We just had a fly by in Philly to show "support" for the medical professionals here... how about buy them some supplies with that money instead?

@freemo

I'm assuming they fly those plans routinely and just diverted for the day

@AtlasFreeman @freemo also LOL @ the idea that the only reason for shortages is money

@leyonhjelm

Thats not really the whole of the argument here. You could literally dump the cash int he nurses lap and it would be more of a thank you to them than some plans flying over head.

@AtlasFreeman

@freemo @AtlasFreeman what's your argument though? Dumping cash onto people just to dump cash is a non starter for me.

@leyonhjelm

That it is a shitty way to say thank you and not one that any one they were thanking either appreciated or wanted. From what I hear most of them would have rather them done nothing than to create a shit ton of pollution and waste a bunch of money for no reason.

@AtlasFreeman

@freemo @leyonhjelm

If we're taking George-Washington-no-standing-army as a baseline (and that's a good baseline I can get behind) then yes, it's a waste of money. As it is, that flight and fuel was budgeted and spent long ago. Whether or not it's appreciated is up to the recipient but seems like a nice gesture to me

@AtlasFreeman @freemo Were the founders against a standing navy? Seems they might have differentiated because of the cost and time to build and staff a navy. An air force might fall in the same realm.

Asking because an Air Force isn't that different, and these are Navy (supported by Marines in some respects) and Air Force personnel.

@leyonhjelm

Yes they were against a standing navy. the structure of the constitution makes that clear. The rules at the time basically is that there was no and could be no funding for a standing military of any kind (including a navy) and if one were created would need to be renewed at most every 2 years by an act of congress.

If they were against one but not the others one would expect that to be reflected int he rules they put forth.

@AtlasFreeman

@freemo @AtlasFreeman Generally willing to agree with that constitutional line of reasoning, but it doesn't change whether the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds are going to fly with or without an audience and with or without a dedication. When these people slack off training and take time off, that's how you end up with one of them (or a whole squad of them) playing Sky King and doing a barrel roll, nose down, and call it a night.

Except not on purpose.

@leyonhjelm

No we are just on a tangent when it comes to a standing army. It has nothing to do with the original post as far as I'm concerned.

@AtlasFreeman

@freemo @AtlasFreeman nor I. So far, here's my recap. Correct me and clarify if I'm wrong.

You: Nurses would rather have cash than an air show

Me: The air demonstration teams are going to fly whether the nurses appreciate it or not, may as well dedicate the performance for public morale.

You: But the nurses are greedy cunts, don't buy jet fuel and give them the money!

Me: That's not how this works.

Did I miss anything?

@leyonhjelm

Well you missed a lot of things, but that does appear mostly how the conversation went, yes.

@AtlasFreeman