It was really close...

Did we all pass teach?

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Alright Matt!!,
I am impressed with the history buffs in the newsgroup! I thank you sir
for taking mine and Dave's history lesson even further....

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Very well said,
Sometimes we only see the part of history we chose to see.
Lincoln
had
the entire Maryland State Legislature arrested and never charged with
a
crime....just to keep them from voting for or against secession.
Numerous
newspaper owner/editors were arrested because they expressed the
thought
that the Constitution allowed for secession..as a few northestern
states
had
threathened many a time. I didn't agree with Lincoln throwing the
Constitution out of the window then, and I don't agree with doing it
now
either.
Lincoln started a very bad trend of the Federal Government having
all
of
the power,...and to this day we are at the mercy of the Federal
Government.
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers have been disgusted at us since
1861
.

Actually not. Some of the founding fathers, such as Jefferson, wanted
a
very limited federal government

Actually MOST wanted minimalist government. It wasn't until 1860 that
the
trend reversed entirely. Prior ot that the only ones wanting BIG
government
were the ones who were feeding at the trough.

and others wanted a federal government even
larger and more intrusive than what we have now.

Most noticably Hamilton and Clinton (George, not Bubba).

Don't forget also some of
the founding fathers wanted a monarchy.

Hamilton again, and they were not the majority and were pretty much of
of
the "limelight" by 1800.

Patrick Henry wanted a theocracy, and by that, he was pretty much a "has
been" shortly after his "Give Me Liberty" speech.


The end result was a compromise but
the Jeffersonian minimalist have over the centuries been losing ground
to
the bigger is better types.

It really took hold with Lincoln (a Hegelian) and then with Marx and the
"Progressives". People lapped it up thinking they were going to dig into
the
deep pockets and the govt was more than happy to oblige.

"Jose" wrote in message
...
DC has in fact restricted traffic flow around the WH and
Capitol buildings significantly.

I would also restrict flight through the White House and the Capitol
buildings.

Prohibit politicians from the White House and Capitol and all is solved.
:-

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:J96he.2087

Is there a precedent for baby buggies flying into the White House lawn
or
into the Pentagon?

They have been used in other countries and in an area that is off limits
to
motor vehicles they would be a very efficient means of delivery.

They should clearly restrict all access to Washington DC then. American
government is more important than tourism.

-c

Get rid of the government and keep the tourists. Tourists contribute to the
economy, government hinders the economy therefore making a tourist more
important than a politician.

"KayInPA" wrote in message

if you were in a building and were told simply that an airplane was
heading at it,
you'd most likely exit the building as well.

At least, I would.

Yes, but hopefully not with an pompous attitude towards others also
trying to exit the building.

You are absolutely correct. You'd think the heroes who are sending people
like my brother off to fight in Iraq would have slowed down to HELP the
tourists out of harm's way. Not complain that they got in the way.

Reminds me of a B-17 crash report I read once. The flight engineer was
knocked to the deck in the impact and the pilots ran right over the top of
him to escape the airplane. Somehow he found a polite way to describe being
walked over in the incident report.

-c

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:_g9he.2191

Get rid of the government and keep the tourists. Tourists contribute to
the
economy, government hinders the economy therefore making a tourist more
important than a politician.

LOL! Yeah, but now you're starting to make sense, and that's not a
supported feature of Washington DC.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:_g9he.2191

Get rid of the government and keep the tourists. Tourists contribute to
the
economy, government hinders the economy therefore making a tourist more
important than a politician.

LOL! Yeah, but now you're starting to make sense, and that's not a
supported feature of Washington DC.

-c

Sorry!

"gatt" wrote in message
...
People can play logical soccer with the issue all they want, but the
airspace is closed, any legitimate pilot in America knows the airspace is
closed, it's damned difficult to get lost in the DC area and fighters were
scrambled to either deter or destroy the aircraft.

So far, so good.

As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let
pilots
run amok over Washington DC.

Sorry, you lose there. Your claim is far from a foregone conclusion.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message

As it should be. There's no particular reason at this point to let
pilots run amok over Washington DC.

Sorry, you lose there. Your claim is far from a foregone conclusion.

Peter, there's a war going on.

Despite the 2nd Amendment, we don't let people carry guns and grenades on
airplanes either.

-c

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message ...

front-page news grabber screw-up does not guarantee certificate action.

Marco



Actually, it is pretty amazing how little coverage this has had here in Michigan. You have to really dig to find
anything about it...

"gatt" wrote in message ...

People can play logical soccer with the issue all they want, but the
airspace is closed,



Actually, it is a ADIZ. You can get clearance. Tough, but you can....