Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[Typhoon1244]

We've heard it a million times: the Republican has no heart, the Democrat has no brain.

I'm always surprised, however, at how many staunch ALPA members are Republicans. Wierd.

But anyway, back to aviation...

 

[Chunk]

Same story, different characters...

Okay, so you didn't like the "partying college girl" setup of the story...does that make it any less true?

How about this....can you object to an ant and a grasshopper?


THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

And the Grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.


MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome".

Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grass-hopper's sake.

Al Gore exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share".

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act," retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried, before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of multi-generation welfare recipients. The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

We some times forget that this is an aviation website and not a political one. Let's get back to aviation.

As I said in the title "non aviation subject." The people in this thread knew before clicking on it, that it was a non aviation subject. I enjoy hearing people's point of view, that's why I started this thread. If you don't, you just a click away from leaving. No offence.

I do agree that politics in the cockpit, or even with opposing in-laws is not a good idea. Just causes non needed friction.

My dad sent this to me, I like this analogy. Welfare is out there to help those who lost work, or are trying to better them self's. Not for free-loaders. In my opinion it can be good, when not abused. Give help not handouts. Vote Republican.

Republican= rewards success, personal responsibility
Democrat = redistribute wealth, creates dependency
Edit grammar error..

 

[Wolf King]

Great post, Texan. I also thought the ant story was great, Chunk... I saw it posted before, how true!

 

[Rizer]

It amazes me that Republicans have been railing against welfare forever but it took a Democratic President (Clinton) to actually reform the welfare system. Anyone remember workfare, not welfare. Ah...a selective memory is a wonderful thing.

 

[bulldog]

type ratings

Just curious. Any type ratings acquired on uncle sam's money after 9/11.


Bulldog

 

[waka]

Republican= rewards sucess, personal responsability

Democrat= redestribute wealth, creates dependancy

To claim that republican philosophy has an exclusive claim to personal responsibility and that creating dependency is stricly associated with democrats is utterly preposterous and short-sighted.

.....looks like the the trendy one-liner tactics are still rampant. <sigh>

 

[mar]

I can't stop myself

This thread is like a bad car accident: I can't help but stop and look out of morbid curiosity.

Hey Tex--you enjoy different viewpoints. How about this one: Every true liberal/leftist that I know *doesn't* vote Democrat.

And they certainly don't vote Republican. You know why?

Because every true liberal/leftist that I know considers the Republi-Crats to be the political party of the Corporation.

Do you really think the Kennedys, the Gores or the Clintons are *so* liberal? Aren't they all sold out to special interest just like all of the Republicans?

What's so laughable to the true Left in this nation is how the Right will look *only so far* to find their convenient little nemesis.

The true Left hold Clinton in such disdain and disgust that it would probably make you giggle like a little girl.

Clinton did more for the Republican party during his two terms than Lamar Alexandar, John Cain, Bob Dole and George Bush combined.

Even Buchanan couldn't stomach the scene any longer and jumped ship.

All of this simply illustrates how myopic the entire conversation between Repubs and Dems has become. They both think they're diametrically oppossed, when in truth, they both just spew the same nonsense, the same rhetoric, every year.

Your typical conservative will probably consider himself quite open-minded after sitting down and having a beer with a Democrat--all in order to see the "other side." In truth, there's another element in society that looks at everything else from another perspective. You don't read/hear about these people in the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, Time Mag, Newsweek, CBS, NBC or whatever mouthpiece for the corporation you read/listen to.

These people are systematically excluded from the national conversation. Think Ralph Nader and the debates during the last election.

So my point, after all, is this: You may think you can spot one of them-thar bleedin' heart Democrats a mile away, but the truth is you have no idea what a real liberal/leftist stands for because it's never been spoon fed to you my the major media--or even Rush for that matter.

Peace.

 

[AV8OR]

Now there's some selective memory! When the welfare reform bill was signed into law, congress was controled by who?...That's right, the Newt Gingrich, waskily ole republicans, who wrote bill. And when your fearless leader Slick, signed it into law when did he do it? That's right, the friggin dead of night on a Fri, so he wouldn't get tarred and feathered by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt before the sting wore off. Ya might want to surf some microfiche at the library before ya claim that one for the Dems.

Here's one:

Boy's selling puppies outside the white house with the a sign that says "Democrat puppies for sale". Bill and Al buy a couple for the family and a couple of weeks later see the same boy selling what's left of the pups with a sign that says "Republican puppies for sale". They ask the boy if these aren't the same puppies he was selling two weeks ago, and if so, why did his sign now say they were Republican puppies? The boy responds, "Simple, last week they opened their eyes!"

 

[Timebuilder]

It amazes me that Republicans have been railing against welfare forever but it took a Democratic President (Clinton) to actually reform the welfare system. Anyone remember workfare, not welfare. Ah...a selective memory is a wonderful thing.

Actually, Mr Rizer, it was a republican congress that reformed the welfare system. What part did Mr. Clinton have? He looked at some polls, determined that this idea had popular support, and went along with it to advance his legacy.

See the difference?

To claim that republican philosophy has an exclusive claim to personal responsibility and that creating dependency is stricly associated with democrats is utterly preposterous and short-sighted.

No, sir, that is history.

I don't know if "Tex" knows any members of the Left, but I certainly do. Many are dems, some are green party, some are socialist workers party. Many more vote for Democrat candidates.

Finally, why do any of you know republican ALPA members? Pilot in command authority is the essence of personal responsibility.

We now return to our discussion of RJ's, stinger missiles, and failing carriers.

 

[Jeff G]

Speaking of corporate welfare:

Now, when you think about it, corporate taxes are really double taxation. What are corporate taxes? Taxes on corporate profits. Who makes corporate profits? A corporation, which either plows the profits back into the business (thus growing the business and employing more people, who pay more in personal income taxes), pays the corporation's employees more (thus generating more personal income taxes), or distributes profits to shareholders as dividends (which is then taxed as capital gains). In other words, every dollar of "corporate profits" is distributed to people who then pay taxes on it again.

So what is "corporate welfare"? Mostly tax breaks on corporate profits for politically deserving companies. IOW, politicians reduce the amount of double taxation for certain companies.

So here's a novel concept. Eliminate corporate taxation entirely. Corporations will still pay sales taxes and excise taxes on products they buy but will no longer be forced to give the government a cut when they have a good year. Instead, their employees will pay taxes on their personal income. This also eliminates political games regarding which companies are "worthy" of welfare.

Corporations are not nameless, faceless, money-generating, tax revenue-producing monoliths. They are made up of taxpayers. So why cripple successful companies with double-taxation to begin with?

Makes about as much sense as taxing the dead and reducing the estate to be left to descendents. But that's another story.

 

[waka]

No, sir, that is history

"history"? according to?..... hmmm, the National Review and similar spinmeister rags?

It amuses me when folks use the word "history" in such a way that it's use somehow gives them sole rights to objectivity.

____________________________________________

Very good points mar. I sometimes fall into that trap.

 

[pipers]

... I take some solace in the knowledge that flawed liberal viewpoints are becoming exposed and are nearing the end of their lifespan. Just look to the recent mid term election results to see the result of Americans fed up with Democrats off in la la land.

I will try to make this my last reply on the subject, I promise. I just wanted to point out that the recent mid-term elections don't in any way indicate that America is fed up with democrats of in la la land and liberal thought. The problem with the Bush administration is that they are governing as if they won by a land slide. (What happened to being "a uniter, not a divider"?) The truth is, more people voted with either the green or democrat party in 2000 then did republican. I'm not saying George didn't win (we don't need another argument) but, Ralph turned out to be a very useful tool to the republican party. New Hampshire and Flordia would have gone to Gore. In 2002, the republicans did win more of the "toss-up" elections (by out spending democrats 8-1 in some case I might add), but this doesn't indicate a dramatic change to the right. These were the races that were "to close to call." I honestly believe that this political diveristiy is a powerful thing. I would be scared to death to see what would happen if there were no checks and balances in our government. Thanks for your opinions. Vote.
Cheers.

PS...May I just ask one question? Where does unemployment fit in with all this? Because, I know for a fact that there are many who visit this site in that boat. If I remember correctly, it was the Dems that wanted to push through a bill that would extend unemplyment benefits (those affected by 9/11) through the holiday season, but the rep. didn't agree and went home with our resolving it. Suks.

 

[Rizer]

...and when your fearless leader Slick, signed it into law when did he do it? That's right, the friggin dead of night on a Fri, so he wouldn't get tarred and feathered by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt before the sting wore off. Ya might want to surf some microfiche at the library before ya claim that one for the Dems.

Here is a picture of Clinton signing the Welfare Reform Bill.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/welref.html

Hardly the dead of night. You must be confusing this with George W's signing of the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. Now that was in the dead of night.

Originally posted by Timebuilder
Actually, Mr Rizer, it was a republican congress that reformed the welfare system. What part did Mr. Clinton have?

Welfare reform was a one of Clinton's 1992 campaign pledges. 1992...two years before anyone even knew who Newt Gingrich was...before Gingrich's absurd "Contract Against Ameri...errr Contract With America".

He looked at some polls, determined that this idea had popular support, and went along with it to advance his legacy.

Timebuilder, you have got to stop listening to so much talk radio.

 

[Timebuilder]

It amuses me when folks use the word "history" in such a way that it's use somehow gives them sole rights to objectivity.

When we talk about facts, not feelings that are not a part of today, then we are talking about them as history. Hey, that is amusing!

I'm not saying George didn't win (we don't need another argument) but, Ralph turned out to be a very useful tool to the republican party.

If you mean that he was a "spoiler" candidate, republicans are familiar with that. For them, it was Ross Perot, which lead to the election of Bill Clinton. I'm sure that neither Ross nor Ralph would describe themselves as "useful tools", though.

Welfare reform was a one of Clinton's 1992 campaign pledges. 1992...two years before anyone even knew who Newt Gingrich was...before Gingrich's absurd "Contract Against Ameri...errr Contract With America".

Clinton's acceptance of the republican idea of welfare reform for his 1992 campaign was a direct result of the kind of polling that I described. Instead of leadership, he sent up trial ballons, and played to those who follow the slant of Peter Jennings. Ten years after 1992, this method is no longer effective for the dems.

It was the Contract with America that helped sweep in the first republican congress in how many years? What an absurd idea: to think that a group of politicians would break the mold and actually DO the things that they promsed to do! How repugnant.

Talk radio? I was in talk radio, my friend. As a liberal democrat! I think this gives me a unique insight into this controversy. You know what talk radio is nowadays? It's people who never had a voice in the mainstream media, finding that America hasn't really lost its greatness, as ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN would have us all believe. It's the voice of America, bubbling to the surface. I hear conservative voices of every race and both genders speaking out against the mainstream tide of Paul Begalla and James Carville.

Do liberals wish that talk radio would go away? Sure. It interferes with their sense of control, and sublimates their agenda to the genuine desires of Americans.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[AV8OR]

Hey Rizer,

I'll tell ya what, why don't you and Ted K. and the rest take as much of your own money as you want give as much away as you want to help others. That's what I do. Better yet if you think the liberal democrat government way is the way to go, why don't you just have em take a little more out and let Ted and the boys pour more of it into that crap hole in Boston called the Big Dig. I can hardly wait for John Kerry to campaign on the success of that one. Listen here's my last opinion on the subject and I'm done. ....

There are greedy democrats and greedy republicans. I'm sure some of both are charitable with their personal funds. As far as Constitutionally mandated programs being payed for through taxes, that's great, but when Ted K, or George W., or whoever, takes our money, redistributes it, and then claims the benevolency as their own, that is just pure self promotion through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. If that's not the legislation of someones morality or immorality, I don't know what is.

Adios

 

[Rizer]

Timebuilder-

I'm sure we will never agree but I did enjoy the exchange of ideas. But I do make it a rule never to argue with a former Liberal Democrat radio talk show host turned Conservative Republican Lear Jet pilot. I guess I am just odd that way.
Fly Safe.


AV8TOR-

I don't know what the heck you are talking about with the big hole in Boston and I pretty sure I don't want to know. Nothing you have written has made any sense, why should your last post be any different.

Ciao!

 

[Wolf King]

Rizer,

Didn't I see you on an MTV episode recently?..... Oh, yeah, now I remember.... you did Anna Nicole Smith's bedroom decor. You're Bobby Trendy, aren't you? C'mon, I'd be proud of those pink pillows!

 

[ShawnC]

Good point. I've never discussed politics in the cockpit and don't intend too. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone and the truth is that while we may have politics differences, we're all here becuase we love to fly. We some times forget that this is an aviation website and not a political one. Let's get back to aviation.

What do you mean, my flight instructor brought up politics all the time, right between slow flight, and steep turns...

Please with 500 hrs how many chances have you had to talk about anything in the cockpit other than flying.

As far as DEM vs GOP, I'll stay out of it I prefer to leave that for times when I can hit the other person over the head.

 

[waka]

When we talk about facts, not feelings that are not a part of today, then we are talking about them as history. Hey, that is amusing!

Heh heh, if I didn't buy into your claim to history, I certainly won't buy into your claim to "fact" (so-called).

Cliche's don't cut it.

Oh, and that would have more appropriately named "Contract ON America", most which flopped, (fortunately). Yes, this apt renaming is cliche but it's d@mn funny. Truth in humor I guess.