![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Jay Honeck posted:
Sure -- the ONE time in my life I want to fly to Superior, WI, in the middle of absolutely no where Wisconsin, to visit the Bong Museum (BOTH kids are at camp -- heh, heh) -- and the President of the United States chooses TODAY to visit Duluth, MN. Right across the bridge from Superior... It's a no-fly zone till later tonight... I really don't understand the presidential TFRs at all. What is the objective? Of all the presidents that have been assassinated, as well as all attempted assasinations, none have involved aircraft of any kind. Indeed, if one wanted to maximize the chances of success, GA is not a very good option. Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist? Neil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:08:00 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist? They exist to provide the illusion that the SS is able to actually do something to protect the leader of the free world from harm. It's a CYA thing, in my opinion. Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current office holder... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:08:00 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote: Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist? They exist to provide the illusion that the SS is able to actually do something to protect the leader of the free world from harm. It's a CYA thing, in my opinion. Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current office holder... Didn't Hitler also have the SS? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:48:40 +0100, "CB"
wrote: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 15:08:00 GMT, "Neil Gould" wrote: Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist? They exist to provide the illusion that the SS is able to actually do something to protect the leader of the free world from harm. It's a CYA thing, in my opinion. Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current office holder... Didn't Hitler also have the SS? http://members.tripod.com/~goodwin_2/law.html |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Larry Dighera wrote:
Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current office holder. I'll vote for Kerry if in the first 90 days he does away with TFRs, and comes out whole heartedly and irrevocably in favor of a 10% flat tax on all income corporate and personal, with zero deductions and no such thing as a joint return. Until then he'd better not catch fire, 'cause I'm no jaywalker. -- Jack "Cave ab homine unius libri" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , Jack
wrote: I'll vote for Kerry if in the first 90 days he does away with TFRs, and comes out whole heartedly and irrevocably in favor of a 10% flat tax on Kerry to be irrevocably in favor of anything? you have GOT to be kidding!! -- Bob Noel |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Bob Noel wrote:
Kerry to be irrevocably in favor of anything? you have GOT to be kidding!! Naturally. -- Jack "Cave ab homine unius libri" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
pull that off and I'll vote for you........
"Jack" wrote in message ... Larry Dighera wrote: Of course, the reality is, like many things governmental, largely ineffective. Over 3,000 square miles of restricted airspace surrounding the US President is absurd, but then so is the current office holder. I'll vote for Kerry if in the first 90 days he does away with TFRs, and comes out whole heartedly and irrevocably in favor of a 10% flat tax on all income corporate and personal, with zero deductions and no such thing as a joint return. snip------ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 16:50:35 -0500, Jack wrote:
comes out whole heartedly and irrevocably in favor of a 10% flat tax on all income corporate and personal, with zero deductions and no such Corporations pay no taxes. They just collect them from you and me and pass them along to the government. Corporate taxation is double taxation on the customers of the corporation. They pass the cost of their taxes on to us in the form of higer prices. US Corporations should not be taxed AT ALL. And the collary is that there should be no corporate welfare, subsidies, or bailouts. D |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Neil Gould wrote:
I really don't understand the presidential TFRs at all. What is the objective? The logic is something like: If the only aircraft in this area are those that shouldn't be here, it's easier for us to identify the "bad guys." Of all the presidents that have been assassinated, as well as all attempted assasinations, none have involved aircraft of any kind. Indeed, if one wanted to maximize the chances of success, GA is not a very good option. Is there any logical reason why these TFRs exist? Logic to rational aviation-savvy voters? No. Logic to aviation-ignorant voters? Absolutely. Just ask a friend of yours whose only concept of aviation is having to stand in line to empty all metal from pockets and step through the cattle gates of the commercial airport what they think of the DC ADIZ and the ability of VFR pilots to fly almost anywhere they want (outside the ADIZ, that is) without talking to anybody. Sure, those being protected by these roaming TFRs are elected officials (for the most part) and nominally work for us (the relative few who actually bother to vote). Contrary to what some will have you believe, though, the occupant of the White House has no input into this process. It's the security bureaucracy that makes this call - and they don't report to the electorate. See the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC for a previous example under a different political party. The security folks take their job - protecting the *office*, not the person - very seriously. Unfortunately, we're suffering the side-effects of their vigor. The fact remains that there is a limit to the amount of security you can install to protect a place or person. While the flight restricted zone and ADIZ over Washington greatly restricts the number of planes over the city, it's still possible for one of those planes or even an intruder to make it downtown before any response can be mounted (see the recent brouhaha involving the governor of Kentucky). And that's just airborne threats. The next time you're in town, pay attention to all the trucks that are allowed within yards of any number of government agencies and facilities (including the Capitol, Supreme Court, Smithsonian museums, and even the White House). You can't protect against all threats and your job is greatly complicated when facing somebody willing to die to achieve their goal. However, those tasked with protecting the President have to "Do Something" to help their cause - and the roaming TFRs are part of the answer. The cynic in me says that they're not so much protecting against threats to their charge as much as protecting their own butts from us in case their charge is successfully attacked. Congress would mount an investigation and there would be public calls for heads on pikes for "dereliction of duty." Keep in contact with your elected officials to remind them how ridiculous these flight restrictions are. Don't forget to mention that not one terrorist attack has been mounted or even attempted (as far as I know) with general aviation aircraft. Try to remind your aviation-ignorant associates that their SUV, mini-van or even their family sedan can cause more destruction than a typical GA airplane. While doing all this, please remember to check for and abide by NOTAMs. ![]() -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
presidential TFR - 3,291 statute miles square! | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 47 | June 15th 04 06:08 PM |
Puget Sound TFRs reduced in size - charted here | David H | Owning | 3 | January 10th 04 06:01 AM |
New Year's Eve / Day TFRs 2003 / 2004 | Guy Elden Jr. | Piloting | 10 | January 1st 04 11:55 PM |
What is the reasoning behind the smaller radius vice presidential TFR? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 38 | November 19th 03 04:04 PM |
Presidential TFRs | G.R. Patterson III | Piloting | 29 | November 3rd 03 01:21 PM |