolished slavery, and opened the
borders to trade is now talking about protectionist trade barriers and
reduced to fretting over stem cells and illegal aliens.

Clarification needed: I vote for Libertarian candidates when they are on
the ballet and the candidate is also not a goof (no party appears immune to
these sorts). Otherwise I elect not to vote on anyone for a given office if
I don't like any of the candidates.

So the "powerless" party I meant is the Libertarian party, not Republican.

Well, you know the Libertarians are far from 'powerless.' But there are
too many issues where they have their own special social interest
groups that are actually working for *more* government regulation, not
less. Particularly here in Washington State, the Libertarians can get a
little strange sometimes, like the French Anarchists who rioted when
the government proposed relaxing some union regulations. Those are some
bourgeois anarchists they got there in France... but I digress. We have
bourgeois Libertarians.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor