Can Someone Shed More Light Here?

[thepotato232]

Bottom line. The deficit under Obama has been increased MORE than during all of the other presidents terms COMBINED. You just can't teach stupid.

I know I'm going to come across as an irredeemable liberal pinko for saying this, but there isn't a [citation needed] tag on the internet big enough for this statement.

 

[NEDude]

More data-

From 1948 to 2009-

GDP growth under Democrats - 4.01%
GDP growth under Republicans - 2.75%

 

[PCL_128]

Not only did you miss the sarcasm, but you actually missed the part where I SAID it was sarcasm.

Sorry.

I was using sarcasm to point out that what you said is the same thing--equating everyone who votes for a specific party to the most extreme end of that particular political spectrum. It's just as stupid a comparision to make for either the left or the right.

Understood, but that's not what I said. What I said was "not that I've seen." And that's a true statement. Being a pilot at a southern airline, I spend almost every trip flying with a Republican. There is the occasional fellow liberal, but it really is pretty rare. And I can't even remember the last time I flew with a Republican who didn't fit the "radical" label. They all think that things like privatizing social security and medicare, eliminating the EPA and DOE, implementing a flat tax, etc. are the right policies. Sorry, but that's far-right. There's no "moderation" in those proposals.

Sure, but changing to more and more socialist policies isn't the answer (here you may notice that I didn't say that President Obama is a socialist, but rather that he's implementing socialist economic policies).

That's a distinction without a difference. And frankly, it's just false. The President has yet to implement (or even propose) a single socialist policy. As someone who actually is a socialist (democratic socialist), I wish he would. But that's not his style. The right paints him as a socialist, but he's the furthest thing from.

You guys keep harping on the evils of capitalism and CEOs taking too much money. Okay, what has the administration done about it? Three-and-a-half years of the Obama adminstration, and so far all we've got is: MORE taxes, MORE unemployment, MORE crushing debt, and MORE government control.

First, I don't think it's the government's place to regulate CEO compensation. So I don't expect the President to do anything about it. I don't really know any liberals who think that the government should regulate such a thing, in fact.

But as for your claims, the "more taxes" one is especially crazy. Our tax burden is lower today than it was under President Reagan. You're repeating Fox Noise claims with no data to back it up. Never repeat something on Fox without fact checking it first.

More unemployment? This recession started under the previous president, need I remind you? Virtually every economist agrees that President Obama's efforts have helped to prevent the recession from getting worse. Yes, unemployment is still quite high by our historical standards, but compared to what other western nations are dealing with through this economic crisis, we're doing relatively well. If anything, the stimulus wasn't big enough, which is what most economists were insisting at the time.

More debt? Yep, you're right on that one. But that's an inevitability when trying to stave off a depression. And let's not forget that a huge portion of that debt is a result of two unnecessary wars that weren't started by this President. He deserves some criticism for refusing to pull out of Afghanistan, but at least he went halfway and got us the hell out of Iraq.

And finally, more government control? In what way? I would love to see some more government involvement in many things, but this President certainly hasn't done it.

I hate to break it to you, but President Obama is a moderate. Those of us on the left are just as unhappy with him as those of you on the right, just for different reasons.

Until the government actually nationalizes these companies (uh, THAT would be pure socialism)

Oh, so you do know what socialism really is! Excellent. Maybe you'll stop using it to refer to this President's policies, then.

If I don't vote for who you want me to, I'm a radical?

No, as I said, there used to be reasonable Republicans. I'm sure some still exist, but it's hard to find them. Since you insist on referring to President Obama's policies as "socialist," then it doesn't appear that you're one of them, either.

 

[BoilerUP]

Only on Flightinfo does this thread remain on the Majors board, while others FAR less politically-tilted get moved to other forums...

 

[BoilerUP]

More data-

From 1948 to 2009-

GDP growth under Democrats - 4.01%
GDP growth under Republicans - 2.75%

You live in Europe now, you care about American politics why again?

 

[scoreboardII]

bubba,
Is swa a better place to work bc Herb's a democrat?

I love when swa pilots enjoy a company that espouses caring about people, sharing profits, and creating a hard working living company instead of paycuts and disproportionate bonuses take those ethics for granted.
There are a lot of republicans you could have chosen to work for.
Why did you choose Herb's 'socialist' agenda to dedicate your career to?

Way off base, SWA is as capitalistic as they come, ZERO entitlement beyond what is contractually specified. The LUV and goodwill is a nice touch, but doesn't run the business, greed does.

 

[scoreboardII]

Well said PCL

I suppose you want my gun next?

 

[scoreboardII]

You're still gonna vote for a guy - that's been shown in a US court to have engaged in illegal union busting activities. Firing pilots in order to sell a company.

You're still gonna vote for him aren't you ? Bubba.

Yes I will, because the alternative is the distruction of this country.

 

[jonjuan]

Yes I will, because the alternative is the distruction of this country.

Yep-the lesser of two evils. The in incumbent will truly F up this country for a long long time if he's left in charge. Think unemployment is high now? Wait 4 years. And yes, it will have a dramatic effect of who can buy plane tickets.

 

[waveflyer]

Way off base, SWA is as capitalistic as they come, ZERO entitlement beyond what is contractually specified. The LUV and goodwill is a nice touch, but doesn't run the business, greed does.

The problem then is that you equate democrat with socialist. (Fox stuck on repeat)
I'm as capitalist as they come- but R's don't represent capitalism- they represent oligopoly, good ole boy, & generational wealth entitlement-

If you read Adam smith beyond the free hand you'll find that a requisite of capitalism is some wealth redistribution- but I'm sure you knew that.

Which, to you, represents more of the American dream Barack Obama and bill Clinton or W Bush and Mitt Romney? I'm curious.

 

[waveflyer]

I suppose you want my gun next?

Only if I get to keep my sig.

But nice stereotype

 

[waveflyer]

Yes I will, because the alternative is the distruction of this country.

We're you the 9:30 caller on hannity today?

If we survived bush, I'm sure we'll survive who we elect next

 

[SWA Bubba]

Only if I get to keep my sig.

But nice stereotype

Not just a stereotype. Attorney General Holder is already on record as saying that he believes that the 2nd amendment does NOT mean that individuals should be able to own guns. He believes (and there's anecdotal evidence, but to my knowledge, nothing publically stated, that President Obama agrees) that individuals should not be allowed to own guns.

Nice choice on the Sig, though. What do you have? It's hard to order one these days; everyone's buying them in the runup to the election.

BTW, I'm on vacation, so this is costing me (money AND drinking time), so I'll see you guys next week.

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

To Siberia with you and your political thread!

 

[waveflyer]

Bubba- I wish I could say I have a 556, but it's a 226- nice gun though- it's my second sig- had a 220 I picked up from a friend when he upgraded to a beretta.

 

[waveflyer]

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney both have softened their positions on gun restrictions over the years. As they expressed shock and sorrow over the bloodshed at a Colorado movie theater, neither suggested that tougher gun control could make a difference, a notion that has faded from political debate.

Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Massachusetts governor. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, he now bills himself as the candidate who will protect gun owners' rights.

Obama called for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons during his 2008 presidential campaign. But since his election, he hasn't sought to get that done or pushed other gun control proposals, either.

Neither man is likely to raise gun control as a campaign issue – beyond Romney's insistence that an Obama presidency is bad for gun owners. Both say they'll protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms. A look at the evolution of the candidates' positions and where they stand on guns:

OBAMA

1997-2004: As an Illinois state senator, Obama supports banning all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms, including a failed effort to limit handgun purchases to one per month.

2005: In the U.S. Senate, Obama votes against protecting firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits over misuse of their products by others. The bill is signed into law by President George W. Bush.

2008: During his first presidential campaign, Obama supports a return to the federal ban on assault weapons, which began during the Clinton administration and expired under Bush. He also endorses requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows. The National Rifle Association attacks him as an anti-gun zealot – a stand the group continues to take today.

April 2008: Obama is criticized for elitism after sounding dismissive of gun owners in a talk to campaign donors. He said voters in struggling small towns in Middle America "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" to explain their frustrations.


September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F" for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.

2011: Obama says the shooting that severely wounded then-Rep. Gabriel Giffords, D-Ariz., and killed six people should lead to "a new discussion of how we can keep America safe for all our people." He calls for "sound and effective steps" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including strengthening background checks on gun buyers. But he's short on specifics, and the Obama administration hasn't proposed any new gun initiatives since then.

March 2012: Obama calls the fatal shooting of black teenager Trayvon Martin by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida "a tragedy," saying Americans should do some soul-searching and "examine the laws" to figure out why it happened. He hasn't called for any legal changes in response to the case, which mostly brought attention to some states' "stand your ground" laws making it easier for a shooter to claim self-defense. Indeed, most gun regulations are imposed by states. The primary federal law is the Brady law requiring background checks on firearms purchasers.

July 20: Obama says he's heartbroken by the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre and calls for Americans to unite in prayer for the victims: "If there's anything to take away from this tragedy it's the reminder that life is very fragile, our time here is limited and it is precious."

Asked whether the mass shooting should prompt a new review of gun laws, White House spokesman Jay Carney declines to comment beyond reiterating Obama's existing stance in support of "common-sense measures that protect Second Amendment rights of Americans, while ensuring that those who should not have guns under existing law do not get them."

___

ROMNEY

1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA."

2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race.

2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee – from $25 to $100 – as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit.

2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase.

2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts.

2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member.

2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" – a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters.

2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.

2011: Making his second presidential bid, Romney's campaigns on a promise to protect and promote the Second Amendment.

2012: Romney tells gun owners that Obama wants to erode their rights. "We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners," Romney told the National Rifle Association's annual convention. "President Obama has not. I will."

 

[pilotyip]

Pilots who vote republican are f u c k i n g morons. We are labor.

yes you make up .0003 percentage (assuming 150K major airline union members) of the US voter population, the candidates will not chase those voters. Growth in the airline job market depends upon consumers of airline tickets having jobs. The present administration is a failure in this area.

 

[waveflyer]

yes you make up .0003 percentage (assuming 150K major airline union members) of the US voter population, the candidates will not chase those voters. Growth in the airline job market depends upon consumers of airline tickets having jobs. The present administration is a failure in this area.

Name a republican administration where airline pilots did well

From what I can see, pilots and our companies are doing a lot better under Obama than they did under W. or does the Reagan line only apply to Carter?

 

[pilotyip]

Name a republican administration where airline pilots did well

From what I can see, pilots and our companies are doing a lot better under Obama than they did under W. or does the Reagan line only apply to Carter?

Eisenhower, great growth in airline industry, introduce jets, pay goes up, and age 60 retirement. Nixon, majors have record hiring boom, no college degree required, guys hired then never furloughed. Reagan, hiring boom anyone hired in 1983-84 never furloughed made major Captain in 5 years, been Captain ever since. It is clear the GOP destroyed our industry, but them Dem's did wonders. How about a Democratic President, Mr Cater gave us de-reg. Dem controlled congress gave age 65 in 2007. And airline growth under BO, what else can one say. Yea them Dem's have done wonders for our industry.

BTW Again back to .0003 of the US population, it does not motivate any politician to pursue the airline pilot votes. Besides compared to most Americans airline pilots are well paid.