Government going after Private Pilots

[August]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Re-read my post above. Him and his voters are two different people. One votes for big government like this. One is the executive who is likely to support big government initiatives. That is a legitimate concern. Nowhere do I say he authored it, nor do I say that he is doing anything in relation to it. Calm down August.

I did reread it and had already edited my post to reflect it.

Either way thanking the "Obamabots" for this is wrong. If anyone is to blame here it is you and me for voting for the man who created the TSA in the first place.

You are doing the conservative cause no favors by alienating a majority of the country. Think about what you are saying.

[August]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Well, then as an AOPA pilot you know that the AOPA has been concerned about this and programs like it since 9/11. All of which, except for 30 days, has been under a Republican administration. Yet, you immediately name "Obamabots" (how original) as those to be "thanked" for such "government intrusion". It's glaring proof of your unflinching bias in the face of facts. Point, case, etc.

Had you just posted the details, or your personal dislike for the program, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, we might have a good and reasonable conversation about the program, based on facts,and as pilots and AOPA members. Maybe you should take this little lesson as an indication that your constant barrage of political yakking is self defeating.

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD!

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Enigma

Well, then as an AOPA pilot you know that the AOPA has been concerned about this and programs like it since 9/11. All of which, except for 30 days, has been under a Republican administration. Yet, you immediately name "Obamabots" (how original) as those to be "thanked" for such "government intrusion". It's glaring proof of your unflinching bias in the face of facts. Point, case, etc.

Had you just posted the details, or your personal dislike for the program, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, we might have a good and reasonable conversation about the program, based on facts,and as pilots and AOPA members. Maybe you should take this little lesson as an indication that your constant barrage of political yakking is self defeating.

No. I am just concerned by this in conjunction with a current government that is more likely to inhibit freedom in this area. And now, concerns within AOPA is rising. I hope my concerns are muted as I can't fly as much as I like as it is. Any limitations that will prevent me from getting the few hours I currently get will be irritating to say the least. And I see this current political climate as being more conducive to it. Understand?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by August

I did reread it and had already edited my post to reflect it.

Either way thanking the "Obamabots" for this is wrong. If anyone is to blame here it is you and me for voting for the man who created the TSA in the first place.

You are doing the conservative cause no favors by alienating a majority of the country. Think about what you are saying.

Well, don't know what's happened to you. I also thought you were fearful of government intrusions as well as I. And I also thought you knew that the current political climate has made it alot easier to limit choices and freedoms. Perhaps using the Obamabots line caused concern. Well OK, I can accept that error. But it changes nothing in how I think that the current government is more likely to promote this. I mean they are talking things like fairness doctrine, there has been talks of rolling 401(k)'s into government annuities, and this. I'm just real guarded right now and am seeing this in the same perspective as the others. Government going to manage something in a way they shouldn't that's already looking fine. I don't like the TSA, and opposed it with Bush in office. But I never saw Bush or any Congress with him likely to infringe on this area. Sorry if it offends you. And I don't mean that sarcastically. I am being real.

My issue is, why put people into power who are likely to limit your free choices,

You have in essence a two party system over there , over here we have many parties , no matter under which electoral system you have the people in power are going to limit your freedom and choices .
I suppose you could have a revolution to change it , but the revolution will only put in some different people who also will limit your free choices .
Thats life , you can choose one bunch of lying gob****es for goverment or another bunch of lying gob****es , at the end of the day there will still be lying gob****es running the government .

[Enigma]

Clearly, I'm not the one lacking understanding here....

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD!

Soorrr-ry.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

Damn, now you got me agreeing with Enigma! Thanks a lot SD!

HA. Now you know what it feels like to agree with the ENEMY! In your face.

This post is not to be taken seriously by anyone

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Thats life , you can choose one bunch of lying gob****es for goverment or another bunch of lying gob****es , at the end of the day there will still be lying gob****es running the government .

I don't accept that at all. I gotta rebut, even if it's turning August into a Democrat. What you don't do is install a government that proposes tax increases in the face of an economic crises, talks of solving non-existent problems like fairness doctrine (limitations of free speech), talks of rolling private 401(k)'s into government annuities, and begins initiatives into telling automakers what type of car they can environmentally build, what type of cars choices consumers are mandated to have, while they're financially desperate and it's proven that automobile is not in demand in the free sector, etc. And all of that record puts me on guard regarding any limitations on private aviation. It really makes no sense.

[Zachstar]

To say this topic is Epic Fail is an understatement.

May I suggest redoing the topic when there is news on the subject? Maybe this time with a little accurate history of the TSA and without the alienation.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

To say this topic is Epic Fail is an understatement.

May I suggest redoing the topic when there is news on the subject? Maybe this time with a little accurate history of the TSA and without the alienation.

agreed.

i think there are only like 2 or 3 "politically un-biased" posts in the whole thread

~ Unite or Die ~

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

agreed.

i think there are only like 2 or 3 "politically un-biased" posts in the whole thread

~ Unite or Die ~

I disagree!

[Platapus]

Many have pointed out that while the current proposal, which targets aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds, would not apply to them, they are concerned that the TSA would continue to expand its reach to encompass all general aviation operations.

“While my own flight operations would not initially be impacted by this proposal, the logic used to create the LASP proposal could easily be stretched and distorted to apply to all general aviation aircraft in the future, to even deeper economic and GA cultural detriment,” wrote Andrew Formella.

This is what is called a "camel's nose" fallacy.

These types of articles are why I never supported the AOPA when I was flying.

The limit of 12,500 Max take-off weight is a bit low but unless you are rich enough to fly a Beachcraft King Air you should be good to go. I would hazard that the vast number of GA pilots fly something a bit smaller when they fly for pleasure.

It probably should be about 16,000 pounds to allow all twin props to fly. But I imagine that a King Air could do a real job crashing into a building, especially if it is packed with explosives (5,000 pounds worth).

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Platapus

This is what is called a "camel's nose" fallacy.

These types of articles are why I never supported the AOPA when I was flying.

The limit of 12,500 Max take-off weight is a bit low but unless you are rich enough to fly a Beachcraft King Air you should be good to go. I would hazard that the vast number of GA pilots fly something a bit smaller when they fly for pleasure.

It probably should be about 16,000 pounds to allow all twin props to fly. But I imagine that a King Air could do a real job crashing into a building, especially if it is packed with explosives (5,000 pounds worth).

The fact remains that if i do own a king air - its MINE to own and operate.

the TSA has no business telling me who and what i can bring aboard

period.

[Zachstar]

Actually if the law says it does it does.. Period.

And yes a King Air could do some serious damage in the hands of a terrorist. Its a seriously powerful aircraft.

Am I saying I agree with the policy? No its a bit too harsh. But the "Its MINE ALL MINE!" Argument fails utterly in a post 9/11 world (How about that for Irony)

Unless you are willing to make that King Air into a UAV for carrying stuff. One has to accept a small amount of inconvenience.

[August]

Originally Posted by antikristuseke

HA. Now you know what it feels like to agree with the ENEMY! In your face.

This post is not to be taken seriously by anyone

No it's E N I G M A not E N E M Y... sheesh!