|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
OM wrote: I think we call this The National Guard these days; another good name at the present time would be IED fodder. ...There's been some argument that the Guard is the evolutionary "next step" of the Militia. I firmly believe this is false, as the "weekend warriors" are really more of the "minor league" of the US Arrrrmy. When a Militia was called up to the front, they weren't broken up and absorbed into regular regiments. The Guardsmen usually are reassigned to units based on their training and not retained as a unit. Wikipedia has a article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States) Based on the Militia Act of 1903, there is an _Organized Militia_: The National Guard and Naval Militia; and a _Reserve Militia_: "which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia." Pat OM |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
the Confederacy winds up having to admit that there needs to be some form of Federal government to keep it secure with regards to the rest of the world. Otherwise, it's less than a dozen microcountries that can be picked off one by one, or especially by an internal threat. You'd think that they'd know this, based on the experience of the 13 colonies that just became independent of England. They tried a very loose association of sorts before the Constitution was written up and started in 1787. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
politics (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
US soil owned by US owners. Granted, they've had the hardpoints removed, but it wouldn't be too much of a trick to rig up a few deer rifles under the wings for a strafing run :-) From what I've heard (I'm a city boy), deer hunting rules say no hunting deer from aircraft.... :-) |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
On Jul 2, 10:51 pm, Craig Fink wrote:
being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War in the Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons. Hummm, kind of makes me wonder.... -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ I help run a small aviation museum in Baltimore. We were offered an F14 for display. It would have flown to Martin State Airport and delivered to us. However, the aircraft would need to have the engines and sensitive avionics removed. Normally this wouldn't be a problem as this is standard procedure for aircraft on loan from the DoD. Often times the DoDO did this for us after we recieved the aircraft. However, this time we had to pay for this "de-milling" ourselves to the tune of about 15 grand. We don't have that kind of cash to swing around on an aircraft that wasn't built here. We're mostly interested in aerospace hsitory of Maryland, so we had to pass. All of our ex-military aircraft on display are on loan from the DoD. We can not fly them, nor sell them for spare parts. They can be revoked if we don't care for them properly. As for jet fighters flying around with "N" numbers, that's something the FAA and DoD regulate highly. The average Joe can't buy a flyable surplus fighter plane like he could at the end of WW2. The jet warbirds flying around today are built up from surplus fuselages and spare parts or bought intact from other countries. Back in 1970, a surplus F-86 Sabrejet crashed on takeoff into a California ice cream parlor. Because of that, there is a strict regulatory climate on civilian fast jets. Also as the cold War came to an end, the former Warsaw Pact countries were selling L-39's,Mig 15's, 19's and 21's on the open market. Again the FAA became alarmed and placed a moratorium on the importation of these aircraft. Hope this clarify things a bit. Gene DiGennaro http://www.marylandaviationmuseum.org |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
robert casey wrote: You'd think that they'd know this, based on the experience of the 13 colonies that just became independent of England. They tried a very loose association of sorts before the Constitution was written up and started in 1787. Ironically, this was organized under The Articles Of Confederation. :-) Pat |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
Gene DiGennaro wrote: Also as the cold War came to an end, the former Warsaw Pact countries were selling L-39's,Mig 15's, 19's Pity the people who try to fly those; the Chinese-made ones were fairly reliable, but the Soviet-manufactured ones had a reputation as widow-makers. They were prone to fires and explosions in the engine bay. There sojourn in the Warsaw pact was fairly brief due to the MiG-21 getting into service sooner than expected; and nobody missed the MiG-19s once the 21's arrived. Pat |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
Henry Spencer wrote:
However, I think it is nevertheless incorrect to say that slavery wasn't the *cause*. Because for pretty well all the obvious causes, if you look into what caused *them*, slavery was at the bottom of it. Certainly the secessionists thought so. The Texas Ordinance of Secession is typical. http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." Jim Davis |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
On Jul 16, 9:20 pm, robert casey wrote:
IIRC, Quebec had such a referendum about 15 years ago, and it almost passed. Yeah, but what was the referendum about? While it was sold to the separatists as a vote on separation, it was sold to the non-separatist majority as a vote to renegotiate Quebec's position within Canada. The result: Polls before and after consistantly showed that even among those who voted YES, the majority did not want to seperate. Even those who wanted to seperate had strange ideas - encouraged by the separatists - that they'd keep their Canadian citizenship and passports, that Quebec would still have a say in Canadian monetary policy, that they could still keep all the Canadian federal government jobs, etc. Even stranger, that if Quebec could separate from Canada, then somehow the english speaking non-separatist areas couldn't leave Quebec. Since then we passed the Clarity Act to prevent such a con-job from happening again. Any vote on separation must be just that: clearly a vote on separation. In other words, it won't happen. But if that did happen, we'd lose the distinction of the USA being one of a very few countries with a discontinuity of its territory on the same landmass (Alaska and CONUS , aka the lower 48). There's also the discontinuity of the North-West Angle and the rest of CONUS. Purchasing Manitoba would fix that. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
wrote in message
oups.com... There's also the discontinuity of the North-West Angle and the rest of CONUS. Purchasing Manitoba would fix that. Huh, had forgotton about. And apparently there's two other small spots like that. Ah, the wonders of Google. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
separation of powers (was F-14 being destroyed instead of...)
In article ,
Jim Davis wrote: ...for pretty well all the obvious causes, if you look into what caused *them*, slavery was at the bottom of it. Certainly the secessionists thought so... Correction: some of the secessionists thought so, including many of the more rabid ones. Most of the Deep South did, but farther north, in places like Virginia, opinion was rather more mixed. As I think I said elsewhere, neither the North nor the South was homogeneous on such things. Notably, there were abolitionists fighting for the Confederacy -- quiet ones, given their environment, but in some cases their opinions are well documented -- and some who favored slavery fighting for the Union. (Remember, the Union included Maryland and Delaware, and in practice included Kentucky too, and all three were slave states.) Many brief modern accounts are deplorably oversimplified; the real situation was complicated and messy. The Texas Ordinance of Secession is typical... "...proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law..." Careful here. This is political propaganda written by extremists, not an impartial presentation of all relevant opinions... as witness its claim that abolitionists believed in a color-blind society, which was *not* consistently true. (Odd though it seems from today's perspective, there were a good many racist abolitionists: they were opposed to slavery on moral grounds, or thought it degrading to the whites involved, or believed it unsustainable and dangerous... but did *not* see blacks as the equals of whites, or believe that a color-blind society was either practical or desirable. Witness various pre-war proposals for "solving the Negro problem" by deporting American blacks -- slave and free alike!! -- to Africa.) Even in the Deep South, whose formal political statements of the day now seem utterly repugnant, people's actual opinions were often more diverse and complex than those documents might suggest. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
JADE SAYS AUK WILL BE DESTROYED | Honest John | Misc | 30 | February 26th 06 10:23 PM |
Titan will be destroyed! | Pete Lawrence | UK Astronomy | 13 | January 15th 05 10:54 AM |
Titan will be destroyed! | Pete Lawrence | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | January 14th 05 08:21 PM |
Mars destroyed | Rodney Kelp | History | 15 | November 29th 04 11:26 PM |
Can a BH be destroyed? | BenignVanilla | Misc | 33 | April 7th 04 04:53 PM |