Pelosi proves it again

[imported_Shivetya]

Seems she wants more than was allocated to a former House Speaker regardless of what the rules are. She wants special treatment.

http://washtimes.com/national/20070208-121345-5680r.htm


and Murtha threatens the military because they are doing what the law tells them too?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...7/02/08/MNGN5O11UT1.DTL&type=printable



Again, it just proves that it doesn't matter who is the top dog. The rules are different once they ascend. Its always the same isn't it. Rules apply to little people, not the elite or important (or even self important)


Corruption is a way of life for these people, the entitlement frenzy of the average American is probably a reflection of how many in Congress feel they are entitled to whatever they want.

 

[amish]

best quote from that first article:

Just because she's second in line to be president does not entitle her to a military taxi service around the United States

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Jaskalas]

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.

Authoritarians all the way. Which, by the way, is the only ingredient required to turn socialism into communism.

 

[Moonbeam]

I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

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.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

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.

I'm sure you'd have felt the same way if Hastert was lobbying for a larger "plain".

 

[Tuktuk]

Another case of politicians making something out of nothing. She wants a non-stop flight, this isn't some major extravagence it is just a case of her home district being very far away. Republicans know this but choose to make an issue out of it.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

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?

How inconvenient. Know what? There must be at least a dozen direct flights from DC to SF. As a tax payer I'd be happy to stick her in first class. It would be cheaper and far more eco-friendly to handle things that way.

Edit: Pelosi being second in line the presidency shouldn't matter. Ted Stevens was third in line for a few years and he flew commercial back to Alaska (When he came back).

 

[OutHouse]

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.

:thumbsup:

 

[Ferocious]

Wow.


Having gone from 'the party of ideals' to claims of being no worse than a party you have demonized for years.

lol, funny and yet sorta sad to watch the GOP collapse unfold.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

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.

I'm sure you'd have felt the same way if Hastert was lobbying for a larger "plain".

Is it a larger plain or a larger fuel tank

nice to see that your snooty ass can spell..

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn?t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

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.

I'm sure you'd have felt the same way if Hastert was lobbying for a larger "plain".

I certainly would have. I long ago accommodated myself to the fact that important people get and deserve special perks due solely to their position and regardless of their personality. I don't care that the Queen of England doesn't walk to the store or that Bush gets to fly in a helicopter. I see no reason at all to feel slighted by the privilege of others who have done the actual work to arrive at their positions, regardless of my assessment of their real merit because I am emotionally mature enough to handle it. My self worth does not depend on everyone else, including people I have no respect for, being equal to or beneath me. I do not begrudge the extra cost I will have to pay in taxes because it will be microscopic and an inevitability of the reality of the situation and I already have to pay for millions of things in taxes I already do not support. In short I am not an idiotic emotional child at east in this one area and have memories of the same reaction to people on the left bitching about privileges taken on the right. How about you?

 

[dennilfloss]

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
Another case of politicians making something out of nothing. She wants a non-stop flight, this isn't some major extravagence it is just a case of her home district being very far away. Republicans know this but choose to make an issue out of it.

Yup. Mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[imported_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.

 

[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?

 

[theeedude]

You do know that Washington Times is controlled by the Moonies, don't you?

 

[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.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

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.

well you have a reading comprehension problem eh? It also covers the fact she wants transport for friends and family as well. The first rule is, the military is not obligated to grant her request.

Then to top it off, she needs special security that means a different plane because she is a woman? Whats the limit?


I think every public official when using government services should be required to show who used them with them and justify the expense. Sorry, she is but a member of Congress. Being Speaker of the House is not an elected position by the people of the country, its by their peers. As such they are much more easily replaced than a President or Vice President.

Oh, to continue about using government resources. No family should be allowed on these overseas jaunts by Congressmen supposedly doing research. Sorry, but we got enough problems at home that having you go on Safari or check the slopes of Switzerland for signs of global warming,.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Seems she wants more than was allocated to a former House Speaker regardless of what the rules are. She wants special treatment.

Not that a right wing rag like Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times would have an agenda somewhere outside of reality, but... :shocked:

FACT CHECK: Washington Times Publishes False Report On Pelosi?s Use Of Military Aircraft

On February 1, the Washington Times published a story titled ?Speaker pursues military flights,? which claimed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had been ?pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district.? Former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) also used military aircraft to travel to his district. However, the Times reported, Pelosi is ?demanding permanent access to a large military jet for herself, her staff, other Members and supporters.?

The story was disseminated widely through right-wing talk radio and blogs, spurring posts like, ?First Class Pelosi,? ?Air Force Becomes Pelosi Air,? ?Nancy Pelosi is Drunk With Power,? ?The Imperial Speakership,? ?Pelosi: Fly Me Awayyyyy,? ?Pelosi wants military airlift,? and ?Nancy Pelosi?s Private Military Plane.?

In fact, the central claims of the Washington Times piece are both false.

• 1) The House Sergeant at Arms, not Pelosi, initiated inquiries into the use of military aircraft.] House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood, who has served in his position since 1995, released a statement today clarifying the facts. He writes, ?In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.? Additionally, Livingood writes, ?I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines [which governed Speaker Hastert?s use of a plane].?
  
  2) A larger plane was requested because Hastert?s plane required refueling to travel cross-country. The Washington Times says a larger plane was requested to accomodate Pelosi, ?her staff, other Members and supporters.? That?s not true. In fact, the plane used by Speaker Hastert was too small for Pelosi since it ?needs to refuel every 2,000 miles and could not make the nonstop haul to California. ?The Air Force determined that [Pelosi?s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast,?? a Pelosi spokesperson said.

Read the full Sergeant at Arms statement:

• Pelosi to Fly in Air Force Plane
  Service to Provide Bigger Jet By Rachel Van Dongen
  Roll Call Staff
  February 5, 2007
  
  The Defense Department has agreed to furnish House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) with a jet big enough to fly nonstop coast-to-coast, despite complaints from some Republicans that the request was causing friction at the Pentagon.
  
  STATEMENT BY SERGEANT AT ARMS
  
  In December 2006, I advised Speaker Pelosi that the US Air Force had made an airplane available to Speaker Hastert for security and communications purposes following September 11, 2001.
  
  I told Speaker Pelosi that Speaker Hastert used the Air Force plane for travel to and from his district, however, I was uncertain of the rules and guidelines governing use of the plane. I offered to call the U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense to seek clarification of the guidelines.
  
  Subsequently, several members of the Speaker?s staff and members of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms met with representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the U.S. Air Force liaison office to discuss the rules and guidelines which governed Speaker Hastert?s use of a plane. Several questions were posed to the Air Force and we are awaiting a response.

 

[JD50]

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 by far worst speaker in the modern presidency.

Its ok craig, I don't expect you to see through your partisan blinders. But really, you gotta come up with something better than calling me a 6 year old, thats just dumb.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Seems she wants more than was allocated to a former House Speaker regardless of what the rules are. She wants special treatment.

http://washtimes.com/national/20070208-121345-5680r.htm

and Murtha threatens the military because they are doing what the law tells them too?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...7/02/08/MNGN5O11UT1.DTL&type=printable

Again, it just proves that it doesn't matter who is the top dog. The rules are different once they ascend. Its always the same isn't it. Rules apply to little people, not the elite or important (or even self important)

Corruption is a way of life for these people, the entitlement frenzy of the average American is probably a reflection of how many in Congress feel they are entitled to whatever they want.

Topic Title: Pelosi proves it again
Topic Summary: that the parties are the same

Cool beans, good for her and the Democrats, they have learned well from the Republicans. :thumbsup:

 

[brandonbull]

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.

If members of Congress can't fly on a commercial plane, they should do something about the safety of flights within the US. Instead, they wish to be taxied around in flying limos on the taxpayers' dime. If the plane can't make the trip nonstop, she can land at a military base, refuel, and then continue on.

Poor Speaker of the House. She wants to fly home nonstop and she can't. How can she ever survive?

 

[Darwin333]

Boy, I hate when my private jet has to stop and refuel before I reach my destination.

 

[brandonbull]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I am not very fond of the horsesh!t so many politicians pull, but I have to say that where the speaker's home district is ought to have some effect of the type of plain he or she would require for transport. Sadly, no matter how you cut it, from a rational perspective the Speaker of the House is an important person in the US government whose time, therefore, must be considered to have real value, regardless of how worthless that person may actually be in reality. It would strike me then as obvious, from a patriotic American value's point of view, that no matter which party the Speaker belongs to, he or she should fly non stop. And since the plain will be flying anyway coast to coast, anybody the Speaker wants to fly with her should be able to go since the cost will be no higher and there are efficiencies involved.

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.

I'm sure you'd have felt the same way if Hastert was lobbying for a larger "plain".

I certainly would have. I long ago accommodated myself to the fact that important people get and deserve special perks due solely to their position and regardless of their personality. I don't care that the Queen of England doesn't walk to the store or that Bush gets to fly in a helicopter. I see no reason at all to feel slighted by the privilege of others who have done the actual work to arrive at their positions, regardless of my assessment of their real merit because I am emotionally mature enough to handle it. My self worth does not depend on everyone else, including people I have no respect for, being equal to or beneath me. I do not begrudge the extra cost I will have to pay in taxes because it will be microscopic and an inevitability of the reality of the situation and I already have to pay for millions of things in taxes I already do not support. In short I am not an idiotic emotional child at east in this one area and have memories of the same reaction to people on the left bitching about privileges taken on the right. How about you?

That's the thing. Elected officals are representatives of the population. They are not suppose to be royality and pampered.