Bush Landing on USS Lincoln too Costly


PDA






TarpleyG
May 8, 2003, 07:56 AM
I was listening to the Today show on the way to work this morning and they had some Demoncrat congresscritter from New York on babbling about how it cost over a million dollars and delayed the arrival of 4000 sailors for a day for the president to take a jet to the ship last week.

Luckily though, Today had a Republican (senator or congressman I do not recall) that evened out the debate.

It really ruffles my feathers that it is perfectly acceptible to these types for a Democratic president to receive oral pleasures, by an intern nonetheless, in the Oval office, AND lie about it but for one of the most popular presidents of the 20th/21st century to fly over to an aircraft carrier on a jet instead of a helicopter they will spend millions more just to try and find some dirt where there is none.

Anyone else concur?

GT

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush Landing on USS Lincoln too Costly" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sisco
May 8, 2003, 08:16 AM
And just how much did Clinton spend in eight years flying his family on around-the-world vacations?

Atticus
May 8, 2003, 08:18 AM
Maxine Waters (D) California, was on CNBC last night talking about GWB's visit to the USS "Abraham" (as she called it). She wants to launch an investigation in to the matter. That woman is clearly disturbed.. if not outright insane. Thank God she is such a visible Democrat. I can't imagine even my most liberal of friends supporting someone like her. What an ijit.

El Tejon
May 8, 2003, 08:22 AM
Atticus, Waters (D-Compton) was the one who stated that AK-47s "do not miss.":rolleyes: Uncle Jeff said we needed this silly woman at the School of Infantry, not Congress.

OF
May 8, 2003, 08:46 AM
The democrats make me want to :barf:

Aren't you behind on your Klan dues, Byrd? You freakin' moron.

Waxman is just pissed about the spanking he got from Jim March. It makes him all uppity. Back in your seat Waxman, you loser.

- Gabe

Hawkman
May 8, 2003, 09:32 AM
Let's see, Klinton flies out to USS Theodore Roosevelt to make a speech: no harm, no foul. Klinton drags his entire entourage to Normandy for that fake photo op with the rocks on the beach: no harm, no foul.

C'mon guys, let's come up with a comprehensive list of demoncrap money-wasting events and bury'em under it!:D

Carnitas
May 8, 2003, 10:01 AM
I seem to remember Clintons family vacation to africa which cost got knows how much. Think about presidential security in AFRICA! That and IIRC he gave away a couple hundred million in aid while he was there.

Dont for Get Democrat Senator John Glen's nostalgia space shuttle trip. Wonder what that cost, eh? IIRC that was a payoff for deep sixing the congressional investigation into some Clinton scandal or other.

El Tejon
May 8, 2003, 10:02 AM
Hawk, hey, I remember that. Was that the fake op with the stones and the cross?

buzz_knox
May 8, 2003, 10:17 AM
For the first time in my memory, a president publicly demonstrated enough trust in the military to risk his life the same way many of them do day in day out with a carrier trap. Of course democrats are screaming. This only makes Bush more beloved of the military, a fact the demons hate.

Marko Kloos
May 8, 2003, 10:21 AM
If you have to spend stolen tax money, a Presidential carrier landing is as good (and more entertaining) a cause as subsidizing a few dozen more crack mommies in Atlanta. They only have their panties in a bind because that tax money won't be used to buy votes from the Dolists.

DonP
May 8, 2003, 10:30 AM
When this is the best thing they have to throw against the wall to see if it sticks, they are in trouble. It remind me of when they were all upset about whether Reagan dyed his hair or not.

Even my hard core liberal Brother-in-Law from Democratic Iowa country said, "Sure it's a photo op, but what a damn cool Photo op!"

The democrats are trying to water down the effect the visit had on the middle that every election is about,. They will do just about anything to try and keep thos eimages from being seems again during the election campiagn. The funny part is the more they complain the mor eoften the media re-runs them.

The next thing we'll hear from them is about how angry some sailors wife is that he was 20 minutes late getting to port or some such drivel.

If the Dem's dont' get their head out of their B--- they may wind up losing California and maybe even New York in 2004. Then Pelosi can argue for an even harsher turn to the far left.

Don P.

Tim Burke
May 8, 2003, 10:49 AM
For the demonrats, everything is political. Whenever they do anything, it is appropriate to view it as political. They assume that it is the same for everyone; thus, when they see leadership, they think it's a political trick. After all, it's always a political trick if they do anything that looks like leadership.
You never saw klinton make an arrested landing, and when Dukakis (sp?) rode around in that tank, everyone laughed. What really gets the demonrats' goat is that Bush was able to pull this off.

Desertdog
May 8, 2003, 11:08 AM
Let's hope he does it again about 2 weeks before the next election.
The Demos would die of heart failure if he did.
The Demos already are talking of losing 4 more Senate seats in the next election. We can hope they lose a lot more.

EchoSixMike
May 8, 2003, 11:56 AM
The Dems are just pissed because the US Military is going to vote 95% in favor of Bush. And the fact that servicemen actually respect Bush.

Contrast this with Clintoon when he came to Lejeune for Christmas in '96. Almost all the unit commanders and Sgt's Major told their Marines to go on leave for fear that their would be some sort of incident. My 1stSgt personally made sure I turned in my leave papers;) S/F...Ken M

mjydrafter
May 8, 2003, 12:25 PM
I think Ari just said the speech didn't cause the ship to get into port late. It arrived at it's scheduled time. It would seem the flight was also less expensive, even though the jet he flew on cost $7 per hour more to operate, The jet was faster than Marine 1=cost savings. (I don't know this as fact, it was sort of implied by Ari's statement).

They're just grasping at straws.

Mike Irwin
May 8, 2003, 12:51 PM
As one of the pundits on Fox News said -- "He's the commander in chief. He can do this."

For some reason I thought other Presidents had done hook landings on carriers before.

That one action on his part probably did more to endear him to the Navy than any other thing he could have done.

Well that and eating in the enlisted mess.

Bush seems to understand how to connect with the most important voting block there is -- the common person. Not the person with power, not the person with money.

I think that fact alone scares the living hell out of the Democrats because Bush is beginning to reach a voting block that the Dems always counted on, but like the Republicans, largely ignored when it came time to meeet & greet.

Another PERFECT example of Bush's "human touch" in this manner is what he did at the Olympics in Salt Lake City. Instead of announcing the opening from a private box high in the stadium, he announces it from the stands, among the athletes.

Then he goes and sith WITH the American team, and ends up talking with the parents and families of many of them.

That little move on his part left the Dems pretty much speechless and quite shocked.

longeyes
May 8, 2003, 01:16 PM
Day by day the Dems become more desperate, pathetic, and petty. To attack a President and Commander-in-Chief after clear and dramatic victory shows just how little these people understand, or care about, human nature (and their whole life agenda is to control and change human nature). The nation swells with pride; they sit on the sidelines and carp. They simply can't stand the fact that Bush--yeah "stupid Bush"--is able to connect so viscerally with so many Americans. They are angry and jealous.

moa
May 8, 2003, 01:22 PM
The USS Lincoln was delayed not one bit for Bush's landing. It was totally on schedule like it has to be with all the logistics involved. It costs about a million bucks a day to operate a super carrier like the Lincoln.

Bush's Marine helicopter does not have the range that the Viking jet does.

Bush could have flown to Pearl Harbor which was the Lincoln's first port of call. But that would have meant flying to Hawaii on Air Force 1 (a jumbo jet ala 747) along with two C130 cargo planes caring all the Secret Service's vehicles and gear. Compared to that, the Viking flight was peanuts.

Felonious Monk
May 8, 2003, 01:23 PM
Do they forget that President Dubya served honorably--AS A PILOT--in the U.S. Armed Forces?
I believe he's earned the right to don the jumpsuit.

No, he's not some decorated Sgt. York.
But he also didn't write some panty-waste letter to get out of military service, like another recent occupant of the White House did. :rolleyes:

Frohickey
May 8, 2003, 01:27 PM
Maybe GWB should invite Clinton for an aircraft carrier landing... just as long as he gives the order for the pilot to eject just before the approach. :D

CMichael
May 8, 2003, 01:37 PM
The Dems are jealous. They know how well this was received so they have to try and attack it to make themselves feel good.

mons meg
May 8, 2003, 01:49 PM
Do they forget that he served honorably--AS A PILOT--in the U.S. Armed Forces? I believe he earned the right to don the jumpsuit.

Sure...but I read that Eisenhower after he became President made it a point to never appear in uniform, to make sure we didn't have the appearance of the Commander in Chief being anything other than a civilian.

Oh, and 30 miles offshore is too far for a helicopter? He didn't have to take Marine One, he could have taken a Sea Stallion. And he spent the night because they couldn't make the last 30 miles? Hey, I'm just asking...wouldn't want to get labeled as a "demon rat" or whatever is in vogue. :rolleyes:

Edit: Also, all the jabs taken at Clinton for his artful dodging of military service...why doesn't the Vice President earn the same scorm?

Felonious Monk
May 8, 2003, 02:04 PM
mons meg--Edit: Also, all the jabs taken at Clinton for his artful dodging of military service...why doesn't the Vice President earn the same scorm?Didn't know we were talking about Veeps...how far down the food chain do you need to go to find corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle? You're stretching, mons!

Clinton was/is a lying lecherous unfaithful bastard with no moral fiber. He also held the office of President.

GW Bush is a man who does the right thing, even if it's not popular. He serves in the office of President.

Amazing that if someone does something sincere, the Dems spin it as some "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy".

Know what? it IS!
It's A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to maintain the foundational tenets of this country.

mons meg
May 8, 2003, 02:09 PM
Well, VP isn't *that* far down the food chain from POTUS, is it? ;) I know that was OT for this thread...I just find it interesting that people demonize Clinton as a response to criticism of GWB.

Again, why couldn't he have taken a helo and worn a business suit? And as far as honorable service, what's the deal with GWB's Guard record again?

ahenry
May 8, 2003, 02:09 PM
If you have to spend stolen tax money... It is not stolen tax money. Like it or not the people that tax you are duly elected representatives with duly authorized authority to tax constituents. Moreover, you even chose to come live under a system that is authorized to tax its citizens. There is zero justification for you to claim that tax money is stolen from you and frankly, its become a tired and worn out argument.

shooten
May 8, 2003, 02:13 PM
moa wrote:
Bush could have flown to Pearl Harbor which was the Lincoln's first port of call. But that would have meant flying to Hawaii on Air Force 1 (a jumbo jet ala 747) along with two C130 cargo planes caring all the Secret Service's vehicles and gear. Compared to that, the Viking flight was peanuts.

I was in a private boat watching the USS A. Lincoln come into SD friday. They also had a C-17 carry 3 different Marine 1's into North Island in addition to AF 1 and his security detail. They would have had to fly that out to Hawaii too.

BTW, it was incredible watching the ship come in. We were waving our flags proudly and the crew really seemed to appreciate the turnout. There were probably 30 to 40 private boats. The gunboats with marines with their fingers on the trigger of the 50's was something I've never seen before :what:. They meant business. The Dem's are clearly desparate to make this an issue.:neener:

Scott

Mike Irwin
May 8, 2003, 02:32 PM
"Again, why couldn't he have taken a helo and worn a business suit?"

He certainly could have.

Lord knows other Presidents have done so.

But why should he have?

Dozens of Naval aviators land and take off on a carrier every day.

Why shouldn't Bush have taken that route if he truly wants to experience what he (and we) ask of the men and women in our armed forces?

Bush also wore the flight suit for another very specific reason.

It's a water survival suit just in case the plane were to go down.

As for stolen tax money...

You couldn't be talking about the Clintons stripping the White House and Air Force One of tax payer supplied furnishings and accessories, would you?

ahenry
May 8, 2003, 02:43 PM
Hmmm, I just read what Mike wrote. Did I completely misunderstand what you were saying Lendringser? Are you saying tax money is stolen from you or tax money was stolen from gov’t coffers so the Prez could land on the carrier? If the former, then I stand by what I said. If the latter, then I apologize. I disagree but it is a valid issue to bring up.

DFBonnett
May 8, 2003, 02:52 PM
Better to land on a flattop at sea than a fat intern in the Oval Office.

UnknownSailor
May 8, 2003, 02:54 PM
The Democrats need to learn that throwing stones while living in a glass house is a Bad Thing TM. Clinton's little Africa jaunt cost well over 300 million dollars. We won't even get into how Hillary used official US Air Force transports to jet around in while running for her US Senate seat.

The Clinton abuses of the Air Force MAC are well detailed in Deriliction of Duty by Lt. Col Robert "Buzz" Patterson, Ret.

GeorgeAtl
May 8, 2003, 03:29 PM
The Democrats need to tell us the costs of 2 or 3 different events:

1. John Glenn's flight on the Shuttle....which we all know was PAYBACK for his efforts in obstructing the "ChinaGate" investigation.

2. Clinton's trip to China....with his entourage of over 1000!!

3. The cost of shutting down LAX while Klinton got a haircut aboard Air Force One...from some Hoity Toity Hair Stylist!!

I guess there's 2 sets of rules....silly me.:rolleyes:

STW
May 8, 2003, 03:52 PM
When flying for the Air Force out of Andrews AFB, my brother-in-law once flew some congressmen and their wives to Italy to do some fact finding. The aircraft (a C9) was also used as a backup to AF1 when the president needed to fly into airports that couldn't handle a 747. In this case the aircraft needed to be back by a certain date because presidential commitments. Unfortunately, a congressman's wife wanted a day of shopping in Florence that made for aconflict with the president's schedule. So they sent the empty plane back across the Atlantic for the President's use and brought another one back to Italy for the congressmen and their wives.:cuss:
A 30 mile hop in a Viking doesn't seem like that big a deal in comparison.

Waitone
May 8, 2003, 04:03 PM
The images captured during Bush's visit are so powerful that the opposition will have major problems countering them. We all know those images will show back up during the next election. Democrats will have a horrible time spinning or discrediting the effect.

What is going on now is the democrats are discrediting the images which will be used later. Sorta reminds me of the tactics used by a former president.

Mike Irwin
May 8, 2003, 04:11 PM
"I guess there's 2 sets of rules..."

Of course there's two sets of rules.

It's the two sets of rules that allow a Republican who obliquely praised a man considered to have a racist past to be run from his leadership position, while the second set allows a former member of the Ku Klux Klan to be a Democrat in good standing.

Hkmp5sd
May 8, 2003, 04:13 PM
Clinton's travel left military overextended and wasted taxpayer dollars

Top military officers have expressed concern that an excessive number of military cargo planes were required to take former President Clinton and his large entourage last year to India, Vietnam and other distant places.
These officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Air Force Air Mobility Command's ability was perilously stretched to supply airlifts for exercises, as well as troop deployments in the Persian Gulf, South Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo and South Korea.

Unofficial internal estimates show that Mr. Clinton's trip to Vietnam in November cost the military about $60 million. Air Force Air Mobility Command deployed 26 C-5, 33 C-17 and 4 C-141 cargo jets as well as 10 refueling tanker aircraft and one C-130 propeller jet. Estimated costs for Mr. Clinton's trip last March to India and Pakistan ranged from $25 million to $50 million.


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a7e4362784a.htm

Hillary Clinton's campaign travel nears $1 million

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton logged nearly $1 million worth of travel in the last year in her bid to be New York's junior U.S. senator, with taxpayers picking up $779,500 of that amount, according to figures released Tuesday by a congressional panel.



http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/07/18/campaign.hillary.travel.reut/

First lady and daughter leave for tour of North Africa

(CNN) -- Hillary and Chelsea Clinton plan to combine business with pleasure during a spring-break tour of North Africa this week.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton are scheduled to visit ancient and modern landmarks in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia as both tourists and U.S. ambassadors.


http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/20/hillary.africa/index.html

Jim March
May 8, 2003, 04:23 PM
The President IS the commander in chief of the military. This jaunt didn't cost all that much, and the value in troop morale was incalculable.

GRD: ehhh....how, exactly, did I spank Waxman? :confused:

Marko Kloos
May 8, 2003, 04:46 PM
There is zero justification for you to claim that tax money is stolen from you and frankly, its become a tired and worn out argument.

Taxation is theft. Actually, it's worse than theft. A mugger will take my wallet, but leave me alone afterwards, and won't make me work for him under threat of force five months out of the year. Therefore, taxation is slavery, and I don't care one bit what some black-robed Statist enablers have to say about the subject. Call it what you want, cite all the "duly authorized" authority you want, it still boils down to the fact that taxes are forcible confiscation of my hard-earned money.

Moreover, you even chose to come live under a system that is authorized to tax its citizens.

The government of the United States only has the powers delegated to it by the people via the Constitution. Forcible taxation is not one of them. The fact that it's being done doesn't make it constitutional or moral.

Therefore, it doesn't matter to me one bit whether my stolen money is spent on a Presidential carrier landing, Hitlery's trip to Africa, or White House china for the Clintons. I don't care whether my mugger spends the contents of my wallet on booze, or donates them to charity: the fact remains that he got the money by holding a gun to my head and threatening me with death if I do not comply.

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. – President Calvin Coolidge

The average American family head will be forced to do twenty years' labor to pay taxes in his or her lifetime. – James Bovard, Lost Rights

The American Dream was not about government's taking huge sums of money (under the label of "taxation") from citizens by force. The American Dream was about individualism and the opportunity to achieve success without interference from others. – Robert Ringer

[S]tatism is but socialized dishonesty; it is feathering the nests of some with feathers coercively plucked from others – on the grand scale. There is no moral difference between the act of a pickpocket and the progressive income tax or any other social program. – Leonard Read

If I deny the authority of the State when it presents my tax bill, it will soon take and waste all my property, and so harass me and my children without end. This is hard, this makes it impossible for a man to live honestly, and at the same time comfortably, in outward respects. – Henry David Thoreau

It would be thought a hard government that should tax its people one tenth part. – Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

Mike Irwin
May 8, 2003, 04:50 PM
So move to Montana, declare yourself a free man, and refuse to pay taxes.

Maybe someone will send you a cake with a saw in it.

Or at least some soap on a rope.

As for the Constitutionality of taxation, we've played that game, I believe.

Taxation 6, aggrieved masses 0...

Even the Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of taxation...

Marko Kloos
May 8, 2003, 04:57 PM
So move to Montana, declare yourself a free man, and refuse to pay taxes.

Nope...I think I'll stay right where I am, pay what I must under threat of force, and play the time-honored American game of "Screw the Government Back". The fact that I can be strong-armed and killed if I defy the system openly does not change the fact that taxation is theft. It's institutionalized gang violence, effectively extracted because people would rather pay what they must than lose their lives.

Taxation is the notion that theft becomes legal and moral when enough people are in favor of it. No matter how many people vote themselves the right to confiscate my money, and no matter how noble or well-intentioned the stolen money is spent, it is still theft at the point of a gun.

mons meg
May 8, 2003, 05:01 PM
Before this train goes completely off the tracks, back to the original subject of this thread:

I would like to point out from a logical argument perspective, it matters not a whit if the Clintons stole all the Twinkies from the White House commisary. The question at hand is was Bush's trip to the Lincoln needlessly expensive?

Personally, I still think he should have taken a helo and forgone the flight suit. The trip to the carrier can be justified several different ways. Troop morale, as Mr. March pointed out, is a great reason to visit.

So there.

moa
May 8, 2003, 05:06 PM
Mons Meg says:

"Oh, and 30 miles offshore is too far for a helicopter? He didn't have to take Marine One, he could have taken a Sea Stallion. And he spent the night because they couldn't make the last 30 miles? Hey, I'm just asking...wouldn't want to get labeled as a "demon rat" or whatever is in vogue."


When Bush landed on the Lincoln I do believe it was a much farther than 30 miles off-shore from the San Diego naval base. The Lincoln was two or three days out from San Diego. And traveling about 30 knots makes it hundreds of miles out to sea.

Let me know if I got this wrong.

I think the Viking flight took about 45 minutes and Bush flew the Viking for 15 minutes of the flight. I imagine the Viking can fly at about 500 MPH.

mons meg
May 8, 2003, 05:09 PM
Well, I read they were no more than 30 miles or so offshore. The same report said the Lincoln slowed its pace so that they would be out an extra night for the President ot be able to spend the night on board.

Not sure how much of this is true. Sure would be nice if the captain of the Lincoln would post his coordinates at the time of arrival on this board. :)

Intune
May 8, 2003, 05:17 PM
Someone on Fox News addressed the helo/Vik trip by saying that helos have a habit of inverting and then sinking like a rock when unintentionally landed in deep water. Safety issue. All the Dems said "Rats!" at the decision and went about their fleecing.

Monkeyleg
May 8, 2003, 05:23 PM
Was GW's landing expensive? Perhaps, but not in the historical perspective provided us by Clinton.

Example: the 1996 Escalante Steps land grab in Utah. Clinton put hundreds of thousands of acres of Utah land under the control of the federal goverment, depriving the state of Utah of revenues from mining in those areas. Clinton's photo-op was at the Grand Canyon (which, for those who attended public skuls, is in Arizona). To give a panoramic view of the Grand Canyon behind Clinton, the SS cut down trees and threw them into the canyon. Ya gotta love environmentalists.

Clinton's photo-op in a rainforest in South America. They built a paved road to he could get in.

Perhaps the most expensive Clinton photo op was in the early 90's when he went to California to announce that the federal government was going to connect all California schools to the internet. The cost for that photo op shows up every month on your phone bill as a line item cost, one that you'll be paying forever.

ahenry
May 8, 2003, 06:11 PM
The government of the United States only has the powers delegated to it by the people via the Constitution. Forcible taxation is not one of them. The fact that it's being done doesn't make it constitutional or moral

You sure about that? Allow me to quote that esteemed document: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union...” and “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” And from the Sixteenth Amendment (like it or not, the current court determination is that it is a legal amendment): “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” You still want to say that the constitution (which you specifically chose to live under) does not delegate the power of taxation to the gov’t? Implicit with delegated authority is the authority to enforce such authority. Such is the nature of the best you chose to live under.


The fact that I can be strong-armed and killed if I defy the system openly does not change the fact that taxation is theft. No, what changes the fact that taxation is not theft is that you decided to come to America and live under a system knowing full well that the constitution that creates our gov’t authorizes taxation. Even our own Revolutionary actions such a the Boston Tea Party were not against taxation, but rather taxation without representation.

Marko Kloos
May 8, 2003, 06:26 PM
I merely chose to live in a system that steals a little less from its citizens than other governments. Unfortunately, there are no governments left in the world that do not resort to armed robbery to finance the machinery of State. In this Constitutional Republic, however, I still have the right to voice my dissent and my disagreement with forcible taxation. I also have the right to work towards changing this system back to where it becomes compliant with the Bill of Rights again.

Look, I am not against taxation at all. As a libertarian, I am pricipally and fundamentally opposed to forcible taxation. It violates the basic principle of libertarianism, the Non-Aggression Principle. The desire to make the world a better place does not give you the right to hold a gun to my head and demand money for a stealth bomber, or an orphanage. If the cause is worthy, why not rely on voluntary taxes? (Such a system exists already, at least in theory: it's called the free market.)

If you think coercion is a necessary ingredient in the tax system, then the causes are not supported by the population, and you merely share the Liberals' opinion of your fellow citizens: they need to be forced to pay for what's good for them.

You don't have the right to come to my house, hold a gun to my head, and ask for money. What makes you so convinced that you suddenly gain that right if you authorize a bunch of guys with badges and guns to do it on your behalf?

Hkmp5sd
May 8, 2003, 06:44 PM
Personally, I still think he should have taken a helo and forgone the flight suit.

I disagree. The trip on the fighter did not cost the taxpayer any more money than the cost of the helicopter(s) which normally accompany him. It was a great coup by a Republican President pulling off something none of the democratic president's in this or the last century could have pulled off.

The democrats are following the official democrat play book which states when your opponent is hugely successful and popular and you don't know what to do, attack your opponent with everything you can think of so that maybe something sticks and you can feel better about yourself.

mons meg
May 8, 2003, 06:49 PM
I'm willing to give on the method of transportation, but I think he should have changed into his civvies forthwith rather than hang out in the flight suit and let the cameras roll. It may seem a minor point, but I don't think Presidents should appear in a military uniform, ever.

CZ-75
May 8, 2003, 06:56 PM
The fact that I can be strong-armed and killed if I defy the system openly does not change the fact that taxation is theft. It's institutionalized gang violence, effectively extracted because people would rather pay what they must than lose their lives.


IOW, the biggest "protection" racket in existence.

TarpleyG
May 8, 2003, 07:04 PM
but I read that Eisenhower after he became President made it a point to never appear in uniform
I don't remember any emblems nor insignia in which case it isn't a uniform, just an ordinary flight suit.

Also, I heard that the carrier was WELL ahead of schedule and could not have docked at any rate until its scheduled time to do so. Therefore, they could have been 30 miles out and had to stay another night.

GT

mons meg
May 8, 2003, 07:08 PM
But when he is standing in a crowd of other pilots, doesn't it give the appearance of being literally "in uniform"?

BenW
May 8, 2003, 07:13 PM
I don't think Presidents should appear in a military uniform, ever.
Well, I may have missed it, but I didn't see any rank insignia on that flightsuit. Lots of Federal civilians (in which category the President falls) are REQUIRED to wear flightsuits on certain aircraft types. I have to wear one in the aircraft I work in. It's a safety issue. If he was flying in a NASA trainer he would have been in a blue NASA issue one instead of a sage military issue one and I suppose no one would have made a fuss then.

OF
May 8, 2003, 08:03 PM
Didn't you out his CCW application, Jim? I expect he wanted that kept secret...hence the spanking :)

- Gabe

QuickDraw
May 8, 2003, 08:39 PM
If I am correct,the Navy often takes local celebrities,news people
and the like for a spin with the Blue Angels.They often take
friends and family on "Tiger cruises".I imagine more than one
Congress person has enjoyed these "freebies".
I don't know if they often let civialians do the carrier thing,
but I'm sure journalists have made the trip.
This is nothing new.
If the President wants to fly to a carrier,in my opinion,its no different than having a party in the Rose garden.
Photo-op? You bet.Darn good one too!
I'd rather see my tax money spent like that than the President
taking 1,000 of his closest "friends" to China.
Anyway,just an opinion.

QuickDraw

fmjcafe
May 8, 2003, 09:16 PM
If I remember correctly, didn`t some of the Dems accuse GW of campaigning from AF1 during 9-11? They looked bad then and they look bad now.

Jim March
May 9, 2003, 12:23 AM
GRD - that was DON PERATA, not Waxman :).

jmbg29
May 9, 2003, 03:51 AM
The question at hand is was Bush's trip to the Lincoln needlessly expensive?If that is the question, then - for everyone other than Demorats, socialists, commies, etc. - the answer is an emphatic no.

The U. S. Navy (greatest navy the world has ever seen BTW) has an annual budget that pays for all of its operational aircraft to fly around. That S-3 Viking didn't "know" that the POTUS was on board, ergo the amount of fuel that it burned, and the amount of wear and tear the aircraft sustained, was exactly the same as it would have been on a routine flight of equal length.

OTOH, if one is a Demorat or some other sort of dull wit, the total cost is beyond the ability of a mere mortal to quantify.

12.7x99mm
May 9, 2003, 06:46 AM
Democrats $%&*% $@&! !*$?& :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Sleeping Dog
May 9, 2003, 08:52 AM
The president landing on an aircraft carrier can't have cost too much. The pilot has to get his flight time in, whether there's a president in the back seat or not. So it's good training.

Getting the press corps with all it's photo, tv, and transmission equipment on board must have cost a bunch. But that's costly no matter where he speaks.

The real cost is the soap used to scrub every inch of the carrier, including making the flight deck clean enough to eat off of. And the shoe polish, that must have cost a bunch. Brasso for belts, bleach for the uniforms, now we're talking big bucks. The 4000 sailors swabbing didn't cost anything extra. They'd get paid anyway.

Soap, shoe polish, brasso. Add it up, and the cost is astronomical. An outrage. That's it, next election I'm voting for Hillary. (not)

Regards.

ahenry
May 9, 2003, 08:57 AM
I merely chose to live in a system that steals a little less from its citizens than other governments. Its not stealing. You agreed (actually chose) to live under a system of gov’t that from the beginning was created with the agreement of the creators (and since then the citizens) that a portion of an individuals assets could be used in order to carry out the functions of the gov’t. Like the system, hate the system, whatever, you agreed to such a system. Personally I hate being taxed (especially at our current level) but I know better than to call it theft.

I still have the right to voice my dissent and my disagreement with forcible taxation. Absolutely. You would be mistaken however, to call taxation theft. Dislike it, seek to change it, whatever, but calling it theft would be incorrect.

If you think coercion is a necessary ingredient in the tax system, then the causes are not supported by the population, and you merely share the Liberals' opinion of your fellow citizens: they need to be forced to pay for what's good for them. I do not think coercion is necessary. In fact, I have said many times that we are taxed far too much, which is making coercion more necessary than it should be. However, I understand that the proper rules were followed as created by our founders and agreed to by me, which set those levels of taxation, so while I seek to change it, I know better than to label it as theft (forcible or otherwise). Moreover, you miss the point of taxation. It is not to provide services for your betterment but to provide services for my betterment. Let me explain. The constitution authorizes the gov’t to do various things, lets use the coining of money. Taxes are collected from me so that I have a uniform type of money, that you benefit is of no concern to me. Personally, I agree with the duties given the gov’t by the constitution so I will make zero effort to try and change them. I do not think our gov’t currently follows the constitution (welfare, social security, etc), so I will seek to change those aspects of our gov’t. Apparently you do disagree with the constitution so you are free to try and change it, but do not labor under the misguided impression that your agreement to abide by a contract (made with your fellow man) allows you to suddenly call portions of that contract theft.


You don't have the right to come to my house, hold a gun to my head, and ask for money. What makes you so convinced that you suddenly gain that right if you authorize a bunch of guys with badges and guns to do it on your behalf? Suppose you and I agreed that you would mow my grass and at the end of every year you could collect a portion of my money as payment. If I didn’t give that money to you one year would you have the right to use force (courts) to collect?

2dogs
May 9, 2003, 09:05 AM
Bush Landing on USS Lincoln too Costly

The only ones this was too costly for are Democrats, who see their chances of reestablishing the politburo in 2004 slipping thru their greasy fingers.

I don't care if it was a good photo-op or not- I think it was a great thing to do, and the sailors were a lot happier about it than they were about that puke, Klinton, disgracing the decks.

If G.W. had called me and asked for me to kick in 50 bucks to get him on the ship, I would have sent it- for the good of the military, the good of the country (pride), and to kick liberals in the ***.

Marko Kloos
May 9, 2003, 09:34 AM
Suppose you and I agreed that you would mow my grass and at the end of every year you could collect a portion of my money as payment. If I didn’t give that money to you one year would you have the right to use force (courts) to collect?

Actually, that analogy is not accurate. A more fitting analogy would be this:

I agree that you mow my lawn every week, in exchange for $20 per week, payable every year. You start doing the job, and we're both happy for a little while.

Then you take it upon yourself to prune the trees on my property. You also clean my pool, paint the outside of my house, and re-pave my driveway. The problem is that you're doing ahorrible job at it: the trees are cut way more than necessary, you don't remove the branches from the lawn, your "pool cleaning" consists of dumping a bottle of shampoo into the pool, and your paving job is merely a coat of paint that runs down the driveway at the first rain. You've only painted one side of the house, and it's a color I can't stand.

At the end of the year, you present me with a bill. Your original $20 per week have been increased to $120...you say it's more difficult to mow the lawn because of all the tree branches. You've charged me $400 for a pool cleaning, including $150 for a bottle of "pool cleaning agent". Your driveway "paving job" comes to $2000, and the house paint job is listed at $2000 as well. Instead of the originally agreed $1040 for a year of weekly mowing, I am looking at $10,640 for "property maintenance".

There's also a $1,040 item on the bill described as "Fairness Tariff". When I ask you what that is, you say that this money will pay your maintenance of your brother's lawn. (Your brother's lawnmower is broken, and he hasn't felt like fixing it). I protest this item, and you say that it's only fair if I pay my share to keep up the neighborhood.

I point out that I never agreed to let you do all those other things, and you break out the contract. At the end, you've unilaterally appended the following sentence: "All property maintenance shall be performed by the lawnmower operator; rates shall be determined by said operator after services are rendered. Scope of property maintenance shall also be determined by lawnmower operator."

When I protest and say that I never agreed to that clause, you point out that I gave my "implied consent" by signing the original contract, and that all the other services rendered are related to lawn care anyway. Besides, you say that I have the right to negotiate a new contract or shop for a different one every four years...the only problem is that you and your cousin Bill are the only lawnmower guys in town, since you beat up the other kids who try to break into the business. I've tried to buy my own lawnmower, but the city council (mostly comprised of your family members) has outlawed unlicensed private ownership of motor-powered mowers, for safety and noise pollution reasons. (They also determine who gets a license.)

I refuse to pay the bill, and you drag me into court, where the judges are all related to you. When I protest this extortion racket, the judge tells me, "You should have known how things work around here. The whole town knows how the lawnmowing business works in this neighborhood. You always had the option not to move here."

In fact, I have said many times that we are taxed far too much, which is making coercion more necessary than it should be.

You've already agreed to forcible taxation. Now it's pointless to criticize the level of that taxation, since you ceded to the government the right to commandeer your paycheck already. You've consented to making a basic right, the right to property, subject to majority vote. That's like a pig consenting that the farmer has the right to amputate the pig's foot for cooking, and then complaining when the farmer feels like having ham for breakfast and then takes the whole leg off. It'll only be a matter of time before the farmer promises somebody a nice pork loin dinner, and then the pig is screwed.

Navy joe
May 9, 2003, 09:43 AM
Ok, so it was a photo-op for Bush. Big deal. I'm sure every sailor griped about cleaning up the ship and there was much stress and panic in the senior NCO/mid-level O ranks to get it done. But you know what? That's just another day in the Navy, a visiting girl scout troop is usually enough excuse to clean and/or paint everything. And the griping sailors?

1. Sailors gripe. Constantly. If they stop get them to sickbay, something bad has happened.
2. None of them that got to meet GWB will remember the griping, but they will darn sure have a picture of meeting the pres, regardless of if they voted for him or not.

His visit did more for the military than it did for his campaign.

Other stuff? All presidents do this. I believe His Slickness had a battalion in formation in Bosnia for several hours in freezing weather. His plane finally landed, he made a speech using the soldiers for backdrop and left. Didn't meet a single troop. My old boat went through considerable trouble and wasted time to get the Today show and that annoying little cheerleader onboard for a live broadcast from the Med. After painting everything the trouble was even taken to ballast the ship 2 deg. bow down so it would push a bigger wake and look cool in the aerials...taken by a NBC crew orbiting in a Navy Seahawk..all of who's crap was flown on by COD and numerous CH-53 hits. Just another day of showing the taxpayers where their stolen ;) money is going.

Christie Whitman is still one up on her boss; while .gov of the PRNJ she got a F-14 ride from same boat to include trap and launch.

GeorgeAtl
May 9, 2003, 10:00 AM
My old boat went through considerable trouble and wasted time to get the Today show and that annoying little cheerleader onboard for a live broadcast from the Med....

Annoying little cheerleader?? Gee, I wonder who that is??

Could it be the perky one??

Navy joe
May 9, 2003, 11:29 AM
Yep, that's her. On the upside Matt Lauer and Al Roker are really cool folks in person.

Excellent lawn maintenance analogy, please don't come cut my grass, I can't afford it.

ahenry
May 9, 2003, 11:58 AM
Actually, that analogy is not accurate. You’re right, I did leave important details out of my analogy; allow me to fill those details in. Your contract specifically stated that you would have the selection of an agent within whom you vested the authority to make such decisions in your name. Unfortunately over time you forgot how important that agent was and kept picking worse and worse ones, leading to greater and greater misuses of the original contract. Luckily you were smart enough to put a clause in the original contract specifying certain methods by which you were able to seek change and seek a redress of grievances.

You've already agreed to forcible taxation. Now it's pointless to criticize the level of that taxation, since you ceded to the government the right to commandeer your paycheck already. That is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever heard you say. I believe a parent has the right (dare I say responsibility) to spank their child when the child misbehaves. Be agreeing to such a right have I given up the ability to say that excessive beating is wrong? Talk about idiotic statements. I know you’re a smart guy; act like it.

You've consented to making a basic right, the right to property, subject to majority vote. No. I’ve consented to making the right of property subject to specific and delineated limitations with the method by which those limitations are enacted, within wide guidelines, left up to chosen representatives. Our nation is predicated on the notion that certain rights are to be voluntarily given up in order to peaceably live with others, and under the belief that by so doing the vast majority of each persons rights can be protected far better than could be done by one person working alone. You voluntarily agreed to such a system. So while you would be correct to say that gov’t has exceeded the intent of the original contract, you would be incorrect to say they are stealing your money since you agreed to vest the authority of making the decisions in another and those decisions have been made.

Marko Kloos
May 9, 2003, 12:14 PM
I believe a parent has the right (dare I say responsibility) to spank their child when the child misbehaves. Be agreeing to such a right have I given up the ability to say that excessive beating is wrong?

You're finally starting to get the point. The key question here is this:

Who determines what constitutes "excessive"?

You can consider the current level of taxation "excessive", as I do, but the fact is that those who collect the taxes (and live off them) would disagree with you. Unfortunately, you've handed over your property rights already by conceding that the government can take "reasonable" amounts of money from your paycheck. The problem is that they go by their definition of reasonable, not yours. It's not a question of degree, but of principle: once you have ceded a right, you have for all intents and purposes ceded it completely.

ahenry
May 9, 2003, 12:49 PM
The problem is that they go by their definition of reasonable, not yours. In another discussion I would be happy to argue that point, but I’ll limit myself for this thread and just say that the constitution defines “excess” and “reasonable”. My point still remains however, you agreed to vest the authority of such decisions in certain persons and those persons have made decisions that you agreed to abide by (or at least abide by while you sought change in the prescribed manner). Therefore, taxation is not theft. It is a very simple concept and your distaste for the level of taxation or even the manner is which it is collected changes nothing. You knew full well when you came here what the system was (is) and regardless of how you want to couch your decision to come here in “it was better than any other place” the fact remains that nothing is being done to you that you did not agree to allow, with the previously mentioned caveats of prescribed methods of change.

Tim Burke
May 9, 2003, 03:49 PM
Mike Irwin wrote:For some reason I thought other Presidents had done hook landings on carriers before. The only other President that I know has done them was 41, and it was long before he was POTUS.

Hkmp5sd
May 9, 2003, 05:33 PM
Hannity said on his show today that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41) and Clinton had all used naval vessels for photo-ops and for political/re-election purposes.

The only difference is that Bush (43) did it in an impressive way and the dumocrats are going bonkers over it. Unlike Clinton's visits to military bases/vessels, with Bush, the members of the military did not have to be ordered to attend and cheer.

Navy joe
May 9, 2003, 05:50 PM
HK, you and Hannity forgot one. TR built a darn entire fleet for political purposes. Of course it helped our world opinion a bunch too when he sailed them into every decent port around the globe, but the home front loved it too.

Lincoln made numerous visits to the war fronts as well as ships on blockade duty.

I think you nailed the difference in between 42 and 43 though.

JPM70535
May 9, 2003, 06:16 PM
My .02

People don't demonize Clinton in response to criticism of Bush. People demonize Clinton because he was the most moraly bereft politicians to ever hold the office of President. All of his thinking was done by his little head vs. his big head. His chief claim to fame was in knowing in his own mind what the "meaning of the word is, was. He stole furnishings from the White house, vandalized the peoples property, is currently bilking the United states for security modifications to his and Hillarys residence in NY to the tune of $10,000 per month IIRC. and yet his supporters see no wrongdoing on his part, but see Bush's landing on the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln as wrong.

I understand that Clinton had the oppertunity to make a Carrier landing, but his demand that the pilot be female and that her uniform be equipped with Knee pads squashed the attempt.

I am sorry. I violated one of the rules my Mama taught me to live by, that being if you can't say something nice about someone, say nothing at all. Mea Culpa

TexasVet
May 9, 2003, 07:23 PM
when Bush's "photo ops" add up to 10% of the cost incurred by Clinton's launching of 3/4 of the entire US arsenal of cruise missiles just to get Monica off the front pages, not until then.
:cuss: liberal , inconsistent, double standard :cuss: 's!!!

Tamara
May 9, 2003, 07:36 PM
You’re right, I did leave important details out of my analogy; allow me to fill those details in. Your contract specifically stated that you would have the selection of an agent within whom you vested the authority to make such decisions in your name. Unfortunately over time you forgot how important that agent was and kept picking worse and worse ones, leading to greater and greater misuses of the original contract.

The problem ain't the ones I pick; they all represent me just fine. (Unfortunately, they don't promise a lot in the way of bread and circuses, so all the leeches and/or fascists around me pick someone else, and I wind up with nobody representing me in the cessp... er, Washington. Now we're back to that whole... what was it? "Something, something without representation"?) ;) :p

OF
May 9, 2003, 09:26 PM
GRD - that was DON PERATA, not Waxman DOH! I'm a retard. They just all blend together into a writhing mass sometimes.

- Gabe

F4GIB
May 9, 2003, 10:06 PM
He IS a pilot. GW served in the USAF. He has EARNED his flight suit (unlike the draft dodger Bill Clinton).

The Democrats are showing their desparation.

thorn726
July 6, 2005, 03:12 PM
And just how much did Clinton spend in eight years flying his family on around-the-world vacations?

searching and came acrosss this thread.

you guys are unbelievable.

that quote is about the most misthought post ever.

hmmmmm who has the REcord for the most days on vacation while in office???

this landing was the most dishonest waste of public funds in a long time, and worse it was a TOtal lie.

"the end of combat"

yeah right. i support the war, but no way do i support the idiot in charge of it.

NOTHING justifies that stupid landing. NO previous action byg another pres EVER justifies a current pile of garbage.
that logic is poor, SO poor.

"clinton did this so it's ok" yeah right.
good way to show how bush is the better man.

CentralTexas
July 6, 2005, 03:32 PM
but repubs and democrats do the same things, none are better than the other...
CT

Hawkman
July 6, 2005, 04:03 PM
YGBSM - somebody finds a thread over 2 YEARS OLD and revives it?

Get a life.

richyoung
July 6, 2005, 04:59 PM
... a species of trollfish native to the Berkley area of California. identifying characteristics are lack of a spine, large mouth, and asymetric pectoral fins, causing it to constantly veer to the left. Often schools with the Barbarosa Striesandicus, (common name "Shrill Rock Chucker"), the Billius Clintonia, (common name, "Yellow Bellied Groper,..er, I mean Grouper"), The Odonneldus Rosacia, (common name, "Red Faced Chub") and the Edwardus Kennedius, (common name, "Chappaquidic Killer Whale"). Not to be swallowed without a serious seasoning of salt....

2nd Amendment
July 6, 2005, 05:03 PM
SO, Thorny, what exactly does the number of days on vacation have to do with what the cost was? Was your point that not merely was Clinton more expensive, but that we got even less out of the expense? We already figured that out.

As for the rest of your irrelevant partisan spew, no justification was needed for the landing. If you had a problem with it you had an opportunity to vote. Give it a rest now, you lost.

MarkDido
July 6, 2005, 05:08 PM
searching and came acrosss this thread.

you guys are unbelievable.

that quote is about the most misthought post ever.

hmmmmm who has the REcord for the most days on vacation while in office???

That would be Bill Clinton. He was on vacation for 8 years while Hillary ran the country.

"...I'm not going to allow reporters to paw through our papers! We are the President!" - Hillary Clinton

Art Eatman
July 6, 2005, 11:50 PM
Don't even think of asking why.

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Bush Landing on USS Lincoln too Costly" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!