Who would you want?

[layoutshooter]

Who would you want to be flying the plane you are riding in?

A person with over 30 years experiance in the ****pit? A person who has spent thier ENTIRE adult life flying and training? A person who has dedicated thier life to flying? A person who KNOWS how to handle an emergency?

OR:

A person who has thought about flying? A person who has read and studied flying? A person who taught some technical courses on flying but did not really believe in what they were teaching? A person who has no experinance flying? A person who has no idea how to handle an emergency except for what they read about emergencies in a book?

I would choose the first, like Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger III. The pilot that made the wonderful water landing on the Hudson last week.


The nation choose a person like the "later" to run the country. Barrack H. Obama. A person with NO excutive experiance. NO management expericance. NO budget experiance. NO experinace managing a work force. NO military expericance. No experiance handling REAL emergecies. He did read about them (when he was not wasted) in school and then taught school. Remember the old saying "Those that can, do and those who can't, teach." I know that that is not always correct but it sure is now. I am looking to buy a couple of parachutes. I need to get off this plane before it crashes.


On a side note on that bird strike. Obama is a big anti-hunter. PETA and other groups have been fighting hard to stop all hunting. Stopping waterfowl hunting is high on thier list. It seems that that plane hit geese. Obama owes many special interests, PETA being one. There will be no control of geese if PETA gets thier way. I still remember back in the mid '70's they were having a big problem with deer on the runway at Detroit Metro Airport. They wanted to have a series of special deer hunts to get rid of the deer. The Anti-hunting bunch was out in force. When interviewed one member of a group called "Friends of the Animals" stated that he would rather see planes crashed and people killed than have the deer killed. They did finally kill off the deer but not without a lot of problems from "NUTS" that place animal life on par or over human life. Kinda like Obama and his votes on letting babies die. What a joke he is. What a country. You get what you ask for. You asked for this "bum", be ready to accept the "stuff" that will now flow your way. Just pray that the "Aircraft U.S.A" does not hit a goose. Pilot Obama ain't got a clue how to land a crippeled ship. Layoutshooter

 

[Dakota]

Unfortunately, "Sulley" will have to retire in three years. He is 57 years old and has mandatory retirement at age 60. I think they should look at physical health and not age. Hopefully his talents will be put to good use, maybe in the FAA or as a teacher. Personally, I'd rather have him flying my plane at 65 then a 30 year old pilot with less experience.
With that being said. I don't think experience makes a better politician. Now I don't agree with almost all that Obama stands for. I do think we need to look more at the person and less at their experience as a politician. I also believe that politics sould pay a living wage and no more, this would keep alot of politicians that shouldn't be in office from living off the American taxpayers for their entire working careers.

 

[layoutshooter]

I don't totally agree with that. Polititians should have some idea about life. I believe that they should have real life expericance. The more they have done well outside of politics the better chance they will do well in politics. Generallly speaking of course. I also don't agree with mandatory retirement.The GOVENMENT in action again. Those who have no idea passing laws and writting regulations. Your ablility alone should dictate how long you can work. If you are healthy, have good reflexes and can see well who cares how old he is. Remember one thing, as you age your reflexes slow some but your experiance can help you avoid the need to react as often. Layouthooter

 

[Turtle]

Why are you still so fixated on this "experience" thing, when history has proved that experience in the Oval Office means exactly squat?

Suppose you had to choose between two Presidential candidates. Candidate #1 had 6 years in the Pennsylvania state legislature, 10 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 4 years as ambassador to Russia, 10 years in the Senate, 4 years as Secretary of State, and 4 years as Ambassador to England. Candidate #2 had about half a dozen years in the Illinois state legislature and 2 years in Congress. Which one do you think would make a better President?

If you chose #1, congratulations, you picked James Buchanan over Abraham Lincoln.


http://www.expeditersonline.com/forum/271329-post21.html

 

[layoutshooter]

I did not like Lincoln. I think he was wrong, the South was correct. They had the right to suceed, States rights is more important that Washington rule. I would not like either one, not knowing who they are, based on thier lack of REAL LIFE experinance. Other than a stint as as governor I really think that if they are polititions they suck for the most part. I would rather see a firefighter that started off as a rookie and worked his way up to chief of a major city department. He should have seen injuries, deaths. He should know how to think fast with incomplete information. Lives depend on that. He should know how to live within a budget. He should know how to manage people, not boss, but manage. Gettting the best out of people is a skill. He should be totally honest, be able to get the security clearances that itell officers have too. I EXPECT them to honor EVERY oath that they take. Cheat on your wife? You cannot be trusted. If you break that oath you will break ANY oath. I expect a sober person. I don't want a drunk or doper in that office. Obama is an addmitted doper. If he is NOT willing to submit to ramdom drug tests he should not be in there. Biden is a drunk, he has no business in there at all. They should believe totally in the Constitution, neither Biden nor Obama do. I DEMAND that our elected representitives be held to a MUCH higher standard that anyone else. We should expect nothing less. These two are from the dregs. They are of less value that most I have ever seen in my life. Layoutshooter

 

[aristotle]

Experience matters alot. Ever notice politicians spend millions of campaign dollars touting their record of achievements and their experience in getting things accomplished? They use their "experience" as their calling card to get elected. Even if they must embellish or enhance their scant accomplishments, most office seekers have no shame in their pursuit of power.
To ignore the real life experiences of anyone seeking the Presidency seems like buying a pig in a poke. If we aren't to carefully consider their experience and record, why not just pick someone at random?
BTW, Abe Lincoln brought tons of real life experience to the Oval Office. Mostly, 25 years of private legal practice throughout Illinois. He also dabbled in storekeeping and was a captain in the Blackhawk Indian Wars. My point is Lincoln's experience was primarily in the private sector while the other fellow's was a life lived on the goverment dole. My pick in the last election would have been Mitt Romney. He had vast experience in turning around troubled businesses. And these comparisons between Lincoln and Obama are absurd and embarrassing. Lincoln and Washington are in a league by themselves. Experience matters alot.

 

[layoutshooter]

My choice for this election would have been Jerry Curry. A REAL MAN. Not a woose like Obama. Lincoln had a lot of real life stuff, but lawyers should be outlawed and they NEVER should be allowed to write laws. That is a MAJOR conflict of interest. I still say Lincoln was wrong, the South was right on the issue of States Rights, the REAL reason that the Civil War was fought. Sorry liberals, it was NOT fought over slavery. The next Civil War fought over our basic civil rights, something Osama Obama does not believe in. Layoutshooter

 

[Turtle]

I did not like Lincoln.

Man, you really ARE old, huh!

I think he was wrong, the South was correct. They had the right to suceed, States rights is more important that Washington rule.

Depends. While all of the States closely guarded their States Rights, it was the South who pounded the hardest, and did so expressly for the purpose of retaining slavery. Using States Rights was merely the legal loophole they were trying to wrangle slavery through. They wanted to do their own thing, but at the same time demanded all the benefits of being under the umbrella of a nation of united states.


Lincoln's views on States Rights can be found in his July 4, 1861 Message to Congress in Special Session. In his speech to Congress, Lincoln poses the follwing question.

"Having never been States, either in substance, or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of 'State rights,' asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself?"

Lincoln's answer to his own question is given in the same paragraph and the following paragraph of the speech. The first two sentences, first three, really, of his answer is a quote that sums up the essence of Lincoln's argument.


"The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States. Originally, some dependent colonies made the Union; and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence, for them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution, independent of the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions, before they entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, coming into the Union. "

"Unquestionably the States have the powers, and rights, reserved to them in, and by the National Constitution; but among these, surely, are not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous, or destructive; but, at most, such only, as were known in the world, at the time, as governmental powers; and certainly, a power to destroy the government itself, had never been known as a governmental---as a merely administrative power. This relative matter of National power, and State rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality, and locality. Whatever concerns the whole, should be confided to the whole---to the general government; while, whatever concerns only the State, should be left exclusively, to the State. This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the National Constitution, in defining boundaries between the two, has applied the principle with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned. We are all bound by that defining, without question."

The Union literally enabled the States to be States, and the Union is what allowed the States to have whatever liberties and freedoms they choose. If it weren't for the might of the Union, the States would not exist at all. And he was right. What he is saying here is that States most definitely have rights, but they don't have the right as a State to destroy the Nation for their own benefit, whether it be for slavery or to break away from the Union, which would weaken everyone else, as well.

Before Lincoln, the States were all separate things, and here and around the world, it was always "The United States are," but after Lincoln, after the Civil War ended, it became, "The United States is." That's significant, a pivotal moment in world history, as under Lincoln we became one Nation, instead of just a collection of States.


Incidentally, while he was a good lawyer, Lincoln's dabbling in shopkeeping was shortlived, and his military experience was about as close to boot camp as anything else. A rag-tag group of raw militia out of New Salem elected him as their captain prior to even reporting, a position Lincoln was proud of, but meant very little. During this 36-day enlistment they saw no battle, but mainly trained. Most of his 4th Regiment of Monted Volunteers ended up on burial detail after Stillman's Run. He was mustered out after 36 days along with the rest of Illinois' "First Army."

While a new army was being put together, Illinois quickly put together a small "Second Army" for a 20-day enlistment on May 29th, to act as the State's only defense until the larger "Third Army" could be trained and outfitted. Lincoln spent his 19 days in the Second Army as a private. General Henry Atkinson detached Captain Iles' Twenty-Day Interim Regiment command to ride north from Ottawa along the Kellogg Trail and reopen communications with Galena, which had been out of touch with the rest of the world since the Felix St. Vrain Massacre. As part of this movement the regiment spent an overnight at Apple River Fort, a week before Black Hawk's attack against that strongpoint. They encountered no resistence and engaged in no battles on the journey. Once this ride was completed, the service of Iles’ company was essentially at an end. On June 16, Lincoln was mustered out, one day short of 20 days.

Lincoln's third enlistment was again as a private in Captain Jacob M. Early's "Spy Company." This unit mustered in 4 days later on June 20, 1832, and served as part of General Atkinson’s army as it moved north through present-day Beloit, Janesvilles, the Storr's Lake encampment (west of present-day Milton, Wisconsin) and on to the “Trembling Lands” east of present-day Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin.

They engaged in no battles, and the food supply dwindled. Atkinson's solution was to muster out most of his militia. Accordingly, Early's company (along with Lincoln) was mustered out and discharged on July 10, 1832 near Coldspring, Wisconsin. Lincoln's horse had been stolen, so he and a companion walked and canoed the several hundred miles back to New Salem.

So when people talk about Lincoln being a captain in the Blackhawk Indian Wars, it's a little misleading. He was a captain in name only, and never actually engaged in any battles at all, much less against Black Hawk. He spent 75 days in the military.
Abraham Lincoln Historical Digitization Project

 

[Moot]

A younger, less experienced pilot in the penispit may have avoided hitting the flock of birds on take off and we would never have heard about it.

As for Obama, some of you are sounding worse than those crazy lefties that hate Bush. At least give the guy a chance. He hasn't even strapped himself into the pilot's seat yet!

 

[layoutshooter]

I disagree, the point was NOT slavery but economics. Had the South freed that slaves prior to firing on Fort Sumpter they most likey would have won. Oh yea, I might be that old, just ask OVM!!! LOL. I would not have voted for Lincoln. Shoot, I have NEVER voted for ANYONE yet that I wanted to be President. This time had the worst choices I have EVER seen. Anyway, I still think that Obama has no business in that position. He is a putz. A woose. A petulent child with no backround in anything of real value. A "TOADSTOOL" has more value. Bet you can get that I don't like or trust him. LOL. Heaven will have to help us because we have a devil in charge. Layoutshooter

 

[aristotle]

Turtle... I always enjoy reading your posts. Every Kentucky schoolboy is well versed in Lincoln lore. Thanks for clarifying his military record. The study of Lincoln could consume a lifetime and would be time well spent.

 

[layoutshooter]

They are good. I wish I had the time to dig into "stuff" like he does. Shoot, I even agree with him at times, not often though. LOL. Layoutshooter

 

[Moot]

I wish I had the time to dig into "stuff" like he does. LOL. Layoutshooter

If you have time to post on E.O. you have time to "dig into stuff like he does". It's just a matter of if you want to do the work or believe the limited source of crap that is fed to you.

 

[Turtle]

"I disagree, the point was NOT slavery but economics. Had the South freed that slaves prior to firing on Fort Sumpter they most likey would have won."

Well, yeah, it was about economics, but the South's economic existence was inexorably tied to slavery. They give up slavery, they give up any economic clout they have. And they give up the future (at least as they saw it). America, and the South in particular, was expanding, and the South (and quite a few in the North) wanted slavery to expand with it (cotton was just killing the soil, and they had to expand to get new soil). Lincoln campaigned hard not of abolishing slavery, but rather to keep is where it is and not let it spread. (his House Divided Speech of 1858 is one great example of this).

Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his Vice President, Alexander Stephens both flatly stated on many occasions that the reasons for secession all stem directly from slavery. As soon as the war ended both did a complete about face and said slavery had nothing to do with it. Before, during and after the war all sides managed to use Thomas Jefferson's writings as ammunition for justification. Lincoln and Northern abolitionists hung with the "All men area created equal" mantra, while Southerners used Jefferson's writings in the Kentucky (and Virginia) Resolutions about State's Rights. The two Resolutions were secretly penned by Jefferson (vice president at the time) and James Madison and then quietly passed through the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures. They were written in opposition to the Federal Alien and Sedition Acts, which extended the power of the federal government, something that caused good friends Jefferson and John Adams (the one behind the Alien and Sedition Acts) to not speak for many years.

The resolutions basically said that the Constitution was an agreement among the states. The federal government had no right to exercise powers not specifically delegated to it, and should the federal government assume such powers, its acts under them would be void. Thus it was the right of the states to decide as to the constitutionality of such laws passed by Congress.

Jefferson was a brilliant man, but on the issue of State's Rights he was a little Utopian and unrealistic. It would mean a national vote for any and all laws passed by Congress, with the very real possibility of Congressional legislation being accepted in one state and not another. When it was given to the other states for them to take a look at and enact, not one did. A few even passed a few scathing resolutions of their own denouncing the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Not only that, but Jefferson wanted to give each state the same power and independence as a nation, yet he still wanted a national army and all the protections of one nation. Can't have it both ways.

In any case, the same people who were screaming for State's Rights were also trying to have it both ways, wanting federal protection for their interest via the Gag Rule (where Congress dismissed any and all anti-slavery petitions, clearly in violation of the First Amendment) and the Fugitive Slave Law (that declared all runaway slaves must be returned to their owners). But when other states starting asserting their own State's Right's to NOT return slaves, the South cried like a little girl. You can't have it both ways. And Jefferson's idealistic notion of each State being a separate entity was bound to have this exact type of conflict, where one State tries to force it's rights onto another. If an issue affects only one state, then it's up to that state what to do, as Lincoln clearly stated in his Congression address, but when it starts affecting the national as a whole, it's federal.

Lincoln correctly observed that if it were not for the United States, then none of the individual States would exist with any of the liberties and freedoms they now enjoy. And if one or more States were to seceed, then the United States could not remain a viable country (House Divided Speech). When the South demanded that slavery be expanded to the Territories and even up North, that's where the lines were drawn, both by Lincoln and by the American people.

So, yeah, it was economic, but no matter how you want to spin it, the bottom line was slavery. It wasn't State's Rights, simply by virtue of the fact that any State cannot force it's will onto another State, which is exactly what the Southern States were wanting to do. And they were wanting to use the power of the federal government to do it! South Carolina was particularly hypocritical in the matter. The offered up a "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" and it it contained strong arguments for State's Right for slave owner in the South, but contained a whopper of a complaint against State's Rights in the Northern States for failing to comply with the Constitution in recognizing the Fugitive Slave Act. The Declaration listed a long list of violations of the State's Rights of South Carolina, every one of them were directly related to slavery.

The notion of the South freeing the slaves before Ft Sumpter in order to win is a misnomer. They wouldn't have won anything. They certainly wouldn't have won State's Rights beyond what they already had. They certainly couldn't have been able to limit State's Rights of other States, which was a large part of the goal. And if they succeeded in seceding from the Union they'd have been cut off, left to wither and die. Both Britain and France threatened to intervene on behalf of the South, but the popular opinion in Europe regardling slavery made that difficult.

Plus, Lincoln was adamant about no country even recognizing the Conferderate States as legitimate, to the point of threatening war if they did (no one ever did). The Union and Britain came close after the Trent Affair, where a Brittish mail ship was boarded by the Union Navy to capture two Confederate diplomats on their way to England and France to make a case for diplomatic recognition. It was a risky move by Lincoln, since something like that can only be looked at as act of war. Tensions were high for several weeks, and then Lincoln eventually relased the Confederates with no formal apology to them or to Britain. The Confederates continued on to Europe where they got no help at all.


Yeah, when you're from Kentucky, you pretty much have to learn about Lincoln. In he years since school, I've read more books on Lincoln and the Civil War than I care to remember.

Did you know that if he were running for president today, he probably wouldn't stand a chance? It is said that he had a voice that was more annoying than chalk squealing on a blackboard, with "shrill," "piping" and "unpleasant" being the most often used adjectives.

 

[chefdennis]

Moot wrote:

At least give the guy a chance.

Give him a chance to, spread the weath from those that have to those that don't (his words), increase taxes on businesses (his words), start a national health care system (his words), give a tax refund to those that don't work or make enough to even pay income taxes (his words) Nationalize industry and banks further then we have already, instill his socialist ideas, change our constitution, and write a new declaration of independence (his words) add trillions to our national debt that our grand kids will be paying for , continue deficit spending just as the oast adminastration has (his words), cut our military and install a citizen based military that is armed and funded as well as our military (his words) and do all he can to restrict if not remove our guns (his past voting record.).....Install socialist, thives and drunks and abusers of our constitution in his cabinet and administration....

No thanks, I don't to give him a chance nor do i desire to give him a chance....He is a socialist,

As for being "fed" info, if you have paid attention to most of the links in my posts, you will find that while I do visit MSM, I get most of my news from alot more places that tend to be less biased. So no I am not fed anything..........

 

[layoutshooter]

Moot, I don't take ANYTHING that is "fed" to me. I just really don't know how to use the web all that well. I have a very good NON-Public school education that took place BEFORE the liberals re-wrote history. I believe in freedom. I believe that, with all it's problems, this nation is still better than ANY other on the earth and has done more for others than to others. I have done much with my life and have experianced more than most would believe. I base my ideas on what I have learned over that 58 years of education and life. I might not always be right but I am right in my main beliefs. NO MAN nor government has the right to rule me. Period. I might argue or discuss things with many in here. Often just to stir things up. Often just to hear what other may say. Sometimes just to get Turtle to look things up for me. Some things are VERY clear to me. Obama is a Marxist. He has no usable experiance in anything of value. He is a slave to whom ever it is who owns him. Marxism is always bad. Nothing good can come of it. It is morally bankrupt. Many, maybe millions, will die with this congress and administration. That IS the history of Marxism. It will never change. Layoutshooter

 

[Moot]

(his words), (his words), (his words), (his words) (his words) (his words), (his words)

No thanks, I don't to give him a chance nor do i desire to give him a chance....He is a socialist,

That's what I am trying to convey. It is his WORDS. No actions, only words. He isn't even president yet. Typical politician talk. Let us judge him on his actions, not merely his words.

You have no choice but to give him a chance! He soon will be OUR president. Not theirs or mine, but ours. I did not vote for the man. He wasn't even my second choice for president. But he soon will be our president. Like it or not.

Too many of you sound like some of our left coast friend's unfounded hatred of Bush. They hate Bush because! Oh yeah he created tax breaks for the rich. He went to war with Iraq with Congress's approval. He, he, he's the son of Bush Sr.

You really aren't helping the cause of the right with this complaining. In fact you remind me of the union dude that yelled scab. But that's a whole other thread.

Give the guy a chance! If he fails then rip him a new one if you desire. At least that will be based on fact and not political rhetoric.

 

[layoutshooter]

Sorry Moot, I give no Marxist a chance. He is not now nor will never be my president. I believe in freedom. He does not. Layoutshooter

 

[cheri1122]

The government has been redistributing the wealth ever since they began imposing taxes, fees, penalties, etc, to collect money, then giving it to whomever they chose, in amounts they chose - but I never heard anyone call them Marxist for it before Obama.

 

[layoutshooter]

No one evewr planned to carry it as far as Obama says he wants too. And in case you did not notice. I did not like Bush because he was a socialist. There has not been ONE real conservative in my lifetime. I don't trust Marxists. I don't believe in punishing achievement. You might, I don't. I belive in might right to earn, keep what I earn, pay for ONLY what the Constitution requires and give charity where I see fit. That is what freedom is. No government interference on my ablitity to suceed. Marxist believe I am too stupid to suceed so they will take care of me. No way. Layoutshooter