Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Bush has no plans to intervene at NWA.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Presidents do not get vacations, no matter who they are, or what party. They just change their location, but they still have the same responsibilities, and the man with the nuclear football is still very nearby to him.

Presidents dont run the country either.
 
tired_pilot said:
My point with that thread was its unbeliveable the arrogance of Mr. Bush to take a five week vacation when we're at war, gas prices are spiraling out of control and we have a serious immigration problem just to name a few. Bush's "vacation" is a slap in the face to every hard working American and soldier at war right now.

I realize that Mr. Bush can do almost if not everything in Texas that he could do in Washington, I realize he has one of the most stressful jobs in the world. Why didnt he just tell the American public, "I'm going to work at home for a while", or take 2 weeks here and two weeks there. But annoucing a five week vacation in the middle of the summer under current circumstances in my opinion is just plain arrogance. How many Americans can take five weeks off, and this by no means is his only vacation this year.

Its just another example of the two class society thats taking place in the United States. We as pilots see this everyday, as our profession contines to be dumbed down on a monthly basis.

Moron. 2 class society pisses you off and yet you thought you would be in the top half as an airline pilot just a few years ago. Sorry your "career" didn't pan out as you thought it would. You are now in a blue collar industry and as a result like to blame others for your unhappiness in life as most left wingers are apt to do.
 
scabseeker said:
When AMFA was negotiating in 2001 and had the upper hand, Bush said he would step in if there was a strike. In 2005 NWA management has the upper hand and wants an AMFA strike so Bush says he will not step in with a PEB.

It is pretty much whatever Steenland wants since Bush and Lorenzo are friends and most of NWA management are Ex texas air and ex eastern aka Lorenzo's boyz

Sooo...if Bush steps in he is wrong and if he does nothing he is wrong;
Why not explain how the Dems do it, like in 1997;


MICHAEL BOYD: I think brotherhood and the union business went right down the crane fixture when the rest of the unions didn’t come out and raise absolute hell when Clinton stopped that strike of the APA.
 
scabseeker said:
When AMFA was negotiating in 2001 and had the upper hand, Bush said he would step in if there was a strike. In 2005 NWA management has the upper hand and wants an AMFA strike so Bush says he will not step in with a PEB.

It is pretty much whatever Steenland wants since Bush and Lorenzo are friends and most of NWA management are Ex texas air and ex eastern aka Lorenzo's boyz

You guys never fail to amaze me. If Bush were to step in you would be screaming to let the RLA work and let the workers use their legal self-help options. When he doesn't, it's a big conspiracy theory and he's just helping out his buddies.

So if I'm reading what you wrote properly, you would prefer that Bush would step in and force the union workers to continue to work with an expired contract, with absolutely no leverage against the company to negotiate. Is that right?...Or do you want him to let the process proceed to it's conclusion and either have a strike or a mutually agreed upon contract? Kinda caught up in your own doublespeak arn't you. Thank you for playing, please try again.
 
tired_pilot said:
My point with that thread was its unbeliveable the arrogance of Mr. Bush to take a five week vacation when we're at war, gas prices are spiraling out of control and we have a serious immigration problem just to name a few. Bush's "vacation" is a slap in the face to every hard working American and soldier at war right now.
That's right, perhaps he should be working w/ congress to pass some new laws. Oh, that's right....congress is in recess.

Well, maybe he should be arguing in front of the Supreme Court for meaningful changes....oh, that's right....they're outta session.

Washington is basically closed down right now, people....and, quite frankly, I don't understand how anyone cannot see what a negative influence the trappings of Washington is on the people that get sent there to represent their districts or the country. Within a few months, "reform" candidates are "playing ball" with the best of 'em. The DC culture is very corrupting and oftentimes counterproductive to the good of the people that are actually out here in the rest of the country...you know, the "real world."

There's nothing that the President can do in Washington that he can't do in Texas at this time of year. Nothing.

I say that every DC politician shouldn't be allowed to spend more than 4 months a years in that town....let's face it, if they worked for those entire four months, they'd get 10 times the work done that they do now.

tired_pilot, your arguments are myopic and ridiculous...the immigration problems and gas prices are issues that have been building for decades....they're both political hot potatoes that have been passed on from administration to administration for a long time.

Do you really think that the President staying in Washington while congress and the SCOTUS is out of town is gonna do anything???....especially considering that DC Democrats have been obstructing any sort of meaningful reduced dependance steps at the beheast of a few extremist environmentalist groups?

...and reference the war: It's day-to-day ops are being run by military commanders and generals on the ground in the middle east....not the president. We've learned the foolishness of trying to let politicians run wars, and W isn't gonna repeat those mistakes. The man gets briefed every day on progress in the war on terrorism and just because he's in a different location doesn't make his conference calls, daily briefings, or face-to-face meetings any less effective. The president's job is to set policy, and his lieutenants carry out that policy in the way they see most effective. How is a change in scenery gonna effect the president's ability to set policy?

Do you understand now how the whole "vacation" issue is little more than superluous derision congered up by political opponents hoping that it'll resonate with the impaired?
 
Last edited:
sqwkvfr said:
That's right, perhaps he should be working w/ congress to pass some new laws. Oh, that's right....congress is in recess.

Well, maybe he should be arguing in front of the Supreme Court for meaningful changes....oh, that's right....they're outta session.

Washington is basically closed down right now, people....and, quite frankly, I don't understand how anyone cannot see what a negative influence the trappings of Washington is on the people that get sent there to represent their districts or the country. Within a few months, "reform" candidates are "playing ball" with the best of 'em. The DC culture is very corrupting and oftentimes counterproductive to the good of the people that are actually out here in the rest of the country...you know, the "real world."

There's nothing that the President can do in Washington that he can't do in Texas at this time of year. Nothing.

I say that every DC politician shouldn't be allowed to spend more than 4 months a years in that town....let's face it, if they worked for those entire four months, they'd get 10 times the work done that they do now.

tired_pilot, your arguments are myopic and ridiculous...the immigration problems and gas prices are issues that have been building for decades....they're both political hot potatoes that have been passed on from administration to administration for a long time.

Do you really think that the President staying in Washington while congress and the SCOTUS is out of town is gonna do anything???....especially considering that DC Democrats have been obstructing any sort of meaningful reduced dependance steps at the beheast of a few extremist environmentalist groups?

...and reference the war: It's day-to-day ops are being run by military commanders and generals on the ground in the middle east....not the president. We've learned the foolishness of trying to let politicians run wars, and W isn't gonna repeat those mistakes. The man gets briefed every day on progress in the war on terrorism and just because he's in a different location doesn't make his conference calls, daily briefings, or face-to-face meetings any less effective. The president's job is to set policy, and his lieutenants carry out that policy in the way they see most effective. How is a change in scenery gonna effect the president's ability to set policy?

Do you understand now how the whole "vacation" issue is little more than superluous derision congered up by political opponents hoping that it'll resonate with the impaired?

great post!!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top