RJ has claimed that the story of Obama's dog taking a solo flight to a family vacation was not merely false but "patently false." I thought it deserved to be discussed in its own thread, rather than further derail the DNC opposing every possible candidate but Hillary. And yes RJ, we can discuss things that aren't true, especially when it's not clear that it's untrue.
There was no denial, not even from the White House, that the dog flew to the vacation on a separate plane from the rest of the Obama family, so that seems to be a fact. RJ claims that it was "patently" false to say that it was a solo flight. I think it's understood that at a minimum there was a pilot and dog handler on the flight. In this case solo clearly doesn't mean that the dog flew the plane. We're not talking about Barkmelia Earhart.
As far as the actual flight, the first question is why did the dog take a different flight? Surely the dog doesn't need his own seat, so the claim that there was a lack of room on Obama's plane is not a valid argument. While a dog handler needs a seat, I'm sure a dog could ride on a short flight full of people, including his owner, without the need for a dedicated handler.
Here is what Snopes says:
Quote:Bo flew to Maine in a different plane than the rest of the First Family not because he was part of a special canine-only flight, but because the local airport (Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton, Maine) was too small to accommodate the Boeing 747-200B in which the President usually travels. Therefore, the Obamas flew to Maine in a Gulfstream GIII/G3 jet (which seats six to nineteen passengers), while Bo was loaded onto an earlier flight which carried a contingent of presidential aides and staff members.
This is based on a report from the Waterville Morning Sentinel that reported Bo's flight but then revised it's original story to:
Quote:Today’s story about the arrival of the Obamas said the Obama’s dog and one aide arrived on a small jet before the First Family, but there were other occupants on the plane, including several other staffers. The presidential party took two small jets to the Hancock County-Bar Harbor Airport in Trenton because the airport was too small to accommodate the president’s usual jet.
Presumably the WMS got it's revised info from Obama's press staff after the fact, since the original article only mentioned one person departing the plane. That's probably all the reporter saw. Pardon me if I question the revision from the people who claimed the Benghazi attack was because of a video.
And even if true, who exactly are the "several other staffers"? They weren't named. Could they have just been the dog's extended personal staff? I don't think the story is definitively refuted by what Snopes has presented. Certainly not to the point of "patently" false.
Note also how "several other staffers" became "a contingent of presidential aides and staff members" in the Snopes text. If Snopes wasn't so glued to Obama's rear they might actually be embarrassed at that exaggeration.
Seriously? This is worth a thread?
More to the point, this is proof? You're making assumptions based on your personal bias, not facts.
A solo flight as clearly implied by negative reports of the incident meant the flight was booked for the dog, and there was no other reason for the plane to be going. If you are trying to portray this as anything but that, an attempt to portray Obama as a flagrant squander-er of public funds, you are being patently dishonest. Of course there was a pilot and handler for the dog, but there is no proof - NONE - that the main purpose of the flight was for the dog.
Contingent - a group of people united by some common feature, forming part of a larger group.
Mah, who cares how Moochelle flew?
(11-06-2017, 10:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Mah, who cares how Moochelle flew?
Nice. I love it when anyone refers to someone's physical appearance from the anonymity of a keyboard. If only spouse photos were required avatars.
Malabar triggered by the transport of a dog.
(11-06-2017, 10:41 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2017, 10:26 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Mah, who cares how Moochelle flew?
Nice. I love it when anyone refers to someone's physical appearance from the anonymity of a keyboard. If only spouse photos were required avatars.
Is that different from those “Orange Emporer” comments?
Michelle is ugly, and Trump is orange. Some things just are what they are.
(11-07-2017, 02:42 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (11-06-2017, 10:41 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Nice. I love it when anyone refers to someone's physical appearance from the anonymity of a keyboard. If only spouse photos were required avatars.
Is that different from those “Orange Emporer” comments?
Michelle is ugly, and Trump is orange. Some things just are what they are.
It's different when "they" do it, if it weren't for the double standards they'd have no standards at all.
Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?
(11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?
You don't think the cost of a separate charter flight just for the family dog at the taxpayer's expense is of concern?
(11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?
You think it's OK to fly your dog to vacation with you while paying with someone else's money?
Look, I don't care that Obama wants to vacation, but why the hell does a dog need to vacation with him?
I think Michelle Obama is attractive
(11-07-2017, 08:48 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?
You don't think the cost of a separate charter flight just for the family dog at the taxpayer's expense is of concern?
The dog is a family member of the family. If this is the only way it could've been done, I have no problem with it. I don't care if it would've been done for the dog of Carter, Bush, Clinton, W. or Obama. The taxpayers are supposed to take care of the immediate families of the former presidents and I consider dogs as part of the family.
I also believe tax payers should pony up for bullet proof vests for canine officers. If human officers wear the kevlar, so should the k-9 cops.
(11-07-2017, 09:46 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?
You think it's OK to fly your dog to vacation with you while paying with someone else's money?
Look, I don't care that Obama wants to vacation, but why the hell does a dog need to vacation with him?
The dog is part of the family. Period.
Dogs aren't part of the family no matter how many weak people want to say they are.
Fur babies. Ugh. They are animals. Keep them at home like most frigging people.
EDIT:
Example: If my son bites my other son he gets in trouble. If my dog bites my son he gets his neck broken.
(11-08-2017, 01:48 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]
(11-07-2017, 09:46 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You think it's OK to fly your dog to vacation with you while paying with someone else's money?
Look, I don't care that Obama wants to vacation, but why the hell does a dog need to vacation with him?
The dog is part of the family. Period.
Dude, I have 3 myself and love dogs. My 110 pound mastiff sleeps with my wife and me every night.
You don't fly in a dog on tax-payer money, and you don't fly in staff members so you can get your dog there too.
Why are we talking about the method of transport for a former President's dog instead of the [BLEEP] kicking that our current dog of a President got last night?
(11-07-2017, 09:46 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2017, 05:35 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]Why is this a story? The family went on vacation and took the dog. He's part of the family too.Whether or not the dog flew with them or separately is meaningless. Where's the controversy?
You think it's OK to fly your dog to vacation with you while paying with someone else's money?
Look, I don't care that Obama wants to vacation, but why the hell does a dog need to vacation with him?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, it didn't cost any money to fly the dog, because they simply added him to a planeload of people that were already going to that destination.
Does anyone remember the time Roosevelt was accused to sending a destroyer to pick up his dog Fala that had supposedly been left behind on an island? That was a funny one. This one sounds like that.
(11-08-2017, 10:40 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Dogs aren't part of the family no matter how many weak people want to say they are.
Fur babies. Ugh. They are animals. Keep them at home like most frigging people.
EDIT:
Example: If my son bites my other son he gets in trouble. If my dog bites my son he gets his neck broken.
Attitudes like yours is why I generally hate people. Besides, if your son bites someone, that's a pretty bad reflection on your parenting. You should never own a dog.
(11-08-2017, 11:51 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2017, 01:48 AM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ]
The dog is part of the family. Period.
Dude, I have 3 myself and love dogs. My 110 pound mastiff sleeps with my wife and me every night.
You don't fly in a dog on tax-payer money, and you don't fly in staff members so you can get your dog there too.
I've always wanted a mastiff, but I get too attached to my pets and I can't own a dog with such a short life expectancy. They are beautiful dogs though. A friend of mine had one and she was a big baby. She thought she was a lap dog. I currently have two lab mixes.
(11-08-2017, 01:05 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (11-07-2017, 09:46 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]You think it's OK to fly your dog to vacation with you while paying with someone else's money?
Look, I don't care that Obama wants to vacation, but why the hell does a dog need to vacation with him?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, it didn't cost any money to fly the dog, because they simply added him to a planeload of people that were already going to that destination.
Does anyone remember the time Roosevelt was accused to sending a destroyer to pick up his dog Fala that had supposedly been left behind on an island? That was a funny one. This one sounds like that.
That's what I was thinking. How did this cost anything?
(11-08-2017, 10:40 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]Dogs aren't part of the family no matter how many weak people want to say they are.
Fur babies. Ugh. They are animals. Keep them at home like most frigging people.
EDIT:
Example: If my son bites my other son he gets in trouble. If my dog bites my son he gets his neck broken.
You don't actually own a dog, do you?
(11-08-2017, 01:15 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote: [ -> ] (11-08-2017, 11:51 AM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]Dude, I have 3 myself and love dogs. My 110 pound mastiff sleeps with my wife and me every night.
You don't fly in a dog on tax-payer money, and you don't fly in staff members so you can get your dog there too.
I've always wanted a mastiff, but I get too attached to my pets and I can't own a dog with such a short life expectancy. They are beautiful dogs though. A friend of mine had one and she was a big baby. She thought she was a lap dog. I currently have two lab mixes.
(11-08-2017, 01:05 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, it didn't cost any money to fly the dog, because they simply added him to a planeload of people that were already going to that destination.
Does anyone remember the time Roosevelt was accused to sending a destroyer to pick up his dog Fala that had supposedly been left behind on an island? That was a funny one. This one sounds like that.
That's what I was thinking. How did this cost anything?
She's an Italian Mastiff, so she's more athletic than other mastiffs, lives longer on average, but she's not as big.
I'm not sure why the staff needed to be there on vacation with them. If it's common practice to fly in a literal plane-load of people for Presidential vacations then I suppose there isn't much to argue. But I'd guess that it isn't that common.