More of imbecile ronnies' legacy

[W1GUH]

Air controllers say staffing too short (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/controllers_emergency)


Maybe if that imbecile jerk that way too many stupid Americans voted for, and fawn over, had really fixed the problem instead of letting way too many ignorat jerks vicariously feel like they, too, had big cajones, this problem would have been fixed.

But no, the US has become too testoserone laden to realize that problems need to be FIXED, not blown away.

Yesterday, the trashing of our airways.
Today, the trashing of the middle east and the US economy.
Tomorrow?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[KG4JYD]

The FAA should be abolished and handled by the States. No where in the US Constitution does it say that the federal government is allowed to be a traffic cop.

This wouldn't be an issue.

[W1GUH]

The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. Learn it.

Use a little common-sense reason. It'd be chaos if the individual states ran ATC. What's your major malfunction?

[W4DFW]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. #Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?

[W4DFW]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:37)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?
They're quite fine.


How's your brain?

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,01:13)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:37)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. #Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?
They're quite fine.


How's your brain?
Much better than yours, thank you very much.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,23:13)]The FAA should be abolished and handled by the States. No where in the US Constitution does it say that the federal government is allowed to be a traffic cop.

This wouldn't be an issue.
Are you really that out of it ? Yeah, every state is going to have their own rules for the flight, qualifications, and regulations concerning aircraft that streak across the sky crossing state lines ads if they weren't there. Good luck when airplane A flying west at 10000 feet smashes into airplane B flying east at 10000 feet as they cross state lines.

Get real.

Quote[/b] ]
This wouldn't be an issue.


You're right. I don;t think too many people would be flying anymore once every state sets their own rules for air travel. I don;t think too many people would WANT to fly at that point.

[k9kjm]

Overall, I feel that Ronald Reagan did a good job for this country. (I did NOT feel that way when he was first elected!) # His handling of the air traffic controllers ILLEGAL walk out was not one of his good jobs however.
The overworked, Overstressed controllers walked out in an illegal move.
Instead of trying to fix the problem back then, Reagan simply fired the walk outs and hired new off the street employees. (And caused LOTS of close calls back then!)
The still festering problem is now coming to the surface again....... #

While I fully support the Libertarian ideals, And I will also be voting for Ron Paul, ATC IS one of the few things that the federal government MUST oversee its proper operation. #(Which to date, As usual, They have been doing a poor job of.)

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,00:15)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,01:13)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:37)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. #Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?
They're quite fine.


How's your brain?
Much better than yours, thank you very much.
ronnie was bad news for this country. Not only did he set the stage for building a police state but he also set the wheels in motion to erode away the middle class. He also set the nation back with regards to inroads that were made with respect to peace, nonviolence and environmental protections. The middle class grows weaker in ronnies legacy. Ronnie was bad for the country.

[KC9IUX]

Quote[/b] ]Are you really that out of it ? Yeah, every state is going to have their own rules for the flight, qualifications, and regulations concerning aircraft that streak across the sky crossing state lines ads if they weren't there. Good luck when airplane A flying west at 10000 feet smashes into airplane B flying east at 10000 feet as they cross state lines.


And that happens at National borders?

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,23:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. Learn it.
No it doesnt. It says the federal government is allowed to make interstate commerce "regular". That was the original meaning.

At the time the Constitution was written "to regulate" simply meant 'to make regular'. If you remember one of the major reasons the Constitution was drafted by the states to create the federal government was to settle tarrifs, trade wars, and currency problems between the States. The States wanted to be able to have no barriers of trade between themselves; that is all.


The reason it has evolved as far from the original meaning today as it has was due to bad supreme court ruilings all starting with Marshall.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,01:19)]Are you really that out of it ? Yeah, every state is going to have their own rules for the flight, qualifications, and regulations concerning aircraft that streak across the sky crossing state lines ads if they weren't there. Good luck when airplane A flying west at 10000 feet smashes into airplane B flying east at 10000 feet as they cross state lines.
More than likely all states would adopt a very similar set of standards.

The point being is that the federal government is not allowed to play traffic sky cop.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:22)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,01:19)]Are you really that out of it ? Yeah, every state is going to have their own rules for the flight, qualifications, and regulations concerning aircraft that streak across the sky crossing state lines ads if they weren't there. Good luck when airplane A flying west at 10000 feet smashes into airplane B flying east at 10000 feet as they cross state lines.
More than likely all states would adopt a very similar set of standards.

The point being is that the federal government is now allowed to play traffic sky cop.
Quote[/b] ]
More than likely all states would adopt a very similar set of standards.


More than likely is not good enough when dealing with vehicles that carry hundreds of people at thousands of feet above the ground and at several hundred miles per hour. Each state is going to micromanage their own air traffic control sysem. Get rteal.

Quote[/b] ]
The point being is that the federal government is now allowed to play traffic sky cop.


So what ?

[KD6NIG]

If you worked at a job, and they were hiring you for 25% less salary, you'd be mad too. You'd also have trouble finding replacements.

But thats whats basically happening. Guys are retiring and the new blood coming in makes less than they do. The reason why they had plenty of controllers before is they paid them well. Now they aren't paying them right, so nobody wants the pay for the money they get.

End result? Those that DO hire on work 7 days a week because of the shortages, get ran into the ground, and quit.

What a way to run a railroad. -Bugs Bunny

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:21)]At the time the Constitution was written "to regulate" simply meant 'to make regular'. If you remember one of the major reasons the Constitution was drafted by the states to create the federal government was to settle tarrifs, trade wars, and currency problems between the States. The States wanted to be able to have no barriers of trade between themselves; that is all.


The reason it has evolved as far from the original meaning today as it has was due to bad supreme court ruilings all starting with Marshall.
And how, pray tell, do you "make regular" something between states unless there is a uniform set of rules governing the activity?

One of the (many) reasons Ron Paul isn't being taken seriously by the majority of Americans is because, regardless of how many good ideas he might have, he and his Libertarian ilk always jump off into the political deep end and alienate potential supporters. #Abolish the FAA? #Sure...any day now.

Make no mistake - a good number federal agencies can and should be abolished; yesterday if possible. #But blanket abolition of ALL federal agencies, as advocated by Paulistas, turns people off.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,10:48)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:22)]
The point being is that the federal government is not allowed to play traffic sky cop.


So what ?
You don't care about the rule of law? You think the government should be able to do whatever it wants and write it's own rules? You think that there should be no accountability?


Pathetic....

[WB8MKV]

Ronnie was very good...Who else could say " Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall" and guess what, ole Gorby did tear down the wall....and do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....eh comrade ?

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (WB8MKV @ Jan. 10 2008,11:47)]Ronnie was very good...Who else could say " Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall" and guess what, ole Gorby did tear down the wall....and do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....eh comrade ?
Yes I do. They get a little loud sometimes when they celebrate with the Vodka, but otherwise they are pretty nice, helpful people.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WB8MKV @ Jan. 10 2008,14:47)]Ronnie was #very good...Who else could say " Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall" #and guess #what, ole Gorby did tear down the wall....and do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....eh comrade ?
I watched it being torn down. It was torn down by Germans. Gorbachev stayed home.

[k9kxq]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,13:01)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,10:48)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:22)]
The point being is that the federal government is not allowed to play traffic sky cop.


So what ?
You don't care about the rule of law? You think the government should be able to do whatever it wants and write it's own rules? You think that there should be no accountability?


Pathetic....
Ain't that what they have done the last 7 years?

kxq

[K0RGR]

The war on the middle class didn't start with Reagan - it was already well underway by then . I think it started with the wage/price freeze under Nixon, and the "whip inflation now" campaign under Ford, but it was in full swing during the Carter administration, and one of Carter's biggest problems was that nothing helped. We had both runaway inflation and a recession at the same time.

Reagan just abolished the rules of warfare, so the unthinkable became the routine. Outsourcing American jobs to the Far East would have gotten Nixon, Ford, or Carter lynched.It empowered the corporations to cut costs at every opportunity - the specter of seeing your factory moved to Asia quieted millions of workers. In the end, the bluff became a reality.

Meanwhile, he cured the recession by cutting taxes for the wealthy and borrowing money from overseas like mad, while undergoing a huge defense buildup that employed millions of otherwise out-of-work people. In other words, Reagan did the same thing his hero FDR would have done, but did it in such a way that nobody could call him a commie. Basically the same formula being used now. Basically similar to the formula he used to cut taxes in California when he was governor there. Borrow like crazy and let the next guy deal with it.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,11:01)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,10:48)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,10:22)]
The point being is that the federal government is not allowed to play traffic sky cop.


So what ?
You don't care about the rule of law? You think the government should be able to do whatever it wants and write it's own rules? You think that there should be no accountability?


Pathetic....
There is nothing illegal about having an FAA. Meanwhile I'll suggest you persue a formal course of study in law.Pay particular attention to constitutional law and the processes of determining constitutionality.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 10 2008,14:00)]And how, pray tell, do you "make regular" something between states unless there is a uniform set of rules governing the activity?
Exlax?

Geritol?

Or do you prefer Metamucil?

[kc2orw]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 10 2008,16:31)]The war on the middle class didn't start with Reagan - it was already well underway by then . I think it started with the wage/price freeze under Nixon, and the "whip inflation now" campaign under Ford, but it was in full swing during the Carter administration, and one of Carter's biggest problems was that nothing helped. We had both runaway inflation and a recession at the same time.

Reagan just abolished the rules of warfare, so the unthinkable became the routine. Outsourcing American jobs to the Far East would have gotten Nixon, Ford, or Carter lynched.It empowered the corporations to cut costs at every opportunity - the specter of seeing your factory moved to Asia quieted millions of workers. In the end, the bluff became a reality.

Meanwhile, he cured the recession by cutting taxes for the wealthy and borrowing money from overseas like mad, while undergoing a huge defense buildup that employed millions of otherwise out-of-work people. In other words, Reagan did the same thing his hero FDR would have done, but did it in such a way that nobody could call him a commie. Basically the same formula being used now. Basically similar to the formula he used to cut taxes in California when he was governor there. Borrow like crazy and let the next guy deal with it.
Yup thats pretty much how it went...
Thanks for filling in a few holes in my memory. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
How well I recall those WIN bittons, I remember Jerry Ford on TV with one of them. Can't recall a word he said, probably wasn't worth hearing anyway. I recall the "All in the Family Show" used the WIN button in at least one episode, quite comical too http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 10 2008,11:00)]And how, pray tell, do you "make regular" something between states unless there is a uniform set of rules governing the activity?
No one is advocating abolishing all federal agencies, just those that are unconstitutional.

And making something regular means setting up rules that say things like "free trade between the states, no import taxes/tariffs among the states, the states shall not have trade wars, etc"


It's actually really simple but has been perverted by greedy politicians, an ignorant populace, and power hungry judges.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (WB8MKV @ Jan. 10 2008,11:47)]do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....
I wish I did. I hear Russian women are HOT!

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,13:51)]There is nothing illegal about having an FAA. Meanwhile I'll suggest you persue a formal course of study in law.Pay particular attention to constitutional law and the processes of determining constitutionality.
The FAA is prima facie unconstitutional .


And part of the problem is that the way most constitutional law is studied in the US law schools is that it's all based around court cases, even if those court cases are erroneous.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,14:33)]The FAA is prima facie unconstitutional .
Exactly what part of the constitution does it violate?

Quote[/b] ]And part of the problem is that the way most constitutional law is studied in the US law schools is that it's all based around court cases, even if those court cases are erroneous.

Justice Louis Brandeis: "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." #Even if you don't agree with what they say it means.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,00:37)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. #Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?
Would you kindly put away your 'tool'? No one gives a rat's arse about the size of one's testicles or the fortitude they gain from them.

Reagan told the PATCO representatives that by federal law they were not allowed to strike. They could collectively bargain, but COULD NOT WALK OFF THE JOB. That was the law then and it is the law now.

PATCO decided that they would walk out anyway and call Reagan's bluff. To his credit, he meant what he said and fired every controller that walked out, even banning them from further federal service for a number of years.

As for Reagan being responsible for today's traffic control mess, nice try, station. You are talking ancient history, all of the controllers fired would have retired or would be nearing retirement by now. Air traffic control is a profession that takes young and sharp minds, the older you get, the more you lose your edge.

Blame airline deregulation, the exponential rise in passenger traffic, and the government's ineptitude over several Democratic and Republican administrations to revamp and properly equip the FAA with the tools it needs to do the job.

As for the real causes of the aviation mess, you haven't a clue nor do I think you could buy one. But given the chance to slam a Republican, you never miss an opportunity.

There's enough blame to go around to include Carter, Bush the Elder, Clinton, and Bush the younger.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,02:41)][
ronnie was bad news for this country. Not only did he set the stage for building a police state but he also set the wheels in motion to erode away the middle class. #He also set the nation back with regards to inroads that were made with respect to peace, nonviolence and environmental protections. The middle class grows weaker in ronnies legacy. Ronnie was bad for the country.
Yeah, I really remember how much better I was under the policies of the man from Plains, with stagflation, double digit interest rates and rampant unemployment. Oh, and let's not forget that little tussle with a two bit country in the Middle East that held our countrymen hostage for 444 days. I remember how as a military member I was living in a dump because the man from Hope felt social programs were more important than paying the nation's military a living wage and giving them the tools they needed to do the job.

Pull your head out of your rump. Your fart gas is affecting your though processes.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,14:33)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,13:51)]There is nothing illegal about having an FAA. #Meanwhile I'll suggest you persue a formal course of study in law.Pay particular attention to constitutional law and the processes of determining constitutionality.
The FAA is prima facie unconstitutional .


And part of the problem is that the way most constitutional law is studied in the US law schools is that it's all based around court cases, even if those court cases are erroneous.
Actually that is not the way constitutional law is studied. Court cases are important to exemplify the processes involved in making such determinations much the way engineering projects are studied to examplify the processes of thought and analysis that of the engineering discipline.

No single document taken verbatim in and of itself alone can determine the manner of law upon which society rests and functions. It does however serve as a basis (a framework) upon which we interpret and make the laws of the land.

Setting aside the interpretation of consitutionality lats look at the FAA. In the case of the FAA it is such processes that have and will ultimately prove or disprove the "constitutionality" of such a government agency if and when challeged.

Of course there are practical considerations that must be considered if it were to be determined the FAA were unconstitutional and was thereby to be abolished. For example, ... What benefits would it have for society ?
Would it make air travel safer or more dangerous ? Would states and local agencies have the resources needed for building and maintaining air traffic control system as well as handling other operations such as requirements for licensing of pilots, registration of aircraft, various compliancy issues, airport regulations, safety, etc. Would such a system individually run by states and local agencies be able to coordinate itself across the entire nation in a way that is expedient and feasible ? Would a pilot licensed in Wyoming be able to fly over Chicago or land in New York unless there is compliance between the various states...

Comprende ? It is easy to say, "hey it doesn't say anything about the FAA in the constitution so lets abolish it". it is another matter to go ahead and do it without consideration of the practical aspects, i.e. feasibility, consequences, advantages, dangers, etc . that would accompany such an action.

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 10 2008,17:39)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,14:33)]The FAA is prima facie unconstitutional .
Exactly what part of the constitution does it violate?

Quote[/b] ]And part of the problem is that the way most constitutional law is studied in the US law schools is that it's all based around court cases, even if those court cases are erroneous.

Justice Louis Brandeis: "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." #Even if you don't agree with what they say it means.
Beat me to it, but I'd further add....

If there is not going to be increased funding to carry over the gross mismanagement, then I'd say go private.

Private and heavily regulated..... but private.

The constitutional argument has no merit but bad interpretation.

I am far from a big government supporter and rely on that very document as my guide for my political thought process - but thinking that it doesn't include air traffic controllers is an incredible leap.

Jonathan

[KC4RAN]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,15:31)]Quote[/b] (WB8MKV @ Jan. 10 2008,11:47)]do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....
I wish I did. I hear Russian women are HOT!
If you had that much body hair, you'd be hot too. On second thought, maybe you do?

Brings a whole new meaning to the "Russian Bear". Ugh.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 10 2008,14:45)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,02:41)][
ronnie was bad news for this country. Not only did he set the stage for building a police state but he also set the wheels in motion to erode away the middle class. #He also set the nation back with regards to inroads that were made with respect to peace, nonviolence and environmental protections. The middle class grows weaker in ronnies legacy. Ronnie was bad for the country.
Yeah, I really remember how much better I was under the policies of the man from Plains, with stagflation, double digit interest rates and rampant unemployment. Oh, and let's not forget that little tussle with a two bit country in the Middle East that held our countrymen hostage for 444 days. #I remember how as a military member I was living in a dump because the man from Hope felt social programs were more important than paying the nation's military a living wage and giving them the tools they needed to do the job.

Pull your head out of your rump. Your fart gas is affecting your though processes.
Sorry, maybe you make it a practice to keep your head up your rear but don;t assume I or everyone else does. Instead of listening to political hacks go take a look at the Reagan legacy and how it began the downturn of the middle class. Go back to the era before unions, before government regulations, before labor laws were strengthened, when big business could do virtually whatever it wanted with impunity and I'll show you a time where there were lots and lots of poor people, lots of extremely rich (for the time) wealthy people, and a relatively small and weak middle class comprised mainly of merchants. The very things your beloved ronnie set out to destroy,i.e. the labor union, labor laws, business regulation, social programs, etc. are the very things... the prima essence, of what enabled a strong robust middle class to grow and prosper here in America. Reagan set the clock back on the middle class. And his followers (both repubs and dems) have continued his legacy. Anyone who takes an honest and objective look at the ronnie years can easilly see this is evident. Those who cannot most likely are deliberately closing their eyes and believing whatthey want to believe rather than seeing what really is.

Ronnie was bad bad news.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Jan. 10 2008,15:16)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,15:31)]Quote[/b] (WB8MKV @ Jan. 10 2008,11:47)]do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....
I wish I did. I hear Russian women are HOT!
If you had that much body hair, you'd be hot too. On second thought, maybe you do?

Brings a whole new meaning to the "Russian Bear". Ugh.
I don't know about body hair or bears but I do know that I have seen some Russian women who are downright drop dead gorgeous. matter of fact there are a couple of Russian dames where I work and both are damned hot. Whatever body hair they have is certainly in the right places.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (KC4RAN @ Jan. 10 2008,14:16)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 09 2008,15:31)]Quote[/b] (WB8MKV @ Jan. 10 2008,11:47)]do you have any Rusians living in your neighborhood now....
I wish I did. I hear Russian women are HOT!
If you had that much body hair, you'd be hot too. On second thought, maybe you do?

Brings a whole new meaning to the "Russian Bear". Ugh.
Er, body hair? You don't know any Russian woman do you?

I've dated a couple, and 1 as a tennis partner they're hot.. Can be cold hearted biatches though.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,13:13)]The FAA should be abolished and handled by the States. No where in the US Constitution does it say that the federal government is allowed to be a traffic cop.

This wouldn't be an issue.
You think that all the FAA does is handle "traffic"?

Leave it all up to the States?

So tell me, in Libertarian fantasy-world, does that mean that nationwide air carriers get a free pass on maintenance oversight and surveillance... or not? If not, whom do you suggest accomplish such a task?

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,12:56)]Air controllers say staffing too short (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/controllers_emergency)


Maybe if that imbecile jerk that way too many stupid Americans voted for, and fawn over, had really fixed the problem instead of letting way too many ignorat jerks vicariously feel like they, too, had big cajones, this problem would have been fixed.

But no, the US has become too testoserone laden to realize that problems need to be FIXED, not blown away.

Yesterday, the trashing of our airways.
Today, the trashing of the middle east and the US economy.
Tomorrow?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
So tell me, why didn't Bill Clinton "fix" it?

[KD7ZRT]

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Jan. 10 2008,15:13)]If there is not going to be increased funding to carry over the gross mismanagement, then I'd say go private.

Private and heavily regulated..... but private.

The constitutional argument has no merit but bad interpretation.

I am far from a big government supporter and rely on that very document as my guide for my political thought process - but thinking that it doesn't include air traffic controllers is an incredible leap.

Jonathan
So... its not enough to having corporations owning huge sections of spectrum, now they should own the skies too?

[KW4MW]

If Reagan is the bench mark for presidential incompetency then we've really lowered that bar for the last two decades.

Unfortunately, given the current slate of candidates, it's getting lower and lower.

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,16:19)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 10 2008,14:45)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,02:41)][
ronnie was bad news for this country. Not only did he set the stage for building a police state but he also set the wheels in motion to erode away the middle class. #He also set the nation back with regards to inroads that were made with respect to peace, nonviolence and environmental protections. The middle class grows weaker in ronnies legacy. Ronnie was bad for the country.
Yeah, I really remember how much better I was under the policies of the man from Plains, with stagflation, double digit interest rates and rampant unemployment. Oh, and let's not forget that little tussle with a two bit country in the Middle East that held our countrymen hostage for 444 days. #I remember how as a military member I was living in a dump because the man from Hope felt social programs were more important than paying the nation's military a living wage and giving them the tools they needed to do the job.

Pull your head out of your rump. Your fart gas is affecting your though processes.
Sorry, maybe you make it a practice to keep your head up your rear but don;t assume I or everyone else does. Instead of listening to political hacks go take a look at the Reagan legacy and how it began the downturn of the middle class. Go back to the era before unions, before government regulations, before labor laws were strengthened, when big business could do virtually whatever it wanted with impunity and I'll show you a time where there were lots and lots of poor people, lots of extremely rich (for the time) wealthy people, and a relatively small and weak middle class comprised mainly of merchants. #The very things your beloved ronnie set out to destroy,i.e. #the labor union, labor laws, business regulation, social programs, etc. are the very things... the prima essence, of what enabled a strong robust middle class to grow and prosper here in America. Reagan set the clock back on the middle class. And his followers (both repubs and dems) have continued his legacy. # Anyone who takes an honest and objective look at the ronnie years #can easilly see this is evident. Those who cannot most likely are deliberately closing their eyes and believing whatthey want to believe rather than seeing what really is.

Ronnie was bad bad news.
Most students of history fail to agree with you. You really should lay off smelling what you dealt.

As for how good labor unions are, just ask an unemployed auto worker what the UAW has done for them lately, other than ram excessive wage and benefit demands on the auto industry to the point where Detroit was no longer competitive. But they sure did stick it to the man while it lasted!

As the big three are bleeding red ink, it strikes me as poetic justice that there are many NEW automotive plants being opened in the United States. Companies like Kia, Hyundai, Daimler-Benz, Toyota, and Honda have opened up plants in the South and Southwest. All paying union scale, with none of the union graft.

Federal employees by law cannot strike. PATCO knew this. They struck anyway and all of them were canned. They gambled and lost.

Funny, I remember being a lot better off under Reagan and Bush the Elder than I ever was under Carter and Clinton. You will find me in agreement with you that Bush the Younger has screwed the national economy up brown.

Because a politician has a (D) after his name does not make him the savior of our country. Nor does having a ® after his name make him an enemy of the working man.

I know you think that the Democratic Party will wave a wand and all of the bad things will go away. I on the other hand gave up believing in fairy tales when I was nine years old.

[K3XR]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,22:56)]Air controllers say staffing too short (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/controllers_emergency)


Maybe if that imbecile jerk that way too many stupid Americans voted for, and fawn over, had really fixed the problem instead of letting way too many ignorat jerks vicariously feel like they, too, had big cajones, this problem would have been fixed.

But no, the US has become too testoserone laden to realize that problems need to be FIXED, not blown away.

Yesterday, the trashing of our airways.
Today, the trashing of the middle east and the US economy.
Tomorrow?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Strange Billy Jeff (BJ) Clinton had 8 years to correct this so called problem. #As for Reagan, firing those clowns, for not going back to work, a primary reason for voting for his second term.

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (KD7ZRT @ Jan. 10 2008,20:40)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Jan. 10 2008,15:13)]If there is not going to be increased funding to carry over the gross mismanagement, then I'd say go private.

Private and heavily regulated..... but private.

The constitutional argument has no merit but bad interpretation.

I am far from a big government supporter and rely on that very document as my guide for my political thought process - but thinking that it doesn't include air traffic controllers is an incredible leap.

Jonathan
So... its not enough to having corporations owning huge sections of spectrum, now they should own the skies too?
They wouldn't be owning the skies - just being the traffic cops.

Strict oversight for you big government types - fair?

I bet dollar for dollar, free enterprise can get the job done and pay employees better and get better equipment over what the fed is doing now.

Jonathan

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 10 2008,14:39)]Justice Louis Brandeis: "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."
Again, that's like letting the fox guard the hen house.

One of the guys in charge of the supreme court says "the supreme court decides what the Constitution means".
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

Riiiiiiight.



Oh, and for the record, Justic Brandeis was WRONG

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,15:23)]Whatever body hair they have is certainly in the right places.
We are not talking about the current President http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 10 2008,17:10)]So tell me, in Libertarian fantasy-world, does that mean that nationwide air carriers get a free pass on maintenance oversight and surveillance... or not? If not, whom do you suggest accomplish such a task?
Actually my position on this is Constitutional, not libertarian. The two are NOT one in the same.

Constitutionally speaking the federal government is NOT allowed to regulate domestic travel, including air travel. So from that angle it should be left to the States.


However, from a libertarian perspective, it would be better if there were little to no governmental intervention in air travel. First off standards would be set by independent trade organizations. Ever hear of the UL or the API as examples?

Secondly, if an air carrier were found to be liable for loss of property or life they would have to pay restitution and damages. This would be enough incentive for any air carrier to operate as safely as possible.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 10 2008,14:39)]Exactly what part of the constitution does it violate?
Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "



Since no where in Article ! Section 8 of the Constitution is the Congress allowed to regulate domestic travel, specifically air travel, then by the 10th Amendment, it is up to the individual States.

[K3XR]

Notice the brain dead LIBS can't give a good answer why Billy Jeff, supported by the unions, could not fix the "problem" after 8 years. Always fun to watch the LIBS open a door in their face.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 09 2008,15:41)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,00:37)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. #Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?
Would you kindly put away your 'tool'? No one gives a rat's arse about the size of one's testicles or the fortitude they gain from them.

Reagan told the PATCO representatives that by federal law they were not allowed to strike. They could collectively bargain, but COULD NOT WALK OFF THE JOB. That was the law then and it is the law now.

PATCO decided that they would walk out anyway and call Reagan's bluff. To his credit, he meant what he said and fired every controller that walked out, even banning them from further federal service for a number of years.

As for Reagan being responsible for today's traffic control mess, nice try, station. You are talking ancient history, all of the controllers fired would have retired or would be nearing retirement by now. Air traffic control is a profession that takes young and sharp minds, the older you get, the more you lose your edge.

Blame airline deregulation, the exponential rise in passenger traffic, and the government's ineptitude over several Democratic and Republican administrations to revamp and properly equip the FAA with the tools it needs to do the job.

As for the real causes of the aviation mess, you haven't a clue nor do I think you could buy one. But given the chance to slam a Republican, you never miss an opportunity.

There's enough blame to go around to include Carter, Bush the Elder, Clinton, and Bush the younger.
You're full of it.




Quote[/b] ]To his credit, he meant what he said and fired every controller that walked out, even banning them from further federal service for a number of years.

Number 1....the imbecile didn't do this...his handlers did.

And I'm not debating the legalness of the strikers. #In fact, I'm acknowleding that the strike was illegal.

What I'm saying is, that in no way solved the problem. #What it did is gratified so many US Citizens whose cojones were threatened by the concept of "fix the problem, don't blow it away", and every US Citizen who thinks the imbecile did a good job here has been bamboozled by ronnies "handlers".

Any thoughtful and intelligent person who knows the history of the ATC's knows that ronnie was STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, for what he did. #He DID NOT solve the problem, he MADE IT WORSE! #But the reason that he survived that is that the AMERICAN ELECTORATE IS VERY STUPID, and doesn't have the time, or inclination to fathom that problems are simplistic enough for an imbecile to comprehend.

The ATC mess has existed for a long, long time, and it isn't going to get any better until thoughtful, intelligent Americans take control from the stupid Americans who think that big cojones are the answer to all problems.

Good Grief! #We're down the tubes!

[W4DFW]

Why are you fixated on nuts? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W1GUH]

Just pointing out that most American Voters are, but won't admit it.

[AC4BB]

Ron Reagan, stuck it to the PATCO union where they needed it. He took the seam out their britches and cut them down to size. Wish i could have done the same thing. You can't declare a strike where against the US Government public where safety is a factor!!!!! Ron, did exactly what should have been done.

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 10 2008,22:31)]Why are you fixated on nuts? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
They itch!

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (AC4BB @ Jan. 10 2008,00:40)]Ron Reagan, stuck it to the PATCO union where they needed it. He took the seam out their britches and cut them down to size. Wish i could have done the same thing. You can't declare a #strike where #against the US Government public where safety is a factor!!!!! Ron, did exactly what should have been done.
That's the "thinking with the smaller of your two heads" that I'm talking about.

Blow away the enemy, and ignore the real problem.

Try thinking with the larger of your two heads...well, no, you are obviously not capable of that.

[AC4BB]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,00:52)]Quote[/b] (AC4BB @ Jan. 10 2008,00:40)]Ron Reagan, stuck it to the PATCO union where they needed it. He took the seam out their britches and cut them down to size. Wish i could have done the same thing. You can't declare a #strike where #against the US Government public where safety is a factor!!!!! Ron, did exactly what should have been done.
That's the "thinking with the smaller of your two heads" that I'm talking about.

Blow away the enemy, and ignore the real problem.

Try thinking with the larger of your two heads...well, no, you are obviously not capable of that.
Absolutely not. The Patco Union knew and was warned "If, you go on an "Illegal strike" And it was an illegal strike you will be fired' pure and #simple #and #Ron, socked it to em.
They (PATCO) had the option of collective barganing they said No,and got their arses fired.

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 10 2008,20:52)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 10 2008,14:39)]Exactly what part of the constitution does it violate?
Amendment X

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

Since no where in Article ! Section 8 of the Constitution is the #Congress allowed to regulate domestic travel, specifically air travel, then by the 10th Amendment, it is up to the individual States.
Article 1 section 8 states, in part,

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

-end of excerpt-

That is the clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. #This is basic high school civics.

Air travel is a form of commerce between states. #Air travel didn't exist in the late 1700s and probably wasn't even dreamed of by the Founding Fathers so they can hardly be faulted for not having provided specifically for its regulation in the Constitution.


Quote[/b] ]Constitutionally speaking the federal government is NOT allowed to regulate domestic travel, including air travel. So from that angle it should be left to the States.

Using that logic, there is no constitutional basis for the Air Force to exist as a separate service, either, since the constitution only specifically mentions army and navy.


Quote[/b] ]However, from a libertarian perspective, it would be better if there were little to no governmental intervention in air travel. First off standards would be set by independent trade organizations. Ever hear of the UL or the API as examples?

Governments recognize industry standards and some jurisdictions incorporate such standards into their laws, i.e., the American Society of Mechanical Engineers pressure vessel code and the National Electrical Code. #However, from that same libertarian perspective, wouldn't such industry standards be voluntary and wouldn't an individual or organization have the right to ignore such standards if he/she/it so chose?

Quote[/b] ]Secondly, if an air carrier were found to be liable for loss of property or life they would have to pay restitution and damages. This would be enough incentive for any air carrier to operate as safely as possible.

There are civil lawsuits filed every day against airlines and aircraft manufacturers by people looking for restitution for something or other. #Every hear of product liability?

Off the deep end again...

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (AC4BB @ Jan. 10 2008,23:40)]Ron Reagan, stuck it to the PATCO union where they needed it. He took the seam out their britches and cut them down to size. Wish i could have done the same thing. You can't declare a #strike where #against the US Government public where safety is a factor!!!!! Ron, did exactly what should have been done.
Yep, ronnie cut the middle class down to size. He kicked Americans butts but good. God bless him.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 10 2008,20:15)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,16:19)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 10 2008,14:45)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 10 2008,02:41)][
ronnie was bad news for this country. Not only did he set the stage for building a police state but he also set the wheels in motion to erode away the middle class. #He also set the nation back with regards to inroads that were made with respect to peace, nonviolence and environmental protections. The middle class grows weaker in ronnies legacy. Ronnie was bad for the country.
Yeah, I really remember how much better I was under the policies of the man from Plains, with stagflation, double digit interest rates and rampant unemployment. Oh, and let's not forget that little tussle with a two bit country in the Middle East that held our countrymen hostage for 444 days. #I remember how as a military member I was living in a dump because the man from Hope felt social programs were more important than paying the nation's military a living wage and giving them the tools they needed to do the job.

Pull your head out of your rump. Your fart gas is affecting your though processes.
Sorry, maybe you make it a practice to keep your head up your rear but don;t assume I or everyone else does. Instead of listening to political hacks go take a look at the Reagan legacy and how it began the downturn of the middle class. Go back to the era before unions, before government regulations, before labor laws were strengthened, when big business could do virtually whatever it wanted with impunity and I'll show you a time where there were lots and lots of poor people, lots of extremely rich (for the time) wealthy people, and a relatively small and weak middle class comprised mainly of merchants. #The very things your beloved ronnie set out to destroy,i.e. #the labor union, labor laws, business regulation, social programs, etc. are the very things... the prima essence, of what enabled a strong robust middle class to grow and prosper here in America. Reagan set the clock back on the middle class. And his followers (both repubs and dems) have continued his legacy. # Anyone who takes an honest and objective look at the ronnie years #can easilly see this is evident. Those who cannot most likely are deliberately closing their eyes and believing whatthey want to believe rather than seeing what really is.

Ronnie was bad bad news.
Most students of history fail to agree with you. You really should lay off smelling what you dealt.

As for how good labor unions are, just ask an unemployed auto worker what the UAW has done for them lately, other than ram excessive wage and benefit demands on the auto industry to the point where Detroit was no longer competitive. But they sure did stick it to the man while it lasted!

As the big three are bleeding red ink, it strikes me as poetic justice that there are many NEW automotive plants being opened in the United States. Companies like Kia, Hyundai, Daimler-Benz, Toyota, and Honda have opened up plants in the South and Southwest. All paying union scale, with none of the union graft.

Federal employees by law cannot strike. PATCO knew this. They struck anyway and all of them were canned. They gambled and lost.

Funny, I remember being a lot better off under Reagan and Bush the Elder than I ever was under Carter and Clinton. You will find me in agreement with you that Bush the Younger has screwed the national economy up brown.

Because a politician has a (D) after his name does not make him the savior of our country. Nor does having a ® after his name make him an enemy of the working man.

I know you think that the Democratic Party will wave a wand and all of the bad things will go away. I on the other hand gave up believing in fairy tales when I was nine years old.
Quote[/b] ]
I know you think that the Democratic Party will wave a wand and all of the bad things will go away. I on the other hand gave up believing in fairy tales when I was nine years old.


Where did you get the impression that I am a democrat or I expect the democratic party to make changes. A party that is largly backed by the same corporate interests as many in the republican party. I expect neither major candidates of either party to be much different.

The important fact is that during the early 20th century labor unions and were an important toolk in bringing about improved wages, improved benefits, and improved conditions among working people. They were instumental in breaking what was known as the sweatshops in America. The unions were also instrumental in helping to raise the bar iwith respect to non-union workers as well. When Reagan broke PATCO he set off a trend of union busting in America. The bargaining power of the average, everyday, honest, law abiding, hard working, tax paying American was weakened by such an action. That weakening of the American worker continues to this day. I fail to understand how you can consider that a good thing unless you enjoy seeing a weak American work force. No worry, we can always outsource jobs overseas. You might prefer that policy.

During the 20th century and beyond the government adopted a variety of policies to enable the middle class to deal with the many risks encountered in our regulated market economy. And, speaking of "regulated" the government also adopted a variety of regulations with regards to business that further protected the middle class. It was largely these policies that enabled the middle class to grow and prosper and gain strengths is never had before. The middle class grew in so many ways, people were buying homes, sending their kids for quality college educations which further opened a plethora of professional jobs with top pay, superb benefits, and excellent job security.

Reagan was among those who carefully whittled several of those policies that proved beneficial to the middle class weakening it'sposition in the process. The results are abound. And no, I don't expect the democrats to come in and save it either.

ronnie was bad news.

[KI4PEQ]

Just like a deflowered virgin cannot regain her virginity, a liberal with his head up his alimentary canal cannot be convinced of the honest truth.

Tell us again why you think Carter and Clinton hung the moon, and why you disagree with most historical scholars that Reagan was one of our better presidents.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 11 2008,02:16)]Just like a deflowered virgin cannot regain her virginity, a liberal with his head up his alimentary canal cannot be convinced of the honest truth.

Tell us again why you think Carter and Clinton hung the moon, and why you disagree with most historical scholars that Reagan was one of our better presidents.
Jolly good commentary. Have a good evening / morning down in Florida or wherever you are ol' chap.

[ac4r]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 11 2008,02:16)]Just like a deflowered virgin cannot regain her virginity, a liberal with his head up his alimentary canal cannot be convinced of the honest truth.

Tell us again why you think Carter and Clinton hung the moon, and why you disagree with most historical scholars that Reagan was one of our better presidents.
You shut IZE down it seems.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ Jan. 11 2008,02:16)]Just like a deflowered virgin cannot regain her virginity,
Actually in some African countries.... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[kc2orw]

Somebody pharted, hey thats unconsitutional http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]That is the clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. This is basic high school civics.Incorrect. When the Constitution was written the phrase "to regulate" meant "to make regular"

Read back to some history and you'll discover that one of the primary reasons for the Constitution was ending trade wars and tarrifs between the States. Everyone wanted open and free trade between the States which was the point of the commerce clause.

No one wanted the federal government to regulate trade, they just wanted trade to be made regular.




Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]
Air travel is a form of commerce between states. Air travel didn't exist in the late 1700s and probably wasn't even dreamed of by the Founding Fathers so they can hardly be faulted for not having provided specifically for its regulation in the Constitution.Yes, but does it say that the federal government can regulate domestic travel?

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]Using that logic, there is no constitutional basis for the Air Force to exist as a separate service, either, since the constitution only specifically mentions army and navy.Good point. If you remember the USAF was part of the army. The proper thing to do would've been to have an amendment to the Constitution. However I think a case could be made that the Air Force is a legitimate branch of the military.





Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)] However, from that same libertarian perspective, wouldn't such industry standards be voluntary and wouldn't an individual or organization have the right to ignore such standards if he/she/it so chose?
Exactly. Voluntary is correct. That means choice and innovation. But there is also choice on the part of the consumer. If the consumer wants to feel "safer" about who they do business with, they can CHOOSE to only do business with those firms who follow specific standards.

It's all about freedom of choice instead of government mandated regulations. If we are not able to make our own choices then we are not really free now are we?

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,19:37)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 09 2008,00:35)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 09 2008,02:29)]The Constitution sez the Federal Government has jurisidiction in Inter-state commerce. #Learn it.
And that would be why Ronnie did what he did.

Comprende?
I "comprende" that it was his job to deal with the problem.

Why don't you "comprende" that what he did was absolutely stupid and wrong?

Is the size of your cojones threatened?
Why don't you admit it. You're pissed because the fired controllers were union buddies.

K2WH

[KB9YCO]

Johnny Carson as Ronald Reagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdmULsIEyEI)

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,14:17)]No one wanted the federal government to regulate trade, they just wanted trade to be made regular.
You are woefully ignorant of the debates that led to the Constitution. The states wanted the federal government to hold the power to regulate international trade and to govern the trade across state lines because under the Articles of Confederation there was NO such power, and many states suffered as a result.

You must look into why Rhode Island not only refused to send any delegates to the Philadelphia convention in 1787, but also refused to even consider ratifying the resultant Constitution until well after the other states had accepted it. It was because Rhode Island had been capturing all the import trade and charging other colonies exhorbitant tariffs and transportation charges.

You need to read Madison's Notes on the debates. Your understanding of the nature of the commerce clause is defective.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,10:49)]Secondly, if an air carrier were found to be liable for loss of property or life they would have to pay restitution and damages. This would be enough incentive for any air carrier to operate as safely as possible.
But no criminal charges could be filed under your desired scenerio, correct?

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Jan. 11 2008,10:55)]Notice the brain dead LIBS can't give a good answer why Billy Jeff, supported by the unions, could not fix the "problem" after 8 years. Always fun to watch the LIBS open a door in their face.
Agreed!

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,12:56)]Air controllers say staffing too short (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/controllers_emergency)


Maybe if that imbecile jerk that way too many stupid Americans voted for, and fawn over, had really fixed the problem instead of letting way too many ignorat jerks vicariously feel like they, too, had big cajones, this problem would have been fixed.

But no, the US has become too testoserone laden to realize that problems need to be FIXED, not blown away.

Yesterday, the trashing of our airways.
Today, the trashing of the middle east and the US economy.
Tomorrow?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
To recap:

Q: Why didn't LIB hero Bill Clinton "fix" the problem?

A: (Still waiting).

P.S.

People serving on the taxpayer's dime in public safety positions - i.e., those idiot controllers that foolishly went on strike - deserve/d to get FIRED.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 11 2008,19:23)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,12:56)]Air controllers say staffing too short (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/controllers_emergency)


Maybe if that imbecile jerk that way too many stupid Americans voted for, and fawn over, had really fixed the problem instead of letting way too many ignorat jerks vicariously feel like they, too, had big cajones, this problem would have been fixed.

But no, the US has become too testoserone laden to realize that problems need to be FIXED, not blown away.

Yesterday, the trashing of our airways.
Today, the trashing of the middle east and the US economy.
Tomorrow?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
To recap:

Q: Why didn't LIB hero Bill Clinton "fix" the problem?

A: (Still waiting).

P.S.

People serving on the taxpayer's dime in public safety positions - i.e., those idiot controllers that foolishly went on strike - deserve/d to get FIRED.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yeah, comrade. It's a damn shame we didn't have our prison camp at Gitmo then. We could have sent all of them there, had them waterboarded, then executed for treason.

Neocons. What a box of tools.

[K0RGR]

Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Jan. 10 2008,20:55)]Notice the brain dead LIBS can't give a good answer why Billy Jeff, supported by the unions, could not fix the "problem" after 8 years. Always fun to watch the LIBS open a door in their face.
He couldn't fix anything in his 8 years because you and Richard Mellon Scaife were demanding to inspect his cajones every day!

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,11:17)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]That is the clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. #This is basic high school civics.Incorrect. When the Constitution was written the phrase "to regulate" meant "to make regular"

Read back to some history and you'll discover that one of the primary reasons for the Constitution was ending trade wars and tarrifs between the States. Everyone wanted open and free trade between the States which was the point of the commerce clause.

No one wanted the federal government to regulate trade, they just wanted trade to be made regular.
Time to 'splain the facts of life to Junk Yard Dog again...

Exactly how do you "make regular" something that the different states cannot agree on? #You promulgate one set of rules that is binding on all states, then you enforce it. #That is the reason for a Federal government.

The point of the commerce clause, which seems to be lost on you Paul Parrots, is to allow free trade between states and also to provide the Federal government with a means of "levelling the playing field" in certain cases such as the example of Rhode Island that Albert reminded us of.

You seem to want the Constitution to contain a bill of particulars as to exactly what activities constitute "interstate commerce." #Sorry, it doesn't work that way. #The Constitution sets forth basic principles; the Legislative and Judicial branches interpret and apply those principles. #We might not always agree with those interpretations and applications (I certainly don't) but that's the way the Founders set up the system.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but does it say that the federal government can regulate domestic travel?

Does it say that the Federal government can regulate use of the electromagnetic spectrum? #If you really believe that it has no constitutional right to do so, then why did you test for a license that you don't need? #Why not just build or buy a rig and transmit wherever you want, at any power level you want, using any mode you want? #I know someone in Illinois who agrees with that position...and Riley has him in the crosshairs.

Quote[/b] ]Exactly. Voluntary is correct. That means choice and innovation. But there is also choice on the part of the consumer. If the consumer wants to feel "safer" about who they do business with, they can CHOOSE to only do business with those firms who follow specific standards.

It's all about freedom of choice instead of government mandated regulations. If we are not able to make our own choices then we are not really free now are we?

Let me get this straight...according to your interpretation, I should be free to ignore local building codes and wire my house with 22-gauge wire and try to push 117VAC at 20A through it, simply because I have "freedom of choice?" #If I want to take a Boeing 737 up for a quick spin, I should be able to even though I don't have the training or experience to do so, simply because I have "freedom of choice?"

You DO live on the same planet as the rest of us?

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Jan. 11 2008,00:31)]Why are you fixated on nuts? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So long as he is not fixated on MY nuts, I could care less.

Get your own bag and keep your mitts off of my nuts. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 11 2008,14:39)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,14:17)]No one wanted the federal government to regulate trade, they just wanted trade to be made regular.
You are woefully ignorant of the debates that led to the Constitution. The states wanted the federal government to hold the power to regulate international trade and to govern the trade across state lines because under the Articles of Confederation there was NO such power, and many states suffered as a result.

You must look into why Rhode Island not only refused to send any delegates to the Philadelphia convention in 1787, but also refused to even consider ratifying the resultant Constitution until well after the other states had accepted it. It was because Rhode Island had been capturing all the import trade and charging other colonies exhorbitant tariffs and transportation charges.

You need to read Madison's Notes on the debates. Your understanding of the nature of the commerce clause is defective.
KG4JYD is exactly correct. The federal government was supposed to make trade regular -- between the states. Much of our nation's prosperity was/is dependent on free trade across state boundaries.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,11:17)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]That is the clause that authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. #This is basic high school civics.Incorrect. When the Constitution was written the phrase "to regulate" meant "to make regular"

Read back to some history and you'll discover that one of the primary reasons for the Constitution was ending trade wars and tarrifs between the States. Everyone wanted open and free trade between the States which was the point of the commerce clause.

No one wanted the federal government to regulate trade, they just wanted trade to be made regular.




Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]
Air travel is a form of commerce between states. #Air travel didn't exist in the late 1700s and probably wasn't even dreamed of by the Founding Fathers so they can hardly be faulted for not having provided specifically for its regulation in the Constitution.Yes, but does it say that the federal government can regulate domestic travel?

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)]Using that logic, there is no constitutional basis for the Air Force to exist as a separate service, either, since the constitution only specifically mentions army and navy.Good point. If you remember the USAF was part of the army. The proper thing to do would've been to have an amendment to the Constitution. However I think a case could be made that the Air Force is a legitimate branch of the military.





Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,01:24)] However, from that same libertarian perspective, wouldn't such industry standards be voluntary and wouldn't an individual or organization have the right to ignore such standards if he/she/it so chose?
Exactly. Voluntary is correct. That means choice and innovation. But there is also choice on the part of the consumer. If the consumer wants to feel "safer" about who they do business with, they can CHOOSE to only do business with those firms who follow specific standards.

It's all about freedom of choice instead of government mandated regulations. If we are not able to make our own choices then we are not really free now are we?
Quote[/b] ]
Exactly. Voluntary is correct. That means choice and innovation. But there is also choice on the part of the consumer. If the consumer wants to feel "safer" about who they do business with, they can CHOOSE to only do business with those firms who follow specific standards.


Not alays that easy when the consumer(s) is already dead from food poisioning because the company who made that can of chow decided they didn't want to follow the government mandate requiring it to be heated to s spacific temperature before the can was sealed.

Not always that easy when the consumer is alread dead because the car he bought self destructed at 60+ mph because the manufacturer decided it would try setting some new standards.

There are good reasons we mandate certain regulations. Very often they were made to solve serious problems that existed in society.

Quote[/b] ]
It's all about freedom of choice instead of government mandated regulations. If we are not able to make our own choices then we are not really free now are we?


The constitution is the basic framework through which laws are made. In the process we interpret the consititution. case and point, at the time of it's writing many things we now regulate such as air travel, radio communications etc did not exist. The oNLY way to regulate these things was via interpratation. It is true that some laws and regulations are argualbly bad and might even create more trouble than they solve. However, simply because the constitution doesn'tmention a specific entity verbatim does not mean we cannot make laws govering the entity in question.

[W1GUH]

Quote[/b] (AC4BB @ Jan. 10 2008,01:23)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,00:52)]Quote[/b] (AC4BB @ Jan. 10 2008,00:40)]Ron Reagan, stuck it to the PATCO union where they needed it. He took the seam out their britches and cut them down to size. Wish i could have done the same thing. You can't declare a strike where against the US Government public where safety is a factor!!!!! Ron, did exactly what should have been done.
That's the "thinking with the smaller of your two heads" that I'm talking about.

Blow away the enemy, and ignore the real problem.

Try thinking with the larger of your two heads...well, no, you are obviously not capable of that.
Absolutely not. The Patco Union knew and was warned "If, you go on an "Illegal strike" And it was an illegal strike you will be fired' pure and simple and Ron, socked it to em.
They (PATCO) had the option of collective barganing they said No,and got their arses fired.
Quote[/b] ]"If, you go on an "Illegal strike" And it was an illegal strike you will be fired' pure and simple and Ron, socked it to em.
They (PATCO) had the option of collective barganing they said No,and got their arses fired.

I am, in no way, saying that illegal strikers should not pay for being illegal. We agree that it was in illegal strike, and it was completely legal to fire them.


What I'm saying is...imbecile ronnie, and his handlers completely ignored the larger picture, that is, the controllers were getting a f'd up deal, and really, really, needed to be recognized as the professionals they are, without the "big cojone" BS ronnie was giving them.

They knew that sucking up to ronnie meant NO CHANGE would happen. They knew that it would take a national news event to wake the US Populace to how awful their conditions were, and the risked their livlihoods to show us that.

And the people who say what you have are the STUPID US Electorate that only thinks with the smaller of your two heads. (Were you strokin' it when w sent the bombs to iraq)?

This was NOT an easy solution. If ronnie and his handlers had the brains (They didn't) to understand the problem, and been real leaders, they would have:

1) Given an indication to Patco that they understood the problem, in a way that Patco understood, and worked out a solution.

2) If it became necessary to fire the Patco controllers, they would have fixed the REAL problem.

The did none of that, and just blew Patco away, thereby gratifying the US Electorate that only cares about big cojones, that THEY were BIG MEN!

Meanwhile ignoring the real problem.

A problem that is with us today, here and now.

Anyone who thinks ronnid "did the right thing" is stupid. ronnie only reinforced your willingness to think with only the smaller of your two heads.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Jan. 11 2008,15:39)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,14:17)]No one wanted the federal government to regulate trade, they just wanted trade to be made regular.
You are woefully ignorant of the debates that led to the Constitution. The states wanted the federal government to hold the power to regulate international trade and to govern the trade across state lines because under the Articles of Confederation there was NO such power, and many states suffered as a result.

You must look into why Rhode Island not only refused to send any delegates to the Philadelphia convention in 1787, but also refused to even consider ratifying the resultant Constitution until well after the other states had accepted it. It was because Rhode Island had been capturing all the import trade and charging other colonies exhorbitant tariffs and transportation charges.

You need to read Madison's Notes on the debates. Your understanding of the nature of the commerce clause is defective.
I think we are saying the same thing just wording it differently.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 11 2008,17:07)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,10:49)]Secondly, if an air carrier were found to be liable for loss of property or life they would have to pay restitution and damages. This would be enough incentive for any air carrier to operate as safely as possible.
But no criminal charges could be filed under your desired scenerio, correct?
If gross negligence was determined to be criminal then of course it could.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,18:17)]Does it say that the Federal government can regulate use of the electromagnetic spectrum? If you really believe that it has no constitutional right to do so, then why did you test for a license that you don't need? No it doesn't say that the federal government is allowed to regulate communications at all. And I took my exam before I became enlightened to Constitutional principles.




Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,18:17)]Let me get this straight...according to your interpretation, I should be free to ignore local building codes and wire my house with 22-gauge wire and try to push 117VAC at 20A through it, simply because I have "freedom of choice?" If I want to take a Boeing 737 up for a quick spin, I should be able to even though I don't have the training or experience to do so, simply because I have "freedom of choice?"Libertarianism and Constitutionalism are NOT one in the same. Constitutionally speaking both of those things are left up to the States to deal with, NOT the federal government.

From a libertarian perspective however you are free to with your property what you wish, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of anyone else. So if you behave recklessly and cause damage to someone else's property, then you are clearly liable.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 11 2008,22:46)]KG4JYD is exactly correct. The federal government was supposed to make trade regular -- between the states. Much of our nation's prosperity was/is dependent on free trade across state boundaries.
Thanks for another voice of reason around this place

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,23:03)]Not alays that easy when the consumer(s) is already dead from food poisioning because the company who made that can of chow decided they didn't want to follow the government mandate requiring it to be heated to s spacific temperature before the can was sealed.Why do we need regulation for that?

If a company is found guilty of unsafely handling food that cause someone damages, then that company would be liable. Every company would do it's best to be safe because being unsafe would be bad for business and cost lots of money.



Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,23:03)]Not always that easy when the consumer is alread dead because the car he bought self destructed at 60+ mph because the manufacturer decided it would try setting some new standards.Again, if a company is found to be unsafe they'll face consumer backlash and a big hefty lawsuit. Both provide incentive for companies to be as safe as possible.


Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,23:03)]There are good reasons we mandate certain regulations. Very often they were made to solve serious problems that existed in society.Except that when the federal government does it most of the time it is unconstitutional. And having the government mandate actions means we are not free.

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,23:03)]at the time of it's writing many things we now regulate such as air travel, radio communications etc did not exist.Doesn't matter. If the Framers/States wanted the federal government to regulate communications and travel they would've said so in the Constitution. The only reason it is allowed is because of bad court ruilings.


Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,23:03)] However, simply because the constitution doesn'tmention a specific entity verbatim does not mean we cannot make laws govering the entity in question.

WRONG:

Amendment X
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 12 2008,00:22)]
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,23:03)]Not alays that easy when the consumer(s) is already dead from food poisioning because the company who made that can of chow decided they didn't want to follow the government mandate requiring it to be heated to s spacific temperature #before the can was sealed.Why do we need regulation for that?

If a company is found guilty of unsafely handling food that cause someone damages, then that company would be liable. Every company would do it's best to be safe because being unsafe would be bad for business and cost lots of money.


Are you joking or are you smoking ? Said again,liability means nothing when the person who got the food poisoning is DEAD. Comprende ? DEAD ? Don't be so sure companies will start doing everything right for fear of losing customers. All it takes is one company with an overly zealous bean counter to start cutting corners a bit. And with no regulations or oversight that happens very easilly. Companies are notorious for that sort of thing.

One of the reasons you can enjoy that can of Campells Chunky Soup with little worry that you'll keel over and die from it two days later is because there are mandatory standards of compliance, regulation and oversight.


Quote[/b] ]
If the Framers/States wanted the federal government to regulate communications and travel they would've said so in the Constitution. The only reason it is allowed is because of bad court ruilings.


Which clearly indicates that you have absolutely no understanding of how law and the constitution works nor how such decisions are made.

But if you truly believe that the feds have no right to regulate communication then take your ham license, burn it, fire up on whatever frequency you chose, run as much power as you want, and start broadcasting. Do not identify with a call sign as there is no requirement for you to do so since the founding fathers said nothing about radio callsigns. When the FCC shows up tell them they are merely a "bad court ruling" and demand they leave.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 12 2008,00:13)]
Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 11 2008,18:17)]Let me get this straight...according to your interpretation, I should be free to ignore local building codes and wire my house with 22-gauge wire and try to push 117VAC at 20A through it, simply because I have "freedom of choice?" #If I want to take a Boeing 737 up for a quick spin, I should be able to even though I don't have the training or experience to do so, simply because I have "freedom of choice?"Libertarianism and Constitutionalism are NOT one in the same. Constitutionally speaking both of those things are left up to the States to deal with, NOT the federal government.

From a libertarian perspective however you are free to with your property what you wish, so long as you do not infringe on the rights of anyone else. So if you behave recklessly and cause damage to someone else's property, then you are clearly liable.


And when an unsuspecting person buys his house and plugs in a heater one cold night and the 22 gauge wiring sets the house on fire and the people die inside it no longer matters to them who was liable. The whole idea of regulations is to assure that such occurrences are relatively improbable.

When i was young there were some people, mostly younger people, who has an idealistic view of a world with no wars, peace, no greed, no money, in which everyone shared and did for one another out of love, kindess compassion, work was performed out of labour of love, and the world a big happy family. Improbable ? yes... particularly in the short term. Perhaps noble goals to strive for and live for but quite idealistic.

Constitutionalsim is not even idealistic. It's a mythical return to a reality that never existed. A fantasy.

[W1GUH]

'ize and 'jyd...

your debate is awesome, and, as the originator of the thread, I don't mind at all that you've, in a way, expanded the question I posed into the kind of debate that is really, really needed now. I'm loving reading it. How much do I dearly, dearly wish that was what this Presidential campaign was about? Oh my, YES! This is the major question that is being ignored.

But...just to rephrase what I was saying when I started this topic....

The ATC situation is a mess. Many, many people's lives depend on a well-staffed ATC system to get the planes we fly on safely to our destination. And Air Traffice Controllers are a very professional and compentant staff that do their best to fulfill that function. Bless all their hearts and souls. But, if you look carefully, there need to be changes there. I don't have a clue why they are treated like they are, but this is a subject that we should all be aware of and pay attentiont to, while putting aside the politics. The pity is, politics are ovewhelmingly about other, less important topics, like candidate personality. You know what I'm saying.

No more to add.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 12 2008,01:36)]'ize and 'jyd...

your debate is awesome, and, as the originator of the thread, I don't mind at all that you've, in a way, expanded the question I posed into the kind of debate that is really, really needed now. #I'm loving reading it. #How much do I dearly, dearly wish that was what this Presidential campaign was about? #Oh my, YES! #This is the major question that is being ignored. #

But...just to rephrase what I was saying when I started this topic....

The ATC situation is a mess. #Many, many people's lives depend on a well-staffed ATC system to get the planes we fly on safely to our destination. #And Air Traffice Controllers are a very professional and compentant staff that do their best to fulfill that function. #Bless all their hearts and souls. #But, if you look carefully, there need to be changes there. #I don't have a clue why they are treated like they are, but this is a subject that we should all be aware of and pay attentiont to, while putting aside the politics. #The pity is, politics are ovewhelmingly about other, less important topics, like candidate personality. #You know what I'm saying.

No more to add.
Well jyd has the answer... eliminate the FAA.

What the AYTC's need is a good strong union. Let the neocons curse unions to no end, they were a part of the backbone of the middle class. Sadly they have been weakened and so has the middle class.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 11 2008,22:41)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 12 2008,01:36)]'ize and 'jyd...

your debate is awesome, and, as the originator of the thread, I don't mind at all that you've, in a way, expanded the question I posed into the kind of debate that is really, really needed now. #I'm loving reading it. #How much do I dearly, dearly wish that was what this Presidential campaign was about? #Oh my, YES! #This is the major question that is being ignored. #

But...just to rephrase what I was saying when I started this topic....

The ATC situation is a mess. #Many, many people's lives depend on a well-staffed ATC system to get the planes we fly on safely to our destination. #And Air Traffice Controllers are a very professional and compentant staff that do their best to fulfill that function. #Bless all their hearts and souls. #But, if you look carefully, there need to be changes there. #I don't have a clue why they are treated like they are, but this is a subject that we should all be aware of and pay attentiont to, while putting aside the politics. #The pity is, politics are ovewhelmingly about other, less important topics, like candidate personality. #You know what I'm saying.

No more to add.
Well jyd has the answer... eliminate the FAA.

What the AYTC's need is a good strong union. Let the neocons curse unions to no end, they were a part of the backbone of the middle class. Sadly they have been weakened and so has the middle class.
Unions are no longer needed in this country as all work will eventually be performed by illegal immigrants.

The unions are responsible for the firings by Reagan by thinking with their wallets instead of their heads. The strike was illegal. Nothing more to say about it.

K2WH

[NL7W]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 12 2008,06:02)]The unions are responsible for the firings by Reagan by thinking with their wallets instead of their heads. The strike was illegal. Nothing more to say about it.

K2WH
So right you are. What a stupid thread.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 12 2008,01:13)]And with no regulations or oversight that happens very easilly. They also don't like lawsuits and being found liable. Court cases change things.


Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 12 2008,01:13)]One of the reasons you can enjoy that can of Campells Chunky Soup with little worry that you'll keel over and die from it two days later is because there are mandatory standards of compliance, regulation and oversight.Litigation over regulation.


Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 12 2008,01:13)]But if you truly believe that the feds have no right to regulate communication then take your ham license, burn it, fire up on whatever frequency you chose, run as much power as you want, and start broadcasting. Do not identify with a call sign as there is no requirement for you to do so since the founding fathers said nothing about radio callsigns. When the FCC shows up tell them they are merely a "bad court ruling" and demand they leave.Unfortunately erroneous precedent in previous courts have left a faulty legacy.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 12 2008,01:27)]And when an unsuspecting person buys his house and plugs in a heater one cold night and the 22 gauge wiring sets the house on fire and the people die inside it no longer matters to them who was liable. The whole idea of regulations is to assure that such occurrences are relatively improbable.That's why when one buys a house they should have it inspected by a professional so they know what they are getting. It's always about "caveat emptor"





Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 12 2008,01:27)]When i was young there were some people, mostly younger people, who has an idealistic view of a world with no wars, peace, no greed, no money, in which everyone shared and did for one another out of love, kindess compassion, work was performed out of labour of love, and the world a big happy family. THAT is fantasy land. Everything I discuss is based upon natural law.


Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 12 2008,01:27)]Constitutionalsim is not even idealistic. It's a mythical return to a reality that never existed. Incorrect. The nation still had Constitutional integrity until some bad court rulings by Marshall who really did his best to undo the Constitution and throw us back into a monarchy. However on the executive side of things, Lincoln was one of the first Presidents to really trample on the Constitution with no shame.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Jan. 12 2008,07:43)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 11 2008,19:23)]Quote[/b] (W1GUH @ Jan. 10 2008,12:56)]Air controllers say staffing too short (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/controllers_emergency)


Maybe if that imbecile jerk that way too many stupid Americans voted for, and fawn over, had really fixed the problem instead of letting way too many ignorat jerks vicariously feel like they, too, had big cajones, this problem would have been fixed.

But no, the US has become too testoserone laden to realize that problems need to be FIXED, not blown away.

Yesterday, the trashing of our airways.
Today, the trashing of the middle east and the US economy.
Tomorrow?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
To recap:

Q: Why didn't LIB hero Bill Clinton "fix" the problem?

A: (Still waiting).

P.S.

People serving on the taxpayer's dime in public safety positions - i.e., those idiot controllers that foolishly went on strike - deserve/d to get FIRED.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Yeah, comrade. #It's a damn shame we didn't have our prison camp at Gitmo then. #We could have sent all of them there, had them waterboarded, then executed for treason.

Neocons. #What a box of tools.
Well, now that you've got the emotional outburst out of your system, would you like to take a stab at the question?

P.S.

Is this Davey in cognito..? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

P.S.S.

There isn't anything "neo" about my brand of conservatism. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 12 2008,14:08)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 11 2008,17:07)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 11 2008,10:49)]Secondly, if an air carrier were found to be liable for loss of property or life they would have to pay restitution and damages. This would be enough incentive for any air carrier to operate as safely as possible.
But no criminal charges could be filed under your desired scenerio, correct?
If gross negligence was determined to be criminal then of course it could.
Ok...

"Determined" to be criminal by who/m, under what particular law/s, and prosecuted how?

I really don't mean to be difficult with these questions... it's just that as an AMT/Inspector for a major airline, I am truly interested in how you would deal with this complex, multi-layered issue. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,13:15)]Ok...

"Determined" to be criminal by who/m, under what particular law/s, and prosecuted how?

I really don't mean to be difficult with these questions... it's just that as an AMT/Inspector for a major airline, I am truly interested in how you would deal with this complex, multi-layered issue.
Respectful debate is healthy in a free society.

It would work same as any criminal/civil case would work - with a grand jury followed by an indictment, discovery, trial etc...

If an individual or a company is found to be negligent then they would be held responsible in a court of law for causing damage to the property of another.

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 13 2008,05:57)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,13:15)]Ok...

"Determined" to be criminal by who/m, under what particular law/s, and prosecuted how?

I really don't mean to be difficult with these questions... it's just that as an AMT/Inspector for a major airline, I am truly interested in how you would deal with this complex, multi-layered issue.
Respectful debate is healthy in a free society.

It would work same as any criminal/civil case would work - with a grand jury followed by an indictment, discovery, trial etc...

If an individual or a company is found to be negligent then they would be held responsible in a court of law for causing damage to the property of another.
You can't indict someone if there is nothing to base such an indictment on (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulation Part 43 which covers maintenance actions).

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:13)]You can't indict someone if there is nothing to base such an indictment on (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulation Part 43 which covers maintenance actions).
Involuntary manslaughter? Endangerment? Gross negligence? Not to mention torts...

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 13 2008,06:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:13)]You can't indict someone if there is nothing to base such an indictment on (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulation Part 43 which covers maintenance actions).
Involuntary manslaughter? Endangerment? Gross negligence? Not to mention torts...
Again - all based upon WHAT legally enforceable maintenance standard and prosecuted by WHAT agency of government?

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 12 2008,07:02)]The unions are responsible for the firings by Reagan by thinking with their wallets instead of their heads. #The strike was illegal. #Nothing more to say about it.
Right, and right.

Wow, Bill, I agree with you! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Boy, do I remember the day Reagan effectively laid off the union ATCs. I was in a hotel room getting dressed for a meeting at about 6:30 AM, in Dallas. I remember it clearly because it was a pretty big deal, like remembering where you were when JFK was assassinated (or RFK, or MLK) or when they found Marilyn Monroe's body -- or Elvis'. I remember where I was for those events, too.

The strike was illegal and something had to be done. At the time, I applauded Ronnie. IIRC, air traffic flowed smoothly and statistically actually improved under control of the Air Force guys who took over the tasks temporarily.

The problem today is the entire infrastructure hasn't kept up with demand. As a very frequent air traveller, nothing could be more obvious. Not enough runways, outdated equipment, ATCs likely working too many hours for people who really need focus; and one of these days they can probably be replaced by computers who won't get tired, dizzy, headaches or sick and will do the job better than humans could possibly do it. We're just not there, yet.

In the meantime, air travel isn't much fun. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

WB2WIK/6

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:56)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 13 2008,06:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:13)]You can't indict someone if there is nothing to base such an indictment on (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulation Part 43 which covers maintenance actions).
Involuntary manslaughter? Endangerment? Gross negligence? Not to mention torts...
Again - all based upon WHAT legally enforceable maintenance standard and prosecuted by WHAT agency of government?
"Say, kids, what time is it?"

"It's time to 'splain the facts of life to Junk Yard Dog again!"

There is an old principle of law called "nulla poena sin lege," which roughly means, "you can't prosecute someone for violating a law that doesn't exist."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was no FAA and no Part 43. #One day, an airliner falls out of the sky because the engine oil was never changed and the engines seize up.

Now, what do you charge the airline with? #Negligence? #Exactly how were they negligent? #There was no law/regulation that said they had to keep their engines maintained, so they had no legal obligation to do so.

You can hold someone responsible for failure to do something only if they have a legal obligation to perform that something in the first place. #No law to violate = no violation of the law.

"But, but, but...industry standards say the airline has to maintain the engines!" #So what? #Earlier, you said that such standards and compliance therewith were strictly voluntary. #The hypothetical airline in my example chose to ignore those standards which, according to you, they had a right to do. #So, again, how were they negligent?

"But, but, but...the law says they have to adhere to industry standards!" #Really? #THE LAW? #Wasn't the whole thrust of your argument that there shouldn't be any laws regulating the airlines?

And you Paul Parrots can't understand why nobody is taking your Golden Boy seriously...

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 13 2008,10:11)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:56)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 13 2008,06:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:13)]You can't indict someone if there is nothing to base such an indictment on (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulation Part 43 which covers maintenance actions).
Involuntary manslaughter? Endangerment? Gross negligence? Not to mention torts...
Again - all based upon WHAT legally enforceable maintenance standard and prosecuted by WHAT agency of government?
"Say, kids, what time is it?"

"It's time to 'splain the facts of life to Junk Yard Dog again!"

There is an old principle of law called "nulla poena sin lege," which roughly means, "you can't prosecute someone for violating a law that doesn't exist."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was no FAA and no Part 43. #One day, an airliner falls out of the sky because the engine oil was never changed and the engines seize up.

Now, what do you charge the airline with? #Negligence? #Exactly how were they negligent? #There was no law/regulation that said they had to keep their engines maintained, so they had no legal obligation to do so.

You can hold someone responsible for failure to do something only if they have a legal obligation to perform that something in the first place. #No law to violate = no violation of the law.

"But, but, but...industry standards say the airline has to maintain the engines!" #So what? #Earlier, you said that such standards and compliance therewith were strictly voluntary. #The hypothetical airline in my example chose to ignore those standards which, according to you, they had a right to do. #So, again, how were they negligent?

"But, but, but...the law says they have to adhere to industry standards!" #Really? #THE LAW? #Wasn't the whole thrust of your argument that there shouldn't be any laws regulating the airlines?

And you Paul Parrots can't understand why nobody is taking your Golden Boy seriously...
Well said. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0100.gif

[wa6ccw]

Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 13 2008,10:55)]Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 13 2008,10:11)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:56)]Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 13 2008,06:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6ccw @ Jan. 12 2008,16:13)]You can't indict someone if there is nothing to base such an indictment on (i.e., Federal Aviation Regulation Part 43 which covers maintenance actions).
Involuntary manslaughter? Endangerment? Gross negligence? Not to mention torts...
Again - all based upon WHAT legally enforceable maintenance standard and prosecuted by WHAT agency of government?
"Say, kids, what time is it?"

"It's time to 'splain the facts of life to Junk Yard Dog again!"

There is an old principle of law called "nulla poena sin lege," which roughly means, "you can't prosecute someone for violating a law that doesn't exist."

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was no FAA and no Part 43. #One day, an airliner falls out of the sky because the engine oil was never changed and the engines seize up.

Now, what do you charge the airline with? #Negligence? #Exactly how were they negligent? #There was no law/regulation that said they had to keep their engines maintained, so they had no legal obligation to do so.

You can hold someone responsible for failure to do something only if they have a legal obligation to perform that something in the first place. #No law to violate = no violation of the law.

"But, but, but...industry standards say the airline has to maintain the engines!" #So what? #Earlier, you said that such standards and compliance therewith were strictly voluntary. #The hypothetical airline in my example chose to ignore those standards which, according to you, they had a right to do. #So, again, how were they negligent?

"But, but, but...the law says they have to adhere to industry standards!" #Really? #THE LAW? #Wasn't the whole thrust of your argument that there shouldn't be any laws regulating the airlines?

And you Paul Parrots can't understand why nobody is taking your Golden Boy seriously...
Well said. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0100.gif
JYD? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[W1GUH]

One more time, and if it's worth saying once, it's worth saying many, many times.

The function that Air Traffic Controllers serve is very, very important to all of us. Whether you fly or not, our economy depends on a well functioning Air transportation system.

The only point I'm making here is that, for many, many years now, the professionals that are out there, every day, controlling the airspace in a very professional, competant way, are very overworked and understaffed. That's a fact. If you debate me at all, provide me with details why I'm exaggerating that. Put away politics. Put away the union/no union argument. Look at the conditions under which this very professional staff is working, and consider the importance of their work.

Doesn't it make sense that these people deserve decent working conditions? Doesn't it make sense to staff their ranks adequately (even JUST adequtely) so that these dedicated professionals can spend quality time with their families? Do you disagree with that? (If you do you're a piece of feces)

That's what I'm saying...they're political pawns in the "big balls" game. Why hold them hostage to these arguments? Why hold the economy hostage to those stupid arguments?

If we can throw away SO MUCH MONEY on a dumb war, why can't we take decent care of these very important, and very professional workers?

If we can't, we are truly down the tubes. And your big balls are down there with them.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 12 2008,20:11)]Let's say, for the sake of argument, that there was no FAA and no Part 43. One day, an airliner falls out of the sky because the engine oil was never changed and the engines seize up.

Now, what do you charge the airline with? Negligence? Exactly how were they negligent? There was no law/regulation that said they had to keep their engines maintained, so they had no legal obligation to do so.
Do you not understand restitution and/or torts? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[K5FH]

Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Jan. 14 2008,17:42)]Do you not understand restitution and/or torts? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I understand the concept of torts just fine. #I'm not sure you do, though.

The question is, in a Ron Paul world of virtually everything being voluntary, exactly how would my scenario constitute a tort? #And who would adjudicate the complaint?

Like I said earlier, a basic principle of law is that you cannot be held legally liable for failure to do something that you had no legal duty to do in the first place. #The airline couldn't be held liable for failure to do maintenance because, in a Ron Paul world, there was no legal duty to do so; it was voluntary. #Now, the airline can probably be held liable for the damage done by the crashed plane, but that's a separate argument.

In the absence of federal aviation regulations and enforcement, the airlines' bean counters could run the numbers and conclude that it was cheaper to pay off the occasional plane crash than to do costly maintenance that is, after all, voluntary, meaning optional. #Maybe after paying off a couple of times the airline would conclude that it's cheaper to do the maintenance. #But that does nothing for the people who lose their lives in the crashes.

Federal aviation regulations are about public safety. #They are designed to be proactive; the court system is designed to be reactive. #Either way, the government gets involved. #In this case, I would rather have them make sure that the aircraft is properly maintained than have them investigate the crash that results from failure to maintain the aircraft. #And I'm sure you would, too.

[KG4JYD]

Quote[/b] (K5FH @ Jan. 14 2008,18:34)]The airline couldn't be held liable for failure to do maintenance because, in a Ron Paul world, there was no legal duty to do so; it was voluntary.
Woah. Ron Paul never said that.

Ron Paul is talking about eliminating the FAA which is an unconstitutional federal agency. Eliminating the federal choke hold on aviation allows States to come up with their own rules.

Don't confuse Constitutionalism with libertarianism. They are not one in the same. Ron Paul is running on a Constitutional platform.