|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
... My sole claim to authority was that I read an article in the WSJ. Funny how it made you and instant expert on wind power. |
Ads |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
... I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would take commercial flights. Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757 was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS (Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the military roles. And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles. The problem with you is that you'll cry corruption at any questionable thing a Republican does and you won't notice far worse on the Liberal side. But then we always knew that about you. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
... Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)? They were marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal combustion engines was in the 1880s. By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This ought to be REALLY good. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On Feb 13, 1:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message ... I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would take commercial flights. Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757 was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS (Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the military roles. The only claims that she asked for a 757 (C-32) come from Republican representatives and news articles that simply take it (unquestioned) as a fact that she (or her staff) asked specifically for the most opulent bird in the fleet. There's also no evidence she asked if she could fly a large entourage. And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles. Again - no proof that she asked for it. While we might have the time to look up the technical aspects of the planes in the 89th Airlift Command's VIP fleet, the Speaker is generally concerned with more pressing matters. What do you think it really more likely? 1) Pelosi or her staff relayed to the Sergeant at Arms that they wanted to take as many people as possible and "Can I get one of those big planes like the C-32/757 or C-40/737?" like she's eying a new Mercedes S-Class. The SoA calls the 89th Airlift at Andrew AFB and asks if they can get, "the same bird the VP and First Lady flies in". They're rebuffed with a letter stating that their demands are outrageous and they can't have it, and essentially "You take what we give you and like it". --or-- 2) Pelosi and her staff have no idea of the technical aspects of the 89th Airlift VIP fleet. The SoA says she's entitled to a flight home in a plane from the 89th Airlift's fleet, she says she would like it to be able to fly non-stop, and the SoA agrees for security purposes. She also wants to know if she can take her family and/or staffers home and what the reimbursement policy is. He or his staff research what can do this (probably a C-37A) and contact the 89th Airlift with the negotiations. The 89th Airlift comes back with a polite letter stating that the plane meeting their needs (for all weather conditions) may not be available at all times (without referring to it by model number but calling it a "larger aircraft" and referring to "non-stop capability"), and the policy on reimbursement (spouse flies for free but others pay the equivalent of coach fare). The SoA thanks them and relays it back to the Speaker. Someone at the DoD gets hold of this, doesn't like Speaker Pelosi's military policies, and leaks it out to Republican lawmakers with a comment that she was being rebuffed after asking for a "Lincoln Bedroom in the Sky". -- -- Read my previous post to this thread on the plane (a C-37A) she was assigned last Thursday. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On Feb 13, 7:13 pm, "y_p_w" wrote:
On Feb 13, 1:40 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Howard Kveck" wrote in message ... I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would take commercial flights. Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757 was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS (Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the military roles. The only claims that she asked for a 757 (C-32) come from Republican representatives and news articles that simply take it (unquestioned) as a fact that she (or her staff) asked specifically for the most opulent bird in the fleet. There's also no evidence she asked if she could fly a large entourage. And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles. Again - no proof that she asked for it. While we might have the time to look up the technical aspects of the planes in the 89th Airlift Command's VIP fleet, the Speaker is generally concerned with more pressing matters. What do you think it really more likely? 1) Pelosi or her staff relayed to the Sergeant at Arms that they wanted to take as many people as possible and "Can I get one of those big planes like the C-32/757 or C-40/737?" like she's eying a new Mercedes S-Class. The SoA calls the 89th Airlift at Andrew AFB and asks if they can get, "the same bird the VP and First Lady flies in". They're rebuffed with a letter stating that their demands are outrageous and they can't have it, and essentially "You take what we give you and like it". --or-- 2) Pelosi and her staff have no idea of the technical aspects of the 89th Airlift VIP fleet. The SoA says she's entitled to a flight home in a plane from the 89th Airlift's fleet, she says she would like it to be able to fly non-stop, and the SoA agrees for security purposes. She also wants to know if she can take her family and/or staffers home and what the reimbursement policy is. He or his staff research what can do this (probably a C-37A) and contact the 89th Airlift with the negotiations. The 89th Airlift comes back with a polite letter stating that the plane meeting their needs (for all weather conditions) may not be available at all times (without referring to it by model number but calling it a "larger aircraft" and referring to "non-stop capability"), and the policy on reimbursement (spouse flies for free but others pay the equivalent of coach fare). The SoA thanks them and relays it back to the Speaker. Someone at the DoD gets hold of this, doesn't like Speaker Pelosi's military policies, and leaks it out to Republican lawmakers with a comment that she was being rebuffed after asking for a "Lincoln Bedroom in the Sky". -- -- Read my previous post to this thread on the plane (a C-37A) she was assigned last Thursday. That this is still ongoing is ridiculous. I like Pelosi about as much as I like syphilis, and view them similarly. I was ****ed at the first reports,which were WAY out of line with what was really going on, as the following detailed reporting made clear. To try and make this into something is ridiculous. It's the "Boy who cried wolf". When she DOES, do hideous ****, and she will, noone is going to notice because of all the noise that's already been made over nothing. People are all wound up over this but the former #3 at the CIA has been idicted on contracting charges and that's not even on TK's radar screen. Maybe because there is NO corruption as he has told us OVER AND OVER AND OVER, it's all a plot. From a source Tom likes: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251760,00.html SAN DIEGO - The CIA's former No. 3 official and a defense contractor were charged Tuesday with fraud and other offenses in the corruption investigation that sent former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham to prison, The Associated Press has learned. From the Wa. Post. Thousands of Army Humvees Lack Armor Upgrade Ann Scott Tyson, A01 (Post) 02/12/2007 Article ...Meanwhile, the unexpected deployment of five additional Army brigades into Baghdad has created an urgent need for 2,000 Humvees with the new armor.Shiite forces in recent months have stepped up their targeting of U.S. soldiers in Baghdad with sophisticated EFPs, described... More well thought out planning from our current leadership. Bill C |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
William Asher wrote:
"Fred Fredburger" wrote in : You are mistaken. I invented the wind, and I assure you that it is a fine power source. Not to toot my own horn, but although you invented it, I broke the wind. Not healthy. I was a member of the engineering team that first studied the feasibility of breaking wind. We determined that the net energy loss involved would accelerate the universe's progress towards entropy. And stuff. Now that you mention it in this context, it would also accelerate the creation of greenhouse gases. I don't really weigh 300 lbs, I've just been refraining from passing gas in the interest of humanity. Just say "NO!" to getting your finger pulled! |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
In article ,
Jack Hollis wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck wrote: The only difference is that she would need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further. It's really pretty simple. Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour? The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think it isn't worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a refueling stop, in addition to the logistics of security. Again, she isn't the one requesting the plane - the Sergeant at Arms and the White House want it this way and the DoD are complying. It's worth pointing out that trying to deal with a plane that can make it across the country (based on fuel load) if conditions are optimal is kind of silly. If there are conditions that make the plane use more fuel than expected, then they need to work out a stop part-way home. The logistics of that are not good: expensive, time consuming, etc. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Howard Kveck" wrote in message ... I'll ask you the same thing I asked Steve Taylor: She has stated that she would take commercial flights. Does it occur to you that she has stated that the reason she wanted a 757 was because she wanted to take her family and friends with her? The PREVIOUS (Republican) House Majority Leader used a small 1 passenger jet. But strangely enough Pelosi wants the biggest commercial type airliner in the military roles. And although she CLAIMED that she just wanted the larger plane in order to fly non-stop from coast to coast, she started this whole thing because she wanted that 757 to fly a couple of hundred miles. The problem with you is that you'll cry corruption at any questionable thing a Republican does and you won't notice far worse on the Liberal side. But then we always knew that about you. Tom, that story has been knocked down a metric buttload of times. Give it up. She isn't the one asking for the plane. Besides, as you well know, her district is in San Francisco, not Virginia. The flight she wanted to make was home for Leo McCarthy's funeral. By the way, Hastert used (mostly) a C-20, which is essentially a Gulfstream III. That has a cappacity of 26 people, not one as you stated above. You are the one crying corruption when there isn't any. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
In article t,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote: "Howard Kveck" wrote in message ... Aren't you forgetting about the Industrial Revolution (both of them)? They were marked by the massive use of coal. The beginning of the use of internal combustion engines was in the 1880s. By all means cite the statistics on coal and oil use in the 1880's. This ought to be REALLY good. The IR began in 1760 (although some move it back to 1780). Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, coal was the fuel of choice. Lots of coal. Mined dirty, burned dirty. -- tanx, Howard Never take a tenant with a monkey. remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
What - Intelligent Thought?
On Feb 13, 8:32 pm, Howard Kveck wrote:
In article , Jack Hollis wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:12:28 -0800, Howard Kveck wrote: The only difference is that she would need a plane that has greater rangethan he did because she needs to fly further. It's really pretty simple. Why can't she stop to refuel? Do you think it's worth another $200,000.00 of taxpayer money per round trip to save her an hour? The DoD are the ones who are taking care of this and they seem to think it isn't worth the added expense and trouble of working the logistics of planning a refueling stop, in addition to the logistics of security. Again, she isn't the one requesting the plane - the Sergeant at Arms and the White House want it this way and the DoD are complying. Wel - the $200,000 figure seems to be for the C-32, and there's still no evidence of Speaker Pelosi ever asking for a specific aircraft. My understanding is that the C-37A she was flown in on Thursday and back to Washington has a far lower operating cost. It's worth pointing out that trying to deal with a plane that can make it across the country (based on fuel load) if conditions are optimal is kind of silly. If there are conditions that make the plane use more fuel than expected, then they need to work out a stop part-way home. The logistics of that are not good: expensive, time consuming, etc. You'll generally notice that there aren't many commercial flights that go cross-country in a 737. The specified range of a 737-700 is theoretically enough to fly cross-country, but I don't imagine most airlines want to take the chance of losing a plane or at the very least making an unscheduled refueling stop. I do understand that the newer 737-700ER has a longer range, but most American carriers seem to want a larger plane for cross-country trips. Since this is a bicycling group, maybe I can pose a query. My old road bike is ancient technology. It's a Bottechia Columbus SL steel frame with a mish-mash of assorted parts that mostly I installed myself. I think the only original parts are the original Campagnolo Xenon (plastic-coated Athena) headset, front-derailleur, crankset, bottom bracket, rear wheel, and seatpost. Everything else was added on later, including a couple of front wheels that I built myself. It's still uses a 7-sp freewheel. Is this bike worth keeping? I don't really ride it much but it carries a lot of sentimental value. The biggest pain is that '96 Campagnolo Record front hub (one of the built wheels) with this dustcap that requires a special tool to remove without scratching. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anybody care to say something intelligent about Landis' web defense ? | [email protected] | Racing | 21 | October 14th 06 02:15 PM |
[totally OT] NYT Article about Intelligent Design | Ernst Noch | Racing | 63 | September 1st 05 06:25 PM |
Intelligent comment | Mikefule | Unicycling | 25 | July 21st 05 03:05 AM |
more intelligent computers | Miles | General | 7 | December 8th 04 01:52 AM |
The Neanderthals: More Intelligent than Mountain Bikers! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 7 | September 30th 03 04:55 PM |