Bush Landing on USS Lincoln too Costly

[mons meg]

But when he is standing in a crowd of other pilots, doesn't it give the appearance of being literally "in uniform"?

 

[BenW]

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]

Didn't you out his CCW application, Jim? I expect he wanted that kept secret...hence the spanking

- Gabe

 

[QuickDraw]

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]

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]

GRD - that was DON PERATA, not Waxman .

 

[jmbg29]

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]

Democrats $%&*% $@&! !*$?& :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

 

[Sleeping Dog]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 “reasonableâ€. 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]

Way back when this thread was on-topic...

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]

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]

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]

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]

I'll start complaining....

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.
liberal , inconsistent, double standard 's!!!

 

[Tamara]

ahenry,

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"?)

 

[OF]

GRD - that was DON PERATA, not Waxman

DOH! I'm a retard. They just all blend together into a writhing mass sometimes.

- Gabe