They are not at all about anything except taking money (and giving it back). They offer a solution but they don't support it or criticize existing solutions. Their argument is purely about the economics involved and not remotely about the science and technology necessary to implement change (which would be the product we get for our money). All the article is giving is bitching about the price tag, including the proposed solution in the last four lines.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/05/531574945/trump-announces-plan-to-privatize-air-traffic-control
This seems like such an inside baseball thing that I'm not sure what to make of it. My initial thought is that would be hard to make air travel any worse in this country, and it's supported by the air traffic controllers who would be directly impacted, which would be a point in favor.
This seems like such an inside baseball thing that I'm not sure what to make of it. My initial thought is that would be hard to make air travel any worse in this country, and it's supported by the air traffic controllers who would be directly impacted, which would be a point in favor.
Dave
Staff member
But this was also already brought up in congress and shot down by a wide bi-partisan margin. And it's GOT to go through congress and can't be something he just does with a stroke of his pen.
The FAA has its structural problems, but it also has a phenomenal safety record. Taking the ATC away from it and letting airlines set their own safety standards (which is functionally what will happen when the new corporations board is populated primarily by airline execs, as Trump explicitly intends) is a bad plan.
Furthermore, if the fee structure is based solely on ticket fees, then not only will the new entity be even further incentivized to de-prioritize air traffic from non-hubs, flyers on tighter budgets are probably going to no longer be able to afford flights unless the new fees are some paltry tiny percentage (going by the existing "airport tax" on various tickets I've booked, this seems unlikely). It's the same problem with having every interstate highway be a toll-road.
Furthermore, if the fee structure is based solely on ticket fees, then not only will the new entity be even further incentivized to de-prioritize air traffic from non-hubs, flyers on tighter budgets are probably going to no longer be able to afford flights unless the new fees are some paltry tiny percentage (going by the existing "airport tax" on various tickets I've booked, this seems unlikely). It's the same problem with having every interstate highway be a toll-road.
Theresa May is - again - voicing her dislike of Human Rights legislation. Even though the Conservative manifesto says that if elected the Tories will keep Britain signed up to the European Court of Human Rights (seperate from the EU so not affected by Brexit) she wants to be able to "derogate" (ignore) certain aspects of it if she doesn't like them.
Not sure if this video has been posted here before, but even if it has it's probably worth watching again.
Not sure if this video has been posted here before, but even if it has it's probably worth watching again.
Aren't a lot of those things guaranteed by the UK constitution, Magna Carta, and/or other documents that existed LONG before the ECHR? To say that it "provided" them seems... well just stupid really.
Also, not a great re-hash of this:
Well that's not too surprising, considering she seems to believe that people will not behave themselves unless they are 100% repressed.
--Patrick
Well, not always. There was a time before, when supreme executive power derived from a mandate from the masses.
--Patrick
Look, some watery tart handing out simitars is no basis for government!
GasBandit
Staff member
Farcical aquatic ceremonies 2020!
Vote Giant Meteor Party!
This shows both the awesomeness, and stupidity of Football fans. They're so used to brawls that they see 3 guys with knives and think "Ya, no problem!"
On the "Canadian flipside" of ISIS terrorism is this apparently: Woman wearing ISIS bandana charged in knife incident at Toronto mall
I'm glad nobody was seriously hurt, as this makes this more bizarre than fear-inducing.
Did you not watch it until the end? Because they kind of make a point of the fact that the ECHR was Britain's idea...
GasBandit
Staff member
Michigan looks like it's about to drop the requirement of a permit to carry a concealed handgun.[DOUBLEPOST=1496959926,1496959833][/DOUBLEPOST]And so is North Carolina.
That's ... unexpected. Even given the gun climate around here.
I consider myself a responsible gun owner, but I'm not so sure I like the wording of the bill.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Wisconsin's thinking about it.[DOUBLEPOST=1496960137,1496960100][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm all for mandatory training. Add it to the high school curriculum, IMO.
Dave
Staff member
And what do those states have in common? All red. And as much as they LOOOOOOVE to point to cities as the horrible places to live, let's look at the murder rate by guns per capita by state, shall we?
- Alaska
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Montana
- Wyoming
- Oklahoma
- New Mexico
- Tennessee
- South Carolina
- Missouri
- West Virginia
- Arizona
- Idaho
- Nevada
- Kentucky
- Indiana
- Georgia
- Utah
GasBandit
Staff member
Meanwhile, Texas Gov. Greg Abbot's being a nutless little bitch about it by pretending it doesn't exist. He talks the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, he gets reaaaaaal quiet.[DOUBLEPOST=1496960626,1496960553][/DOUBLEPOST]
It's a constitutional right. Repeal the second amendment or siddown.[DOUBLEPOST=1496960773][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, you're presenting incomplete data. I found where you got that list. Those are firearm deaths, not murders. 80% of Alaska's gun deaths are suicides, not crime, for example.
Dave
Staff member
Not saying you can't own guns, but we're stupid about it - the red states more stupid than most. The politicians and the NRA have denutted any kind of sensible approach to gun ownership. It's easier to get and own a gun than to catch a fucking fish or drive. You should have to have insurance and - yes - REGISTER your weapon. If that meant a repeal or REVISION of the second amendment, then so be it.[DOUBLEPOST=1496960874][/DOUBLEPOST]
Okay deaths as opposed to murders. Dead is dead is dead. Doesn't change that they are too easy to get and too easy to use irresponsibly.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's just it. It would mean a repeal of the second amendment. And gun grabbers know they don't have anywhere near the votes to do that, so they've been chipping away at it with unconstitutional state and local laws that are in direct contravention to the second amendment, upheld by judiciaries of similar mind - because most people only like the constitution and its amendments when it agrees with them.
If you think a state or city should be able to pass a law to in any way restrict the ownership and carrying of any firearm, then you must also logically support city and state implementation of restrictions of the right to vote based on sex and ethnicity - because that was a constitutional amendment, too.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That means no registration, no insurance.
But I still support safety (and marksmanship) mandatory training as part of HS curriculum.[DOUBLEPOST=1496961209,1496961115][/DOUBLEPOST]
Suicide rates are irrelevant to the discussion. I can name 20 things in my office I could kill myself with, it doesn't mean the government has the responsibility or right to infringe my access to those things using that as justification.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, not sexist or racist, just constitutionally ignorant and/or in deep cognitive dissonance. Logic isn't racist/sexist.You're right, I must be racist and sexist because I think there should be more limits on owning guns.
On the bright side, if you buy a gun its more likely to kill you than someone else. Less Trump voters.
GasBandit
Staff member
I definitely support making it easier for stupid people to hurt themselves.
Dave
Staff member
Completely right. I'm ignorant. Because an amendment can't possibly be repealed or amended without gutting them all. You do realize how stupid you sound, right?
GasBandit
Staff member
You think one amendment must be enforced while another must be undermined. I'm not talking about repealing in this instance, I'm talking about city/state laws that contravene the 2nd amendment. Repealing the second amendment (or altering it with a further constitutional amendment) would be a completely legitimate way to go about things.
But that's never how the gun grabbers have gone about things. When they don't get what they want from the constitution, suddenly they're even more into "states rights" than a segregationist.
@Dave, @GasBandit is only saying that a constitutional amendment should only be able to be changed/removed by constitutional process, and creating "except for.../not counting.../unless..." laws at the state/city/etc level are attempts to subvert that constitutional process..
--Patrick
--Patrick
Last edited:
You know those things aren't mutually exclusive.
I mean you might as well say the government shouldn't keep a list of who's a citizen because "freedom". There are way to do those things without infringing on the right to bear arms.