chasteh 0 #251 August 5, 2009 >The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different Are you kidding? The NTSB investigates crashes and incidents of fatal or non-fatal nature. The FAA writes the regulations and administers the certificates. (And can take them away.) NTSB Part 830 is actually within the Federal Aviation Regulations book, not vice versa. >Also according to the FAA Website, per occurance 50K is all that can fined per occurance for an individual that is not a Nope. My medical application says $250,000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #252 August 5, 2009 Quote And by "work" I mean the capitalistic mode of production would be destroyed, merely because profit seekers depend on...well... profit... Again, producing a surplus is totally allowable. However, a salesperson earning a slice by marketing the product is not acceptable. He is not producing. He is a leach. There is room for this in my utopia - really, the room is there in capitalism as well, except the wealth-building motives get in the way. You can't have capitalism without the concepts of profit and loss. Salespeople, entrepreneurs, marketers, hell, even lawyers all have their place. If a product is going to make it big people generally need investore to make that happen. Investors will require these things for better assurance. But if one chooses, they can also not hire these "leaches" as you called them. They can go out and do everything themselves and maybe keep their prices low and try to keep up with demand if they can. Profit/loss supply/demand Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #253 August 5, 2009 That might be I why I don't call it capitalism. Unfortunately, not hiring those leaches means that within the U.S. society they don't get the deal they need with each transaction. They would produce while someone else tries to fuck them out of what their product is worth. Hence, "you can do that now" isn't really applicable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #254 August 5, 2009 Quote>The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different Are you kidding? The NTSB investigates crashes and incidents of fatal or non-fatal nature. The FAA writes the regulations and administers the certificates. (And can take them away.) NTSB Part 830 is actually within the Federal Aviation Regulations book, not vice versa. >Also according to the FAA Website, per occurance 50K is all that can fined per occurance for an individual that is not a Nope. My medical application says $250,000. So the website is wrong?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #255 August 5, 2009 NO. Have you even read what the website says? Click on the link, and in the page that comes up, read the top of the page. The site you used is a list of the revisions to the fines that can be imposed, as adjusted per the person's income and payment capability - for some of the laws that can be broken. Let's review* what progress we have made thus far. >Show us, please, where it says that it is breaking a federal LAW to accidentally jump into a cloud. Did that. Actually, even you are ready to admit that there are fines and penalties for doing so. You, each time you violate an FAA regulation - including cloud clearance requirements - are breaking a law. Glad we settled that. >What are the fines and penalties? You know they are there. They can be quite large. >What court adjudicates the offences and charges? I'm still waiting for your response here. >The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different >I showed you chapter and verse where it is detailed and spelled out what he penalties and fines associated with breaking a federal law by illegal immigration ARE. Did that. The fines and privelege/license revocations are very real. >It just means your action was or wasn't agreed upon by most - sort of like your defense of Illegal immigration laws. In this case, the FAA has created regulations that make your actions legal or illegal in the aviation realm. Were you going to show how this makes an action right or wrong? Who determines this? The FAA? How does the FAA's authority make something right or wrong? Why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #256 August 5, 2009 Quote NO. Have you even read what the website says? Click on the link, and in the page that comes up, read the top of the page. The site you used is a list of the revisions to the fines that can be imposed, as adjusted per the person's income and payment capability - for some of the laws that can be broken. Let's revise what progress we have made thus far. >Show us, please, where it says that it is breaking a federal LAW to accidentally jump into a cloud. Did that. Actually, even you are ready to admit that there are fines and penalties for doing so. You, each time you violate an FAA regulation - including cloud clearance requirements - are breaking a law. Glad we settled that. >What are the fines and penalties? You know they are there. They can be quite large. >What court adjudicates the offences and charges? I'm still waiting for your response here. >The adjudicators are the NTSB - I would put them in WHOLE different >I showed you chapter and verse where it is detailed and spelled out what he penalties and fines associated with breaking a federal law by illegal immigration ARE. Did that. The fines and privelege/license revocations are very real. >It just means your action was or wasn't agreed upon by most - sort of like your defense of Illegal immigration laws. In this case, the FAA has created regulations that make your actions legal or illegal in the aviation realm. Were you going to show how this makes an action right or wrong? Who determines this? The FAA? How does the FAA's authority make something right or wrong? Why? No - I was simply, or not somuch since I took the long way around, showing that you think it is acceptable to break the law.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #257 August 5, 2009 >No - I was simply, or not somuch since I took the long way around, showing that you think it is acceptable to break the law. I think there are more destructive ways of breaking the law than others. For example, I agree that it is illegal for someone to murder another person, outside of self-defense, and that such an act is wrong. However, showing that something is illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong. This has been illustrated numerous times for you in this thread. So, now that we are done, how many laws - outside the numerous laws you have broken in skydiving alone (you do, after all, have 1700 jumps and 5 years in the sport) - have you broken and at what point is is convenient for you to break the law? After all, you are holding me guilty of thinking some laws are worth breaking and others aren't, are you not? Are you exempt from this? Are you not exempt from this? If you are not exempt, then you have wasted a great deal of effort accusing me of something you are guilty of yourself. What do ya think, turtlespeed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 220 #258 August 6, 2009 Quote What do ya think, turtlespeed? I think that illegal immigration is an offence that warrants, at the very least, deportation, if it happens again, jail.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #259 August 6, 2009 Yet at the same time you wouldn't be willing to accept the fines and privelege revocations were you to break a set of laws that pertain to you. Interesting. We call that a double-standard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #260 August 6, 2009 QuoteQuote What do ya think, turtlespeed? I think that illegal immigration is an offence that warrants, at the very least, deportation, if it happens again, jail. Deportation for the person. Jail for the person that HIRES him. It's a little like any contraband enforcement, if you only go after one side of the deal it really doesn't solve anything. As long as there are people willing to hire the illegals, they'll still try to come here to get out of the shit hole conditions of their home countries.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
