Will the new government have any effect on GA?

The news media is talking about the Iraq Study Group and
saying that part of the "new plan for Iraq" is to get Iran
and Syria to "help." What nonsense. Iran has won, why
would they change now?

Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous and
soon we will have a real world war being fought with nuclear
weapons and chemicals.

For those who do not know the history, the USA won the Viet
Nam war and had a peace treaty signed in Paris. But the
Congress was supposed to support the South. But the first
time a vote came up for money to supply food, medicines and
ammunition to the South, Congressional Democrats refused to
support the treaty obligation.
A few weeks later the North rolled their tanks into Saigon
[ Ho Chi Min City].

The American people have elected a Congress that promised to
do the same thing again. Adolph Hitler is laughing, Osama
is smiling and the western world is asleep.



"LWG" wrote in message
...
|I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal
belief that any
| problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really
mean my and your)
| dollars, and 2) with more legislation. So we have 20,000
plus gun laws.
| Still have a problem? Just pass some more. Lather, rinse
repeat. Have
| problems with terrorists hijacking airliners? Have every
GA pilot file a
| flight plan in the ADIZ. Still worried? Ban GA flights
over Chicago.
|
| Most of this is feel good nonsense for soccer moms who
don't have the
| inclination or ability to use reason. Washington DC's gun
laws forbid
| anyone not named Carl Rowan from personal possession of a
handgun, but you'd
| better watch where you walk after dark. "Shall issue"
jurisdictions have
| shown a decrease in gun violence because while criminals
aren't particularly
| moral creatures, they aren't stupid. If I am going to prey
upon others, do I
| want to choose one who I know will be unarmed, or one who
might be able to
| fight back?
|
| The ADIZ stuff has been beaten to death here and
elsewhere. It's now mostly
| just a trap for the unwary and unlucky. I believe it adds
nothing to the
| safety of GA pilots or our earthbound bretheren. But it
sure makes you pay
| attention to the health and well-being of your
transponder.
|
| As for the election, I think this is the beginning of the
end of America's
| leadership role in world affairs. In the next two years,
Syria and
| Hizballah will invade Israel and overthrow the government
in Lebanon, Iran
| will move to control Iraq, Turkey will also move into
northern Iraq. The
| current Iraqi leadership will move its assets to
Switzerland and abdicate.
| China will invade and take over Taiwan. The United States
and Britain will
| suffer more terrorist attacks domestically and against our
interests abroad.
| North Korea and Pakistan will provide the means. "We"
will stand by
| watching and complaining, but our rhetoric will be
unmatched in the history
| of the world.
|
|
| I never understood the connection between aviation and
guns. A good way
| to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are
also NRA
| members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very
little overlap.
|
|
|

On Nov 13, 2:49 am, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

Iran has won, why
would they change now?

Iran is in its present position of strength (but not by a long shot
could it be called a winning position) because the Neocons decided to
go after a man and a country that presented no real threat to the US.
The idea that Saddam Hussein (an atheist socialist!) could have even
wanted to help Osama bin Laden (a religious fanatic) is a joke that
only the Neocons didn't get. Ironic, but true.

They ignored Iran (already presenting a threat - its nuclear program is
not new) and North Korea (ditto), and put 90% of the US military's
might into Iraq (with disastrous consequences for all involved, but
that's another story). Any 2nd-amendment-supporting red-blooded
Americans who supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq need to
re-examine their (no doubt default) patriotism, because going into Iraq
was _not_ in the best interests of this country - economic, diplomatic,
military, or otherwise. We've succeeded in weakening our military
position in the world, we've alienated allies, we've ****ed the
national budget, and we've left ourselves exposed to nuclear threats
from countries that we could've taken care of in a second if we hadn't
wasted all that time, money, and human life in Iraq.

Could bin Laden have wished for anything more? If what the Neocons have
done isn't treason, then nothing is. George Bush may as well have taken
a list of demands from bin Laden, bowed his head, and said, "It shall
be done."

Terrorism has won, the world will become very dangerous and
soon we will have a real world war being fought with nuclear
weapons and chemicals.

That's not true - terrorism hasn't won. What would it mean for
terrorism to win, anyway? True, bin Laden has played Bush, the Neocons,
and the right in general like a piano and gotten much of what he
wanted. But you can't argue that you haven't lost any rights and say
terrorism has won - it's a contradiction. You've got most of your
rights, and you're right in believing that the fact that you're a white
male protects you from the consequences of the rights you are losing.
Unless a white male does something really stupid, like get caught
fighting alongside the Taliban, there's no way the US government will
lock him up and throw away the key. Only a major change will threaten
your inalienable right as a white male to be given preferential
treatment by the US govt. But you're arguing that a major change is
happening.

So maybe you _should_ be worried.

Marc

"LWG" wrote in message
...
I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
dollars,

By extension that could be taken to imply:

More funding for runway improvements and ATC staffing, more funding for
collision-avoidance, sheer-warning and wx determination, etc.

-c

How many soccer moms are worried about runway length (once the plane arrives
at the gate and they can get their butts out of the seat)?

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"LWG" wrote in message
...
I think the connection is demonstrated in the liberal belief that any
problem can be cured with 1) more federal (they really mean my and your)
dollars,

By extension that could be taken to imply:

More funding for runway improvements and ATC staffing, more funding for
collision-avoidance, sheer-warning and wx determination, etc.

-c

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:49:25 -0800, Andrew Sarangan wrote:
I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.

I'm an AOPA member -- mainly because I like to read the magazine, I
suspect...

I'm not an NRA member... They're a bit too liberal for my tastes...

Grumman-581 wrote:

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:49:25 -0800, Andrew Sarangan wrote:

I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good way
to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little overlap.


I'm an AOPA member -- mainly because I like to read the magazine, I
suspect...

I'm not an NRA member... They're a bit too liberal for my tastes...

That's a good one!

Unfortunately, they do more for our gun rights than any other group I
know of, liberal or otherwise.


Matt

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:30:43 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
That's a good one!

I'm totally serious...

Unfortunately, they do more for our gun rights than any other group I
know of, liberal or otherwise.

Yeah, it's kind of like they are ****ing on the forest fire and the
leftists are throwing gasoline on it...

Recently, Andrew Sarangan posted:

Jim Macklin wrote:
Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
pre-9/11 status. Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
power since seeking more power is their goal in life.
I look at a candidates position on the Second Amendment
first and aviation secondly. Support for private arms is a
great way to determine how that person will approach all
issues. IMHO.

I think we are screwed for at least 2 years.




I never understood the connection between aviation and guns. A good
way to assess this is to find out how many AOPA members are also NRA
members, or vice versa. I would guess that there is very little
overlap.

I don't personally know any pilots that don't also own a gun. Limited
sample size, and hardly random, but it leads me to the opposite guess
regarding overlap.

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Recently, Andrew Sarangan posted:

I don't personally know any pilots that don't also own a gun. Limited
sample size, and hardly random, but it leads me to the opposite guess
regarding overlap.

Probably, although I own guns and have never been an NRA member. They don't
represent me. I do however support their fundamental logic which is "Don't
pass more gun laws when you don't enforce the ones we already have."

-c

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 12:47:31 -0800, gatt wrote:
I do however support their fundamental logic which is "Don't pass more
gun laws when you don't enforce the ones we already have."

Which is why I consider them a bunch of ****in' liberals... They should
be demanding that all the laws that came after SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED be
removed since they are *all* unconstitutional...