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

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.


"Marc Adler" wrote in message
ups.com...
| 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
|

On Nov 14, 5:18 pm, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans. The Republicans had their turn,
made a mess of it, and now the Democrats are at the plate. They won't
do any better, but in any case this kind of partisan political debate
isn't useful. People seem more interested in defeating the other party
(whichever that may be) than defeating the forces that are against the
US.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

Sounds pretty paranoid. There aren't going to be any attacks in a few
weeks.

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.

Nothing wrong with that.

Marc

On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler"
wrote:


I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans.

To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
being President Bush.

In the Congress, the GOP did control the House, but has never had a
working majority in the Senate. They did get to chair committees, but
there were always enough RINOS (Republicans In Name Only) like Snow,
Chafee, Hagel and others on any issue to prevent a successful
legislative agenda in Congress.

Likewise, thought a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court were
appointed by Republicans, most were confirmed by Democrat controlled
Senates and previous Presidents didn't even try, after Bork, to
appoint a Justice who stuck to original intent in interpreting the
Constitution as that does not pass the Democrat litmus test on Roe V
Wade. (You could argue whether the principles of Roe are correct, but
there is no rational argument that the decision was not legislation
from the bench) So, in effect, only Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts
are Justices as the GOP would choose them. The rest are either far
left liberals like Ginsburg or White or RINO justices like Souter and
Kennedy. There has never been an original intent Supreme Court in our
lifetimes.

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

Recently, Don Tabor posted:

On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler"
wrote:

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans.

To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
being President Bush.

[...]

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

Neil

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:58:52 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

No one's policies got implemented. Hardly anything at all has gotten
done other than bipartisan pork barrel spending.

Go ahead, name one major domestic program change since the original
tax cuts.

Social Security Reform died. Renewed offshore and inshore oil
exploration blocked. Medicare reform replaced by a prescription drug
program that was more than the GOP wanted but less than they feared
Dems might get if they didn't pass it. Fundamental tax reform studied
to death and nothing done.

The last 4 years have been little more than housekeeping with no major
programs advanced beyond committee.

Don

DonSideB

Build a man a fire and you keep him warm for a day,
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
Recently, Don Tabor posted:

On 14 Nov 2006 16:18:53 -0800, "Marc Adler"
wrote:

I don't know how you can blame the Democrats since all three branches
of govt were dominated by Republicans.

To be fair, the GOP only really controlled the executive branch. That
being President Bush.

[...]

So, the GOP has its sins to pay for, but to claim they ever had a free
hand to implement their policies is ludicrous.

Just whose policies _were_ implemented, given that the Democrats couldn't
even get their policies presented for a vote? Get real.

Neil



A *******ization of the two which is pretty much what our government has
been since, well, forever.

Recently, Jim Macklin posted:

And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the Democrats
to support the President and the troops took a back seat to
regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost the
war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
Congress.

Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here in
a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
President?

BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless office
since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can fight a
war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
support.

You do realize that it's dangerous to fly with that stuff you're drinking,
don't you?

Neil

Truth serum?



"Neil Gould" wrote in message
t...
| Recently, Jim Macklin
posted:
|
| And let's not forget, the promises of 9/12 by the
Democrats
| to support the President and the troops took a back seat
to
| regaining power. Five years of Democrat politics lost
the
| war and won the Democrats back, marginally, the power in
| Congress.
|
| Will the people realize this when the attacks begin here
in
| a few weeks or will they blame Bush because he is the
| President?
|
| BTW, the President has been pretty much a powerless
office
| since the Budget Acts in 1970-72. The President can
fight a
| war for only a few days and then must seek Congressional
| support.
|
| You do realize that it's dangerous to fly with that stuff
you're drinking,
| don't you?
|
| Neil
|
|