Presidential TFR @ Kill Devil Hills

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:rCqEb.29251$pY.19294@fed1read04...

Okay I think I see your sentiments, you're looking for a fight.
You will not find one here.


I know, you've made it clear that you're not about to support any of your
statements.

In article aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're
on
a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.

normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts.

--
Bob Noel

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 11:04:07 -0600, Gig Giacona wrote:

Why do you want AOPA to take notes for you. It wouldn't be used in court it
was all hearsay.

Not in court, for the next program they create, or to expound on it to the
police. They need to get training material for the police, and this would
fall right into that category, i.e. when you notice a guy in a plane with
a key jammed into the ignition and lock picks on him, plus a porta potty
next to the plane, hold the guy for questions.

That's what AOPA should be working on, more training for police and how to
spot thieves about to steal or have already stolen a plane. This would
have been a good example. AOPA could have led the training for police,
that's what I'm saying, they could have used this to create a better
program, not for law enforcement, not for court, not for justice. For a
program like the airport watch, but for law enforcement.

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:18:38 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're on
a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.

That's not how it's done, nor how it should be done. Postings should be
trimmed enough to get the point you're making across.

in article , Rob Perkins at
wrote on 12/18/03 9:55 AM:

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:51:43 GMT, Philip Sondericker
wrote:

in article , Rob Perkins at
wrote on 12/16/03 9:07 PM:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 02:12:49 GMT, Philip Sondericker
wrote:

Are you able to cite a single instance of CNN, ABC, et al ever calling the
President "dumb"?

"He lacks gravitas"

Rob

He lacks seriousness?

Closest I could come. CNN, ABC, et al don't *ever* call the President
"dumb", they let partisan toadies ("analysts" and "contributors") do
it for them.

Rob

I still haven't heard anyone on any of those channels call him dumb.

Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.


The Supreme Court reads the entire Constitution differently, but it's still
pretty clear nontheless.

Catch 22. The Constitution says what the Supremes say it does.

If you can get Bush to appoint you, and the Democrats not to
fillibuster you, you can begin to move the interpretation in your
direction, but it's unlikely to happen in my lifetime.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago.
At the
time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

(Which was in error (primarily because the defense NEVER SHOWED UP), as it
was known as a "Trench Broom" in WW1 and has extensive use in the SA War.

Miller has got to be one of the most bogus SC cases of all time.)

SCOTUS?

Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1,36 (1998)

Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 124-125 (1998).

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S.___, ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365 (1997).

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 307 (1994)

... to name just a few!


Could you give us the Reader's Digest version of those cases?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 23:55:58 GMT Bob Noel wrote:

In article aBqEb.29249$pY.23641@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

I never know what you're talking about, too much clipping. Maybe you're
on
a dial-up, I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.

normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts.


Not if your reply requires the context of the original post.


R. Hubbell


--
Bob Noel

In article L8NEb.31174$pY.17564@fed1read04, "R. Hubbell"
wrote:

I don't know but I like the luxury of the complete post.

normal netiquette is to trim quoted posts.

Not if your reply requires the context of the original post.

few replies do.

--
Bob Noel

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:L8NEb.31174$pY.17564@fed1read04...

Not if your reply requires the context of the original post.


If you need more context than the average user review the thread.