TSA fining passengers with "attitude"

In article , john
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:48:15 -0500, Sean Elkins
wrote:

--
Sean Elkins RKBA

Being a talented actor or musician doesn't make some
drop-out's political ideas more valuable or enlightened
than mine.
************************************************* *


Does this apply to Schwarzenegger?

Nah, He doesn't fit the category of "talented actor".

Just another example of show biz arrogance. Who really believes he
could have even been voted dogcatcher if he weren't famous?

--
Sean Elkins RKBA

Being a talented actor or musician doesn't make some
drop-out's political ideas more valuable or enlightened
than mine.
**************************************************

"me" wrote in message
om...
"Wandering Hiker" wrote in message
om...
[snip]
The long-abandoned principle is simple. Set expectations and the
consequences for not meeting them. THEN, follow through with the
consequences when necessary!
[snip]

This methodology has the wonderful aspect of being onerous upon
the rule maker as well. Which is why step 3 of this little missive
is usually "don't make rules you don't want to enforce". Otherwise,
one quickly learns the true origins of "this hurts me more than
it hurts you".

(had a mother explain why she hated grounding her kids. "Because
then they were always AROUND." She lost her private/solitude kinda
time).

I think it's called growing up and accepting the role of parent, guardian,
leader etc. with the full understanding the job won't be pain free. One word
comes to mind: mature. Many of our kids have been abandoned because adults
in their lives never grew up.

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:21:32 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
To my surprise, the tiny nail-clippers in my purse got
attention. The clipper part - which is not pointed, and requires that
you insert your fingernail between two tiny, fixed blades - passed
muster. I was not even AWARE that the gadget also had a tiny nail file
attached (all of an inch long). When I consented to the removal of
that, the clippers was allowed to board with me.

And yet you see people carrying on these bottles of wine in those
cardboard travel cases. Like a broken bottle can't be used as a
weapon?

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 17:46:48 -0500, Sean Elkins
wrote:

it was just a convenient way for FDR to
steal their land.

Yeah, the Roosevelt estate is just outside of Fresno....


Talk about rewriting history to suit ideological views!

gad - don't give them any more scwewwwy ideas


"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:21:32 -0800, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
To my surprise, the tiny nail-clippers in my purse got
attention. The clipper part - which is not pointed, and requires that
you insert your fingernail between two tiny, fixed blades - passed
muster. I was not even AWARE that the gadget also had a tiny nail file
attached (all of an inch long). When I consented to the removal of
that, the clippers was allowed to board with me.

And yet you see people carrying on these bottles of wine in those
cardboard travel cases. Like a broken bottle can't be used as a
weapon?

Sean Elkins wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Irwell) wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:20:03 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"

wrote:


WASHINGTON --



How someone could propose the country would be better off in a post-911
world with a soft on defense candidate like Kerry never ceases to amaze
me. Yes, I KNOW HE WAS IN VIETNAM, but that doesn't change the fact
that his voting record is somewhere left of Teddy Kennedy and he has
voted against almost every defense initiative that has been proposed
since he took office.

So I guess you're ****ed off at GWB who cancelled a helicopter
last week on which we had ****ed away $9 billion $$$$$.

Chris the Liberal wrote:

So I guess you're ****ed off at GWB who cancelled a helicopter
last week on which we had ****ed away $9 billion $$$$$.

I haven't read about this? Did GWB issue an executive order or what?
I thought Congress handled appropriations for such projects.
In any case, it appeared the Army canceled the project, Bush wasn't
mentioned
The article I saw said 6.9 Billion and 21 YEARS.

This article indicates cost if completed would have been $39 Billion and
for a much smaller number of aircraft than originally planned.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/attack/11192.php

"The per-unit cost of the scrapped helicopter has more than quadrupled,
from $12.1 million per aircraft when the Army planned to buy 5,023 of
them, to $58.9 million when the purchase was cut back to 650."

The article also indicates the Army will be asking Congress for approval
to spend the money budgeted for this project (until 2011) to buy 796
more Black Hawk and other helicopters, and to modernize 1400 already in
its fleet. This money for almost 2200 aircraft is obtained from the
money that would have built only 121 Comanches. On paper, it doesn't
seem like a bad idea. If it takes over 20 years to put an aircraft into
service, it probably doesn't belong in service.

in 1983 when it was conceived, it made sense. Now with the current
inability of choppers to withstand ground fire (actually, they never could,
but the Army wanted to be "airmobile" - desert is different from jungle) and
UAVs, the "need" is lessened.

"Chris the Liberal" wrote in message
m...
Sean Elkins wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Irwell) wrote:

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:20:03 GMT, "Dennis G. Rears"

wrote:


WASHINGTON --



How someone could propose the country would be better off in a post-911
world with a soft on defense candidate like Kerry never ceases to amaze
me. Yes, I KNOW HE WAS IN VIETNAM, but that doesn't change the fact
that his voting record is somewhere left of Teddy Kennedy and he has
voted against almost every defense initiative that has been proposed
since he took office.

So I guess you're ****ed off at GWB who cancelled a helicopter
last week on which we had ****ed away $9 billion $$$$$.

'scuse me - I can show you several flying examples (pre-production
prototypes)

"Carole Allen" wrote in message
...
Actually, they had spent that on RESEARCH before they decided to not
develop the thing. they never actually built a single helicopter.
Rummy wants to change the focus to smaller, more mobile units, so that
requires a different kind of hardware.

On 4 Mar 2004 22:03:51 -0800, (Chris the
Liberal) wrote:
So I guess you're ****ed off at GWB who cancelled a helicopter
last week on which we had ****ed away $9 billion $$$$$.

(Carole Allen) wrote in message ...
Actually, they had spent that on RESEARCH before they decided to not
develop the thing. they never actually built a single helicopter.

Actually, they did. It was a prototype and it was cobbled together
out of alot of nonfunctioning systems. But it did fly. They
used it to evaluate alot of the requirements for the thing. In the
end, they decided it was horribly underpowered amongst other things.
Probably still qualifies as "research" but they did build "a" helicopter.