General discussion

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2496356

      Max love fest

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to Nancy Pelosi continues her blatant and arrogant abuse of power

      Gee, I hope this doesn’t turn out to be another one.

      So Max, you see abuse only where it bothers you. So the republicans aren’t abusing power by refusing to debate about when to debate about bills?

      So bush isn’t abusing power by taking us from a fake surplus to 1.6 trillion more in spending?

      And bush isn’t abusing power by suspending the constitution in cases of torture?

      And abusing power by having the feds pump so much money into the economy that the REAL inflation rate is closer to 10%, and our money is now worth half of what it was only 6 years ago.

      It’s so bad that even the astronomical house values created by easy money are barely on par with inflation.

      You sound like a broken record, playing the same tune over and over

      • #2496350

        I don’t know…

        by inkling ·

        In reply to Max love fest

        If Max has defended the things you have brought up in the past. I haven’t been around TR long enough to know if he is that hypocritical…

        Even if Max is making the point out of some partisan bias, the point is still a damn valid one.

        I don’t know a single, intelligent person that would classify Bush as a conservative. Conservatives are supposed to be against big government and G.W. has done more to make the government bigger than most presidents.

        But, if you think that makes it ok for Pelosi or anyone else to continue and/or worsen the abuse of power and the trampling of our personal freedoms you are mistaken.

        Less partisan/personal bullsh*t IMO.

        • #2489952

          None of it’s right

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to I don’t know…

          just that Max seems one sided, ignoring other abuse of power.

          I do agree with Max at times. He’s really against big govt, and everyone seeking for the govt to cure their pet problems.

          Tho there seems a disconnect when it comes to respecting the rights of others not to have their world polluted.

          And he’s right that the big govt is destroying our economy and lives, in ways that are hard to see. Instead of raising taxes 50% in the last 6 years, the government printing press went wild and inflated the money supply by 50%.

          So they hide it by printing more money, and people get mad at companies for raising prices. Some of it is hidden by cheap imports. If the govt didn’t lie about the real inflation rate, you’d see it at about 10% a year. In the 70’s when the Carter admin pumped up money so much that it hit 20% people got mad and told them to stop printing so much.

          And to hide it, the govt has now STOPPED publishing the M3 monetary index, which is how much money is in circulation.

          Inflation particularly hits the poor and those on fixed incomes and those who can’t get raises, widening the gap between the rich and the poor. (see dailyreckoning.com for some more gloomy info on this).

          They also have been lying about the growth rates of the economy: any hi-tech computer purchases are counted as many times their value in growth, which is bogus.

          After inflation, even the housing values have only kept even with 20 years ago. And soon, other countries and investors will realize that they are losing money by investing in US. Foreign investment (to tune of $800 billion) is all that is keeping the US economy going.

          Sadly, other countries are hyperstimulating their economies so that their currencies don’t go up vs the US currency. So the US is causing a global ‘Weimar Republic economy’ where the currency is inflated so fast that you have to take wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread.

          Yes, this really happened, in Germany during WW2. And is happening today in Zimbabwe, thru the stupidity of their dictator. ANd happened recently in Brazil tho they’ve been reigning this in.

          In Turkey it was so bad that the only thing people could invest in was buildings that would keep their value. And in the EU today, the one thing they don’t control is the rate countries expand their money supply to support bloated govts.

      • #2496341

        My broken record

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Max love fest

        Okay, guilty as charged. So what’s your point? There are some issues on which I’m interested and/or passionate — just like a lot of people around here. If I’m a broken record, could you name some other people as well who continually play their own tune?

        As to your suggestion that I never comment on “Republican abuse of power”, feel free to play any of your own broken records. Somebody might listen and/or reply if you phrase it the right way.

        By the way, I see that you completely evaded my point. (The sound continually coming from YOUR “broken record”.)

    • #2496345

      What’s the problem?

      by charliespencer ·

      In reply to Nancy Pelosi continues her blatant and arrogant abuse of power

      According to the Washington Post’s article

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/05/AR2007020501295.html

      Hastert began using a plane at Homeland Security’s request. Pelosi wants a larger one than Hastert because the old plane that could go to Illinois on one tank of fuel won’t go to California non-stop. Since a plane uses more fuel taking off and landing than cruising, it sounds like a cost savings to me.

      How is this an abuse of power?

      • #2496342

        My understanding…

        by inkling ·

        In reply to What’s the problem?

        is that she wants carte blanche access for her AND her family.

        That is abuse of power any way you slice it.

        • #2496339

          Unnamed source

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to My understanding…

          The second page of the Times article quotes “an unnamed source” as saying she’s requested “carte blanche”, but also says her family would be traveling with her. It says nothing about her family taking independent trips without her. If you have other information, please link it.

          I fail to see the problem in her taking her family along. The amount of fuel used by three or four extra passengers is minimal.

          I’m neither Republican nor Democrat and normally avoid these discussions, but it looks like there’s a lot of fuss being raised based on a single article with a lot of unnamed sources.

        • #2496335

          The amount of fuel used by three or four extra passengers is minimal.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Unnamed source

          But the amount of fuel used by the larger aircrat she is requesting (C-32, C-40B, or C-37) is significant.

          http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/html2/d451512x.htm

        • #2496306

          If she’s bringing home 3 dozen cheerleaders for Gavin, it could burn a lot

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to The amount of fuel used by three or four extra passengers is minimal.

          The C40B is a modified 737, with extra communications for airborne commanders. The C32 is a 757. The C37 is a Gulfstream executive jet.

          There seems to be a huge range in capacity among these planes. The C37 is a sort of deluxe commuter jet. The C40C would be more likely than the C40B, because the C model lacks all the souped up military command-and-control technology, which Ms. Pelosi would not need, unless she gets a squadron of F-16s and an Army corps to manage, too.

          Fact sheets are http://www.af.mil/factsheets/.

          The C-40 B/C is based upon the commercial Boeing 737-700 Business Jet. The body of the C-40 is identical to that of the Boeing 737-700, but has winglets. Both models have state of the art avionics equipment, integrated Global Positioning System and Flight Management System/Electronic Flight Instrument System and a heads up display. Heading the safety equipment list is the Traffic Collision Avoidance System and enhanced weather radar. The aircraft is a variant of the Boeing next generation 737-700, and combines the 737-700 fuselage with the wings and landing gear from the larger and heavier 737-800. The basic aircraft has auxiliary fuel tanks, missionized interior with self-sustainment features and managed passenger communications.

          The cabin area is equipped with a crew rest area, distinguished visitor compartment with sleep accommodations, two galleys and business class seating with worktables.

          The C-40B is designed to be an “office in the sky” for senior military and government leaders. Communications are paramount aboard the C-40B which provides broadband data/video transmit and receive capability as well as clear and secure voice and data communication. It gives combatant commanders the ability to conduct business anywhere around the world using on-board Internet and local area network connections, improved telephones, satellites, television monitors, and facsimile and copy machines. The C-40B also has a computer-based passenger data system.

          The C-40C is not equipped with the advanced communications capability of the C-40B. Unique to the C-40C is the capability to change its configuration to accommodate from 42 to 111 passengers.

          Primary Function: High-priority personnel transport
          Prime Contractor: Boeing (airframe) and CFM International (engines)
          Power Plant: Two GE CFM 56-7B27 turbofan engines
          Thrust: 27,000 pounds static thrust each engine
          Length: 110 feet, 4 inches (33.6 meters)
          Height: 41 feet, 2 inches (12.5 meters)
          Maximum Takeoff Weight: 171,000 pounds
          Wingspan: 117 feet, 5 inches (35.8 meters)
          Speed: 530 mph (Mach 0.8)
          Ceiling: 41,000 feet (12,727 meters)
          Fuel Capability: 60,000 lbs
          Maximum Range: 4,500 to 5,000 nautical miles (based on payload) unrefueled range
          Maximum Load: C-40B: 26 to 32 passengers; C-40C: 42 to 111 passengers
          ==============================
          Features
          The C-32 is a specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The C-32 body is identical to that of the Boeing 757-200, but has different interior furnishings and 21st century avionics. The passenger cabin is divided into four sections:

          — The forward area has a communications center, galley, lavatory and 10 business class seats.
          — The second section is a fully enclosed stateroom for the use of the primary passenger. It includes a changing area, private lavatory, separate entertainment system, two first-class swivel seats and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed.
          — The third section contains the conference and staff facility with eight business class seats.
          — The rear section of the cabin contains general seating with 32 business-class seats, galley, two lavatories and closets.

          Because the C-32 is a high-standing aircraft, it is easier to see under and around it — an important security factor for protecting the plane and its passengers.

          The C-32 is more fuel efficient and has improved capabilities over its C-137 predecessor. It can travel twice the distance on the same amount of fuel, and operate on shorter runways down to 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) in length. Its 92,000-pound (41,731 kilogram) fuel capacity allows the aircraft to travel 5,500 nautical miles unrefueled.

          Heading the safety equipment list is the Traffic Collision Avoidance System and Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System that gives advance warning of possible air and ground threats. Weather systems are enhanced with a Predictive Windshear Warning System. Other items include the future air navigation system with Global Positioning System and Flight Management System/Electronic Flight Instrument System.

          Inside the C-32, communications are paramount. The vice president, heads of state and other decision-makers can conduct business anywhere around the world using improved telephones, satellites, television monitors, facsimiles and copy machines. The C-32 has state-of-the-art avionics equipment.

          Background
          The C-32 is a military version of the Boeing 757-200 extended range aircraft, selected along with the C-37A to replace the aging fleet of C-137 aircraft. Active-duty aircrews from the 1st Airlift Squadron, 89th Airlift Wing at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., fly the aircraft.

          The contract was awarded for the C-32 in August 1996. By using commercial off-the-shelf acquisition practices, a new record has been set from contract award to aircraft delivery — less than two years. The C-32 is the first military aircraft ever to be acquired in this manner. The 89th Airlift Wing acquired the first of four aircraft in late June 1998.

          General Characteristics
          Primary Function: High-priority personnel transport
          Builder: Boeing Company
          Power Plant: Two Pratt and Whitney 2040 engines
          Thrust: 41,700 pounds static thrust each engine
          Length: 155 feet, 3 inches (47.32 meters)
          Height: 44 feet, 6 inches (11.02 meters)
          Wingspan: 124 feet, 8 inches (37.99 meters)
          Maximum Takeoff Weight: 255,000 pounds (115,668 kilograms)
          Range: 5,500 nautical miles unrefueled range
          Ceiling: 42,000 feet (12,727 meters)
          Speed: 530 miles per hour (Mach 0.8)
          Load: 45 passengers
          Unit Cost: Unavailable
          Crew: 16 (varies with mission)
          ==============================
          Mission
          The C-37A is a twin-engine, turbofan aircraft acquired to fill the worldwide special air missions for high-ranking government and Defense Department officials.

          Features
          The aircraft contains a modern flight management system with a worldwide satellite-based Global Positioning System. The C-37A is based upon the high-altitude, intercontinental Gulfstream V aircraft, capable of cruise operations from 41,000 to 51,000 feet. Features include enhanced weather radar, autopilot and an ultra modern heads up display for the pilot. Safety features include Enhanced Vision Systems that allows increased visibility in all weather environments. The aircraft is also equipped with both commercial and military communications equipment to provide secure and non-secure voice and data capability.

          Background
          The 89th Airlift Wing?s 99th Airlift Squadron, Andrews Air Force Base, Md., operates four C-37A’s. The 6th Air Mobility Wing?s 310th Airlift Squadron, MacDill AFB, Fla., operates three C-37A’s. Both the 15th Airlift Wing, 65th Airlift Squadron at Hickam AFB, Hawaii, and the 86th Airlift Wing, 309th Airlift Squadron, at Chievres Air Base, Belgium, have one C-37A.

          General Characteristics
          Primary Function: Special air missions
          Builder: Gulfstream Aerospace Corp.
          Power Plant: Two BMW/Rolls Royce BR710A1-10 high bypass ratio turbofan engines
          Thrust: 14,750 pounds each engine
          Length: 96 feet, 5 inches (29.38 meters)
          Height: 25 feet, 11 inches (7.9 meters)
          Wingspan: 93 feet, 6 inches (28.5 meters)
          Speed: 600 mph (.885 Mach) maximum
          Maximum Altitude: 51,000 feet (15,545 meters)
          Maximum Takeoff Weight: 90,500 pounds (41,050 kilograms)
          Range: 6,300 miles (5,500 nautical miles) normal cruise
          Load: 12 passengers
          Unit Cost: $36 million (1998 constant dollars)
          Crew: Five
          Date Deployed: 1998
          Inventory: Active force, 9; Air National Guard, 0; Reserve, 0

        • #2496266

          Think about this

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to If she’s bringing home 3 dozen cheerleaders for Gavin, it could burn a lot

          The people in Congress “work for you”. Why is it, then, that YOU’RE not getting one of these things?

        • #2496282

          How do I get in on this?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The amount of fuel used by three or four extra passengers is minimal.

          C-32 (There are four of these in the inventory)

          http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90

          http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-32.htm

          C-40B (There are two of these in the inventory)

          http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=189

          http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-40.htm

          C-37 (This might be more in-line with her needs.)

          http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-37.htm

          I wouldn’t object (as much) if she had the C-37. It’s more in-line with a business class jet. The other two, however, are overkill.

          However, these “global warming” advocates should walk their own talk, and quit flying around so much destroying the planet with every unnecessary mile they fly. What ever happened to “lead by example”?

        • #2496259

          That’s because

          by puppybreath ·

          In reply to How do I get in on this?

          their belief is “Do as I say not as I do” which is far easier than leading by example.

        • #2499860

          How about a Piper Cub?

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to How do I get in on this?

          Give her a Piper Cub and flying lessons if she wants her own plane. Otherwise, have Congress pay for her to fly commercial (coach class), but I guess she does not want to mingle with the “Great Unwashed”.

        • #2497253

          How about. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to How about a Piper Cub?

          …..United Airlines?

        • #2497248

          Or how about…

          by montgomery gator ·

          In reply to How about a Piper Cub?

          …a broom? ]:)

        • #2496315

          So, how “minimal”

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Unnamed source

          is acceptable when you’re talking about using public resources for personal benefit?

        • #2499916

          Personal benefit

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to So, how “minimal”

          I don’t see the personal benefit. As I read the two articles Max put up, she asked for a bigger bird, the Pentagon explained the rules about who would be allowed on board, and said they’d give her what was available. I haven’t seen saying she was gaining personally except some comments attributed to unnamed Republicans speculating that she could misuse the service. “Could” isn’t “would” or “has” or “did”. Why is it personal benefit when Pelosi does it but not when Hastert did it?

          I can’t debate the hypocrisy claims made here, but if Pelosi is the only hypocrite in Washington then I’m the next drummer for Spinal Tap.

        • #2497256

          She’s not the only one.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Personal benefit

          That’s for sure.

      • #2496338

        Washington Post versus Washington Times

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to What’s the problem?

        A few points:

        First of all, she also wants to be able to ferry other members of the congressional delegation, family members and her staff. It appears to me (any anyone who doesn’t choose to be blind) that she wants her own version of Air Force One. Heck, Newt Gingrich, when he was speaker, rode on Delta Airlines!

        Second of all, Denny Hastert used a “commuter-type” plane; and even if she used the same type, even though it would have to stop once to refuel, what’s the big deal? A smaller plane uses less fuel anyway, and in the day of the Democrat’s pet-peeve issue “global warming”, isn’t using less fuel better? Isn’t that worth an insignificant 30 minute refueling stop at some Midwest Air Force base?

        By the way, do you see though obvious spin/omission differences between the Washington Post and the Washington Times? Interesting, don’t you think?

        • #2496334

          “Obvious spin/omission differences” – Edited.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Washington Post versus Washington Times

          What’s the issue with her taking other members of the California delegation with her if the plane’s already going to CA?

          ” … do you see though obvious spin/omission differences between the Washington Post and the Washington Times?”

          Apparently I’m not savvy enough to spot the spin / omission difference you find obvious. I’ve never read either paper in print or electronic form before today. The major difference I saw was the Times didn’t hesitate to use unnamed sources (something I detest). The Times article appeared one-sided, although since I don’t read either paper I don’t know if that article is typical of the publication.

          Thanks.

        • #2496312

          The Washington Times and Fox News are similarly impartial

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to “Obvious spin/omission differences” – Edited.

          All the news that fits.

          The Washington Times has a number of distinct biases. It’s a tabloid newspaper, in the uncomplimentary sense of the term. In Washington, the Post has the corner on stuffy respectability, so the Times has always gone for exciting and shocking news reporting, kind of like it had the News of the World as one of its grandparents. The same story is always more lively when you read it in the Times. The editorial policy seems to be, if it can get people talking, it’s been reported right.

          It has also got a distinctly populist/conservative bias, which often escapes the editorial page and tinges the reporting and fact selection process. It isn’t too different from a lot of other papers.

        • #2496265

          No newspaper is impartial

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The Washington Times and Fox News are similarly impartial

          The Washington Times and the Washington Post BOTH spin their stories. One is no worse or no better than the other. The only way to find “balance” is to read both, knowing one leans left, the other right, and then vote for anyone who wants to reduce the size and scope (and cost) of government by at least 50 percent.

        • #2496251

          Don’t know bout that

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to No newspaper is impartial

          I can’t say that the Post leans left in its news reporting. The Times sure seems to put a political tilt on its facts.

        • #2500093

          You don’t know, but I do

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Don’t know bout that

          If anyone thinks that there’s an “impartial media” in the USA, I’ve got a bridge I’ll sell you.

          If you think that there’s an “impartial” news source, name it — and prove it (or at least try to).

          For example, go ahead and try to “prove” the Washington Post is “impartial”. If you try, the only argument you can advance is that the Washington Times is not.

          In the case of the Washington Post, if they WERE impartial, they would print just as many stories that were POSITIVE about GWB as those they print that are NEGATIVE. Go ahead, find a Washington Post story that shows GWB in a “positive” light — and compare it to the number of “negative” ones.

        • #2497262

          They choose what to report and what not to.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Don’t know bout that

          Then they can poll the people on what they think about what they’ve been told, and report and not report aspects of that. That power can shape policy. Fortunately, I don’t think they want to shape policy so much as the want to fill their wallets, so they’re more than likely going to lean toward the money. Controversy is a big money-maker for them.

    • #2500079
      • #2499979

        Okay, I still don’t see the issue.

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Give me a break!

        People ask the government for services and get denied every day. Students ask for grants or academy recommendations. Representatives ask for home state projects or industry support. Presidents ask for confirmation hearings or additional troops.

        She asked, the Pentagon said no and explained the rules. That sounds like the system’s working to me. I’m trying to find arrogance and abuse of power in the articles you’ve sited, but all I see is a denied request. Is it arrogant and abusive to ask for a service?

        • #2499935

          It’s arrogant, and hypocritical

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Okay, I still don’t see the issue.

          for someone purporting to represent the “poor working stiffs” to expect an extravagance at that poor working stiff’s expense.

        • #2499919

          Expected extravagance?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to It’s arrogant, and hypocritical

          ” … expect an extravagance … ”

          Her predecessor had a plane capable of non-stop flights home, a service Speakers started using at Homeland Security’s request. How is it extravagant for her to expect one? Was it an extravagance at the working stiff’s expense when HSA asked Hastert to fly Air Pentagon? Why is it good for the elephant but not for the donkey?

        • #2499865

          Tony and I are both on the record. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Expected extravagance?

          …for being against unnecessary and wasteful spending by anyone in Washington, regardless of political party. You insist on making this a Democrat versus Republican issue, but it’s not. And now, you are on the record as not seeing anything wrong with a congressional representative wanting unlimited use of an aircraft that, in the private sector, is big enough to seat a couple hundred people, and one that’s could even be described as a scaled-down version of Air Force One. I might guess that it costs upwards of $5,000 per hour to keep one of those big jets in the air; and considering a 5 hours flight to California, and how many times per year she’d fly there, that’s a lot of wasted money.

          Dennis Hastert was given (he didn’t ask for) the use of a small business-sized jet. Personally speaking, I wouldn’t have given one to Congressman Hastert either — not even that smaller one. The reasoning that the Speaker of the House is second in line of succession to the presidency isn’t sufficient enough for me to justify the additional exorbitant expense. A Speaker of the House has never risen to the presidency, and one never will except in extreme and very unlikely circumstances. Until then, that position is nothing more than a political one, pandering to and advancing the agenda of one political party, not exactly on the same level as an office-holder in the Executive Branch. To give such “presumed” power and benefits to a person from a single congressional district is ridiculous. In Pelosi’s case, I might guess that only 100,000 California voters put her there in the first place! Sorry, but 100,000 voters can’t decide who’s Queen of the USA — and she doesn’t deserve a ~$25,000 free ride back to California for herself, her family, and political supporters dozens of times a year. I see it as Pelosi’s version of her own flying Lincoln Bedroom!

          Moreover, I can’t recall a single instance in my life when that position was mentioned so often as being second in line to the presidency. (Well, maybe when Newt Gingrich was Speaker it was occasionally mentioned, but it wasn’t coming from him, his party, or his supporters, but rather from those who demonized him, “warning” the voters that he was second in line.) And I’ve certainly heard it more about Pelosi in her short time in the position than I heard it during the totality of Hastert’s tenure. In my observation, the Democrats and those in the press have, in essence, crowned Nancy Pelosi “queen” — and she’s certainly acting the part. It’s the epitome of arrogance, if you ask me, especially when compared to Hastert’s low-key style and demeanor.

          If you really believe that Pelosi’s motivation for requesting such a huge aircraft was to avoid the inconvenience of a 30 minute refueling stop at a Midwest Air Force Base, you’re not only kidding yourself, but your clearly painting yourself into a corner of being an advocate for wasteful government spending, not to mention an apologist for the Democratic Party.

          As a side-note, the hypocrisy and double-standards of the Democrats and the press are amazing.

          Remember Tom DeLay and the heat he took for improperly managing his political action committees and their funding? Well, why wasn’t THIS story harped on by the press?

          http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/state/california/2004-02-11-pelosi-pac-fined_x.htm

          And to think, Pelosi continually stated that she would “clean-up the corruption” — all the while being part of it!

          And the TunaGate scandal — something else that mysteriously disappeared from the press.

        • #2499852

          Of course,

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Tony and I are both on the record. . . . . .

          maybe they’re afraid she’d pull another Clinton. Or maybe the democrats are right and the mid-west [b]is[/b] merely fly-over country and that’s exactly what they want her to do 🙂

        • #2499770

          Common Ground.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Tony and I are both on the record. . . . . .

          “You insist on making this a Democrat versus Republican issue, but it’s not.”

          I’m not insisting on it, the articles you’ve cited are presenting it as a D. vs. R. Both refer to Republicans expressing fears Pelosi will misuse the plane without expressing a Democratic view point or quoting Pelosi directly. Based on the source material, how else can I view it?

          “… you are on the record as not seeing anything wrong with a congressional representative wanting unlimited use of an aircraft”

          No, I’m on record for the current Speaker having a plane with the same capabilities as the previous Speaker – non-stop flight home.

          “The reasoning that the Speaker of the House is second in line of succession to the presidency isn’t sufficient enough for me to justify the additional exorbitant expense.”

          Agreed. HSA came up with the idea, not me. It’s another in the long line of wasteful attempts to “protect” our security, and the money could be better spent scanning incoming freighters. It was dumb for Hastert and is dumb for Pelosi. I’m just don’t see why Pelosi’s asking for an upgrade to an existing service is an “arrogant abuse of power” as you titled this discussion.

          “If you really believe that Pelosi’s motivation … your clearly painting yourself into a corner of being an advocate for wasteful government spending, not to mention an apologist for the Democratic Party.”

          I don’t believe or disbelieve her motivation any more or less than any other elected federal official. I’m not advocating wasteful spending, and I’m not apologizing for anyone. I just don’t see why this is an issue now that Pelosi has the plane instead of Hastert. But now that you’ve said you feel it is a waste for the Speaker’s office to have a plane, we’ve reached common ground.

          I find the both parties typically exhibit double-standards.

          As to your last question, neither PAC scandal got much coverage here in S.C.

        • #2499756

          Using your logic:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Common Ground.

          You said that you’re, [i]”…on record for the current Speaker having a plane with the same capabilities as the previous Speaker – non-stop flight home.”[/i]

          Okay, but you’re not quite right. You fell short of defining “capabilities”.

          Not only could Denny Hastert get home to his district non-stop, but the flight could be achieved in probably about an hour and a half.

          Therefore, let’s give Queen Nancy an SR-71 so she, too, can get home to her district both non-stop and in under two hours. And if one’s not available, let’s put her in the back seat of an F-16 (the D model, of course, as that one has two seats); and if it needs in-flight refueling because it’ll be hauling-a$$ (about Mach 2), then let’s make a KC-135 tanker available to meet them somewhere over Kansas. (But they’d have to slow down to fill er’ up.)

          After all, she must have the same “capabilities”, right? Non-stop AND in about two hours!

          But here’s a novel thought. How about just giving her THE SAME PLANE? (But let’s make her seat much smaller so that “her seat” is just as tight as Denny’s seat was wrapping around his fat a$$!)

        • #2497279

          Of course not.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Common Ground.

          She couldn’t get 12 to 16 members of her posse in an SR-71 or an F-16. You’d need several of each, although I recall there were one or two 4-seat trainer SR-71’s.

        • #2497268

          Well that settles it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Common Ground.

          We should just make the Air Force buy a Concorde or two. (They’ll need a backup, you know.) Didn’t the Brits or the French quit flying them recently? I’m sure there’s a few of those for sale.

          I assume you conceded my point showing the obvious flaw in your logic, that the “same capabilities” are relative, and as such, the limits of those “capabilities” might be different.

          You know, this reminds me of arguing the difference between equality of opportunity (Conservatives/Libertarians) versus the equality of outcome (Democrats/Socialists). Which one do YOU espouse, the equality of opportunity or the equality of outcome?

          In Pelosi’s case, she has the same opportunity as Hastert, but because of her circumstances, she’s faced with a different outcome. Too bad, so sad; live with it!

        • #2497245

          Equalities for Max

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Common Ground.

          (I hate it when we reach the limit of replies and I can’t see the entire comment I’m responding to.)

          “Which one do YOU espouse, the equality of opportunity or the equality of outcome?”

          I haven’t ever looked at the question. My quick answer is that I probably lean more toward opportunity, but both approaches probably have their place and I’d have to make the call for each situation individually. It’s the same approach I take to elections. I favor budget hawks and social liberals, but I try to judge each candidate individually. I don’t have any litmus-test issues, and party platform has never mattered to me as much as individual position. I can’t do anything about officials elected from other states or districts, so I try not to get too upset about them.

        • #2499857

          There are smaller, more efficient planes

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to Expected extravagance?

          in the Pentagon’s service that would make the flight non-stop… but they wouldn’t hold all of her family members.

          [/i]Why is it good for the elephant but not for the donkey?[/i]

          The question should be, “Is it good for the working stiffs who have to pay for it?”

        • #2499845

          Do you remember Senator William Proxmire?s . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to There are smaller, more efficient planes

          …..Golden Fleece Award? He used to give it to the recipient of wasteful and self-serving government spending.

          Too bad they don’t make Democrats like they used to!

          Edited addition:

          Of course, in all fairness, they don’t make Republicans like they used to either. (Can you say Barry Goldwater?)

          Another edited addition:

          http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/topten.htm

          http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/1975-1980.htm

          http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/1980-1985.htm

          http://www.taxpayer.net/awards/goldenfleece/1985-1988.htm

        • #2499807

          One 757, one 737, one Gulfstream

          by delbertpgh ·

          In reply to There are smaller, more efficient planes

          The Pentagon has replied that three planes meet the requirement. The Gulfstream only seats about 22. The 737 was designed as sort of a governmental command post, and seats around 40, with a conference room and a sleeping chamber. The 757 approaches Air Force 1 accomodations.

          I haven’t heard anything about which of the three planes was requested, or if any preference was explicitly stated. I’ve only read, no matter how hard I search, that these three are what the Air Force has available. And, of course, critics talk exclusively in terms of the 757.

          Hastert, for his part, flew a military passenger jet back to Illinois virtually every weekend. His wife did not come to D.C. with him, and it was his preference to spend the weekends there. I think his trip took about two hours, and aides frequently accompanied him. All flew free of charge. Pelosi’s ride will be six or seven hours. If she flew Hastert’s plane, it would have to land in Denver to refuel. Given that there will be 12 or 14 hours of flying in a round trip, I doubt she will make as frequent use of the government’s services as Denny did.

          Probably the Gulfstream would suffice. She’s got her pal Jack Murtha interfacing with the Pentagon, though, and he’s pretty arrogant about perks. I bet he personally favors the 757.

        • #2499782

          Whatever happened

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to One 757, one 737, one Gulfstream

          to the good old days, when you just hopped a military transport? It seemed one was always leaving in the general direction you wanted to go within a couple hours.

          If nothing else, she could hop one on its way to Hawaii and they could toss her out on their way by 🙂

          [added: Make sure she’s not wearing a dress though. The sound might make some citizens think they’re under attack!]

        • #2510547

          Like GWB’s 90 mile flight to Delaware on a 747 to speak of energy policy?

          by deepsand ·

          In reply to It’s arrogant, and hypocritical

    • #2499826

      And what does John Murtha say about it?

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Nancy Pelosi continues her blatant and arrogant abuse of power

      [i]”Murtha said he is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking information about the possibility that Pelosi would use large military planes to make her look bad. But he said, ‘They’re making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them,’referring to the Pentagon budget.”[/i]

      Arrogance indeed! (And a little blackmail, perhaps — with national security?)

      • #2499767

        Murtha’s arrogance, right?

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to And what does John Murtha say about it?

        You mean Murtha’s arrogance, right? If so, I agree. If not, I’ve got to continue assuming lack of arrogance in this particular case until solid proof is provided. At least this quote isn’t from an “unnamed official”. Would you mind tell me where it came from? I’d like to see the rest of the article.

        Thanks.

      • #2497275

        I won’t be sorry to see the sun set on John Murtha

        by delbertpgh ·

        In reply to And what does John Murtha say about it?

        He’s got a spoils-of-war approach to politics. He slipped past the Abscam dragnet by a sense of timing; he basically said, “I won’t myself be bought by somebody who just showed up in town, but once you get a longer track record, we can talk business.” Sounds like he’s more careful than straight.

        I doubt that Murtha’s veiled threat about Pentagon procurement is anything unusual in Washington. You just don’t get to see it out in the open like that.

        I hope the voters in his district fire him next time up.

    • #2497205

      This just in . . .

      by av . ·

      In reply to Nancy Pelosi continues her blatant and arrogant abuse of power

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/

      Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting away with anything in the current political climate.

      Still, what about videoconferencing? Its never been mentioned that I know of. Its good enough for big business and lawyers so why can’t our lawmakers do the same thing? How many of those trips are unnecessary to begin with?

      • #2499237

        Probably more than

        by tonythetiger ·

        In reply to This just in . . .

        the number of lawmakers who are unnecessary to begin with 🙂

Viewing 4 reply threads