rehmwa 2 #51 February 19, 2010 Quotethe letter grabbed my attention until he jumped right over the fence and started crying from the the other side. >> ?? the guy is running the hurdles, there are so many jumps, I can only conclude he's just plain not happy about anything and wanted to lay blame on every cliche target in sight ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 February 19, 2010 QuoteQuote aside - ban aircraft - if we can save just one life.... Data suggest other bans should have priority if that's your goal. Toyotas, motorbikes, skydiving, 110volt power to homes, heating furnaces, sushi, ... We're coming after your rockets, next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 February 19, 2010 Quote Dude. Not all off-hand ad-hominems rise to the level of "Oooh!! That's a PA!! I'm telling Mom!!" You take this shit much too personally. No, he doesn't. He's just trying to game the system. IMO, the moderators should be free to assign penalties to the floppers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #54 February 19, 2010 Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jsaxton 0 #55 February 19, 2010 Wasn't it a Dakota? (nice plane) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #56 February 19, 2010 Quote Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. You can't fly a human into a building. Best you can do is throw them AT a building. Less damage, but the sound it makes is a bit more satisfying. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #57 February 19, 2010 QuoteWasn't it a Dakota? (nice plane) perhaps the thread title is describing the pilot, not the plane ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #58 February 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteWasn't it a Dakota? (nice plane) perhaps the thread title is describing the pilot, not the plane Now you're being racist against injuns. WTF. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlindBrick 0 #59 February 19, 2010 Quote Quote Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. You can't fly a human into a building. Best you can do is throw them AT a building. Less damage, Meh, freeze them solid, apply a heatshield, nose cone, some fins and a guidance paclage and they'd probaby do some nice damage if used as kinetic kill vehicles dropped from LEO. -Blind"If you end up in an alligator's jaws, naked, you probably did something to deserve it." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #60 February 19, 2010 QuoteNow you're being racist against injuns. WTF. what if the plane was white and the pilot was cherokee? Seriously though I just took the Piper Cherokee from cnn.com yesterday. They could have easily gotten it wrong. Whatever it was, it isn't anymore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #61 February 19, 2010 Quote The cost of Stinger missiles is beyond the means of the average citizen. Only computer programers, lawyers and doctors could afford one. The cost of Stingers is that high only because our greedy socialist government does not allow everyone to make and sell them. Look, can you legally make yourself a nice Stinger to protect your loved ones from harm? No! As soon as those restrictions are lifted, and every pop-n-mom shop is able to legally sell Stingers (assembled in China), their price will go down. It will also bring new business opportunities for private businesses which would rent Stingers for those who cannot purchase it. Quote If aviation activities were restricted to key locations in the country then we could adequately monitor and regulate the safe use of aircraft. Mainly we could reduce the desire to use these dangerous vehicles for purposes other then what they were designed, primarily military applications and transportation. What?! Every NRA member knows that laws do not stop criminals (isn't that funny?), and therefore it is useless to have all those laws. Look, flying an aircraft into IRS building was already illegal - and that's what just has been done! And now you're saying that we need MORE laws outlawing flying aircrafts into IRS buildings? You must be kidding! The solution is not more laws, but less laws. It is obvious that making it illegal to fly aircrafts into buildings does not prevent criminals from doing so, and any restrictions only hurt law abiding airplane pilots. Therefore we must repeal all aviation-related laws, remove any restrictions on who can pilot an airplane, and close the FAA. Law abiding citizens can regulate themselves, and criminals will not obey those laws anyway.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #62 February 19, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote aside - ban aircraft - if we can save just one life.... Data suggest other bans should have priority if that's your goal. Toyotas, motorbikes, skydiving, 110volt power to homes, heating furnaces, sushi, ... We're coming after your rockets, next. Not if you prioritize by number of deaths caused. More people are killed by coathangers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #63 February 19, 2010 Quote Quote Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. You can't fly a human into a building. . Wingsuits.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #64 February 19, 2010 QuoteQuote We're coming after your rockets, next. Not if you prioritize by number of deaths caused. More people are killed by coathangers. We're never going to prioritize by deaths caused, because smokes, booze, and cars top the list. No, we're going to prioritize by how few people are in the group. GA pilots and rocketeers are much smaller groups than smokers or gun owners. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #65 February 20, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote aside - ban aircraft - if we can save just one life.... Data suggest other bans should have priority if that's your goal. Toyotas, motorbikes, skydiving, 110volt power to homes, heating furnaces, sushi, ... We're coming after your rockets, next. Not if you prioritize by number of deaths caused. More people are killed by coathangers. Can't we please keep abortion out of this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #66 February 20, 2010 Quote The cost of Stingers is that high only because our greedy socialist government does not allow everyone to make and sell them. You are drifting away from the issue. The problem is not the absence of protection from illegal use aircraft. The issue is the availability of aircraft for illegal use. Quote If aviation activities were restricted to key locations in the country then we could adequately monitor and regulate the safe use of aircraft. Mainly we could reduce the desire to use these dangerous vehicles for purposes other then what they were designed, primarily military applications and transportation. QuoteLaw abiding citizens can regulate themselves, and criminals will not obey those laws anyway. Exactly, availability and frivolous use of aircraft must be stopped or at least severely curtailed. By restricting aircraft use to a few centralized airports around necessary metropolitan areas we can easily monitor who is gaining access. There should be no more than 100 such ports, two per state, in the U.S.A. where aircraft can be accessed. Altitude usage can be regulated by need and proven experience. Licenses to pilot aircraft should be issued only to those who demonstrate such license will be used for the common good. Manufacturers must be held responsible for making their products available to anyone who can afford them. Aircraft are complex and potentially dangerous pieces of equipment. Only certain intellectually elite persons are capable of safely owning and flying them. Aircraft should not be allowed to be scattered around the flight line, held in place by one or two ropes. Aircraft should be securely locked in hangers constructed like bank vaults with time locks and security devices. The aircraft controls should be locked in such a manner that only a select few can gain access and not just some eleven year old boy seeking a joy ride. Fuel should be completely expended or drained from the aircraft after each use. Leaving an aircraft fueled is an invitation for disaster. Bottom line, aircraft destroy buildings, damage the environment and kill people. Ownership and use for leisure purposes must be stopped. There are too many small unregulated airports and too many aircraft available to society. Only by reducing the number of aircraft, by any means necessary, can we feel safe from the irresponsible, mentally incapable, reckless, criminal sociopaths that desire the unrestricted use of the space above our homes and our children. Given the current state of affairs and tragic recent examples, think how your children must feel every time they go outside to play and see an aircraft or someone dressed in aviation attire. Think of the children and the unexpressed fear they must harbor in their impressionable minds.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #67 February 20, 2010 I think it is funny that the washington post and other liberal news outlets are calling this guy an extreme right wing tea party member. and the reporter conveniently omitted a few key words.. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/18/wapos-capehart-austin-suicide-pilots-alienation-similar-extreme-eleme Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #68 February 20, 2010 QuoteHis words are very true and I'm surprised the letter wasn't covered up/destroyed because of it. It nearly was! the webhost for his website was contacted by phone from the FBI and asked to take his site down. He cowardly did, but left a link to the smoking guns website of the note. On the webhosts forum the admin/owner had a thread about it all Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #69 February 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. You can't fly a human into a building. . Wingsuits. That would actually be gliding, but close enough.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #70 February 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. You can't fly a human into a building. . Wingsuits. That would actually be gliding, but close enough. A person doesn't fly a glider?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #71 February 20, 2010 Quote You are drifting away from the issue. The problem is not the absence of protection from illegal use aircraft. The issue is the availability of aircraft for illegal use. Well, you are concentrating on a TOOL instead of CRIMINAL. There are thousands of aircrafts which never killed anyone! Quote Exactly, availability and frivolous use of aircraft must be stopped or at least severely curtailed. By restricting aircraft use to a few centralized airports around necessary metropolitan areas we can easily monitor who is gaining access. There should be no more than 100 such ports, two per state, in the U.S.A. where aircraft can be accessed. This will only restrict law abiding pilots. Criminals or those pilots who went crazy and decided to crash the aircraft into your house do not care about laws, so all those restrictions would not stop them. Even if we enforce mandatory jail time for those who violated the regulations, this won't stop those who decided to commit suicide. The only way to stop them is to enforce mandatory Stinger ownership. If any criminal or crazy pilot knows that he WILL be shot down by the first fellow with a Stinger they wouldn't even think about committing such a horrible crime! Quote Aircraft should not be allowed to be scattered around the flight line, held in place by one or two ropes. Aircraft should be securely locked in hangers constructed like bank vaults with time locks and security devices. The aircraft controls should be locked in such a manner that only a select few can gain access and not just some eleven year old boy seeking a joy ride. This is waste of efforts. Criminals have been broken into bank vaults in past - even into those with time locks and security devices. It happened more than once, so this will only make life more difficult for law abiding fellow citizens. Instead there should be no restrictions at all. If a fellow wants to park his aircraft near school unlocked and fueled up, he has rights to do so. After all, law abiding citizens know that it is against the law to steal someone's aircraft, so they won't touch it. And if criminals want to steal his aircraft, no security would help to prevent it. This is not important for citizens' safety, because reliable Stingers will bring him down as soon as he takes off. Quote Bottom line, aircraft destroy buildings, damage the environment and kill people. Ownership and use for leisure purposes must be stopped. There are too many aircrafts there. Not to mention criminals always can buy one on a black market or bring one from Mexico, so you cannot stop aircraft ownership. The only reliable way to prevent such horrible crimes is providing Stingers to everyone. Of course, every aircraft flying over your home should be shot down immediately. This is your private property, and flying over or near your home puts your loved ones into immediate danger. If you do not shot first, they will! If you are brought to justice, let's jury of your Stinger carrying peers decide your innocence. Quote Given the current state of affairs and tragic recent examples, think how your children must feel every time they go outside to play and see an aircraft or someone dressed in aviation attire. Think of the children and the unexpressed fear they must harbor in their impressionable minds. My children will be fine - they would like extra practice aiming and following their toy Stingers. This valuable experience will help them once they grow up to a reasonable age when they can own their personal Stinger. 5 years sounds good enough age for that.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #72 February 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Ban humans ... that will solve all our problems. You can't fly a human into a building. . Wingsuits. That would actually be gliding, but close enough. A person doesn't fly a glider? I guess it is purely semantics and open to individual interpretation. I think of flying as being done under power and gliding as being unpowered (other than gravity, air currents, and the initial energy to get to altitude.) I would call flying a glider "gliding". Others will undoubtedly differ.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
VTmotoMike08 0 #73 February 20, 2010 Not replying to anyone in particular. There was a poll on CNN.com earlier today asking if you considered it to be an act of terrorism. 65% of people did not think this was terrorism! WTF?! It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be a terrorist act and 65% of the people out there are too bat shit stupid to realize that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #74 February 20, 2010 Quote Not replying to anyone in particular. There was a poll on CNN.com earlier today asking if you considered it to be an act of terrorism. 65% of people did not think this was terrorism! WTF?! It does not have to be committed by an Arab or a foreigner to be a terrorist act and 65% of the people out there are too bat shit stupid to realize that Well, the bar is set higher for white Christian Americans. In Oklahoma City, a whole lot of people died, so that was terrorism. Only 2 innocents died this time, so it isn't. hey where'd I put that damn race card...? crap, I can never find it when I need it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #75 February 20, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Silly me, I actually look to data to see the progress of the country under various leadership; how inane. Sure. Too bad you don't have a clue as to what any of it means. Yea: - GDP - Market - Unemp data - Historical tax cut / increase data See, you still can't show me a major federal tax cut taht has led to anything but disaster and supposedly I can't read and extrapolate data. Start your little proff session by doing just that, a MAJOR FEDERAL TAX CUT THAT LED TO + THINGS, other than + deficit and debt. Hey, Dude, you're the one who thinks GDP is expressed in percentage. Point out where I stated that. The change is %. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3788559#3788559 You not only stated (mulitiple times), but you used it as a thread title. Sure, I wrote: Well you're right, it's 5.7%! So what's 5.7%? The change of course; love how you don't post my exact words - if they supported your point you certainly would have. It's your extrapolation that I meant something else, perhaps you just figured that out and are proud. It's such a commonly used figure that it is cumbersome and repetitive to constantly say the rate of change, percent of change, etc. There are many ways to perceive the GDP too, as in relation to the debt, gross GDP, per capita in nominal terms or real GDP, compared to other countries and likely others. If we're casually talking GDP in usual terms, do we have to specify all of those? See, it's the RW side that looks ugly when talking GDP, Debt, ect so they get semantic and try to divide lines to manufacture a point rather than be honest and admit their policies ruin all of these and have since WWI. A good example of this semantic protocol is when Mike pretended to think we were using a rarely referenced nominal GDP rather than real GDP, thne says, "I got the data from the same place you got the data." See, you can pretend in your own minds that you're making a point, but in reality you just further elaborate how much your side really fucks things up. And you're still unable to tell me 1 major federal tax cut that has ended up well. Now, show me where I stated that I overtly wrote that GDP wasn't measured in % change, released quarterly, not some interpretation or extrapolation of yours. Hell, even in yiour own example you cited me writing: Well you're right, it's 5.7%! Now you claim I don't know that GDP is measured in percent change? You need a little help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
