Kennedy gets his own TFR

Martin Hotze wrote:
Dudley Henriques schrieb:

We live in difficult times.

Bah. Don't **** your pants.
Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.

#m

BTW: Trim your posts!

Mensa perhaps?

Dudley Henriques

Would Wensa upside down be Wause? Sounds like one.

On May 24, 3:29 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Martin Hotze wrote:
Dudley Henriques schrieb:

We live in difficult times.

Bah. Don't **** your pants.
Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.

#m

BTW: Trim your posts!

Mensa perhaps?

Dudley Henriques

Tina wrote:
Would Wensa upside down be Wause? Sounds like one.

Sats in education. Works for me.

Bari IS beautiful this time of year :-))

DH

On May 24, 3:29 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Martin Hotze wrote:
Dudley Henriques schrieb:
We live in difficult times.
Bah. Don't **** your pants.
Sorry, but it's what you make out of it.
#m
BTW: Trim your posts!
Mensa perhaps?

Dudley Henriques



--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
"position" in the government warrants protection. It's a sad
testimony to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple
distinction. We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the
point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal
protection, we have reached a point fraught with danger for the
country.

There are 100 senators and 435 representatives in the United States
Congress. If all of them are accorded similar TFRs, these TFRs
together would cover an area about half the size of Louisiana (just
over 20,000 square miles). Is that really what you want?

Why are there no restrictions on road vehicles within a 3-nm radius?
And what about boats?

You're an idiot.

Tina wrote:
Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
a 50 caliber round.


That would limit you to about 1 mile effective range.

"Tina" wrote in message
...
I do not like the man, but would say his privacy should be respected.
If good taste won't keep people away, this minor inconvenience to
pilots is fine. Although, given the tastelessness of many who would
get close, the zone should be defined as anything within range of say
a 50 caliber round.


What about no boat/sail zones?

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
"position" in the government warrants protection.

I think you need to be specific about "position", otherwise I have no idea
which of the absurdly broad or absurdly narrow assertion to disagree with:

The position of him being an elected official? Or the position of being an
ill elected official? Or the position of being an ill elected official with
the last name of Kennedy?

It's a sad testimony
to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple
distinction.

Please understand that flying has absolutely nothing to do with the fact
that a principle inimical to everyone else's freedom is being invoked: that
the rights of private individuals to wander about public airspace are
conditional and subservient to an alleged public servant's fears (or even
mild dislike!)

We live in difficult times.

A statement valid throughout known human history.

When and if we reach the
point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal
protection, we have reached a point fraught with danger for the
country.

I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue involving only a "right to personal
protection." He could secure that right ON HIS OWN if he were willing to
make HIS OWN SACRIFICE TO SECURE IT. This is an issue where THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC AIRSPACE ARE SACRIFICED so that HE DOESN'T HAVE
TO MAKE ANY SACRIFICES.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his
"position" in the government warrants protection.

I think you need to be specific about "position", otherwise I have no idea
which of the absurdly broad or absurdly narrow assertion to disagree with:

The position of him being an elected official? Or the position of being an
ill elected official? Or the position of being an ill elected official with
the last name of Kennedy?

It's a sad testimony
to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple
distinction.

Please understand that flying has absolutely nothing to do with the fact
that a principle inimical to everyone else's freedom is being invoked: that
the rights of private individuals to wander about public airspace are
conditional and subservient to an alleged public servant's fears (or even
mild dislike!)

We live in difficult times.

A statement valid throughout known human history.

When and if we reach the
point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal
protection, we have reached a point fraught with danger for the
country.

I'm sorry, but this isn't an issue involving only a "right to personal
protection." He could secure that right ON HIS OWN if he were willing to
make HIS OWN SACRIFICE TO SECURE IT. This is an issue where THE RIGHTS OF
OTHERS TO ENJOY THE PUBLIC AIRSPACE ARE SACRIFICED so that HE DOESN'T HAVE
TO MAKE ANY SACRIFICES.

One thing about these political exchanges on Usenet is that they are
never rectified. Everyone has an opinion and I assume this one is yours.
I have an absolute 0 interest in arguing a point past an initial
comment and/or changing anyone's mind who disagrees with an off topic
comment such as this one that I make.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Sat, 24 May 2008 04:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Tina
wrote:

It looks like the only restrictions are sightseeing and messing around
flights in that airspace -- vfr operations into Hyannis are allowed,
as are most other 'going somewhere' flights.

Did ya' happen to notice the size and ceiling of the TFR is 5 miles
and 5000'?

Not the 3 miles and 3000' required for security" over stadiums with
100,000 people in them.

It's BS! Plain and simple...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ...
I agree. Like him or not, (and I can't stand the guy believe me ) his "position" in the government warrants
protection. It's a sad testimony to aviation if some of those who fly can't make this simple distinction.
We live in difficult times. When and if we reach the point where both sides of a political equation start wishing each
other harm and deride a Senator's (ANY Senator's) right to personal protection, we have reached a point fraught with
danger for the country.

--
Dudley Henriques


Absolutely no need to provide 'special' protections. I just watched Carl Levin (senator, MI) walking down a parade route
the other day, just walking along waving to everyone. No visible 'special' security anywhere, and no TFR for sure.