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

[Draginass]

Does the fact that Bush and family go to church on Sunday bother you too? Or maybe Clinton's going to church on Sunday but getting a bimbo BJ in the oval office balances things out for you?

 

[Timebuilder]

I'll try and keep the flame thrower at port arms, okay?

Contrary to what you would expect, this does not improve my opinion of the President. I need very much to believe that the leader of my nation keeps his faith--whatever it may be--very private and very widely separated from his professional life. If the President was holding these Bible study sessions for the benefit of the press, I can dismiss it as Politics-as-Usual. But if these were indeed "very serious prayer meeting," that bothers me.

First, I don't think it was intended to improve your perspective on our current President, but only to contrast his character with that of his predecessor, which, as the two recent elctions indicated does count.

I do disagree that anyone who works in government has to keep their practice of religion either private or discrete. There is no legal or constitutional requirement to do so. While you are free to have an opinion regarding this, it appears that it is based on a feeling or an interpretation of the founder's wishes that is not in evidence. I'm certain that few minds are going to be changed here regarding the "establishment clause", but as you already know, the costitution says that Congess shall make no law respecting religion. So, from the standpoint of a strict constructionist, as long as no law is passsed that sets one religion above another, or makes official any particular religion or religious viewpoint, then the constitutional constraints have been fully satisfied.

From what I know of GW, all of which is at best from those who know him, and therefore second hand, he would never agree to a prayer meeting for the purpose of making it a media event. With that in mind, consider what Clinton did when he visited Normandy. He took some debris and attempted to fashion a small cross on the beach, in a supposedly unscripted and impromptu moment, with several press photographers nearby. The interesting difference is that this conspicuous, purposeful event which transpired on that beach was featuring a President who has no record of reverence or adherance to scripture as an adult. On the contrary, this central figure has established a track record of self aggrandizement and masterful manipulation of the media at every turn.

So, which is really more offensive: a man who exercises his freedom to practice a religion, granted under the constitution that he has sworn to protect and defend, so help him God, or a man who pretends at reverence when his every action shows an absence of core values and a willingness to exploit every opportunity for his own gain?

I am far more bothered that someone who is the leader of the Free World would engage in a religious act, and not be serious about it.

 

[A1FlyBoy]

What utter bull @hit.

 

[TurboS7]

Maybe I should have kept my big mouth shut. The point is that Bush and his aids took the job very seriously, while the other had a totally fippant attitude towards it. I want any leader that I have to look to Almighty God for guidance, any leader who doesn't is a fool, and that goes for any pilot too.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

What our president's private life consists of is no concern of ours, just as your private life is no concern of mine.

Men AND women in very high positions of power necessarily have a lot of power. Many people seek out powerful people for sex, especially women, because they are biologically attracted to power, as a more powerful father can protect and provide for her children better.

Clinton had an affair? This is normal for presidents. Almost ALL of our US presidents had affairs, both prior to and while in office.

Bush Jr: As far as I know, he isn't having an affair now. He had at least one previously.
Bush Sr: He had a steady "other woman" while in office.
Reagan: I don't know of any affairs, but I would be surprised if he didn't have them at some point.
Carter: No affairs, and probably the most religious and moral president we've ever had. Did that make him a great president?
Ford: No affairs I know of.
Nixon: He had a number of affairs.
LBJ: He had a number of affairs.
Eisenhower: He had an affair with his military driver.
Truman: No affairs I know of.
FDR: As our longest acting president, 4 terms, we must assume he was a great president, and I believe he did a herculean job during WWII. He had an affair, AND his wife had an affair with a FEMALE White-house staffer. Now, why do we not talk about his and his wife's lesbian affairs? Because at the time, the press believed that was personal, and although everyone knew about it, the press didn't believe in smearing FDR just to smear him. Imagine in today's world, if the press found out about Bush Jr's or Clinton's wife having an affair with a FEMALE White-house staffer?
George Washington: A number of affairs
Thomas Jefferson: A number of affairs, including fathering a large number of children with his black female slaves.
Note: Screwing the female slaves was a commonly accepted practice at the time, and no one thought him ill for it.

America is about the only First World country that goes nuts over SEX and is surprised or upset when it's leaders actually have sex, sometimes with someone who's not their spouse.

Our next president will have affairs, and the next, and the next, and the next. Get over it.

Cliff
GRB

 

[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.