Pelosi proves it again

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Infidel
The republican swiftboaters are pathetic.

Excuse me?

They win elections.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal. But isn't it funny that the Dems put Reps under a microscope for so many years for any and everything possible...and now the Dems find themselves under the scope and cry 'foul'. Isn't it amusing to see how 'rational' Dems can be when justifying themselves and oblivious to reason they are when criticizing the other party. I think the Dems should start getting used to the heat because (I suspect) that this is just the beginning.

But...then again...I imagine that the Dems should be OK with being treated the same as they treated the Reps when the Reps were in control. After all...turnabout is fair play.

I don't see why it's funny. She never requested it herself. Even the White House has admitted this has been solely between the House Sergent-at-Arms and the Pentagon.

I think it's funny as to how how defensive everyone is. Like I said, this is no big deal. I think you missed the point of my post.

I guess you can call it being defensive, but she's being smeared for no fault of her own. She was happy with going commercial like she's been doing, but it was the House Sergent-at-Arms that had a problem with it, and tried to get her a plane that can give her a non-stop flight. Then it was the Republicans that were on the attack.

 

[dmcowen674]

Bahahahahaha the news and Republicans are calling this "Plane Gate".

My god the Republicans and Murdock are desperate.

 

[Termagant]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Bahahahahaha the news and Republicans are calling this "Plane Gate".

My god the Republicans and Murdock are desperate.

Desperate whining from desperate people? Defeated in the elections. Soundly defeated in Iraq....

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Personally, I don't think this is such a big deal. But isn't it funny that the Dems put Reps under a microscope for so many years for any and everything possible...and now the Dems find themselves under the scope and cry 'foul'. Isn't it amusing to see how 'rational' Dems can be when justifying themselves and oblivious to reason they are when criticizing the other party. I think the Dems should start getting used to the heat because (I suspect) that this is just the beginning.

But...then again...I imagine that the Dems should be OK with being treated the same as they treated the Reps when the Reps were in control. After all...turnabout is fair play.

What utter BS. The republicans did huge wrongs, and the dems are not, so the dems complaints were based on legitimate issues and the repubs so far are not.

Your post is a big lie.

 

[marincounty]

What some of you fail to realize is that Nancy Pelosi is just two indictments away from the white house. I certainly want to protect the possible next president.
But if Republicans want to make a huge issue out of this, go ahead, at your own peril. This is similar to the shutdown of Congress under Newt, the public understands this is petty politics, and the public will punish them severely during the next election.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Travel to her home district is part of her job, and there are major security issues faced by a high profile public office holder. A reasonable security would require a number of people traveling with her. Now, you're paying for all of their time and their round trip fares, food, lodging for every trip, and that's before you get to the logistical hassles each and every time she travels.

Assuming nothing more than doing her job well is important for the nation, her security is important, and the real costs of using commercial travel don't make sense.

Think through the problem, and try again.

Do you understand that the bigger plane cost about between $15,000 and $22,000 an hour to run. Or about $300,000 for every trip across the country.
The smaller plane only cost $5000 an hour.

How much would first class tickets cost? I doubt $300,000.

I have no problem with her flying on the government dime because of her position, but I think we should find a plane with a reasonable cost. She might end up on a c-37a, a nice plane that can go non-stop, but is private jet type aircraft as opposed to a jumbo jet used by the military.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Craig234
What part of her wanting a plane that doesn't need to refuel on the way to her home are you clueless about?

Anyone who thinks the parties are the same, as you do, is bogglingly, irresponsibly uninformed.

exactly--NOT!! sounds like we all know whose irresponsibly uninformed..hehee

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

In short, the attempt to limit her to a plane that was used by somebody before her that had a short flight, and the attempt to build this into some fantastic political issue of greed and personal corruption and hypocrisy, etc. is nothing more than small minded, in this case, Republican snit and vituperation of which there exists a massive abundance.

The pettiness of the right shines through again.

And the hypocrisy of the left shines through as well. I guess you don't think that over analyzing how someone speakes (GWB) is petty right?

One of the most important functions of the president, after his policies, is his speaking.

But I'm talking to a six year old who is unable to distinguish between the utter non-issue with Pelosi and the issue with the by far worst speaker in the modern presidency.

Oh really just your opinion so no basis for fact..lol

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you understand that the bigger plane cost about between $15,000 and $22,000 an hour to run. Or about $300,000 for every trip across the country.
The smaller plane only cost $5000 an hour.

How about the cost of the second plane, including the crew and the incremental additional risks associated with ANY extra takeoff and landing?

How much would first class tickets cost? I doubt $300,000.

That would almost be relevant if the task was simply to transport Pelosi back and forth between her district in California and Washington. If you don't understand the security, logistical and time issues involved, you don't understand the problem.

Or didn't you notice that even your Bozo In Chief isn't trying to make a political stink over this issue? :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Do you understand that the bigger plane cost about between $15,000 and $22,000 an hour to run. Or about $300,000 for every trip across the country.
The smaller plane only cost $5000 an hour.

How about the cost of the second plane, including the crew and the incremental additional risks associated with ANY extra takeoff and landing?

How much would first class tickets cost? I doubt $300,000.

That would almost be relevant if the task was simply to transport Pelosi back and forth between her district in California and Washington. If you don't understand the security, logistical and time issues involved, you don't understand the problem.

Or didn't you notice that even your Bozo In Chief isn't trying to make a political stink over this issue? :roll:

His Bozo hero costs this country billions on a false war and more importantly lives and PJ has a hissy fit over an airplane. Figures

I'm glad the sheeple are waking up to the Republican crap.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Harvey
Travel to her home district is part of her job, and there are major security issues faced by a high profile public office holder. A reasonable security would require a number of people traveling with her. Now, you're paying for all of their time and their round trip fares, food, lodging for every trip, and that's before you get to the logistical hassles each and every time she travels.

Assuming nothing more than doing her job well is important for the nation, her security is important, and the real costs of using commercial travel don't make sense.

Think through the problem, and try again.

Do you understand that the bigger plane cost about between $15,000 and $22,000 an hour to run. Or about $300,000 for every trip across the country.
The smaller plane only cost $5000 an hour.

How much would first class tickets cost? I doubt $300,000.

I have no problem with her flying on the government dime because of her position, but I think we should find a plane with a reasonable cost. She might end up on a c-37a, a nice plane that can go non-stop, but is private jet type aircraft as opposed to a jumbo jet used by the military.

Why the hell can't people read the article before commenting? I mean, how dense can one person be?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Craig234
What part of her wanting a plane that doesn't need to refuel on the way to her home are you clueless about?

Anyone who thinks the parties are the same, as you do, is bogglingly, irresponsibly uninformed.

Anyone who thinks the parties are not the same, as you do, is a blind partisan hack. Republicans and Democrats suck equally.

If they are the same, then who have you voted for the last few elections? They should be 50-50 split, right?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Craig234
What part of her wanting a plane that doesn't need to refuel on the way to her home are you clueless about?

Anyone who thinks the parties are the same, as you do, is bogglingly, irresponsibly uninformed.

Anyone who thinks the parties are not the same, as you do, is a blind partisan hack. Republicans and Democrats suck equally.

If they are the same, then who have you voted for the last few elections? They should be 50-50 split, right?

No, it wouldn't be a 50-50 split. I live in a state controlled overwhelmingly by Democrats, so I vote for every Republican running for office in this state (unless I completely disagree with them of course, then I vote 3rd party). I don't want my state or federal government controlled by one party, Republicans or Democrats. I still believe the Republicans to be the lesser of two evils, but if I strongly disagree with a Republican candidate then I go 3rd party. If I find a Democrat that I like then I will vote for them.

Although the Republicans have gone off track from most conservative issues, I still think that they are better than Dems when it comes to some of the more important issues to me, gun control, taxes, etc..

If my state was overwhelmingly controlled by Republicans and I didn't like what was going on, then I would vote for mostly Dems or 3rd party. If GWB ran again, I would vote 3rd party, and looking at the possible candidates for 08, I will probably be voting for a 3rd party candidate.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: JD50
Anyone who thinks the parties are not the same, as you do, is a blind partisan hack. Republicans and Democrats suck equally.

Originally posted by: JD50
[ ... ]
I still believe the Republicans to be the lesser of two evils ...
Although the Republicans ..., I still think that they are better than Dems when it comes to some of the more important issues to me, gun control, taxes, etc. ...

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50
Anyone who thinks the parties are not the same, as you do, is a blind partisan hack. Republicans and Democrats suck equally.

Originally posted by: JD50
[ ... ]
I still believe the Republicans to be the lesser of two evils ...
Although the Republicans ..., I still think that they are better than Dems when it comes to some of the more important issues to me, gun control, taxes, etc. ...

darn beat me to it!

as for the OP, now is the absolute WRONG time for politicians to look petty, especially Repubs. The publics tolerance level is very low.

Bad move for the GOP to go after the speaker on something that Denny Hastert was doing barely 3 months ago.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Good lord, a lot of it isn't even her choice - it's an issue driven by chain of secession security matters.
Full distance flight instead of an extra landing and take-off cycle for mid trip refueling, reduces the exposure to accident by a huge amount,
as most flight incidents occur during a landing or take-off, and some 90% or so of all accidents to aircraft occur during that cycle.

Her 'entorage' will be with her either bigger non-stop vehicle, or smaller vehicle, or even commercial - which she plainly says would be fine with her.

Either way the Fed has to pick up the ticket for her, her technical staff, and her security task force.
The larger military jet might be the most cost effective of all options - not having to clear an airport and run high alert on a commercial air transport
vehicle with the other passengers, crew and access of authorized travelers, especially on short notice dispatches.

Christ - don't the Repukelicans have something better to do, like block congressional laws to protect the Maniac in Cheif?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50
Anyone who thinks the parties are not the same, as you do, is a blind partisan hack. Republicans and Democrats suck equally.

Originally posted by: JD50
[ ... ]
I still believe the Republicans to be the lesser of two evils ...
Although the Republicans ..., I still think that they are better than Dems when it comes to some of the more important issues to me, gun control, taxes, etc. ...

Both parties are equally corrupt, but at least I know that Republicans aren't going to disarm the populace and tax me into the poor house in the name of the common good. I guess I should have been more specific, they are not EXACTLY the same, but pretty damn close.

Edit - to clarify, both parties suck equally, but I prefer the Republican ideals over the Democrat ideals. Both parties are going to push legislation to cater to their base, it doesn't make either any less corrupt.

 

[imported_Infidel]

Originally posted by: JD50

Both parties are equally corrupt, but at least I know that Republicans aren't going to disarm the populace and tax me into the poor house in the name of the common good.

WTF????

You don't see the repub erosion of our civil rights being the first step to disarming/neutering the populace?

You don't see the repub erosion of the country's fiscal solvency as the surest path to higher taxes for all, and future generations?

You people are totally frickin' delusional.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: JD50

Both parties are equally corrupt, but at least I know that Republicans aren't going to disarm the populace and tax me into the poor house in the name of the common good.

WTF????

You don't see the repub erosion of our civil rights being the first step to disarming/neutering the populace?

You don't see the repub erosion of the country's fiscal solvency as the surest path to higher taxes for all, and future generations?

You people are totally frickin' delusional.

No, I see all of that, but I think that the Democrats will do it much faster than the Republicans.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Infidel

Originally posted by: JD50

Both parties are equally corrupt, but at least I know that Republicans aren't going to disarm the populace and tax me into the poor house in the name of the common good.

WTF????

You don't see the repub erosion of our civil rights being the first step to disarming/neutering the populace?

You don't see the repub erosion of the country's fiscal solvency as the surest path to higher taxes for all, and future generations?

You people are totally frickin' delusional.

No, I see all of that, but I think that the Democrats will do it much faster than the Republicans.

That sounds a lot like blind partisan speak to me...but....we know you aren't like that

So how is it that the Dems will "Do it faster?" by gun control laws and raising taxes? Is that all you care about? that is pathetically narrowminded.

 

[randym431]

The OP is clueless. This is standard proceedure. Face it, she is second in line, so deal with it.
:roll:

 

[ProfJohn]

Don't let Al Gore know that the plane she seems to want, or someone wants to get for her, produces 10.000 pounds of CO2 an hour.
If Al had his way she would ride a bike to Cali and back, a lot less CO2.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Don't let Al Gore know that the plane she seems to want, or someone wants to get for her, produces 10.000 pounds of CO2 an hour.
If Al had his way she would ride a bike to Cali and back, a lot less CO2.

did you forget the smiley?

 

[Jhhnn]

Every once in a while, Moonbeam gives us a gem-

In short, the attempt to limit her to a plane that was used by somebody before her that had a short flight, and the attempt to build this into some fantastic political issue of greed and personal corruption and hypocrisy, etc. is nothing more than small minded, in this case, Republican snit and vituperation of which there exists a massive abundance.

Not to mention that the real story has been buried under various embellishments designed to embarass Pelosi and establish the "they're just as bad!" credo...

Which is utterly pathetic on face value alone... Apparently, it's the fallback position from morals, values, honor and dignity that the former majority lacked in abundance... When puffing up your own product fails to impress, then just run down the other guys' offerings...