Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Democrats and private jets

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
rettofly said:
The goal of Socialism is for everyone but the ruling elite to be equally miserable and dependent on the government.

Let's start now to work on throwing them out of office the next time we go to the polls.
Click to expand...

We have too many mentally lazy people in this country to overthrow the socialist pigs. I just hope people wake up and smell the sheeeit from the Demon-cratic party so we can become America once again.
 
TORCH67 said:
The C-20(GIII) was just not good enough for Nancy(the mouth) Pelosi. It just couldn't go non-stop from DC to San Fran. Security concerns after 9-11 also made the GIII just not good enough. Now she flies the C-32(757) each week round trip. At the price of approx $60,000 each way, she is costing the US taxpayers $480,000 per month.

I think we should demand that she put up or shut up!
Click to expand...

Is this true? I had her in the back of my plane in first class. This was back in October, before the messiah was anointed.
 
Word I have is it was a Democratic Congresswoman from Ohio, who got the no-Frac provision pulled from the house version of the stimulus package. She told the committee chairman it was going to screw union members in her district.

Democrats bad, Republicans good. Let's see, how does that Theseus jibe with the fact that you probably now owe your very jobs to a flippen Democrat?:laugh:

Also looks like the "we hate unions" croud also has a dept of gratitude. I just love irony...
 
Word I have is it was a Democratic Congresswoman from Ohio, who got the no-Frac provision pulled from the house version of the stimulus package.
Click to expand...

the fact that you probably now owe your very jobs to a flippen Democrat?
Click to expand...
That very well may be true. However, consider that this was a democrat authored bill. That provision, if it existed, was put in there by democrats...
 
After all the atrocities perpetrated on this country by the sh*t-birds in the party of George Bush, that made it through their system of checks and balances, I wouldn't fault the Dems. for a trial balloon/fishing expedition that never put anything on the deck of the boat. Fact is in the end they self corrected. More than I can say for the presumptive plotocrats in the R. party.

You help those that that hate and undermine you, the working people of this country, when you support the conservative party. The sooner you realize that the better for all of us.
 
I wouldn't fault the Dems. for a trial balloon/fishing expedition that never put anything on the deck of the boat. Fact is in the end they self corrected
Click to expand...
Of course you don't fault them...Dems can do no wrong. I would be willing to bet that if this was a Republican bill, you would not be so gracious.
You help those that that hate and undermine you, the working people of this country, when you support the conservative party. The sooner you realize that the better for all of us.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, that is some of the biggest bull5hit I've read on this board. Statements like your entire last post put you in the same category as Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, except on the left fringe. All emotion and talking points with no logic....and the ironic part is, you don't even see it.
 
The fact is I was responding to the Dem. bashing on this thread and the irony that it was a Democrat who ultimately saved all of us from the Fractional provision in the stimulus bill. I also pointed out that no matter how misguided it was to have included the provision to begin with, ultimately it was because of this Congresswoman's desire to spare her union constituents from the implications of this provision that saved the day.

The implication of that argument was that no Republican authored bill would ever be amended to benefit union members.

Now that we are back on topic, I would also point out that you responded with hyperbole, misdirection and ad hominem attacks.

Making assumptions about how I would feel if a bill were advanced by Republicans, changing the subject and comparing me to radical figures does not in any way advance a "logical" counter argument.

Why not try again and explain to me why after eight years of war, government incompetence at the highest level, constitutional malfeasance on a historical scale and economic catastrophe, all presided over by a Republican President, why I or anyone else should listen to anything you people have to say?

But I almost forgot, everyone who has a different opinion from you and ilk is from the "fringe" and lacks insight into what's really going on. Get over yourself.
 
The fact is I was and am responding to Republican bashing by you on this thread and the irony that these provisions were put in place by democrats to begin with. I personally do not subscribe to mantra from either side of this argument that all Democrats are good/bad and all Republicans are good/bad. There are members of both parties that I agree with and disagree with.

I certainly support what the congresswoman did, but as a rule I do not trust politicians and question her motivation. Would she have gone to bat for us if we all were not members of a national labor party? It really should not matter if we are union constituents or not. I would like to think that she would have, but I doubt it.
The implication of that argument was that no Republican authored bill would ever be amended to benefit union members.
Click to expand...
Making assumptions about how I would feel if a bill were advanced by Republicans...
Click to expand...
It looks like I wasn't off in my assumption. In my opinion, this bill never would have made it trough a Republican congress anyway, nor would that provision have even been in there.
...changing the subject and comparing me to radical figures does not in any way advance a "logical" counter argument.
Click to expand...
Counter argument to what? I am not disputing the basic facts of what you put forth. Rather, I was just pointing out that your "opinion" about conservatives is, quite frankly, left-wing radical rhetoric. Not only is it false, but is just as bad as saying that all liberals are socialists and communists...which would also be false.
Why not try again and explain to me why after eight years of war, government incompetence at the highest level, constitutional malfeasance on a historical scale and economic catastrophe, all presided over by a Republican President, why I or anyone else should listen to anything you people have to say?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, Bush is a RINO. There are many things he did that I agree with, and just as many things he did that I disagreed with. It would take pages and pages to debate the points you made, but to blame everything on him or the party is simplistic and DOES lack insight into what is really going on.
But I almost forgot, everyone who has a different opinion from you and ilk is from the "fringe" and lacks insight into what's really going on.
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that you responded with hyperbole, misdirection and ad hominem attacks. You now are making assumptions about my opinion of others who hold different beliefs or viewpoints than I do. Your assumption is wrong. I have good friends who are liberal. I both value and respect their opinions even though I sometimes disagree with them.
Get over yourself.
Click to expand...
Yeah...OK. You really should take your own advice...
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Low taxes for the rich has been tried for 8 long years. Didn't work. Let's try to help the little guy for awhile.

Oh hey, THAT'S ME!!!! SWEET!!!!!!
 
glasspilot said:
Low taxes for the rich has been tried for 8 long years. Didn't work. Let's try to help the little guy for awhile.

Oh hey, THAT'S ME!!!! SWEET!!!!!!
Click to expand...
"Low taxes for the rich", didn't have a thing to do with the crisis we are in. Lax lending standards (encouraged by Democrats and Republicans alike), a poor job by ratings agencies, poor regulation of the banking and securities industry, and Americans with a want it now mentality, regardless if you have the cash to pay for it, caused the crisis we are in. We are all to blame and the tax structure has nothing to do with it. Changing it however might have something to do with how and when we get out of this. Increasing taxes on anyone during a near depression is not a way to get out of it.
 
Republicans defend Corporate Jets...
While the dems demonize us....



Netjets on Rush Limbaugh show....
New Rules Target Private Aviation
There are new rules that are proposed by the transportation safety administration, part of homeland security, that would treat private business aviation identically to commercial aviation. One of the results of this could be that if the rules are adopted treating private aviation the same as commercial aviation, Tiger Woods, nor any other professional golfer, nor any or golfer could carry their golf clubs on their airplane because the baggage compartment in the private jet is accessible from the passenger cabin and the clubs could theoretically be used as weapons even though they never have been. So Tiger Woods, he's gotta deal with NetJets. He flies around on G4s and G550s wherever he goes. If this rule is adopted down the road, he won't be able to take his golf clubs. Certain destinations he'll be required to take an air marshal. Every one of his passengers will have to go through a background check. Their privacy will be lost. Air marshals will be required on certain routes based on destinations. Once you have submitted your passenger manifest, there will be no changes allowed 90 minutes before departure​
 
This BS power grab by the TSA started under Bush, and is now under Obama. It's a power grab by the TSA, not a democrat/republican issue.

The Dems would get more respect from me if they would reign the TSA in however........
 
Rush - Capt. Oxycodone - Limbaugh??? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Look, you are gonna have to find someone with a shred of credibility, otherwise we will just think it's all about the bo-bo. (that is "drugs" for the straight people);)

gunfyter said:
Republicans defend Corporate Jets...
While the dems demonize us....



Netjets on Rush Limbaugh show....
New Rules Target Private Aviation
There are new rules that are proposed by the transportation safety administration, part of homeland security, that would treat private business aviation identically to commercial aviation. One of the results of this could be that if the rules are adopted treating private aviation the same as commercial aviation, Tiger Woods, nor any other professional golfer, nor any or golfer could carry their golf clubs on their airplane because the baggage compartment in the private jet is accessible from the passenger cabin and the clubs could theoretically be used as weapons even though they never have been. So Tiger Woods, he's gotta deal with NetJets. He flies around on G4s and G550s wherever he goes. If this rule is adopted down the road, he won't be able to take his golf clubs. Certain destinations he'll be required to take an air marshal. Every one of his passengers will have to go through a background check. Their privacy will be lost. Air marshals will be required on certain routes based on destinations. Once you have submitted your passenger manifest, there will be no changes allowed 90 minutes before departure​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top