Jump to content

Soback

Members
  • Posts

    2,069
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Soback

  1. Yeah, Aramike, way to debate with facts. Facts are, our government is corrupt. Facts are, if you don't have accountability on the personal level, and there's no repricussions for violating the law, the criminals run rampant and missconduct is common. It's elementary. The punishment prevents the crime. If you could rob a bank, shoot 10 people, and the max sentence you could get is a year in prison, this type of crime would be common, everyday occurence. Therefore, if you can steal, cheat the taxpayers, not do your job and collect a paycheck, abuse the power of your position, and not even be fired, then all that would be a common occurence, which it already is. Clinton lied, and not went to jail. Senators steal, take bribes, and don't lose their jobs, at most they "appologise" and maybe step down (which is laughable). We the people get abused, and are ALWAYS just one beurocrat (judge, policeman, IRS agent, ect..) away from having ALL our posessions confiscated, land siezed, life ruined, and time in prison. And that's an everyday occurence. Starting from the immenent domain law, going through the fees/taxes bleed, and ending like those ranchers (in Arizona was it, or New Mexico), having their property confiscated because they kicked ILLEGALS off of it. Now THAT's a police state. A state where the government (the state) is POLICING it's citizens. Don't know what police state you don't want to live in. However, a country where the people are not afraid of their government, and the power is FROM the people (like it was intended), is a good place to be. Don't try to justify something just because it's the government that's doing it. You tried it with when you defended the selloff of OUR highways, the ones WE paid for, to private companies, so that we can continue to pay MORE, and now you are trying to make one phrase of "police state" argue the whole point for you. Look up "Police state" aramike. It's when the CITIZENS are oppressed by the government, NOT when the government is accountable TO the citizens.
  2. What a fallacy, to justify a wrongdoing by pointing out a worse wrongdoing. It's like saying that Sadam wasn't bad because when compared to Stalin or Hitler, he only killed a couple of million as opposed dozens of million. Or how about, "Hey, my house was robbed, but it's ok because they only took the tv and some jewlery. The neighbors house on the other hand was cleaned out. So I don't mind." Wouldn't be suprised if in a decade there will be insurgency, trying futilely to expose and overthrow this corrupt, illegitimate goverment, by force. That's why accountability on personal level, and extreemly tough sentences need to be imposed and enforced on every government employee. If a government employee (appointed, elected or hired) knowingly violates the Constitution, it's execution time. Corrupt/illegal conduct = labor camp. Willfull incompetence = prison time. Gross incompetence = termination without any further ability in government employment, for life. Only then will you get a clean government. There will NEVER be responsibility without accountability, those two go hand in hand. Without these ideas being instituted, we the sheep will always be getting fleeced and abused.
  3. Did you not watch the video? The guy is not LISTENING and ABIDING. Tasering is the least they should've done. If people don't abide the law officers there would be chaos. As far as your better alternative goes. Don't just say "I am sure there was a better alternative". PRESENT your better alternative of how to get a moron to comply. What you think the cops just showed up there for no reason and started tasering and dragging the guy out? Did you not read the link? They asked him for ID, he didn't show it. They ASKED him to leave. He refused. So they cuffed him, he dropped down on the floor. They told him to stand up, he wouldn't. So they tasered him to try and get him to obbey. Which obviously WORKED. The only reason this story is even getting attention is because this guy is Iranian (looks middle eastern).
  4. Yeah, pretty sure in US there is no such thing as a fine for insulting a public official. It's just something that the socialists dreamed up. Gotta mulk the money somehow. What Jack did is expressed his opinion. As long as he didn't write any lie and state it as a matter of fact, he has the right to express his opinion. ESPECIALLY about a public figure. This is one of the big things US was/is founded on.
  5. First, you need to get an idea who you are talking to here. I am a pilot, and know a lot more about Federal Aviation Regulations than you can begin to even understand, and you quoting me a little paragraph that is not even from the book, means nothing. VFR is NOT a loophole. What those idiots are proposing is to make Visual Flight Rules to be more like Instrument Flight Rules, where you have to file a flight plan and be in constant contact with ATC. So it would make no sense to change VFR rules for the sake of preventing terrorist attacks, or preventing accidents. Like I aldready said, those guys weren't following the regulations already in place, by flying too low over LAND (they were supposed to stay over water), the regulations ALREADY in place for VFR prevent things like this from happening. THAT is why I mentioned IFR. A terrorist could as well file IFR, BE in constant communications with ATC, BE under radar contact, he can violate every single rule, and STILL cause damage. However, the thing is, you can't cause much damage with a piston plane. Even if you load it up with explosives, a piston engine aircraft doesn't have the penetration force necessary, nor does it have much payload. THAT is why I am telling you about a truck. Have you already forgotten how after 9/11, some dumb kid crashed a Cessna 172 into an office building. Do you remember the results of that? The office was barely damaged, let alone anything done to the building. So, I am not going to educate you on FAR's or on aircraft performance in this post. What I am telling you, as a professional pilot, is the crap that everyone keeps talking about, like imposing some idiotic regulations for aircraft operating under VFR will do zilch to prevent terrorists from doing what they want to do. Nor will it prevent accidents like this, because not only is this an accident, it happened why the pilots DISREGARDED the regualations already in place, so imposing any additional beurocratic bull is not going to prevent anything, it will only make it harder for pilots without adding any safety margin. Also, a light piston twin barely has the power to lift 3 people, to lift 4 it will have to trade the weight of the 4th one by not taking on fuel, so the notion of causing any substantial damage with it is laughable. All this talk does is highlight the ignorance of the people who open their mouth (especially the politicians) and put forth the ideas that imerged from their jumbled brains without a centilla of knowledge on the subject. [ 10-19-2006, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]
  6. First of all, VFR is by far not the wild west of aviation. VFR stands for "Visual Flight Rules". RULES stands for "An authoritative, prescribed direction for conduct, especially one of the regulations governing procedure in a legislative body or a regulation observed by the players in a game, sport, or contest. " That being said, it's far from everyone doing their own thing. It starts from as simple as what altitude you will fly at depending on which direction you are traveling in, to something as complex as those VFR corridors and airspace regulations. Also, the fact that there was a certified instructor with him, and an accident happened. It REINFORCES the notion that whatever happened wasnt just because this guy was a low time pilot, because obviously even the flight instructor couldn't save them. What would prevent a terrorist from filing a flight plan, taking off, then flying into a building anyway. You do know that ALL the aircraft involved in 9/11 attacks were flying under IFR, were in ATC contact, and had IFR flight plans on file. Well, maybe you didn't. Oh, and one more thing, a Beechcraft Baron weighs a maximum of 5,524 lbs. http://www.raytheonaircraft.com/beechcraft...ifications.aspx By comparison a Ford 150, the smallest weighs 6,500 pounds (not counting what it could tow), to 8,200 lbs (bigger engine/hp etc...). Do your math on what would be simpler and cause more damage.
  7. It was an accident. Simple as that. He was flying that low, becaues the corridor SPECIFIES that he stay under 1,200 feet. It's TOTALLY fine when you are flying right above the water, which he was doing. That's EXACTLY what this corridor is designed for. Low flying traffic over the water. It all went awry when he got over land. He broke the rules already IN PLACE, and he paid the ultimate price for it. There's no new rules nor regulations needed, as there's nothing that will stop a terrorist from breaking them all to cause death and damage. This is the same as the laws that prohibit normal law abiding citizens from owning firearms, while the criminals go right ahead, get firears and commit crimes with them on those same law abiding citizens. The politicians who have no knowledge in aviation writing laws for us aviators to follow will not do anything to protect this nation from an internal terrorist attack. All it will do is hinder normal law abiding pilots, cause more congestion in already high traffic areas, cause bussiness/taxes and revenue loss, ect.... So stop all this silly panicking till you familiarize yourself with aviation and gain some knowledge on this area, and not from the "facts" that are portrayed on the news. PS, how many fatal accidents are there on the US roads and freeways? The ratio is hundreds of times higher than aviation accidents (even if you count the non fatal ones). If you are going to use the analogy that "the plane he got was a little 'racy', it's like just getting your drivers license and jumping into a ferrari", then why don't you say something like "When people get their drivers license, they shouldn't be allowed to drive anything but a 1970's VW bug with less that 100 horsepower, AND push your politicians to scream "US roads are not secure, any terrorist could get a drivers license and drive a truck loaded with "explosives, biological, or nuclear" material into a building. That is by far a more realistic scenario. Instead, they all keep quite, while illegals without insurance are driving all over US, causing traffic, accidents, deaths, and all kinds of damage. The politicians are all hush, and people are like sheep "all is quite, then all is well" LOL, wait till a small plane that weights less than a Ford 150 crashes and kill the two pilots on board, and we have a panic that the sky is falling down. ROFL
  8. What loophole are you talking about? There is no loopholes. He got his license, he bought a plane, and he was flying it with a CFI (CERTIFIED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR). Somehow everyone just seems to ignore the fact taht during this ACCIDENT, there was an actual experienced, FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR at the controls with this private pilot. As far as VFR corridors go, they are just that, VFR corridors. They are designed to route VFR traffic (aircraft flying under visual flight rules) through designated area. It reduced congestion in the overall area, and reduced the workload on ATC so that it can actually dedicate attention to where it's needed, instead of spending time yaking to a guy flying along a designated corridor. How is required ATC contact going to prevent a terrorist attack? EVERY aircraft flying in that area is already UNDER RADAR CONTACT. There's absolutly NOTHING an ATC controller can do to prevent a terrorist from doing anything, just by being in radio contact with him. All it is are some idiots who have zero knowledge in aviation, voicing their interpretations on how things should be. These talking idiots, talking, spitting and trying to design Aviation Regulations are akin to a guy with no mechanical skills, telling an actual mechanic how to fix his car.
  9. Let's Say I Break Into Your House... > > Recently large demonstrations have taken place across the country protesting the fact that Congress is finally addressing the issue of illegal immigration. Certain people are angry that the U.S. might protect its own borders, might make it harder to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely. Let's see if we can correctly understand the thinking behind these protests: > Let's say I break into your house. Let's say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, "I've made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors; I've done all the things you don't like to do. I'm hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house). > According to the protesters, not only must you let me stay, you must add me to your family's insurance plan, educate my kids, and provide other benefits to me and to my family (my husband will do your yard work because he too is hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part). If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house, carrying signs that proclaim my right to be there. > It's only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I'm just trying to better myself. I'm hard-working and honest, um, except for well, you know. > And what a deal it is for me!! I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of selfishness, prejudice and being an anti-housebreaker. Oh yeah, and I also want you to learn my language so you can communicate with me. > Why can't people see how ridiculous this is?! Only in America.... ---> Cut and paste from an e-mail
  10. ROFL - "If Clinton can be believed"
  11. You know you want it. Probably already started those download sessions too.
  12. http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetolog...ispunctatus.htm "Neck ring present, but usually broken in the middle; peninsular Florida north through southern Alabama and the coastal plain to southeastern Virginia." Description - http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/herpetolog...sppunctatus.htm "Ringnecks are the snakes that are most frequently found in Florida swimming pools ÔÇö they crawl in to get a drink and then cannot climb out because they are too small to reach the lip of the pool. If you find one in your pool, lift it out with the leaf skimmer or a dipnet and turn it loose in the shrubs where it can get back to eating things you do not want in your garden. "
  13. What, six manned landings on the moon is not enough? http://moon.google.com/
  14. It's not a police state, Aramike. It's called holding those who violate our Constitution responsible. Starting from the top, those who wrote the illegitimate law, to the bottow with those who enforce the illegitimate law. Ignorance is not an excuse. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in a way that can be understood by a layman. If you can't understand what they wrote, you shouldn't be working for the public. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that Social security is redestribution of wealth. Redestribution of wealth is socialism/communism, which in turn is slavery by another name. Taking one persons labor, and giving part of the benefits of that labor to another, is slavery, and it's unconstitutional. To those who say that what's best for the society can come at the cost of individual. They are forgetting that society is made up of individuals, and a society that takes away from the fundamental and self evident rights of an individual for the best of the society, is not worth living in, defending, or existing as a society. For a society it is not, it is a hive. So, seeing how Social Security comes at the cost of Individual Security. It is a fallacy, and a violation of my rights under the Constitution. By what right do you take away what I make, and use it for the primary benefit of another? For my right to keep the product of my labor, be it physical or otherwise, is as fundamental as it gets. Those who wrote, approved, and enforced that, are criminals, and have to be treated as such.
  15. You're right. You gotta do what you gotta do, and sometimes you have to do the things you hate to make life better.
  16. That Legacy game is as linear as they come. A bunch of missions strung together. You play them the same, every time. Never will buy a game like that.
  17. Oh, and Darkling. Upon reading your description on how you got your mortgage payments down, and managing your finances, I came to realization that you are creating for yourself a situation for THE GREAT DEPRESSION. I understand the term "cash flow", however, this is no way of doing it. You can have cash flow while having secure assets. What you have right now, is cash flow, while bleeding your networth at a constant rate, and not only that, if the economy goes for the worse, be it the housing market or inflation, or rise in rates, you will simply be declaring bankruptcy. Refinancing means starting the clock all over again on your mortgage. It means paying out more interest that you otherwise wouldn't have to pay. Yes, it leaves more cash for you to use now, but it also leaves you spending more money down the line. It's like having a credit card balance that you ALWAYS will be making payments on. Cashflow is not the same as secured assets. Even if you are making $100 dollar a month payments on a mansion, you need to understand, that that mansion is NOT YOURS. Life like this is good, when everything works. Market goes down, economy goes down, inflation goes up, lose a job, lose a bussiness, whatever, and all of it goes down the drain. I will take a Deed of ownership over lower payments, anyday. Even if that means that I will be making $4,000 a month payments for the next 15 years rather then $2,000 a month for the next 30. All you have to do is calculate the interest over those 15 years difference to realize how much you would save. As for people who say that they can take that $2,000 and invest it to make money. BULL. Banks charge interest that will be higher than what you can get from savings, or CDs or anything else that makes a sure return. Stock market? Good when you make money, bad when you lose it. Better of sticking with higher payments, as every time you make one, that's 7 or 8 percent interest that goes into your pocket, everytime, 100% of the time, as opposed to refinancing for higher cash flow, and planing on a possible return.
  18. You know that letter from Social Security that shows up once a year? The one that details how much you have contributed and estimates what you can collect when you retire. Well, the one that showed up this year, told me how social security wouldn't be around when I retire. However, if it is around, it would only be able to pay out 70% of those who will be retiring. So, what am I paying for right now? Instead of having the government spend my money right now, for MAYBE a crumb of it when I am 65 (that's if they don't raise the retirement age), I would rather take that same percentage and invest it in CD's. Not only would I make out better with CD's, BUT it's 100% payout, with no guessing whatsoever, when I retire. Social Security is nothing more than another tax. Just like disability, medicare, and all those federal and local "fees". Have you ever looked on your cell phone bill? 10 to 15% of it is taxes. You do know that you are still paying the telecomunications tax that was instituted for the Spanish war, over 100 years ago. Bush spending, Clinton spending. It doesn't matter. Instead of nitpicking between Democrats or Republicans, get them ALL out of office. Prosecute them for crimes against their country, violating the Constitution, execute them, that will send a message to politicians, "If you run for office because you want to manipulate and abuse the USA, you will pay with your life" Only then will you get some real politicians in there.
  19. Aha, and the money that company pays out it toll taxes, lease, income (profits) taxes, ALL have to come from you, the citizen. The company can not have more going out than it brings it, otherwise the whole venture would fail. So YOU are paying for all those taxes, + other costs which go to the company for oversight and profits. Oh, and don't forget, your DMV fees, property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, ALL those don't decrease. The citizen is getting taxes TWICE. It's aking to buying a new car for $20,000 and paying 8.5% sales tax. Money to car = $20,000, Money to government = $1,700 Then selling that car for $15,000 and the other person pays 8.5% sales tax. Remember, the car didn't miracuously build value, it's not an investment, NOBODY but the manufacturer and the dealer made money on it, AND the taxes on the item have already been paid. At second sale, money to the government = $2,975 The second owner sells it for $10,000. Same deal, he didn't make any money, he just spend $5,000 grand of his own money for a couple of years ownership. The item is taxed AGAIN, for the third time. Money to government = $3,825 Oh, and don't forget. The registration fees. Every new owner, has to re-register it. And then register it once a year there after. The registration fees are based on what the car cost. Why? Is a car that is worth $100,000 costs more to register than a car that is worth $20,000? Yeah, it's like that. At fourth sale for $5,000 the government would've collected a total of $4,250. Taxed the same item which value was $20,000 a total of 4 times, and raked in a tax that is 21.25%. How about the estate tax. What right does the government have to tax the family of a person that died. Every little thing that person owned has already been taxed. Same thing is happening here. Everyone is already taxed for those roads. Now they are imposing an additional tax on users of those roads. But not just an additional tax, a tax at the PREMIUM, allowing a private company to profit off of public property. Take a read about Air traffic control services being privatized in Canada and Australia. You will notice how that turned out. The taxes the citizens had to pay didn't decrease. The users (passengers) had to pay an increase in ticket prices because airliners now have to pay the cost of ATC services. But that's only half the story, EVERYONE pays higher costs, from mail stamps (remember, mail is tranported by aircraft), to the products you buy at the store (the ones that had to be shipped by air). That's what happens when you privatize something that has been build with public money. All it is, is a second tax. If not third when you count that you are paying the original tax, and the fee which is calculated to recoup the lease/maintenance/profits. But hey, we can have a group hug. As long as everyone in that group agrees that I am right. lol
  20. Look, enough. Stop trying to confuse the people and muddy the issue with rethoric about "recouping taxes" and "Capitalism" The taxes are NOT recouped, and it doesn't just "seem" (as you put it) that the taxpayer is getting charged twice. The taxpayer IS getting charged twice. Here's a simple, layman explanation. All it relies on is a bit of logic and math that a 5 year old can do. 1. State decides to build a freeway that would cost $1,000,000.00 (million). (freeways are managed by states, local roads are managed by cities/towns *municipalities*). To finance that freeway the state takes money from a. DMV fees, b. Sells bonds that taxpayers will have to repay over the next 30 to 60 years (usual time span for a bond) 2. The bill comes out to $100 dollars per citizen (if there are 10,000 citizens that live in that state), to build the freeway, and $10 dollars thereafter (a year) to maintain it. Like I've already said. The people who live in that state pay out (finance) the project through a. DMV fees (those who own a car), + b. Property taxes (home/property owners), + c. Sales taxes (consumers), income taxes (working people). The money is drawn from all those sources. The bulk comes from DMV fees and bonds that the property owners will have to repay. 3. Once the road is build, I (a single taxpayer) is out $100 bucks, and then $10 bucks a year thereafter. 4. The state then decides to lease the road to a private entity. All this time the road has been building potential "value" to a scheeming private company/government. As the population around the area grew, more people travel that road, and therefore if a toll would be introduced (for a road that's already paid for, and maintenance being collected for), additional profits can be made. 5. So the state leases the road for 1.5 million. To "recoup" the costs of constrution as you put it. It would be recouped if the money went right back to the original people who PAID for that road. That's not how it works however. Once the road is leased, the private company will have to charge tolls to a. make up that 1.5 million, + b. it's administrative costs, + c. maintenance costs, + d. profits. But the citizens will NEVER see a single check in their mail. 6. Total cost per citizen? The original $100 dollars that I (plus others) have paid, PLUS additional fees (tolls) that I (and others) will be paying till that 1.5 million lease if made up by the private company that leases the road. Which means I am paying MORE than DOUBLE for that very same road. Conclusion. The money is NOT recouped. It's just a gimmick to impose additional financial charges on a citizen and funnel money to the government with the help of a private company that will split the profits. Don't try to say that it's ok becaue the additioinal money that I will be paying will benefit me, it won't. The taxes that I pay benefit me when they are spend on PUBLIC PROJECTS, something that everyone can use, to primarily benefit the taxpayer with secondary benefits for others, NOT when it's spend on any kind of social entitlement program, or special interest, when someone OTHER THAN the taxpayer derives the primary benefits, those things do not benefit the taxpayer, the primary benefit goes to selected few. So, who profits off of the citizens original investment? That private company that didn't take any risks, it just calculated how many people travel that road daily (a statistic available by request from state records), and then lease that road from the government that is corrupt enough to do so. With full knowledge that a citizen that has ALREADY paid for the road, will end up paying for it again. The deal just keeps it out of the public mind, and tangles it up so that people don't see where the money is going. But that's only HALF the story. Those same citizens are STILL being charged the same ammount for DMV fees (remember that little $10 a month portion that is supposed to go towards maintenance), and money is still being funelled for that maintenance from property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes. That's all in addition to the toll fee, which is split between the private company and government. It's plain out robbery. Does that explain the shady deal? Does that explain why the money is NOT recouped? Capitalism or criminal?
  21. Efficiency doesn't mean squat in this case. Doesn't matter how eficient or inefficient they are, you have no choice but to take a particular road, and pay whatever tolls they charge. The facts remain. 1. Citizens paid for the road. 2. From then on, they were only supposed to pay for road upkeep. 3. Government leases the road. (You think they leased it at cost? I think they leased it at a premium.) 4. Leasing company now charges citizens to recoup the lease costs, maintenance costs, administrative costs, and profits. 5. Citizens are therefore paying TWICE for that same road. It's not capitalism. That leasing entity can't fail. If there's a road from point A to point B, and the detour will take you 20 miles out of the way, your option is pretty obvious. Subtract the costs of the toll from the costs of taking the detour + your time. There's a reason why roads are PUBLIC. Build with public money, and are supposed to be maintained with public money. The money that the company pays the government are not recouped in any way, shape or form. It's just a gimmick for the government to get a fresh cash infusion. If they don't lease it, all they are stuck with is money allocated for maintenance from DMV fees and other little sources. If they lease it out, they get a big chunk at one time, and then constant tax stream from tolls, while STILL getting their allocations from DMV and other sources. The citizen ends up paying twice. If you try to say one more time that it's just plain old Capitalism, then you don't know what Capitalism is, and can't tell the difference between what is criminal conduct and what is a bussiness deal. One of the things that go with a class in bussiness is ethics and economics. Just because there's a dollar sign with a profit attached, doesn't mean all is legitimate and well. Would your argument for the Mob be the same? That they are just making a profit, conducting bussiness deals by offering establishments extra security that they charge for. Those establishment are given the same choice that the drivers would be on the leased roads. Either pay double for the police and the mob or get out, and Either pay double for DMV and the toll or get out. The difference is, the government used to fight the mob, now they are dealing like one. With people like you defending those dealings.
×
×
  • Create New...