Baby Bush will be Closing Airports in California to VFR Flight Again

Which is why we
desperately need a third party in this country.

We have a bunch of them; Libertarians (very fiscally conservative, and
they
got 1/20th the votes of the very UNFISCALLY CONSERVATIVE...), Green party,
Perotista's, Buchannenits,

I'm talking a main-stream party. For some bizarre reason, known only to
them, 3rd Party Candidates all seem to be from the lunatic fringe.

WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or whatever
you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
middle-of-the-road platform?

Instead we get the Ross Perots and Ralph Naders of the world. Well-meaning
fringe candidates without a hope or a clue.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:57:00 GMT, "John T" wrote in
Message-Id: om:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


And his TFRs, in excess of 3,000 square miles in area, epitomize his
transparently audacious lack of respect for the fundamental freedoms
and rights of the nation's founding fathers' legacy.

Show me the decision he made declaring a single TFR and you'll have the
beginning of a case.

Show me what prevents him from controlling his security, and you'll
have a case. :-)

Larry, I'm all for putting the TFR's back to the way they were pre-9/11. I
really am. But the President is not personally responsible for all the ills
of the nation

Who said baby Bush was responsible for ALL the ills of the nation?
(Straw man argument?)

much less this one which affects a mere 0.2% of the nation's
population - even if all certificated pilots were in the area of a given
TFR.

Are you attempting to suggest that the leader of the free world LACKS
THE POWER to govern the size of the enormous TFRs that surround his
movements?

You're fighting the right battle. It's just that you're fighting the wrong
opponent. The problem isn't the President because I *guarantee* the same
TFR's would and will be implemented regardless of the person or party
holding the office.

By what authority are you able to make such a guarantee?

The problem is with the bureaucrats below.

It always starts at the top.

The President will not and should not concern himself with TFR's any more than
he would or should be concerned with the closing of roads for his motorcade.

Why not?

If Congress were to get in the act and demand freedom of the airspace, we
*might* be able to start the ball rolling.

That's a laugh. From what I've heard, Congress is trying to impose
further restrictions on GA.

I'm not optimistic based on the "justification" required of the FAA for
the DC ADIZ, though.

Ummm...

I hope your entire point isn't something like: the President of the
United States of America is entirely powerless to control how his
security is managed. Are you suggesting that he so impotent that he
is a mere puppet being manipulated by bureaucrats? And here I thought
it was the GOP and his daddy who controlled him.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 03:34:21 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote in Message-Id:
1tx1c.109512$Xp.479440@attbi_s54:

While I think President
Bush is the worst president we have suffered in my 50 years, and I look
forward to the opportunity to work for his opponent this year, he is
president, and should be given the courtesy and respect afforded the
office.

Baby Bush was _declared_ President, not elected.

Other head's of state unworthy of their office have been afforded the
respect and courtesy they deserved. El Duce comes to mind ...

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote in Message-Id:
GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53:

Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that the
Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple and
obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.

So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
the TRUTH not dogma.

Baby Bush LIED to the citizens he has sworn to serve to achieve his
(father's?) personal agenda, plunged the nation into debt so severe
that the dollar's value has plummeted to record lows against nearly
every other currency, lied about his preferential treatment while
joyriding in the Coast Guard, gutted the hard fought protections and
freedoms granted US citizens under the Constitution, and you want me
to afford this mendacious, redneck bumbler the respect of the office
of President of the United States?!

I'm sorry, but I'm not so inculcated as to betray my personal values,
and admire the Emperor's nonexistent new attire.

--

The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong
enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong
enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over
the government. -- Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


By what authority are you able to make such a guarantee?

Experience.

The problem is with the bureaucrats below.

It always starts at the top.

No, it doesn't. The President does not, cannot and should not be involved
in all decisions.

The President will not and should not concern himself with TFR's any
more than he would or should be concerned with the closing of roads
for his motorcade.

Why not?

That's beneath his level of concern.

That's a laugh. From what I've heard, Congress is trying to impose
further restrictions on GA.

Notice my use of "if".

I hope your entire point isn't something like: the President of the
United States of America is entirely powerless to control how his
security is managed. Are you suggesting that he so impotent that he
is a mere puppet being manipulated by bureaucrats? And here I thought
it was the GOP and his daddy who controlled him.

My point is not that the President is powerless. Rather, decisions
regarding his security are beneath his level of conern. We, as taxpayers,
pay a lot of people good money to keep him safe. Those people make the
decisions and the President, if he's even aware of them, is more often than
not well-advised to heed their suggestions. Further, those professionals
(bureaucrats) are there regardless of who the President happens to be.

Again, why should the President be concerned with a temporary restriction on
a small percentage of another small percentage (less than 0.2%) of the
general population? After all, it's only temporary and the security team
says it's a good idea.

I don't expect any President to be overly concerned with such a small
population. If he were, I suspect he wouldn't be very effective in his job.

Now, an argument can be made that emplacing these TFR's - and having to
advertise them ahead of time - actually *decreases* his security since his
position and time of arrival is made known ahead of time. If nobody knows
when he is to arrive or at what airport, the "Bad Guys" would have a harder
time getting to him, wouldn't they?

But the security folks don't listen to me any more than they appear to
listen to AOPA...

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...


On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 15:25:26 GMT, "Michael 182"
wrote in Message-Id:
GTH1c.176379$jk2.642959@attbi_s53:

Last try, Larry - at least for me. I did not suggest President Bush as an
individual is worthy of respect. I wrote, pretty clearly I believe, that
the
Office of the President deserves respect and courtesy. It is as simple
and
obvious as standing when the Star Spangled Banner is played.

So you believe that the respect shown by German citizenry for the
brutal tyrant who seized control of Germany in the '30s was a
good-thing®? You'd have given him a respectful salute as his
motorcade passed? While lemmings must suffer the consequences of
their failure at independent thought, I'd expect an airman to respect
the TRUTH not dogma.

What is so hard about this? Why would you think I would salute Hitler? Are
you equating the Office of the President with the Chancellor of the Third
Reich? I never said every office deserves respect - I was, and am, pretty
specific. The Office of the President of the United States deserves respect.
It is part of the traditions and institutions of our country. Within the
civil confines of that respect we get to work for and vote for a new leader.
Seems like a pretty good system to me.

Michael

This President, and all other Presidents, have little to nothing to say
about their security. The cone of silence about the President comes with
the job description...And remember, all Presidents are only a temporary
employees, whereas career service bureacrats have the responsibility for
Presidential security and they know they can never be sacked for saying,
"NO!".... So, as long as people have their careers and retirement packages
on the line, he is going to be kept in the center of a bubble...
Said bubble expanded with the President Reagan shooting and it blew up into
a major size bubble the morning of 9/11, when the security bureaucrats were
scared out of their socks over how close the whackos came to drilling the
White House dead center in the West Wing...
denny

Jay Honeck wrote:

Perhaps they once were -- but they sure aren't anymore. Which is why we
desperately need a third party in this country.

We've got about six, last time I counted. What we *need* is for people to vote
for one of them that isn't Dem or Rep.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

"Jay Honeck" wrote
WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or
whatever
you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
middle-of-the-road platform?

She's too busy since Bob got on the Viagra.

"Gig Giacona" wrote in message
...

"Jay Honeck" wrote
WHY can't we get someone like Elizabeth Dole to run as a "Whig" (or
whatever
you want to call them), on a fiscally conservative, socially
middle-of-the-road platform?

She's too busy since Bob got on the Viagra.



And to follow up my own post I still say that if Bob Dole had shown the same
since of humor during the race that he showed after the race he would be
President now.

GigG

"John T" wrote in message

True, which might make all of the presidential TFRs tolerable if he
was traveling on the business of the United States of America. The
trip, however, was primarily or solely for political fund raising
purposes. Given how intrusive it is when he travels, he should step up
and make the sacrifice of staying home unless he has to travel on real
business.



Further, your subject was not valid since Bush does not make the decision to
close any airspace much less airports due to his travel. Those decisions
are made by bureaucrats - ones that exist regardless of the party
affiliation of the sitting President.