BasmntMadman wrote: 
But this same sort of us/them vitriol is plentiful in other threads. You're dressing up the garbage, but it's still garbage.

Really, was ANOTHER thread necessary? Sheesh.

 BasmntMadman wrote: 
Doesn't this all strike you as a freaking waste of time and resources? It's the wrong application of the polarity principle. If we give power to the negative we get the negative. There is another application of the polarity principle that could serve us better.

 steeler wrote: 
No, it's meant to be taken very seriously.  Now that the Republicans are in power, their schtick is that they're going to save immense amounts of money by going after waste and corruption, which they are going to track down relentlessly, just as long as it's a Democratic politician's waste'n'corruption.

They'll loudly proclaim all their findings as a massive advertising campaign, which will divert the public's attention from the fact that they're not making any significant dent in government deficits - unless they make massive cuts in government services. 

The Democrats, if they have any neurons in their little skulls at all, can mount a devastating counterattack.  The Republicans, in their prosecutorial zeal, are just like the neighbor who complains to the borough that your car is parked on the wrong side of the street, or the vintage car you're restoring isn't parked on a hard surface, or you've replaced your toilet seat without borough approval.  Just like the employer who aims a camera at the employees and hopes to catch any and all deviations from company policy no matter how small.

Oh, and BTW, by focusing an intense light on Democrats, the same light can be shone on Republicans.

Meanwhile, the deficits are still there. 

 kurtster wrote: 

So . .. this thread is not meant to be taken seriously, right?

 oldslabsides wrote: 
As if there is anything serious to talk about Ms. Pelosi anyway.

Did her gavel hit your mouse clicker finger ?

cuz if it did ...

 oldslabsides wrote: 
Bush. *ping*

Oh yay!  Another thread wherein people can yell and scream at one another about their favorite/least favorite politician. 

 romeotuma wrote: 
Well your article said mostly false.  But I did not reference an email either, it was some blog or something that I stumbled on.  I learned how to do that reading about Palin these past several years in her threads. 

and I was just saying that Palin had 2 threads here to Pelosi's none.  That was as far as the comparison went, except for I said that Palin was just chopped liver next to Pelosi.  So we do agree !

It hardly seems fair to have slighted Ms. Pelosi from all the attention we focus on Ms. Palin.  I do not understand all the attention focused on Ms. Palin.  I think that talking about Ms. Pelosi is far more interesting.  There are so many things we have missed about Ms. Pelosi because of all the fawning over Ms. Palin.  I think that it is high time we redirected our attention to Ms. Pelosi from Ms. Palin.

At least we are working hard on killing the rumour that Ms. Pelosi rides a broom.  We have discussed the bar tab for her plane, proof that she does not ride a broom.  Plus I think that I could live pretty well if Ms. Pelosi just gave me the money she spends on Botox.

And as for feet washing, you can have Nancy's, I'll take Sarah's, anyday. 

We can celebrate Ms. Pelosi's accomplishments and leadership here.  We should never forget such memorable observations such as we need to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it. 

Also a topic we can postulate upon is what should Ms. Pelosi do with her gavel, now that she won't be needing it much longer.

 Zep wrote:
Amateur.
 
might as well be drinking rum and cokes....

 
I know, right? Blended Scotch? Sheesh. The diet soda of whiskey.

Seriously, though - this looks to me like one of those stories that isn't. Could it be that Pelosi is entertaining guests - other pols, for example - as she flies? Just a thought.

The incoming Speaker plans to fly commercial? There's a gesture with little substance behind it. The government already has tons of planes sitting around at significant expense. Also it's worth noting that as the head of our government's legislative branch, his time is valuable - is it best spent waiting at the airport where he can't get a lot done? As the second in line of succession after the Vice President, is it safe for him to fly around in coach with his guards and staffers - taking up big blocks of seats along the way? Seems like that might not be as much a savings as one might think, given that the Speaker probably does a fair amount of flying.

I used to work for a company that had six private jets and sold three. One of my coworkers said it was dumb that we didn't sell them all - why can't the big execs of a multi-billion dolllar international bank fly commercial like everyone else? Because they have to fly when they have to fly, not when the airlines can fly them. Because they can either spend the time sitting around reading magazines and sleeping, or they can spend it working - but they need privacy to work on confidential and proprietary matters. Won't happen even in business class.

This is a tempest in a teacup, really. I'd bet previous Speakers had similar arrangements at similar expense, and for the same good reasons.

 kurtster wrote:
Amateur.
 
might as well be drinking rum and cokes....

 romeotuma wrote: 
You used to mention god's nipple a lot. You haven't lately. I was curious. Nothing more.
 
You take more than was offered.
 
 

 romeotuma wrote: 
ya hear from god's nipple lately?

 lily34 wrote: 
Still Open To grumpy Harrumphs

 lily34 wrote: 

what is SOTH?

South Of The Heartland?

Sister of The House? 

Sorry. Thought you said SITH

I cannot believe that there never was a Nancy Pelosi thread after all these years.  She has been slighted.  Sarah Palin has two threads, so unfair and compared to Pelosi, Palin is just chopped liver. 

I guess one can lament the fact that the crew of her private military jet will have to find something different to do now as probable new SOTH Boehner has promised to fly commercially.

---

Taxpayers' $101,000 includes Pelosi's in-flight 'food, booze'

Speaker's trips 'are more about partying than anything else'

It reads like a dream order for a wild frat party: Maker's Mark whiskey, Courvoisier cognac, Johnny Walker Red scotch, Grey Goose vodka, E&J brandy, Bailey's Irish Crème, Bacardi Light rum, Jim Beam whiskey, Beefeater gin, Dewars scotch, Bombay Sapphire gin, Jack Daniels whiskey ... and Corona beer.

But that single receipt makes up just part of the more than $101,000 taxpayers paid for "in-flight services" - including food and liquor, for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trips on Air Force jets over the last two years. That's almost $1,000 per week.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, show Pelosi incurred expenses of some $2.1 million for her use of Air Force jets for travel over that time.

"Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said today. "And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else."