NCclimber 0 #51 February 7, 2007 QuoteIt's about what is appropriate use of the C32A. You simply can't answer my question. Why don't you read the official USAF mission for the C32A before posting more tripe. What does it say about congressmen using it for unoficial business? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #52 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteSo did Hastert commute back on forth to his home in Illinois on commercial planes in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? I don't think so. Is anyone claiming Pelosi should? Or are you just tossing out more crap to see if any will stick? Who was it that wrote: The transports in question are for White House use and official government/congressional business. Do you really think using it as a commuter taxi for Pelosi and her sizable entourage fits the bill? Seems like the person that wrote that was trying to approve the use of government planes for official business but not for commuting. But Hastert and his folks used them for commuting back and forth to his home in IL. DOUBLE STANDARD SHOWING.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #53 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuotePure silliness. Can you imagine the stink if Newt tried to ask for the same priviledges as Hillary, back on '05? In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #54 February 7, 2007 This is a USAF matter. It's not a matter for consideration by those not in the 89 AW. Unless you're part of the 89AW, your opinion or desire is irrelevant.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #55 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's about what is appropriate use of the C32A. You simply can't answer my question. Why don't you read the official USAF mission for the C32A before posting more tripe. What does it say about congressmen using it for unoficial business? What does it say about the first lady traveling for personal reasons? Why is security a legitimate concern for the Speaker on official business, but not when traveling for personal reasons? Did Hastert distinguish?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #56 February 7, 2007 QuoteYou're right. She DESERVES that plane. There's NO WAY that she should have to book her "peeps" on commercial while she takes a smaller faster jet and has to MAYBE make a stop to get fuel. I forgot that when people get elected, they become instant royalty and can't be inconvenienced by a 15 minute stop. 15 minutes? These jets aren't run like DZ planes. Descending, landing, taxing, fueling, taxing, taking off, ascending take a heck of a lot longer than 15 minutes. An hour at the least. And much of that time due to safety protocol the passengers can't do productive work - no electronics, phones, moving about. Haskert takes a commuter flight - great, DC to Chicago is pretty much a commuter flight. Cross Country is 6 hours +. (It must be really tough for the reps from HI and AK. If someone from Anchorage becomes top dog, he or she can have a Concorde) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #57 February 7, 2007 This was slightly amusing at first. Now it's just getting sad. This is just another fine example of how the rabid right(eous) can make a HUGE noise about nothing of any real consequence. And for the life of me I can't figure out how they get away with it, other than the "liberal" media's blind complicity. If they want to bitch about CO2 footprints then why don't they scrutinize Bush's travel habits. I think I recall a MD to NJ flight in Airforce One recently to give an energy policy speech. If they want to bitch about government waste then why aren't they patting Waxman on the back for the fiscal accountability fest that he's conducting this week? Seems to me that this is either simple partisan bullshit meant to detract or distract or just a case of plane envy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #58 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuotePure silliness. Can you imagine the stink if Newt tried to ask for the same priviledges as Hillary, back on '05? In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question. We did lots of things differently before 9/11. The government didn't tap our phones without a warrant. We didn't suspend habeas corpus for people at the whim of the president. We could carry nail clippers on airplanes. We didn't have to take our shoes off in airports. The VP didn't spend weeks in "undisclosed locations".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #59 February 7, 2007 QuoteFunny, an hour ago she was wanting a 747 (post #16). Now it's a "smaller faster jet". Make up your minds which way you want to spin this non-story. You've misread apparently. I stated, sarcastically, that there's no way she should have to fly a smaller faster jet that *might* have to refuel while her "peeps" fly commercial... Explain to us why the speaker, now that it's Pelosi, deserves to fly in a much larger more luxurious plane than the last speaker?Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #60 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo did Hastert commute back on forth to his home in Illinois on commercial planes in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006? I don't think so. Is anyone claiming Pelosi should? Or are you just tossing out more crap to see if any will stick? Who was it that wrote: The transports in question are for White House use and official government/congressional business. Do you really think using it as a commuter taxi for Pelosi and her sizable entourage fits the bill? Seems like the person that wrote that was trying to approve the use of government planes for official business but not for commuting. But Hastert and his folks used them for commuting back and forth to his home in IL. DOUBLE STANDARD SHOWING. For anyone who has kept of with this thread read, it's pretty obvious this is a gross misrepresentation. Pelosi should get the same accomodations as Hastert.... for the same reasons. But you go on distorting things. It seems to be what you do best. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #61 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's about what is appropriate use of the C32A. You simply can't answer my question. Why don't you read the official USAF mission for the C32A before posting more tripe. What does it say about congressmen using it for unoficial business? What does it say about the first lady traveling for personal reasons? WHO GIVES A SHIT????? There have always been certain priviledges bestowed on the First Lady. It goes with the territory. Trying to equate them with congressonal priviledges is idiotic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #62 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePure silliness. Can you imagine the stink if Newt tried to ask for the same priviledges as Hillary, back on '05? In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question. We did lots of things differently before 9/11. The government didn't tap our phones without a warrant. We didn't suspend habeas corpus for people at the whim of the president. We could carry nail clippers on airplanes. We didn't have to take our shoes off in airports. The VP didn't spend weeks in "undisclosed locations". Oooooo - dodgeball. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #63 February 7, 2007 QuoteExplain to us why the speaker, now that it's Pelosi, deserves to fly in a much larger more luxurious plane than the last speaker? Gotta have room for a tampon dispenser in the head? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #64 February 7, 2007 Quote WHO GIVES A SHIT????? There have always been certain priviledges bestowed on the First Lady. It goes with the territory. Trying to equate them with congressonal priviledges is idiotic. Ok, so what IS the real problem here? That her plane might be bigger? Maybe her ass is bigger and she needs more room! Hmmmm, that can't be it....we're talking about Hastert. Ok, I've got it.... can we let it go if she works more than three days a week and doesn't build a taxpayer funded parkway to her personal real estate holdings? Man, I can't believe that we're talking about this instead of Prince's phallic dislpay at the superbowl! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #65 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuote WHO GIVES A SHIT????? There have always been certain priviledges bestowed on the First Lady. It goes with the territory. Trying to equate them with congressonal priviledges is idiotic. Ok, so what IS the real problem here? That her plane might be bigger? Maybe her ass is bigger and she needs more room! Hmmmm, that can't be it....we're talking about Hastert. Ok, I've got it.... can we let it go if she works more than three days a week and doesn't build a taxpayer funded parkway to her personal real estate holdings? Man, I can't believe that we're talking about this instead of Prince's phallic dislpay at the superbowl! you seem to have some serious issues about people discussing this topic. Perhaps you should refrain from reading the updates. It seems to be pretty upsetting. All the best. Cheers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #66 February 7, 2007 Quote you seem to have some serious issues about people discussing this topic. Perhaps you should refrain from reading the updates. It seems to be pretty upsetting. All the best. Cheers. Actually the issues I have aren't really related to the discussion board. It's the fact that this sort of non-news hack job crap is contagious in the "liberal" media and it has the tendency of eclipsing actual news stories. This nonsense has already made it to the Washington Post. Oh well, I guess the only thing that will kill it would be if Hillary were to get a tattoo. Don't worry, I'll try refrain from trying to infuse any logic into the fetish feeding frenzy. Enjoy! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #67 February 7, 2007 "Scruttocks."Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #68 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuote WHO GIVES A SHIT????? There have always been certain priviledges bestowed on the First Lady. It goes with the territory. Trying to equate them with congressonal priviledges is idiotic. Ok, so what IS the real problem here? That her plane might be bigger? Maybe her ass is bigger and she needs more room! Hmmmm, that can't be it....we're talking about Hastert. Ok, I've got it.... can we let it go if she works more than three days a week and doesn't build a taxpayer funded parkway to her personal real estate holdings? Man, I can't believe that we're talking about this instead of Prince's phallic dislpay at the superbowl! The real problem here is that Pelosi is (a) female) and (b) a Democrat. The Washington Times is, as usual, trying to distract from real problems and these guys are lapping it up. If the 109th Congress had actually achieved anything worthwhile and done its job, Hastert would still be Speaker.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #69 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePure silliness. Can you imagine the stink if Newt tried to ask for the same priviledges as Hillary, back on '05? In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question. We did lots of things differently before 9/11. The government didn't tap our phones without a warrant. We didn't suspend habeas corpus for people at the whim of the president. We could carry nail clippers on airplanes. We didn't have to take our shoes off in airports. The VP didn't spend weeks in "undisclosed locations". Oooooo - dodgeball. Just the facts, Ma'am.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #70 February 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteFunny, an hour ago she was wanting a 747 (post #16). Now it's a "smaller faster jet". Make up your minds which way you want to spin this non-story. You've misread apparently. I stated, sarcastically, that there's no way she should have to fly a smaller faster jet that *might* have to refuel while her "peeps" fly commercial... Explain to us why the speaker, now that it's Pelosi, deserves to fly in a much larger more luxurious plane than the last speaker? What Hastert did or did not do is not relevant (what he did not do is run an effective 109th Congress). The Air Force has these jets for the specific purpose of flying around senior government officials. The Speaker of the House is the 3rd most senior person in the US government. QED.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #71 February 8, 2007 QuoteWhy does the first lady get a bigger plane? Okay. My thoughts. The First Lady gets a bigger plane because hers is a "ceremonial position" on a global scale. I still think it's BS for a first lady to get anything more than security, but I can at least make a reasonable argument. There's also good reason why cabinet-level officials would get bigger planes - because they have longer distance capabilities. Now, the HHS secretary shouldn't need anything big - HHS duties deal with the US. State Department officials, however, should have larger planes because they go international and need some degree of entourage. I can see a legitimate reason for wanting cross-country flights - they are easier to secure. I also don't believe that the thrid-in-line for the presidency should necessarily be flying coach. Still, I don't know why they couldn't use a C-37, except for that it only holds 8 people and 4 crew, unless the availability ain't there. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 February 8, 2007 QuoteNo cite given - could have been a hoax for all we know. or from the Washington Times or other unreliable and biased source. Irony score 100+Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #73 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteFunny, an hour ago she was wanting a 747 (post #16). Now it's a "smaller faster jet". Make up your minds which way you want to spin this non-story. You've misread apparently. I stated, sarcastically, that there's no way she should have to fly a smaller faster jet that *might* have to refuel while her "peeps" fly commercial... Explain to us why the speaker, now that it's Pelosi, deserves to fly in a much larger more luxurious plane than the last speaker? Because she's a Dem and *deserves* it, perhaps?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #74 February 8, 2007 Quote So, given that the USAF gave GOP speaker Hastert a jet to fly non-stop to his district, why is it unreasonable to give Pelosi similar consideration? Is your objection because she's a woman, or because she's a Democrat? Some of us think that they are public servants and don't deserve any such treatment.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteFunny, an hour ago she was wanting a 747 (post #16). Now it's a "smaller faster jet". Make up your minds which way you want to spin this non-story. You've misread apparently. I stated, sarcastically, that there's no way she should have to fly a smaller faster jet that *might* have to refuel while her "peeps" fly commercial... Explain to us why the speaker, now that it's Pelosi, deserves to fly in a much larger more luxurious plane than the last speaker? What Hastert did or did not do is not relevant (what he did not do is run an effective 109th Congress). The Air Force has these jets for the specific purpose of flying around senior government officials. The Speaker of the House is the 3rd most senior person in the US government. QED. And you're still avoiding the issue - why does she supposedly need a larger plane than the previous Speaker? This is a status ploy, plain and simple. The aircraft range issue you tried to bring up earlier is moot, as both the C32 (757, not 747 - oops) and the C37A (Gulfstream V) have the same range.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
