Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 165
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    There never was a surplus. That was all creative accounting.
    Sure. Prove this statement, a gift card to Ruth Chris' says you can't. Use the Congressional Budget Office's website. You are just upset that a Democratic president did what the Repubs. have never done............... a balanced budget

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Hmmm. The war on terror in Iraq costs almost as much as Johnson's Great Society. At least we're securing that nation by fighting terrorism.
    Fighting terrorism or training future terrorist in the tatics of The United States Armed Forces?

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Roosevelt's Ponzi scheme is falling apart. I'm almost 43, and I'll sing a duet with Elvis before I see a social security check.
    Ponzi scheme? I think this "scheme" as you so call it has worked quite well for many americans for more than a half century. Repeal 1/3 of Bush's tax cuts or raise the cap for SS to $140,000 or raise the minumum wage. These are all ideas to work with to save SS without adding the 3 trillion dollars needed to transfer to private accounts. Where are your ideas besides blaming the other side for your short comings.
    Last edited by NRG; 04/26/2005 at 08:20 PM.
  2. #122  
    Wikipedia gave him a good write up. Most notable is that he has never been RESPONSIBLE for anything other than producing copy and publishing opinion. Never lead a company, never had to make payroll. Just attended the cocktail circuit.

    Also, I seem to recall during President Bush's first term that he did try to pass an energy bill that your friends the Democrats spiked. The mosquitoes in ANWR must have a powerful lobby.
  3. #123  
    Clinton's tax hikes and slashing of the military and intelligence apparatus, along with the Republicans welfare reforms and now forgotten spending restraint did put the nation temporarily in the postion of TAXING its citizens of more than it was spending. (Let's not forget the irrational exurberance of the DOT BOMB market, as well.) But only a true liberal would call that a balanced budget in view of the national debt and the SS commitments to the baby boomers. (Do you REALLY think Clinton would have balanced the budget had the Republicans not won control of Congress in 1994?)

    We're not training terrorists, these people have long specialized in this sort of warfare. What has happened is that our military has gotten much, much better at hunting them down and killing them. Singly or by bunches we're stacking them up like cordwood. I can't tell you how proud I was of my regiment, the 5th Marines, fighting through Fallujah last fall. The Jihadis really thought we didn't have the stomach for the close fight. Those that didn't run were killed. Many of those that did run just died tired. A few got away, but they'll live the life of a hunted animal. In just a few years, Iraqi security forces will kill them. Lebanon will be free. There is a nascent liberty movement in Syria. The students will revolt in Iran. It has not been without cost, but the war to liberate the Middle East from despots will pay huge dividends. Democracies don't fight democracies. Pax Americana will be realized, at least until the Red Chinese make a move.

    Yes. The Roosevelt Ponzi scheme has redistributed income since the 30's, succeeding in attaching a large percentage of the populaton to the governmental teat. But a chain letter only goes so far, and we're about to reach a point where only two workers will be supporting every SS recipient. This, down from the days when 15 workers were supporting each recipient. Roosevelt got enough justices appointed to the Supreme Court to protect this unconstitutional abomination. (Which explains whey the Donkeys are fighting so hard for control of the judiciary. That is their last power base.)

    My ideas? Easy. We phase SS out over the next 50 years. Make healthy people INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own well being. We also control immigration, deregulate the health industry, and stop subsidizing behavior that has destroyed the minority family. I would eliminate the bloated bureaucracies of the Deparment of Education, Energy Department (The Rural Electrification Commission STILL exists!) Essentially I would trim the federal government to its constututional mandates. If people wanted to live in high tax "high service" areas they could move to the Blue states. 50 laboratories of Democracy. That's what I advocate.

    What is your solution, other than that of the Limousine Liberal and using governmental force to make people to pay for their neighbors retirement.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Clinton's tax hikes and slashing of the military and intelligence apparatus, along with the Republicans welfare reforms and now forgotten spending restraint did put the nation temporarily in the postion of TAXING its citizens of more than it was spending. (Let's not forget the irrational exurberance of the DOT BOMB market, as well.) But only a true liberal would call that a balanced budget in view of the national debt and the SS commitments to the baby boomers. (Do you REALLY think Clinton would have balanced the budget had the Republicans not won control of Congress in 1994?)
    So is what you are telling me here is you can't prove there was never a surplus? That is what I thought. Partisan zealot.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We're not training terrorists, these people have long specialized in this sort of warfare. What has happened is that our military has gotten much, much better at hunting them down and killing them. Singly or by bunches we're stacking them up like cordwood. I can't tell you how proud I was of my regiment, the 5th Marines, fighting through Fallujah last fall. The Jihadis really thought we didn't have the stomach for the close fight. Those that didn't run were killed. Many of those that did run just died tired. A few got away, but they'll live the life of a hunted animal. In just a few years, Iraqi security forces will kill them.
    The NIC begs to disagree with your assessment:

    Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
    War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true

    Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

    snip--

    Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Yes. The Roosevelt Ponzi scheme has redistributed income since the 30's, succeeding in attaching a large percentage of the populaton to the governmental teat. But a chain letter only goes so far, and we're about to reach a point where only two workers will be supporting every SS recipient. This, down from the days when 15 workers were supporting each recipient. Roosevelt got enough justices appointed to the Supreme Court to protect this unconstitutional abomination. (Which explains whey the Donkeys are fighting so hard for control of the judiciary. That is their last power base.)
    So it did work and still will work if we can get people in congress to work together. The problem here is not that SS needs reform which we both agree on. The problem is that Bush's private accounts do nothing to address the solvency of SS, he said so himself. So why keep them? Let's work to fix SS not destroy it. Let's not add more cost (> 3 trillion dollars) to an already burdened system. I say we focus on Medicare first.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    My ideas? Easy. We phase SS out over the next 50 years. Make healthy people INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own well being.
    Too bad the American people don't agree with this.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We also control immigration
    Agreed. Try to make everyone legal and accounted for.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    deregulate the health industry, and stop subsidizing behavior that has destroyed the minority family.
    You are going to have to explain this one more for me as I don't quite understand what you are saying here.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I would eliminate the bloated bureaucracies of the Deparment of Education
    Do you say we leave this up to the states? I agree but I don't think Bush would agree with you.
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Elimanate the Energy Department (The Rural Electrification Commission STILL exists!)
    Who is going to regulate the nuclear power plants, Strategic Oil Reserves, all the military's spent nuclear fuel, all the civilian and military research that is done through it's labs (i.e. new types of fuel to get off the saudi's teat.)
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Essentially I would trim the federal government to its constututional mandates. If people wanted to live in high tax "high service" areas they could move to the Blue states. 50 laboratories of Democracy. That's what I advocate.
    I agree we should strip some of this goverment down. Maybe not as far as you suggest, but pretty damn deep.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What is your solution, other than that of the Limousine Liberal and using governmental force to make people to pay for their neighbors retirement.
    Limousine Liberal? Expand on this piece of slander please.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Sure
    Ponzi scheme? I think this "scheme" as you so call it has worked quite well for many americans for more than a half century.
    A ponzi scheme works great for everyone except those holding the bag at the end. Not to judge the comparison either way, but your analysis isn't necessarily indicative of it not being a ponzi scheme.
  6. #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Wikipedia gave him a good write up. Most notable is that he has never been RESPONSIBLE for anything other than producing copy and publishing opinion. Never lead a company, never had to make payroll.
    if leading a series of failing businesses adds to someone's resume, then I stand corrected - W does have a leg up on Freidman
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 04/26/2005 at 10:51 PM.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    A ponzi scheme works great for everyone except those holding the bag at the end. Not to judge the comparison either way, but your analysis isn't necessarily indicative of it not being a ponzi scheme.
    From Wikipedia:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    <snip>
    There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. So we could image that at any given time there might be, say, 40 million people receiving benefits at the back end of the pipeline; and as long as we had 40 million people paying taxes in the front end of the pipe, the program could be sustained forever. It does not require a doubling of participants every time a payment is made to a current beneficiary. (There does not have to be precisely the same number of workers and beneficiaries at a given time--there just needs to be a stable relationship between the two.) As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.
    ...
    If the demographics of the population were stable, then a pay-as-you-go system would not have demographically-driven financing ups and downs and no thoughtful person would be tempted to compare it to a Ponzi arrangement. However, since population demographics tend to rise and fall, the balance in pay-as-you-go systems tends to rise and fall as well. During periods when more new participants are entering the system than are receiving benefits there tends to be a surplus in funding (as in the early years of Social Security). During periods when beneficiaries are growing faster than new entrants (as will happen when the baby boomers retire), there tends to be a deficit. This vulnerability to demographic ups and downs is one of the problems with pay-as-you-go financing. But this problem has nothing to do with Ponzi schemes, or any other fraudulent form of financing, it is simply the nature of pay-as-you-go systems.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  8. #128  
    And unfortunately we are entering a prolonged period with a decrease in payers and an increase in recipients, when a pay-as-you-go tends to resemble a ponzi scheme, though on a rolling basis (no one person/group is left "holding the bag", it is a larger group and as the older geneneration passes on, the bag is slowly rolled off).
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    And unfortunately we are entering a prolonged period with a decrease in payers and an increase in recipients, when a pay-as-you-go tends to resemble a ponzi scheme, though on a rolling basis (no one person/group is left "holding the bag", it is a larger group and as the older geneneration passes on, the bag is slowly rolled off).
    Right. Resemble maybe, but the idea that it is a "ponzi scheme" is just intellectually dishonset. The whole idea is to fix SS not break it. I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. We can fix SS with a slight tweak here and there. I have metioned a few of the fixes here in this thread. To me it seems as if Bush is a spoiled kid that had his brakes wear out and wants a new car. It would be typical of his upbringing and therefore giving you an insight to his pysche. It kind of fits his "My way, or the highway" attitude.
  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Right. Resemble maybe, but the idea that it is a "ponzi scheme" is just intellectually dishonset. The whole idea is to fix SS not break it. I see no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. We can fix SS with a slight tweak here and there. I have metioned a few of the fixes here in this thread. To me it seems as if Bush is a spoiled kid that had his brakes wear out and wants a new car. It would be typical of his upbringing and therefore giving you an insight to his pysche. It kind of fits his "My way, or the highway" attitude.
    To say private accounts provide a fix to the coming demographically driven shortfall, that would be dishonest. To say private accounts are good for the country, well, that's a different story. I do believe there are benefits to aligning the interests of the investor class with those of the historically "working class." I can understand, if not fully endorse, the view that long-term returns would be superior in private investments.

    The coming shortfall is a red herring and I think deep down people on both sides know that. It's a typical political tool: come up with one reason that you think might be politically tasteful while concealing another reasont that may be just as important and righteous, but for whatever reason isn't a very popular notion.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #131  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    To say private accounts provide a fix to the coming demographically driven shortfall, that would be dishonest. To say private accounts are good for the country, well, that's a different story. I do believe there are benefits to aligning the interests of the investor class with those of the historically "working class." I can understand, if not fully endorse, the view that long-term returns would be superior in private investments.

    The coming shortfall is a red herring and I think deep down people on both sides know that. It's a typical political tool: come up with one reason that you think might be politically tasteful while concealing another reasont that may be just as important and righteous, but for whatever reason isn't a very popular notion.
    Let's just fix SS first, then when we have that sorted out we can revisit private accounts.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #132  
    1911sforever must be on vay-kay.
  13. #133  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    if leading a series of failing businesses adds to someone's resume, then I stand corrected - W does have a leg up on Freidman
    As does flying jet fighter aircraft. As does serving as a governor.

    Freidman hasn't spend a day being responsible for anything other than yakking and typing.
  14. #134  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    As does flying jet fighter aircraft. As does serving as a governor.

    Freidman hasn't spend a day being responsible for anything other than yakking and typing.
    Flying a jet aircraft makes you fiscally brilliant?
  15. #135  
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Clinton's tax hikes and slashing of the military and intelligence apparatus, along with the Republicans welfare reforms and now forgotten spending restraint did put the nation temporarily in the postion of TAXING its citizens of more than it was spending. (Let's not forget the irrational exurberance of the DOT BOMB market, as well.) But only a true liberal would call that a balanced budget in view of the national debt and the SS commitments to the baby boomers. (Do you REALLY think Clinton would have balanced the budget had the Republicans not won control of Congress in 1994?)

    NRG:So is what you are telling me here is you can't prove there was never a surplus? That is what I thought. Partisan zealot.

    1911sforever: Say I own a business that is $20 trillion in debt with an annual operating cost of $750 billion. Most years my gross proceeds are $150-200 billion less than my expenditures. But, during a period where I vastly downsize my workforce and other overhead (the military and federal welfare) and the economy peaks (mostly due to the technology that was enabled by the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s and irrational exuberance) my revenue exceeds expenditures. I'm still $20,000,000,000,000 in the hole, and with hundreds of billions more in debt that will come due as the population ages. If you want to define taking in more money for a few years than you're spending a "balanced budget", we were there. (As I stated above, just before you labelled me a "partisan zealot".)

    I can remember when the Clinton administratin was projecting surpluses forver and ever. Too bad the business cycle came back into play, and too bad the nation was attacked and was forced to defend itself and freedom's interests around the globe. Reality does have a way of coming around and chomping the hindquarters, doesn't it?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We're not training terrorists, these people have long specialized in this sort of warfare. What has happened is that our military has gotten much, much better at hunting them down and killing them. Singly or by bunches we're stacking them up like cordwood. I can't tell you how proud I was of my regiment, the 5th Marines, fighting through Fallujah last fall. The Jihadis really thought we didn't have the stomach for the close fight. Those that didn't run were killed. Many of those that did run just died tired. A few got away, but they'll live the life of a hunted animal. In just a few years, Iraqi security forces will kill them.

    NRG: The NIC begs to disagree with your assessment:

    Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
    War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...+&notFound=true

    Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

    snip--

    Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1911sforever: Yes. The CIA. The same guys that didn't see the downfall of the Soviet Union until the corpse was stinking. The same organization that failed to prevent 9/11. The same organization that said it was a dead lock that Saddam had WMDs. (Too bad we can't search the Bekka Vallley.) The same organization that predicted that elections in Iraq would be nearly impossible in the given time frame Yes. By all means cite them for credibility.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Yes. The Roosevelt Ponzi scheme has redistributed income since the 30's, succeeding in attaching a large percentage of the populaton to the governmental teat. But a chain letter only goes so far, and we're about to reach a point where only two workers will be supporting every SS recipient. This, down from the days when 15 workers were supporting each recipient. Roosevelt got enough justices appointed to the Supreme Court to protect this unconstitutional abomination. (Which explains whey the Donkeys are fighting so hard for control of the judiciary. That is their last power base.)

    NRG:So it did work and still will work if we can get people in congress to work together. The problem here is not that SS needs reform which we both agree on. The problem is that Bush's private accounts do nothing to address the solvency of SS, he said so himself. So why keep them? Let's work to fix SS not destroy it. Let's not add more cost (> 3 trillion dollars) to an already burdened system. I say we focus on Medicare first.

    1911sforever: It "worked" because 15 people were contributing for every recipient. That is no longer case, and never will be again. The government has drammatically overpromised, and stepped well beyond its proper bounds to make that promise.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    My ideas? Easy. We phase SS out over the next 50 years. Make healthy people INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE for their own well being.

    NRG: Too bad the American people don't agree with this.

    1911sforever: The younger generations do. One day they'll be in leadership positions, saddled with such a tax rate to support SS that they'll be looking for ice flows to put us geezers on.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    We also control immigration

    Agreed. Try to make everyone legal and accounted for.

    1911sforever: Exactly. I'd like to see a couple of "Ellis Island" type facilities along a heavily patrolled and totally controlled border.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    deregulate the health industry, and stop subsidizing behavior that has destroyed the minority family.

    You are going to have to explain this one more for me as I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

    1911sforever: How much of health care costs comes from government mandates for paper tracking? Why does it cost so damned much money to develop a drug?

    Johnson's "Great Society" replaced the father in urban minority families, with horrific results. And we just kept paying for it. When Moynihan called out the perils of the illegitimacy rate among blacks in the 60's, he was labeled a racist. Now it is approaching 80%...(Kweisi Mfume, call your answering service.) The bottom line is that this subsidy and subsequent Lord of the Flies subsociety has cost us billions in legal and medical costs, not to mention lives destroyed and freedoms encoached upon

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    I would eliminate the bloated bureaucracies of the Deparment of Education

    NRG: Do you say we leave this up to the states? I agree but I don't think Bush would agree with you.

    1911sforever: No, he wouldn't. He has done MUCH to really anger me. Signing campaign finance reform, AKA the "1911sforever Shut the Hell Up" act. No child left behind is a boondoggle, as was is presciption benefit program. I support him on the war, his energy policy and SS reform. I also want to see his judges confirmed.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Elimanate the Energy Department (The Rural Electrification Commission STILL exists!)

    Who is going to regulate the nuclear power plants, Strategic Oil Reserves, all the military's spent nuclear fuel, all the civilian and military research that is done through it's labs (i.e. new types of fuel to get off the saudi's teat.)

    1911sforever: It doesn't need "regulation" as much as loose oversight and a stiff shot of competition.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Essentially I would trim the federal government to its constututional mandates. If people wanted to live in high tax "high service" areas they could move to the Blue states. 50 laboratories of Democracy. That's what I advocate.

    NRG: I agree we should strip some of this goverment down. Maybe not as far as you suggest, but pretty damn deep.

    1911sforever: I'm sure we can find some common ground. I'll wield an axe, you can come with a hatchet. But the federal government has grown far behind a healthy level.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    What is your solution, other than that of the Limousine Liberal and using governmental force to make people to pay for their neighbors retirement.

    NRG: Limousine Liberal? Expand on this piece of slander please.

    1911sforever: Your approach to SS is essentially "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It is pure redistribution of income, especially since recipients now draw out what they paid into it in such a short time frame. There is no other rational way of looking at this, and many other government programs, which were primarily designed to keep Democrats elected. Now the Republicans are infected with the give away disease. Anyway, my characterization of you was unfair. You're a BMW coupe liberal.

    So what is your solution to "fix" social security? Higher taxes, raising the retirment age, or both? Why not harness the power of the market place and give people a stake in OWNING their own futures, rather than leaving them at the mercy of politicans?
  16. #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Flying a jet aircraft makes you fiscally brilliant?
    No more so than attending Ivy League schools and running a key board for a left wing propaganda sheet, AKA the NY Times.

    But it does give you responsibility where lives, other than just your own, are at risk.
  17. #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    No more so than attending Ivy League schools and running a key board for a left wing propaganda sheet, AKA the NY Times.

    But it does give you responsibility where lives, other than just your own, are at risk.
    Uh, how is that? Not crashing into someone else? In that case driving a car would be the same.
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #138  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Uh, how is that? Not crashing into someone else? In that case driving a car would be the same.
    daThomas as much as agree with you, I am going to have to disagree with you here. There is a lot more to flying a plane than there is to driving a car. Trust me. There are things that you don't see going into preparation of the flight (i.e. windage, weight and balance, tankage, burn rate of fuel, stall speed of aircraft, rotate speed, recovering form a spin, radio communication, etc.). Let's just say that flying an aircraft does take some brains. Here is a few of the sample questions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An airplane is overtaking a helicopter. Which aircraft has the right-of-way?
    A) Airplane; the airplane pilot should alter course to the left to pass.
    B) Helicopter; the pilot should expect to be passed on the left.
    C) Helicopter; the pilot should expect to be passed on the right.


    An airplane will stall at the same
    A) airspeed regardless of the attitude with relation to the horizon.
    B) angle of attack and attitude with relation to the horizon.
    C) angle of attack regardless of the attitude with relation to the horizon.


    GIVEN:
    Pressure altitude 12,000 ft
    True air temperature +50 F
    From the conditions given, the approximate density altitude is
    A) 11,900 feet.
    B) 18,150 feet.
    C) 14,130 feet.

    When approaching to land at an airport with an ATC facility, in Class D airspace, the pilot must establish communications prior to
    A) 30 SM, and be transponder equipped.
    B) 4 NM, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL.
    C) 10 NM, up to and including 3,000 feet AGL.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    And these are some of the easier ones. I am just saying. It is a bit tougher than some realize.
  19. #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    No more so than attending Ivy League schools
    Ivy league schools - are you talking about the one who Daddy Bush got W into or what?????
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    and running a key board for a left wing propaganda sheet, AKA the NY Times.
    you mean the paper you were recommending people to read earlier in this thread?
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    But it does give you responsibility where lives, other than just your own, are at risk.
    I agree being a fighter pilot is cool, but many years of consistent failure in business (despite the sterling connections his lineage and Ivy League education brought him) tells a lot more about W's economic aptitude.

    Here is a fairly detailed account of Bush as a businessman if anyone is interested:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...bush073099.htm
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 04/28/2005 at 06:53 PM.
  20. #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    daThomas as much as agree with you, I am going to have to disagree with you here. There is a lot more to flying a plane than there is to driving a car. Trust me. There are things that you don't see going into preparation of the flight (i.e. windage, weight and balance, tankage, burn rate of fuel, stall speed of aircraft, rotate speed, recovering form a spin, radio communication, etc.). Let's just say that flying an aircraft does take some brains. Here is a few of the sample questions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An airplane is overtaking a helicopter. Which aircraft has the right-of-way?
    A) Airplane; the airplane pilot should alter course to the left to pass.
    B) Helicopter; the pilot should expect to be passed on the left.
    C) Helicopter; the pilot should expect to be passed on the right.


    An airplane will stall at the same
    A) airspeed regardless of the attitude with relation to the horizon.
    B) angle of attack and attitude with relation to the horizon.
    C) angle of attack regardless of the attitude with relation to the horizon.


    GIVEN:
    Pressure altitude 12,000 ft
    True air temperature +50 F
    From the conditions given, the approximate density altitude is
    A) 11,900 feet.
    B) 18,150 feet.
    C) 14,130 feet.

    When approaching to land at an airport with an ATC facility, in Class D airspace, the pilot must establish communications prior to
    A) 30 SM, and be transponder equipped.
    B) 4 NM, up to and including 2,500 feet AGL.
    C) 10 NM, up to and including 3,000 feet AGL.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    And these are some of the easier ones. I am just saying. It is a bit tougher than some realize.
    I was replying to this, "But it does give you responsibility where lives, other than just your own, are at risk."
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast

Posting Permissions