Hillary's Amendment

Martin Hotze wrote:

why don't omit "GA" and let the big airliners have the fight?

They've already tackled that situation. Now certain people want to impose the
same restrictions on small aircraft.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

BlueSkyzz wrote:

Matt Barrow wrote:

"BlueSkyzz" wrote in message
...

john smith wrote:


You get rid of one, and another pops up!

http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_0...senate_03.html

Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup - this is
rec.aviation.piloting,


PILOTING!!!

How would this,

"A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."

...be off topic?

Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.

Political insinuations.....like your not-thinly-vailed reference to gasoline
prices and a REGIME? Apparently your dissuasion from political insinuations is
quite maleable, dependent on whose politics might be discussed.




not alt.bash.hillary.


Truth hurts, huh?

LOL! Guess you'll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won't you?
And you're obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
regime.

Huh? One post ago you were saying, "Please KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF THIS
NEWSGROUP" (emphasis added) immediately after somebody pointed out that the Jr.
Senator from NY has filed a very anti AVIATION amendment in the US Senate. Two
paragraphs ago you were heavily objecting to "political insinuations." Now you
suddenly morph from your "keep your politics out" tune to referring to certain
"connections to the current regime."

I'm curious, who is this regime you speak of, and would said regime happen to
include the aforementioned Senator who I believe did vote for many things,
including authorizing certain activities in the middle eastern region of the
world.

Ah well, ignorance is bliss... :-)

Oh Blue, do educate us, the little people, who aren't worthy to understand your
great teachings and important objections to pointing out anything political,
unless it is political speech approved by . . . . you.

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:

"Clinton's amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."

In theory, this doesn't sound all bad. We've been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.

Right. Well this is admittedly a wild-assed guess, but I would suppose
the "conclusions" of such a study are already known quite clearly.

"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you believe that, you're a bigger fool than me.

The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
do anything.

The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
their opponents by being able to implement any changes.

Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.

Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
pro-GA.


Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.

One more reason to move away from the east coast.

The Cival War is still going. It has shifted from North vs. South.
Damn east and west coast Yankee politics pulling at the good ole boys
in the middle.

cjcampbell wrote:
One more reason to move away from the east coast.

Other way 'round. You can't vote against them if you don't live here, and even
if you live in Iowa, you're stuck with the consequences of they way they vote on
issues. Want to change things, move here.

Of course, about the only thing that'll get Lautenberg out of the picture is death.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

George Patterson wrote:
cjcampbell wrote:

One more reason to move away from the east coast.


Other way 'round. You can't vote against them if you don't live here,
and even if you live in Iowa, you're stuck with the consequences of they
way they vote on issues. Want to change things, move here.

Nah, sorry. It's like the Israelis and Palestinians fighting for the
most god forsaken ****ty land there is. You want to live that way go
right ahead. The only TFR's we worry about out here are the summer
forest fires and the occasional Presidential visit.

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
.. .


Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.

What a disgusting puke!

My bet: McCain doesn't run AGAINST Hillary in '06, he runs WITH her
(especially if he doesn't get the Repub nomination).

Newps wrote:

TheÂ*onlyÂ*TFR'sÂ*weÂ*worryÂ*aboutÂ*outÂ*hereÂ*are Â*theÂ*summer
forest fires and the occasional Presidential visit.

They can mandate that your airports spend enough money on security that they
close. They can tack user fees onto...well, anything ("flushing pending
while we weigh your excrement for tax purposes; please stand by").

Perhaps the time of regional elections for national office should be past.

- Andrew