
How can Nancy Pelosi tell she's lost the Plane-Gate argument? When even MSNBC brands it "Air Pelosi." Check the screencap.
But Pelosi has apparently decided to go down fighting. She's now playing the gender card, and for good measure has thrown in a soupçon of Rumsfeld-phobia. MSNBC just aired a clip of Speaker Pelosi making the following remarks on the issue of her request to the Pentagon for a large plane to transport her home:
"I don't even know the numbers of the planes. So this is something that is really very strange. That the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, which I have been a constant critic of the war in Iraq, and where I understand Mr. Rumsfeld still has a desk, even though he's no longer the Secretary, has decided that they would go public about a conversation on an issue that applied to the previous Speaker. Now, as a woman, as a woman Speaker of the House, I don't want any less opportunity than male speakers have had when they have served here."View the video of one angry Pelosi here.
In to discuss the matter with host Norah O'Donnell were Kelly Dingell, Dem strategist, and Cheri Jacobus, GOP strategist. Cheri actually offered some very sound advice to the Speaker:
"The biggest mistake that Nancy Pelosi can play right now is to try to play a victim. This business that this is happening to her because she's a woman is ridiculous. She's asked for a larger plane, she's asked for something more than what the previous Speaker had. It's ridiculous and naive of her to think that people aren't going to look at this and want to know why. She's talking about this ethical Congress, they're supposed to be big environmentalists. I think it's ridiculous for her to make this about her being a woman, and a huge mistake on her part."Dingell and O'Donnell emphasized that Pelosi was seeking a plane that could fly her home to California non-stop. But as many readers have pointed out, that in no way justifies the need for the behemoth Pelosi has been seeking. There are any number of executive-sized jets with more than enough range to go California dreamin' -- non-stop.
When Dingell suggested there was good reason to suspect that someone "leaked" the story, Jacobus had a telling rebuttal: "I have a problem with the term 'leaked.' It shouldn't be a secret. Is it something [Pelosi] thought should have been kept secret?"
Precisely..
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This dumb broad is so ridicul
February 8, 2007 - 14:30 ET by I am conservativeThis dumb broad is so ridiculous, it makes me sick. This just proves how the left views themselves as the elite and "her rights" to a plane big enough to haul her family and staff back and forth to San Francisco at $300,000 a pop. Talk about a waste of money. Mr. Hastert used a small plane and used it only when needed, not for luxury reasons. For her to use sexism to get her plane is hilarious. She just keeps looking ridiculous every moment she speaks.
I hate liberals....I really do...
Typical Liberal, make an a$$
February 8, 2007 - 14:33 ET by hs29fanTypical Liberal, make an a$$ out of yourself. Then, blame others when you get into trouble.
Poor Liberal, he's educated beyond his intelligence
Queen Bee
February 8, 2007 - 14:39 ET by sharinliteIt is the "queen bee" afffect that females get when they achieve some sorth of "power". The fact that the plane she wanted seats 42 with 16 crew
tell us more about Pelosi than she wants us to know.
P.S. I am a woman. Not a female. There are, however, more females than women out there. Same for the guys.
In a normal commercial conf
February 8, 2007 - 14:46 ET by Mark FinkelsteinIn a normal commercial configuation, the 757 she seeks could seat over 200.
After leaving cargo space for
February 8, 2007 - 15:15 ET by GalvanicAfter leaving cargo space for all the pork barrels, there's only room for 46 passengers and 16 crew.
Actually, the configuration of the aircraft she has in mind might include a number of personal cabins for sleeping, an expanded galley and lavatories, extra communications (including VTC), conference rooms, and lounge.
By the way, the Dem argument that she needs an aircraft with such a range to avoid stops for security reasons is bogus. Since the flight plan of such an aircraft is not public information, the aircraft is far less vulnerable to attack at interim airports (especially USAF bases) than San Francisco International or other neighborhood destination where the bad guys know she's eventually got to land.
Furthermore, smaller aircraft have access to more airports and airfields than airliner-size birds, making the targeting solution much more difficult.
My guess is that Pelosi is under no threat from AQ or other groups --- they'd love to see her take over as President of the US.
...the aircraft is far less
February 8, 2007 - 15:56 ET by GregA...the aircraft is far less vulnerable to attack at interim airports
(especially USAF bases) than San Francisco International or other
neighborhood destination where the bad guys know she's eventually got
to land.
DoD jets land and refuel at DoD facilities; in other words, secure military bases...
I have seen smaller military
February 8, 2007 - 16:02 ET by florida_chadI have seen smaller military jets land at my local airport. They do it all the time. They stop in, go to town for lunch, refuel and leave. They are usually smaller/fighter type jets.
In the case of Bela Pelosi, t
February 8, 2007 - 17:01 ET by Del DolemonteIn the case of Bela Pelosi, that would most likely be Travis Air Force Base, which is to the east of SF. This is the biggest Air Base in the SF area.
That means that we won't see
February 8, 2007 - 17:14 ET by GalvanicThat means that we won't see Travis AFB on any BRAC lists while she's Speaker. :-)
"Hello Pot, It's me Kettle"
February 9, 2007 - 17:34 ET by SomerTeethDo the names Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, or Tom DeLay ring a bell?
Well said, conservative. I
February 8, 2007 - 15:26 ET by motherbeltWell said, conservative. I just watched the video and the Republican strategist said the biggest mistake Nancy Pelosi could make right now is to play the victim. But hey, it's the fallback position for a liberal woman scorned. Claim sexism. Did you ever hear Ann Coulter or Mary Matalin whine about being disrespected or insulted because they're women?
If Ms. Pelosi (aka Queen Nancy) wants to be taken seriously, she really needs to stop shoving her gender in everyone's face every chance she gets.
Wow. Now there's some civi
February 9, 2007 - 18:20 ET by SomerTeethWow. Now there's some civil discourse for you! I would suspect Mr. Hastert didn't use the plan that frequently because, well, simply because it's difficult to move 400 lbs. Besides, it would've required him to back away from the dinner table. Mmmmm, bacon!
Cute by half somer.
February 9, 2007 - 18:24 ET by bigtimerCute by half somer.
Hey there's some civil discou
February 9, 2007 - 18:28 ET by mastersofdeceitHey there's some civil discourse! Who is this Stephanie Miller? Say you didn't come here to "abuse ignorant conservatives" did you?
If it isn't Stephanie it must
February 9, 2007 - 18:42 ET by bigtimerIf it isn't Stephanie it must be her twin!
Loved the Liberal Handbook mod!
LMAO!
I didn't call anyone "
February 9, 2007 - 18:52 ET by SomerTeethI didn't call anyone "ignorant", now did I? I sense someone is projecting their insecurities. I just enjoy reading the stimulating dialogue between conservative minds.
I didn't say you called anyon
February 9, 2007 - 19:06 ET by mastersofdeceitI didn't say you called anyone ignorant. It's a reference to the Stern Network. Btw, I've been registered to the Peace & Freedom party since I was old enough to vote, 1985. And I'm probably actually way more liberal than you.
Is it still yard time at Quentin?
Wow, I'm impressed! When you
February 9, 2007 - 22:03 ET by Del DolemonteWow, I'm impressed! When you can't logically debate, call someone "fat". Does this also work with noted Democrat porcines Teddy "Chappaquidick Fats" Kennedy or Jerry Nadler? No, I didn't think so.
And then there's the standard leftist canard of calling Ann Coulter "skinny"....
Is there something ironic a
February 8, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Mark FinkelsteinIs there something ironic about Pelosi admitting "I don't even know the numbers of the planes" also being the great military strategist when it comes to Iraq?
No, but she did stay in a Hol
February 8, 2007 - 14:40 ET by hs29fanNo, but she did stay in a Holiday Inn Express.
Mark - that's what she uses B
February 8, 2007 - 14:46 ET by I am conservativeMark - that's what she uses Big Dawg Murtha for "military expertise." If he was in charge we'd all be dead...
I hate liberals...
...."and Rumsfield still has
February 8, 2007 - 15:18 ET by gfrrman...."and Rumsfield still has a desk?" I guess his old desk is still where it was but he's no longer in charge. What the he** does that have to do with anything?
Now, as a woman, as a woman
February 8, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Jack BauerNow, as a woman, as a woman Speaker of the House, I don't want any less opportunity than male speakers have had when they have served here."
And that would be a C-20 GULFSTREAM lll - with a range of 4715 MILES: codenamed Broomstick One.
So what's the problem, Lady?
Come on now, Mad-man madamn
February 8, 2007 - 14:53 ET by wiwfCome on now, Mad-man madamn speaker, I thought you were a GW believer! So why not flaunt your "holier-than-thou" attitude towards the prez and feel good about having a smaller plane! After all, it wastes less gas, so you'd be hurting the environment less and be feeling less guilty.
Hey, I'm new here, Getting a NB account was the perfect 20th birthday present :)
. . and to save fule, she c
February 8, 2007 - 15:03 ET by FastEd. . and to save fuel, she could try Pogostick One, while Reid and Murtha could use Land Deal Two or Hot Air Two, respectively. Would her thighness be flying a Coldstream 4? or a new Airbus A380 - I Takes a Village? I Want The Profits? Painted green and gold, with red trim, The Socialist Fool? {msm (Lsm) guess the reference}
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Yes, and there is another j
February 8, 2007 - 18:29 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYes, and there is another jet, the Gulfstream G500 which has a range of 5800 nautical miles. So how is it that she gets a 757 which by all standards is a major gas guzzler? The only reason why she wanted the 757 is to act like the President... which she thinks she already is.
____________________________________________________
"These are the times that try men's souls." ~ Thomas Paine
Did you all notice that no ma
February 8, 2007 - 14:49 ET by I am conservativeDid you all notice that no matter how angry she was, her face didn't even move when she talked? She looked like a character from "Planet of the Apes."
All Botox and no brains.
I noticed that too, Iac, kind
February 8, 2007 - 15:09 ET by FOXFANI noticed that too, Iac, kinda spooky. I believe 'pop eye' Pelosi even attempted to blink once during her idotic rant. I can only see this as hurting her(hopefully).
Maybe the needles can slip an
February 8, 2007 - 17:05 ET by kathleenirishMaybe the needles can slip and give one a lobotomy? That would explain a lot.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Mrs. Pelosi
February 8, 2007 - 14:50 ET by d1carterI think if she were to start kicking and screaming on the floor, yelling "but I want my airpwane, I want my airpwane" maybe the bad ole Pentagon might give it to her.
waiting for chris matthews
February 8, 2007 - 15:09 ET by tumbler_2007Surely tomorrow Chris Matthews on Imus in Da Morning will sputter, "Give hah the fu--ing 757, youz bums!"
It just proves that an old s
February 8, 2007 - 14:57 ET by Clear thinkerIt just proves that an old saying is still in vogue....'Size does matter'.
Pelosi's Plane
February 8, 2007 - 15:02 ET by CellaAnother Democratic "I want my blankie" moment.
This woman is breathtakingly unlikable.
I agree with the White House
February 8, 2007 - 15:04 ET by moderate to profaneI agree with the White House on this!! This is all silly and unfair to Nancy!!! It is about security. At least that is what Tony Snow is saying!!
Quote from above Link:
But Snow on Thursday said the negotiations over Pelosi's transport have been conducted solely by the House sergeant-at-arms and the Pentagon, with no direct involvement by the speaker or her office — or the White House.
She could easily use a C37A and that would apparently fly all the way to San Fran. It is the same size as the C20. I guess that will be the winner.
Can we get a ruling now--no H
February 8, 2007 - 15:07 ET by BuffNBoneCan we get a ruling now--no House Speakers from Alaska or Hawaii?
There is an upside about not having to stop in the midwest for refueling--one less time for the flight crew to be seen with her in public.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
All Botox No Brains!
February 8, 2007 - 15:12 ET by ChasvsWhat a GREAT Acronym! Nancy Pelosi ABNB!
The World in in Danger when the Liberals are in Charge!
Man was she angry. Didn't they win? Two comments.
February 8, 2007 - 15:16 ET by acaiguanaMan was she angry. Didn't they win? Two comments.
What in the world does Don Rumsfeld have to do with anything over this plane? It's all about her this time. No one else, her. And I'll let the women have the comments about the woman 'card' she is playing.
Second point. This woman looks like a ferret on attack mode in this video. Can you get a still of that Mark? That's amazing.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Oops, you do have a still of it. I was stuck on middle of post.
February 8, 2007 - 15:19 ET by acaiguanaOops, you do have a still of it. I was stuck on middle of post.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Sorry, Charlie, no thatched hut for you!
February 8, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Shrillary ClintonWill the biggie plane be non-stop to American Samoa too? She better check in on StarKist and make sure they aren't raising the minimum wage.
StarKist on Line One, Nancy
February 8, 2007 - 15:32 ET by Shrillary ClintonAs a woman, I can say that she is giving us all a bad name by abusing the gender card. It has NOTHING to do with being a woman and everything to do with being a very rich elitist. She was offered the EXACT same plane as the previous MALE speaker. How is that gender bias?
You got caught with your San Fran Nancy pants down this time, lady!
noname, Pelosi isn't known for being very bright.
February 8, 2007 - 15:42 ET by acaiguananoname, Pelosi isn't known for being very bright.
But I guess that would be obvious. The great Democrat canard is they got a 'mandate' in 2006. It isn't true of course, but they claim it.
She was going to change the world in 100 hours. As far as I've been following her silliness nothing the House did legislatively has gotten very far in the Senate.
The minimum wage law is stuck over some silly 'tax-cuts' the Republicans tacked onto it. Giggle.
So, we'll just wait and see. If you think she's mad in this video wait until the video of her and Harry Reid shouting over why nothing can get done in the Senate.
This is great theater. Bad for America of course, but they don't care.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Liberal millionairs like Pelo
February 8, 2007 - 15:42 ET by AntiMediaLiberal millionairs like Pelosi need free transportaton.
This is a great way to defl
February 8, 2007 - 15:48 ET by awffp1890This is a great way to deflect the attention from you, "I understand Mr. Rumsfeld still has a desk." Well if that is the case, you most certainly deserve a plane.
"Not for fame or reward, not for place or rank, not lured by ambition or goaded by necessity. But in simple obedience to duty." - From the barracks at Ft. Benning
Air Force facts sheet on th
February 8, 2007 - 15:51 ET by GregAAir Force facts sheet on the C-20:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=87
(I love how the Washington Times calls it a "commuter plane"...)
GregA...Thanks for the fact s
February 8, 2007 - 17:11 ET by JayTeeGregA...Thanks for the fact sheet. with a range of 4000+ miles, how can she complain about "stops" for re-fueling ?
Oh, I know how, she's a liberal and doesn't get the FACTs before complaining about something she knows nothing about.
The House Sergeant at Arms h
February 8, 2007 - 17:36 ET by moderate to profaneThe House Sergeant at Arms has released a statement saying that he is the one invlovled in all of this and that he is the one trying to get a plane that will fly from DC to San Fran and not Pelosi. He is stating that this is a security issue and that it is not secure for her to land on the way.
Any complaints should be address to him and not Pelosi.
And I should believe the Hous
February 8, 2007 - 19:25 ET by smfd227And I should believe the House Sergeant at Arms has more experience in security matters than the US Secret Service...why? I should further believe that Pelosi can't ask him to STFU and take the same plane as Hastert...why? On that note, I should believe my 9-year-old daughter when she tells me her little brother, 1-year-old, is really the one that wanted to play the X-Box and I should take it up with him...WHY?
"Pop culture is filth." - John Derbyshire
Liberal Elites
February 8, 2007 - 15:53 ET by I am conservative"I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do,'' Murtha said.
This is what Murtha said today according to on-line reports about the Pentagon. What a joke... This guy is something else, a real elite and tough talking loser.
Sucks that he was a Marine.
February 8, 2007 - 19:27 ET by smfd227Sucks that he was a Marine. Unless Dishonorably discharged, we usually don't say "ex" or "former" Marine, but he's disgraced my beloved Corps enough that I'll make an exception for his sorry ass. He is, in the parlance of the Corps, a sh*tbird.
"Pop culture is filth." - John Derbyshire
This is from a sfgate.com (
February 8, 2007 - 16:02 ET by motherbeltThis is from a sfgate.com (a San Francisco newspaper) article about the plane controversy:
(Rep.John)"Murtha said he is convinced the Pentagon has been leaking information
about the possibility that Pelosi would use large military planes to make her
look bad. But he said, "They're making a mistake when they leak it because she
decides on allocations for them,'' referring to the Pentagon budget.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/02/08/MNGN5O11UT1.DTL&type=printable
Is that a threat? Will anyone pick up on that? And will Her Speakerness distance herself from it?
Sounds like a threat.... MS
February 8, 2007 - 16:05 ET by I am conservativeSounds like a threat.... MSM would never cover this though
It is a threat. I can see no
February 8, 2007 - 16:08 ET by Clear thinkerIt is a threat. I can see no other meaning no matter how you might spin it.
Pelosi
February 8, 2007 - 16:15 ET by pocomocoThe real reason Pelosi requires a larger plane, is to accommodate her newly acquired bloated head
She’s a prime example of how Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
As for Murtha with Pelosi, he’s like Schumer with Clinton displaying the unmistakable syndrome of sycophantism. ( don’t follow too close boys, or your noses may become impaled )
This cannot be about "Se
February 8, 2007 - 17:02 ET by JayTeeThis cannot be about "Security"....
First of all, she wouldn't Scare a Terrorist Cell trying to kill off the Leadership of the U.S.. She'd be the last one left Alive, as a NON-problem.
Secondly, Even the Republicans don't want her "knocked Out" as she is the Best representation of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.
Pelosi is safe, she need not worry. Besides, she works in Washington, has a Job in Washington, and shouldn't be flying back and forth to San Franciko all the time. The price of "Leadership".
ABC News now has a laughable
February 8, 2007 - 17:10 ET by Del DolemonteABC News now has a laughable push-poll up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/popup?id=2857986
Despite the rigged question, and the fact that it's an online poll so isn't reliable, the NOs outnumber the YESs 2 to 1.
what an incredibly off-topic poll Queston.
February 8, 2007 - 17:17 ET by acaiguanaWhat an incredibly off-topic poll Question.
Security isn't the issue here. The issue is she's a woman who can't get what all the 'men' got. Right?
:-)
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
For Immediate Release Februar
February 8, 2007 - 17:44 ET by waka wakaThis whole "controversy" has always been ridiculous on its face. Just take a breath and think about it: Do you Dittoheads really think Speaker Pelosi would be STUPID enough to demand this big plane after the Republicos were run out of town on a rail for the same type of behavior? It was always about flying nonstop. When informed that Hastert's plane would require refueling, Speaker Pelosi said she'd rather fly commercial.
Once again, the right, desperate to avoid talking about Iraq, has latched onto a faux scandal and managed to come out looking even more ridiculous and irrelevant than ever before. Heck, Tony Snow even said it was "silly." Be quiet kids. Grownups are talking.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Nice Try Waka..waka...but the
February 8, 2007 - 18:05 ET by JayTeeNice Try Waka..waka...but the C-20 military plane has a range of 4,000+ miles...read post above. Plus it has RollsRoyce Engines.....nice plane.
That is in good weather and n
February 9, 2007 - 09:45 ET by moderate to profaneThat is in good weather and no head winds. It will not go east to west non stop except in the summer. This is documented. The air force and others have commented on this. The specs are for ideal conditions and not met unless under ideal conditions.
C37A planes can meet the cross country conditions as does C32's.
Please do more research than just looking at specs. If I did that my Ford would able to go over 500 miles before I would have to refuel. It doesn't.
This is documented? Please gi
February 9, 2007 - 22:06 ET by Del DolemonteThis is documented? Please give us the documentation. After all, all we have is a PR guy for the Air Force saying it.
waka waka waka waka - fun to type waka waka waka waka
February 8, 2007 - 19:34 ET by acaiguanawaka waka waka waka - fun to type waka waka waka waka...
Do you Dittoheads really think Speaker Pelosi would be STUPID enough to demand this big plane after the Republicos were run out of town on a rail for the same type of behavior?.
Um... yes, I think she is that stupid. And I guess you need to read some more of the threads on this site regarding her plane request.
She wanted all this to be kept 'secret' too. Does that sound like a 'new direction' to you? Probably so.
But on the issue of how stupid Pelosi really can be we'll just have to continue to watch her Tuna Fish life on MTV or is that C-SPAN now?
By the way, not everyone here is a 'dittohead'. But I am. Proud of it actually.
ACA
..
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
And, once again, the Speaker
February 8, 2007 - 19:34 ET by smfd227And, once again, the Speaker (Almighty) of the House can't override or otherwise shut up her Sergeant at Arms? STFU, man! She's counting on the wuss society that is now America to buy off on the fact that "Well, I didn't ask for it, the Sergeant at Arms did?"
And I don't see her saying, never mind, either. I see her bitching cause Rumsfeld has a desk in the Pentagon, and that she doesn't have a prick.
Take that childish rationale to someone else, Whack.
"Pop culture is filth." - John Derbyshire
LOL, your bringing Iraq into
February 8, 2007 - 19:35 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, your bringing Iraq into a discussion about domestic air travel shows who's really desperate. As for Pelosi, her lack of intelligence is well-documented, to wit her foolish attempts to appoint unqualified hacks to top positions (such as her idiotic idea to nominate an impeached Federal Judge, Alcee Hastings, to become Intelligence Committee Chairman) shortly after she became Speaker. And her final choice for that position, Sylvestre Reyes, doesn't even know the religious makeups of al Qaeda or Hezbollah!
As for the Sargeant at Arms, nowhere in his comments above does he claim that the same plane Hastert used couldn't be used by Pelosi for non stop California access. Said plane has a maximum range of 4800 miles, or over twice the distance between Andrews Air Force Base and the SF Bay area.
The problem Nancy ran into was that she asked for a plane the size of a commercial airliner, with perks such as a private bedroom, while her predecessor happily made do with the much smaller plane. If you can name another Republican politician who demanded the same luxury in the current Administration, do so.
I have not read from any offi
February 9, 2007 - 09:54 ET by moderate to profaneI have not read from any official source these claims. Rep. Putnam of Florida, when confronted with statements from the White House, Pelosi and the Sargent at Arms, said that he would actually have to read the request( if there was one by Pelosi ) to determine if what he was claiming was correct. Sounds like Putnam, who has been saying that Pelosi wants this a luxury jet and wanted to use to do all sorts of things, is not sure of his sources and wants to get the facts now.
Of course if Pelosi is really asking for all of the BS that is being clained, then that is not right. But I would like to see what is really going on here before I call her names. That would be the American way right, innocent untill proven guilty?
I am not a "Dittohead&qu
February 8, 2007 - 20:30 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am not a "Dittohead" (thx for the generalization, though!) the answer would be "yes".
You are, apparently, exactly what you accuse Conservatives of being: supporters of corrupt politicians. Your naivety is rather amusing, Haterette, whoops, I mean, Waka Waka.
This woman is going to set wo
February 8, 2007 - 18:02 ET byThis woman is going to set women back decades. My 17 year old daughter watched that clip with me and said of Nancy, "She is old. Is she in her 70s?" Yes, in part, Becky (my daughter) was meaning Nancy's out-dated look, but also the whining about "sexism."
I have raised two daughters and never once have they thought that society sees them as second-class citizens because they are female. My oldest is a 3rd year biochemistry major who knows she has every opportunity out there because she has carried a 4.0. My youngest, Becky knows she can do the same in whatever she goes in.
Nancy's perpetual state of 'burning her bra,' is what could set women back to the 1960s--apparently Nancy never came out of that era. --I should add, that I actually believe that if a company needs to pay a man who is the main worker from a house-hold, more money in order to keep him, that they should be able to--if it is a woman, the same is true in my belief. Is there a fine line in my way of thinking, yes there is. But this is why we are a free enterprise.
Thank you so much for your
February 9, 2007 - 17:49 ET by SomerTeethThank you so much for your daughters resumes. And, how astute of you to point out Nancy's "out-dated look", which is such a critical element to a person's ability to govern our nation. You've added so much to the debate.
SomerTeeth...
February 9, 2007 - 17:53 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasSomerteeth, I am not sure how you classify yourself politically and apparently I am too lazy to mine some of your others posts...however, your response there was delicious.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Guy Arthur Thomas, why am I
February 9, 2007 - 18:10 ET by SomerTeethGuy Arthur Thomas, why am I not surprised by your comment? Isn't it page one in the conservative handbook that you can't talk or debate anyone until you know their "label" (liberal or conservative)?
Well we know where somer is p
February 9, 2007 - 18:13 ET by bigtimerWell we know where somer is politically.
Easy as pie.
Ahh, yes! Let the mindless
February 9, 2007 - 18:25 ET by SomerTeethAhh, yes! Let the mindless generalizations begin! Get ready, get set, now break out the Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter talking points!
Don't need any talkin' points
February 9, 2007 - 18:38 ET by bigtimerDon't need any talkin' points somer...
Unlike you on the left that must be bored with your own sites and repeats of your regurgitated daily talkin' points...
...and come here to amuse us...
Carry on....
No "talkin' points&quo
February 9, 2007 - 18:46 ET by SomerTeethNo "talkin' points"? Well, how about some grammar, then? Actually, I came here for the amusement of reading posts from people who continue to cling tightly to a party that's circling the drain of politics. It actually warms my heart to see conservatives get all worked up over Nancy Pelosi's plane. It's a clear sign that the party is completely out of options. Ahhh, the smell of desparation!
Somer,We consider it extremel
February 9, 2007 - 18:51 ET by BlondeSomer,
We consider it extremely rude here to critique grammar or act like the Spelling Police. In fact, it's Unsane's Rule #2 of debate here...if you resort to grammar/spelling critiques, you've already lost the debate.
Sorry, try again.
Blonde, let me get this str
February 9, 2007 - 18:57 ET by SomerTeethBlonde, let me get this straight. You're saying that's it's perfectly ok to write comments of hatred ("I hate liberals...I really do"), yet correcting someone's grammar is out of bounds? (And by the way, I didn't correct his grammar, I simply made a reference to grammar). And you guys say liberals are sensitive?
Somer,Not quite...but that wa
February 9, 2007 - 19:05 ET by BlondeSomer,
Not quite...but that was a nice attempt at dissembling and attributing words that I didn't write.
If all you have with which to argue is a critique of another poster's grammar or spelling here, you lose the debate, by default.
BTW, although you didn't correct his (sorry, wrongo, but you don't know that) grammar...you merely pointed out that the post was not grammatically correct.
Furthermore, had I stooped to your level, I could have pointed out a misspelling on your part, but you notice I didn't choose to do that.
Once again, you attempt to switch topics and make a crack about sensitivity....where none was mentioned in my post. So let me clarify this for you as well. We consider it to be extremely rude here to point out errors in grammar and spelling in lieu of making a cogent point. In fact, we consider that faux pas to be the debating game, set, and match point....lost.
Does that clear things up for you?
Actually, no it doesn't cle
February 9, 2007 - 19:19 ET by SomerTeethActually, no it doesn't clear things up. You've allowed hate comments to go uncontested, but you've determined that it's important to police references to grammar and spelling. While you did not "write" that in your post, your lack of action against those who post hate comments is complicitness
"Furthermore, had I stooped to your level, I could have pointed out a
misspelling on your part, but you notice I didn't choose to do that." No, that duty was carried out by another user.
Somer,You're being intentiona
February 11, 2007 - 15:41 ET by BlondeSomer,
You're being intentionally obtuse.
I chose not to answer your deliberate attempts at misunderstanding and misinterpreting my original post.
My "lack of action against those who post hate comments" has nothing to do with anything.
This site allows free speech (within reason...posters have been kicked off for being horrifically inappropriate).
In fact, we have liberals come here all the time and spew the most vile DKOS talking points.
So grow up.
I doubt you'll be back.
desparation????
February 9, 2007 - 18:56 ET by misterbill"desparation???? I know we are not supposed to correct spelling/grammar, but you did it to someone who used a colloquialism and then you stepped in your own doo doo.
DESPERATION
Truth exists, only falsehoods must be invented."
Great catch. You're brilli
February 9, 2007 - 19:03 ET by SomerTeethGreat catch. You're brilliant! Plus, you've got that whole open and close quotation mark thing down cold.
Somerteeth
February 9, 2007 - 19:15 ET by misterbillSomerteeth -good catch, you must be an English minor. You are an open and close individual. You have given your Liberal leanings away in a flash.
"what the hell are somerteeth?"
"somerteeth......some are here some are there, but he doesn't have all of them ..... make sense?" You are known elsewhere.
"Truth exists, only falsehoods must be invented."
somer...Well now...that Qween
February 9, 2007 - 18:58 ET by bigtimersomer...
Well now...that Qween Bee betur git off hur hi hoarse or et will bee uzed ahginst hur in politikel addz in the up-cummin' elekchuns....
Comprehend that?
I'm in the presence of a co
February 9, 2007 - 19:06 ET by SomerTeethI'm in the presence of a comedic genius. You certainly have it all, bigtimer.
Y Thanx sumer!
February 9, 2007 - 19:13 ET by bigtimerY Thanx sumer!
Well Somer...
February 9, 2007 - 18:22 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasWell SomerTeeth, that may indeed be part of the conservative handbook for debate...but it also is part of many debates. Surely you aren't intimating you don't have some form of political identity to at least provide a frame of reference. However, it is YOUR error that only two tags "liberal or conservative" are available. I never even hinted those were the only two options.
I identify myself as a moderate and cross the line on ocassion. I prefer good reason until I encounter the ridiculous and then, I just poke fun at the fool who refuses to discuss things honestly.
As a starting point for orientation all one has to say is I am thus and thus, but you already know this. Maybe you are overreacting to my mild inquiry because it is common these days to draw swords immediately upon discovering on which side of the middle one stands politically. I don't engage so rashly.
As for your comment to Smith, I enjoyed it. Now, if you really want to discuss things...do you think "Shrub" adds to or detracts from this high minded debate style you seem to demand from others? You seem clever enough and astute enough to handle yourself. But hey, if you feel any personal comment about your political leanings is going to pigeon hole you and diminish debate, well then forget the interest and on to discussion, challenge, debate and discovery.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
Ok, you've moved on to page
February 9, 2007 - 18:38 ET by SomerTeethOk, you've moved on to page two in the conservative playbook. You know the one where you justify your error or misconduct by making it known that "many other people have done it too!" (speaking of the comment "but it also is part of many debates")
If you claim to be a "moderate", then why do you close every post with, "If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself
and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!" I wouldn't exactly call that middle of the road.
Of course there are more than two "labels", but I was referring to the conservative mentality that only sees the world as black and white ("you're either with us, or against us")
My point is that a discussion/debate isn't predicated upon knowing to which "team" the other party belongs. It seems more important to conservatives to know someone's affililiation rather than the actual content of their opinion.
The road I am on
February 9, 2007 - 20:46 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI didn't say I was in the middle of the road...this is the second time you have attempted to put words in my mouth...apparently you are still on page 1 of the liberal debate playbook.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
The Liberal "Debate"
February 9, 2007 - 18:26 ET by mastersofdeceitThe Liberal "Debate" Handbook.
there is no debate somer
February 9, 2007 - 17:56 ET by tumbler_2007We have nothing to debate. Nancy is regrettably Speaker of the House for a short term. Believe me, she is doing no discernible governing; she's only crabbing over her trophy airliner.
Dearest Lord...please for just a moment...
February 9, 2007 - 17:59 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasDearest Lord,
May it be that for just a moment you permit tumbler to travel to 1200 AD and join the Crusades where there was no debate...ever. A man born out of time dear Lord...may we send him where he belongs swiftly....
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
thenk You, Thenk You THENK YOU
February 9, 2007 - 18:08 ET by tumbler_2007Guy, Art and Tom,
Three persons on one match; isn't that bad luck?
If you depend on luck...
February 9, 2007 - 18:11 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI suppose it could be...if a person is foolish enough to depend on luck.
If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
If we're lucky
February 9, 2007 - 18:21 ET by tumbler_2007If we're lucky, Guy, Art & Tom might lighten up one of these days.
Luck isn't something I depend on; but every once in a while I buy a ticket on the Pick Six at Santa Anita. (YouBet.com) and watch the races on Dishnet. Love a fast racehorse.
Guy; I never went to the Crusades. But twice I've attended the Epsom Darby in Surrey, England. It's a marvelous race. I didn't get lucky on those visits. But I got to see Queen Elizabeth II and the Queen Mum.
It's so symbolic of how des
February 9, 2007 - 18:04 ET by SomerTeethIt's so symbolic of how desparate the conservatives are these days. U.S. soldiers are dying everyday in Iraq, yet you want to whine about Pelosi's plane. As the Shrub proposes a $2Trillion budget that slashes veteran benefits, how much sense does it make to complain about Pelosi's plane? Complete clowns. If you're concerned with fiscal responsibility, how about finding the $90Billion the Shrub and his administration lost in Iraq.
somer...Why don't you and the
February 9, 2007 - 18:16 ET by bigtimersomer...
Why don't you and the lib's being the sleuths you are go find this magical money on your magical mystery tour...since you live in a magical world all your own.
While real men/women protect your useless arse's to do it.
sense a lot of anger there
February 9, 2007 - 18:32 ET by tumbler_2007Dear Somer,
you seem filled with uncontrollable ire. Isn't it true Nancy Pelosti has yet to distinguish herself banging the big mallet? Where is this unusual governing tic we hear about? She's the one whining about aircraft and her prestige. Isn't she rather stuffy?
Conservatives aren't desperate, Some. The ones most concerned about our armed forcs in Iraq are Republicans. Democats are actually working hard to get them defeated. It's shameless; your side doesn't want our guys to win!
Also; we've lost some men, yes; but not at any inordinate rate. God looks after his own; have some faith. Try not to be bitter.
LOL! You're here under a new
February 9, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! You're here under a new name. As I said to your other identity, trying to change the subject from domestic air travel of a politician to talking about the Iraq War shows you've already lost the argument. Nice try.
Every time I think that she
February 8, 2007 - 19:11 ET by CrimsonfistedEvery time I think that she can sink no lower, there she goes! She will be an asterisk in history that is for sure.
WhatAMaroon
Ok, so the Seargent at Arms b
February 8, 2007 - 23:52 ET by JPR1Ok, so the Seargent at Arms brings this up with Pelosi; they talk with the DoD and Air Force who stir things up a bit (can you blame them?) and now the story has a life of it’s own.
This is the scary thing: how in the world could this woman or her people have let this run?
Anyone with an ounce of brains would have said, from the get go, “Hmmm, a private ride home on military wings? Non-stop or not; sounds great to me, now lets get back to our work here.”
But noooo, this elietist witch and her lackeys just had to make a point of their newfound power.
A stupid person!
How did such a stupid person, with such a whiney little mind, get to be second in line for the Presidency?
This is really effn’ scary.
JPR1 - easy, 49 square miles surrounded by reality.
February 9, 2007 - 08:07 ET by acaiguanaJPR1 - easy, 49 square miles surrounded by reality. <Paul Kantner of the rock band Jefferson Airplane>
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Aca, Yes, the motherload of
February 9, 2007 - 09:25 ET by JPR1Aca, Yes, the motherload of nonsense!
Paraphrasing another great sage of the 60’s: What a strange, strange place it is. ( J. Garcia)
There are any number of exe
February 9, 2007 - 05:08 ET by Jack BauerThere are any number of executive-sized jets with more than enough range to go California dreamin' -- non-stop.
Yes Mark... including the military plane that was allocated to Speaker Hastert and available to HER as well.
One of the seven C-20 Gulfstream lll's operated by the USAF, with a range of 4715 miles.
So unless she's planning to go to California via Venezuela and Cuba to see her pals the she can fly direct in the plane available.
MSNBC this AM reports White
February 9, 2007 - 05:46 ET by sarcasmoMSNBC this AM reports Whitehouse spokesman Tony Snow calling this whole Pelosi-airlines affair "silly." I wonder why they're suddenly all buddy-buddy over this perk at the Whitehouse while everyone-else seems to be outraged??
JMR
sarc -- I've long since giv
February 9, 2007 - 06:26 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- I've long since given up trying to fathom why the Bush Whitehouse fails to grasp the notion that you reward your polical friends and punish your political enemies.
Who knows what Tony Snow's boss told him to say.
But this is what I say if I'm running the White House..
"It is sad that while the President, and the Republican minority in Congress, want to fully fund the troops to ensure the US prevails in every military action it undertakes, the party who wishes to prevent this happening are more interested in funding a huge military plane to transport the Speaker, her immediate family, her extended family and her politcal contributors at the tax payers expense."
Now that's called playing politics to weaken your opponent, and strengthen your own hand. I'd have thought a guy with a 30% approval might be interested in doing that.
I agree, that's why I find
February 9, 2007 - 06:48 ET by sarcasmoI agree, that's why I find all the buddy-buddy so strange now. Presumably things are going on behind the scenes that are beyond my imagination, but here's how it looks from these sidelines:
Pelosi seems to be making partisan Republicans' jobs especially-easy with this characteristic-old-style, Tip O'Neill "spend 'em into the ground" Democrat approach. Thus, y'all are naturally on the attack, but imagine how bad life would be for partisan Republicans in sarcasmo's alternate-universe. Nancy Pelosi sees this stupid, and from an actual-security POV pretty-much senseless IMO, wasteful post-9/11 pork Hastert had been given in the resulting panic, actually tells the truth & calls it "pork" (as sarcasmo applauds from the sidelines on NB) and then refuses it -- instead taking up the entire first class sections of various commercial flights across the country with a mix of family, SS security-goons, and Democrat political operatives at substantial savings to US taxpayers. Media and Democrats crow about how much "closer to the people" (as if average people fly a lot, even in coach!) this new fiscally-conservative Democrat speaker is than that old porker Hastert. Thank your lucky stars the Democrats usually don't take my advice. :)
JMR
sarc, ff you don't already,
February 9, 2007 - 06:58 ET by Jack Bauersarc, if you don't already, you should listen to Lee Rodgers on KSFO Hot Talk radio, 5am-9am PST.
(Hear it free on the internet at KSFO...)
Lee's an actual real life conservative with a strong libertarian streak, total anti-big government champion.
He has no problem ripping the current Administration on this topic.
I think you'd find a lot to agree with him on.
Sounds fun, but these days
February 9, 2007 - 07:15 ET by sarcasmoSounds fun, but these days I'm pretty much addicted to Sirius for talk, music, or anything else (but mostly Howard!). Anyway, you can count on the Democrats NOT taking my advice, so if I were y'all I'd continue to press the attack on this point, but please, while attacking, insert the occasional honesty-proviso that even what Hastert was doing was blatant big-government pork with nothing to do with any actual security threat rather than any sort of legitimate function of the US military even in peacetime, let alone during this endless & expensive war...
JMR
It is sad to see that the tro
February 9, 2007 - 10:00 ET by moderate to profaneIt is sad to see that the troops have not been fully funded in the last 6 years. Wait a minute, the Republicans were in charge the last six years!! What happened? I thought the army you go war with may not be the army you want, but we are working to make them what we want. Or whatever Rummy said.
So, what happened over the last six years to funds for the troops, and veterans ?
One more thing. Why did the government send over 300 tons of cash to Iraq and not keep track of it?
mtp... You really need to wat
February 9, 2007 - 18:45 ET by bigtimermtp... You really need to watch the hearings, it is explained in full.
Try C-Span, I am sure it will be repeated this week-end....even over night at times. Check there site out...you most likely can learn from there.