The Republican Airline Pilot a paradox?

[skyrider]

Just ask the folks at AA how the most recent Whithouse Dem. helped their cause during negotiations a few years back. Sold them out is what that administration did. Give me a break......

 

[michael707767]

having grown up in a republican household, I used to wonder why anyone would vote for a democrat. Then after I left the military and became an airline pilot and a union member, I began to understand. I don't think most people agree with the left wing agenda. Most people who vote for a democrat do so for one reason and one reason only, job protection. I finally figured that out. 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.

So, I have voted democrat often lately, because like many others, I vote my job. Having said that, this time around I will be voting republican. Why? As an airline pilot I think the biggest threat to my job, in the near future, is terrorism. And I think the republicans will do a better job fighting it.

 

[FN FAL]

Democrats and liberals are insane. Listen to their rhetoric on gun control, it doesn't even come close to making sense. Correlate that logic over to any issues they have a stand on besides gun control, and it's enough to freak a person out. They cannot be reasoned with logically about one issue, then they cannot be reasoned with logically about another issue. Sorry, them bastages is insane.

I don't care for the extreme right either, but I sure as heck aint voting Democrat in this next election.

As far as the original question posed in this thread, I would bet on big business if you want to see job security. Taxing it to death and regulating it to death at the hands of tax and spend Democrats is not the way to go.

 

[Noam]

QUOTE:

Originally posted by Barnyard:

You're kidding, right?

Welcome to America. Land of the Free. In this country, we get out of life what we put into it. Where we all end up in life is the result of the cumulative personal decisions we make. From grade school, to college, to our profession, we must live with effects of our choices. Does a junkie who does not complete grade school deserve good health care, vactaions??????? Retirement? No. Does someone who has a marketable talent willing to work hard to make things good for themselves and others deserve these things? Yes!
I saw recently that the average poor person in this country will earn more than your average European. In Europe you have a very wealthy (very small percent), and the 'working' class. The working class all fall under the same rules, work the same hours, earn an average pay. There is no advantage given to someone who works extra hard at their 35 hr. a week job. The slobs benefit as much as the hard workers! Is this fair?

Btw,
How much will a European airline pilot make compared to an American?

End of quote

Barnyard,

We get out of life what we put into it? Does a 10yr TWA captain who is now on the street and can't get another decent job deserve what he got? What about the hardworking USAIR pilot who now doesn't have enough retirement funds? Did he deserve it? Meanwhile, the executives of such companies clean up like bandits.

You are a good example of false consciousness. With the proliferation of regional airline pilot jobs and concessions, furloughs, etc...I would argue that European airline pilots on average probably make more money. I'm sure on average they also have more vacation days, which are required by LAW in most European countries. Remember, the majority of airline pilots these days are at the regional level...and there is only a small minority of major pilots that are making "good" salaries that we all remember were so common a few years ago.

Don't put words into my mouth, Mr. Barnyard. I never said that some slacker should get retirement. However, what about the majority of the middle class that works their butts off in this country and gets very little retirement, very little days off, while their CEO makes 500 times more than they do (compared to the European-Japan average of 10-30 times)?

It seems to me you don't realize what you are missing...let's see, your children go to college and don't break your bank, you get healthcare and don't break your bank, and you get 2-3 times more vacation than you are getting now, and you don't need to worry about your 401(k) investments for retirement. Of course...you will pay more taxes, but...

False consciousness dude, false consciousness.

 

[46Driver]

And in Europe you get feeble economies paying for massive social welfare programs while spending very little of their GDP on defense (they are still for all intents and purposes protected by Uncle Sam).

As for that 10 year TWA captain, well, that's the breaks and he can thank the seniority system for that as much as anything else. Somebody else on here correctly stated, "Life isn't fair, and its not supposed to be."

If you like Europe so much, move there. I am quite happy with our capitalistic society for it has made the US the strongest nation on this planet.

 

[bart]

It seems to me you don't realize what you are missing...let's see, your children go to college and don't break your bank, you get healthcare and don't break your bank, and you get 2-3 times more vacation than you are getting now, and you don't need to worry about your 401(k) investments for retirement. Of course...you will pay more taxes, but...

you will pay more taxes (and implicitly YOU will live off of this larceny)


The high achievers will pay for this system. Those that work the hardest and make the smartest decisions will be the ones that you send the government after to steal from. Generally, the people who support the socialist system are those that are doing poorly at fending for themselves and would benefit the most from stealing from others.

Why not just have the cajones to go and steal it from somebody?

Why do you have to puss out and get the govt to do it for you? Are you that lazy?


All the things you speak of are available to you, the problem is you will have to work and sacrifice to get them under the current system, which is exactly why you have a problem with it. You would rather plunder to get what you want, rather than work for it. I don't think that Washington and Jefferson and many others pledged their lives and fortunes so you could use elected officials to steal for you.

Why not go get a job and work and make smart decisions for yourself instead? Or are you too stupid to fend for yourself and therefore must get someone to do it for you?

You will feel better about your lot in the long run if you earn the things you want other people to provide for you.

 

[Snakum]

I'm a Centrist (the signature is a joke) and I am constantly amazed at members of BOTH camps ...

Liberals howl, cry and hold vigils for convicted killers on death row, yet howl, cry and hold vigils for a woman's right to murder her as yet unborn child, way past the point that the child could live outside the mothers body. BTW ... partial-birth abortions are the most unbelievably disgusting, evil act committed against humanity in this supposedly 'enlightened' age.

Conservatives (here anyway) are rabid Capitalists. They are party-line spewing robots who are usually the first to start personal insults as a result of their complete inability to see any color other than black and white. Totally closed-minded. Rabid Capitalists to a man. But as soon as their employer begins reacting to the normal business pressures resulting from this Capitalist system, then these same mud-slinging cultists can't get on the phone to their Union fast enough, and will splatter these forums with the sins committed by their evil, greedy Capitalist employers.

You guys are a riot. Where's my popcorn? I wanna watch the show ...



Minh

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

I feel in part like a schmuck for not realizing the side effect of putting up such a post. To all of you wrapped up in the black and white, I'm right and your wrong mantra, get something...a life, a playstation, a hobby, something....heii..get laid!

I would like to respond to few that stuck to the original intent of my post...

****
blueridge71 said..
I am a conservative airline pilot and I normally vote GOP.

The primary reason is that the GOP platform is closest to my ideology. For my three top domestic issues (aboriton, gun control, taxes), the Democrats are on the wrong side of all three. Furthermore, I find most of the Dem positions on social issues abhorrent.

Secondly, I don't trust the Democrats with national security issues. If Howard Dean and most of the rest (excluding Lieberman) don't believe that the world is a better place with Saddam off the streets, that only proves my point.

One of my pet peeves with ALPA, which I have a lot of peeves with, is that they use my hard-earned dollars to support candidates that I vigorously oppose.

****
blueridge71,

michael707767 said it best. What is more important than your livelihood? ie Your ability to provide for yourself. Include a wife and even more importantly a child and the desire, rather the need to protect and provide, and issues such as gun control, abortion and taxes become secondary (albeit, still important!)

blueridge71 you have a common misunderstanding of ALPA-PAC. ALPA gives money to politicians to support ALPA issues. PAC money doesn't go towards abortion, taxes or gun control. It is only used to futher the airline piloting career. Give to the PAC! If Hilary Clinton supports airline pilots' issues then support her, when she supports wacko liberal BS then you don't. That is how CapHill works! Get rid of the emotion and stick to the issue. (said respectfully)

****
michael707767 said
having grown up in a republican household, I used to wonder why anyone would vote for a democrat. Then after I left the military and became an airline pilot and a union member, I began to understand. I don't think most people agree with the left wing agenda. Most people who vote for a democrat do so for one reason and one reason only, job protection. I finally figured that out. 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.

So, I have voted democrat often lately, because like many others, I vote my job. Having said that, this time around I will be voting republican. Why? As an airline pilot I think the biggest threat to my job, in the near future, is terrorism. And I think the republicans will do a better job fighting it.
****

micheal707767,

I agree with you completely. I was brought up Navy, but being a blue collar labor career airline pilot I had to switch gears to Dems. That doesn't mean I am an ACLU type, and all the other liberal agendas. And that is the real problem with politics. People like branding. "I only wear Tommy Hilfiger, drive Acuras and eat Papa Johns." This is self imposed dictatorship. It is the issues not the party! Find out what you are about and support the issues! 10 years from now I may be a small business owner and vote republican. But for now I'm labor and the Dems support my job.

I do think the war on terrorism is vigiliant enough for the dems to take control of the white house. Wasn't FDR a Democrat?

Thanks for the mature posts...

 

[flying4life]

I enjoy reading these as much as the next guy. Snakum, you made me laugh. Here on this board we discuss some very somewhat important issues. What's funny is to see the banting back and forth. I'm on the side of the conservative. Tony C~ and Time Builder speak far better than I and I enjoy their responses. Mostly, I believe in our President. He may lack some polish for international diplomacy, but he is human. I'm glad we get to pick on one person in charge and blame him for everything wrong(Not Really). I can't imagine being President during 9-11. Knowing the other side is just waiting to blame you for the economic state our country is in. He means what he says, and does a great job getting the required votes across party lines to get the job done. On domestic issues, the economy specifically, it is booming. It hasn't grown this fast in 30 years.... What about jobs?, they are the last thing to come back in a recovering economy. They are like the airline industry.... as the economy falls off.... people still have resvervations so the airline is one of the last to fall... and likewise when the economy starts to rise...the airline is last to recover because the reservations aren't made until the money is there.... jobs are the same way. After 9-11, we needed to stimulate our crippled economy. 50,000 jobs in two buildings alone were lost that day....not to mention all the other jobs around our nation and the world. You can't just wipe that away and act like it didn't happen. When I say that, I'm including the requirements to prevent it from happening again. Lot's of the money that is being spent now is part of prevention. As far as homeland security is concerned, I wouldn't want a Dem up there cutting back our defenses. Anyway ....let the banting continue.... I'm off to get my bag of popcorn too.... see ya guys

 

[Snakum]

heii..get laid!

I did ... about 45 minutes ago. I went to my girlfriend's house at lunch to sit with her kid following dental surgury (all four wisdom teeth out ) and after she came back with the prescription and apple sauce, she decided to repay my kindness by knock'n my boots.

Needless to say ... I could not get upset, angry, or peturbed this afternoon if you held a gun to my head.



Ain't new love grand? Give it six months and I'll be looking for excuses NOT to meet her at lunch for a quickee.

Minh "The Bad Monk" Thong

 

[surplus1]

On what evidence do you base this assertion?

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.

Are you suggesting that Churchill would support what our own elitist liberals would be supporting for the future of America?

No, I'm not suggesting what Churchill would or would not support. History does that far better than I could. I am suggesting that you don't seem to know very much about 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.

The relevance of whether one is labeled as a conservative or a liberal is of little consequence. Churchill's politics appears to confirm that.

If anything Churchill was far more a "nationalist" Briton, than a conservative or a liberal. Whatever was seen, by him, to be in the best interest of the British Empire is what Churchill did regardless of labels. 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.

The corruption of what was once thought of as "liberal" positions to a socialists-only, anything-goes, secular-humanist, hate-America-first group ...

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.

Because we are now comparing Fox to a group of birds that all sang the same song for decades, Fox looks very different. Perhaps that's why they are number one?

No, that's not why they are number one. They are number one for the same reason that songs by people like Eminem and "P" Daddy pollute the airwaves and channels like MTV can thrive. 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.

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.

The political behavior of the current administration does have similarities to the politics of Churchill. Not in its substance, but in its opportunistic manipulation of the body politic. Churchill was also a political opportunist who switched from one party to another, regardless of its philosophy, that he might ensure his election to office and retain the power to influence his country's government. The contrast lies not it whether he called himself a "conservative" or a "liberal" as dictated by convenience, but in what he did.

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.

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.

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.

A serious study of where these policy ideas (now being carried out by the Bush administration) originated can and should be made. The are not new, and their purpose is not really as "secret" as might first appear.

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.

The fact is that Saddam learned the effective use of chemical weapons against dissidents from none other than the British, who were the first to use such weapons against the Iraqi people and the Kurds. The British killed thousands of Iraqis who rebelled against their occupation and used poisoned gas in the process, indiscriminately against civilians, women and children.

What is ironic about this is that the principal advocate of the use of chemical weapons against the Iraqis was none other than Winston Churchill who, at the time, was Minister of War and Air.

Churchill suggested that chemical weapons should be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." He added "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes to spread a lively terror" in Iraq. Mr. Churchill's recommendation was carried out by the Royal Air Force. The year was 1923-24.

It is interesting that we call Saddam Hussein a devil for deploying chemical weapons against his own people, but we regard Sir Winston as the most important leader of the twentieth century. To the victor goes the spoils.

What we are doing in Iraq today is quite similar to what the British did in Iraq after the first World War, except that we have not used chemical weapons. The British essentially created what is now called Iraq. They provided Iraq with a "constitution" just as we are now pretending to do. 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.

Was there a similarity in the reasons for which the British did it and the reasons for which we are doing it? I think there is. The British did not have available to them the cover of alleged WMD possed by Iraq. They did it anyway. 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".

Is this a war for freedom? No it is not. It is a war for empire and a desire to secure America's world power. More simply put, the nation that contols the energy resources of the Middle East, controls the world, both directly and indirectly. That is why we have siezed the opportunity to invade Iraq.

Will the Iraqi's and other peoples of the region come to experience more freedom as a consequence of what we are doing? Yes, they probably will if we succeed in imposing our political system on them. Is that better than what they had? Undoubtedly it is. Helping them to achieve it on their own, including military assistance if necessary is a good thing. However, pretending that we have invaded their country with the primary objective of liberating them is hogwash. Their liberation was of no consequence in the decision making process.

This may well be vital to our long term interests. I don't have enough information to decide that. 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.

This thread is about the alleged paradox of pilots being Republicans. Why we vote the way we do is of course a matter for personal decision, but in my opinion it should be based on far more than liberal/conservative cliches and policies as narrow as which political party will benefit more or less our individual jobs. The future of the Repulic is far too important for such a shallow perspective, in my not so humble opinion.

As an aside, today the Library of Congress opens an exhibit of Sir Winston Churchill's papers and effects. If you have a chance I encourage you to visit it.

I just listened to the President give a speech at the openening ceremony. It was a good speech and I think his writers did well. However, they did not miss an effort to attempt to link Mr. Bush himself to the leadership qualities of Churchill.

To paraphrase a good Republican debater, Bush is no Churchill.

 

[GogglesPisano]

Surplus1:

That is without a doubt the best post I have ever read on these boards.

Bush is a semi-literate who doesn't read newspapers, doesn't believe in evolution, and is despised the world over.

Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards, anyone but Bush (OK, maybe not Sharpton or Kucinich.)

 

[likeitis]

Excellent post surplus. I have to agree with you 100%.

If anyone believes that WMD were the reason for Iraq II, then they must also believe that the civil war was because of slavery.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

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.

This thread is about the alleged paradox of pilots being Republicans. Why we vote the way we do is of course a matter for personal decision, but in my opinion it should be based on far more than liberal/conservative cliches and policies as narrow as which political party will benefit more or less our individual jobs. The future of the Repulic is far too important for such a shallow perspective, in my not so humble opinion.

Surplus1,

It would take me at least a day to produce such a post. Good work. Perhaps the "shoot from the hip" blah blah types will take note.

While I do think the Iragi invasion was justified due to UN resolutions and human oppression there had to be direct benefit to the US. So be it. Sombody has to rule the world and when we can no longer do it and become the loving romans maybe the Chinese will take over?

Not sure the future of the republic hangs in the balance with the dems or repubs. It is what it is and it won't be when it isn't. No facts, just my gut.

Respectfully,

 

[bart]

Surplus,

Your reply, though verbose is exactly the hyperbole you accuse all others of. You have your "informed" opinion and I have my "spun" opinion.

The war in Iraq very simply was about fixing a battlefield to fight muslim terrorists on. Period. Whatever words there are to justify is exactly as you say: marketing. At the end of the day, Muslim attention is focused on fighting our presence there, all the better, for there we have loose rules of engagement and the weapons to kill them en masse.

You can say long and eloquent things about all of it, but the fact is that since going to war in Iraq, many islamic extremists have flocked there to fight and die.

Maybe you can come up with some verbose description of what they would be doing if they weren't focusing their energy there... Please help us all figure that out. Perhaps they would embrace us and sing Kumbaya?

 

[46Driver]

Surplus1:

That is without a doubt the best post I have ever read on these boards.

Bush is a semi-literate who doesn't read newspapers, doesn't believe in evolution, and is despised the world over.

Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards, anyone but Bush (OK, maybe not Sharpton or Kucinich.)

A semi-literate who has a MBA from Harvard.....

One of our professors here at the Naval War College was discussing how President Bush had read one of his books concerning International Relations Theories and Problem Areas and the how the President had sent back both a thank you letter for the book as well as his analysis of a few important areas.

Bush may not be the worlds greatest public speaker but many (including former Texas governor Ann Richards) - think he deliberately mispronounces words for that Andy Griffith good ole boy image.

 

[surplus1]

Thanks all for your comments both pro and con.

Surplus,

Your reply, though verbose is exactly the hyperbole you accuse all others of. You have your "informed" opinion and I have my "spun" opinion.

Bart,

I acknowledge that I'm often verbose and readily admit that I have difficulty dealing with problems of national and world import in sound bites. I invite you to counter my opinions with a "more informed" selection. Dialogue is what this is all about. If we are all "thinking" about the situation as opposed to regurgitating cliches from either side of the fence, yours truly is a happy camper. My purpose is not to make you agree with me, it is to motivate you to think and form your own opinion.

The war in Iraq very simply was about fixing a battlefield to fight muslim terrorists on. Period. Whatever words there are to justify is exactly as you say: marketing. At the end of the day, Muslim attention is focused on fighting our presence there, all the better, for there we have loose rules of engagement and the weapons to kill them en masse.

You can say long and eloquent things about all of it, but the fact is that since going to war in Iraq, many islamic extremists have flocked there to fight and die.

While I don't agree with your premise as to the reason for the war in Iraq, you make a good point. I too would prefer the fighting, presuming that thier must be fighting, to occur on foreign soil rather than on our own.

Since the Civil War the United States has enjoyed the benefit of fighting it's wars in somebody else's country rather than our own. I haven't missed the significance of that. However, the fact that we have not "suffered" here at home the tragedy that is war, it may well tend to make our leaders and our people, more willing to make war than they ought to be. I hope that is not the case.

There is no greater deterrent to war than witnessing first hand the destruction of your own cities, towns and villages. Fighting for one's home, no matter how simple it may be, is substantially different from fighting for a distan neighbor's oil well.

Maybe you can come up with some verbose description of what they would be doing if they weren't focusing their energy there... Please help us all figure that out. Perhaps they would embrace us and sing Kumbaya?

No, I can't do that and no, I do not expect "them" to embrace us. What I long for is the elimination of their motivation to kill us, not anothe demonstration of our ability to destroy them with fire and brimstone.

If the reason for making this war was what you imply, then I want my government to tell me that. I'm not really interested in trusting Iraqis, or Arabs or Muslims or anyone else. I am interested in being able to trust my own government. Right now I do not.

For example, I know why we had to attack directly in Afghanistan and I support that action. I also know a little (admittedly not enough) about our reasons for wanting to control that area of the world (which by the way is the same reason that the Soviets sought to control it).

I believe that I also know why we went to war against Iraq to remove them from Kuwait, and I agree with that. I just don't want to be told that we went there to "restore the freedom of the Kuwaiti population". That is a lie. The United States doesn't give a dam* about the "freedom" of Kuwait and most Americans didn't even know where it was until they had the chance to enjoy the exploits of General S, from the comfort of their family rooms. We went to war there to protect Saudi oil. I can deal with that.

The claim that we went to war in Iraq to protect the US from Saddam's WMD, is not true and I think our government knew that before this war was launched. The dictator, evil though he was, was contained and controlled and could continue to be, without slaughtering so many innocents and killing hundres of our own best young people.

I am angry that the Congress abdicated its responsibility to declare war or not, and gave the President a blank check. I'm angry that the Persident and his cabinet saw fit to misrepresent the reason for this attack against a nation that did not attack the USA.

There are times when we must wage war in defense of our country or to protect weak peoples that are being butchered by agressors. That is not what we are doing in Iraq. When Saddam Hussein was butchering his own people, we knew about it and we did nothing to help them. It's a bit late to express that concern now, nearly 20 years later. We are now "worried" about WMD in the hands of Hussein, but we were not at all worried about that when we were supplying him with those very weapons, that he might use them to kill Iranians of whose government we did not approve. We had no problem hateing the Ayatullah Kohemeni for being a despot against his people, yet we showered the Shah of Iran, no less and SOB, with money and weapons that he used to kill and opress his own people.

That very hypocrisy is a part of what motivates "these people" to hate us. If we continue those policies it will only generate more hatred from more of "them".

If it is Islam against which you want to make war, just keep in mind that there are hundreds of millions of them all over the world. We can't "kill them all", whether we try to do it in Iraq or any other killing field.

I do not think that our government is at war with Islam. I do think it is at war in Iraq as a means to gain control of the Middle East's oil. If the control of the oil is essentialy to the survival of the United States, then tell me that. I'm a big boy and I know that "charity begins at home". I just don't need to be lied to about why my country goes to war. War is NOT a video game to be enjoyed on your PS2, on CNN, on FOX or any of the others.

When we ask our young people to give their lives for this country, we owe them the truth about why. We owe their parents that same truth.

I don't need photo ops of fake carrier landings, plastic turkeys in the battlefield or speeches in front of Coast Guard Cutters to gain my support. All I ask is the truth.

I don't care if you lie about who gave you a bj in the Oval Office, that's none of my bussiness. But, I do care if you misrepresent the reasons for taking this nation to war. That IS my business.

I hope you understand what I'm too verbose and not very good at saying.

 

[enigma]

.

I don't care if you lie about who gave you a bj in the Oval Office, that's none of my bussiness. But, I do care if you misrepresent the reasons for taking this nation to war. That IS my business.

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

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.
I am also on record as being very bothered with President Bush's policy's. At this point in time, I can't support him either, however I do support his strategy to take the fight to them. I agree with you that I wish he had just come out and said so. Instead of going with the WMD thing. In his defense, everyone in the world, including the UN, believed that Hussein did have WMD. Where that leaves us all, I don't know.

regards,
enigma

 

[46Driver]

Surplus,
It is much more than just oil, even though that is important. (actually, Russia is set to become the world's largest exporter of crude.)

Try http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

and http://www.cndyorks.gn.apc.org/news/articles/iraq/newmap.htm

I think you will find 2 interesting perspectives.

 

[Afixedwing]

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?

 

[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.