If user fees go into effect I'm done

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

The US is a direct democracy? The US government cannot ignore what
the people want?

The U.S. is an _effective_ democracy. The people have a strong
influence on how the government is run, in part because the people
running the government are largely the same as the people being
governed.

I didn't know the United States had 300 million ministers.

Statutory class distinctions are nonexistent in the U.S.
for the most part, and de facto distinctions are rare compared to the
European norm.

Shut up . Oh really this is silly, you are using a very creative mix
of constantly shifting standards and equivocations to defend your
nationalist prejudices, without ever substantiating any of them. I
suggest you give up, it doesn't work.

No he isn't. He won this debate. You should probably stop before he
embarrass you even more.
That makes them a class by definition.

No, it makes them a profession.

A class means: A set of people who have a different perspective and
different interests than others sets of people. That makes them
socially different: a class. You are using a different definition of
the word "class" (or you shift it according to the prejudice you wish
to defend).

I think it helps if your name is Kennedy, Clinton or Bush, but that
was not what I was talking about anyway.

None of these familes inherited their prominence. There are no royals
in the United States, and no nobles. That's the way the country's
founders wanted it, and that's one of the things that sharply
distinguishes the U.S. from Europe.

No it doesn't. There are few countries in Europe who have nobles or
royals at all; someone who claims to know so much about the continent
ought to know such an important fact. And the few countries who do have
them do so mostly for fun, not for political functions.

--
Da wo alle dasselbe denken, wird nicht viel gedacht.

http://www.wschwanke.de/ usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

Mxsmanic,

Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.


Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
accountable for it. Freedom of speech comes with freedom of judgement -
like it or not.

That's exactly what happens here with each and every of your posts. I
can understand you don't like the results...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic,

it
only requires that they not attempt to prevent others from writing or
speaking.


Ah, you're getting back on track. And you have been prevented here
exactly how? Or even could be? Again, you have no clue what you are
talking about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert writes:

Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
accountable for it.

Not quite. Some types of "being held accountable" amount to little more than
censorship, and the only reason they do not act through prior restraint is
that the technical means of physically preventing people from uttering the
forbidden words in advance are lacking. If everyone who utters the word
"tree" is sent to prison, that's censorship; the fact that people are not
prevented from uttering it doesn't make it any less so.

Thus, banning books or burning them is censorship, even though the books have
been printed.

Of course, if you live in a place with a long and sorry distinction of
infringements upon freedom of speech continuing up to the present day, you may
not have learned of this distinction.

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

Judah wrote:

In general, I don't think it would be a terrible idea to more clearly define
GA as two classes - light single engines / twin aircraft and corporate /
charter Jets.

Most of the complaints of the public and airlines regarding security threats
and tax advantages hold a different set of arguments with respect to the
larger aircraft.

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap, move out
and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

That attitude remonds me of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

This type of fatalism is also typically European.


What I say above true for the US as well. It's not true for
Switzerland, which is in Europe.



Unfortunatetly I find myself agreeing with this statement.

I personally believe it is a result of a combination of the
dumbing-down an overall femininization of the US public in general.
This breeds people who are more concerned with "security" (hehe..
more of a false sense of one!) than real freedom and more concerned
about being "politically correct" or not offending someone than
standing firm for what you believe in.

Mxsmanic wrote:

There is no confusion. Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.


WRONG. Freedom of speech presumes no such thing... on the other hand,
tru socialism does.

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Mxsmanic,


Freedom of speech presumes that no one will pass
judgement on the intelligence, coherence, wisdom, etc., of any speech.



Not at all. The way freedom of speech works (apart from the fact that
the concept doesn't apply to discussions between people anyway) is this:
You may say whatever you want and you will not be prohibited from saying
anything - but you can fully expect to be judged on it and to be held
accountable for it. Freedom of speech comes with freedom of judgement -
like it or not.

That's exactly what happens here with each and every of your posts. I
can understand you don't like the results...

;-)

ktbr wrote in
:

One way to save yourself from the camel is to collect all your crap,
move out and find a new tent before you wake up outside with nothing.

That attitude remonds me of this:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Interesting comparison.

Do you equate charging a fee for service to genocidal murder?

If the government were intent upon enslaving and/or murdering all pilots,
my feelings would be different. But the reality is that they want to recoup
some of the costs associated with providing weather and traffic services by
charging a fee for said provided service. It's not as outrageous as you
make it - most people in the US pay tolls to drive on certain roads, pay
for tickets to ride public transportation, and pay a 911 surcharge to the
phone company for the privilege of not having to remember quite as many
numbers to dial if they are in danger.

While I wish that these services might still be given away, the reality is
that the best that I can hope for is that the fee is equitable and fair,
and that they don't try to gouge me just because they listen to people like
Manix and think that anyone who flies must be extraordinarily wealthy.

On Feb 11, 5:28 pm, "Chris" wrote:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote in g-pacwest.com...



"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Blueskies" wrote

So, you are saying let Flight Watch die, which for now is a free
service,
and replace it with a privatized service for a fee. Yes, that is the
problem...

Flight Watch is not a free service, there are no free services. You
consider Flight Watch to be a "free service" only because you don't pay
for
it directly, it's paid with taxes. I would much rather let Flight Watch
die
and replace it with private sector service providers that charge fees and
compete for my patronage than pay a direct user fee to the FAA for each
use
of Flight Watch.

Just how much competition do you expect there would be to
provide Flight Watch service? Would there be even be one
company willing to provide it?

The incremental cost to the government to provide Flight
Watch is minimal -- the facilities and personnel are
already in place. The cost to replicate the facilities
and staff the operation for a private company would be
quite high as would be the fees necessary for the provider
to make a profit.

What is the size of the contract the FAA has with Lockheed? I thought the
Flight Watch service had already been let out for a profit. I cannot
imagine Lockheed doing the job to breakeven.

From http://www.faa.gov/aca/perf_decision/Dennis%20DeGaetano.pdf I
found:

"... The total evaluated cosyt of the 5-year contrac, with 5
additional optiuonb years, awarded baed on best value, is $1.9
billion. ..."

Some more references to AFSS and A-76 in general:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/.../ato/aca/afss/
transition/realigned_discontinued/media/Detailed%20Realigned%20and
%20Discontinued%20Activities.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/library/office_pu...ions/a76/view/
a76_brochure.cfm

http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_repor...lan2006/media/
ATOFY06BPFINAL.pdf


HTH.

Regards,
Jon