Will the new government have any effect on GA?

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

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.

Its like the canaries miners carried into coal mines. If the canary
croaked, it warned the miners of toxic gas. They weren't that
concerned that bird died, but they were concerned about the gases.

If the government ignores the clear intent of the Bill of Rights and
infringes on the right to bear arms, it is a warning that those in
power do not believe you have rights unless the majority agrees with
those rights.

Those who believe it is OK to deny law abiding citizens their 2nd
amendment rights because others have an irrational fear of armed
citizens (hoplophobia) will also deny you your right to fly because of
others irrational fear of airplanes used as weapons or simply out of
class envy.

The bottom line is either politicians believe in a republic with
unalienable rights or they believe in mob rule, otherwise known as
democracy.

Don


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

"Jim Macklin" writes:

Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to
pre-9/11 status.

Then aviation will never return to pre-9/11 status, as the war on
terror is an illusory one that can be sustained indefinitely, like the
war on Eastasia or Eurasia. Of course, that was the idea all along.

Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
power since seeking more power is their goal in life.

Politicians in general never return power unless forced to do so, no
matter what their party affiliation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Then aviation will never return to pre-9/11 status, as the war on
terror is an illusory one that can be sustained indefinitely, like the
war on Eastasia or Eurasia. Of course, that was the idea all along.

Furthermore, the Democrats rarely return
power since seeking more power is their goal in life.

Politicians in general never return power unless forced to do so, no
matter what their party affiliation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
the time. And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
every day.

Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.

Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
the Democrats here.

Skylune out.

Skylune writes:

Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
the time.

Those attacks were much more damaging psychologically than in any
other way, which was precisely the intent. Terrorists don't have the
means to do much real damage, so they have to settle for spectacular
and isolated incidents and rely on the resulting hysteria to do their
work for them. If they had the means to do real damage themselves,
they'd be military forces, not terrorists. Organizations with
established military forces don't need terrorists.

And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
every day.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in the United States since
2001?

Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.

I wish that were true.

Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
the Democrats here.

The flavors of censorship are different, but the trends are
unfortunately the same. But the people are kept afraid, so that they
never question the loss of liberty.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Skylune writes:

Sorry all, for the brief return visit. MX's allusion to Orwell's book
might work a bit better had it not been for the 9/11/01 terrorist
attacks, which were not illusory to those of us who worked in NYC at
the time.

Those attacks were much more damaging psychologically than in any
other way, which was precisely the intent. Terrorists don't have the
means to do much real damage, so they have to settle for spectacular
and isolated incidents and rely on the resulting hysteria to do their
work for them. If they had the means to do real damage themselves,
they'd be military forces, not terrorists. Organizations with
established military forces don't need terrorists.

And for the very real terrorist attacks going on elsewhere,
every day.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in the United States since
2001?

Comparing the current state of affairs to the book, "1984," where all
these fictitious wars against Eurasia and Eastasia, is kind of weird.

I wish that were true.

Funny that a guy from France talks about freedom of speech, when over
there the politicians are more afraid of offending Islamists than even
the Democrats here.

The flavors of censorship are different, but the trends are
unfortunately the same. But the people are kept afraid, so that they
never question the loss of liberty.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are fake, authored by
Winston Smith?

You believe that the 3,000 killed in the 9/11 attacks were damaged
mostly psychologically?

You believe terrorist don't have the means to do much "real damage?"

My opinion: It is good thing that you stick to simulations, and you
have a true friend in John Francois Kerry.

Skylune out (and apologies again to the others for my interloping here)

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:13:45 -0600, Jim Macklin wrote:
Only winning the war on terror will return aviation to pre-9/11 status.

But the only way to win that is to wipe every camel ****in' Bedoin off the
face of the planet... It is highly unlikely that we are willing to go to
that effort...

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.

Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
with is 'negotiable'...

Grumman-581 writes:

But the only way to win that is to wipe every camel ****in' Bedoin off the
face of the planet... It is highly unlikely that we are willing to go to
that effort...

There will always be terrorists. That's why the "war on terror" is
ideal for demagogues and potential dictators: it's a war that isn't a
war, a war that has no identifiable enemy, and best of all, it's a war
that cannot be won, so it lasts forever and justifies the eventual
elimination of all civil liberties. Goering knew this, and apparently
the current U.S. administration knows it, too.

Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
with is 'negotiable'...

Your little gun won't help you against a well-armed military. Your
best bet is to control who commands the military, not to try to fight
against it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Grumman-581" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.13.05.30.30.141581@DIE-

Yeah, I figure at as long as I have my guns, any other law I don't agree
with is 'negotiable'...

Unfortunately, the southern fireeaters pretty much thought the same. See
Edwin Ruffin.

(You'll probably have to look that one up.)

-c

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
views on GA and ATC privatization.

I'm amazed that you put GA at the top of your issues list. I don't know
where you fit into the political spectrum (nor do I really care), but
consider the following issues:

* Foreign policy
* Terrorism
* Economic policy
* Energy policy
* Abortion
* Environmental policy
* Education
* Health care

Would you have really voted for a candidate whose views on the above issues
were contrary to yours just because they supported GA?

Roy Smith wrote:
"Andrew Sarangan" wrote:
My voting decision was influenced in large part on which candidates
supported GA. I called each candidate's office and asked for their
views on GA and ATC privatization.

I'm amazed that you put GA at the top of your issues list. I don't know
where you fit into the political spectrum (nor do I really care), but
consider the following issues:

* Foreign policy
* Terrorism
* Economic policy
* Energy policy
* Abortion
* Environmental policy
* Education
* Health care

Would you have really voted for a candidate whose views on the above issues
were contrary to yours just because they supported GA?

No, I didn't say GA was the only issue. GA was one of the issues, among
others, some of which you have listed above. Others you have not listed
are the war in Iraq and political corruption.

The candidates position on these other issues are well known because
they talk about it in public, and is on their websites. You don't know
their position on GA unless you call them and ask. AOPA had a list on
their website on candidates who support GA, but I found some of that
information to be inaccurate.