Us and Them

M wrote:

A Democratic administration won't be any different. I remember Al
Gore used to be a proponent for user fee as well.

But you're right. We have no one to blame but ourselves, because we
don't fly enough hours, and we don't attract enough new GA pilots to
join our ranks.

The best thing for us to do, other than lobbying the congress, is to
start flying at least 150 hours a year. How's that for a change.

Damn, I like the way you think...


On Mar 31, 2:30 pm, Larry Dighera wrote:


Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
into office for two terms.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Jay B writes:


She could start by going out and earning her certificate.


Agreed.

In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
probably not a good idea.



Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?

Tim writes:

Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?

I receive criticism from only one direction, and the criticism is in the form
of personal attacks, rather than comments on the topics under discussion.

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

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

kontiki writes:

In case you haven't noticed, the price of *everything is going up...
oil, food, owning a home, medical care you name it. If its something
you really want you do whatever it takes to make it happen.

So you're saying that only people who want to fly more than anything
else in the world should be able to do so? Those are the only people
willing to do "whatever it takes," after all.

Apparently.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Tim writes:

Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?

I receive criticism from only one direction, and the criticism is in
the form of personal attacks, rather than comments on the topics under
discussion.


Why should you get info for free when people who really want to fly are
willing to pay for it?

Bertie

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 19:11:20 -0400, "LWG"
wrote:

The real problem is not Bush, it is the entrenched bureaucracy at CIA, State
and Justice over which he has absolutely no control (in reality). They are
undercutting him at every opportunity, and making him look like an idiot. I
have to admit, they are doing a damned good job.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Larry Dighera wrote:


Well, we have no one to blame but ourselves for voting the Bush regime
into office for two terms.

He is but a small part of the problem, and at least he'll be gone
in two years. Then we'll have another panderer to deal with for 4
more years... maybe even 8, it doesn't matter. Hey.. with a little
luck we'll get the Pandering Champion for president: Hillary Rodham.

Lordy, little scares me more than the name Clinton on the presidential
ballott, unless it's "what's her name" from California.:-))

What this country needs is term limits for members of congress and the
Senate. Until that happens nothing much will change.

We have them in Michigan. They aren't in office long enough to really
accomplish any thing and we certainly aren't the best example of a
prosperous and efficent state. Term limits are OK, but they need to
be longer than two terms.

As far as a leader of our nation (i.e. president), the last one we
had was Ronald Reagan.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger wrote:
Lordy, little scares me more than the name Clinton on the presidential
ballot, unless it's "what's her name" from California.:-))

Which one, Boxer or Pelosi?

Or perhaps you mean she-devil Schwarzeneggar? Feinstein?

Man, why are all of our women politicians so fscking crazy?

We have them in Michigan. They aren't in office long enough to really
accomplish any thing and we certainly aren't the best example of a
prosperous and efficent state. Term limits are OK, but they need to
be longer than two terms.

Our mayor just pushed through a special election for a number of
measures increasing terms and term limits of city officials, and the lot
of it is power-grab designed to keep his buddy-buddies in their
respective, and cushy, offices. There's a devilishly fine line to walk
between having limits too short, which forces everyone into short-term,
me-first goals for political prestige in higher offices, and having them
too long and keeping the pork fat employed when everyone knows it should
be trimmed.

Can't exactly recall everyone all the time; this special election alone
is slated to cost the city over a million dollars (guess it was a better
idea to do this than, y'know, hire some new police or buy the fire
department some new equipment).

TheSmokingGnu

Tim,

In any case, when there is criticism of an idea from so many quarters, it's
probably not a good idea.



Like criticism of your posts, comments and attitude?


You made my day. Thanks!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Roger wrote:


We have them in Michigan. They aren't in office long enough to really
accomplish any thing and we certainly aren't the best example of a
prosperous and efficent state. Term limits are OK, but they need to
be longer than two terms.


"not in office long enough to really do anything..." GOOD! That's what
we want. Whenever they "do" something we all get screwed.

The stock market and the economy do well when congress is not doing
anything... other then cutting spending and lowering taxes (which
hardly ever happens).

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:06:21 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

He is but a small part of the problem, ...

No. Not really.

Clinton established the fact that ATC was an inherently governmental
function, thus blocking privatization efforts and their requisite user
fees.

Bush overturned Clinton's edict to pave the way toward ATC
privatization. Now he has Blakey carrying the ATC privatization ball
in Congress.