"Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be stolen and used as a weapon."
In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they actually study it, they might find that out.
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is > rec.aviation.piloting,
PILOTING!!!
How would this,
"A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
In article <1124582346.076813.70…@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote:
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along > that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they > actually study it, they might find that out.
Let’s have a show of hands of all those that believe that the conclusions of such a study will be scientifically sound, logical, and not politically motivated…
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote in message news:1124582346.076813.70860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
> "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin > (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles > Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government > to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large > populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be > stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along > that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they > actually study it, they might find that out.
It sounds like they’ve already drawn their conclusion and are looking for ways to force-fit supporting data.
Brien K. Meehan wrote: > "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin > (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles > Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government > to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large > populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be > stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along > that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they > actually study it, they might find that out.
Lautenberg and Schumer have taken every opportunity for decades to shut down GA and GA airports. Any study that those two have a hand in is poisoned from the start.
George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
BlueSkyzz wrote: > Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is > rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.
This has nothing to do with D’s and R’s. Hillary is the primary sponsor and introduced it so it gets her name. You introduced the political aspect, so we know where you stand on the issue!
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote in message news:1124582346.076813.70860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
> "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin > (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles > Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government > to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large > populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be > stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along > that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they > actually study it, they might find that out.
You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.
If you believe that, you’re a bigger fool than me.
The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to do anything.
The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of their opponents by being able to implement any changes.
Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.
Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be pro-GA.
On 20 Aug 2005 16:59:06 -0700, Brien K. Meehan wrote:
>(…)large populations and critical infrastructure areas >should GA aircraft be stolen and used as a weapon."
^^^^
why don’t omit "GA" and let the big airliners have the fight?
… ahhh. maybe money?
#m — The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That’s where we come in; we’re computer professionals. We cause accidents. — Nathaniel Borenstein
> You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these > work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the > conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would > come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.
Huh? Even if you had some basis for construing Democrats to be more opposed to GA than Republicans, why would the amendment’s *sponsorship* matter? Shouldn’t we look instead at who *voted* for the amendment? (It passed unanimously.)
> Huh? Even if you had some basis for construing Democrats to be more > opposed to GA than Republicans, why would the amendment’s *sponsorship* > matter? Shouldn’t we look instead at who *voted* for the amendment? (It > passed unanimously.)
>>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> PILOTING!!!
> How would this,
> "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> …be off topic?
Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
>>not alt.bash.hillary.
> Truth hurts, huh?
LOL! Guess you’ll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won’t you? And you’re obviously too blind to see the connections to the current regime. Ah well, ignorance is bliss… :-)
> >>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is > >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> > PILOTING!!!
> > How would this,
> > "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and > > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the > > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department > > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> > …be off topic?
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension.
Try writing coherently.
> My > complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
Calling it Hillary’s amendment is political insinuation?
> LOL! Guess you’ll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won’t you? > And you’re obviously too blind to see the connections to the current > regime. Ah well, ignorance is bliss… :-)
Speaking of comprehension, try keeping to the topic which is a proposed risk assessment study.
You’ve got a wrap on ignorance: Gore, Kerry and Hillary all have said we should be paying $5 a gallon for gas. Gore, largely, even campaigned on it, wrote a book on it…
Try removing your head from your anal cavity and I see some big time Freudian projection coming from your end.
> My > complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
What insinuations? Hillary introduced this ammendment, so the title is correct. The ammendment replaces another more onerous one, so that statement that this one popped up after we managed to eliminate another one is also correct. The OP hasn’t insinuated a damn thing.
You need to be complaining to yourself for reading things in that aren’t there.
George Patterson Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
> >>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is > >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> > PILOTING!!!
> > How would this,
> > "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and > > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the > > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department > > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> > …be off topic?
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My > complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
Political insinuations…..like your not-thinly-vailed reference to gasoline prices and a REGIME? Apparently your dissuasion from political insinuations is quite maleable, dependent on whose politics might be discussed.
> >>not alt.bash.hillary.
> > Truth hurts, huh?
> LOL! Guess you’ll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won’t you? > And you’re obviously too blind to see the connections to the current > regime.
Huh? One post ago you were saying, "Please KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF THIS NEWSGROUP" (emphasis added) immediately after somebody pointed out that the Jr. Senator from NY has filed a very anti AVIATION amendment in the US Senate. Two paragraphs ago you were heavily objecting to "political insinuations." Now you suddenly morph from your "keep your politics out" tune to referring to certain "connections to the current regime."
I’m curious, who is this regime you speak of, and would said regime happen to include the aforementioned Senator who I believe did vote for many things, including authorizing certain activities in the middle eastern region of the world.
> Ah well, ignorance is bliss… :-)
Oh Blue, do educate us, the little people, who aren’t worthy to understand your great teachings and important objections to pointing out anything political, unless it is political speech approved by . . . . you.
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote: > "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin > (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles > Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government > to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large > populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be > stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along > that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they > actually study it, they might find that out.
Right. Well this is admittedly a wild-assed guess, but I would suppose the "conclusions" of such a study are already known quite clearly.
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote in message news:1124611035.331345.291730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> If you believe that, you’re a bigger fool than me.
> The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved > the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to > do anything.
> The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that > the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that > the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the > sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and > gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of > their opponents by being able to implement any changes.
> Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or > bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.
> Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the > truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too > unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be > pro-GA.
Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.
john smith wrote:
> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
Surely you didn’t expect anything different?
—
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
john smith wrote:
> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.
–
"Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
(D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
stolen and used as a weapon."
In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along
that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
actually study it, they might find that out.
"BlueSkyzz" <bluesk…@blue.skyzz> wrote in message
news:NnPNe.1345$L03.359@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net…
> john smith wrote:
> > You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> > http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
> rec.aviation.piloting,
PILOTING!!!
How would this,
"A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
…be off topic?
> not alt.bash.hillary.
Truth hurts, huh?
In article <1124582346.076813.70…@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote:
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
Let’s have a show of hands of all those that believe that the conclusions of
such a study will be scientifically sound, logical, and not politically
motivated…
(>-{
–
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote in message
news:1124582346.076813.70860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
> "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
It sounds like they’ve already drawn their conclusion and are looking for
ways to force-fit supporting data.
Brien K. Meehan wrote:
> "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
Lautenberg and Schumer have taken every opportunity for decades to shut down GA
and GA airports. Any study that those two have a hand in is poisoned from the start.
George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
BlueSkyzz wrote:
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
> rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.
This has nothing to do with D’s and R’s.
Hillary is the primary sponsor and introduced it so it gets her name.
You introduced the political aspect, so we know where you stand on the
issue!
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote in message
news:1124582346.076813.70860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com…
> "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these
work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the
conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would
come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.
If you believe that, you’re a bigger fool than me.
The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
do anything.
The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
their opponents by being able to implement any changes.
Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.
Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
pro-GA.
On 20 Aug 2005 16:59:06 -0700, Brien K. Meehan wrote:
>(…)large populations and critical infrastructure areas
>should GA aircraft be stolen and used as a weapon."
^^^^
why don’t omit "GA" and let the big airliners have the fight?
… ahhh. maybe money?
#m
—
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That’s where we
come in; we’re computer professionals. We cause accidents.
— Nathaniel Borenstein
"Dave Stadt" <dhst…@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:ELSNe.3924$Z%6.1717@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com…
> You are a fool if you believe the study would be objective. The way these
> work is the conclusion is made then the study is conducted to support the
> conclusion. With all the Ds sponsoring the bill it is guaranteed GA would
> come out looking like the worst terrorism organization in the world.
Huh? Even if you had some basis for construing Democrats to be more opposed
to GA than Republicans, why would the amendment’s *sponsorship* matter?
Shouldn’t we look instead at who *voted* for the amendment? (It passed
unanimously.)
–Gary
> Huh? Even if you had some basis for construing Democrats to be more
> opposed to GA than Republicans, why would the amendment’s *sponsorship*
> matter? Shouldn’t we look instead at who *voted* for the amendment? (It
> passed unanimously.)
Gary’s right.
Hang them all!
—
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
http://www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Matt Barrow wrote:
> "BlueSkyzz" <bluesk…@blue.skyzz> wrote in message
> news:NnPNe.1345$L03.359@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net…
>>john smith wrote:
>>>You get rid of one, and another pops up!
>>>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
>>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
>>rec.aviation.piloting,
> PILOTING!!!
> How would this,
> "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
> aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
> Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
> of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> …be off topic?
Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
>>not alt.bash.hillary.
> Truth hurts, huh?
LOL! Guess you’ll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won’t you?
And you’re obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
regime. Ah well, ignorance is bliss… :-)
–
BlueSkyzz wrote:
>>>> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
>>>> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
How does the above statement insinuate anything political?
"BlueSkyzz" <bluesk…@blue.skyzz> wrote in message
news:d11Oe.11$5k1.6@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "BlueSkyzz" <bluesk…@blue.skyzz> wrote in message
> > news:NnPNe.1345$L03.359@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net…
> >>john smith wrote:
> >>>You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >>>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> >>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
> >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> > PILOTING!!!
> > How would this,
> > "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
> > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in
the
> > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the
Department
> > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> > …be off topic?
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension.
Try writing coherently.
> My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
Calling it Hillary’s amendment is political insinuation?
> LOL! Guess you’ll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won’t you?
> And you’re obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
> regime. Ah well, ignorance is bliss… :-)
Speaking of comprehension, try keeping to the topic which is a proposed risk
assessment study.
You’ve got a wrap on ignorance: Gore, Kerry and Hillary all have said we
should be paying $5 a gallon for gas. Gore, largely, even campaigned on it,
wrote a book on it…
Try removing your head from your anal cavity and I see some big time
Freudian projection coming from your end.
"Newps" <nowh…@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Arydna9zVNSCK5XeRVn-tg@bresnan.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> BlueSkyzz wrote:
> >>>> You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >>>> http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> > Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
> > complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
> How does the above statement insinuate anything political?
It’s what he WANTS to see.
You snipped the other irrelevant blather he pulled out of his ass. :~)
Bullsh*t Blue sky ….. Keep em coming.. And we all need to be
writing our senators. This DC ADIZ is a bunch of crap. Maybe you are
not effected…. yet……
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
BlueSkyzz wrote:
> john smith wrote:
> > You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> > http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
> rec.aviation.piloting, not alt.bash.hillary.
> —
BlueSkyzz wrote:
> My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
What insinuations? Hillary introduced this ammendment, so the title is correct.
The ammendment replaces another more onerous one, so that statement that this
one popped up after we managed to eliminate another one is also correct. The OP
hasn’t insinuated a damn thing.
You need to be complaining to yourself for reading things in that aren’t there.
George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
Martin Hotze wrote:
> why don’t omit "GA" and let the big airliners have the fight?
They’ve already tackled that situation. Now certain people want to impose the
same restrictions on small aircraft.
George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won’t bother you for weeks.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
BlueSkyzz wrote:
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> > "BlueSkyzz" <bluesk…@blue.skyzz> wrote in message
> > news:NnPNe.1345$L03.359@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net…
> >>john smith wrote:
> >>>You get rid of one, and another pops up!
> >>>http://www.ainonline.com/issues/08_05/08_05_senate_03.html
> >>Please keep your politics out of this newsgroup – this is
> >>rec.aviation.piloting,
> > PILOTING!!!
> > How would this,
> > "A Senate amendment that called for severe fines, loss of license and
> > aircraft confiscation for violating the flight restricted zone (FRZ) in the
> > Washington air defense identification zone was stripped from the Department
> > of Homeland Security appropriations bill last month."
> > …be off topic?
> Never said it was off-topic, learn to read for comprehension. My
> complaint was with the political insinuations raised by the OP.
Political insinuations…..like your not-thinly-vailed reference to gasoline
prices and a REGIME? Apparently your dissuasion from political insinuations is
quite maleable, dependent on whose politics might be discussed.
> >>not alt.bash.hillary.
> > Truth hurts, huh?
> LOL! Guess you’ll really enjoy paying $3, $4, ($5?) for gas, won’t you?
> And you’re obviously too blind to see the connections to the current
> regime.
Huh? One post ago you were saying, "Please KEEP YOUR POLITICS OUT OF THIS
NEWSGROUP" (emphasis added) immediately after somebody pointed out that the Jr.
Senator from NY has filed a very anti AVIATION amendment in the US Senate. Two
paragraphs ago you were heavily objecting to "political insinuations." Now you
suddenly morph from your "keep your politics out" tune to referring to certain
"connections to the current regime."
I’m curious, who is this regime you speak of, and would said regime happen to
include the aforementioned Senator who I believe did vote for many things,
including authorizing certain activities in the middle eastern region of the
world.
> Ah well, ignorance is bliss… :-)
Oh Blue, do educate us, the little people, who aren’t worthy to understand your
great teachings and important objections to pointing out anything political,
unless it is political speech approved by . . . . you.
"Brien K. Meehan" wrote:
> "Clinton’s amendment, also sponsored by Sens. Richard Durbin
> (D-Ill.), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), Charles
> Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), requires the government
> to undertake as assessment of the dangers posed to high-risk, large
> populations and critical infrastructure areas should GA aircraft be
> stolen and used as a weapon."
> In theory, this doesn’t sound all bad. We’ve been saying all along
> that GA is a small risk and that the FRZ is unwarranted. If they
> actually study it, they might find that out.
Right. Well this is admittedly a wild-assed guess, but I would suppose
the "conclusions" of such a study are already known quite clearly.
"Brien K. Meehan" <br…@networkgenius.com> wrote in message
news:1124611035.331345.291730@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> If you believe that, you’re a bigger fool than me.
> The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
> the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
> do anything.
> The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
> the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
> the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
> sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
> gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
> their opponents by being able to implement any changes.
> Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
> bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.
> Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
> truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
> unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
> pro-GA.
Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.
One more reason to move away from the east coast.