As I have provided in this thread from front to back more than one source for this story, it it takes someone with critical thinking skills , which is fairly easy one you see the aircraft types to see what aircraft will be used on a trip overseas. As you seem to be stuck on a comment I made, as to the number of aircraft and are lacking in critical thinking skills , I will help you, "what really struck me about that article is the number of aircraft they are actually taking to Denmark" I see no number mentioned in that remark, however in your hyper-partisan defense of the Speaker you choose to read between the lines and assume that there is something there when there isn't. The article mentioned 2 aircraft reserved by the speaker and the republicans mentioned 5 aircraft reserved. In fact, in another thread I mentioned this very very thing. The C32A's (757) which the speaker most likely reserved because A. that aircraft is ETOPS rated and is a other than the VC25 that the President flys is a long range aircraft, and thus the statement, based on it's operating costs and the costs associated with a large number of people using the tax payers dollars to travel on. While I tried to make it clear to you, that I am not defending republicans in this and at the same time saying that Pelosi is at fault alone, what I am saying is that she is the speaker of the house and as such should reflect the diginity of the office. Again, if you choose defend a person you support that is your right, but this is not a Speaker issue it an issue of spending money needlessly. This is just a little headsup for you, today, President Obama meet with world leaders at the conference that the Speaker took this large delagation too, China sent a low level delegate that has no power to enter into a treaty, so in short the trip was basically for a photo-op. If you feel that spenind the kind of money it takes to operate 757's and the expenses for all those that went is money well spent and at the same time wonder why there is little money for things such as healthcare, jobs, etc. then you know why.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nancy Pelosi is taking at least two Air Force jets to Copenhagen
- Thread starter thinblueline
- Start date
As I have provided in this thread from front to back more than one source for this story, it it takes someone with critical thinking skills , which is fairly easy one you see the aircraft types to see what aircraft will be used on a trip overseas. As you seem to be stuck on a comment I made, as to the number of aircraft and are lacking in critical thinking skills , I will help you, "what really struck me about that article is the number of aircraft they are actually taking to Denmark" I see no number mentioned in that remark, however in your hyper-partisan defense of the Speaker you choose to read between the lines and assume that there is something there when there isn't. The article mentioned 2 aircraft reserved by the speaker and the republicans mentioned 5 aircraft reserved. In fact, in another thread I mentioned this very very thing. The C32A's (757) which the speaker most likely reserved because A. that aircraft is ETOPS rated and is a other than the VC25 that the President flys is a long range aircraft, and thus the statement, based on it's operating costs and the costs associated with a large number of people using the tax payers dollars to travel on. While I tried to make it clear to you, that I am not defending republicans in this and at the same time saying that Pelosi is at fault alone, what I am saying is that she is the speaker of the house and as such should reflect the diginity of the office. Again, if you choose defend a person you support that is your right, but this is not a Speaker issue it an issue of spending money needlessly. This is just a little headsup for you, today, President Obama meet with world leaders at the conference that the Speaker took this large delagation too, China sent a low level delegate that has no power to enter into a treaty, so in short the trip was basically for a photo-op. If you feel that spenind the kind of money it takes to operate 757's and the expenses for all those that went is money well spent and at the same time wonder why there is little money for things such as healthcare, jobs, etc. then you know why.
drsmith1072
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 6,031
- 250
- 48
have someone read them to you, dolt.
Did you read it?? It doesn't list the aircraft being used it lists the aircraft that the 89th has at it's disposal.
arguing about what type(s) of plane she and her coterie took is so far beside the point as to be ludicrous. the point is that there is no purpose served by the trip itself.
apparently that's a little too complex for you to understand.
Oh and YES the type and number of aircraft are valid factors in deciding if it was truly wasteful or not. If they took a number and size of aircraft appropriate to the size of the group of dems and reps going then how can that be considered wasteful?
Furthermore, the "point" that you are basing you argument is nothing more than your OPINION.
Oh and navy, this is the type of poster that I was talking about who only wishes to blame pelosi and no one else despite the fact that it is a bipartisan trip that includes both democrats and republicans.
drsmith1072
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 6,031
- 250
- 48
As you didn't bother to read any of my other posts
ok I don't know about you but I read from front to back and I started at the beginning of this thread so what you said later was not read until I got to it. So am I take it that you read every single post in a thread BEFORE you respond in that thread??
WHAT DID I EDIT? I edited NOTHING nor did I take anything out of context so please explain your claim that I did.
Is that supposed to make any sense?? I read your later article. However, it is lacking in details as well so that point of mine is still valid.
So you argument is based on assumption. Thanks for clearing that up. Furthermore, I read your posts as I came to them and assumed nothing. However, you did and you admitted so.
Correct me if i am wrong but did you say "what really struck me about that article is the number of aircraft they are actually taking to Denmark" so if that is not a comment on the number of aircraft then what is??
and yet this thread is about blaming and attacking ONLY pelosi and I am merely defending her from unjust critcism based on the fact that she is NOT the only "party" at fault. Oh and in case you missed it in your zeal to attack her for the photo-op there is also a round table scheduled but I am sure that you left that out for a good reason. I wonder what that reason could be?
Of course your entitled to your opinion and if you believe that spending several hundred thousand dollars in a trip to Denmark for a photo-op when 450,000 Americans lost their jobs last moth is a good thing, then of course be my guest. I don't call that good conduct for a legislator especially for the Speaker of the House.
As you are entitled to your opinion. However, once again you CHOOSE to leave out details that don't suit your argument. Why is that??
As I have provided in this thread from front to back more than one source for this story, it it takes someone with critical thinking skills , which is fairly easy one you see the aircraft types to see what aircraft will be used on a trip overseas. As you seem to be stuck on a comment I made, as to the number of aircraft and are lacking in critical thinking skills , I will help you, "what really struck me about that article is the number of aircraft they are actually taking to Denmark" I see no number mentioned in that remark, however in your hyper-partisan defense of the Speaker you choose to read between the lines and assume that there is something there when there isn't. The article mentioned 2 aircraft reserved by the speaker and the republicans mentioned 5 aircraft reserved. In fact, in another thread I mentioned this very very thing. The C32A's (757) which the speaker most likely reserved because A. that aircraft is ETOPS rated and is a other than the VC25 that the President flys is a long range aircraft, and thus the statement, based on it's operating costs and the costs associated with a large number of people using the tax payers dollars to travel on. While I tried to make it clear to you, that I am not defending republicans in this and at the same time saying that Pelosi is at fault alone, what I am saying is that she is the speaker of the house and as such should reflect the diginity of the office. Again, if you choose defend a person you support that is your right, but this is not a Speaker issue it an issue of spending money needlessly. This is just a little headsup for you, today, President Obama meet with world leaders at the conference that the Speaker took this large delagation too, China sent a low level delegate that has no power to enter into a treaty, so in short the trip was basically for a photo-op. If you feel that spenind the kind of money it takes to operate 757's and the expenses for all those that went is money well spent and at the same time wonder why there is little money for things such as healthcare, jobs, etc. then you know why.
Ok let's see if i can spell this out for you and your alleged critical thinking skills.
1. I am not doubting that the trip exists. I am doubting the spin and assumption based attacks coming from the right and you have offered nothing to substantiate any of it and in fact have gave more reason to question it as you admit that you offer ASSUMPTION in lieu of facts.
2. A list of possible and available aircraft does not equal the exact number and type of aircraft used. Any attempt to claim you know for certain is nothing more than ASSUMPTION on your part.
3. I am not stuck on anything. You made the claim that the number of aircraft STRUCK you which would imply that you thought the number was high when there is NOTHING to substantiate such an ASSUMPTION. If that is not what you meant by that statement then please EXPLAIN.
4. You once again offer ASSUMPTION to try and substantiate your beliefs but I am so sad to tell you that I require something of more substance in order for me make a claim. It's sad that your standards are so low.
5. IF pelosi did request more aircraft than necessary then YES she has been wasteful. However, you offer NOTHING of substance to show that she has been wastefel. Furthermore, her merely taking a bipartisan delegation to conference as so many have done before here is hardly lacking of dignity.
6. it is ONLY your opinion that the money is spent needlessly A. because you disagree with the reason for the trip (climate change) B. you are looking for any reason to attack a democrat which seems to be the most likely case since the majority of your argument is based on assumption.
7. Back again with you leaving out facts that counter your argument. If you provide a source then all information in said source is fair game and you can't really pick and choose what is valid and what is not. If you claim that one comment from the article is invalid then that draws into question everything else in said article. So should we accept your source or discard it??
Oh and i am still waiting you to back up your allegation that i edited, took anything out of context or left anything out of your posts.
Last edited:
No, it's wasteful period, regardless of the type of aircraft they took to Denmark, want to know why? The reason is really simple, NOTHING will be accomplished in Denmark other than to take a few pictures with world leaders, and talk about Climate Change. If you believe that spending tax money to accomplish nopthing regardless of how much that is, is a good way to spend tax money then as I have said before your entitled to your opinion. Let me make this very clear to you, I could care less, what party the person belongs too, it does not excuse them from wastful spending.
Frequent flying by Congress is a growth industry...House members last year spent some 3,000 days overseas on taxpayer-funded trips, up from about 550 in 1995. This month, 11 separate congressional delegations will visit Germany.
The total cost for congressional overseas travel is never made public because the price tag for State Department advance teams and military planes used by lawmakers are folded into much larger budgets. Members of Congress must only report the total per diem reimbursements they receive in cash for hotels, meals and local transport.
They don't have to itemize expenses—a convenient arrangement since most costs are covered by the government or local hosts...Total per diem allowances (per person, including staff) can top $3,000 for a single trip. Unused funds are supposed to be given back to the government, but congressional records show that rarely happens.
Air Congress Scandal News | Judicial Watch
The Speaker of the House like it or not represents the leader and as such she is responsible for this kind of spending as long as she holds the office. If this sort of thing upsets you as to Speaker Pelosi, then I suggest you advocate she step down for that position.
Frequent flying by Congress is a growth industry...House members last year spent some 3,000 days overseas on taxpayer-funded trips, up from about 550 in 1995. This month, 11 separate congressional delegations will visit Germany.
The total cost for congressional overseas travel is never made public because the price tag for State Department advance teams and military planes used by lawmakers are folded into much larger budgets. Members of Congress must only report the total per diem reimbursements they receive in cash for hotels, meals and local transport.
They don't have to itemize expenses—a convenient arrangement since most costs are covered by the government or local hosts...Total per diem allowances (per person, including staff) can top $3,000 for a single trip. Unused funds are supposed to be given back to the government, but congressional records show that rarely happens.
Air Congress Scandal News | Judicial Watch
The Speaker of the House like it or not represents the leader and as such she is responsible for this kind of spending as long as she holds the office. If this sort of thing upsets you as to Speaker Pelosi, then I suggest you advocate she step down for that position.
If this isn't Hypocrisy, than I don't know what is! Nancy whats her face is taking 2 - 5 Air Force jets to Copenhagen for the climate summit along with her her limousine liberal friends like Charlie Rangel... This pompous Marxist hippy festival goes on while our country piles up a a deficit like we have never seen before, enjoying luxuries like limos, private jets, and fancy gourmet food while claiming that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of our consumption of WHAT? What a bunch of HYPOCRITES! Can anyone here tell me why Charlie "the Tax Cheat" Rangel is going?
And we hear Obama threatening us about the disaster we are in for if his crap sandwich of a bill is not passed.
They are having some very cold snowy weather over there, maybe it will snow sooooooo bad that she can't get out and they have to keep her over there until the spring thaw. They can keep Obama too.
drsmith1072
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 6,031
- 250
- 48
No, it's wasteful period, regardless of the type of aircraft they took to Denmark, want to know why? The reason is really simple, NOTHING will be accomplished in Denmark other than to take a few pictures with world leaders, and talk about Climate Change. If you believe that spending tax money to accomplish nopthing regardless of how much that is, is a good way to spend tax money then as I have said before your entitled to your opinion. Let me make this very clear to you, I could care less, what party the person belongs too, it does not excuse them from wastful spending.
Frequent flying by Congress is a growth industry...House members last year spent some 3,000 days overseas on taxpayer-funded trips, up from about 550 in 1995. This month, 11 separate congressional delegations will visit Germany.
The total cost for congressional overseas travel is never made public because the price tag for State Department advance teams and military planes used by lawmakers are folded into much larger budgets. Members of Congress must only report the total per diem reimbursements they receive in cash for hotels, meals and local transport.
They don't have to itemize expenses—a convenient arrangement since most costs are covered by the government or local hosts...Total per diem allowances (per person, including staff) can top $3,000 for a single trip. Unused funds are supposed to be given back to the government, but congressional records show that rarely happens.
Air Congress Scandal News | Judicial Watch
The Speaker of the House like it or not represents the leader and as such she is responsible for this kind of spending as long as she holds the office. If this sort of thing upsets you as to Speaker Pelosi, then I suggest you advocate she step down for that position.
And that is only your OPINION and you are entitled to it. However, since the trip is going to happen whether you agree or disagree and since this thread was about the fact that they are taking aircraft then it should be judged on its merits concernign the aircraft and whether or not the appropriate size and type of aircraft is used to transport the number of people going. That is the only way to determine if the trip itself is wasteful based on FACTS.
You disagree with the trip as a whole and I disagree with you and that is a matter of differing opinions. Neither is fact and neither can be proven. They can merely be expressed.
Last edited:
ed·it (dt)
tr.v. ed·it·ed, ed·it·ing, ed·its
1.
a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing
To answer your earlier question as to what is editing, futher if you wish to look for it you can can look on the Speakers site for a listing of the number of people that she took I have provided a link for you.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases
Just so you are aware , the Speakers history with military aircraft is not new, and given her history with such issues, it's not much takien in conjunction with the type of aircraft needed for a trip to Denmark to understand what was needed.
Earlier today, Pelosi responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.
Pentagon Rejects Speaker Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft - ABC News
Although lawmakers repeatedly chastised the private jet travel of government-bailed auto executives, the nation's so-called public servants have covertly allocated hundreds of millions of public dollars to buy fancy new airplanes to ferry them around the globe.
The three Gulfstream 550 jets—each costing about $65 million—will be purchased with a $332 million allotment that Congress conveniently slipped into a defense bill. Passed in the House last month, the measure originally included nearly $200 million for one executive jet but the House Appropriations Committee added an additional $132 million for two more, according to the Capitol Hill paper that broke the story this week.
$332 Million For New Luxury Jets To Ferry Congress | Judicial Watch
There is a history for this sort of thing, and it's wholly consistant with past issues on this matter to be critical of the Speaker as well as others for wasteful spending when it comes to the latest trip to Denmark.
tr.v. ed·it·ed, ed·it·ing, ed·its
1.
a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing
To answer your earlier question as to what is editing, futher if you wish to look for it you can can look on the Speakers site for a listing of the number of people that she took I have provided a link for you.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases
Just so you are aware , the Speakers history with military aircraft is not new, and given her history with such issues, it's not much takien in conjunction with the type of aircraft needed for a trip to Denmark to understand what was needed.
Earlier today, Pelosi responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.
Pentagon Rejects Speaker Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft - ABC News
Although lawmakers repeatedly chastised the private jet travel of government-bailed auto executives, the nation's so-called public servants have covertly allocated hundreds of millions of public dollars to buy fancy new airplanes to ferry them around the globe.
The three Gulfstream 550 jets—each costing about $65 million—will be purchased with a $332 million allotment that Congress conveniently slipped into a defense bill. Passed in the House last month, the measure originally included nearly $200 million for one executive jet but the House Appropriations Committee added an additional $132 million for two more, according to the Capitol Hill paper that broke the story this week.
$332 Million For New Luxury Jets To Ferry Congress | Judicial Watch
There is a history for this sort of thing, and it's wholly consistant with past issues on this matter to be critical of the Speaker as well as others for wasteful spending when it comes to the latest trip to Denmark.
drsmith1072
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 6,031
- 250
- 48
ed·it (dt)
tr.v. ed·it·ed, ed·it·ing, ed·its
1.
a. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
b. To prepare an edition of for publication: edit a collection of short stories.
c. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable: edited her remarks for presentation to a younger audience.
2. To supervise the publication of (a newspaper or magazine, for example).
3. To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing
To answer your earlier question as to what is editing, futher if you wish to look for it you can can look on the Speakers site for a listing of the number of people that she took I have provided a link for you.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi | News Room | Press Releases
Just so you are aware , the Speakers history with military aircraft is not new, and given her history with such issues, it's not much takien in conjunction with the type of aircraft needed for a trip to Denmark to understand what was needed.
Earlier today, Pelosi responded to Republican critics who have accused her of making unreasonable demands on the Pentagon for a luxurious airplane her Republican predecessor never requested.
"I want an aircraft that will reach California," Pelosi told reporters Wednesday afternoon, insisting that she doesn't care what kind of plane it is as long as it can fly nonstop to her home district.
Pentagon Rejects Speaker Pelosi's Request for Military Aircraft - ABC News
Although lawmakers repeatedly chastised the private jet travel of government-bailed auto executives, the nation's so-called public servants have covertly allocated hundreds of millions of public dollars to buy fancy new airplanes to ferry them around the globe.
The three Gulfstream 550 jets—each costing about $65 million—will be purchased with a $332 million allotment that Congress conveniently slipped into a defense bill. Passed in the House last month, the measure originally included nearly $200 million for one executive jet but the House Appropriations Committee added an additional $132 million for two more, according to the Capitol Hill paper that broke the story this week.
$332 Million For New Luxury Jets To Ferry Congress | Judicial Watch
There is a history for this sort of thing, and it's wholly consistant with past issues on this matter to be critical of the Speaker as well as others for wasteful spending when it comes to the latest trip to Denmark.
Your thoughts were not ASSEMBLED or editted in anyway to change their meaning through cutting and splicing. Your own choice of definition does NOT apply. I merely seperated the independent thoughts of your post so I could respond to them in a more clear manner and so you could know what I was responding to. Furthermore, I didn't ask "what is editing?" I asked what of yours did I edit? Based on the fact that you failed to supply anything that you claim I edited my guess is that you don't have anything REAL and that is why you decided to rephrase my question to suit your meaning.
And imagine that you once again respond by providing your ASSUMPTIONS as if they were fact. Her request for an aircraft that can make the flight from washington to california nonstop has NO bearing on this trip and you show your desperation as you try to claim that it does. That was a non-issue when republcians first brought it up so it's hilarious that you would try to bring it up now and link that to a bipartisan delegation when the two have NOTHING in common. LOL
Last edited:
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
As Del replied to a post about Inhofe going alone to Copenhagen to spend two hours on the ground:truthmatters thinks pelosi walked there.
I am guessing not but that seems to be how the republicans believe she and the others should get there since they are so against flying there. LOL This is just another example of the right trying to grasp at straws and make a mountain out of mole hill.
tell me. what does this group of congresspeople, dem and repub, add to the ongoing *summit*?
are they empowered to negotiate?
do they have expertise in *climate change* that will effect the outcome?
or are they just political hacks milking the taxpayers for all they're worth?
there's no reason for them to be there.
quote:
"wow.
a politician on a junket.
i'm shocked.
wow."
WHAT DID I EDIT? I edited NOTHING nor did I take anything out of context so please explain your claim that I did.
So based on that you did not assemble your argument or components by cutting and splicing from my post? That drsmith is called editing. Further, you spend a lot a time reading between the lines and making assumptions that are not there. The other issue you seem to take issue with is the fact that Speaker Pelosi has had a long history of issues with such matters a executive travel and these aircraft. These are not my talking points, nor are they smear tactics, but rather they are fact. It is a fact that congress this year added additional executive aircraft to the budget. it is a fact that congressional travel since 1997 has increased more than 300%, it is a fact that Speaker Pelosi travels to California on a US Military C32A and other US Military aircraft, it is a FACT that Speaker Pelosi reserved a number of aircraft for this recent trip to Denmark. I have provided you with more than enough sources to support these contentions , as well as the 89th's site itself in this very thread. If you choose to believe that all of this does not support my contention then that is your choice, however I do note a severe lack of supporting evidence in ALL of your posts to suggest otherwise.
So based on that you did not assemble your argument or components by cutting and splicing from my post? That drsmith is called editing. Further, you spend a lot a time reading between the lines and making assumptions that are not there. The other issue you seem to take issue with is the fact that Speaker Pelosi has had a long history of issues with such matters a executive travel and these aircraft. These are not my talking points, nor are they smear tactics, but rather they are fact. It is a fact that congress this year added additional executive aircraft to the budget. it is a fact that congressional travel since 1997 has increased more than 300%, it is a fact that Speaker Pelosi travels to California on a US Military C32A and other US Military aircraft, it is a FACT that Speaker Pelosi reserved a number of aircraft for this recent trip to Denmark. I have provided you with more than enough sources to support these contentions , as well as the 89th's site itself in this very thread. If you choose to believe that all of this does not support my contention then that is your choice, however I do note a severe lack of supporting evidence in ALL of your posts to suggest otherwise.
thinblueline
Member
- Thread starter
- #72
Nancy Pelosi is leading a large delegation on at least two Air Force jets and maybe as many as five to Copenhagen for the “climate” summit -- where participants harshly condemn the use of jet airplanes for the high amounts of CO2 they emit.
This may be the largest congressional delegation of free loaders to a “summit” that I have ever heard of.
And we're supposed to quit driving, replace all our light bulbs with stupid little gadgets filled with poisonous mercury, and hope that enough wind blows to power a windmill somewhere to light them. Pinch me if I’m wrong, but didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of such a privileged ruling aristocracy?
It seems Al Gore and Hugo Chavez are very popular over there. Obama and Pelosi will fit right in
This may be the largest congressional delegation of free loaders to a “summit” that I have ever heard of.
And we're supposed to quit driving, replace all our light bulbs with stupid little gadgets filled with poisonous mercury, and hope that enough wind blows to power a windmill somewhere to light them. Pinch me if I’m wrong, but didn't we fight a war to rid ourselves of such a privileged ruling aristocracy?
It seems Al Gore and Hugo Chavez are very popular over there. Obama and Pelosi will fit right in
drsmith1072
Senior Member
- Jul 30, 2009
- 6,031
- 250
- 48
WHAT DID I EDIT? I edited NOTHING nor did I take anything out of context so please explain your claim that I did.
So based on that you did not assemble your argument or components by cutting and splicing from my post? That drsmith is called editing. Further, you spend a lot a time reading between the lines and making assumptions that are not there. The other issue you seem to take issue with is the fact that Speaker Pelosi has had a long history of issues with such matters a executive travel and these aircraft. These are not my talking points, nor are they smear tactics, but rather they are fact. It is a fact that congress this year added additional executive aircraft to the budget. it is a fact that congressional travel since 1997 has increased more than 300%, it is a fact that Speaker Pelosi travels to California on a US Military C32A and other US Military aircraft, it is a FACT that Speaker Pelosi reserved a number of aircraft for this recent trip to Denmark. I have provided you with more than enough sources to support these contentions , as well as the 89th's site itself in this very thread. If you choose to believe that all of this does not support my contention then that is your choice, however I do note a severe lack of supporting evidence in ALL of your posts to suggest otherwise.
According to your use of the term "edit" you imply that I changed the meaning or context of your post but that fact is that is NOT the case. I will ask a few simple questions that will show you that I did NOT "edit" your post and let's see if you can follow along.
Here is the definition that YOU chose.
To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing
1. Did I CUT or remove anything from the content of your post? NO
2. Did I SPLICE together parts of your post and ASSEMBLE them into something different than how they began? NO.
Face it and do the honest thing and admit that I did not "edit" your post.
As to the rest of your post, you are once again trying to link to issues that should not be linked because they have NO bearing on each other, well that is just more dishonesty from you in a lame attempt to cover for the fact that you tried to insert your OPINION as if it were fact when you made your assumption based arguments. Oh and once more you try to dishonestly claim that I said the trip did not occur when I readilly admit that the trip itself was real but the assumption based rants of posters such as yourself are NOT.
That was the SECOND time that you dishonestly tried to claim that I am doubting that the trip exists and this is the second time that I will correct you. Will you admit that you are WRONG, again, or will you continue to be dishonest about it?
Has any further info came out about this? Do we know what was actually used and was it appropriate for the size of the group going??
del
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #74
WHAT DID I EDIT? I edited NOTHING nor did I take anything out of context so please explain your claim that I did.
So based on that you did not assemble your argument or components by cutting and splicing from my post? That drsmith is called editing. Further, you spend a lot a time reading between the lines and making assumptions that are not there. The other issue you seem to take issue with is the fact that Speaker Pelosi has had a long history of issues with such matters a executive travel and these aircraft. These are not my talking points, nor are they smear tactics, but rather they are fact. It is a fact that congress this year added additional executive aircraft to the budget. it is a fact that congressional travel since 1997 has increased more than 300%, it is a fact that Speaker Pelosi travels to California on a US Military C32A and other US Military aircraft, it is a FACT that Speaker Pelosi reserved a number of aircraft for this recent trip to Denmark. I have provided you with more than enough sources to support these contentions , as well as the 89th's site itself in this very thread. If you choose to believe that all of this does not support my contention then that is your choice, however I do note a severe lack of supporting evidence in ALL of your posts to suggest otherwise.
According to your use of the term "edit" you imply that I changed the meaning or context of your post but that fact is that is NOT the case. I will ask a few simple questions that will show you that I did NOT "edit" your post and let's see if you can follow along.
Here is the definition that YOU chose.
To assemble the components of (a film or soundtrack, for example), as by cutting and splicing
1. Did I CUT or remove anything from the content of your post? NO
2. Did I SPLICE together parts of your post and ASSEMBLE them into something different than how they began? NO.
Face it and do the honest thing and admit that I did not "edit" your post.
As to the rest of your post, you are once again trying to link to issues that should not be linked because they have NO bearing on each other, well that is just more dishonesty from you in a lame attempt to cover for the fact that you tried to insert your OPINION as if it were fact when you made your assumption based arguments. Oh and once more you try to dishonestly claim that I said the trip did not occur when I readilly admit that the trip itself was real but the assumption based rants of posters such as yourself are NOT.
That was the SECOND time that you dishonestly tried to claim that I am doubting that the trip exists and this is the second time that I will correct you. Will you admit that you are WRONG, again, or will you continue to be dishonest about it?
Has any further info came out about this? Do we know what was actually used and was it appropriate for the size of the group going??
lighten up, francis.
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.
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 Administration’s 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
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
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.
Thats called cutting from my own post i.e. Editing, simple concept to understand.
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 Administration’s 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
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
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.
Political Junky
Gold Member
- May 27, 2009
- 25,793
- 3,990
- 280
Inhofe went all by himself and attended no meetings. After two hours on the ground he flew back to the US, accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Every dime spent on Copenhagen was a total waste.
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
Inhofe went all by himself and attended no meetings. After two hours on the ground he flew back to the US, accomplishing absolutely nothing.
except for attending meetings and staying longer, that's precisely what obama did.
do we sing kumbaya now, or later?
Probably got there in time to see Obama stomp his feet after getting owned by the Chinese. With all the flooding from global warming wouldn't Barry Row the Boat Ashore be more appropriate?
R
rdean
Guest
If this isn't Hypocrisy, than I don't know what is! Nancy whats her face is taking 2 - 5 Air Force jets to Copenhagen for the climate summit along with her her limousine liberal friends like Charlie Rangel... This pompous Marxist hippy festival goes on while our country piles up a a deficit like we have never seen before, enjoying luxuries like limos, private jets, and fancy gourmet food while claiming that the world is going to hell in a handbasket because of our consumption of WHAT? What a bunch of HYPOCRITES! Can anyone here tell me why Charlie "the Tax Cheat" Rangel is going?
And we hear Obama threatening us about the disaster we are in for if his crap sandwich of a bill is not passed.
It used to be the Speaker didn't get a jet at all, but because of 9/11, Bush and the Republicans insisted the Speaker go by military transport because he/she is in line to become president. And that's a fact.
This is true, and it makes sense. But this trip to the do nothing conference is still a waste of our money.
How do you know that? Is it a guess?
Similar threads
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 371
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 19
- Views
- 109
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 15
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8043
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-