Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:%p02c.118319$Xp.530159@attbi_s54...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word
or
concept of duty.

You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
_IS_ DUTY.


I'm just responding to this small section as an example - I'm too bored of
this thread to do more.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the
individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
\Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It. altrui of or to
others, fr. L. alter another.] Regard for others, both natural and moral;
devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to
egoism or selfishness. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.

Uh, huh! Ol' John Stuart Mill...a blatent collectivist. Pretty sick.

I know you will find some reason to believe the dictionaries are wrong,
but
when you decide words have a different meaning than the dictionaries'
definition it makes it pretty hard for anyone to communicate.

When I want a definition, I go to the person who coined the word and see the
entire context. That's what INTELLECT is.

Back to your evasions...and your stereotype...just like we'd said.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:%p02c.118319$Xp.530159@attbi_s54...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:WtU1c.46160$PR3.957908@attbi_s03...

There is nothing in the definition of altruism that includes the word
or
concept of duty.

You might look up Augusta Comte, the guy who coined the phrase. Altruism
_IS_ DUTY.


I'm just responding to this small section as an example - I'm too bored of
this thread to do more.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
al·tru·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ltr-zm)
n.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the
individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
\Al"tru*ism\, n. [F. altruisme (a word of Comte's), It. altrui of or to
others, fr. L. alter another.] Regard for others, both natural and moral;
devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to
egoism or selfishness. [Recent] --J. S. Mill.

Since the "Self" and the "mind" are essentially the same, your seem to find
honor in mindlessness.

"Thus state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the

ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first

premise for every truly human culture..." Adolf Hitler, _Mein_Kampf_


Maybe thiswill give you some appreciation of why tyranny in the 20th century
was so brutal.


I know you will find some reason to believe the dictionaries are wrong,
but
when you decide words have a different meaning than the dictionaries'
definition it makes it pretty hard for anyone to communicate.

As said, I'd rather refer to the person who coined the word that a
dictionary. It's the intellectually honest thing to do. Nonetheless, as
shown above, you demonstrate better than I ever could exactly where the
liberals stand.

Now, let me conclude by saying if your want to accept responsibility for
someone you have no control over (I expect you didn't run your business that
way), be my guest, that's your right (not a "privilege"), but don't expect
everyone else to engage your own guilt trip -- for that I suggest you confer
with your parents if they are still with us.

Tom
--
"Don’t bother to examine a folly—
ask yourself only what it accomplishes. . . .
It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice,
there’s someone collecting sacrificial offerings
.. . . . The man who speaks to you of sacrifice,
speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to
be the master."

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 15:49:24 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote in Message-Id:
8k12c.121722$4o.162208@attbi_s52:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .


On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote in Message-Id:
GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53:

Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that
the Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple
and obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.

So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
the TRUTH not dogma.

What is so hard about this?

Mmm... Your inability to think outside the box?

Why would you think I would salute Hitler?

Given your espoused adherence to translational convention, I just
thought you might salute the leader of your country if you had been a
German citizen during his reign. Would you have?

Are you equating the Office of the President with the Chancellor of the Third
Reich?

Are/were not the holders of both offices the leaders of their
respective countries?

I never said every office deserves respect - I was, and am, pretty
specific. The Office of the President of the United States deserves respect.

So you have no respect for the offices of the leaders of the other
nations of the world? Only the USA?

It [respect for the office of President of the USA] is part of the traditions
and institutions of our country.

Given that sort of reasoning, you must condone the burning of witches?
The ownership of slaves? Illegal internment of US citizens during
time of war? Com'on man, think for yourself; don't swallow the dogma
without question.

Within the civil confines of that respect we get to work for and vote for a new leader.

The leader works for the citizenry. You've got it backwards.

Seems like a pretty good system to me.

Ummm...

CriticalMass wrote in message ...
airbourne56 wrote:

"John T" wrote in message

True, which might make all of the presidential TFRs tolerable if he
was traveling on the business of the United States of America. The
trip, however, was primarily or solely for political fund raising
purposes. Given how intrusive it is when he travels, he should step up
and make the sacrifice of staying home unless he has to travel on real
business.


I see.

So, *any* President of the United States should "stay home" (where the
hell is that?) if the proposed travel doesn't meet *your* definition of
"real business"?

Exactly. That's great that you got my point so clearly. Without
digressing into a discussion about the corruption of a political
system of financial orgy, if current airspace security requirements
dictate that large swaths of airspace have to be closed down when the
president travels, then travel that is for the sole purpose of
political fundraising should end--no matter the political party of the
president.

The official residence of the President of the United States is the
White House. It's in Washington, D.C. Perhaps you've heard of it?

I distinguished "real business" from political fund raising. Political
fund raising is not the business of the United States of America.
Having airplanes grounded, businesses disrupted, innocent pilots
busted, and travel in the air and on the ground stopped simply so a
politician can raise more money is not an act of sacrifice in a time
of war (not my definition), it's political business as usual.


Or are we still trying to smear "Baby Bush", and haircuts on the LAX
tarmac are A-OK with us good-ole boys with our collective heads on straight?

There is no "we." No liberal conspiracy, no pointy-headed elite, and
no attempt to smear anyone. Just a person with an opinion--like lots
of other people who post here. I must say that tiresome resurrections
of an event that occurred many years ago--as outrageous as it might
have been--seem to reveal a rather hypocritical proclivity to "smear."

That's my recollection as well. I recall thinking it odd that a
prohibited area remained even after Bush Sr. left office.

You know why the prohibited area wasn't removed? Because even then the
power elite of the Republican party knew that they would install Bush
Jr. into office, but only after letting Clinton stay in office for
eight years leading to such a level of disgust that Bush Jr. would
seem like an improvement. With their keen eye for fiscal
responsibility, same Republican elite secretly arranged with the FAA
to keep the prohibited area to save on chart printing costs.




David Reinhart wrote in message ...
I'm not sure about that. I live in Massachusetts and I seem to remember that
Maine P area being around for a long time. Anybody got some really old
sectionals around?

Dave Reinhart



C J Campbell wrote:

"Saryon" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:27:34 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:

No TFRs have been placed around the homes of retired Presidents. I wonder
what you and Larry and the other crybabies will say when Kerry gets his
TFR?

There's a prohibited area Kennebunkport, Maine (P-67) - 1000' high,
2nm diameter, expanded by TFR every time George W. comes and visits
his family. Is that prohibited area there because of George Bush Sr.
or Jr.? If we're not doing it for all ex-Presidents, why is this one
any more special than others? I wasn't flying when it was set up so I
honestly don't know the answer.


It is there because the current President is there frequently, just as there
is a TFR around his home in Crawford even when he isn't there.

airbourne56 wrote:

That's my recollection as well. I recall thinking it odd that a
prohibited area remained even after Bush Sr. left office.

You know why the prohibited area wasn't removed? Because even then the
power elite of the Republican party knew that they would install Bush
Jr. into office, but only after letting Clinton stay in office for
eight years leading to such a level of disgust that Bush Jr. would
seem like an improvement. With their keen eye for fiscal
responsibility, same Republican elite secretly arranged with the FAA
to keep the prohibited area to save on chart printing costs.

The prohibited area only goes from the surface to 1000 feet, and is hardly a terrible burden. Presidents
are eligilble for secret service protection for their remaining lifetime, and apparently this is part of
the deal. When the Clintons bought property in Chapauqua, they were (according to press reports at the
time) trying to get a "no-fly zone" (aka prohibited area). However their house is very close to the
approach to one of the White Plains runways, and it would have caused major problems at that busy
airport. They backed down on this one, but don't have to worry about loitering snooping aircraft either.

"Ted" wrote in message


Presidents are eligilble for secret
service protection for their remaining lifetime, and apparently this
is part of the deal.

"Were". Clinton is the last President to receive such protection. Bush 43
and later Presidents will not have lifetime Secret Service protection after
leaving office.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Really, it's a privilege of happening to be born in a particular
geographic location. Due to immigration laws, it is very difficult to
choose what country you will live in - it requires considerable effort.
I know - I've done it. It was hard enough to be allowed to live in the
United States for 7 years even with the backing of one of the biggest
employers in the US (IBM). Many countries are much harder to live in by
choice due to immigration restrictions. If you happen to come from the
wrong country, it may be practically impossible to choose to live in the
United States (or Britain, or France, or Australia...) simply because of
your place of birth - something over which you have no choice.

Personally, I learned at a very young age that I
was very lucky to be born in Britain. The vast majority of the world's
population doesn't get the lucky break to be born in a country like
Britain, the United States or other countries with similar societal
construction. The vast majority of the world's population is unlucky
enough to be born in oppressive and/or states of great poverty compared
to the west.

This isn't a commentary on whether this is right or wrong by the way -
just a commentary on how it is.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Really, it's a privilege of happening to be born in a particular
geographic location.

Don't confuse "circumstance" with "consequence".

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article , Tom Sixkiller wrote:
You're living the the USA is your RIGHT, not a priviledge.

Due to immigration laws, it is very difficult to
choose what country you will live in - it requires considerable effort.

Immigration is a priviledge, not a right.

I know - I've done it. It was hard enough to be allowed to live in the
United States for 7 years even with the backing of one of the biggest
employers in the US (IBM). Many countries are much harder to live in by
choice due to immigration restrictions. If you happen to come from the
wrong country, it may be practically impossible to choose to live in the
United States (or Britain, or France, or Australia...) simply because of
your place of birth - something over which you have no choice.

As above.

Personally, I learned at a very young age that I
was very lucky to be born in Britain.

Yet you left and are trying to stay here, right?

The vast majority of the world's
population doesn't get the lucky break to be born in a country like
Britain, the United States or other countries with similar societal
construction. The vast majority of the world's population is unlucky
enough to be born in oppressive and/or states of great poverty compared
to the west.

Living in the USA as a naturla born citizen is a right. A right cannot be
taken away. Immigration is a privildge, which is why an immigrant can be
deported, but a natural born citizen cannot.

This isn't a commentary on whether this is right or wrong by the way -
just a commentary on how it is.

Just remember: privileges can be revoked, whether it's flying an aircraft,
driving a car or staying up late when you're a kid.

Further more; the USA _RECOGNIZES_ rights as inherent in human beings. These
are called NEGATIVE rights (rights FROM...not RIGHTS _TO_). Another
*******ization of the word "rights" is "States Rights" -- governments have
POWERS...not rights; only individuals have rights, not groups of
individuals, or any other collection of people. In a group you neither gain
(politically preferred groups), nor lose rights (wealthy, smokers,
pilots...).