Bush is teaching Labor a lesson!!!!!!!!!

[Timebuilder]

Bush wants to send off of these kids over to Iraq because they tried to kill his dad, but where was he during the Vietnam war? Flying a F4 around stateside. Come on. I can appreciate this was on Terrorism, and indeed Iraq needs a new gov't, but lets not sit up here and say that Bush is some great guy looking out for you and me. Lets keep the Gov't out of Businesses, and let the Enrons and MCIs of the world do their own things, right?

1) I don't think for a New York Minute (usually under three seconds) that this has ANYTHING to do with Saddam trying to killl George's dad. Maybe Woody Harrelson thinks so, but I don't.

2 ) There is nothing wrong with flying an F4 around stateside He had the same likelihood of a forward deployment as anyone else did. In contrast to the previous president, GW did not protest against the policies of the United States while on foreign soil, which to me carries a very unsavory component. GW was serving in an approved manner, like so many others. Some say this is not fair. Time has shown that life cannot be made "fair", and so we must accept some substitute for that quality.

3) People who work for GW have said that he is a great guy, and that he is sincere in looking out for you and me. From the quality of these individuals, I am inclined to take them at their word. If he were permitted to fly on my aircraft, I'd have a good handle on GW from a personal viewpoint, but he is the only person in the White House who is not permitted to ride on a private jet like the one I fly. If I am invited to meet him, I will report back on that meeting.


Gunfyter:

But the problem with Republicans is there is a strain of them who never worked for a living. Country Club Republicans.

People are not THROWAWAYS. Country club republicans don't understand this and that is why they are anti-union.

This sounds dangerously like the old "class warfare" argument used by democrats. It's funny, when you think about it. There are just as many wealthy dems as there are republicans, and most have never "worked" for a living. Never mind the management of a large fortune, such at the Kennedys', is very much like managing a large corporation.

So, whether you are talking about dems, republicans, the head of the red cross, greenpeace, the sierra club, or whomever, you will find many people who have never done pipefitting, auto mechanics, or any number of jobs that are commonly associated with the word "work". While you may find some republicans who are anti-union, you can find many people who are not associated with the republcan party who are also anti-union. It is a mistake to paint the entire republican party with such a broad brush.

If you think that the dems are pro-union, I have a new insight for you: they are pro-union-MONEY. Many forget that the democrat leaders sit on corporate boards as members of MANAGEMENT.

Capitalism is simply the most efficient economic system. The MACHINE of the economy works best under ruthless free trade capitalism.

That's probably correct, but it has never been tried.

The Problem is that the MACHINE of the Economy has component parts called HUMAN BEINGS. It may be cost efficient to run airplanes or factories 24/7 without rest and replace worn parts with new parts and just discard the old.

Actually, we are the machine, the company, the corporation. The very best of these companies view their employees as assets and not liabilities. While a mechanical machine can be worked 24/7, it must receive periodic maintenance, just as a human employee needs sleep and recreation.

I'm not sure why we are addressing this issue in this thread. Are you referring to FAA duty times, the way the regulations are interpreted, or are you saying that people are just forced to work too hard, and for too long?

 

[Timebuilder]

Getting back to the UAL topic: do I remember UAL hiring a new CEO with a $3mil signing bonus along with a $1mil salary plus options and a 100% bonus? Ah, I do. I wonder how all those employees taking pay cuts with the jobloss stress looming feel about that deal.

- Yesterday, in the Jack Welch interview on PBS, this question came up (Of course it came up. The news area of PBS is just as liberal as the programming) and was ably addressed.

Jack pointed out that if you want to hire a new CEO for a UAL or an Enron, you are asking someone who already has a good job somewhere else to leave that job and step into a spotlight in a high stress environment where they will be watched with a microscope by both friends and foes. In order to get people to do this, which is a choice they have to make both personally and professionally, you have to offer some really good compensation.

Let's say that you don't hire a well know, successful CEO, or in this case a vice president of Chevron, and instead happen to hire an accountant from a middle management background, and offer him $300,000? What happens? People see the inexperienced, unknown CEO and jump ship, break contracts, refuse financing....any number of things that would virtually guarantee the failure of the company, instead of its recovery.

While you and I see this level of compensation as exorbitant, it is the cost associated with hiring a CEO for a troubled company. Just as anything that gets attached to an airplane costs ten times what it would cost if it was attached to a car, it costs a lot of money to have the proper individual, as judged by the business community, attached to you company.

 

[hyper]

OK, fair enough. But it still seems exorbitant.

 

[cocknbull]

President Bush is very concerned with the amount of taxes the US citizen pays. It is a shame that the average american family must have both parents working in order to pay the bills. This means more time at work and less time parenting. President Bush is not about to back a failed business model with taxpayers money. Its bad business plain and simple. I feel horible about what has happened to United and I don't want to see any of their pilots suffer. However the industry needs a cleaning. I am sick and tired of people blamming Reagan, Bush, and Bush for the stink in the industry. They did not allow Lorenzo and those fools do what they did. The laws did and writing laws is not the presidents job. If airlines can't function in capitalism then neither should McDonalds, Wal Mart, etc.... Yes I do want to be an airline pilot, but do I want to strike every five years, and ask the government to help. No. Since the airlines have been in exsistance they have made 7 billion in profit, 5 billion of that is bail outs. The airlines can work and can function, but investing in the old system is a waste of money. I think the long term future for United is solid. In fact I think we will see alot of steps in the near future that will return United to profitability in the future. I don't think every pilot group is going to love the changes, but you can't please everyone all the time. As United starts to improve its product then Bush will encourage asistance to them.

PS Does anyone no if CAL got loan guaruntees when it went BK

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: The middle of the road

Typhoon--I follow your posts. You're a smart kid.

I'm honored, sir...although I haven't felt much like a "kid" since turning thirty.

You have to ask yourself, "What kind of a world do I want to live in," then make your choice.

If I thought either of the two major American political parties was capable of changing this world into one I want to live in, we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's just like I said before, everyone shouts and points fingers, and nothing changes.

If you choose the middle of the road you'll get run-over.

Now be careful. One of my least favorite characteristics of Republicans is that when they can't think of anything intelligent to say, they fall back on witty "sound bites" like this one. What's next? "Better dead than Red?" (No, calm down. I'm not a communist.)

You know, now that I think about it...and I'm serious now...before joining this forum a year ago, I would have said I was a staunch Democrat. I just can't get behind a party who places the greed of major corporations ahead of human decency. But after discussing this issue with so many of you...I can now see that, although the Democrats are closer to the mark, neither party represents what I truly want for the future of this nation!

(I'm sitting here in shock, guys and gals. No joke. My membership in this open forum has fundamentally changed my political views!)

So where does that leave me in the almighty, a-constitutional two-party system? I may have to actually vote for whoever I think is more suited for the office for which they're running!

On one point, however, I refuse to budge: regardless of what anyone thinks of either party, Republicans do not have a monopoly on morality! Look me in the eye and tell me Dick Nixon was more honest than Bill Clinton. Tell me Newt Gingrich is a prince of family values. Good grief!

Okay, I'm going to try to leave this alone. Right now, it's about United...

 

[Timebuilder]

Look me in the eye and tell me Dick Nixon was more honest than Bill Clinton. Tell me Newt Gingrich is a prince of family values. Good grief!

While I don't want to rewrite the books written on Watergate or the Clinton Presidency, Nixon had the brass to step down, and show some very real contrition about the wrongdoings of the watergate burglars. Clinton looked the American people in the eye and lied, several times.

Who was a better President? That would depend on establishing the standards used to measure a Presidency. Nixon is respected for his diplomatic dialogue with the Chinese, and for his ending of the Vietnam conflict left over from the Kennedy and Johnson years. Bill Clinton is known primarily for his ability to charm, obfuscate, and have multiple partners who are not his wife, and are closer in age to his daughter than himself.

Newt Gingrich was able to articulate many values that he was unable to live. A very human failing. Just as many leaders who have better ideas than lives, he failed to lead by example. Had he been the Presidnet, this would have been much worse, since we hold our Presidents to a higher standard than pilots or Speakers of the House.

I don't think anyone EVER called him the "prince of family values", though!

 

[Caveman]

Hawker F/O (no slur intended),

You do realize that your concern about Bush during Vietnam is ironic in that it was a Democrat that got us into that mess and and a Republican that got us out.

Why is it that when someone disagrees with you they must be drinking? Like most liberals you appear unable to proffer a rational debate without turning it into a personal attack. Hence the crack about drinking and the psychobabble about me being uncomfortable as an F/O.

The government has no business bailing out failing companies unless there is a compelling national interest. IMO one large airline going in the tank doesn't meet that criteria. Unfortunate, yes, but it isn't a national crisis.

 

[patq1]

patq1, you should think a little harded about who told those pilot's to get back to work.

I did think a little harder and I also looked it up. Here is part of the AP article from the time:

"Precedent set by Clinton eliminates strike fears

NEW YORK (AP) - The word ''strike'' doesn't conjure up such scary images to the flying public anymore.

That is the precedent set by President Clinton in ordering American Airlines pilots back to work within minutes after they declared a strike early Saturday, averting chaotic disruptions to hundreds of thousands of passengers.

If pilot negotiations at four other of the nation's biggest airlines get to the brink of a walkout, airline chiefs and passengers almost certainly will be looking to the White House to keep the planes in the air.

Clinton made a hugely popular decision by effectively removing the one potent negotiating weapon in the American pilot union's arsenal. "

I didn't think my memory was that bad but thanks for making me think!

pat

 

[cocknbull]

Bush I had Eastern. Bush II has United. Maybe it's some kind of family thing.

If you're a member of a labor union (ALPA, APA, IAM, AFA, etc.) and you voted for any Republican candidate, then you're capable of a level of cognitive dissonance that I find staggering.

Typhoon1244

If you're a US citizen who pays taxes and you voted for any Democrap, then you're incapable of making sound decisions.

If you care about your company and want it to do well and you voted for a Democrat, then you made a mistake.

If you voted for a Democrat for the soul purpose of furthering union views then you are selfish.

All of this corporate greed crap came about during Slick Willie's term. Bush is the one layin down the law.

If you're uneducated, on welfare, or a college teacher who smoked alot of weed in the sixties, then you're most likely a Democrat.

You act as if Bush could have saved Eastern. Eastern was doomed the day Lorenzo landed in Miami. Lorenzo is Harvard educated. Harvard is the most Liberal school in the country. Lorenzo's tactics were not Republican or Democrat they were just wrong....... Bush Jr. would have had Lorenzo in court for insider trading after the Pan Am-National deal.

If this were 1940, I'd be a Democrat. Times have changed and so has the role of government.

 

[Soupbone]

Well said Caveman and cocknbull!!

I don't think there was an American around, including Gore that wasn't extremely happy that Bush was the President after 9/11!
Does anyone really think that Clinton was responsible for the 90's boom? Remember we had a REPUBLICAN Congress!! The last 2 years we have had a Democrap Congress and look were that got us. I think the next few years will affirm why the Republican's won back Congress this year!!
The real reason Clinton and Gore do not even measure up to Bush...Bush has 2 things they never had/have...character and integrity!

Fire away,
Soup

 

[bart]

If you have to rely on mob rule rather than your own wherewithal to further your career, then you are in trouble. If you truly have skills, and know how to use them and market them, then you have nothing to worry about. If you don't, then find a big herd to hide in, where merit is not the measure of economic reward.

The situation at UAL is not the government's fault. As an organization, UAL has made poor economic decisions that have landed it where it is today. Following the line of thinking that the government is responsible for bad decisions of its citizenry, I have some hefty stock market losses that the government owes me for.

If that idea is absurd to you, then you understand why your position is absurd to me. If you are a victim of other's decisions, maybe it is time to explore why you allowed that to happen. If your piloting skills are so **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** valuable, then it will be no problem to find another high paying flying job.

 

[chawbein]

Well written bart!! Also Timebuilder and Caveman have shared some good lines of thought.

 

[Timebuilder]

If you are referring to the runaway tech bubble, that wasn't a matter of "false accounting" so much as a very large amount of retirement investment needing a place to land, and a kind of voodoo fever about the future of the internet. No one wanted to be left behind, and many fund managers felt pressured to buy a lot of stocks so that they could show people that they weren't missing the boat, even though these companies failed to make a profit (that sounds eriely familiar, doesn't it?). Only a handful of companies survived the shake out of Tech, and those that survive today present long-term buying opportunities.

As far as general prosperity is concerned, Clinton was very fortunate that he was inheriting an economy that was groomed for expansion, and would be powered up by not only the usual cycle of business, but an unprecedented ocean of money from baby boomers getting ready for retirement.

False Accounting

The shady characters of Enron and Global Crosssing, et al, will find no safe haven from me. They should be stripped of their ill-gotten wealth, and it should be placed in a fund for those who were victimized by their crimes.

 

[TurboS7]

When I see UAL stock going at .79 cents per share I am just glad that I am on the sidelines for this one. The UAL guys have a rough road ahead of them-God speed.

 

[HawkerF/O]

Soupbone,
Get a pen out, and take some notes, because it is time for me to take you to school. Like so many others, you do not want to give Clinton credit for the longest period of sustained economic prosperity in US history. Let me lay the facts out for you, and when I am finished, you can write back all you want with your disputes, but before you do that, go look it up, because it is fact and you will save yourself some embarrasment. 1st off, how many times do you recall during the 2000 election the Republicans bringing up the economy? NOT ONCE!!! Why? WEll, they didnt want anything to do with a piece of legislation that got the economy back on its feet, and not 1 Republican was going to be fool enough to utter a word about the economy. I'll explain:
Do you remember late '93 early '94, there was an economic stimulus package that Clinton sent to Congress? Of course you don't. Well, it was a package of sweeping econimic reform that the Republicans wanted nothing to do with. Do you remember what the Dow was at that time? about 7K points less than it is now; around 3k. WEll, the vote on clinton's economic stimulus package was just about straight party line. Not one single Republican voted for it, and Al Gore went in and cast the tie breaking vote to get it passes. Clinton signed it into law shortly afterwards. After the vote, the Republicans said, "We will not be held accountable for this Democratic econimic legislation". And they were true to their word. After the reforms of the package started taking place, the market went through the roof. Record economic times, lowest unemployment in history(Peace time). Alan Greenspan said that economic package had a signifigant impact on the state of the US economy. He did not say, nor am I saying, that that one peice of legislation was the GREAT HOPE for the US economy, but it had a large part in it. It was simpl actually, pay our bills so we can spend money in other places, and that is exactly what happened. There used to be a Deficit clock in NYC I think, and they wound up turning it off in Clinton's last 2 years, because it was running so slow. I wonder if it is back on now?? Remember, When Ronald Reagan came to power, there was no deficit of significant proportion. When Bush took over from Reagan, he promised no new taxes, but had to go back on his word because Reagan had not disclosed the true size of the deficit. That wound up being the downfall of Bush I. He was trying to do the right thing, but it was too late, and James Carville kept fresh in everyone's mind, "It's the economy, Stupid!" When Bush II took over from Clinton, the was a record surplus. It is not all but gone. I understand that there are costs associated with defending our nation, but lets also remember that we have a US economy in bad shape as well.
Clinton is certainly not single handedly responsible for the great things that happened in the 90's, but he did have a lot to do with it. Clinton made some terrible mistakes, and did some things that were out right wrong, but in that, he also did some GREAT things that we all seem to forget about. When your wife has a baby, and you are able to take time off and help here around the house and with the newborn, and still be able to go back to work after all of that, and the law requires your job to still be there, who do you think made that possible? TEll me, WHO!!!! Bill Clinton. That was his legislation. The hope scholarship and lifetime learning credits on your Taxes: Who made that possible? Who put that $ back in your pocket for college fees paid???? Who, you fool? Who did that? Bill Clinton. So dont sit up there and tell me he had nothing to do with the economy. I have studied that economy in depth, and he is responsible along with some others. But make no mistake about it, not one Republican, except for Greenspan, helped in the beginning. Greenspan told Clinton that he was not going to lower interest rates until some conditions were met, and Clinton didn't fuss or agrue, he just did them, and the Republicans hated it. Now look where we are.
As for all the accounting misdeeds, Clinton tried to enact reforms, but Trent Lott would not even let the Senate discuss it. Lott is from Mississippi, as is MCI. Harvery Pitt and Clinton hated each other becasue Clinton spoke out about his BS. Pitt was then appointed head of the SEC, and look where he is now. Unemployed becasue he was still up to his old tricks. Did you forget about that. Trying to get William Sessions to run the oversight committee, when he is in just as much trouble as the rest of them.....Please.
Frank Lorenzo was a huge contributor to the RNC and Bush during the 2K elections, and if you think he is not about to do as he wants, we will revisit that when it happens.
Sorry about the mispellings, but once again, I am in a hurry.

 

[bart]

The situation that UAL is of their own doing. They made the decisions. The owners of the firm have run it into the ground. It is not my responsibility to pay for their mistakes with the money the government siezes from me. Following your line of thinking tells me that the government should pony up for my losses in the stock market... Hey it wasn't my fault the market went down, I should get paid with your money for my mistake.

It is only logical given your argument...

 

[TurboS7]

The only economic expansion that happened during the Clinton administration was consumer credit via VISA/MASTERCARD.They stole money from the military to balance the budget, as far as I am concerned they compromised our national security so they would look good.

 

[Soupbone]

I am honored HawkerF/O!
That you would address me personnally is touching. After all, you can't help but make personal attacks on people when they say something that doesn't agree with your views. Typical idiot that has to slam the person first without making his case and letting his defense say enough.
1st don't get me wrong either. I realize that Clinton had some great economic views, but what amazes me is that some people forget that NOTHING gets to the Presidents desk without going through Congress first. So all those great things Clinton did, had to be approved by Congress first. That is for another time...something else I want to discuss with you.
Your great economic time came with a price...the military. Democrates love to gut the military to advance there worthless social causes. As you are not smart enough, let me fill you in...Reagan knew that only a strong military would end the cold war...obviously he was right. Carter gutted the military and Reagan had to make up for it, unfortunately at the cost of a huge deficit. Once again a democrat took over (Clinton) and gutted the military, so unfortunately Bush has to fix it, which means a deficit. If we would quit this cycle and keep the military on an even budget (or course war not withstanding) then a moron like you would not blame Bush for the deficate. He is just trying to fix your old boys problems. (not to get into here, but don't forget Clinton did nothing about terrorism for 8 years!!!!!!)

Soup
PS... politics are always fun to talk about on a pilot forum, always appreciate your threads Timebuilder

 

[Timebuilder]

It sounds to me like you are saying the republican Alan Greenspan sat down with Clinton, and had a heart to heart talk about how to do something a Republican would do. I don't have the legislation in front of me, nor do I know the problems that the republicans in office at that time might have had with the bill.


Clinton did his homework, found out that the national mood was changing, and listened to Greenspan. Of course, as you alluded to, the economy was poised for expansion all on its own, and this was a single ingredient. The fact that the economy was ready for expansion was a part of the normal cycle of business. The important thing to remember from a political standpoint is the amount of arm-twisting and sweet talking Clinton had to do to get this package passed by a congress dominated by his own party. Most democrats didn't like this much more than the republicans, apparently.

After the reforms of the package started taking place, the market went through the roof. Record economic times, lowest unemployment in history(Peace time). Alan Greenspan said that economic package had a signifigant impact on the state of the US economy.

In other words, Alan Greenspan was saying that the plan the he had advocated had been a success. No surprise there. It is also important to note that no one has ever taxed or spent themselves out of bad economic times. Only tax reductions have been able to have a positive influence.

how many times do you recall during the 2000 election the Republicans bringing up the economy? NOT ONCE!!!

I thought that's what the tax cuts were about. When taxes are reduced for the people that pay the most, the effect on the economy is undeniable and positive.

I hope you aren't making the mistake of linking this economy to GWB, any more than you would link the economic spurt directly to the Clinton, I'm sorry, the Greenspan stimulus package that you described.

 

[bart]

The greatest thing Clinton accomplished:

The greatest thing Clinton accomplished in office was to get Americans to agree blowjobs are not sex. Period.

Everything else was built on Reagan and Bush I 's legacy. GWB inherited Clinton's legacy. The next president will reap the benefits of GWB's labors. That is the way it works.

 

[cocknbull]

HawkerF/O

Do you remember the era of good feeling? It happeneed just before the the great depression. The 90's were nearly the same.

I will admit the economy is much better thean it was then. However this economic stimulus package is not the reason for yhe economic boom. Infact the stimulus package won't have any effect on the economy untill hmmmmmmm now. The real heros of the economic boom in the ninties are the veterans of the cold war and Ronald Reagan. Most of the technology advances came from 70's and 80's military projects and the fact that Reagan lowered interest rates to atract more investors. Hence companies grew and started to offer new and exciting products. Unfortunately the stimulus package only offered a bunch of .com bust companies. These companies attracted alot of investors quick. Unfortunately it was a bust and this bust has brought alot of good companies down with it. I.E cisco systems... to name one.

 

[Soupbone]

It is just unfortunately that we have a lot of people (Hawker obivously being one of them) that completely believe whatever the liberal media tells them.

 

[EagleRJ]

Believe it or not, when you are considering presidential candidates, there are considerations besides friendliness towards labor.

It's my firm belief that if Gore had been elected president, we would now be cleaning up from our second or third 9/11, and President Gore would now be threatening even harsher economic sanctions and more Tomahawks if the Taliban didn't cough up OBL. The previous administration was risk-adverse and poll-driven, and did little more than ride the wave of economic success built in the '80s and early '90s. It's obvious by the trouncing the Democrats suffered last month that the American people are starting to lose faith in their leadership.

I'm a proud ALPA member and labor supporter, and I'm proud to have voted for George W. Bush.

 

[Publishers]

politics

Sometimes you guys give one individual way too much credit for what they are able to do. Mostly it comes from the ignorance that we are going to simplify this complex issue and focus blame on someone.

Folks there is enough blame here for everyone to take some.

Let's start with labor that wants to manage, management that did not, terrorists that want to fly except into things, markets that want performance now, planning later, passengers that want full service at LCC prices, etc. etc.

A president that wants to interfere or didn't. That is well down the list.

 

[AlphEcho]

Here is something interesting that I heard today. United Airlines has about 1800 flights a day, and they accomplish this with about 80,000 employees. Northwest Airlines runs 1500 flights a day, but they only have 45,000 employees! I'm all for people getting and keeping their jobs, and earning as much as the market will support in the process, but if this is true (and since the source is an extremely reliable airline employee I assume it is), it is no surprise that UAL's loan guarantee was promptly refused! Or am I missing something here? At any rate it would seem pretty ludicrous to blame President Bush!

 

[Typhoon1244]

If you're a US citizen who pays taxes and you voted for any Democrap, then you're incapable of making sound decisions.

"Democrap." Very clever! How long did it take you to think of that?

All of this corporate greed crap came about during Slick Willie's term. Bush is the one layin down the law.

Oh yes, you're absolutely right. There was no corporate greed in America until Bill C. got into office. Right.

C'mon, cocknbull, you're got to be smarter than that!

If you're uneducated, on welfare, or a college teacher who smoked alot of weed in the sixties, then you're most likely a Democrat.

See, this is one of my problems with far right-wingers...and far-left wingers, for that matter. There's no in-between with you. If you're a Democrat then you must be a minority pot-head college liberal. If you're a Republican then you must be a white greedy gun-nut conservative. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but life is not that simple.

You act as if Bush could have saved Eastern. Eastern was doomed the day Lorenzo landed in Miami. Lorenzo is Harvard educated. Harvard is the most Liberal school in the country. Lorenzo's tactics were not Republican or Democrat they were just wrong...Bush Jr. would have had Lorenzo in court for insider trading after the Pan Am-National deal.

Bush the First was the first president in a long, long time not to approve mediation in the Eastern-IAM problem. He also got a tremendous amount of campaign money from Frank Lorenzo. That's really all I need to say about that issue.

Cocknbull, are you trying to change my mind, or what? I've already said I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. I happen to be party-less at the moment. At this stage in our nation's development, the Democratic party is far to stupid and the Republican party is far to evil for me to support either one.

 

[cl-65link]

For those who doubt the Republican party's view of labor groups and unions, I suggest you read Flying the Line I and II. Volume II , in one chapter, specifically deals with the Eastern situation in the 80"s, and President Bush's failure(ignorance, callousness, whatever) to form a PEB to investigate solutions to Eastern's problems. Now i'm no liberal, I grew up in the second most republican county/district in the country. Democrats never even ran for offices like judge,sheriff,etc. But, if you are a pilot in this country and belong to a union, the Democrats are much more likely to lend a hand than the Republicans. After all, who proposed McCain-Lott?

 

[Timebuilder]

Funny you shoud mention those two. Despite their high visibility in the republican party, each one has failed to impress me as being republicans.

In fact, John McCain seems more like a democrat every time he opends his mouth.

What do you make of that?

 

[Toecutter]

Typhoon and Hawker,

Thank god I know there are at least two other people in the world that aren't brainwashed. I've read all the posts on this thread and I have come to some conclusions.

About Bush being moral and patriotic, well I guess if you consider snorting coke, getting hauled in for a DUI, and then going AWOL from your Guard unit for over a year, yeah that's moral. What I still can`t figure out is how he got in so quickly with a two year waiting list, and how he got his commission without going to OCS. By the way, he flew F-102s not F-4s. A plane that was not being used in Vietnam at the time. www.awolbush.com

As far as a being military friendly, I guess you can say republicans are military friendly, just not to its members. It won't be long until you see all of that money for pay raises go to pay for the war instead of the soldiers and their families. I noticed that army aviators had their bonus taken away right after the election. I would say it won't be long before tricare benefits and retirement are next on the chopping block.

I noticed that the people that seem the support the republicans the most are the people that don't really "work" for a living. Timebuilder, you say you make only five dollars an hour. I bet you live in a 500,000 dollar house, right? It really bothers me when people are out of or going to be out of work, people that work to pay the rent and put food on the table are going to be out on the street, and have people that live on trust funds say to them, hey, thats just how the system works, I don't see what the big fuss is all about?

Bush 1 did have something to do with Eastern going down. The pilots honored the mechanics strike to show their support, they were also counting on a federal judge to "order" them(pilots) back to work and keep the airline going. Bush stepped in and said no. Remember Bushwacked?

I notice that the biggest talkers about going to war are people that have "civilian" in their profile.(military school does not count) You wrap yourselves in the blanket of freedom that others provide. If you what to talk big about going to war and killing people or being killed , I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand your post.

OK,I feel better now.

 

[Dieterly]

Any comments? Didn't think so...