San Francisco votes to ban Blue Angels

[AVGWarhawk]

Like smokers also should obligatory pay all by themselves for all costs and health problems cuased by their smoking.

And people who eat fatty food should pay for their bypass surgery.
And people who drink to much should pay for their liver replacement.
And people who do over the speed limit and crash should pay for their medical expenses.
And people who do not exercise should pay for the heart attack that is forthcoming.
And obese people who dine on McDonalds all the time should pay for their gastric bypass surgery.

I believe they call it health insurance. I pay for it just as well as the non- smoker who is indulging on a Big Mac and listening to their arteries hardening.

Sorry, but I fail to see the logic behind the smokers issue and who pays what. BTW, keep on taxing the cigarettes like it is going out of style.....take that tax away and watch the others taxes sky rocket to cover the loss.


Back on track, send the Blue Angels over my city any day

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

That view is a modern liberalistic view, not old fasioned. Old fasioned loves this kind of stuff.

In case anyone forgot, this is the first generation in history where the men where not brought up and taught either to shoot a rifle or use a sword. Look how disrespectful we have become as a result!

-S

I'll go along with Subman. But in all reality the Blue Angels are a plane show. Air ballet if you would. It is not a show of arms at all. I have never seen sidewinders on the aircraft they use. They could use piper cubs for the show. Makes no matter as these are precision fliers, not the guardsmen showing their wares.

[Camaero]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Me an anti-militaristic zealot? Maybe it is you being a militaristic zealot!

Well, I am certainly guilty of not jubilating and shouting hiphip and hooray when military weapons are on parade. Having them is unfortunately a necessity, but never a reason for celebration (or must our human stupidity that leads us to mutually kill each other be celebrated today?) Waging a war, and even win it, may be a necessity sometimes as well, but still is no reason to celebrate, but for sadness (TaoTeKing). And if LaoTse is not you taste, and you happen to be Christian, eventually, try to imagine what Jesus would have to say on people parading with and celebrate toys of death, killing and destruction.

I'm just one of those old-fashioned people who don't believe in this stuff and medals and honours and parades, but think that a sword should be kept hidden if possible, and only be drawn blank if you are really intented to kill. Tools of war are no means of mass amusement. It is perverse and almost pathologic to think so.

Just my view on it.

They are just airplanes. They only become weapons when you strap missiles to them. I have never seen a live missile strapped to any of the Blue Angels. They are beautiful man made machines which soar into the heavens and are flown by very gifted pilots who become one with their machines to do it. The Blue Angels are pure art and I would beg one of them to fly over my house just once even if it was at 3 in the morning. You have your heart in the right place Skybird but I think that you sometimes take it overboard. Just my opinion.



What a beauty!

[Konovalov]

Can the Blue Angels pay a visit to the UK? They can fly over my rooftop anytime.

[tycho102]

We're talking about San Francisco, here. What the heck is new? When the San Andreas moves, this issue will clear itself up.

edit--- They're not still flying those, are they? That plane rolled off the assembly line in about 1986.

[SUBMAN1]

Feinstein seems to be anti-military. I wonder how she thinks her country seems to be able to what it does without harm?

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

This kind of reminds me of the time Washington DC did not book the Beach Boys to play on the 4th of July as they draw the wrong crowd. I guess we will book Motorhead instead or perhaps Judas Priest to play on the mall in Washington for the 4th of July. Crazy really.

[Sea Demon]

This city also banned military recruiters from the city's public schools. And they also blocked the USS Iowa from having a permanent home as a museum there. San Francisco is one of the most anti-military places I've ever seen from my own travels. This city is a large Liberal Democrat haven. This is Nancy Pelosiville here. What more could you expect from the voters of this area?

They're back!!

San Francisco's skies are safe for the Blue Angels. A Board of Supervisors committee Monday rejected a measure that would have called for a permanent end to the high-flying, aerobatic show that happens yearly during Fleet Week.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BA0PRHS4S.DTL

[sunvalleyslim]

It seems its time again to talk about a change. We need two states here. North California, and South California. Based on your ideals, you can pick which state........actually Northern California is beautiful. I suspect that they wouldn't want San Francisco either. So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Originally Posted by sunvalleyslim

So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

............and Boulder, Colorado.

[Bill Nichols]

Originally Posted by sunvalleyslim

It seems its time again to talk about a change. We need two states here. North California, and South California. Based on your ideals, you can pick which state........actually Northern California is beautiful. I suspect that they wouldn't want San Francisco either. So maybe be could just make them their own little state and compete with Rhoade Island........:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

No, I have a better solution. San Francisco can become "South British Columbia".



p.s. For the latest update on this topic, check the news on Subsim's homepage.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

This city also banned military recruiters from the city's public schools.

Nothing wrong in that. In fact, by law it should be the rule that the military is not given access to school's registries of student's adresses, and should be permitted to approach them in any form or way until they are adult by law. Try to tempt juveniles into joining the military is highly immoral and a very disgusting practice from any ethical perpsective I could even vaguely imagine. The army/navy/air force is not a job like any other. It should be left to a young adult's mind alone, unmanipulated, untempted, and after sober reasoning of what military service and war is about, wether soembody volunatrily wants to join, or not. The recruiting practice in the US over here in Germany and apparently in other countries, too, is considered as one of the most disagreeable characteristics of the US society.

But due to different histories, war and martial violance and weapons have different status in the US, and in Europe. In WWI and WWII the US only experienced the attack on Hawai, and it is fair to say that thus it never has experienced what war with a foreign enemy could do to it's cities and homeland. But Pearl Harbour or 9/11 just compare to bombing Helgoland and leave the rest of the Third Reich untouched - nobody would have been impressed by that. that war is so easily triggered and considered acceptable by the US last but not least is coming from that American cities do not bear neither scars nor histories of having suffered the bombing and mass destruction by foreign nations, not to mention foreign occupations. the modern military defeats or draws (Vietnam, Korea, Iraq), only damage the American ego, and come at different strategic costs for foreign political perpsectives - the bright lights and loud sounds always happened to take place elsewhere. Seen that way it is understandable that America, never having seen it's modern cities in ruins, on the question of wether to go to war or not, feels easy to answer "Well, why not?" It simply never was hurt to the ammounts other nations have experienced the horrors of war. For america, using military force more or less appears to be a success story - at least to that degree that makes it think earlier than others that war and/or other kinds of more concealed military longterm operations are a legitimate option.

From there it is not far to indoctrinating children's minds to be blind about the glamour stories about war and military, and generally have a positive bias towards these things. But it remains to be manipulation and abusing of the weak and not-yet-strengthened minds and characters of juveniles. Irresponsible and unscrupulous. If we would do exactly like that in Germany, all world would point fingers at us and yell "Nazi!" and "Hitlerjugend!" again. The method is exactly the same.

I have to say that once again Skybird has me very confused. In this thread he calls for the end to airshows and military recruitment. Yet in his 'Recently on a boke tour...' http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=120390, he posts pictures of a warbird without any mention of its history, or contribution to the war effort. Why is that?

[Skybird]

If you can't see the diufference between a fighterjet being pushed to extreme manouveurs, formation flights and thus raise risks far beyiond what we usually need to accept when steppoing out of our doors each day, and a sightseeing flight, I must accedpt the fact that I am not believing you can't see that and thus I conclude that you try a rethoric cheat only.

That bird neither flew any stunts, nor anything else that would be considered an increased risk for civil air operations.

Accepting every day risks that are part of every day life is one thing. A tile from the roof could fall on my head when the wind is strong, and that tree falling during a storm could kill me indeed, yes. Intentionally pushing risks to the limits without any need is something totally different. I mean I certainly do not stand at our roof and throw bricks up there to see how long i need to get myself killed by a falling tile.