Obama continues to show his stupidity!

Ernie Lane ernielane at VERIZON.NET
Mon Aug 4 05:14:53 MDT 2008

William White wrote:
> Did passengers aboard Flight 93 communicate with folks on the ground via 
> cell phones?  While the bill limits freedoms, does the bill also 
> increase the vulnerability of passengers who are prevented from getting 
> information from folks on the ground?

I sort of think the situation on flight 93 was way beyond anything any 
law could envision, or should cover.  Also, whether or not what they 
were doing was illegal didn't really matter at the time.  I would bet 
that not a single person gave it the least thought.

> --- On *Sat, 8/2/08, Ernie Lane /<ernielane at VERIZON.NET>/* wrote:
>     From: Ernie Lane <ernielane at VERIZON.NET>
>     Subject: Re: Obama continues to show his stupidity!
>     Date: Saturday, August 2, 2008, 11:14 AM
>     John A. Quayle wrote:
>     > Richard Whitenight wrote:
>     >>> Today he stated that if we keep our cars tuned up and our tires
>     >>> inflated properly, we could save as much energy as we would obtain
>     by
>     >>> any off-shore drilling or other forms of new exploration. This
>     moron
>     >>> wants to be your President. What's scary is to think that
>     there are
>     >>> sheeple or lemmings out there, who will vote for him no matter how
>     >>> dumb he sounds.
>     >> Ernie Lane wrote:
>     >> Talk about the Democrats bringing on the nanny state . . . I just 
>     >> heard that the House passed a bill totally outlawing cellphone usage 
>     >> on airplanes . . . not because of safety concerns, but because it is 
>     >> bothersome to other passengers.
>     >           /*Cell phone usage is verboten aboard planes in the U.S. as it 
>     > is now (because of potential flight equipment interferences). The Donkey 
>     > Party is bothered by their usage? Odd.......just when France has decided 
>     > to permit people to use them mid-flight. Yet, "progressives"
>     deny they 
>     > want to steal your freedom! How progressive are they really?!?
>     True, they are forbidden in flight.  But they can be used now (I can't 
>     recall which) either when the plane lands and is taxiing to the 
>     terminal, or when it's waiting at the gate.  The aforementioned bill 
>     would totally outlaw them on planes.
>     And as for inflight use, there is no evidence that they actually 
>     interfere with the instruments.  I presume that in the early days, we 
>     thought they would, and so the restriction.  We now know that wasn't 
>     necessary, but you know how bureaucracies are with change.

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list