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

Maybe a reson to vote Dem.

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
If Obama is weak, McCain is (understandably) unstable.

I really don't see, btw, how Obama is "weak." Is it because he uses real words and speaks coherently, instead of using phrases like "bring it on" and "git'er done"?

Does Obama use too many big words? Is it because he's not a "regular guy" like the rest of us? As if that's a bad thing?

Come man, tell. But cut the crap and tell us. Going off on his Pastor and people he met 20 years ago shows just how desperate you people are you find something to stick to the guy.

Ah. The stereotypical Obamican. I won't bore you with policy discussions . . it's unlikely you know anything of substance anyway.

1. John McCain, last year's "reasonable" Republican to the democratic party, is now "unstable." Or "confused". Or "senile". This used to be considered "agism" . . .unless you're Obama.

2. Obama uses "big words", and that threatens the dummies (re: anyone who disagrees with him). He's not a "regular guy" . . .he's BETTER than a regular guy ("this is a good thing"). This is normally called "elitism" . . . except when it's Obama.

3. "Bring it on" . . . how odd. I thought this was a Bush-ism, not McCain. Bush isn't running this time, but an Obamican can't seem to get past this. Even though McCain was the cat's meow to democrats for repeatedly pissing in the Republicans punch, now he IS Bush.

4. Regularly frequenting a racist's church for 20 years, writing books discussing how profoundly it's pastor shaped his life, and defending that pastor repeatedly (until throwing him under the bus) is AOK . . . if you're Obama.

=====================================

I digress. Obama is weak not because he's unable to sway a fickle mob that thinks the president is the king of America . . . clearly he can . . . just as Bush was able to do twice.

He's weak because he has no demonstrated ability to lead leaders
. He has passed no significant legislation in his very brief years as a state and federal official, he has not been a leader in his own party, and he has not demonstrated any ability to find common ground with the other half of America -- the republican party. His judgment on picking subordinates is questionable, and he's already had to fire several of them from his campaign; the same can be said with the people he's associated with for decades.

He can win. He WILL win. But can he govern? If he's unable to win a fair amount of DUAL party support, his results will be lackluster. Personally, I think he's going to be extremely divisive (51% to 49%) and will be unable to deliver on much of what he's promised (thank god).
 
Last edited:
Ah. The stereotypical Obamican.

1. John McCain, last year's "reasonable" Republican to the democratic party, is now "unstable." Or "confused". Or "senile".

2. Obama uses "big words", and that threatens the dummies (re: anyone who disagrees with him). He's not a "regular guy" . . .he's BETTER than a regular guy ("this is a good thing"). This is normally called "elitism" . . . except when it's Obama.

3. "Bring it on" . . . how odd. I thought this was a Bush-ism, not McCain. Bush isn't running this time, but an Obamican can't seem to get past this. Even though McCain was the cat's meow to democrats for repeatedly pissing in the Republicans punch, now he IS Bush.

4. Regularly frequenting a racist's church for 20 years, writing books discussing how profoundly it's pastor shaped his life, and defending that pastor repeatedly (until throwing him under the bus) is AOK . . . if you're Obama.

I digress. Obama is weak not because he's unable to sway a fickle mob that thinks the president is the king of America . . . clearly he can . . . just as Bush was able to do twice.

He's weak because he has no demonstrated ability to lead leaders
. He has passed no significant legislation in his very brief years as a state and federal official, he has not been a leader in his own party, and he has not demonstrated any ability to find common ground with the other half of America -- the republican party. His judgment on subordinates is questionable, and he's already had to fire several of them from his campaign; the same can be said with the people he's associated with for decades.

He can win. He WILL win. But can he govern? If he's unable to win a fair amount of DUAL party support, his results will be lackluster. Personally, I think he's going to be extremely divisive and will be unable to deliver on much of what he's promised (thank god).

All four of those points were extremely weak.

And no, I'm pretty sure he won't be elected. I hope he will be, but if I had to bet money, my money would be on McCain.

Sad but true.
 
All four of those points were extremely weak.

And no, I'm pretty sure he won't be elected. I hope he will be, but if I had to bet money, my money would be on McCain.

Sad but true.


Really? You have no problem electing a President who has no executive experience and no significant legislative record? No record of leadership within his own party? No accomplishments of note in the private sector?

Yet put the title "President" in front of his name, and all the career politicians (on both sides) will simply line up and follow his agenda?

Seems like a real crap-shoot to me.
 
Last edited:
Newsflash: we're heading towards higher prices, less travel, and fewer pilots anyway. Better to have it regulated to provide stability.

Let me clarify...there would be less travel, less pilots, and higher prices under re-regulation that there would be under the system we have now.
 
I disagree.
 
Subsidies come into effect in only a tiny portion of the markets. You need to research the CAB and regulation prior to 1978. Subsidies weren't common. What was common was airlines charging enough to cover their costs. Imagine that. :rolleyes:

Well, that is part of the story. The rest of the story is that they were very well paid for hauling the mail out of Marion, Il and Baker OR and were protected on the routes-no AirTrans or SWAs allowed to apply free market forces.

So, would you propose that the top heavy outfits like United, Delta, NWA be protected again to the detriment of outfits that have proven that they can make it on their own? The alternative is to let robber barons like Lorenzo and crooks like Don Carty rip off assets and run away with 63 million dollar severance packages and allow them to quietly die under the weight of VP's, CEO's and Boards of Directors that have no vested interest in the companies they control.

Face it, they've already raped the pension plans-there isn't anything left but a hollow shell of former glory over a rotten, putrid core of the Legacy carriers.

The laws of the land allowed them to become that way...the same kind of elitists running the companies as running the government. It's a daisy chain of anal-oral interface and greed of the likes we haven't seen since Roman Empire.

And people here think the government should (or even could) do something constructive...
 
Last edited:
At $135+/barrel sustained oil prices, there's going to be a significant draw down in air travel and cities served no matter if it's regulated or not.

There is simply no way the American taxpayer will subsidize the current levels of air service available to the US public. It would break the bank.

And oil is likely to continue to climb MUCH higher.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top