Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I hadn't checked this forum in a week and I thought to myself before I logged on that I'm going to guess what the #1 topic of discussion will be over on PPP. I bet with more certainty than a Colts Superbowl win it will be the Pelosi airplane crap and sure enuff......It's easy to figure out what's going to be discussed here (Pelosi, global warming debunking) and what's not (Libby trial, Iraq failure) without ever having to check the site. This forum is pretty much Fox Noise/Bill Orly driven or whatever else drives the screwball conservative right sect. The cool part is, we were all sitting around wondering how long it was going to take you to show up with this exact post. I think I won the pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 So the House sergeant at arms has now come out and said that Pelosi didn't make any specific request (or "demands" as the Republican talking points call them): CNN Story WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday. Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons. "The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement. "I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue," the statement said. Guess the fine jornalists at the Washington Times got it wrong again, huh? Must have been the same guy who wrote that hachet job a few weeks ago that said Barak Obama attended a radical muslim madrassa in his youth, something that turned out to be demonstrably false. So now the right will scream that of course CNN, the bastian of the "Liberal Media" is going to run a story like this and refute Pelosi's "demands". Only problem is, CNN has quotes that are directly attributable to the House sergeant at arms - that's called good jornalism. If you want to see bad journalism, see the original Washington Times story which references only "a congressional source" - this could be any unnamed political aide planting a non-story for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The Washington Times?!? What the fuh....?!?! Does anybody, even in Washington, read that rag? Just goes to show that one dedicated moonie with money to blow can achieve. How anyone can keep that paper around as long as Moon has is kind of impressive when you think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Does anybody, even in Washington, read that rag? Yeah, surprisingly. Don't know why, the Times is only a step up from Rense.com in terms of credibility. I hadn't even seen where this story initially came out of the Times. If I had, I would have just dismissed it out of hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 To me it boils down to practicality if the Speaker flys commercial or has an Air Force jet. I have no problem with high government officials taking Air Force transport that affords them better security/privacy/work facilities/communications than commercial airlines and probably get them from point A to point B faster (less air traffic delays, etc.). I don't think it is unreasonable to limit the amount of time it should take a high official to travel - stopping for refueling is a waste IMHO. Unfortuantely, all of this comes off looking like a perk, when I don't believe it is - it's simply a practical way to get the most out of high government officials. To me, it's much like why the senior management in my company have offices and they all have nice Blackberrys. Some think they're perks, I see it as a way to ensure the company gets the most out of them by providing the environment they need to do their work. They can work in privacy, hols small meetings and work from home/airport/etc. with an office and a Blackberry. In my previous company the CEO sat at a desk out in the open like everyone else - great in theory, but really impractical. The guy talks about all sorts of sensitive things every day - things most other people shouldn't overhear. As a result, he essentially permanently booked a conference room so that he was available to do his work as needed. So yeah, he didn't have an office and was like the rest of us, but he had to take extra measures just to be able to do his work. All this just so that it didn't appear that he had some sort of "perk" others didn't get. To me, use of an Air Force jet, one that doesn't have to stop for refueling is OK - its not a perk - its being practical. Whether its a Dem or a Republican who sits in that chair is of no consequence - Hasstert should have had it, Pelosi should have it, the next Speaker should have it. Why do you want to make government officials more efficient? When that CEO you mentioned gets more done, his company makes more money. A congresscritter getting more done generally means one of the following: 1. The taxpayers' money is being given away for political reasons 2. Harmful new regulations are being created 3. Laws are being changed to help the likes of the RIAA at the expense of the American people 4. Bureaucracies are being expanded 5. Social programs are being created or expanded 6. The government is finding flimsy excuses to meddle where it doesn't belong 7. Miscellaneous actions which hurt the country as a whole in oder to help some special interest group or corporate lobby or government union. The less these people are able to do, the better off we'll all be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 10, 2007 Author Share Posted February 10, 2007 This really has been fun to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I hadn't checked this forum in a week and I thought to myself before I logged on that I'm going to guess what the #1 topic of discussion will be over on PPP. I bet with more certainty than a Colts Superbowl win it will be the Pelosi airplane crap and sure enuff......It's easy to figure out what's going to be discussed here (Pelosi, global warming debunking) and what's not (Libby trial, Iraq failure) without ever having to check the site. This forum is pretty much Fox Noise/Bill Orly driven or whatever else drives the screwball conservative right sect. Yeah, I'm with you. Whatever happened to the good old days when the Attorney General burned out and exterminated an entire religious sect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Why do you want to make government officials more efficient? When that CEO you mentioned gets more done, his company makes more money. A congresscritter getting more done generally means one of the following:1. The taxpayers' money is being given away for political reasons 2. Harmful new regulations are being created 3. Laws are being changed to help the likes of the RIAA at the expense of the American people 4. Bureaucracies are being expanded 5. Social programs are being created or expanded 6. The government is finding flimsy excuses to meddle where it doesn't belong 7. Miscellaneous actions which hurt the country as a whole in oder to help some special interest group or corporate lobby or government union. The less these people are able to do, the better off we'll all be. So Congress shouldn't work at all because they only do stupid, wasteful things or things YOU don't agree with? Not only is this attitude too cynical for words, it really makes me question whether the average American understands just how good we have things in a democracy like ours. Is there corruption and waste? Is there pandering to special interestes? You bet! (there's also all sorts of legislation passed that YOU may not agree with but OTHERS certainly do!). But Congress also does things like fund our military, highways, air traffic control system, food inspections, drug safety testing, and making sure your grandmother gets something for Social Security and senior healthcare (Medicare). Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water! If you don't like the Congress we have, do something about it. If you don't like the government we have, go somewhere else (although I doubt you'll find somewhere better). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Yeah, I'm with you. Whatever happened to the good old days when the Attorney General burned out and exterminated an entire religious sect. I believe the right to practice religion covers owning enough weapons to arm a small army, shooting at and killing federal officers and starting a standoff with law enforecment using children as pawns - isn't that all covered off in the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 I believe the right to practice religion covers owning enough weapons to arm a small army, shooting at and killing federal officers and starting a standoff with law enforecment using children as pawns So did the Jews at Masada Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 Why do you want to make government officials more efficient? When that CEO you mentioned gets more done, his company makes more money. A congresscritter getting more done generally means one of the following:1. The taxpayers' money is being given away for political reasons 2. Harmful new regulations are being created 3. Laws are being changed to help the likes of the RIAA at the expense of the American people 4. Bureaucracies are being expanded 5. Social programs are being created or expanded 6. The government is finding flimsy excuses to meddle where it doesn't belong 7. Miscellaneous actions which hurt the country as a whole in oder to help some special interest group or corporate lobby or government union. The less these people are able to do, the better off we'll all be. Ah conspiracy, conspiracy! The image of the freaks at Waco perishing in their own self caused fire still rings loud and clear with the gun and christ loving screwball right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 So Congress shouldn't work at all because they only do stupid, wasteful things or things YOU don't agree with? Not only is this attitude too cynical for words, it really makes me question whether the average American understands just how good we have things in a democracy like ours. Is there corruption and waste? Is there pandering to special interestes? You bet! (there's also all sorts of legislation passed that YOU may not agree with but OTHERS certainly do!). But Congress also does things like fund our military, highways, air traffic control system, food inspections, drug safety testing, and making sure your grandmother gets something for Social Security and senior healthcare (Medicare). Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water! If you don't like the Congress we have, do something about it. If you don't like the government we have, go somewhere else (although I doubt you'll find somewhere better). Let's say Congress had done nothing since 2001, beyond the bare minimum to maintain the status quo. There'd be: - No Iraq War - No prescription drug entitlement program - No dramatic surge in federal spending - No Patriot Act - A bunch of other bad stuff would be gone Weigh that against the good Congress has done since 2001: . . . Um, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 11, 2007 Share Posted February 11, 2007 So did the Jews at Masada Ever see the movie? It's a good flick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Interesting look at how this got spun... Pelosi's Plane Problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Interesting look at how this got spun... Pelosi's Plane Problem You may want to look up the definition of "interesting". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 You may want to look up the definition of "interesting". What'd you expect? He's an economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 You may want to look up the definition of "interesting". the eye of the beholder... For example, I don't find the topic "regression toward the mean" interesting; but I do find the topic "how we went to war on lies" interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Stretch last week flew in THE SAME PLANE HASSERT USED and FLEW NON-STOP to SF. So why did she ask for a new plane in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Stretch last week flew in THE SAME PLANE HASSERT USED and FLEW NON-STOP to SF. So why did she ask for a new plane in the first place? To see if your head would explode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 Stretch last week flew in THE SAME PLANE HASSERT USED and FLEW NON-STOP to SF. So why did she ask for a new plane in the first place? Can you cite: -Where Pelosi asked for a new plane? According to the House SaA, he was the one responsible for finding what he felt to be was suitable transportation -Where anyone flew the exact same plane as Hassert from DC to SF? I didn't see that reported so I'd be interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts