BuffettNews.com

CrznDnUS1 wrote:Maybe I mislabled the thread and it should have read "Where is the outrage, media?"

The media covered it, or at least I saw some footage about it last weekend.

spoonerhizolehound wrote:While so many were on the "second coming high" of the "savior" Obama...I sat back keeping up front the one thing that they all seemed to have forgotten.

He's a politician!!!

The only ones I've seen refer to Obama as a "savior" or "Messiah" have been his detractors.

East Texas Parrothead wrote:

moeron wrote:Yesterday, the President and Vice were eating out at a greasy spoon, Hamburgers, fries. Obama Insisted that he pay for the food. Mosy pols and the like would love free stuff. I have no problem whatsoever.

Yeah. About yesterday. They hammered him because he asked for spicy mustard ... like Poupon ... give them a break. It's no wonder it's hard to find anyone with integrity to run for public office. We treat them like dirt.

Personally I think the man could do everything right and crap gold for every US citizen and people would still find reason to compalin.

"Those are $50 turds . . . I wanted $100 turds!"

CrznDnUS1 wrote:If you would look back at the very first post, I mention the sneakers, fly-over and spending all at the same time.

True, but if you would look back at your very first post you saved your "biggest outrage" for the fact that she wore the shoes to a D.C. food bank. I am not mincing words, attacking, or condemning, just calling 'em as I sees 'em.

No one said Obama (and Michelle) can't take it ... he's tough as old boot leather and she's the Chicago version of a true steel magnolia.

I don't listen to Rush. But, I do have access to the AP wire ... and his denial of the recession is beyond twisted. Let him come to my office and visit with the five people they laid off last week ... or with the 30 something people that lost their jobs when the local car dealership closed.

This just in from CNN ....

President Obama has accepted the resignation of Louis Caldera, the director of the White House Military Office responsible for the controversial low-altitude flyover of New York by a 747 plane used as Air Force One, the White House said Friday.

The photo shoot, which President Obama said he was "furious" with, happened on April 27. The image of a low-flying plane accompanied by an F-16 fighter jet sent some New Yorkers into the streets and into a panic -- reminding them of the tragic 9/11 attacks on the city.
...
Military officials estimate the mission and the photo shoot, aimed at updating file photos of Air Force One -- cost $328,835 in taxpayer money.


Now, that's what I'm talking about. Good riddance.

spoonerhizolehound wrote:While so many were on the "second coming high" of the "savior" Obama...I sat back keeping up front the one thing that they all seemed to have forgotten.

He's a politician!!!

One of my favorite movie lines is from The Departed and it applies here. I will reword it accordingly.

"Taxpayers are like mushrooms; feed them s#@$ and keep them in the dark."

That's a politician's job.

Trusting a politician is like giving your car keys to a car thief.
You can hope for him to return your car but don't expect it.
The best you can do is hope that your car doesn't get damaged or end up in a chop shop.

Howdy, SpooooooooooooooonerBABY!!!

Y-NO-9-O wrote:

CrznDnUS1 wrote:If you would look back at the very first post, I mention the sneakers, fly-over and spending all at the same time.

True, but if you would look back at your very first post you saved your "biggest outrage" for the fact that she wore the shoes to a D.C. food bank. I am not mincing words, attacking, or condemning, just calling 'em as I sees 'em.

I think you are reading incorrectly. The sneakers were not the biggest outrage, they are all the same (well not really, but thats another story) the biggest part was where she wore them. Almost like going to a food bank and walk in eating a cheeseburger, it's a slap in the face. And just to restate what I have said previously, it is not my or our outrage but why is the so called fair media not outraged. And as a previous posted said yes the title of the thread was mislabeled and should read "WHERE'S THE MEDIA OUTRAGE".

spoonerhizolehound wrote:While so many were on the "second coming high" of the "savior" Obama...I sat back keeping up front the one thing that they all seemed to have forgotten.

He's a politician!!!

One of my favorite movie lines is from The Departed and it applies here. I will reword it accordingly.

"Taxpayers are like mushrooms; feed them s#@$ and keep them in the dark."

That's a politician's job.

Trusting a politician is like giving your car keys to a car thief.
You can hope for him to return your car but don't expect it.
The best you can do is hope that your car doesn't get damaged or end up in a chop shop.

Spoonie !!! Wow! a flash from the past...

I wrote:True, but if you would look back at your very first post you saved your "biggest outrage" for the fact that she wore the shoes to a D.C. food bank.

You wrote:I think you are reading incorrectly. The sneakers were not the biggest outrage, they are all the same (well not really, but thats another story) the biggest part was where she wore them.

Last week you wrote:...the biggest outrage should be that she wore them to a D.C. food bank.

Please explain what am I reading incorrectly?

East Texas Parrothead wrote:This just in from CNN ....

President Obama has accepted the resignation of Louis Caldera, the director of the White House Military Office responsible for the controversial low-altitude flyover of New York by a 747 plane used as Air Force One, the White House said Friday.

The photo shoot, which President Obama said he was "furious" with, happened on April 27. The image of a low-flying plane accompanied by an F-16 fighter jet sent some New Yorkers into the streets and into a panic -- reminding them of the tragic 9/11 attacks on the city.
...
Military officials estimate the mission and the photo shoot, aimed at updating file photos of Air Force One -- cost $328,835 in taxpayer money.


Now, that's what I'm talking about. Good riddance.

'Bout time... wonder why it took two weeks....

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:To be fair, it sounds like the President didn't know. I hope he ripped someone a new one. Heads truly do need to roll in the White House Office of Military Affairs. If Louis Caldera had an ounce of integrity, he'd resign. If the President wants to prove that his fury is more than lip service, he'll fire Caldera.

I actually don't have so much of a problem with the *cost* of the flight. That came out of designated training dollars that were earmarked to fly those planes. The pilots have to keep up with training time. The issue I have is WHERE and WHY they flew those planes. Over NYC, without notice. Unconscionable.......

Ummm, there's more to the report . . . .

Gates said the photo-shoot was only part of the planes' mission, which also included practice instrument approaches and landings at Atlantic City International Airport.

The entire mission had been coordinated with officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and air traffic control representatives in the New York area, he wrote.

The Defense Department review found that the mission had been planned in late March and that the Federal Aviation Administration, New York air traffic control officials, law enforcement officials in New York and New Jersey and the New York City mayor’s office were part of the coordination, according to Gates’s letter.


To be fair, they did brief the authorities; they couldn't tell the world that they were going to be flying AF1 in NYC, it's hard to tell what some crackpot or zealot might have tried to do.

They may have used poor judgment in not anticipating the response(s) of the people of NYC, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of planes in the US inventory that are every day doing the same thing, just not over NYC.

SeattleParrotHead wrote:Ummm, there's more to the report . . . .

Gates said the photo-shoot was only part of the planes' mission, which also included practice instrument approaches and landings at Atlantic City International Airport.

The entire mission had been coordinated with officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and air traffic control representatives in the New York area, he wrote.

To be fair, they did brief the authorities; they couldn't tell the world that they were going to be flying AF1 in NYC, it's hard to tell what some crackpot or zealot might have tried to do.

They may have used poor judgment in not anticipating the response(s) of the people of NYC, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of planes in the US inventory that are every day doing the same thing, just not over NYC.

Yeah, that's what I mean about not being ticked off about the cost, once I thought about it. It was the total lack of judgment I have the issue with. They should have gotten the shots they needed with a generic background and photoshopped it in to an NYC background.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

SeattleParrotHead wrote:Ummm, there's more to the report . . . .

Gates said the photo-shoot was only part of the planes' mission, which also included practice instrument approaches and landings at Atlantic City International Airport.

The entire mission had been coordinated with officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and air traffic control representatives in the New York area, he wrote.

To be fair, they did brief the authorities; they couldn't tell the world that they were going to be flying AF1 in NYC, it's hard to tell what some crackpot or zealot might have tried to do.

They may have used poor judgment in not anticipating the response(s) of the people of NYC, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of planes in the US inventory that are every day doing the same thing, just not over NYC.

Yeah, that's what I mean about not being ticked off about the cost, once I thought about it. It was the total lack of judgment I have the issue with. They should have gotten the shots they needed with a generic background and photoshopped it in to an NYC background.

Overall I agree heads should roll for the incident. I do firmly believe the politicos listened and needed a fall guy. Unfortunately for him, they chose him. Now some people are apparently happy. I am quite sure that more than him, were involved in the whole goat rope. Including at least one "head" (probably more) from "Homeland Security". How can Homeland Security possibly deny any involvement in this?

The President was not aboard the plane and it did not carry or qualify for, the designation AIR FORCE ONE!

They are never going to start at the top on this. Only the little guys or pawns are going to be sacrificed. YES THAT particular plane has a security priority. BUT...that designation is not the same as AIR FORCE ONE! The plane would only have had such designation if the President were aboard.

Let's say, the USAF wanted to fly a B-2 Stealth bomber, or a B-52, or a F-22 or an F-15 or "The Thunderbirds" or an SR-71, or a TR-1/U-2, or a C-5 for a photo op. Al of those planes carry security designations. (At least in certain configurations.) The word would be out out all over the place.

Granted there is blame to be placed. I do not believe for one second the blame is solely on his shoulders. I feel mainly, he is a scapegoat and victim of the politicians. None of the top heads involved are going to be chopped or fired. There is no way in Hell, Homeland Security was not or could not have been notified in this day and age.
If for some possible reason HS was NOT notified, when local law enforcement clearly was, then that says a lot about Homeland Security, doesn't it? Who placed the security designation on the overflight? Generally/usually such photo ops are open to anyone.

"Somebody" needs to do some serious thinking about all of this when they start releasing such data and laying blame.

I hope the guy got a good severence package for this. Meanwhile the "heads" and politicos involved, still have a job.
Note none of this is distracting from his involvement in this. It merely points out that the real culprits involved are being ignored for the moment.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

SeattleParrotHead wrote:Ummm, there's more to the report . . . .

Gates said the photo-shoot was only part of the planes' mission, which also included practice instrument approaches and landings at Atlantic City International Airport.

The entire mission had been coordinated with officials from the Federal Aviation Administration and air traffic control representatives in the New York area, he wrote.

To be fair, they did brief the authorities; they couldn't tell the world that they were going to be flying AF1 in NYC, it's hard to tell what some crackpot or zealot might have tried to do.

They may have used poor judgment in not anticipating the response(s) of the people of NYC, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of planes in the US inventory that are every day doing the same thing, just not over NYC.

Yeah, that's what I mean about not being ticked off about the cost, once I thought about it. It was the total lack of judgment I have the issue with. They should have gotten the shots they needed with a generic background and photoshopped it in to an NYC background.

Photoshop is an amazingly powerful application.
One of it's selling points is it's ability to CUT COSTS of expensive lighting and travel

Lightning Bolt wrote:Photoshop is an amazingly powerful application.
One of it's selling points is it's ability to CUT COSTS of expensive lighting and travel

Brad, the cost is a moot point. If those planes flew to Peoria they were still going to fly and burn up the same number of dollars worth of jet fuel. The pilots still have to log so many training hours. If they can get good PR and Public Affairs pics while they're at it, great. But someone's idiotic notion to fly low over NYC is what caused the problem. Photoshop wouldn't have saved money in this case but it would have eliminated the fear and anxiety caused in NYC that day.

What I find outrageous is that this thread has gone to six pages and 118 posts!

flyboy55 wrote:What I find outrageous is that this thread has gone to six pages and 118 posts!

And yet you opened it to catch the latest.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:What I find outrageous is that this thread has gone to six pages and 118 posts!

And yet you opened it to catch the latest.

It's like an auto accident - you don't want to see the blood and guts but you sometimes still look.