Maybe a reson to vote Dem.

[CopilotDoug]

This is true.

But talk is cheap.

His legislative record (and lack thereof) and inability to reach across the aisle on anything speak volumes.

Do you see Obama standing up to some of the major scumbags in his own party?

Sources say: "No."

This can't be repeated enough. I agree with alot of what Obama says. But the guy has no balls and has PROVEN he has a tough time making decisions.

Put him in office and it we'd be begging for business as usual.

Unfortunately, put McCain in office and it will be business as usual.

 

[belchfire]

The next POTUS and four years are going to be critical as air line pilots... The judges appointed and the agenda will determine the final direction this career takes...

From open skies to collective bargaining.....

McCain will destroy the profession

Oh, give me a break-the profession has already been destroyed by greedy CEO's that blame employees (instead of top heavy management) and hostile takeovers and a government that allows outgoing CEO's to take Millions of dollars with them out of bankrupt airlines instead of falling on a sword in shame for their incompetence!

There is a movement afoot amongst the Democrats to nationalize the airline industry. Let's see, for Federal Employees (ATC controllers for instance) it is ILLEAGAL to strike! Betcha pilots would be placed in the same group...

And while you think that Democrats are the friends of labor I will point out that it was Clinton as much as anyone else who paved the way for ever so many of our good paying manufacturing jobs to vanish forever into the People's Republic of China!

In spite of the clever use of the word "change", Senator Obama's voting record is distinctly Party Line-unless it was a controversial issue-in which case no vote was recorded. He is just another fast talking career politician and therefore worse than worthless.

And as bad as the greedy, self centered Ba$tards that run airlines today are, if you think airlines that are nationalized by a bunch of self serving politicians that can't balance their own checkbook, run a VA hospital or do anything but infringe on the rights of the individual (from the unborn to the gun owner to the pot smoker) and can't even keep people from crossing some of the most God Forsaken terrain in the world to be here in this country as violators of the laws they established you truly have fecal matter for brains!

Furthermore, like me if you showed up for work this month you are part of the problem. You though compound your error by looking to the government for a solution.

 

[Abernathy]

This is true.

But talk is cheap.

His legislative record (and lack thereof) and inability to reach across the aisle on anything speak volumes.

Do you see Obama standing up to some of the major scumbags in his own party?

Sources say: "No."

Speaking of scumbags, ever heard of the Keating Five?

 

[Soverytired]

Speaking of scumbags, ever heard of the Keating Five?

Yep. I'm pretty sure I was born then, but I'm not really sure, because that was a hell of a long time ago. Decades, really.

Unlike, say, a guy who attended a racist church 6 months ago or who just flip-flopped 2 days ago on the wisdom of FISA regulations that authorize the President to wiretap phones w/o judicial oversight. Very strange to get a pass on that last one, seeing as how the crazies in his party have been calling Bush the second coming of Hitler for doing the very same thing for the past 6 years.

That said, I'm not one to sing the praises or carry water of John McCain.

I think Obama will be a very weak President who will get steamrolled by powerful leaders and forces from his own party. A vote for Obama is a vote for Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Shurmer, Murtha, and their ilk.

These are the same people who have been running this country for the past 2 years (they pass the laws and authorize all funds, remember), and have been very effective at stopping every legislative proposal from the President for the past 6.

Yet they've managed to increase earmark spending, increase the national deficit, lead us into our current energy crisis, and a fair number have their hands in the cookie jar with the usual ethics problems.

If that's what you want, more power to you. But I'm getting a little sick of "a vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same". A vote for EITHER is for more of the same, only it's gonna be a HELL of a lot more of "the same" with Obama.

Obama has no track record on leading anything, much less a party full of prima donnas. He'll have to buy their loyalty with handouts, not unlike Bush did with his own party for years.

That worked out really well, didn't it?

 

[PCL_128]

There is a movement afoot amongst the Democrats to nationalize the airline industry.

Not true. There is a fledgling movement among some Dems to re-regulate the airline industry. In other words, return it to how it was run pre-1978. That's a big difference from "nationalizing" the industry. We would all be much better off with a stable, regulated industry.

 

[Abernathy]

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.

 

[belchfire]

Not true. There is a fledgling movement among some Dems to re-regulate the airline industry. In other words, return it to how it was run pre-1978. That's a big difference from "nationalizing" the industry. We would all be much better off with a stable, regulated industry.

Oh, that's better...giving corrupt airline management Federal subsidies that guarantee a profit for them to squander-on themselves!

 

[PCL_128]

Oh, that's better...giving corrupt airline management Federal subsidies that guarantee a profit for them to squander-on themselves!

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.

 

[Carl_Spackler]

We would all be much better off with a stable, regulated industry.

Who is "we"? The people that would actually have jobs after the fact? The reality is that regulation would lead to higher prices, less travel, and fewer pilots required.

The better option would to let failing airlines fail instead of propping them up and making the rest suffer in order to compete.

 

[PCL_128]

Newsflash: we're heading towards higher prices, less travel, and fewer pilots anyway. Better to have it regulated to provide stability.

 

[Soverytired]

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).

 

[Abernathy]

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.

 

[Soverytired]

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.

 

[Carl_Spackler]

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.

 

[PCL_128]

I disagree.

 

[belchfire]

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.

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...

 

[Soverytired]

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.