FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7983
And they bashed the car companies for private jets...MarkCCU wrote:to ferry themselves around. I guess this is part of the stimulus package.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:MarkCCU wrote:to ferry themselves around. I guess this is part of the stimulus package.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
never let logic get in the way of a good strawman capn...Cap'n Cat wrote:Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:MarkCCU wrote:to ferry themselves around. I guess this is part of the stimulus package.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
Hilarious how Conks like you kneejerk at headlines and ignore the other side of the story. Kinda like you in the "Kids and Politics" thing, eh, Hoagie
Conks must die.
Screw them...I'm on the inside and know better...what that article contains is for public (read, the sheep like you) consumption...Cap'n Cat wrote:Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:MarkCCU wrote:to ferry themselves around. I guess this is part of the stimulus package.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
But military analysts said the private jets, despite the high price tag, may be worth the money because of the security and efficiency they provide to high-ranking public officials.
Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute, said, “In the case of the VIP transport for the executive branch, you can easily explain the cost [of private travel] in terms of the risk of somebody being taken hostage or having their time wasted when a critical decision is pending.”
Thompson pointed out that the cost of the plane would be peanuts compared to the cost to the nation if a top official were taken hostage or harmed taking a commercial flight to a dangerous region of the world.
and
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
Hilarious how Conks like you kneejerk at headlines and ignore the other side of the story. Kinda like you in the "Kids and Politics" thing, eh, Hoagie
Conks must die.
Cap'n Caaaaa...aaaatCol Hogan wrote:
Screw them...I'm on the inside and know better...what that article contains is for public (read, the sheep like you) consumption...
Col Hogan wrote:Screw them...I'm on the inside and know better...what that article contains is for public (read, the sheep like you) consumption...Cap'n Cat wrote:
Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:
But military analysts said the private jets, despite the high price tag, may be worth the money because of the security and efficiency they provide to high-ranking public officials.
Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute, said, “In the case of the VIP transport for the executive branch, you can easily explain the cost [of private travel] in terms of the risk of somebody being taken hostage or having their time wasted when a critical decision is pending.”
Thompson pointed out that the cost of the plane would be peanuts compared to the cost to the nation if a top official were taken hostage or harmed taking a commercial flight to a dangerous region of the world.
and
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
Hilarious how Conks like you kneejerk at headlines and ignore the other side of the story. Kinda like you in the "Kids and Politics" thing, eh, Hoagie
Conks must die.
A well paid, connected putz to you...Cap'n Cat wrote:Col Hogan wrote:
Screw them...I'm on the inside and know better...what that article contains is for public (read, the sheep like you) consumption...
You're no insider. You're a fvcking putz.
HI54UNI wrote:Do they have ejection seats for the pilots and crew? Because I wouldn't want them to get hurt as I wish for the planes to crash the 1st time a politician rides on one of them.
Attention:CID1990 wrote:I am trying to get my mind around the idea that a missing, delayed or kidnapped Member of Congress is a terrible thing. Seems like they do less damage when they aren't around.
As for the universe turning on prompt meetings around the world, what ever happened to the fvcking teleconference? Remember all that George Jetson bullsh!t about never having to leave town to have a meeting in Tokyo?
I guarantee you (and I know what I'm talking about on this one....) these jets are going to see the lion's share of their hours ferrying MoCs and their families on vacations.....er...um... I mean Congressional Delegations (we call them CODELs) to embassies abroad in terrible war torn locations like Milan and Paris. They will also see a fair share of ferrying politicians around to stump for this legislation or that legislation.
It is wasteful, and it appears that Democrats are not above Republicans in crying "It's for security!" when they want to push something like this through. Hypocrites, every fvcking one of them. I don't give a sh!t what side of the aisle they are on.
Good thought there, Cleets, but, apparently you are not familiar with CS.com ByLaws, II, Subpart iiv, which reads as followsCleets Part 2 wrote:Attention:CID1990 wrote:I am trying to get my mind around the idea that a missing, delayed or kidnapped Member of Congress is a terrible thing. Seems like they do less damage when they aren't around.
As for the universe turning on prompt meetings around the world, what ever happened to the fvcking teleconference? Remember all that George Jetson bullsh!t about never having to leave town to have a meeting in Tokyo?
I guarantee you (and I know what I'm talking about on this one....) these jets are going to see the lion's share of their hours ferrying MoCs and their families on vacations.....er...um... I mean Congressional Delegations (we call them CODELs) to embassies abroad in terrible war torn locations like Milan and Paris. They will also see a fair share of ferrying politicians around to stump for this legislation or that legislation.
It is wasteful, and it appears that Democrats are not above Republicans in crying "It's for security!" when they want to push something like this through. Hypocrites, every fvcking one of them. I don't give a sh!t what side of the aisle they are on.
Post of the Week (and it's only Tuesday)
Every point made is Spot On..!!!
Please shoot me if I'm caught agreeing with CID1990 again in the future
CID1990 wrote:I am trying to get my mind around the idea that a missing, delayed or kidnapped Member of Congress is a terrible thing. Seems like they do less damage when they aren't around.
As for the universe turning on prompt meetings around the world, what ever happened to the fvcking teleconference? Remember all that George Jetson bullsh!t about never having to leave town to have a meeting in Tokyo?
I guarantee you (and I know what I'm talking about on this one....) these jets are going to see the lion's share of their hours ferrying MoCs and their families on vacations.....er...um... I mean Congressional Delegations (we call them CODELs) to embassies abroad in terrible war torn locations like Milan and Paris. They will also see a fair share of ferrying politicians around to stump for this legislation or that legislation.
It is wasteful, and it appears that Democrats are not above Republicans in crying "It's for security!" when they want to push something like this through. Hypocrites, every fvcking one of them. I don't give a sh!t what side of the aisle they are on.
Cap'n Cat wrote:HI54UNI wrote:Do they have ejection seats for the pilots and crew? Because I wouldn't want them to get hurt as I wish for the planes to crash the 1st time a politician rides on one of them.
Conk hate. #1 reason your people are in the back seat, man.
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:never let logic get in the way of a good strawman capn...Cap'n Cat wrote:
Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
Hilarious how Conks like you kneejerk at headlines and ignore the other side of the story. Kinda like you in the "Kids and Politics" thing, eh, Hoagie
Conks must die.
TwinTownBisonFan wrote:and really, when the pot decides to say these sorts of things about the kettle... really?
Gil the only non-sheep in the whole entire world... No the wholest UniverseGil Dobie wrote: Cap'n Caaaaa...aaaat
SO they're too good to fly Delta? Fuck that, tele conference!Cap'n Cat wrote:Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:MarkCCU wrote:to ferry themselves around. I guess this is part of the stimulus package.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
But military analysts said the private jets, despite the high price tag, may be worth the money because of the security and efficiency they provide to high-ranking public officials.
Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute, said, “In the case of the VIP transport for the executive branch, you can easily explain the cost [of private travel] in terms of the risk of somebody being taken hostage or having their time wasted when a critical decision is pending.”
Thompson pointed out that the cost of the plane would be peanuts compared to the cost to the nation if a top official were taken hostage or harmed taking a commercial flight to a dangerous region of the world.
and
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
Hilarious how Conks like you kneejerk at headlines and ignore the other side of the story. Kinda like you in the "Kids and Politics" thing, eh, Hoagie
Conks must die.
You betcha sweet pressed shirt hippy wannabe assCleets Part 2 wrote:Gil the only non-sheep in the whole entire world... No the wholest Universe
CID1990 wrote:One other thing I just thought about-
Why are they pulling the military into this? I have NEVER seen a 3-star general in ANY service that did not already have access to a Gulfstream for long distance stuff and a Citation or KingAir for the local trips. The military owns sh!tloads of them. The bigwigs in the military have been using their own aircraft since they had aircraft.
So in addition to playing the security card, they are playing the military card, as well. I feel stupider just having read the justifications.
I swear I am never wasting my vote on any of these big party hucksters again. The economy is in the tank and nobody on either side of the aisle can come up with any idea other than to just keep printing money. If I managed my own personal finances in the same way I'd be eating chili-mac down at the fvcking homeless shelter.
CID1990 wrote:One other thing I just thought about-
Why are they pulling the military into this? I have NEVER seen a 3-star general in ANY service that did not already have access to a Gulfstream for long distance stuff and a Citation or KingAir for the local trips. The military owns sh!tloads of them. The bigwigs in the military have been using their own aircraft since they had aircraft.
So in addition to playing the security card, they are playing the military card, as well. I feel stupider just having read the justifications.
I swear I am never wasting my vote on any of these big party hucksters again. The economy is in the tank and nobody on either side of the aisle can come up with any idea other than to just keep printing money. If I managed my own personal finances in the same way I'd be eating chili-mac down at the fvcking homeless shelter.
So if they already have access to a Gulfstream, who do you think it was that supplied it to them? Those babies didn't magically appear on base one day... and if they've been using personal military aircraft since the aircraft has been around, perhaps some of those bad boys need replacements?CID1990 wrote:One other thing I just thought about-
Why are they pulling the military into this? I have NEVER seen a 3-star general in ANY service that did not already have access to a Gulfstream for long distance stuff and a Citation or KingAir for the local trips. The military owns sh!tloads of them. The bigwigs in the military have been using their own aircraft since they had aircraft.
Cap'n Cat wrote:Read the entire article, you two Conk dorks. Among other salient points:MarkCCU wrote:to ferry themselves around. I guess this is part of the stimulus package.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_19/news/37552-1.html
But military analysts said the private jets, despite the high price tag, may be worth the money because of the security and efficiency they provide to high-ranking public officials.
Travelinman67 wrote:Very few legislative members receive dedicated 24/7 security, and there are only approx. 67 members of the Executive and Judicial branch who receive dedicated details. The State Dept. or SS protection units (last I heard) are still separate units who operate under the auspice of Homeland Security, but still maintain their departmental sovereignty. If not so already, they should be the two leading security agencies responsible for top officials. Since the details accompany the officials regardless of whether they're on commercial, charter or govt. transportation, the only difference is the access to/from the aircraft (contact with the public) and having to tolerate commercial travel scheduling nightmares like everyone else (the REAL reason they want govt. owned transportation). The former can be resolved by maintaining private (VIP) waiting areas which are already currently available at most major airports.
Cap'n Cat wrote:Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute, said, “In the case of the VIP transport for the executive branch, you can easily explain the cost [of private travel] in terms of the risk of somebody being taken hostage or having their time wasted when a critical decision is pending.”
Travelinman67 wrote:If the trip is to facilitate an immediate critical decision that commercial/military travel could interfer with, then it should be done via closed circuit/inet meeting.
Cap'n Cat wrote:Thompson pointed out that the cost of the plane would be peanuts compared to the cost to the nation if a top official were taken hostage or harmed taking a commercial flight to a dangerous region of the world.
Travelinman67 wrote:How could they be taken hostage? In the secure area of public airports, it's very difficult to smuggle in a "weapon" more lethal than a pen/pencil, plastic knife, etc...
And since these officials ALREADY have trained security personnel accompanying them...it's virtually impossible they would succeed taking an official hostage.
And yes, a terrorist could assasinate the official, but that could be done using a pen/pencil by anyone at anytime, anywhere: not preventable by the govt. purchasing passenger aircraft.
Cap'n Cat wrote:and
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
Travelinman67 wrote:If it's a military mission, then they should be on a military charter/transport. If it's time critical, then they can do the closed circuit meeting, and if it's life and death urgent that they be there in person and no military charters/transports are available, then the govt. can charter a private jet.
Gotta agree with the assessment that our Wash. official have no business purchasing commuter jets for their own use at taxpayer expense after criticizing private for-profit corporate officials for the same.
