House Republican wants to restrict Pelosi’s travel

[KB1KIX]

Ahhhhh...... time to ground Pelosi.......

Though... on the surface.... this bugs me ..... she has no right to pull the crap she did a few months ago - that was insane!

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20070620/i/r3667016087.jpg





http://thehill.com/leading....21.html (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-republican-wants-to-restrict-pelosis-travel-2007-06-21.html)

Jonathan

[KI4PEQ]

Her Nancyness is a legislator. She is not a member of the executive branch. She is not a diplomat. She DID go too far, and overstepped her authority as a member of the legislative branch.

She also demands a larger aircraft with more range so that she and her family can commute between D.C. and S.F. without stopping for fuel.

Hey Nancy, there is a wonderful institution in this country that can handle the travel requirements of your family and your entourage. It is called the commercial aviation sector.

In other words, call the Congressional Travel Office and book yourself and your cronies on American, United, or any other of our fine domestic carriers. If and when GWB and Cheney simultaneously kick the bucket, you can get your big airplane ride on the taxpayer's dime then.

You can afford it. Your husband is a millionaire.

[KB1KIX]

She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan

[K6BBC]

I have a different take. I would restrict the entire congresses’ travel. In fact, they can all be restricted to their homes in their districts so they will stop doing things. These things they do are expensive and screw things up. Keep them home.

bbc

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,19:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
She's not a neocon?

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ June 21 2007,16:05)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,19:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
She's not a neocon?
You are correct sir. Besides, there are too many IMPORTANT things to worry about right now. This silly topic is nothing more than a republican talking point.

[ad4mg]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,19:24)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ June 21 2007,16:05)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,19:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
She's not a neocon?
You are correct sir. Besides, there are too many IMPORTANT things to worry about right now. This silly topic is nothing more than a republican talking point.
But ... but ... but Pelosi! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 21 2007,15:43)]I have a different take. I would restrict the entire congresses’ travel. In fact, they can all be restricted to their homes in their districts so they will stop doing things. These things they do are expensive and screw things up. Keep them home.

bbc
You have a point, especially in this internet age where telecommuting works.

And with the debate you see on QRZ, they could just put up a BB, put the bills up, and debate them http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Heck of a way to save money. You'd just have to make sure they didn't click on any weird links and get viruses http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,19:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
None of 'em need to be parading around the globe, in political hotspots, dealing outside of the administration.

If anyone on any side did the same thing - it's just wrong.


Um.....

I'm far from a Neocon - ya'll really love buzzwords that make you think you are intelligent.

Jonathan

[K6BBC]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ June 21 2007,18:00)]Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ June 21 2007,15:43)]I have a different take. I would restrict the entire congresses’ travel. In fact, they can all be restricted to their homes in their districts so they will stop doing things. These things they do are expensive and screw things up. Keep them home.

bbc
You have a point, especially in this internet age where telecommuting works.

And with the debate you see on QRZ, they could just put up a BB, put the bills up, and debate them http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Heck of a way to save money. You'd just have to make sure they didn't click on any weird links and get viruses http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Good catch - I would shut off their Internet too.

bbc

[ka5piu]

Hello.

I looked at the application for transportation that Speaker Pelosi filed.
I think we have a case of fraud and purjury.
Remember when she said that this was not a diplomatic mission?
Look at what she filed with, off all agencies, the State Department.
I may not agree with Bush and the Republicans, but this time they got her.
That woman lied.
Perhaps THAT is why she is so against the idea of impeachment?
Did our darling Democrats screw up?

[N7RJD]

The only travel restrictions I would impose on members of Congress would be to not allow them return tickets when traveling internationally. A few weeks of this and we can really clean house (and the Senate too.) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,18:54)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,19:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
None of 'em need to be parading around the globe, in political hotspots, dealing outside of the administration.

If anyone on any side did the same thing - it's just wrong.


Um.....

I'm far from a Neocon - ya'll really love buzzwords that make you think you are intelligent.

Jonathan
I don't need buzz words to make me feel intelligent, that's what neo- cons are for.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,17:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
Madame Speaker demands a plane that will allow transcontinental flight, carrying her family members and her entourage nonstop from D.C. to California. IOW, something along these lines C-32 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90). What she is entitled to for such commuting is this aircraft C-20 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87).

[w2amr]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 22 2007,02:39)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,17:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
Madame Speaker demands a plane that will allow transcontinental flight, carrying her family members and her entourage nonstop from D.C. to California. IOW, something along these lines C-32 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90). What she is entitled to for such commuting is this aircraft C-20 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87).
And the decider wastes fuel flying around the country telling lies. What's worse?

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 22 2007,04:01)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 22 2007,02:39)]Quote[/b] (w2amr @ June 21 2007,17:00)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,14:26)]She can afford it - she's wealthy as well.

She really shouldn't be allowed to use air travel, after all, doesn't she agree with Gore's "Carbon Tax" ideology?

Jonathan
She uses the same plane that Dennis Hastert used. So what's the problem?
Madame Speaker demands a plane that will allow transcontinental flight, carrying her family members and her entourage nonstop from D.C. to California. IOW, something along these lines C-32 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90). What she is entitled to for such commuting is this aircraft C-20 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87).
And the decider wastes fuel flying around the country telling lies. What's worse?
As the President, he is for political, operational, logistical and security reasons, entitled to the use of the VC-25 (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=131)
Although Madame Speaker would like such treatment, she is
1. Not the Commander in Chief.
2. Not entitled to the use of the VC-25, as it is reserved for the use of the President and his entourage.
3. Has no use for the specialized equipment and staff onboard the VC-25.

Madame Speaker only needs a military equivalent of a Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream III, a business and corporate jet. Such an aircraft is good enough for the captains of industry. She is making noises for the use of a military equivalent of a Boeing 757, a full blown passenger airliner. The C-32 hauls heavy hitters such as the Secretary of State on overseas missions, because that is what the Secretary of State is supposed to do. It is also used for the use of the Vice President and other members of the Executive Branch for official business. Sorry, Nancy is NOT in that same league.

Now what was that remark about "wasting fuel"? And what is worse? Demanding a bigger aircraft so the Speaker of the House won't be inconvenienced by a fuel stop as she hauls her family and staff around at government expense. She wants a non-stop flight? Delta is ready when she is.

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 22 2007,03:14)]Although Madame Speaker would like such treatment, she is
1. Not the Commander in Chief.
2. Not entitled to the use of the VC-25, as it is reserved for the use of the President and his entourage.
3. Has no use for the specialized equipment and staff onboard the VC-25.

Madame Speaker only needs a military equivalent of a Gulfstream Aerospace Gulfstream III, a business and corporate jet. Such an aircraft is good enough for the captains of industry. She is making noises for the use of a military equivalent of a Boeing 757, a full blown passenger airliner. The C-32 hauls heavy hitters such as the Secretary of State on overseas missions, because that is what the Secretary of State is supposed to do. It is also used for the use of the Vice President and other members of the Executive Branch for official business. Sorry, Nancy is NOT in that same league.

Now what was that remark about "wasting fuel"? And what is worse? Demanding a bigger aircraft so the Speaker of the House won't be inconvenienced by a fuel stop as she hauls her family and staff around at government expense. She wants a non-stop flight? Delta is ready when she is.
Hello.

There is nothing in federal law that says congress is to use any military transportation.

[KD6NIG]

Perhaps they should do like many of our goods and services do in this country....and get in a truck and have it take 3-5 days.

Not fast enough? Ok, toss them in a box and send them Fed-Ex or UPS overnight http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[n2nh]

Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,17:12)]Ahhhhh...... time to ground Pelosi.......

Though... on the surface.... this bugs me ..... she has no right to pull the crap she did a few months ago - that was insane!

Jonathan
And you have no right to tell anyone where they can go. This is not the Stalinist Soviet Union where you had to get permission from the government to go anywhere. Insane crap? That's exactly what this idea sounds like. Socialist insane crap. Then again, maybe it is.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (n2nh @ June 22 2007,14:30)]Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ June 21 2007,17:12)]Ahhhhh...... time to ground Pelosi.......

Though... on the surface.... this bugs me ..... she has no right to pull the crap she did a few months ago - that was insane!

Jonathan
And you have no right to tell anyone where they can go. This is not the Stalinist Soviet Union where you had to get permission from the government to go anywhere. Insane crap? That's exactly what this idea sounds like. Socialist insane crap. Then again, maybe it is.
Wrong as usual buckwheat.
What she did was a direct violation of the Logan act.
Logan Act. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act)
Quote[/b] ] § 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ June 22 2007,08:16)]Perhaps they should do like many of our goods and services do in this country....and get in a truck and have it take 3-5 days.

Not fast enough? Ok, toss them in a box and send them Fed-Ex or UPS overnight http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Perhaps a giant colander launcher?

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 22 2007,10:06)]Hello.

There is nothing in federal law that says congress is to use any military transportation.
You are correct, but since the Congress approves appropriations, the military ferries about Congressmen and Senators as a COURTESY. Only the President has an aircraft specifically equipped and assigned for his use, that is the VC-25, commonly called Air Force One. Actually, ANY aircraft owned by the Air Force and having the President as a passenger is called Air Force One. The Marine helicopter that ferries him to Andrews is called Marine One.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 22 2007,19:44)]Quote[/b] (ka5piu @ June 22 2007,10:06)]Hello.

There is nothing in federal law that says congress is to use any military transportation.
You are correct, but since the Congress approves appropriations, the military ferries about Congressmen and Senators as a COURTESY. Only the President has an aircraft specifically equipped and assigned for his use, that is the VC-25, commonly called Air Force One. Actually, ANY aircraft owned by the Air Force and having the President as a passenger is called Air Force One. The Marine helicopter that ferries him to Andrews is called Marine One.
That's not totally correct.
Any congressmen using military aircraft for any trip are supposed to reimburse the DoD for the cost.