Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOL laugh?? What do you think I have been doing at your expense through this whole episode of you attacking me as you ran away from the debate?? LOL
Furthermore, correct me if I am wrong but didn't this thread start with righties whining about the waste of pelosi as they ignored the waste of one of their own? Then after that argument fell flat you started trying to change the subject so you could whine about obama. Then after I called you out for that BS you started whining as you focused your baseless attacks on me personal in a desperate attempt to CYA. You are nothing but whining. LOL
you're whining again.
That's the best you've got?? To falsely accuse me of whining because I pointed out YOUR whines?? LOL Thanks for showing that you have NOTHING to offer.
You can run along now. However, since you have been running for a while now it's not like much will change. LOL
you're whining again.
That's the best you've got?? To falsely accuse me of whining because I pointed out YOUR whines?? LOL Thanks for showing that you have NOTHING to offer.
You can run along now. However, since you have been running for a while now it's not like much will change. LOL
tissue?
One more thing in reference to my last post. thats called editing when I took you comment and responded to it.
Thats called cutting from my own post i.e. Editing, simple concept to understand.
There is a HUGE difference between CUTTING and then REMOVING a part from the whole which is what you did and merely spacing between independent thoughts so i could respond to each individual thought and you could know what I was responding to which is what I did.
However, Yes it is a simple concept so I am still dismayed at how you fail to grasp it.
Oh and I am going to do the same now so don't freak out.
Here is a partial list of those who went on the trip with the Speaker, easily verified by any number if sources.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
Chairman George Miller, Committee on Education and Labor
Chairman Henry Waxman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Chairman Ed Markey, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
Chairman Charles Rangel, Committee on Ways and Means
Chairman Bart Gordon, Committee on Science and Technology
Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), Ranking Member, Select Committee on Energy
Independence and Global Warming
Committee on Science and Technology
Congressman Sander Levin (D-MI), Committee on Ways and Means
Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX), Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI), Committee on Energy and Commerce
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming
Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), Committee on Energy and Commerce
Congressman Jay Inslee (D-WA), Committee on Energy and Commerce
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Select Committee on Energy Independence and
Global Warming
Congressman John Sullivan (R-OK), Committee on Energy and Commerce
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global
Warming
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Committee on Energy and Commerce
Pelosi Sends Overnight Delegation To Copenhagen | TPMDC
Washington, D.C. Speaker Nancy Pelosi will lead a Congressional Delegation to Copenhagen, Denmark for the UN Climate Conference.
The House of Representatives has taken historic action to address the climate crisis and transition our country to a clean energy economy, Speaker Pelosi said. We see Copenhagen as a meeting about job creation how do we move forward to create millions of clean energy jobs and new technologies to keep America number one. We are going to send a message of support for the Obama Administrations efforts and we bring with us the strong commitment of the Congress to take action, as the House of Representatives did in June.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases
Nice list of democrats AND republicans. However, I don't see a problem with the trip and you do. That is a matter of differing opinions and nothing more.
The C-40 B/C provides safe, comfortable and reliable transportation for U.S. leaders to locations around the world. The C-40B's primary customers are the combatant commanders and C-40C customers include members of the Cabinet and Congress. The aircraft also perform other operational support missions.
Features
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
Factsheets : C-40B/C
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.
Factsheets : 89th Airlift Wing
That's nice and all but what aircraft were actually taken?? Any tool can go and get a description of aircraft and post it but what does that have to do with what was actualy taken?
Here's what is known, The President took 2 aircraft to Copenhagen both VC-25's one a primary and the other a backup as he does everytime he travels and this does not inculde the C-17's that are loaded with his car's. We also know that the First Lady traveled to Denmark in a VC-32A because there are several images of her getting off a VC-32A in Denmark. Further based on the size of the congressional group and the aircraft avialable, and from various news reports we know that the Speaker took took aircraft. Both of them likely VC-32A's if not one was a C-40B both long range boeing products. So this trip all in an effort to reduce CO2 and talk about Global Warming resulted in no less than 7 Aircraft going to Denmark in an attempt to talk about CO2 and climate change. It doesn't take a much to understand the nature of fuel costs for both of those aircraft types to understand how much this trip actually cost. Further based on the Speakers long history of air travel matters this type of issue is not surprising.
What do the types of aircraft taken by the president and first lady have to do with the type of aircraft taken by the congressional delegation?? NOTHING. You are grasping at straws out of desperation and once again making ASSUMPTIONS and presenting them as fact. I am still wiaitng on you to back up your assumptions with something REAL. LOL
See that not one thing was cut, removed or edited from your post. Do you get it yet or does that simple concept still confuse you?
One more thing in reference to my last post. thats called editing when I took you comment and responded to it.
Thats called cutting from my own post i.e. Editing, simple concept to understand.
There is a HUGE difference between CUTTING and then REMOVING a part from the whole which is what you did and merely spacing between independent thoughts so i could respond to each individual thought and you could know what I was responding to which is what I did.
However, Yes it is a simple concept so I am still dismayed at how you fail to grasp it.
Oh and I am going to do the same now so don't freak out.
Nice list of democrats AND republicans. However, I don't see a problem with the trip and you do. That is a matter of differing opinions and nothing more.
That's nice and all but what aircraft were actually taken?? Any tool can go and get a description of aircraft and post it but what does that have to do with what was actualy taken?
Here's what is known, The President took 2 aircraft to Copenhagen both VC-25's one a primary and the other a backup as he does everytime he travels and this does not inculde the C-17's that are loaded with his car's. We also know that the First Lady traveled to Denmark in a VC-32A because there are several images of her getting off a VC-32A in Denmark. Further based on the size of the congressional group and the aircraft avialable, and from various news reports we know that the Speaker took took aircraft. Both of them likely VC-32A's if not one was a C-40B both long range boeing products. So this trip all in an effort to reduce CO2 and talk about Global Warming resulted in no less than 7 Aircraft going to Denmark in an attempt to talk about CO2 and climate change. It doesn't take a much to understand the nature of fuel costs for both of those aircraft types to understand how much this trip actually cost. Further based on the Speakers long history of air travel matters this type of issue is not surprising.
What do the types of aircraft taken by the president and first lady have to do with the type of aircraft taken by the congressional delegation?? NOTHING. You are grasping at straws out of desperation and once again making ASSUMPTIONS and presenting them as fact. I am still wiaitng on you to back up your assumptions with something REAL. LOL
See that not one thing was cut, removed or edited from your post. Do you get it yet or does that simple concept still confuse you?
drsmith, editing is a very simple concept to grasp, and it seems that as you seem to be locked onto the subject of editing and unable to admit that when someone takes parts of text from commentary and pastes it into a thread regardless of how they choose to parse it that is called editing. If you were to walk into ANY news agency, school, or any facilty that uses a word processor for any means and ask, then you may begin to understand what I am talking about. However in reference to the actual aircraft that were taken to Denmark its very easy to understand which one's were taken if you can also grasp the concept of deductive reasoning. I have provided you with more than enough evidence to support my claims and if you choose not to believe them because of your blind faith in the Speaker then of course your entitled to do so. If however, if you need any further confirmation, there is a way to verify it and that is to pick up the phone and call the 89th Liason Officer and ask them which aircraft were taken by the Speaker to Denmark, if you do not get any satisfaction there, then perhaps file an FOI request for the information or you can always use deductive reasoning to get the answers as well based on numerous sources. Forgive me but, I cannot hold your hand an walk you over to Andrews so that you will be able to understand this concept, so it does require a little individual effort on your part to actually do a little more than just read the Speakers press clippings.
drsmith, If you wish to debate me in the future then I suggest that you also come with facts rather than accusations and then resort to name calling.. I am going to leave you with following facts, and because your deductive reasoning skills are somewhat lacking in that area, it's my hope that you will be able to keep up.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 05-0932 (CN: 34808) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-40B by Kim Vanvik
The first image is a C-40B arriving in Norway on the 28th of Nov. of this year. That aircraft is ETOPS certified and is capable of carrying a congressional group of 21 members. However, if you add staff and family beyond the aircrafts capability then you must upgrade to a C-32A.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 98-0002 (CN: 29026) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-32A by Soren Madsen - CPH Aviation
That is an image of a C-32A arriving in DENMARK on the 30th of Sept. of this year also ETOPS certified and capable of carrying a group and staff the size of the Speakers. What we do know is this, according to the 89th Airlift wing and MANY MANY Sources 2 aircraft were taken to Denmark. In order to fly over water and and those extended ranges. with a group that size that leaves the C-32A or the C40B both of which operationally will cost around 140K per trip in fuel cost.
That is Michelle Obama arriving on a C-32 A (757-200) in Denmark. Your conclusions as to what I have provided for you lack an clear ability to understand the nature of VIP Travel for members of congress and long range aircraft required to do so. While I understand that you are a supporter of the Speaker and you are well within your rights to support whomever you wish, however, when you resort to name calling and no clear evidence to refute any of my assertions then you begin to show that you lack the basic skills needed to debate on this topic. When you aquire them of course I will be happy to continue to debate you.
drsmith, If you wish to debate me in the future then I suggest that you also come with facts rather than accusations and then resort to name calling.. I am going to leave you with following facts, and because your deductive reasoning skills are somewhat lacking in that area, it's my hope that you will be able to keep up.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 05-0932 (CN: 34808) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-40B by Kim Vanvik
The first image is a C-40B arriving in Norway on the 28th of Nov. of this year. That aircraft is ETOPS certified and is capable of carrying a congressional group of 21 members. However, if you add staff and family beyond the aircrafts capability then you must upgrade to a C-32A.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 98-0002 (CN: 29026) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-32A by Soren Madsen - CPH Aviation
That is an image of a C-32A arriving in DENMARK on the 30th of Sept. of this year also ETOPS certified and capable of carrying a group and staff the size of the Speakers. What we do know is this, according to the 89th Airlift wing and MANY MANY Sources 2 aircraft were taken to Denmark. In order to fly over water and and those extended ranges. with a group that size that leaves the C-32A or the C40B both of which operationally will cost around 140K per trip in fuel cost.
That is Michelle Obama arriving on a C-32 A (757-200) in Denmark. Your conclusions as to what I have provided for you lack an clear ability to understand the nature of VIP Travel for members of congress and long range aircraft required to do so. While I understand that you are a supporter of the Speaker and you are well within your rights to support whomever you wish, however, when you resort to name calling and no clear evidence to refute any of my assertions then you begin to show that you lack the basic skills needed to debate on this topic. When you aquire them of course I will be happy to continue to debate you.
So it's ok for you to "resiort to name calling" but if you get the same returned to you, THEN you get offended?? LOL
Furthermore, you have to PROVE your own claims which you have FAILED to do. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claims and is not on me to prove you wrong.
BTW did you happen to notice how you attacked me for name calling and then engage in personal attacks immedaitely following your attack?? Thanks for showing that you are not only dishonest but also a hypocrite. LOL
I don't know how it can be explained in order for you to understand that merely cutting and pasting a fact sheet about the specifications of the types of aircraft available does NOT prove which type of aircraft was actually used.
Face it, you presented an OPINION as to what type you BELIEVE was used and that is all you have offered.
Furthermore, the type of aircraft used by the first lady has absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of aircraft used by the house delegation. Once again you show your dishonesty as you try to link to things that are NOT related.
Oh well it's not as if you being dishonest is a surprise after all you tried TWICE to falsely claim that i said the trip didn't occur when I NEVER said anything of the sort. So your continued dishonesty isn't anything new.
drsmith, If you wish to debate me in the future then I suggest that you also come with facts rather than accusations and then resort to name calling.. I am going to leave you with following facts, and because your deductive reasoning skills are somewhat lacking in that area, it's my hope that you will be able to keep up.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 05-0932 (CN: 34808) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-40B by Kim Vanvik
The first image is a C-40B arriving in Norway on the 28th of Nov. of this year. That aircraft is ETOPS certified and is capable of carrying a congressional group of 21 members. However, if you add staff and family beyond the aircrafts capability then you must upgrade to a C-32A.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 98-0002 (CN: 29026) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-32A by Soren Madsen - CPH Aviation
That is an image of a C-32A arriving in DENMARK on the 30th of Sept. of this year also ETOPS certified and capable of carrying a group and staff the size of the Speakers. What we do know is this, according to the 89th Airlift wing and MANY MANY Sources 2 aircraft were taken to Denmark. In order to fly over water and and those extended ranges. with a group that size that leaves the C-32A or the C40B both of which operationally will cost around 140K per trip in fuel cost.
That is Michelle Obama arriving on a C-32 A (757-200) in Denmark. Your conclusions as to what I have provided for you lack an clear ability to understand the nature of VIP Travel for members of congress and long range aircraft required to do so. While I understand that you are a supporter of the Speaker and you are well within your rights to support whomever you wish, however, when you resort to name calling and no clear evidence to refute any of my assertions then you begin to show that you lack the basic skills needed to debate on this topic. When you aquire them of course I will be happy to continue to debate you.
So it's ok for you to "resiort to name calling" but if you get the same returned to you, THEN you get offended?? LOL
Furthermore, you have to PROVE your own claims which you have FAILED to do. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claims and is not on me to prove you wrong.
BTW did you happen to notice how you attacked me for name calling and then engage in personal attacks immedaitely following your attack?? Thanks for showing that you are not only dishonest but also a hypocrite. LOL
I don't know how it can be explained in order for you to understand that merely cutting and pasting a fact sheet about the specifications of the types of aircraft available does NOT prove which type of aircraft was actually used.
Face it, you presented an OPINION as to what type you BELIEVE was used and that is all you have offered.
Furthermore, the type of aircraft used by the first lady has absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of aircraft used by the house delegation. Once again you show your dishonesty as you try to link to things that are NOT related.
Oh well it's not as if you being dishonest is a surprise after all you tried TWICE to falsely claim that i said the trip didn't occur when I NEVER said anything of the sort. So your continued dishonesty isn't anything new.
drsmith, If you wish to debate me in the future then I suggest that you also come with facts rather than accusations and then resort to name calling.. I am going to leave you with following facts, and because your deductive reasoning skills are somewhat lacking in that area, it's my hope that you will be able to keep up.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 05-0932 (CN: 34808) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-40B by Kim Vanvik
The first image is a C-40B arriving in Norway on the 28th of Nov. of this year. That aircraft is ETOPS certified and is capable of carrying a congressional group of 21 members. However, if you add staff and family beyond the aircrafts capability then you must upgrade to a C-32A.
JetPhotos.Net Photo » 98-0002 (CN: 29026) United States - US Air Force (USAF) Boeing C-32A by Soren Madsen - CPH Aviation
That is an image of a C-32A arriving in DENMARK on the 30th of Sept. of this year also ETOPS certified and capable of carrying a group and staff the size of the Speakers. What we do know is this, according to the 89th Airlift wing and MANY MANY Sources 2 aircraft were taken to Denmark. In order to fly over water and and those extended ranges. with a group that size that leaves the C-32A or the C40B both of which operationally will cost around 140K per trip in fuel cost.
That is Michelle Obama arriving on a C-32 A (757-200) in Denmark. Your conclusions as to what I have provided for you lack an clear ability to understand the nature of VIP Travel for members of congress and long range aircraft required to do so. While I understand that you are a supporter of the Speaker and you are well within your rights to support whomever you wish, however, when you resort to name calling and no clear evidence to refute any of my assertions then you begin to show that you lack the basic skills needed to debate on this topic. When you aquire them of course I will be happy to continue to debate you.
So it's ok for you to "resiort to name calling" but if you get the same returned to you, THEN you get offended?? LOL
Furthermore, you have to PROVE your own claims which you have FAILED to do. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claims and is not on me to prove you wrong.
BTW did you happen to notice how you attacked me for name calling and then engage in personal attacks immedaitely following your attack?? Thanks for showing that you are not only dishonest but also a hypocrite. LOL
I don't know how it can be explained in order for you to understand that merely cutting and pasting a fact sheet about the specifications of the types of aircraft available does NOT prove which type of aircraft was actually used.
Face it, you presented an OPINION as to what type you BELIEVE was used and that is all you have offered.
Furthermore, the type of aircraft used by the first lady has absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of aircraft used by the house delegation. Once again you show your dishonesty as you try to link to things that are NOT related.
Oh well it's not as if you being dishonest is a surprise after all you tried TWICE to falsely claim that i said the trip didn't occur when I NEVER said anything of the sort. So your continued dishonesty isn't anything new.
what a dope.
So it's ok for you to "resiort to name calling" but if you get the same returned to you, THEN you get offended?? LOL
Furthermore, you have to PROVE your own claims which you have FAILED to do. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claims and is not on me to prove you wrong.
BTW did you happen to notice how you attacked me for name calling and then engage in personal attacks immedaitely following your attack?? Thanks for showing that you are not only dishonest but also a hypocrite. LOL
I don't know how it can be explained in order for you to understand that merely cutting and pasting a fact sheet about the specifications of the types of aircraft available does NOT prove which type of aircraft was actually used.
Face it, you presented an OPINION as to what type you BELIEVE was used and that is all you have offered.
Furthermore, the type of aircraft used by the first lady has absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of aircraft used by the house delegation. Once again you show your dishonesty as you try to link to things that are NOT related.
Oh well it's not as if you being dishonest is a surprise after all you tried TWICE to falsely claim that i said the trip didn't occur when I NEVER said anything of the sort. So your continued dishonesty isn't anything new.
what a dope.
Thanks for admitting that. you know the first step is to admit that YOU have a problem. LOL
I do find it funny how many righties love to chime in to attack other posters and offer nothing of substance to the thread. Oh well, maybe they haven't been told what to think on that topic yet so they don't have a clue as to what argument they should present. LOL
what a dope.
Thanks for admitting that. you know the first step is to admit that YOU have a problem. LOL
I do find it funny how many righties love to chime in to attack other posters and offer nothing of substance to the thread. Oh well, maybe they haven't been told what to think on that topic yet so they don't have a clue as to what argument they should present. LOL
So it's ok for you to "resiort to name calling" but if you get the same returned to you, THEN you get offended?? LOL
Furthermore, you have to PROVE your own claims which you have FAILED to do. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove your claims and is not on me to prove you wrong.
BTW did you happen to notice how you attacked me for name calling and then engage in personal attacks immedaitely following your attack?? Thanks for showing that you are not only dishonest but also a hypocrite. LOL
I don't know how it can be explained in order for you to understand that merely cutting and pasting a fact sheet about the specifications of the types of aircraft available does NOT prove which type of aircraft was actually used.
Face it, you presented an OPINION as to what type you BELIEVE was used and that is all you have offered.
Furthermore, the type of aircraft used by the first lady has absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of aircraft used by the house delegation. Once again you show your dishonesty as you try to link to things that are NOT related.
Oh well it's not as if you being dishonest is a surprise after all you tried TWICE to falsely claim that i said the trip didn't occur when I NEVER said anything of the sort. So your continued dishonesty isn't anything new.
what a dope.
Thanks for admitting that. you know the first step is to admit that YOU have a problem. LOL
I do find it funny how many righties love to chime in to attack other posters and offer nothing of substance to the thread. Oh well, maybe they haven't been told what to think on that topic yet so they don't have a clue as to what argument they should present. LOL
what a dope.
Thanks for admitting that. you know the first step is to admit that YOU have a problem. LOL
I do find it funny how many righties love to chime in to attack other posters and offer nothing of substance to the thread. Oh well, maybe they haven't been told what to think on that topic yet so they don't have a clue as to what argument they should present. LOL
woof
Thanks for admitting that. you know the first step is to admit that YOU have a problem. LOL
I do find it funny how many righties love to chime in to attack other posters and offer nothing of substance to the thread. Oh well, maybe they haven't been told what to think on that topic yet so they don't have a clue as to what argument they should present. LOL
woof
So you are admitting that you are the dog, can't understand common english and only responds to your name?? LOL Do you have anything to add to the topic or are you only a troll like meister??
woof
So you are admitting that you are the dog, can't understand common english and only responds to your name?? LOL Do you have anything to add to the topic or are you only a troll like meister??
i enjoy a dancing monkey as much as the next guy.
So you are admitting that you are the dog, can't understand common english and only responds to your name?? LOL Do you have anything to add to the topic or are you only a troll like meister??
i enjoy a dancing monkey as much as the next guy.
Thanks for showing that you are in fact nothing but a troll like meister and have nothing valid to add. LOL
i enjoy a dancing monkey as much as the next guy.
Thanks for showing that you are in fact nothing but a troll like meister and have nothing valid to add. LOL
are those new tap shoes?
nice.
