|
|
#42
02-14-2007, 01:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
[ QUOTE ]
Look at what's going on with our government and you want to talk about Pelosi's plane? Is that even a material matter? [/ QUOTE ] Allow me to re-post what I wrote in my last two paragraphs since you may have skipped reading them: It's not about Pelosi per se, it's about the baloney that politicians are feeding the public constantly. The public wants something different but it appears that we're seeing the same baloney we always see. The inside the beltway elitism continues on at the taxpayers expense. The other interesting thing to me is the kneejerk reactions of posters have. The first thing Pelosi supporters do is try to justify thee need for the plane while if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak you'd here a much complaining about Republicans abusing power. The idea that Democrats have the high ground regarding ethics in government is completely absurd. 
|
|
#43
02-14-2007, 01:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
[ QUOTE ]
The first thing Pelosi supporters do is try to justify thee need for the plane while if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak you'd here a much complaining about Republicans abusing power. [/ QUOTE ] Apparently Hastert had been using his plane since just after 9/11. Link to posts by the 'Pelosi supporters' attacking that in the past 5 years?
|
|
#44
02-14-2007, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't take that long to refuel at an Air Force base does it? I haven't understood the logic used to defend her that Hastert lived closer so he didn't need as big of a government plane. I don't understand why landing for a refueling stop at an Air Force base is a security issue either. Could someone clear this up for me? iron81 will soon be locking this too I'm sure. This is a legitimate question since Pelosi has more or less stated that Republicans abused their power and this is basically an abuse on her part. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think that it is just about having to stop to refuel. It is about being able to turn around and go back mid-flight without stopping, and/or being able to divert to other locations mid-flight in the event of some sort of national security crisis. So a plane that can travel 2000 miles is fine for Hastert to go back and forth between IL and DC since that trip is only 700 miles one way. 1300 miles of extra capacity would allow him to divert mid-flight to many locations. Pelosi has to go coast to coast, so you would want to have extra capacity built in to the plane. If both the Cheney and Bush were assassinated, you would want the next person in line back in D.C. as fast as possible to show the world that the country was not in shambles. Or be able to safely change course to an "undisclosed location". Whether or not there is a high enough risk of assassination attempt/terrorist attack on the President and Vice President to justify this security measure is a different question entirely. Only the Secret Service/CIA/etc can answer that.
|
|
#45
02-14-2007, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
[ QUOTE ]
Look at what's going on with our government and you want to talk about Pelosi's plane? Is that even a material matter? [/ QUOTE ] QFT, If pelosi's plane was the most important issue right now I'd never complain about government again. Well, I can't promise that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#46
02-14-2007, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Look at what's going on with our government and you want to talk about Pelosi's plane? Is that even a material matter? [/ QUOTE ] QFT, If pelosi's plane was the most important issue right now I'd never complain about government again. Well, I can't promise that. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] This is not a seperate issue. It all ties together. This is what happens when you can offload costs. It really doesn't matter if they wage wars of aggression with it or buy bigger airplanes than the ones they already bought with our money (or build bridges to nowhere, send people to the moon, monopoly education and healthcare and run it into the ground, etc, etc). The problem is that it's a violent monopoly. It's extortion on the grandest scale. ...yet people keep waving their flags...
|
|
#47
02-16-2007, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
I just read that Leonardo DiCaprio flies commercial. If it's good enough for our nation's most precious natural resource, I think it's safe enough for some gasbag nobody like Pelosi.
|
|
#48
02-16-2007, 03:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Why Does Nancy Pelosi Need to Fly Non Stop?
Hi all, first time politics poster, just stumbled into this thread. I'd like to figure out a little bit about what's going on in the country and this forum is probably a good place for that.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It doesn't take that long to refuel at an Air Force base does it? I haven't understood the logic used to defend her that Hastert lived closer so he didn't need as big of a government plane. I don't understand why landing for a refueling stop at an Air Force base is a security issue either. Could someone clear this up for me? iron81 will soon be locking this too I'm sure. This is a legitimate question since Pelosi has more or less stated that Republicans abused their power and this is basically an abuse on her part. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think that it is just about having to stop to refuel. It is about being able to turn around and go back mid-flight without stopping, and/or being able to divert to other locations mid-flight in the event of some sort of national security crisis. So a plane that can travel 2000 miles is fine for Hastert to go back and forth between IL and DC since that trip is only 700 miles one way. 1300 miles of extra capacity would allow him to divert mid-flight to many locations. Pelosi has to go coast to coast, so you would want to have extra capacity built in to the plane. If both the Cheney and Bush were assassinated, you would want the next person in line back in D.C. as fast as possible to show the world that the country was not in shambles. Or be able to safely change course to an "undisclosed location". Whether or not there is a high enough risk of assassination attempt/terrorist attack on the President and Vice President to justify this security measure is a different question entirely. Only the Secret Service/CIA/etc can answer that. [/ QUOTE ] I like this analysis. It seems that the real information we need to judge the situation is out of our hands. The Pentagon's decision, according to the ABC article already linked, implies that the current plane is just fine for security measures (right?). Anyway, [ QUOTE ] There is also the C-37A -- a military version of the Gulf Stream 5, which is about the same size as the C-20, but is able to fly nonstop to California. One military source who asked not to be identified says that it may be that Pelosi and her aides were shown a C-37A and didn't understand that it was different and more potent than a C-20, since they look so similar. [/ QUOTE ] This tidbit from The ABC article would be a good compromise...
|
|
#49
02-16-2007, 03:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What a waste (of my time)
[ QUOTE ]
It was neither interesting nor was the event in question any type of waste, scandal or stupidity. It seems like the only event was someone from Pelosi's office inquiring into the rules for who can fly. As in "we don't want to break any rules, what are they?" Exactly what you'd expect from a responsible person who has just got to power. [/ QUOTE ] My initial reaction as well. Not worth the dicussion unless there is some actual threat/problem underlying the media attention.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
