kallend 2,026 #101 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteNo one has yet answered why THIS speaker needs a C32 when the LAST speaker used a C37, which has the same range. If you're arguing precedent, "did you hear - Clinton got a blowjob..... and lied to a grand jury about it" (NCclimber, 2/8/07) so maybe Bush should do the same. Why not worry about the $Billions your hero in the White House is pissing away on a war he started under false pretenses? Quit dodging, John, and answer the question - are you saying she needs the C32 because 1) she's a woman, or 2) she's a Democrat? I have no idea what her NEEDS are any more than you have any idea what Laura Bush's NEEDS are. However, Congress authorized the C32 for first ladies and senior government and congressional officials to use. So whine to your congressman if you don't like it. Your interest in this and total LACK of interest in Bush White House waste of $Billions show that your real motive is a witch hunt... 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 #102 February 8, 2007 QuoteIs it possible she requested a larger jet than Hassert because being Speaker of the House requires her to travel with more equipment than just Hasserts Congressional Rubber Stamp? Hastert was Speaker of the House. And what more equipment is needed for a Speaker? I get it - she NEEDS all that space on the plane! Damn, and I thought that a Chevy Suburban was overkill. A C37 won't hold her posse. By the way, did you know that Pelosi's assets are worth, according to her, anywhere from 25 to 105 million, with debts of 6 to 32 million? And she's got free travel for her and her friends. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #103 February 8, 2007 Congress authorized the Bush to waste $Billions. So whine to your congressman if you don't like it. Your interest in this and the total LACK of interest in Congress's wasteful authorization of the C32 for first ladies and senior government and congressional officials to use show that your real motive is a witch hunt. Me, I find waste of any type to be bad news. Spending my money on other people just ain't right. Spending my money on yourself, in my opinion, is even worse. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #104 February 8, 2007 "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker, I'm not getting into this argument. This is not something we're in the midst of doing.'' Tony Snow, White House spokesman. ... 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 #105 February 8, 2007 Quote"This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker, I'm not getting into this argument. This is not something we're in the midst of doing.'' Tony Snow, White House spokesman. I have agreed with everything you've said. It's authorized for her to have use of the jet. I see valid security reasons for her to have it. What I do not see is why it is necessary to have a 757 when a Gulfstream should do just fine. Waste is waste is waste. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo one has yet answered why THIS speaker needs a C32 when the LAST speaker used a C37, which has the same range. If you're arguing precedent, "did you hear - Clinton got a blowjob..... and lied to a grand jury about it" (NCclimber, 2/8/07) so maybe Bush should do the same. Why not worry about the $Billions your hero in the White House is pissing away on a war he started under false pretenses? Quit dodging, John, and answer the question - are you saying she needs the C32 because 1) she's a woman, or 2) she's a Democrat? I have no idea what her NEEDS are any more than you have any idea what Laura Bush's NEEDS are. However, Congress authorized the C32 for first ladies and senior government and congressional officials to use. So whine to your congressman if you don't like it. Your interest in this and total LACK of interest in Bush White House waste of $Billions show that your real motive is a witch hunt Ok, so you DON'T have any reason other than partisanship for the larger plane... got it. Talk about the "waste of billions" in the other thread...this thread is about the plane.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #107 February 8, 2007 Well said!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #108 February 8, 2007 QuoteTalk about the "waste of billions" in the other thread...this thread is about the plane. And that is the funny part. In the grand scheme of things, this is small potatoes. What will be the difference in annual costs between what she's requesting and what the AF is offering? And why do people keep talking about her "needs" and what Hastert was "allowed"? Does someone have good reason to believe this isn't about her "wants" or that Hastert requested something nicer and was denied? Try to set parties aside for a second. Speaker A was the first to get his own plane, he probably thought that was pretty cool. Speaker A's successor, Speaker B, wants a nicer plane. Is anyone surprized? Does anyone honestly think it the above wouldn't have happened if the parties had been DNC--->GOP versus GOP--->DNC? If so, you're deluding yourself. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #109 February 8, 2007 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Care to debate the same things, And not try to change things? Why should one Speaker get something another Speaker was not allowed? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree, one speaker got an air force jet to fly non-stop to his riding, so the new speaker should get a jet to fly non-stop to her riding. Agreed? No. One speaker was given a jet to use. Another speaker wants a bigger jet and to carry more people than the first speaker was allowed. I am fine with Pelosi getting the SAME type of plane and being allowed to carry the SAME type and amount of people. I am not OK with her getting a bigger plane and being allowed to carry people Hastert was not allowed. See fair would be...Same plane same people. I have no issue with that at all. You don't seem to have an issue with her spending and getting more than Hastert. Woudl you feel the same if the new speaker was Republican? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #110 February 8, 2007 QuoteWhy don't you read the official USAF mission for the C32A before posting more tripe. I see you can't stay on topic, so you insult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #111 February 8, 2007 QuoteYou don't seem to have an issue with her spending and getting more than Hastert. Woudl you feel the same if the new speaker was Republican? Actually, no issue was raised when Hastert was the first to get the privilege. They could have argued that he could have used a C29 or C35 that would have performed the same purposes - or even a C-31, which could probably have gotten him non-stop to illinois. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #112 February 8, 2007 QuoteNo-one has yet answered why it's OK for a GOP vice president and GOP first lady to get a C32 for ANY trip at all, but not for the 3rd highest official in the nation to fly coast to coast. I would be fine with ANY VP or first lady getting a C32. With you it is all about the party they are from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #113 February 8, 2007 So it will always be a good idea to use more than necessary to get the job done. What prior speakers did IS relevant... but clearly you beleive that what was good for the gander is NOT good for the goose. I resent that you think that this has anything to do with her being a woman. There are many many reasons not to like this politician without resulting to insulting her because of her gender. It's pathetic that you'd try to project that on the argument at hand. I'd have the same problem with anyone needing to up their travel requirments so they could bring their family and entourage with them everywhere.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #114 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy don't you read the official USAF mission for the C32A before posting more tripe. I see you can't stay on topic, so you insult. "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker, I'm not getting into this argument. This is not something we're in the midst of doing.'' Tony Snow, White House spokesman. ... 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 #115 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteNo-one has yet answered why it's OK for a GOP vice president and GOP first lady to get a C32 for ANY trip at all, but not for the 3rd highest official in the nation to fly coast to coast. I would be fine with ANY VP or first lady getting a C32. With you it is all about the party they are from. Why do you continue to spout drivel? I'm fine with it if it fits the defined mission profile of the C32A, WHICH IT DOES.... 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
DaVinci 0 #116 February 8, 2007 Quote"This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker, I'm not getting into this argument. This is not something we're in the midst of doing.'' Tony Snow, White House spokesman. Snow didn't get into the argument, but YOU did. One speaker get more than the past one no matter what party they are from. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #117 February 8, 2007 QuoteI am fine with Pelosi getting the SAME type of plane and being allowed to carry the SAME type and amount of people. I am fine with giving the new speaker the same ability as the old speaker. Ie. travel to their riding non-stop. I am not okay with specifically getting the new speaker a bigger plane so she can have more family members travelling with her. On the other hand, the USAF specifically has the bigger planes for the specific purpose of flying senior government officials around. I would think that the Speaker of the house is a pretty senior government official. I think the whole story is kind of silly. But it always seems that the small things turn into huge debates, while larger things (like $12 billion going missing) gets little discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #118 February 8, 2007 QuoteSo it will always be a good idea to use more than necessary to get the job done.. Laura Bush could fly to Crawford, TX, in a King Air. That would get the job done nicely. Why does she need a C32A?... 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
DaVinci 0 #119 February 8, 2007 QuoteWhy do you continue to spout drivel? Again, you can't debate, so you insult. QuoteI'm fine with it if it fits the defined mission profile of the C32A, WHICH IT DOES. You clearly have no proplem with someone from your favorite party wasting things. And never answere whay she needs a bigger plane than the last speaker, or why she needs to carry more people. You seem to think it is fine just since the planes exist. I would rather use assets to fit the need not 'just cause we have it'. Or 'I want one'. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #120 February 8, 2007 Quote One speaker get more than the past one no matter what party they are from. Hastert got more than Delay. Delay got more than Tip O'Neill. I wonder if Taft supporters whined when Woodrow Wilson got a limo that Taft had not been given. I wonder if Bill Clinton whines that Bush's "Cadillac 1" is better equipped than Clinton's limo? How far back do you want to go - horseback in 1807? Your arguments get more and more stupid and whiny.... 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
DaVinci 0 #121 February 8, 2007 QuoteI am fine with giving the new speaker the same ability as the old speaker. Ie. travel to their riding non-stop. The smaller plane can fly non-stop. Distance from DC to San Fran is 2438 miles. The range of the G20 is 3698nm and 4220nm on the long range model. Now there are only 2 G20's and 4 C32's. QuoteI am not okay with specifically getting the new speaker a bigger plane so she can have more family members travelling with her. I would not let her family travel even on the bigger plane. QuoteI think the whole story is kind of silly. But it always seems that the small things turn into huge debates, while larger things (like $12 billion going missing) gets little discussion. Ya think one reason small things get big is due to people with little to nothing at stake piping in? You are in Canada right? How does the Speakers plane have ANYTHING to do with you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #122 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteI am fine with giving the new speaker the same ability as the old speaker. Ie. travel to their riding non-stop. The smaller plane can fly non-stop. Distance from DC to San Fran is 2438 miles. The range of the G20 is 3698nm and 4220nm on the long range model. ? You are, of course, an expert on prevailing high altitude winds, obligatory IFR reserves, etc.? I think THAT is a matter for the USAF to decide, not you. "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker", Tony Snow, White House spokesman.... 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 #123 February 8, 2007 QuoteDelay got more than Tip O'Neill. How so? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #124 February 8, 2007 QuoteQuoteDelay got more than Tip O'Neill. How so? Delay got a much better equipped official car. I mean , WOW, some early speakers had to travel on horseback! "This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker'' Tony Snow, White House spokesman.... 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #125 February 8, 2007 QuoteHow does the Speakers plane have ANYTHING to do with you? Nothing, but what does have to do with you? Does it affect anything in your life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
