LaxPower Back-Up Stick

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:01 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:57 pm There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You have no sense of ethics.

The problem here is twofold:

(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.

(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:50 pm Wrong, wrong ,wrong, wrong.

POTUS doesn't sell stuff to the government. Period.

Price and terms don't matter. You just don't do it. Because it is inherently suspect and suspicious. So you don't even think about going there.

Everyone but a toady knows this.

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:01 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:57 pm There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You have no sense of ethics.

The problem here is twofold:

(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.

(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister

Deplorable

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm
Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:35 pm You can’t quit. You are fired. What a dope.

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:08 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:56 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:00 pm I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 7:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:08 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:00 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:56 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:00 pm I don't know why it is such a hard concept.

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotels-g551 ... otels.html

This was one of the 4 examples Nasty Natasha unearthed in her reporting :

The 185th air refueling wing out of Sioux City, Iowa, which was making the trip, had about 35 to 40 soldiers and airmen that needed lodging, and they ultimately stayed at Turnberry. According to the spokesperson, the crew doubled up in rooms and were provided transportation to and from Prestwick.

The Prestwick stop was due to fuel “limitations” on the flight out of Kosovo, the spokesperson said. And the overnight stay at Turnberry was arranged through the Defense Travel System — essentially the Pentagon’s in-house travel agent — and “directed by a higher echelon … based on mission and operational requirements.”

Are there enough adequate rooms available to meet that sort of short notice demand near Prestwick, while transporting & keeping them all together, without using Turnberry ? Are they adequate, approved & listed with the Defense Travel System ?

I don't care. Someone should have sorted that out when the President decided to run his business while in office.

Sure. Let's hobble our Air Force because of your political agenda.

Umm, stupid? No one wants to "hobble our Air Force." No one thinks or says Prestwick shouldn't be used. People with an ethical compass think agencies of the United States government directly under the President's legal command should not permit the use of properties owned by the President or his family business because of the inherent and intractable conflicts of interest. People who don't want the government run like the Cosa Nostra, with the basic operational mandate being "don't upset Duce."

The toadying (not a big deal; just a little technicality; nice golf course; our servicemen and women deserve the best golf courses, even if the food and drink exceeds their per diem; ....) to this President's everyday corruption here on this board is really remarkable.

ggait wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:50 pm Wrong, wrong ,wrong, wrong.

POTUS doesn't sell stuff to the government. Period.

Price and terms don't matter. You just don't do it. Because it is inherently suspect and suspicious. So you don't even think about going there.

Everyone but a toady knows this.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:52 pm Where's that bootlicker cartoon when we need it?

Perhaps an emoji.

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:59 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:01 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:57 pm There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You have no sense of ethics.

The problem here is twofold:

(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.

(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister

Deplorable

Indeed.
DocBarrister

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:15 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:52 pm Where's that bootlicker cartoon when we need it?

Perhaps an emoji.

Have you looked up your ass ?

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:18 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:59 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:01 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:57 pm There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You have no sense of ethics.

The problem here is twofold:

(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.

(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister

Deplorable

Indeed.
DocBarrister

...& you have no sense of what really matters & what is sometimes necessary to complete the mission.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:52 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:18 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:59 pm

Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:57 pm

DocBarrister wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:55 pm

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:01 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:57 pm There's nothing to legally sort out. It's totally legal. All of it.

Again, that's not the problem.

Conflict of interest.

You've heard of SCOTUS Justices recusing themselves from cases? You know there's no law forcing them to do that, right?

So we should give up the operational advantage of using Prestwick, because of a perceived conflict of interest, even if it's been vetted & established that there was no wrong doing ?

You have no sense of ethics.

The problem here is twofold:

(1) As a matter of ethics, any property owned by the president or his family should automatically be excluded from any U.S. government use or expenditure. PERIOD.

(2) Even if you somehow get around (1), U.S. utilization of the president’s property should not be increasing, as it has in 2017, 2018, and 2019.

Is there a reason why all of the most corrupt presidential administrations of the past century have been Republican administrations? The complete lack of ethical sense displayed in this thread may explain why.

DocBarrister

Deplorable

Indeed.
DocBarrister

...& you have no sense of what really matters & what is sometimes necessary to complete the mission.

My only experience in this area was when our C141 had a malfunction on our way to Alaska and we landed at an airfield in Ft Lewis Washington. I guess the fact we were all carrying automatic weapons limited where we could stay. We did not even get a dog gone stipend. The best I remember we had C rations and canteen water and stayed in some no name flea bag motel somewhere near where our plane landed. There was not even a chocolate on our pillow or room service to speak of. Kudos to the US Airforce... their box lunches were awesome. The problem was 3 hours later after in flight rigging and dropping altitude down to the deck for a jump all of those box lunches found their way back up all over the plane. There was nothing like the smell of fresh vomit to stimulate the senses. I wonder if the trump hotels would be jiggy with military guests that had to bring their rifles and other gear in the room with them?

old salt wrote: ↑Tue Sep 10, 2019 11:09 pm Did you get the standard USAF box lunch ? 2 horsecock sammiches on w bread, a piece of cold fried chicken in saran wrap, a hard boiled egg, a small bag of plain potato chips, an apple, a small can of del monte vanilla pudding, a box of sun maid raisins (good to mix in the pudding], a small pack of cookies, a small can of fruit juice, a half pint of milk. $1.35 or free if on com rats with a chow pass.