Chuck / Dianes NEW Idea...


PDA

SteyrAUG
February 5, 2003, 07:38 PM
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/custom/photoday/sfl-dayinpix,0,1420370.photogallery?coll=sfla%2Dhome%2Dutility&index=14

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2003-02/6506435.jpg

Anti-missile devices on civilian aircraft?
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y, left, accompanied by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., center, and Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., center, holds an American-made, shoulder-fired missile launcher during a Capitol Hill news conference, to discuss their legislation that would equip civilian aircraft with anti-missile protection devices similarto those currently used on military transport aircraft.

If you enjoyed reading about "Chuck / Dianes NEW Idea..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
cslinger
February 5, 2003, 07:42 PM
Anybody else get the feeling these two are closet gun nuts. I mean they are always seen holding some piece or another of serious hardware and in this picture I detect a little bit of Ohh yeah, get some in Chuckie's face. It's kinda like those people who lobby against porn but have a hard drive full of the stuff.

Let's face facts, cost aside, if somebody caps off a shoulder launched SAM it's going to be either during takeoff or landing and there isn't a darn thing that will stop it from taking the airliner down short of hand of God or untrained, stupid shooter.

Kahr carrier
February 5, 2003, 08:16 PM
YEP.:neener:

Azrael256
February 5, 2003, 08:23 PM
It's pointed the wrong way.

Standing Wolf
February 5, 2003, 09:03 PM
Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites—and irredeemable hoplophobes into the bargain.

BlackArrow
February 5, 2003, 09:23 PM
"Diane faints as Chucky whipps it out"! Cslinger got it right on this one, but just think about how much better those elitist congresscritters will feel knowing they've passed another bill to protect (and freakin fleece) the little people for several more billion tax-payer dollars. Look at their faces and write the caption
Chuck "dang I wish it was this big"
Diane "you aren't comming near me with that"
Stevie "Niceun Chuck".
God, what a bunch of Maroons!
Don't worry, the little people will keep sending their taxes to us. If they're hungry, let them eat cake!:banghead:
Too bad the damn thing isn't loaded and that they didn't point it at one of their heads!:evil:

Gewehr98
February 5, 2003, 09:25 PM
Are you familiar with the current issue ALQ-131/144/157/184 IR jammers, seen on a variety of military aircraft? Take a close look at the rear of the engine pylon struts on both the VC-25 (Air Force 1) and the E-4B National Airborne Operations Center aircraft sometime. These, and the new LAIRCM systems, are designed to protect slow-moving aircraft against the threat of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.

The ALQ-144 is nicknamed the "Disco Light", here's what it looks like:

http://www.voodoo.cz/ah64/u/alq144.jpg

The jammers on Air Force 1 and the E4B are small, round, rear-facing devices that send out a strong IR pulse to confuse the above threats. Not terribly difficult to mount on a commercial airliner, but somebody's gotta pay for it.

Harold Mayo
February 5, 2003, 10:07 PM
Every time I see a picture of Schumer with a weapon, he has that SAME look on his face!

Putting military devices on civilian aircraft? Hmmm...let's see...Department of Homeland Security will be hugely abused when the Democrats get people back into office (if it isn't during the Republican administration, anyway)...um...military defensive devices on civilian aircraft...all of our troops wearing berets...

The list goes on and on.

Is it me, or is the US becoming more and more blatantly like some socialist dictatorship even to appearances, not just under the skin?

What next? Armed helicopters chasing after criminals instead of cop cars in high-speed chases? Snipers stationed on rooftops in all major cities at all times? JBT's entering homes without regard for Constitutional rights? Oops, that one has already happened...

:cuss: :fire: :confused: :uhoh:

Gewehr98
February 5, 2003, 10:20 PM
You DON'T want an automatic IR missile jammer installed on the airliner you take to or from Paris, Berlin, Heathrow, LAX, O'Hare, or any other non-Muslim country that could be an Al-Qaeda target of opportunity? It doesn't infringe your constitutional rights, they've worked pretty much as advertised on hundreds of military and government aircraft, and keep your bacon from getting fried. You're probably not too keen on aircraft lavatory smoke detectors, either, are you?

Commercial passenger aircraft owe a lot to advances in military aviation. Raytheon and their fellow contractors would have no problem building extra IR units for the airlines, were they to get the money. They're total sluts in that respect. These aren't offensive military weapons we're talking about here. They're jammers that confuse the inbound heat-seeker away from the engine exhausts, thereby saving the day, and a bunch of otherwise unknowing, innocent passengers who had no idea that Achmed had them lined up in his crosshairs.

Take it from a 16-year Air Force flyer. Countermeasures are your friend. It's a brave new world out there post 9/11, as evidenced by the fired missile launcher tubes found off the end of the runway at an overseas airport not too long ago.

Don't get me wrong. Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Perata, Blagojevich, Ortiz, Lockyer, and their kin aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell in my humble opinion. But I would like to see the American airline traveler enjoy the extra protection level their tax dollars buy for the military's aircraft.

Harold Mayo
February 5, 2003, 10:28 PM
I don't want the whole chain of events, Gewehr. Taken each alone, none are harmful. Taken cumulatively, they are immensely harmful. You are talking about a single item on an agenda while I'm talking about the agenda.

Ian
February 5, 2003, 10:29 PM
Aside from the near certainty of tax money being used to buy the things, I see nothing wrong with airlines equipping their planes with ECMs. If there truly is a SAM threat to airliners, this is by far the most effective solution and at the same time a solution that involves no added authoritarianism over US citizens.

Harold Mayo
February 5, 2003, 10:38 PM
by far the most effective solution and at the same time a solution that involves no added authoritarianism over US citizens

Single item!!!

I have nothing against defense but letting Chuck and Barbara and their ilk have victories is bad news. It makes them (and their lackeys) think that they are ok people and that they are worth a crap as human beings and that they might have a good idea now and then.

Get rid of THEIR idea and then bring it up with slight alterations with a submission by a REPUBLICAN.

Added authoritarianism is gradual and enters and expands innocently. The enemy at home telling you that he/she is doing something FOR you is, in the end, worse than the enemy far away who is actually trying to do something AGAINST you.

I have sympathy for those who lost loved ones in the WTC destruction but that day and the lives and property lost don't compare to the eventual conclusion that will come about because of the actions that are/were taken afterward. The blow(s) to our WAY OF LIFE and the changes that have been wrought far outweigh anything done on that day. Perhaps not today, tomorrow, or next year, but within our lifetimes.

NewShooter78
February 6, 2003, 12:04 AM
Considering how broke most airline companies are right now, WE will have to foot the bill for this one if it were to come to fruition. I'm all for added saftey, BUT not on my tax dime. I pay enough already to fly. I pay fees on top of that for extra security measures.

And to see this bunch holding that just gives me the willies.

Don Gwinn
February 6, 2003, 09:23 AM
It makes them (and their lackeys) think that they are ok people and that they are worth a crap as human beings and that they might have a good idea now and then.
Yes, it does. They ARE human beings, you know. Talking like that about them only entrenches them further as their supporters and fence-sitters decide that they're being persecuted and that you're driven only by personal animosity and don't care about the facts or evaluating ideas on their merits (and apparently, they'd be right about you.)

Get rid of THEIR idea and then bring it up with slight alterations with a submission by a REPUBLICAN.
Aside from the fact that I bet sometime in the last week you were railing against Democrats "playing politics" or something similar, I find this laughable. It was part of a scary secret agenda to militarize the airlines when two Democrats suggested it, but if we tank them and get a Republican to sponsor it instead then it's OK with you?

:rolleyes:

foghornl
February 6, 2003, 09:44 AM
My caption for the pic...

The Lieing Loser Triumvirate



Chuck 'THE Schmuck' and Babs Box-head? Wouldn't trust 'em as far as I could throw both of 'em tied together. Don't know about anything about Loser #3, but don't trust him, either.

Harold Mayo
February 6, 2003, 11:32 AM
Yes, it does. They ARE human beings, you know. Talking like that about them only entrenches them further as their supporters and fence-sitters decide that they're being persecuted and that you're driven only by personal animosity and don't care about the facts or evaluating ideas on their merits (and apparently, they'd be right about you.)

Well...yes, they are human beings, but human beings with an agenda contrary to what is "right", to use an absolute term. To "humanize" them as you suggest and to play to their supporters is precisely the kind of thing that has led us to where we are in terms of the state of our society. Although it isn't a PC or popular idea, even among the right wing, treating your opponents as you would each other doesn't really get you anywhere except closer to their way of thinking.

"We" (and I use this term loosely) are in the position of the status quo. Chuck and his henchmen want to change the status quo. By treating with them and compromising, WE move closer to their position. Yes, they settle for being closer to our position, but we have still moved whereas they have achieved part of their goal. Our goal in keeping things the same has failed. The next round finds the left wing FARTHER out and we move a little more. To budge at all means failure. To go BACKWARD (and this word has negative connotations but it really isn't bad) and take a stance farther back along the path that we've gone can help a little, but it's a hard position to take and, unless you go back far enough, you end up compromising to the position where society is actually AT, anyway.

As for your snide comment about personal animosity...YES, I dislike on sheer principle anyone whose agenda includes any infringement upon my personal freedom.

As for your OTHER snide comment about not judging based on "the facts" or evaluating ideas based on their own merits, I just have to laugh. You have no idea how amusing that comment really is when applied to me.

Aside from the fact that I bet sometime in the last week you were railing against Democrats "playing politics" or something similar, I find this laughable. It was part of a scary secret agenda to militarize the airlines when two Democrats suggested it, but if we tank them and get a Republican to sponsor it instead then it's OK with you?

Everyone plays politics and you would lose your bet. It is HOW the politics are played that determines the integrity of the politician (hah), not WHETHER politics are played.

A scary secret agenda? Nah...it isn't secret. They have no bones about making their agenda public, anymore. Too many sheep in the flock are on their side. It's just a scary agenda.

Robbing ideas from the other party is part of politics. It IS ok with me if the Republicans advance it. Do you say the same things when the Democrats rob ideas from the Republicans and hold them up as their own? Both sides play politics but the left exploits people more when they do it.

MonkeyMan
February 6, 2003, 11:49 AM
Well, at least in this pic one of them doesn't have their finger on the trigger like that nice picture of Di-Di sweeping the audience with some sort of AK with her finger on the trigger.:cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about "Chuck / Dianes NEW Idea..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!