Thrown out of an FBO...

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:26:16 GMT, Grumman-581 wrote:

you have nukes. Better use them. ... NOT.

Use 'em or lose 'em... Works for me...

I know ...

Perhaps we can convince all the
camel ****in' Bedoins to go to Mecca at the same time and then give them a

pffffffffffffffffffffffff.

couple of well placed nukes for company?

one sees that you have no idea.

Yeah, we'll have a bit of PR to
deal with,

is read it as "lying to the people". but this is nothing new.

but with a bit of work, we should be able to spin it to our
advantage...

as you always did.

The worst that can happen is that some countries will hate
us...

are there countries left that actually love you?

Oh, wait a minute... That hate us *already*... Hmmmm... Once you
look at it that way, it doesn't seem like there really is *any* downside
to it...

na. it fits to the picture just perfect. portraying 2 or 3 rednecks with a
dumb grin and writing idiotic wordings on the nuke - just before it is sent
on its way.

#m

f-up2poster
--
Enemy Combatant http://itsnotallbad.com/

Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of
bigotry.
You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you
just duck
and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that
you
are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you
cannot even
talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.

So when you are intolerant, do you not tolerate yourself?

And why cannot you tolerate someone's religion?

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

The Cessna 185 holds 92 gallons of gas. There are times that I like to take
that much fuel, like on floats into the interior of British Columbia. But
for just cruising around, I like to have FUN, and that means a light
airplane for the $200 hamburger.

I know -- we've had this discussion.

Mary and I, however, decided long ago that we simply weren't ever going
to be caught short on fuel. Every year, a number of pilots kill
themselves by running out of gas, perhaps because they were enjoying
the added performance of a light plane -- and we figure that's one risk
we can easily eliminate simply by keeping the tanks full. Since our
plane can easily haul four 200-pounders, plus 84 gallons of fuel, we
always top off the tanks after every flight.

True, it diminishes performance slightly, but (unless we're on fire) we
feel you can't have too much fuel on board...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

so what has this to do with a website? some (hotels) are small enough to
exist because of word of mouth, they don't need no friggin website.

I don't believe that's going to be true much longer. EVERYONE in the
US either books on-line, or searches on-line, nowadays.

Personally, I use the internet to find a hotel, and then I call them.
(Don't EVER stay at a hotel/motel that doesn't list their *local*
telephone number, by the way. Those national reservation call centers
are a clue that you are dealing with McSuites.)

You can always, always, ALWAYS drive a better price by talking to the
manager or owner, than you can get on-line, because he (like me) would
much rather give YOU the 15% that we have to pay the on-line booking
agencies.

And if they act like they don't know what you're talking about when you
call, they're lying, stupid, or both. (Or you're speaking with a
part-time clerk. Ask for the manager/owner.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Agreed.

Please stop.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck

Jessica Taylor wrote in
:

mike regish wrote:

Um...what about the 15 from Saudi Arabia? Now they're freakin'
everywhere?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
mike regish wrote:

Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There
are/were radical
muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
United
States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill
Americans.



You mean, the terrorists from September 11th? They are dead, Mike.
There is no point and never has been any point since Sept 11 2001 to
find them, nor has their been any point to only go after terrorists
from one country. If somebody is trying to kill you, why would only
want to find them in one country, to wit Afghanistan? When Pearl Harbor
was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and hunt them down and forget
about anything else? No! We did realize that there were other threats
out there, and we better start to deal with them, hastily. And actually
the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends in Italy,
Albania, etc. first.

Yeah, but there are some MAJOR differences between that and Iraq.

For one thing, after Pearl Harbor, the US didn't go attack Taiwan or Hong
Kong, just because the people there looked Japanese. Eventually, Japan took
both of those countries.

Iraq was focusing its energies on attacking its neighbors and killing
"dissidents" in its own country. The entire world was watching Iraq and
pressuring them, and might have eventually cooperatively taken action. But
unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, Iraq did was not a real threat at that time.
And unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, the US didn't come to the aid of its
Allies where were under attack. It unilaterally told the rest of the world
to **** off and focused all attention on an attack that really had very
little to do with destroying Al Queada - the aggressors at hand.

The result was that we lost credibility with the rest of the nations as
being hot-headed cowboys run by the Super Cowboy. We lost all credibility
with our own government and allies when it came out that there were no
WMDs. And we lost all credibility with terrorists because we never finished
the job of abolishing Al Queda and making them history.

And now they are back and looking for their next victory.

Terrorists will believe that they can attack the "All Powerful American
Heretic" and run and hide in the mountains, and we can do nothing about it
but stomp our feet and attack other Arab countries, perhaps countries that
they already despise, like Iraq. Or perhaps countries who will become their
Martyrs and help unify the Arab Nations against us.

The war in Iraq was driven by overconfidence on the part of our government,
and regardless of the fact that Saddam Hussein was personally removed and
embarrassed, we lost in a big way.

I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
mouth from another angle.

Dang, Mike, I don't know who Jessica is, either -- but I can guarantee
you that there is NO WAY I would spend so much time and effort refuting
your silly posts.

Actually, let me amend that statement. There is no way I COULD do such
a wonderful job refuting your silly posts. Her eloquence, logic, and
debate styles are clearly superior to mine, and (although I think she's
wasting her breath) I tip my hat to her for trying. She has exposed
you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I think you 2 were made for each other.

J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.
I think you got a thing for her, too.
Better not let your wife find out.

mike
..
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
oups.com...

Her eloquence, logic, and
debate styles are clearly superior to mine, and (although I think she's
wasting her breath) I tip my hat to her for trying. She has exposed
you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Likewise.

mike

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message

She has exposed
you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
--
Jay Honeck

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Gary Drescher wrote:
"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she
already
declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

Would you care to explain what you're referring to?

A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker
for a
Gay / Lesbian fundraiser.
The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not
participate in fundraisers.

Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of
the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an
impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial
Conduct? What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the
precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association
meetings (or other civic gatherings)? As far as I'm aware, such speeches are
routine and proper.

She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage.

Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall
merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians
should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties
of all people".

Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to
be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
Jews) should be equal before the law?

For similar reasons, it would be
gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear
yellow
stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
It is
gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.

No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life
would go
on.

If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it
were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement
is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe
se.

To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and
pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in
fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
assault).

I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
not
recognize said "right?"

How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples
to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?

Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition
of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.

I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
the
13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
to
make.

Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that
singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the
13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?

Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a
debate
in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this
purpose.

As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state
legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated
and defeated. The matter has been settled.

If
there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create
this
"right?"

At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor
gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators
were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that
view.)

And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and
governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.)

Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
(and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
citizens were ready to respect equal rights?

Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
AGAINST
the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"

The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How
is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)

Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her
opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme
court
would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.

Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.

Opponents of equal marriage
rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their
opinion,
which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the
majority
of the public here and by all three branches of state government.

I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive
branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative
branch?
The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a
process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay
marriage
in law).

The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and
voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment
referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage
rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide
citations.)

Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not
the
same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild
and
desperate misrepresentation.

No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened,

So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights, but does not get
to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced
(rather than just defeated)?

--Gary