CONTROVERSY! "Air Force One" Being Used By The "President" To Travel Between States. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;34423784]I rarely ever use American-based media outlets when searching for news on my own, because it can be hard to tell just how much of a bias - either left or right - a particular source has. In fact, when searching for my own news, I use BBC more or less exclusively - it's credible, it's objective, it's very well-known, and it's not American.[/QUOTE] Honestly press bias isn't really that much of a problem. My teacher studied press bias for his Doctorate, and his studies found that bias is almost nonexistent among major news agencies. One of the studies took articles on the same topic from two news agencies, one "conservative" and one "liberal," took the logos off, and gave them to a group of people. They couldn't guess which article was from which source.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34423902]Honestly press bias isn't really that much of a problem. My teacher studied press bias for his Doctorate, and his studies found that bias is almost nonexistent among major news agencies. One of the studies took article on the same topic from two news agencies, one "conservative" and one "liberal," took the logos off, and gave them to a group of people. They couldn't guess which article was from which source.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I think Republicans and Democrats are more similar than they want to believe, they're just too caught up in trying to prove that the other party is worse.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34423902]Honestly press bias isn't really that much of a problem. My teacher studied press bias for his Doctorate, and his studies found that bias is almost nonexistent among major news agencies. One of the studies took article on the same topic from two news agencies, one "conservative" and one "liberal," took the logos off, and gave them to a group of people. They couldn't guess which article was from which source.[/QUOTE] i laugh

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34423902]Honestly press bias isn't really that much of a problem. My teacher studied press bias for his Doctorate, and his studies found that bias is almost nonexistent among major news agencies. One of the studies took articles on the same topic from two news agencies, one "conservative" and one "liberal," took the logos off, and gave them to a group of people. They couldn't guess which article was from which source.[/QUOTE] That's because they all use the same articles from the associated press. [editline]28th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;34423955]Exactly. I think Republicans and Democrats are more similar than they want to believe, they're just too caught up in trying to prove that the other party is worse.[/QUOTE] Not really. No.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34423902]Honestly press bias isn't really that much of a problem. My teacher studied press bias for his Doctorate, and his studies found that bias is almost nonexistent among major news agencies. One of the studies took articles on the same topic from two news agencies, one "conservative" and one "liberal," took the logos off, and gave them to a group of people. They couldn't guess which article was from which source.[/QUOTE] The real problem comes when news agencies blur the lines between "reporting" and "commentary" (as this Fox News program cleverly does)

Fun fact: There are actually 2 presidential planes that travel on every mission (every flight is a mission) in case one breaks down. Its funny that they would get all pissy about this, the president traveling in anything other than one of the presidential jets would be a security risk that the secret service wouldn't take. [QUOTE=Noth;34422892]I'm pretty sure ANY aircraft with the potus on board is assigned the callsign "Air Force One" for the duration[/QUOTE] Actually no, the helicopters that he takes from the white house to the air force base are called "Marine One" when he gets on board.

No matter what plane the president is on it is designated Air force one, it is not just one air plane. So how did they determine those cost figures?

[QUOTE=imptastick;34425612]No matter what plane the president is on it is designated Air force one, it is not just one air plane. So how did they determine those cost figures?[/QUOTE] I'd love to know myself.

i like how the guy pulls up written notes

[QUOTE=Protocol7;34422362]It's $181,000 an hour according to his math. This, I honestly doubt - I can understand staff and fuel costs, but $181k may be a little inflated, I think. Regardless - If he's right about it being a million dollar trip - why was this never a problem when previous presidents went on flights to battleground states?[/QUOTE] I'd like to know how he got to that figure as well, as far as I understand a 747 is about ~$30k an hour. Although that doesn't take into account any staff on board nor any maintenance that the aircraft would require as a result of that flight.

I love how he says he "followed the money" as if Obama was doing some shady money laundering shit.

Isn't this basically what Airforce One is meant to be used for? It's kind of hard to ignore the hypocrisy when you realize many of the people who are 'outraged' over this probably use their company cars to go grocery shopping and the like.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34422465]"HURR GOP Faux News lol"[/QUOTE] Shall I direct you to the Madrassa incident?

[QUOTE=V12US;34428733]Isn't this basically what Airforce One is meant to be used for? It's kind of hard to ignore the hypocrisy when you realize many of the people who are 'outraged' over this probably use their company cars to go grocery shopping and the like.[/QUOTE] 1) That's purely conjecture 2) Company money isn't tax payer money

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;34423746]Fixed.[/QUOTE] I don't think Washington had Air Force One.

This is just stupid... And to say THIS is what forces only the rich to campaign against him when every president has done this...that is how the president travels. Is he supposed to just go for a road trip? And then Fox News would complain that he wasn't doing his job, just riding around the country for months.

[QUOTE=NightmareXx;34422080]um they have a point it cost taxpayers 1.6 million for him to promote himself[/QUOTE] Okay say he takes a convoy around the country, the amount of security all driving in a convoy is going to cause delays wherever it goes, still cost a lot for the taxpayer, and the president is less safe. It's also going to cause delays wherever the convoy goes costing more money. Otherwise he doesn't get to promote imself for the election at all?

I heard BUSH did the exact same thing! OBAMA IS THE NEW BUSH!

But isn't a plane much cheaper from security standpoint than any sort of massive convoy? I mean the job of the secret service is to protect the president, and that includes the time when he's going for a walk or when taking a shit. Yeah it's unfair, but it's not like he drops leaflets from the plane in flight

[QUOTE=Master X;34422022]Hmmmmm, an interesting point though. That would actually give the president a [I]huge [/I]advantage over other candidates if the other candidates weren't part of the super wealthy.[/QUOTE] Except they are a part of the super wealthy, and opt to travel via bus ANYWAY that looks like NASCAR sponsors got a hold of it, instead of buy a $200 plane ticket. So Eh

As far as I know, Air Force 1 is used by the President for official business, and tax dollars are put towards it. If that is the case, then I think it's wrong for any President (Republican or Democrat) to use it for campaigning purposes. I'm not going to vote for Obama again, but the money I give to the federal gov't is going toward helping him get re-elected in this case. It's my opinion, but I don't think it's right.

[QUOTE=Falstad007;34434675]As far as I know, Air Force 1 is used by the President for official business, and tax dollars are put towards it. If that is the case, then I think it's wrong for any President (Republican or Democrat) to use it for campaigning purposes. I'm not going to vote for Obama again, but the money I give to the federal gov't is going toward helping him get re-elected in this case. It's my opinion, but I don't think it's right.[/QUOTE] [quote]Air Force One is the official air traffic control call sign of any United States Air Force aircraft carrying the President of the United States.[1] In common parlance the term refers to those Air Force aircraft whose primary mission is to transport the president...[/quote]

[QUOTE=Jackald;34428330]And even then, all they said was "at least they're not terrorists" :v:[/QUOTE] Holy shit, they had to say that so that their audience didnt go on a murder spree. [editline]29th January 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Falstad007;34434675]As far as I know, Air Force 1 is used by the President for official business, and tax dollars are put towards it. If that is the case, then I think it's wrong for any President (Republican or Democrat) to use it for campaigning purposes. I'm not going to vote for Obama again, but the money I give to the federal gov't is going toward helping him get re-elected in this case. It's my opinion, but I don't think it's right.[/QUOTE] Who are you going to vote for then? Gingrich? Santorum? A mormon?

He's the president, he needs that security that Air Force One offers.

[QUOTE=Schmaaa;34421980]Isn't that what Air Force One is for[/QUOTE] Nope. Conservatives believe we should be paying a whole staff of people to be sitting on their ass all day instead of actually working and . . . wait. Silly conservatives v:v:v

wouldnt any president do this? how else is he supposed to get around? flying is the quickest option, or is it are we supposed to have Greyhound One