Election discussions
- Thread starter boeing787
- Start date
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 0
I agree Boeing787.
Of the million reasons I could state as to why he needs to go - I think there's one topic we can all agree on. He's been opposed to every item that passed before his desk that was designed to help United and the airline industry as a whole.
I don't understand how any United employee could want him for another 4 years.
Of the million reasons I could state as to why he needs to go - I think there's one topic we can all agree on. He's been opposed to every item that passed before his desk that was designed to help United and the airline industry as a whole.
I don't understand how any United employee could want him for another 4 years.
United Chicago,
To steal a term from that pill poppin, two faced, six chinned repub. poster boy, Limbaugh.... DITTO.
Bush has done nothing to assist the viability of the commercial air transportation system in the US.
Not to mention the WMD, Cheney, Enron, National Guard, Coke (not the Atlanta brand) and various of personality problems. As a reformed Rep. I could never vote for King George II.
My rEAL (real eastern airlines) relatives tried to tell me but I did not listen in the last election. Being on the receiving end will definitely open your eyes.
To steal a term from that pill poppin, two faced, six chinned repub. poster boy, Limbaugh.... DITTO.
Bush has done nothing to assist the viability of the commercial air transportation system in the US.
Not to mention the WMD, Cheney, Enron, National Guard, Coke (not the Atlanta brand) and various of personality problems. As a reformed Rep. I could never vote for King George II.
My rEAL (real eastern airlines) relatives tried to tell me but I did not listen in the last election. Being on the receiving end will definitely open your eyes.
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 0
magsau: very well said!!
i think it takes someone as polarizing as bush and dick to make people clearly identify within themselves what person they most align with.
GO DEMS!
I can't wait until October so I can officially say 4 MORE MONTHS! If he's re-elected - I'm flying United to Canada on inauguration day.
i think it takes someone as polarizing as bush and dick to make people clearly identify within themselves what person they most align with.
GO DEMS!
I can't wait until October so I can officially say 4 MORE MONTHS! If he's re-elected - I'm flying United to Canada on inauguration day.
whatkindoffreshhell
Veteran
Not a Bush voter here myself but name one President who has given more direct financial aid to the airlines during his term.
Bush won't sign a blank check for UA and you folks are outraged??? Poppycock!
Focus on UA's real problems.
Bush won't sign a blank check for UA and you folks are outraged??? Poppycock!
Focus on UA's real problems.
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 0
Hello fresh - long time no chat 😉. I interviewed for Brace's job like you asked but i didn't get far.
I'm biased to a point cause I want United to get all the help they can. I just cannot cannot stomach bush and his administration. cheney is the closest thing to the devil.
Like I said - this is beyond just united - bush has opposed every tool to help the airline industry. don't get me started - the government missed major intelligence that 9/11 would happen.
despite the fact that mineta is a democrat - i think he's a major tool.
I'm biased to a point cause I want United to get all the help they can. I just cannot cannot stomach bush and his administration. cheney is the closest thing to the devil.
Like I said - this is beyond just united - bush has opposed every tool to help the airline industry. don't get me started - the government missed major intelligence that 9/11 would happen.
despite the fact that mineta is a democrat - i think he's a major tool.
Mag & UC:
I don't normally jump into political discussions (I think they have no business on an AIRLINE forum), but I would think you two in particular would not be so quick to forget Sept 11, 2001 and support a return to the foreign policy that facilitated it.
Yes, Bush et al may not be the most airline-friendly, labor-friendly administration in recent years, but he is making a real impact on the very real war we all face on terrorism. And all the labor-friendly, airline-bailout policies in the world won't help us if we cannot stop acts of domestic terrorism against this country...an issue that all the Dem frontrunners seem happy to see returned to the incompetent hands of the UN. Before you pull the handle this October, ask yourself: Which candidate do you think Al Qaeda would like to see in the White House...one that will keep the heat on, or one that will cut and run?
I don't normally jump into political discussions (I think they have no business on an AIRLINE forum), but I would think you two in particular would not be so quick to forget Sept 11, 2001 and support a return to the foreign policy that facilitated it.
Yes, Bush et al may not be the most airline-friendly, labor-friendly administration in recent years, but he is making a real impact on the very real war we all face on terrorism. And all the labor-friendly, airline-bailout policies in the world won't help us if we cannot stop acts of domestic terrorism against this country...an issue that all the Dem frontrunners seem happy to see returned to the incompetent hands of the UN. Before you pull the handle this October, ask yourself: Which candidate do you think Al Qaeda would like to see in the White House...one that will keep the heat on, or one that will cut and run?
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 0
N421LV:
With all due respect - you are taking the classic and expected republican response to complex issues - a simplistic, broad response. "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. it's unpatriotic to question the president in a time of war..."
of course i like every american was horrified by 9/11 and support the war on terrorism. who doesnt? i do have a right as an individual in a democratic country to question and be critical of this administration's platform and stance on major and minor issues.
did i support the war against iraq - NO. does that make me a supporter of terrorism or unpatriotic? NO. Do i support and value our troops despite not supporting the war against iraq? YES. did i support the war again the taliban? YES
So you're quick to dismiss the UN - but weren't they in fact correct about Iraq? Where are the WMD?
I'm all for ending this political diversion - just had to point out that the current issues facing our nation aren't simple and therefore - cannot be discussed in a simple manner like so many republicans like to do. and us democrats are going to call every republican out on it.
With all due respect - you are taking the classic and expected republican response to complex issues - a simplistic, broad response. "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. it's unpatriotic to question the president in a time of war..."
of course i like every american was horrified by 9/11 and support the war on terrorism. who doesnt? i do have a right as an individual in a democratic country to question and be critical of this administration's platform and stance on major and minor issues.
did i support the war against iraq - NO. does that make me a supporter of terrorism or unpatriotic? NO. Do i support and value our troops despite not supporting the war against iraq? YES. did i support the war again the taliban? YES
So you're quick to dismiss the UN - but weren't they in fact correct about Iraq? Where are the WMD?
I'm all for ending this political diversion - just had to point out that the current issues facing our nation aren't simple and therefore - cannot be discussed in a simple manner like so many republicans like to do. and us democrats are going to call every republican out on it.
767jetz
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 3,286
- Reaction score
- 2,779
Mags & UC,
I couldn't agree more! I'm a reformed Republican as well. With the exception of his quick and forceful response in Afghanistan, he has done absolutely nothing for average working people. I've been arguing with my father for months trying to convince him that George has to go in '04! Not much progress yet, but I won't let up.
N421LV,
Let's not forget that the Bush Administration ignored warning signs prior to 9/11, and admitted to a failure of intelligence. Who was at the helm of this country on 9/11/2001? He also has been and still is against pilots carrying guns as a last line of defense.
His record on labor and the airline industry goes far beyond United Airlines. So this is not a personal vendeta by UA employees. He is against reforming outdated pension rules that will help all large companies including the auto industry. (Even my die hard Republican father and the bi-partisan congress sees the lunacy in GW's position on this subject.)
He is allowing more and more jobs to go overseas. He is pushing for cabotage, which is the next big fight on the horizon and could be another huge blow to the airline industry and airline labor in particular.
He was willing to give $5 Billion in loan guarantees to Turkey in exchange for overflight and airbase rights to go after Iraq. But when it came to $5 Billion in guarantees for the Airline industry, he made the requirments so onerous that it is pratically impossible to achieve without restructuring business to where the highly skilled labor that provides the safest air transportation system in the world, bar none, are working for less than they were paid 20 years ago.
And while we're at it, let's talk about national security, that supposedly the REP's are so concerned with and the DEM's are not. GW's adminstration responded to a horrible, tragic event with a long over due (and very expensive) restructuring of airport and airline security. But he was unwilling to pay for it! They created new mandates that the airlines had to institute, the cost of which was born completely by each and every airline. With the industry in the shape it's in, and the airlines unable to pass that cost on to the travelling public due to pricing pressure, the airlines had no choice but to turn to the employees for MAJOR paycuts and unreasonable work rules.
So in effect, the increased security the public now enjoys came directly from me and every other employee in this industry. (Your welcome!) Now, why on God's Earth do I have to pay for something that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY and should be paid for by the gov't and the tax payers? Thanks again GW!
Sorry for the rant, but this subject boils my blood, and IMO GW's policies are a slap in the face to every airline employee who lost their lives on that horrible day. Let's not forget that the REAL Ground Zero was on those 4 airplanes.
I am still a registered Republican, but in November there will probably not be one Republican candidate that gets my vote.
I couldn't agree more! I'm a reformed Republican as well. With the exception of his quick and forceful response in Afghanistan, he has done absolutely nothing for average working people. I've been arguing with my father for months trying to convince him that George has to go in '04! Not much progress yet, but I won't let up.
N421LV,
Let's not forget that the Bush Administration ignored warning signs prior to 9/11, and admitted to a failure of intelligence. Who was at the helm of this country on 9/11/2001? He also has been and still is against pilots carrying guns as a last line of defense.
His record on labor and the airline industry goes far beyond United Airlines. So this is not a personal vendeta by UA employees. He is against reforming outdated pension rules that will help all large companies including the auto industry. (Even my die hard Republican father and the bi-partisan congress sees the lunacy in GW's position on this subject.)
He is allowing more and more jobs to go overseas. He is pushing for cabotage, which is the next big fight on the horizon and could be another huge blow to the airline industry and airline labor in particular.
He was willing to give $5 Billion in loan guarantees to Turkey in exchange for overflight and airbase rights to go after Iraq. But when it came to $5 Billion in guarantees for the Airline industry, he made the requirments so onerous that it is pratically impossible to achieve without restructuring business to where the highly skilled labor that provides the safest air transportation system in the world, bar none, are working for less than they were paid 20 years ago.
And while we're at it, let's talk about national security, that supposedly the REP's are so concerned with and the DEM's are not. GW's adminstration responded to a horrible, tragic event with a long over due (and very expensive) restructuring of airport and airline security. But he was unwilling to pay for it! They created new mandates that the airlines had to institute, the cost of which was born completely by each and every airline. With the industry in the shape it's in, and the airlines unable to pass that cost on to the travelling public due to pricing pressure, the airlines had no choice but to turn to the employees for MAJOR paycuts and unreasonable work rules.
So in effect, the increased security the public now enjoys came directly from me and every other employee in this industry. (Your welcome!) Now, why on God's Earth do I have to pay for something that is a matter of NATIONAL SECURITY and should be paid for by the gov't and the tax payers? Thanks again GW!
Sorry for the rant, but this subject boils my blood, and IMO GW's policies are a slap in the face to every airline employee who lost their lives on that horrible day. Let's not forget that the REAL Ground Zero was on those 4 airplanes.
I am still a registered Republican, but in November there will probably not be one Republican candidate that gets my vote.
And with all due respect, UC, you are taking the classic liberal response that there are no absolutes...just shades of gray.
If you support the war on terrorism, why would you advocate cutting the legs out from under it by electing an administration that advocates appeasement toward terrosits? Of course you have a right to be critical of this adminstration, as am I often. Just don't lose sight of the really big issues we face as a nation...and whether airlines get more bailouts is not even on the long list of them.
It does not make you unpatriotic, just naive. The connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda are becoming clearer every day, and if you could get past your own political biases, you might actually see that a lot of progress is being made against Al Qaeda in Iraq.
The full story of Iraq WMDs has yet, I believe, to be fully told. No one, not even Bill Clinton, believed there were no WMDs in Iraq. Why do you liberals take an unusually black or white stance on this; i.e. no WMDs-no reason for Iraq war. As you like to say, this a very complex issue....one that also included liberating millions from an unstable dictator that was a threat to his people and his neighbors in the Middle-East.
767jetz said:
Let's also not forget that the Clinton administration ignored the first World Trade Center bombing, numerous Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and many others by providing nothing more than tough talk and a token military response. Do you think that was not taken as a sign of US weakness and encouragement for terrorists?
IIRC correctly, the intelligence failures occurred under CIA Director Tenet....a Clinton appointee?
UnitedChicago
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 756
- Reaction score
- 0
Ok - sorry - we'll get back on thread here.
I'm not going to respond to every point LV made - just one...
"If you support the war on terrorism, why would you advocate cutting the legs out from under it by electing an administration that advocates appeasement toward terrosits?"
This is a completely absurd statement. This is such a generalization and broad statement - with NO proof, examples, or references. We don't even know who the democratic nominee is yet. You're not worth debating. Have a nice day.
But - to get us back on thread - I sure like 747-400's. Hope boeing doesn't give up on the plane.
I'm not going to respond to every point LV made - just one...
"If you support the war on terrorism, why would you advocate cutting the legs out from under it by electing an administration that advocates appeasement toward terrosits?"
This is a completely absurd statement. This is such a generalization and broad statement - with NO proof, examples, or references. We don't even know who the democratic nominee is yet. You're not worth debating. Have a nice day.
But - to get us back on thread - I sure like 747-400's. Hope boeing doesn't give up on the plane.
BillLumbergh
Veteran
There does seem to be a lively debate, and I don't want to squelch it, but the airline specific forum is not quite the place. So, I'm gonna split part of this one off onto a different board, and you can post follow-ups there.
Lets see if I can get it to work...
Lets see if I can get it to work...
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2002
- Messages
- 11,581
- Reaction score
- 1,455
I dunno...this "war on terrorists" is kind of like your mom slapping you for something your brother did. How many 9/11 Terrorists were from Iraq? Saudi Arabia? How much money did Iraq provide the terrorist on 9/11? Saudi Arabia? So how come we smacked the devil out of Iraq? Oh...because Saddam was a very bad man. What about the dictators in Africa?
How come loss of American jobs overseas companies is a "good" sign for the economy? Every article I've seen about how good this is was written either by a CEO who has one heckuva "golden parachute" he can use if his job is ever "offshored", or by a tenured professor - who pretty much has another "guaranteed" job. The folks being "offshored" in the name of an improving economy are getting less and less severance benefits and more and more headaches.
How come loss of American jobs overseas companies is a "good" sign for the economy? Every article I've seen about how good this is was written either by a CEO who has one heckuva "golden parachute" he can use if his job is ever "offshored", or by a tenured professor - who pretty much has another "guaranteed" job. The folks being "offshored" in the name of an improving economy are getting less and less severance benefits and more and more headaches.
