Bush Wants To Cut FAA Budget

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:17:08 -0700, "BTIZ"
wrote in jD83d.99902$yh.97342@fed1read05::

Hang on to your hats boys, we are in for a rough ride.

Naw. There's no need to train new ATC personnel for the future. The
resulting shortage of ATC staffing will be used as justification to
enable Boeing to take over ATC operations (can you say 'user fees').
Then US ATC will be based entirely on satellite communications.
Shortly after the next inevitable solar storm, all the airline flights
in the US will fall out of the sky... :-(

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:19:05 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article jD83d.99902$yh.97342@fed1read05, "BTIZ"
wrote:

Let's just go look at what happened last week to LAX ARTCC. A computer
that
controls the communication switching has a built in self test (BIT) that
needs to be reset every 30days, a "reset" of the computer so the computer
knows it's still a computer. Some "maintenance" was not accomplished in
time
so the 30day bit timer ran out and rather than flag a warning on day 29
the
system just shuts down at the end of day 30.

The poor computer maintainer will be fired.. not the FAA higher ups that
bought the POS and approved it in the beginning.

Accepting a system with that kind of workaround is valid from
a system engineering perspective.

It's unclear to me why you use the term 'workaround' in this context.
Exactly what is being worked around? The inability of FAA to think of
a warning bell?

From an ergonomic standpoint, a system that intentionally disables a
functioning critical system, resulting in the entirely avoidable
endangerment of hundreds of human lives, is a total failure. The
individual who decided upon such a scheme should be held responsible
for the cost of the 5 Worker's Compensation claims filed as a result
of this outrageous communications outage.

Tom Fleischman wrote:

I have no problem with true conservatism. It's not an ideology that I
embrace, but I think that many of the core values of conservatism have
merit. The problem is that Bush&Co are *NOT* conservatives. They are
not even *Republicans* if you define Republican by the traditional
values that Republicanism has always stood for.

Actually, I partially agree with this. I have not been happy with a
number of Bush initiatives (or or lack-of) in the past 3.5 years (like
NOT veto-ing the feel-goood "campaign reform" bill, or spending a bazillion
more $$$$ on "education" bills [as if the federal government can actually
DO anything about education kids], more medicare spending, and total
LACK of pushing for any big government spending cuts). The fact is that
W IS doing what is needed on the terror front and is certainly much
more of a real person that Kerry is (or will ever hope to be).

The Reblican party today is sort of where the Democrat party was 35 years
ago (John Kennedy would be considered a conservative in todays world).
However... the Democrat Party is, for all practical purposes, Socialist
today. It will continue to move to the left so that one day soon it will
pop out on the right as communist.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 20:10:49 GMT, kontiki
wrote:

Tom Fleischman wrote:

Cambell, Kraus, HP...

Keep drinkin that KoolAid...

Ummm... let me guess... you're also a Hillary supporter.
And what sort of a horse**** comment is that?

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:29:46 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

Keep drinkin that KoolAid...

You realize, of course, that Jim Jones was a liberal, as were most of his
followers. I doubt you will find many conservatives drinking cyanide laced
fruit punch. Lemming behavior is a hallmark of liberalism.

that is a horse**** set of statements. Prove that Jim Jones was a
liberal, and prove that "lemming behaviour is a hallmark of
liberalism". Otherwise shut up. You are making assertions, not
arguments.

Tom Fleischman wrote:

Oh please! Your ignorance is really showing here.


Please elaborate... please describe my level of ignorance.

The fact is that W IS doing what is needed on the terror front


Bush&Co's misguided nightmare in Iraq has only served to create *more*
terrorism and make the entire world much *less* safe. That is a *fact*.

Just WHAT has Kerry done?? He was, after all, a member of the Senate
intelligence committee and did vote to approve the war in Iraq.
A year later all Kerry talks about is how Bush screwed up and how
HE will di it "better and smarter". Sure... based on his less than
stellar perfomance in the US Senate for the past 20 years I won't
jold my breath.


and is certainly much
more of a real person that Kerry is (or will ever hope to be).



I would be very interested in hearing you explain exactly what you mean
by this statement.

I mean that GW's character impresses me much more than that of John Kerry.
Most people seem to agree on that point... you being an exception of course.


I think someone should have spent a few more dollars on *your*
----------^^^^^^^ ? ? ?
education.

I paid my way through college by working. Not one single taxpayer had to
fork over a dime for my education. Please don't illustrate your arrogance
by insinuating you are somehow better educated than I am. Your posts seem
to indicate otherwise.

"Graham Shevlin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 16:29:46 -0700, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

Keep drinkin that KoolAid...

You realize, of course, that Jim Jones was a liberal, as were most of his
followers. I doubt you will find many conservatives drinking cyanide
laced
fruit punch. Lemming behavior is a hallmark of liberalism.

that is a horse**** set of statements. Prove that Jim Jones was a
liberal, and prove that "lemming behaviour is a hallmark of
liberalism". Otherwise shut up. You are making assertions, not
arguments.


Jones, who thought he was divine, founded Jonestown on the principles of
egalitarianism, communalism, and multiculturalism.

Most of these death cults seem to be especially attractive to liberals who
are seeking something to replace the spiritual emptiness in their lives.
Consequently, from the Baghwan to the tennis shoes and purple cloak crowd to
any of a number of other cults you see liberals flocking to these cult
leaders in droves.

Um, it seems to me that of all the hare-brained ideas started by congressmen
and senators (TFRs, wiener bill, etc - the majority - or all - are from
Democrats...)

Keep your political views to yourself please.

A "nightmare of an administration" was defined by the tyrant democrat Daly
in Chicago. (Aviation-related nightmares of course)



"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
It amazes me that anyone, particularly anyone in the the aviation
community, would continue to support this nightmare of an
administration.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...0916_1903.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/s...500288,00.html

On Nov. 2 let's dump this blackhearted, greedy, pathological liar,
dry-drunk blowmonkey and put a *real* pilot in the White House.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote:
They build architecturally monstrous ATC facilities that don't work right
from the day they are opened, have leaky roofs, cracks in the walls and
floors, substandard plumbing, inadequate parking, and poor security. The
moldy LA facility that they are complaining about is moldy because of
managerial negligence, not age.

The FAA budget should not only be cut, but much of the management should
be
brought up on charges for criminal dereliction of duty.

You could substitute "U. S. Military" for "FAA" in those statements with
perfect accuracy. I have plenty of experience as a contractor for both
and have found the military as bad a steward of public funds as the FAA -
and they have a lot more to spend. My favorite example is a big
pallet-load of new-in-the-box dot matrix printers still gathering dust in
a mechanical room at an Army base: it has overnight shipping labels on it.

In case you don't find that depressing enough, let me tell you that NASA
is worse than both of them.
--
They sell surplus parts at aution then buy them back as long as there in the
origanel packaging.
Dan
C172RG at BFM

You will learn a lot more by reading than you will by running your mouth!

You stated: "What he *did* vote for was a congressional resolution to give
the Prsident the power to use military force in Iraq *if* it could be shown
that Iraq posed a credible threat to the national security of the United
States."

The word "credible" is not used in the Resolution; the word used was
"continuing". Very different.

Contrary to your statement: "*if* it could be shown that Iraq posed a
credible threat to the national security of the United States" there was no
such requirement. First of all, you didn't state who had to show it, but
that is immaterial, as shown in the following text from the Resolution.

"Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital
United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq
to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'
and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the
Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations';
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the
United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf
region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist
organizations".

I think that makes it obvious that it had been that the threat had been had
been recognized in the Resolution itself. And interestingly, part of the
threat was recognized by the Democratic Clinton Administration in 1998.

The President did not have to show any threat to anyone prior to using
force, he only had to make the following notifications within 48 hours of
the exercise of said authority.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the
authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior
to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than
48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other
peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
(B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the
United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions
against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those
nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
So you will have the opportunity to properly research this matter, here's a
link to the Resolution:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c107xmN8RC::

And next time, get your facts straight!



"Tom Fleischman" wrote in message
rthlink.net...
In article , kontiki
wrote:

Tom Fleischman wrote:

Oh please! Your ignorance is really showing here.

Please elaborate... please describe my level of ignorance.


Your snip says it all...

The fact is that W IS doing what is needed on the terror front

Bush&Co's misguided nightmare in Iraq has only served to create *more*
terrorism and make the entire world much *less* safe. That is a
*fact*.

Just WHAT has Kerry done?? He was, after all, a member of the Senate
intelligence committee and did vote to approve the war in Iraq.

You've obviously been basing your opinions on fallacious information.
Kerry did *not* vote to approve "the war in Iraq". What he *did* vote
for was a congressional resolution to give the Prsident the power to
use military force in Iraq *if* it could be shown that Iraq posed a
credible threat to the national security of the United States. Bush&Co
then used cooked intelligence and *lied* about Iraq's possesion of WMD
to trigger the resolution and go in militarily.

The only thing that Kerry is guilty of is of trusting his President.

A year later

It's been *two* years since the vote was taken, numbnuts.

all Kerry talks about is how Bush screwed up and how
HE will di it "better and smarter". Sure... based on his less than
stellar perfomance in the US Senate for the past 20 years I won't
jold my breath.


Yeah, don't let facts get in the way of the disinformation you are
getting from the three-hour hate monger.


and is certainly much
more of a real person that Kerry is (or will ever hope to be).

I would be very interested in hearing you explain exactly what you
mean
by this statement.

I mean that GW's character impresses me much more than that of John
Kerry.
Most people seem to agree on that point... you being an exception of
course.


You mean the character of a guy who will willfully *lie* to the
American people so he could start a war against a country that had
*never* done anything to the U.S? You mean the character of a guy whose
sole agenda in office appears to be to steal the nations treasury and
hand it over to corporations such as Halliburton and Bechtel? Yeah, it
takes real character to kill 30,000 innocent Iraqis and over 1000 of
our own young men and women based on a lie so that your Saudi
benfactors and oil baron friends can get richer while you cut benfits
for the wounded veterans and their families who believed that they were
making a real scrifice for our country based on a pack of lies. It
speaks volumes about the quality of your education that you are
impressed by such a character.


I think someone should have spent a few more dollars on *your*
----------^^^^^^^ ? ? ?
education.

I paid my way through college by working. Not one single taxpayer had to
fork over a dime for my education. Please don't illustrate your
arrogance
by insinuating you are somehow better educated than I am. Your posts
seem
to indicate otherwise.


I guess that means that you went to only private schools and colleges.

Listen, kid. I'm done with you now. I'll just finish by saying that you
may want to think about voting for your own best interests in the
upcoming election rather than continuing to parrot all of the crap that
comes out of the mouth of the three-hour hate monger.