• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Low level flight panics NY

Redress said:
I am saying it did not happen. Complain about things the democrats have done, that is appropriate, not what they might have done if something had happened that did not in fact happen, which is just silly.
Click to expand...

This is a fascinating statement from a Liberal which illustrates double standard thinking when this forum has been plastered with the Liberals speculations, hyperbole and innuendo about Bush, Rove and Cheney committing high crimes against the Liberals of the United States.

I guess you are also confused what the term "debate politics" means.

Let me be sure I understand your argument; it is okay to SPECULATE about Bush’s connections with BIG OIL and his illegal war on Iraq or Cheney’s ties to Halliburton’s profits and work in Iraq, but it is NOT okay to speculate what the media treatment would have been had this idiotic flyover wasting $328,000 of the tax payers money for a photo shoot would have been during Bush's Presidency? ;)

:roll:
 
American said:
Yeah right. Tell me you can't see Pelosi calling for hearings under the Bush Administration. You know it's true. They wanted Bush's head on a platter so bad they were beside themselves. I'm surprised that Obama didn't say he inherited this flyover; that it was already planned under Bush.
Click to expand...

Pelosi wouldn't even call hearings on torture or Bush's violation of his oath of office by starting an unnecessary war. In fact, she has NEVER called for hearings on the Bush administration. So what the heck are you talking about?
 
from WillRockwell: ....When the President is not using them, they are just two more planes in the Air Force inventory.
================================================

BeeEss......AF1 is for the POTUS or HIS designate....it is NOT for any other purpose.:roll:
 
WillRockwell said:
Pelosi wouldn't even call hearings on torture or Bush's violation of his oath of office by starting an unnecessary war. In fact, she has NEVER called for hearings on the Bush administration. So what the heck are you talking about?
Click to expand...

The reasons are patently obvious as well; because others are already holding such witch hunts/hearings.

But even a rabid hyper partisan lunatic Liberal like Pelosi also knows that one must have EVIDENCE in order to have such hearings; what profound irony that many like you still don't comprehend that truth and reality. :cool:
 
Truth Detector said:
This is a fascinating statement from a Liberal which illustrates double standard thinking when this forum has been plastered with the Liberals speculations, hyperbole and innuendo about Bush, Rove and Cheney committing high crimes against the Liberals of the United States.

I guess you are also confused what the term "debate politics" means.

Let me be sure I understand your argument; it is okay to SPECULATE about Bush’s connections with BIG OIL and his illegal war on Iraq or Cheney’s ties to Halliburton’s profits and work in Iraq, but it is NOT okay to speculate what the media treatment would have been had this idiotic flyover wasting $328,000 of the tax payers money for a photo shoot would have been during Bush's Presidency? ;)

:roll:
Click to expand...

Time to educate you again. I never said any of the things you mention. I have not commented on Bush's connection with "BIG OIL", never claimed his war in Iraq was illegal, and don't know enough to really comment on Cheney and the contracts Halliburton got to work in Iraq(nor does anyone except those actually involved). This is the classic straw man argument thing. You are creating positions for me, and then arguing against them, instead of arguing against my actual positions.

If you disagree with what I say, please do, but try to limit the disagreement to what I actually say, not what you imagine I might think.
 
Redress said:
Time to educate you again. I never said any of the things you mention. I have not commented on Bush's connection with "BIG OIL", never claimed his war in Iraq was illegal, and don't know enough to really comment on Cheney and the contracts Halliburton got to work in Iraq(nor does anyone except those actually involved). This is the classic straw man argument thing. You are creating positions for me, and then arguing against them, instead of arguing against my actual positions.

If you disagree with what I say, please do, but try to limit the disagreement to what I actually say, not what you imagine I might think.
Click to expand...

Let me correct my statement for your edification:

Let me be sure I understand your argument; it is okay for LIBERALS speculate about Bush’s connections with BIG OIL and his illegal war on Iraq or Cheney’s ties to Halliburton’s profits and work in Iraq, but it is NOT okay for CONSERVATIVES to speculate what the media treatment would have been had this idiotic flyover wasting $328,000 of the tax payers money for a photo shoot would have been during Bush's Presidency?

Again, if you are going to designate yourself as the "speculation" police on DP, you are going to be VERY busy with those who share YOUR ideology.

Much debate is about speculation on what political opponents may or may not do or have done based on historic actions.

It's like this; I can almost bet that Obama and the Democrats are going to have to substantially raise taxes based on their past actions. I cannot state it for a fact, but my speculation is a pretty safe bet.

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Let me correct my statement for your edification:

Let me be sure I understand your argument; it is okay for LIBERALS speculate about Bush’s connections with BIG OIL and his illegal war on Iraq or Cheney’s ties to Halliburton’s profits and work in Iraq, but it is NOT okay for CONSERVATIVES to speculate what the media treatment would have been had this idiotic flyover wasting $328,000 of the tax payers money for a photo shoot would have been during Bush's Presidency?

Again, if you are going to designate yourself as the "speculation" police on DP, you are going to be VERY busy with those who share YOUR ideology.

Much debate is about speculation on what political opponents may or may not do or have done based on historic actions.

It's like this; I can almost bet that Obama and the Democrats are going to have to substantially raise taxes based on their past actions. I cannot state it for a fact, but my speculation is a pretty safe bet.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Two points:

One: going back to the comment I made that you attacked, I pointed out that complaining about how some one might react to something that might have, but did not, happen is silly. As an example, if I complained that Bush might have gotten us in yet another war, this time with Iran, if things had happened differently, would be silly on my part(side note...complaining about my tortured sentence structure and overuse of commas is probably pretty legit). Try not to read too much into that.

Two: "Liberals" is a blanket term, and I fall under that blanket. When you state "liberals do this horrible thing", and I do not, it is trivial to disprove your statement. Try using some qualifiers. "Some liberals" would be much more accurate than "liberals".
 
WillRockwell said:
No, they are requested by the White House and their movements controlled while the President is using them. The rest of the time they are used, stored, and serviced by the Presidential Airlift Group, part of Air Mobility Command's 89th Airlift Wing, based at Andrews Air Force Base. When the President is not using them, they are just two more planes in the Air Force inventory. Maybe you should become more informed before you decide to get snippy.:2wave:
Click to expand...

Maybe you can explain why the Director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, took responsibility for the flyover and apologized for it. Caldera is also a Deputy Assistant to the President.
"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision.
Click to expand...

So, in this case AF1 WAS requested by the White House for this stunt.

Question?? Do you actually think that the Air Force wanted publicity photos of AF1?? Or more likely, someone wanted the photos for Obama's publicity machine.

Someone much higher than Caldera in the administration approved this, someone that knew Obama's trips must be scheduled around it.
 
Gill said:
Maybe you can explain why the Director of the White House Military Office, Louis Caldera, took responsibility for the flyover and apologized for it. Caldera is also a Deputy Assistant to the President.


So, in this case AF1 WAS requested by the White House for this stunt.

Question?? Do you actually think that the Air Force wanted publicity photos of AF1?? Or more likely, someone wanted the photos for Obama's publicity machine.

Someone much higher than Caldera in the administration approved this, someone that knew Obama's trips must be scheduled around it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, it doesn't make sense that a photograph like that would be requested by the Obama administration. More than likely it was for this website
Factsheets : VC-25 - Air Force One : VC-25 - Air Force One
 
WillRockwell said:
Sorry, it doesn't make sense that a photograph like that would be requested by the Obama administration. More than likely it was for this website
Factsheets : VC-25 - Air Force One : VC-25 - Air Force One
Click to expand...
Yeah, why would a socialist like Obama want AF1 flying near a symbol of freedom?
statue-of-liberty.jpg
 
American said:
Yeah, why would a socialist like Obama want AF1 flying near a symbol of freedom?
statue-of-liberty.jpg
Click to expand...

Weren't socialists fond of using pictures in their propaganda?

Just sayin'....:lol:
 
American said:
Yeah, why would a socialist like Obama want AF1 flying near a symbol of freedom?
statue-of-liberty.jpg
Click to expand...

isn't that the statue that has something to say about immigrants along the lines of "give us your tired, poor hungry".
 
winston53660 said:
isn't that the statue that has something to say about immigrants along the lines of "give us your tired, poor hungry".
Click to expand...
It's called the Statue of LIBERTY. Something very foreign to big government zealots.
 
American said:
It's called the Statue of LIBERTY. Something very foreign to big government zealots.
Click to expand...

It's French. What kind of health care do they have?
 
Photo op my azz.

I do not know what was really going on that day, and I was not in the city, but being that I was only a few miles away and had a excellent view of both AF1 and the Fighter escort flying extremely low and in a formation that had the smaller plane just aft and alongside the larger I can see how some could have easily mistaken it for it being in pursuit.

You have to consider that AF1 is a enormously large plane that is hard to mistake or miss, and for anyone that was either at ground zero or had a strong connection etc this would put them into defense mode real quick.

All politics aside I have to wonder what really was the purpose as no one that can avoid soiling themselves regularly would have a problem understanding that this whole thing was not a good idea.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom