NCclimber

In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question. We did lots of things differently before 9/11. The government didn't tap our phones without a warrant. We didn't suspend habeas corpus for people at the whim of the president. We could carry nail clippers on airplanes. We didn't have to take our shoes off in airports. The VP didn't spend weeks in "undisclosed locations". Oooooo - dodgeball. Just the facts, Ma'am. What does this - have to do with this - You're pretty spry, little lady.

you just keep hanging on to that notion, so you can ignore that big ole pink elephant in the room.

Is there such a thing as a "recovering homo" or "homos anonymous"? Instead of chips they could carry around a pair of silk panties. "Dude, I just got my six month thong!"

Ok, so what IS the real problem here? That her plane might be bigger? Maybe her ass is bigger and she needs more room! Hmmmm, that can't be it....we're talking about Hastert. Ok, I've got it.... can we let it go if she works more than three days a week and doesn't build a taxpayer funded parkway to her personal real estate holdings? Man, I can't believe that we're talking about this instead of Prince's phallic dislpay at the superbowl! you seem to have some serious issues about people discussing this topic. Perhaps you should refrain from reading the updates. It seems to be pretty upsetting. All the best. Cheers.

What's all the fuss about? Do you really think working for a political appointee doesn't come with certain "understanding? Wake up and open your eyes.

In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question. We did lots of things differently before 9/11. The government didn't tap our phones without a warrant. We didn't suspend habeas corpus for people at the whim of the president. We could carry nail clippers on airplanes. We didn't have to take our shoes off in airports. The VP didn't spend weeks in "undisclosed locations". Oooooo - dodgeball.

What does it say about congressmen using it for unoficial business? What does it say about the first lady traveling for personal reasons? WHO GIVES A SHIT????? There have always been certain priviledges bestowed on the First Lady. It goes with the territory. Trying to equate them with congressonal priviledges is idiotic.

I don't think so. Is anyone claiming Pelosi should? Or are you just tossing out more crap to see if any will stick? Who was it that wrote: The transports in question are for White House use and official government/congressional business. Do you really think using it as a commuter taxi for Pelosi and her sizable entourage fits the bill? Seems like the person that wrote that was trying to approve the use of government planes for official business but not for commuting. But Hastert and his folks used them for commuting back and forth to his home in IL. DOUBLE STANDARD SHOWING. For anyone who has kept of with this thread read, it's pretty obvious this is a gross misrepresentation. Pelosi should get the same accomodations as Hastert.... for the same reasons. But you go on distorting things. It seems to be what you do best.

In '05? Which century are you living in? Fixed it.... not that you would respond to the obvious question.

What does it say about congressmen using it for unoficial business?

I don't think so. Is anyone claiming Pelosi should? Or are you just tossing out more crap to see if any will stick?

Why should Laura Bush get something denied to Pelosi? Pure silliness. Can you imagine the stink if Newt tried to ask for the same priviledges as Hillary, back on '95?

Too bad so much of what you post is based on bogus assumptions. House of cards, baby. Pamprin?

Kallend, So much of what you've said in this thread is just pure silliness. The transports in question are for White House use and official government/congressional business. Do you really think using it as a commuter taxi for Pelosi and her sizable entourage fits the bill? Like I said - silliness. Prior to 9/11, the Speaker of the House flew on commercial airliners for this kind of travel. Hassert started using it for security reasons, not out of some new-found sense of priviledge. Pelosi seems to think she's entitled to whatever the government can provide. Is it really a big deal to have to refuel? compared to the old procedure of flying commercial? Or is it about Pelosi's new-found sense of priviledge. Here's a cite, which you've been repeatedly whining about.http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070207-123706-5963r.htm Just so you know, when I ask for a cite, it's only after I've done a quick search and found nothing or only found obviously partisan sources. In contrast, you could do a google news search for "Pelosi" and the second match would have given you all you need. The first match involved "a special panel on climate change". Ironic, don't you think?

Snipe,snipe, snipe. Shouldn't you be getting back to defending Nacy Pelosi's inane demands???

I would think that many of these people are unable to get about and that many are overburdened with healthcare cost that has taken near everything from them. The real horror is people like yourself who would much rather kick the old and sick than to help them when they need help. The shame is that this country constantly lies about how compassionate it is and constantly looks for a way to kill off anyone who may not be able to eventually fill one of its body bags. It is a shame that this country enjoys sending food to other countries only to let the people who have paid untold amounts of tax dollars into the system starve. Those tax dollars belong to Americans and should only be used to help Americans. Those dollars do not belong to the government to do as they please. Nice bit of drama there. Good ploy on the "with healthcare cost that has taken near everything from them." Classic. Do you really think food being sent abroad is such a bad thing? Loved the personal attack, too. I have to hand it to you... your posts are great entertainment.

What this is really about is people having to do their own shopping, instead of being given pre-packaged meals. Oh, the horror.

You crack me up.

Or is it because she NEEDS a big jet instead of a commuter jet, which Hastert used? Is it because she seems to think she NEEDS to ferry her entourage and family everywhere? Is it because she holds sway on the armed forces committee and the AF is afraid to say no lest she cut some of their funding? Is it because she made a big stink about ethics and now realizes that without a BIG JET funded by her lobbyists... she needs an AF BIG JET to move her oh-so-important people around? You should look in the USAF inventory to see what is available with the necessary range before making that assumption. Or just read what is being reported.

Similar consideration? QuoteIs your objection because she's a woman, or because she's a Democrat? Do you still beat your wife?

Oops.

Did someone here direct a racial slur at Obama? Getting back the Pelosi insult, how is that word any worse than asshole, prick, dickhead or any number of slurs that are almost exclusively directed at men?

And out come the gratuitously misogynist insults... be prepared for a LOT more of those in the next 2 years. "shrub", "bushitler", "chimpy"... the name calling sure isn't exclusive to one side... Or gender.

Your post is 100% relevant. I guess it would invalidate your points ,too.

Your point about the data is a valid one. I was just point out that its timing is a bit suspect.