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?