Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[Timebuilder]

Ha!

The very successful Contract should have had another name. I vote for "America's Contract Against Socialism" or "Contract on Liberals".

Of course, any promises to reduce America's dependence on a large central government and the reallocation of wealth would certainly be seen as a very bad thing by those who stand to lose power and control of millions of Americans. "I feel your pain." I think that the track record established by elected democrats and republicans has indeed created a "history" of documentation for how I have characterized the two approaches to American government. You can certainly say that it is a cliche if you like. How are cliches born? In this case, people are recognizing a long standing track record of behavior that easily identifies the two political philosophies. Are there exceptions? Certainly. There have been some conservative democrats, and even a few left leaning republicans. As time goes by, these exceptions are becoming fewer and farther between. This only makes this "history" more firmly supported.

Of course, you are also free to argue about the meaning of the word "history". First, work on the meaning of the word "is".


"Back to aviation?"


Many of the decisions that we make as a country will have a direct affect on our futures as avaitors. A lot of carriers were already taking on water before 9-11, and this event has made everything worse. Ask yourself how many times in the past year you saw a report on TV or in a newspaper that capiltalized on the "scary" aspect of flying in large cammercial aircraft. Do you wince a little every time an "airline passenger" is being interviewed in a terminal before boarding, telling all of America how they are "terrified to fly now" but they are only doing so to visit a sick child? How about the reports of ham-handed security men groping female passengers? Did American parents feel OK about putting their daughter on a plane after hearing those reports?

Someone mentioned the other day that we could see the nationalizing of our airlines. While this isn't a real possibility, I find it frightening that someone in front of a mic actually uttered those words. So, I urge you not to take a lazy or sarcastic view of politics in this day and age. As pilots we have so much to lose, and very much to gain.

If we don't pay attention, any jousts over PFT and RJDC will become pointless. At least these political posts are mildly humorous. My hope is that these discussions make you look into these and other matters for yourself.

 

[Purple Haze]

Hey look: A sinking ship - can I play?

Thru my overly simplistic eyes:

Corrupt: Both
Out of touch: Both
Pro-Management/Big Business: R
Pro-Labor/Union: D
Pro-CEO: R
Pro-Pilot: D
Pro-Education: Both (differing ideas)
Seems like the dems want ALL people (except white males) to have the opportunity to attend the university of their choice, regardless of their comparative academic ability.
Seems like the reps want everyone to have the same shot, based on SAT/ACT/GRE/GMT/GPA, academic ranking, etc.
Pro-Abortion: D
Anti-Abortion: R
Pro-Condoms for kids and instructions for use: D
Anti-Condoms for kids and instructions for use: R
Pro-Abstinence: R
Anti-Abstinence: D
Pro-Gay Rights: D
Anti-Gay Rights: R
Higher Taxes: D
Lower Taxes: R
Pretends the bottom 50% of wage earners pay the majority of taxes collected: D
Acknowledges the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of taxes collected: R
Pro-Social Security: Both
Pro- Medical Insurance: Both
Pro-Nationalized (socialized) healthcare: D
Anti-Nationalized (socialized) healthcare: R
Pro-Prescription Drug Plan: Both
Wants to spend too much: Both
Wastes money ridiculously: Both
Pro-Affirmative Action (Un-equal privelege): D
Anti-Affirmative Action (Level playing field): R
Pro-Military (During War): Both
Pro-Military (During Peacetime, which results in strong wartime military): R
Anti-Military (During Peacetime): D
Embraces different individual cultural groups as good for USA: D
Desires one "melting-pot" culture called "American:" R
"Tolerant" of all non-Christian faiths, including atheism: Both
"Tolerant" of Christianity: R
"Intolerant" of Christanity: D
Cares more about politics and personal power than doing their job with integrity: Both
Scary: Both

Flame on -- why didn't I stay out of this?

 

[Jeff G]

Re: Hey look: A sinking ship - can I play?

Flame on -- why didn't I stay out of this?

What's to flame? It's a little overly simplified, as you say, but mostly true. It's hard to argue with.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Purple, what is there to flame? In a nutshell, pretty much sums it up from a big picture political point of view. The only thing I would add is the Republicans seem driven to trample our basic freedoms via Ashcroft and Ridge, aka Homeland Security (yet they claim they're for the Constitution) Democrats would do this too but the Republicans would throw a fit. Now GWB is in office it is some how OK. Doubt the Homeland Security will have much of an impact on the criminals and terrorists but it sure get those cursed law abiding citizens in line!
Said it before, politics is a professional wrestling match. It is a fixed and staged event. Both parties are a den of thieves who look at the average citizen as servants to be subject to the bidding of the government.

 

[Purple Haze]

...the Republicans seem driven to trample our basic freedoms via Ashcroft and Ridge, aka Homeland Security

You are too generous...thanks.

Boy are you ever right about the "Stasi." I'm sure I would be even more disturbed than I am if "Big Bother" was now being implemented by the Gore administration.

Its all well and good now, but how will President Hillary's attorney general use this potentially highly intrusive power?

Ashcroft/Ridge may be scary -- but things could eventually be much worse.

Troubling.

 

[Timebuilder]

Purplehaze has a good list of what the general public thinks about the differences between the parties, circa 1978. A lot of that has changed. As the country has become more conservative, many democrats have moved from left to center. For instance, let's look at the whole "business/CEO" aspect. Where do the wealthy democrats who essentially "run" the democrat party have their money? Answer: the same big corporations that they publically complain about. They sit on those corporate boards. The biggest difference is that they want to use OTHER people's money to bring about the changes that they want, and will only use their OWN money to promote the causes.

The only thing I would add is the Republicans seem driven to trample our basic freedoms via Ashcroft and Ridge, aka Homeland Security (yet they claim they're for the Constitution) Democrats would do this too but the Republicans would throw a fit.

If you have a better and more effective suggestion for our security in the nation in a time of war, them PM with it. I will see that it gets into the right hands (no pun intended). As far as the constitution is concerned, the framers made allowances for the differences between peacetime and wartime. They probably never envisioned anything like the kind of terrorism that we see today, since they were honorable men who did not think in terms of blowing women and children to bits.

If you are talking about the detainees at gitmo, their status does not accord them the same rights as you and I, and our resident alien (ie: legal) friends.

As I said, those with a better and more effective idea are free to share it. If you do that in Iraq, you will be shot.

 

[Purple Haze]

Please Explain

...circa 1978. A lot of that has changed. As the country has become more conservative, many democrats have moved from left to center. For instance, let's look at the whole "business/CEO" aspect...

Timebuilder,
I agree with most of your post, but my opinions concerning the actions of the major political parties is based on what I have observed from each from the mid-70s until now. Prior to that I did not care (I just wanted a drivers license ). I concede on the big business issue, but clearly the Ds are more pro-labor than the Rs. I prefaced my remarks with "simplistic," which they are. Could you kindly point out, in equally simplistic terms, where I am incorrect?

I don't claim to have all the answers. I appreciate your objective reproof.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think the relationship of the democrat party to Big Labor goes back to when it was "small labor", during its beginnings. Because of the theme of "collective bargaining", a large number ol labor activists and supporters were socialists or communists. This doesn't paint the American labor movement in a bad light, but it does provide a basis for labor's association with the democrats.

As organized labor shrinks in the US, as it has since the seventies, there are fewer labor members to support the party. In place of this broad support from labor has emerged a patchwork of special interest groups, trying to form into a single agenda that can be supported by a majority of Americans. The democrat problem is this: most Americans don't agree with this agenda, and people like me who used to support it have found it to be lacking, and have moved to what they think is a position that is more closely linked to the values upon which the country was founded. For me, the viable political party for this position is firmly in the republican agenda: private property rights, parental rights (particularly father's rights), states rights, and constitutional rights, including the necessary steps we must take when attacked from within.

Particular observations from your list:

Corrupt: both. On a case by case individual basis? This would apply to ALL parties, since they are all made up of people. I see the re-empowerment of the individual American and the states where they reside as a noble cause, and one worthy of support.

Out of touch: both. I disagree. Does increasing public support for the republican agenda indicate that they are out of touch? I say: no.

Abortion: the dems are firmly in the grasp of NOW, which opines that a fetus is not a human. Aside from the fact that there is a far larger national women's group that gets short shrift in the major media (the definition of which is changing every day) the NOW people are very large supporters of the dems, and control that plank. Some republicans approach this question from a religious viewpoint (not to say that the NOW position does not have a "religious" fervor to it) but most Americans who are not "born again don't like the fact that many thousands of abortions are performed on a whim, and on developing babies which can, and sometime stubbornly do survive outside the womb. This question relvolves around a woman's responsibility in creating a life in herself as much as the question of her right to summarily end that life.

Condoms for kids: see "parent's rights", above.

Gay rights: there actually is a group of gays called the Log Cabin Republicans. I disagree that certain groups should be accorded "special" status by the government.

Taxes: actually, the top five percent of Americans pay the vast majority of the taxes the government receives! It floors me when I hear Tom Daschle complain about tax breaks for the rich, when they are only getting back a portion of what THEY have paid IN! When they get money back, jobs are created by investment of that money, carrying your retirement investments higher along with the market rise. When there is a "middle class" or "targeted" tax cut from a democrat, a few washing machines are purchased, and the economy stays where it is. Remember what happened when Reagan cut taxes across the board? The amount of tax money received by the government INCREASED.

I'm out of time for now, so I hope I have helped you in your understanding of this.

It took me over a quarter century to understand.

 

[Purple Haze]

Timebuilder,
Except for my flip "out of touch" assertion, it sounds like we agree. I must admit that I have not read your earlier posts on this volatile thread (I will try to get around to that ). I agree many dems are centrists -- so are many reps. When our elected officials start getting out too far either direction they represent the interests of small and sometimes militant groups.

I guess the only point I was trying to make with my first attempt at an honest and overly simple look at the big 2, is that you can find good and bad in each -- dependant upon your perspective.

Some of those issues mean more to me personally, and I vote accordingly. One of my pet peeves is non-voting Americans.

I know of no other nation that comes close to our freedom and personal empowerment. I wish we could rally as a nation of "Americans" without other divisive labels and get on with the business of being the best.

 

[ShawnC]

...President Hillary's ...

If that happens I'm moving to elsewhere, the last 8 years of Clinton was bad enough IMO.

Though I have to admit right now, the postioning isn't right for his to bid for the nomination, maybe that will change in the next 2 years, but right now, she doesn't seem to be attracting the spot light that others are.