The Republican Airline Pilot a paradox?

[surplus1]

Your last two posts have been instructive. Maybe even slightly opinion changing, but I can't let this statement slide.

Thanks. Coming from you that means a lot.

I care that President Clinton was lying about getting a bj in the oval office. I care for two reasons, first he lied under oath in a court of law, and second he proved himself to be unfaithful to his wife and I figure if a man will lie to his wife he will lie to me. I want my President to be a man of honor and lying under oath is not honorable. It's also highly illegal.

Just to clarify for the record. I do not condone President Clinton's behavior and I agree, in particular, that lying under oath in a court of law is not acceptable. I was only comparing the events with respect to their effect on the Nation as a whole.

If there is any defense for Clinton, it is this. Many men have affairs in wedlock. It is not right, but it is a part of life nearly as common as the world's oldest profession. It is also not right to "tell it all in public" and tarnish someone otherwise regarded as a "lady". As it turns out the "lady" or "ladies" were anything but, and he should have just admitted the affair.

Jefferson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy are all presidents that we know had "affairs" while in office and not one of them experienced the attacks launched against President Clinton. Neither did any of them tell the truth about it. That entire debacle was mostly a political event orchestrated by his opponents. They very nearly succeeded but, I think wisely, he was not convicted by the Senate.

I know that Clinton admitted to lying about the Lewinski affair and was sanctioned for it. It was a bad mistake and it cannot be excused by the good things his Presidency did for the country. Nevertheless, I don't see him as the demon that his enemies would have us believe.

Lying is not a good thing nor is sexual promiscuity. Unfortunately both have become a way of life in America. In that context, one could argue that Clinton was merely in conformance with "community standards".

With respect to the current occupant of the White House, I do not think Mr. Bush is evil. I'm sure that he, like every other President we've ever had, is doing what he believes is best for our country. Unfortunately, the fact that he believes that does not make it so. The results appear to indicate otherwise.

I strongly disagree with the foreign policy of his government, and think that he has little if any domestic policy of significant value to the body politic. I'm also very concerned about how he gained the Presidency, which has overtones, in my view, of Lyndon Johnson's "elections" to the Congress. I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat and have no "party" affiliation. I just want the best government that we can get and I don't think we have it right now.

This is the greatest nation that the world has yet to see. However, it is a very young nation. I do not want to lose the things that have made us not just a rich nation, but a great nation. The current stewardship of our heritage troubles me greatly. As leaders of the world community, we must do better.

Fly Safe,
Surplus1

 

[likeitis]

Surplus I think you would have better results asking what president didn't cheat on his wife.

 

[FlyFlyFly]

Had the CEO of Exxon been caught getting a BJ by one of his interns, he would have been asked by the board to resign. My major problem with Clinton is he is a sociopath, with no internal principles other than his own instant gratification. He accomplished nothing in office, except to sign the bills Newt Gingrich sent him when the polls said it was a good idea.

During his tenure, Corporate America devolved into the biggest larceny schemes of the century. Global Crossing, Enron, Martha Stewart were all committing their crimes while Bill was the chief enforcer of the law. Clinton still plays golf with Steve Winnick... enough said.

Now that he is out of office, he is all about repairing his "legacy". All the last minute pardons in exchange for $millions$ to his library and Hillary's Senatorial campaign sealed his fate as the poorest president since Grant. Well, at least ol' Bill is not a souse.

So in light of all the thieving and lying that went on during his administration I guess you are right, the blow job was not that big a deal.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Re: Huh?

I've tried to read this entire thread, and the only thing I've gained from it is a mild headache.

Can someone sum it up for me and *briefly* explain why my airline career will be better if I vote for a Democrat?

I'll sum it up, however my post is open to interpretation which is open to interpretation which...

Generally, for true or hidden agenda reasons the deomcrats support labor, ie the american worker. Whereas, the republicans support companies and corporations. Each one at the expense of the other.

Airline pilots are blue collor labor, just like any hourly employee, so in order to promote your job security, you "should" vote democrat. This goes over like a fart in church because most airline pilots (many military) are republican.

My arguement is it is an inherent conflict of interest becuase by supporting republican you are actually limiting your livelihood. You wouldn't buy lunch for the lawyer that is sueing you, would you?

Many disagree, which, of course, is good because free will is what it is all about. However, politics is like religion and it is whatever you choose to believe. Your beliefs are not right or wrong, they simply just are what they are.

My intent when writing the post was two fold with a side effect. I wanted to raise awareness and understand the republican pilot mindset.

Comments?

 

[bart]

Here is the way I see it:

Vote democrat if you want a bigger share of the same pie.

Vote republican if you want the same share of a bigger pie.

I bake my own pie, I just want the government to quit taking so darn much of it.

 

[uscpilot]

It was a bad mistake and it cannot be excused by the good things his Presidency did for the country.

I hear this sort of thing said all the time with no evidence to back it up. What are these "good things"?
usc

 

[uscpilot]

Re: Re: Huh?

Generally, for true or hidden agenda reasons the deomcrats support labor, ie the american worker.

This statement implies that unions support workers. Unions support themselves. When an entity gets as large as big labor the object becomes selfpreservation, not supporting the individual worker.
usc

 

[Timebuilder]

Michael707767 wrote:

All my ideals about abortion, gun control, welfare, small government, etc, mean dick if I am out of work and cannot feed my family. I would rather pay higher taxes and keep my job thank you.

I'd sincerely like an explanation of how voting for a democrat candidate woould help anyone keep a job. Perhaps being a government bureaucrat would help you keep a job, but an airline pilot? Please, someone instruct me.

Now, I'm sorry to dredge this from page two, but I was in NYC for most of the week.

Well, let's see. Among other things I read a book, written by Churchill. It's title is Liberalism and the Social Problem which, according to him, outlines his political philosophy. You might read it.

Thanks for the steer on the book, but what does it contain that refutes my position, or my interpretation of the quote attributed to Churchill?

I'm further suggesting that your thoughtless branding of people into what you define as elitist liberals dislplays a remarkable lack of intellectual depth on your part.

My, my. What have I missed. Here is what my "branding of people into what you define as elitist liberals" actually does show: it shows that I was not alseep, during my 23 years as a democrat/leftist/hate America First politial operative. It shows that I fully understand exactly what the heart and soul of the democrat party is about: the idea that Americans are too dull witted to govern thenselves properly, or we used to say "progressively." We, the party faithful, regarded ourselves as the only people who were in politics who were sufficiently smart, sufficiently enlightened, sufficiently sensitive, and sufficiently caring to carry the mantle of leadership here in America. The word "Camelot" had more than just a surface meaning, it was the idea that the democrat party was the royalty of American politics, particularly the Kennedys.

You quote above shows a real lack of unsderstanding of what the democrat party is all about. It is ALL about being an elite group of the "correct people" who "should" be in leadership positions in America, to help government define what children should be taught in schools, how the secular humanist agenda should be advanced by the intellectual dishonesty of improperly defining the meaning of the First Amendment and working to abolish the power of the Second Amendment, and by regulating personal behavior in a way that prevents people from hiring whom the want to hire, forces acceptance of abherrant behavior as a viable alternative to moral behavior, and rejects the concept of personal responsibility under the protective blanket of the "nanny state."

That this included a great many reforms that you might label as socialist or secular-humanist, speaks volumes. That is what made Churchill the great man that he was.

It shows how a great leader can also be wholly wrong on occaision.

That statement is a perfect demonstration of the thoughtless rhetoric that appears to infest the line of thinking to which you subscribe. If you choose to reply to me you can spare that nonsense, it is meaningless hype designed to antagonize and will get nowhere. If you have something to say, which you often do, then say it. Otherwise, save that stuff for the Rush Limbaugh listeners group. It is wasted on people that have the ability to think for themselves, and yes, that includes me.

I don't belong to a Rush group of any kind. I DO know what I speak about because I was there, in the thick, marching on Washington, and letting the democrat party feed my desire to be one of the "correct" people. You can accuse me of any rhetoric you like, but think on this: if this is meaningless, go to move on. org, and look into twhat George Soros says. Read what his supporters write, then come back here and apologize for being wrong in your assessment. I'll be happy to accept you as being better informed about the democrat core than you were when you started your post.

The audience is intellectually challenged and that provides an opportunity to shower them with buzz words and hyperbole on subjects about which they know next to nothing. It is not news, it is marketing spin. It fools many and caters mainly to those whose lack of knowledge does not equip them to challenge the bullsh!t. Fortunately there are still enough people in our country who do not believe everything that they see on TV. Hopefully you are still among them.

You can have your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Can you refute what I said about the lack of a conservative point of view on the networks I mentioned? No, you can't, because there was no conservative viewpoint before Fox. They are not number one because the audience is intellectally challenged. This one comment reveals the truth of the elitist attitude that I was making mention of earlier. Do you think that someone who is not a genius has no part in this, that only who, the people at NPR or PBS have cornered the market on solid ideas? Do you suggest that someone who watches Fox News is somehow less defineable as a thinker or a citizen because they have turned away from the almost French reporting of so-called "public" broadcasting? Jim Lehrer has come out and said very directly that he is a liberal. Do you doubt the man's word? I'm sure that "Bias" by Berhard Goldberg is still avilable. You can read about the institutional leberalism, the socialist-leaning "hate America first" agenda of the left wing media right there from someone who lived it besides myself.

But that's just Rush Limbaugh rhetoric, right? Riiiight.

Popularity and truth are not synonyms. You evidently see the Fox Network as the place where spin ends. I see it as the place where spin begins. You are of course entitled to your opinions and I realize that if you had your way, people like me might no longer be entitled to ours.

No, popularity and truth are not synonyms, but people seek the truth as quickly as they can find it. That's why they have left the big three and CNN by the millions. The spin was institutional, and more importantly, permanent at the other networks. Now, on Fox, you can hear the diverse opinons of several voices, and the plainly liberal viewpoint is always well represented, as it should be, just as I pointed out in my post. Can you show me that this is not a correct statement? No, you cannot.

Where, oh where, did I suggest that you should not be entitled to your opinion? If anything, I hope that we will always have liberals and their anti-American sentiments about evil big business, or the "progressive" healthcare system that Canada enjoys, which as the son of a mountie, I can tell you is "crap". On the other hand, as a liberal democrat, I hoped that a conservative voice would NEBER be heard in a public school, so that more American children could be raised to be more "sensitive" and "progressive", as European children were. Then we could cede all authority and sovereignty to the UN and instityte the goverenment we REALLY wanted: a socilaist-based system of income re-distribution and government control over every freedom granted by those misguided men (how sexist!) who wrote the Constitution.

Churchill was a great statesman, an itellectual giant, and a prolific writer (of things worth reading). The man in the White House today is none of those things. He has difficulty with the language, possesses no intellect worth mentioning, can't write, probably has difficulty reading, and could never be confused with a statesman. The similarities begin and end in political opportunism. Churchill was a leader, Bush is but a tool of those behind the scenes.

Ah, a degreed man who is successful in business and a former governor lacks the intellectual capacity to be President.

That's the core of the "elitist" part that I was talking about. Rubbish. Smash your radio and stop listening to NPR. You might as well be listening to Tokyo Rose as Terry Gross.

The issue of our country's invasion and occupation of Iraq however, leaves little doubt that we have learned much from the British and seek to emulate their imperial exploits of the past.

Nonsense, plain and simple.

I have no doubt whatever that Saddam Hussein is an evil man, and the world is better off without him, but that begs the question of whether we should or should not have invaded and occupied his country. Perhaps both the invasion and occupation are in the best long term interests of the United States, however there is little doubt that the administration has deliberately misled the American people as to the true reasons for this war.

Now THAT's the surplus1 I know and respect. I do have to argue against your conclusion about the reasons for war. As soon as Sadaam failed to give free movement to the weapons inspectors years ago, he effectively abrogated the cease fire agreement. The laundry list of violated resolutions from the UN only adds to that reason. I don't care if we NEVER find a single weapon of mass destruction, becuase our action has forever prevented that previously unknown variable from ever coming into being in Iraq. I have not been mislead at all. We have an aparent intelligence gap beause a previous two term administration gutted out intel capability and we are now suffering the consequences. I am more than hapy that our president actede as he did. My only criticism is that he wasted far too much time to wait for UN approval. This time lag let Sadaam hide and transfer what might have been an amount of WMD that would be seen as justification in your eyes and the eyes of others. That was an error on our part.

 

[Timebuilder]

Suffice to say, this war has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, has nothing to do with "liberating" the people of Iraq, and has nothing to do with our manufactured "outrage" over Saddam's use of chemical weapons against his neighbors or his own people.

So, in a clear and concise statement, why are we in Iraq?

I think it is all of the reasons you discard, and more. It is in the best interest of the free world and the United States to topple this overtly evil man and establish as US presence in the Mideast while planting a seed of democracy that will revolutionize the region. The freeing of the Iraqi people and the supression of terroism by denial of this base of oppression are integral parts of this plan.

They established what they called a "democracy" with a political structure similar to their own (a Monarchy with a Parliment) and made it their puppet, and they did it all without the consent of the people that live there. We are currently doing pretty much the same thing.

Pretty much the same thing?

The horrible part is that I think you believe that.

There is nothing new uder the sun, my friend. The fact that the British did something and screwed the pooch is no reflection on what we are doing. Should we not do this just because it has been tried before? Is that sufficient reason to stand idly by, doing nothing? Should we have waited for the completion of a nuclear program using French technology? What do YOU think we should have done that would cause you to respect our actions?

No, we have done the right thing.

We fabricated the WMD claims because our government is unwilling to reveal the true reasons for its military activity in the Middle East to the general population. Like the FOX Network, it has developed a clever marketing scheme to convince the people and has effectively exploited the terrorist horror of 9/11 as part of its "cover".

Apparently, you have access to information that the CIA does not. Tell me, how do you know that we fabricated anything? The truth is this: you don't know. I don't know. What I do know is this: GW is a truthful and moral man from every indication I have of him. Contrast this idea with the truthfulness of your previous commander-in-chief. I'll trust out current president to do the right thing, and neither you nor I will ever see any documents that will prove one viewpoint or the other. That's how it should be.

Their liberation was of no consequence in the decision making process.

Of no consequence? Can you be serious? Look at the mass graves, and the reports from international press people that made their filings after Sadaam fell, and tell me with a striaght face that this had no consequence in the decision making process.

However, there is little doubt that our government has lied to the people of this country. I don't like that. The end does not justify the means.

There are veritable mountains of doubt, sir. The doubts simply don't suport your thesis.

We can be sure of several things in the face of these doubts: we didn't have good enough intelligence, and that comes from decisions made years earlier. This hole in our intel will be repaired, but for right now it forms the basis of cynical doubters like yourself who are more willing to believe that this is all just a big coverup to allow US interest to tighten their grip on mideast oil.

Fire up the black helicopters and load the chemgoo, men. We've got some cynical and unsupported ideas to spread.

 

[inline]

Re: ditto singlecoil

If you can cut taxes to prosperity, where is that prosperity right now? Bush cut taxes 3 YEARS AGO and I'm still pushing a Cessna 172 in Florida with 2850TT/360ME. The economy is not exactly rockin' out, bucko...Take a look at your latest paycheck, TimeBuilder...

Yeah, GDP is rising but the money is being made outside of this country. The companies are making money, not the people who would spend it to keep the economy going. Say what you will about Clinton, but he raised taxes and the economy grew for 8 straight years. King George I did the same in 1991. I agree that Reagan had to cut taxes in 1981 because they were cripplingly high, but you can't just cut taxes and hope to fix everything. Reagan at least TRIED to shrink the government. King George II hasn't even given it a thought. Spending had risen an AVERAGE of 8% per annum under GWB. He's the first fiscally liberal Republican to serve as president in years...

You have to look at the long term. We are ALL going to be paying back this *&#@^ debt that REPUBLICANS have run up, most recently by King George II. Clinton was a sleazy bastard, but he at least was fiscally responsible. Albeit he had a Republican Congress that was actually just as responsible. Together they were paying down the debt and keeping the country properous. Interest rates were too high, however, and the economy started tanking. Of course, Bush's answer, as always, was tax cuts. According to him, we were going to run a $5 trillion SURPLUS over 10 years. Sound like Al Gore's fuzzy math? I remember watching a debate between Gore and Bush just before the election. Al Gore stood up after Bush, pointed his finger at him, spoke to the crowd and said "if you want a big spending president, THIS is your man." He was right. Gore was a pu$$y and did not deserve to win the election, so we got stuck with Bush.

Must we sit here and praise the moron?

Let me see if I have this straight; you're still CFIing with 2850 hours and blame Bush for your situation? There are scores of pilots with less time than you building time with 135 (and even 121 )operators. Quit belllyaching and get a real flying job, they're out there.