Presidential TFR @ Kill Devil Hills

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:43:52 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

No, that's what you seem to think military pilots talk about. They don't,
can't you understand that. I know several myself, NOT ONE of them talk
about how many hours they have.

They talk about flying, just like most pilots do, but then I suppose you
measure your manhood by your PIC hours and assume everybody else does?

How old are you anyhow?

This is a trick question... you want him to answer in hours don't you? =D

Eric

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:19:03 -0600 "Matthew P. Cummings" wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:43:52 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

So how many hours does Dubya have as PIC?
That's what we're talking about.


If you don't want to talk about find another thread, but name calling's
old and tired. Some jocks brag about hours, it gets discussed pretty
regularly by others. Talk to an insurance agent sometime they'll want to know
how many hours. Go to an interview for a pilot job. Guess what? They'll
want to know how many hours.


But for Dubya the numbers of hours is salient and interesting because I'll
bet he has very few hours but just enough to say he was a military pilot.
But how many as PIC? Maybe his hours were in a TF-102.

If you don't like the discussion move along. If you don't have a point
or counterpoint then just find another topic.

R. Hubbell

No, that's what you seem to think military pilots talk about. They don't,
can't you understand that. I know several myself, NOT ONE of them talk
about how many hours they have.

They talk about flying, just like most pilots do, but then I suppose you
measure your manhood by your PIC hours and assume everybody else does?

How old are you anyhow?

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 02:49:20 GMT "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:


"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:kv3Eb.28631$pY.15075@fed1read04...

That's a good skill to have when using usenet, now if you practiced
what you preached maybe you would have a something salient to add to
the discussion.


If you review the thread you'll see that I have added to the discussion.

Please don't suggest I review this thread, once is plenty.




Or are you more interested in name calling?


The original's not here, not going to go looking for it either.
I'll stand by my assertion.

R. Hubbell


Why do you ask that? Do you believe I engaged in name calling? If so,
please provide a quote of it.

"Montblack" wrote


Keeping with interviews ...I don't get the feeling I'm seeing a deep
thinker
in Bush. Instead, it often appears he's doing more reacting and blocking
than thinking and communicating.

Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.

--
Montblack
http://lumma.de/mt/archives/bart.gif



I for one, will take genuine over slick (willy), any day.
--
Jim in NC

t he can't
really be a pilot. I mean a true pilot,

Ah, now you are defining pilot!

Here's what the Boston Globe, which first broke the charges that Bush
was AWOL during the last year or so of his Air Guard tour, concluded
in an editorial:

********************************************

Those who trained and flew with Bush, until he gave up flying in April
1972, said he was among the best pilots in the 111th
Fighter-Interceptor Squadron. In the 22-month period between the end
of his flight training and his move to Alabama, Bush logged numerous
hours of duty, well above the minimum requirements for so-called
''weekend warriors.''

Indeed, in the first four years of his six-year commitment, Bush spent
the equivalent of 21 months on active duty, including 18 months in
flight school. His Democratic opponent, Vice President Al Gore, who
enlisted in the Army for two years and spent five months in Vietnam,
logged only about a month more active service, since he won an early
release from service.

***********************************************

I conclude that Bush was a pilot and a military man, and that you
aren't much of either.

Plonk!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

They may be able to require that the modifications are performed to certain
standards if you wish to overfly populated areas, but the second amendment is
pretty clear.

Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

That year I got about $1.40 for each pound sterling.

This year I am getting $1.70 for each pound.

21% not bad. Attaboy Bushie, continue making my day.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Clinton seemed to be more of a multi-leveled thinker in those situations.

Yes, Clinton and Nixon were without doubt our most intelligent
presidents at least since Woodrow Wilson.

Interesting that Clinton became the second president to be impeached,
and that Nixon resigned in order to avoid impeachment.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

In article , Cub Driver
writes:


They may be able to require that the modifications are performed to certain
standards if you wish to overfly populated areas, but the second amendment
is
pretty clear.

Actually, the Supreme Court reads it rather differently than you do.



SCOTUS has not ruled on the 2nd since the Miller case over 70 years ago. At the
time, they ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd
amendment *because it was not a militarily useful weapon.*

The implication of the only direct ruling on the 2nd is that the right of the
people to keep and bear arms relates specifically to militarily useful weapons.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:00:24 -0800, R. Hubbell wrote:

You've snipped it out. I don't have the time to search for it. If I remember
the context, it was a silly thing to expect from the AOPA. Enough said.

Do you think it was silly of AOPA to develop the airport security program?
Doesn't matter, they did. Now when something isn't working in it and
it's brought to their attention they ignore it.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that when their program failed they are
not interested in why so that they can improve it before the govt.
improves it. Maybe you want the govt. to improve the plan then? That's
what's going to happen if AOPA keeps ignoring it.

I don't care if you are lazy, you should read a posting before replying to
it, or are you just trying ignorant?