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

[Timebuilder]

Cliff:

When your 13 year old is found to be having an affair with a college freshman, you can opine that it is normal for her to be attracted to power, and feel satisfied that she is doing something that is "normal".

No?

How about your 18 year old sister? Or your wife? Of course not. That is why we ask for more from our leaders. They set a tone for the country, an example if you will. All of the presidential affairs came to light only after they left office, except for Clinton's, along with his wife's alleged preference for female company. I think you will find the trend that you mentioned to be far less prevalent in the future presidents, due mostly to a desire to avoid any association with Wild Bill.

It is unwise to deem any behavior as normal simply because there is a history of it, or because it is widespread.

While it is "none of our business", a number of personal intrusions are expected by those attaining our highest office.

 

[doog]

Yep, Bush just might be stupid enough to think that the trickle down theory still works.

 

[Rvrrat]

It has been written in socialogical studies that....

What was once considered immoral, deviant and unnatural has become so widespread as to seem now normal. And some have the gaul to call it "progressive."

 

[Toecutter]

Actually, the trickle down theory does work by the republicans definition. The money trickles out of your pocket into theirs.

 

[HawkerF/O]

ATPCliff, you wrote:

"Thomas Jefferson: A number of affairs, including fathering a large number of children with his black female slaves."

I liked your post but I was a just a little curious about one part of it. I like history, but I am certainly guilty of day dreaming from time to time while I was in history class. Were there white slaves? I just assumed that they were all black, and I have not been told otherwise, so when you wrote "Black female slaves", that caught my attention.

 

[DaveGriffin]

ATPCliff, you wrote:

....so when you wrote "Black female slaves", that caught my attention.

He's been duly reported to the Dept. of Redundancy Dept.

 

[TurboS7]

My point has just been proven. We are all sinners and even those in a power situation will sin. It is only by the grace of God that we don't. Sin hurts all those around you, and if you are President---the entire country. Prayer to an Almighty God to deliver us from our own evil and flesh amounts to humility, not religion.

 

[Heyduke1]

Timebuilder,

When your 13 year old is found to be having an affair with a college freshman, you can opine that it is normal for her to be attracted to power, and feel satisfied that she is doing something that is "normal".....How about your 18 year old sister? Or your wife?

I completely agree that you feel our leaders should be held to a higher moral standard. However, Clinton did not have an affair with someone's wife or 18 year old sister. He did something that I would guess most of the men in this country would do if they were given the chance. Of course that doesn't make it right, but his actions were right in line with the status quo. (I know very few airline pilots who *haven't* had affairs)

About the leaders/moral standards thing...I don't think we've improved in the least with Bush II...I find his disappearance from his National Guard duties, his DUI's, and his connections to shady Enron-type deals to be at least as (and probably more) disturbing than Clinton's horniness.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I can't beleive this thread came back to religion and politics, but I'll try to avoid that.

Let me just start by using an old Ronald Reagan line, “Ask yourself, are you better off today than you were 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, years ago?” I can remember a time not too long ago when someone wrote in during the 2000 election and told all of you that Bush was no friend of labor or your concerns as pilots. He was lectured and flamed by several people (probably on the street right now) telling what a horrible guy Al Gore is and that Bush was going to do good things for aviation and hard working people like us. Well, on the same day that he reinstates cash bonuses for his friends, I mean his political apponties, the board tells UAL to fend for themselves!! As much money as the Federal Gov’t has made off of UAL’s revenues alone, they didn’t so much as seriously look at their proposal. Keep in mind that the board is made up of people that work for Bush. They were either directly or indirectly appointed by him. Now, I do understand that Bush did not make the decision personally, but he stands firmly behind it:

"The decision was made on the merits by the board based on the extensive financial information available to them and based on the criteria that were established in the law," Fleischer told reporters.

Well, Bush is teaching labor a lesson, and the ones reading this board are the beneficiaries. Pat yourselves on the back. As I tried to explain 2 years ago, Bush does not care about you, he cares about the one signing your paycheck. You are not one in the same. I am not saying Gore would have been the great aviaton hope, but I can tell you I bet you would not be scratching your heads wonding why UAL is about to file without Gov't help. You can write me back with your "facts" all you want, but the issue stays the same; "Are you better off today than.............." Let’s just see if you are going to be fool enough to vote for him again.

1) Reagan asked this question at a time when the economy was so mismanaged that economists had to invent a new word for ramapant inflation in a stagnant economy - stagflation. Carter's administartion was marked by extremely low confidence. This is altogether different from Clinton riding the tech boom. After all, if anybody should be given credit for the tech boom it should have been Gore since he invented the internet.

2) It is actually not true that no appointee received bonuses during Clinton's term. The reason they stoped was because there were serious ethics questions about the administration's payment of bonuses. No one is really accusing Bush of ethics issues, they're just slinging mud. There is a huge difference, and you're being disingenuous if you say you don't see it.

3) (this is my one flame) Instead of cash bouses for political appointees, Clinton just gave pardons to big donors. His brother got the bonuses for that.

4) Are you telling me that it is a sound decision to risk billions of taxpayer dollars on loan guarantees for a company that has no sound business plan? (if you're answer is yes than we have other issues to resolve before proceding to number 5).

5) If your answer to number 4 is "no", are you telling me that a Gore administration would have made those guarantees anyway? Are you REALLY saying that?

 

[Typhoon1244]

This thread is raging out of control. I'm hoping to post this, then be done with it.

Originally posted by TurboS7
My point has just been proven. We are all sinners and even those in a power situation will sin. It is only by the grace of God that we don't. Sin hurts all those around you, and if you are President---the entire country. Prayer to an Almighty God to deliver us from our own evil and flesh amounts to humility, not religion.

Donald Sutherland as "Hawkeye Pierce" in M*A*S*H
Frank, were you on this religious kick at home or did you crack-up over here?"

History has shown us time and time again that a solid, pervasive, organized religious faith is inconsistent with logical decision making. (Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Taliban, the Ayatolah, James Carter, Pat Robertson...) I want a president who reads History and Law, not centuries-old religious texts.

I will now be told by many of you that it is impossible to be an honorable human being without a solid, western-Christian, Bible-oriented foundation. Many of you who would tell me this also believe that Christ spoke Old English and looked like Ted Nugent. Pleas, don't waste our time.

Honor and faith are in the things you do for others...not the prayers you utter or the religious buildings you visit.

Originally posted by TXCAP4228
I can't beleive this thread came back to religion and politics, but I'll try to avoid that.

You can't avoid them. Our entire society is saturated with them, like a virus.

 

[TXCAP4228]

You can't avoid them. Our entire society is saturated with them, like a virus.

Agreed.

 

[Timebuilder]

History has shown us time and time again that a solid, pervasive, organized religious faith is inconsistent with logical decision making. (Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Taliban, the Ayatolah, James Carter, Pat Robertson...) I want a president who reads History and Law, not centuries-old religious texts.

I don't know what portion of American Christians watch or support Pat Robertson's ministry. I can tell you that I don't. James Carter? He is a good carpenter, and his Bible background is much stronger than his political leadership. In some men, having a strong Bible background has been a benefit to their political abilities. In the case of President Carter, he was better off as a pastor than a President.

As for the others, you are mentiong what can only be considered outcasts, or what I call the lunatic fringe, rather than what should be characterized as a "solid" or "pervasive" religious faith. This isn't surprising, since that is how ANY belief is represented in the media.

It might surprise you to learn that the Bible teaches believers to follow and obey the laws of the secular government, and to work within its confines. All of these people's teachings, Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Taliban, and the Ayatolah all represent teachings that are an abomination to God, according to the Bible. None of them have my respect, or others who have spoken on this topic here. It is a common attempt to lump all belief together into the same bucket. It is an attempt to "smear". Logical? I think not.

If not already obvious, our own History and Law is based on the Bible teachings. As TurboS7 mentioned, our mistake is where we have departed from those teachings in our lives.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Sutherland as "Hawkeye Pierce" in M*A*S*H
Frank, were you on this religious kick at home or did you crack-up over here?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember how funny that was when I watched the movie at a drive in. Now that I see the movie from an adult standpoint, and I see interviews with the people that made the movie, I understand that the intent of the film was to produce an anti-war movie, deliberately thinly veiled as the Korean War, in protest of the VietNam War. This piece of dialogue is a deliberate attempt to characterize religious belief as appealing only to a buffon-like character, such as Frank Burns. I hope you are not citing this as an adult basis for a belief about religious people. That, sir, would be beneath you.

A couple of notes for Heyduke:

I completely agree that you feel our leaders should be held to a higher moral standard. However, Clinton did not have an affair with someone's wife or 18 year old sister.

No, he didn't. He had an affair with a woman that was a scant few years older than his own daughter, and not his wife. Then, he lied to try and cover it up.

He did something that I would guess most of the men in this country would do if they were given the chance. Of course that doesn't make it right, but his actions were right in line with the status quo. (I know very few airline pilots who *haven't* had affairs)

Most of the men in this country, or most of Howard Stern's audience? An eighteen or twenty year old, having grown up in a public school environment, and having an impression of religious people as being Frank Burns or David Koresh might see no problem in Clinton's behavior while working as the leader of the Free World. I'm sure the French think it's hilarious, but I have little respect for them in recent years. I think this is a gross generalization. Certainly, there is no moral standard established by the historical majority of airline pilots. I hope this never becomes the standard for Presidents.

I will now be told by many of you that it is impossible to be an honorable human being without a solid, western-Christian, Bible-oriented foundation. Many of you who would tell me this also believe that Christ spoke Old English and looked like Ted Nugent. Pleas, don't waste our time.

You are quite the humorist.

According to the Bible that you disrespect, it's teaching is intended for all the world, not just westerners, or even Americans. If someone tells you that Christ spoke Old English, you can trust little of what they are telling you. If they tell you that the Holy Spirit inspires the accurate translation of the Greek texts, then they are in accord with second Timothy, chapter three, verses sixteen and seventeen. This isn't the same as Christ's spoken language. It doesn't have to be. Also, it is unimportant to focus on Christ's physical apppearance or skin tone. Scholars believe that people from Nazareth did wear their hair long and uncut. I think that is where the resemblance to Terrible Ted ends.

Thanks to all for your comments. For the naysayers, this discussion has been in regard to 14CFR 61.153 (c). Thanks for taking part.

 

[Heyduke1]

No, he didn't. He had an affair with a woman that was a scant few years older than his own daughter, and not his wife. Then, he lied to try and cover it up.

If by a "scant few" you mean 1.5 times his daughter's age at the time, then you're right. But a 22 year old woman is old enough to make her own decisions. I still think Clinton is a dirty old bastard, but he was no sex-crazed pedophilistic sicko.

Most of the men in this country, or most of Howard Stern's audience?

I don't think either one of us can say for sure. I'm basing what I'm saying on personal observation, and I don't have any statistics on adultery.

You avoided my real point, Timebuilder, so I'll bring it up again.
me:

About the leaders/moral standards thing...I don't think we've improved in the least with Bush II...I find his disappearance from his National Guard duties, his DUI's, and his connections to shady Enron-type deals to be at least as (and probably more) disturbing than Clinton's horniness.

?

 

[Soupbone]

Typhoon and Txcap,
You so strongly defend your belief against religion, I pray that you don't confuse "religion" and Jesus Christ. There are many religions...good and bad. There is only one JC. Remember this, JC is the ONLY person that rose from the dead. NO other religion can say this of their leader or prophet (nor do they claim too). The real question is JC who He said He was. I encourage you to read a 80 page book called "More than a Carpenter". Very good book, very quick reading. Christ either was a liar, lunatic or EXACTLY who He said He was. He was NOT a just a good person or teacher. Many may slam this thread, buy until you bother too read the Bible or that small book, then you are simply believing what other people are saying and not actually having your own ideas!!
One last thing, people confuse Christians with perfection, and the stereo types people see on TV and the media. Ask ANY Christian (again, not someone who belongs to a religion, but a Christian) and they will be the very first too tell you they are perfect only saved by grace...period! In other words, why does the media (and you is seems) hold "Christians" to some standard of perfection more than other people. We just simply know we screw up and we pray to the only person that can forgive us.

Soup

 

[Timebuilder]

If by a "scant few" you mean 1.5 times his daughter's age at the time, then you're right. But a 22 year old woman is old enough to make her own decisions. I still think Clinton is a dirty old bastard, but he was no sex-crazed pedophilistic sicko.

1.5 times has little meaning when your are talking about his daughter's age group. But hey, what was I thinking! I'm sure it is common practice for a guy in his mid-50's to be sexually involved with a young woman of 22. My bad. Let's all go out and play with each other's kids. Great.

You avoided my real point, Timebuilder, so I'll bring it up again.

If I recall correctly, you were asking obout morality. I answered by illustrating the nature of "morality". If you think that someone is frozen in the events of their youth, and cannot be redeemed by God or the American public, then I would agree with you. I that case, no one would be qualified to be President.

The point about Clinton's Presidency is what he did as a fully-formed, experinced adult, not so much the missteps of his youth, such as demonstrating against US policy on foreign soil. While regrettable, that could be ascribed to a lack of maturity.

...and his connections to shady Enron-type deals to be at least as (and probably more) disturbing than Clinton's horniness.

First, I don't know of any connection to "Enron-type deals". Both republicans and democrats have oil and energy holdings, and benefit from US law, such as the depletion allowance, etc. I don't know of any connection between GW and Enron.

I don't find Clinton's horniness at all disturbing. What bothers me is the manner in which he brought discredit upon himself, his office, and the country. As President, his obligation is to put his personal needs aside as secondary to his responsibilities. If a President is unable to exercise moral restraint while in office, he is obligated to at least exercise sufficient discretion so that his inability does not reflect on the office or his country. That's my beef with him, on this issue. Of course, I prefer to start out with a President who has learned from his past and is not doomed to repeat it. I think we have such a man in George Bush, and I pray that I am correct.

 

[Timebuilder]

We just simply know we screw up and we pray to the only person that can forgive us.

I certainly fall into the "I have screwed up" category. I didn't know I was in that category, along with the rest of humans, for a very long time.

"For by grace you have been saved, through Faith, and not of yourselves; It is the gift of God.
Not of works, lest anyone should boast."

Isn't it amazing that folks can find such fault in such an idea.

Consider that a Christmas message. Have a merry one, and try to get on board with the Modest Proposal. We can do a lot to help families that have lost a pilot.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by Timebuilder
In the case of President Carter, he was better off as a pastor than a President.

Agreed. Jimmy is a very good man, one of the best...but he lacked the ability to shroud the truth that is--sadly--necessary in a U.S. president. (If a candidate came out and was completely honest with the voters, they'd never get elected.)

According to the Bible that you disrespect...

Now hold on. Don't get all Republican on me and start putting words in my mouth. I respect it for what it is, an ancient religious text. Just like the Torah and the Koran. And the book of Mormon, for that matter.

What I do disrespect is the idea that respecting these books is more important than respecting your fellow man. I don't need a book to tell me that stealing and murder--for example--are wrong.

Originally posted by Soupbone
You so strongly defend your belief against religion, I pray that you don't confuse "religion" and Jesus Christ. There are many religions...good and bad. There is only one JC. Remember this, JC is the ONLY person that rose from the dead. NO other religion can say this of their leader or prophet (nor do they claim too). The real question is JC who He said He was.... Christ either was a liar, lunatic or EXACTLY who He said He was. He was NOT a just a good person or teacher.

First of all, his name was Joshua...not the Greek corruption "Jesus." His mother was a "young woman," not a "virgin." His father created "mankind" (adam), not a man named "Adam."

The Bible can teach us many things, but if you walk away from it believing a man lived inside a whale for three days, you're not doing it justice.

 

[Flying_Colors]

Honor and faith are in the things you do for others...not the prayers you utter or the religious buildings you visit.

Well, I, for one, agree with you. Now back to lurking.

 

[Timebuilder]

Now hold on. Don't get all Republican on me and start putting words in my mouth. I respect it for what it is, an ancient religious text. Just like the Torah and the Koran. And the book of Mormon, for that matter.

I apologize. Putting words in your mouth was not my intent. I was drawing a conclusion while making a statement. You see, according to the Bible, if you see it as being "equivalent", that is to say, on a equal footing with the books you mentioned, you are not respecting the Bible for what is says that it is.

What I do disrespect is the idea that respecting these books is more important than respecting your fellow man. I don't need a book to tell me that stealing and murder--for example--are wrong.

There are two schools of thought about why you know that stealing and murder are wrong. Mosaic law, the law of Moses, is one such explanation.

First of all, his name was Joshua...not the Greek corruption "Jesus." His mother was a "young woman," not a "virgin." His father created "mankind" (adam), not a man named "Adam."

There are many "scholarly" works that contain the references you are sharing. The Bible states that it is the inerrant word of God. For a Bible believer, that is sufficient. In fact, that faith is coinsidered to be the most important aspect.

By the way, we have navy personnel living quite comfortably in what Biblical people would have called "whales". Humor aside, we have to understand that when we look at scripture, it respresents not only WHAT God wants to convey, but HOW He wants to convey it. If you focus on an image of a man iside the stomach area of the world's largest mammal, then I submit that you have missed the point of the Gospel.

As I mentioned before, to the great frustration of a number of people, is is impossible to have a truly secular discussion of issues of faith.

Weren't we discussing George Bush teaching labor a lesson? If so, perhaps that lesson is that the labor market is going through some radical changes, driven by the free market.

 

[Timebuilder]

Honor and faith are in the things you do for others...not the prayers you utter or the religious buildings you visit.

Sorry I missed this.

I would define "faith" as the acceptance of God's Word, and the daily immitation of His example. The set out words of a published prayer are fine for familiarity, but they are not the basis of being faithful. Buildings are a place for faithful people to gather, and nothing more.

In another thread, I am proposing a way for you to "do for others". I see precious few people supporting the idea.