ST0NEC0LD613
|
posted on February 9, 2007 07:45:20 AM new
First she wants to curb global warming, then she wants a special airplane to add to it. They talk the talk, but don't walk the walk.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
 Are YOU a Bunghole?
Take the bunghole quiz here.
http://www.idiotwatchers.com/bunghole/index.html
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 07:53:59 AM new
Haha Stone ya beat Bear and linduh to the BIG PELOSI PLANE Scandal !!!
The third person in line to the presidency wants a PLANE...just like the MALE before her HAD!!!!
That -ITCH!
We KNEW they'd get uppity once they got the vote !
BTW
If there is NO GLOBAL WARMING, then what's the difference
Make up your mind...global warming..no global warming..
|
desquirrel
|
posted on February 9, 2007 07:57:39 AM new
She has access to a plane.
She wants a REAL BIG plane.
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 08:05:08 AM new
Oh the NERVE!!!
Wanting something MORE than a MAN had !!!!
LOLOLOL!
GO PELOSI!!!!!
|
classicrock000
|
posted on February 9, 2007 08:19:11 AM new
maybe we'll all get lucky and it will be hijacked by a drunk Ted Kennedy and fly into the Eiffel Tower
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
[ edited by classicrock000 on Feb 9, 2007 08:19 AM ]
|
desquirrel
|
posted on February 9, 2007 08:38:38 AM new
It's doubtful the AF will agree and there was a tremendous backlash about "Air Force 3"
|
ST0NEC0LD613
|
posted on February 9, 2007 08:40:54 AM new
Yep,
There's mingopig changing the subject. It's not that she has a plane. SHE WANTS A BIGGER MORE POLLUTING ONE.
Now mingopig is saying there in no global warming. Which is it? Just like the typical demomoron, she wants it both ways.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
Are YOU a Bunghole?
Take the bunghole quiz here.
http://www.idiotwatchers.com/bunghole/index.html
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 08:47:47 AM new
Talk about levels of stupid, Nowhere did I say there was no global warming....
It's the repugs in here who say there is none and then find fault with people FLYING!!!!
Hahahahahahaha!!
|
ST0NEC0LD613
|
posted on February 9, 2007 08:56:37 AM new
Just like the typical demomoron, mingopig tap dances around her words.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The current Demomoron motto.
Are YOU a Bunghole?
Take the bunghole quiz here.
http://www.idiotwatchers.com/bunghole/index.html
|
Bear1949
|
posted on February 9, 2007 09:58:35 AM new
The third person in line to the presidency wants a PLANE...just like the MALE before her HAD!!!!
And the Pentagon assigned her the SAME plane her predecessor had.
Since she or her STAFF wanted a BIGGER plane to fly non stop tot he west coast, does that mean they had PLANE (or penis) envy?
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 09:59:26 AM new
al gore's been doing the same thing. Traveling all over the US poluting our environment  while he's tell us all how worried we should be. LOL
==========
On 'Air Force 3' lol
some are calling it the 'Flying Lincoln Bedroom' lol since she's demanding it have a bedroom. Guess she thinks that's also necessary for 'security' reasons. OR maybe it's so she can HIDE UNDER the bed.
This shouldn't surprise anyone....after all it's nancy pelosi.
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 10:04:41 AM new
Yup, it's Nancy Pelosi...third in line to be president and one of the most powerful people in the U.S.
Haha!!
OK, I want all you neocons who don't believe in Global Warming or pollution to write your congressmen and demand all planes be grounded immediately especially those flying people to unnecessary vacation destinations
|
Bear1949
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:05:43 AM new
especially those flying people to unnecessary vacation destinations
You mean to escape all those WARM winter temperatures?
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." —Mike Adams
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:12:45 AM new
Ha! I knew you wouldn't have an answer, bear!
I meant just what I posted...according to you neocons all planes should be grounded to protect the environment that you neocons say is in no danger....you're running in circlesLOL!
|
desquirrel
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:15:02 AM new
If I remember correctly, she does not have an actual plane reserved for her beck and call.
If she wants to go somewhere, she puts in a request to the AF. It depends on the time frame in determining what she gets. The AF has regularly scheduled flights. If she wants to go someplace NOW she might have to settle for a smaller jet. The problem is she wants to take gaggles of supporters on junkets and wants to go non-stop.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:21:18 AM new
That's what I've read too, desquirrel.
The thing about all this that bothers me the most is that she wanted the ability to send her family and friends back and forth at will. Even when she was NOT traveling with them.
IF this larger plane is REALLY necessary because of refueling issues...that's one thing. But to be able to provide FREE travel for her family and friends shouldn't be at taxpayer expense, imo.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:28:46 AM new
"according to you neocons all planes should be grounded to protect the environment"
Another LIE from sybil. tsk tsk tsk No one HERE said that - but that FACT doesn't stop her from 'seeing' it stated. LOL Must be in her 'MIND' again.
She once again PROVES how she can take something said....twist it all around....and come up with that EXAGGERATION.
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:35:07 AM new
linduh, ""That's what I've read too, desquirrel."""
(Where exactly did you read it ? It's hardly proof )
""""The thing about all this that bothers me the most is that she wanted the ability to send her family and friends back and forth at will. Even when she was NOT traveling with them.
(So much for 'family values" in the Repug's party ! )
IF this larger plane is REALLY necessary because of refueling issues...that's one thing. But to be able to provide FREE travel for her family and friends shouldn't be at taxpayer expense, imo.""
(So much for 'family values" in the Repug's party ! )
My, how two-faced !
Guess it's only Democrats who shouldn't use taxpayer's money !LOLOL!!!!
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:41:33 AM new
ROFLMHO @
mingo asks: "Where exactly did you read it?"
THIS coming from the one who rarely posts where her links/PARTIAL COPY and PASTES came from?
|
bigpeepa
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:42:48 AM new
New-cons are flip flopping and being exposed again for their smear tactics and lies. The Good News is Americans now have these CONS surrounded and are exposing their dirty untrue tricks.
More good news is the fool new-cons on this board are helping us to get a Democrat in the White House in 2008.
White House says debate over Pelosi's jet `unfair'
By Jim Kuhnhenn
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday defended Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi against Republican criticism that her desire to fly in an Air Force transport plane is an extravagance.
``This is a silly story, and I think it's been unfair to the speaker,'' said White House press secretary Tony Snow.
Republicans are taking issue with the size of the plane Pelosi would need to fly in to reach her home in San Francisco without refueling. There are three Air Force airplanes that have the fuel capacity to make the trip non-stop, with the largest being a C-32 plane, a military version of the Boeing 757-200.
In an interview with Fox News on Wednesday night, Pelosi speculated that Department of Defense officials were distorting the story as retribution for her stance against the war and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
The Pentagon this week informed Pelosi's staff that she would be provided with a plane but that its size would be based on availability and that it could not guarantee non-stop service.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Pentagon agreed to provide the House speaker, who is second in the line of presidential succession, with a military plane for added security during trips back home. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., flew in a small commuter-sized Air Force jet.
MSNBC anchor promised to talk about Pelosi plane story "all day long"*
MSNBC News Live host Chris Jansing asserted on February 8, without evidence, that the Republican accusation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) requested a much larger military aircraft to fly her between her home district and Washington, D.C., than prior Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) had used, "is something that will resonate with the American people" and promised that the network would "talk about this all day long."
Less than 35 minutes later, NBC News correspondent Mike Viqueira reported that the "recommendation to Pelosi is that she have a plane that can get her to San Francisco nonstop," but that there is "no evidence" Pelosi had actually requested a "757" or a "C-32" as Republicans have reportedly alleged.
Viqueira added that Pelosi said that, if she could not get a nonstop plane, she would "rather fly commercial ... without all the security."
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:47:24 AM new
I could go for that.....letting her fly like other 'VIPS' do.
First class would cost about 4 times more than economy seats. But that would be a heck of a lot less than having some HUGE plane with beds and other accommedations for the 'queen'.
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:54:41 AM new
Well, I don't think, in the interest of national security, that Pelosi will be allowed to travel without security. She IS one of the most powerful people in the US and THIRD in line to be president
Just give her what she wants as far as planes go just like King Hastert got
Didn't hear any neocons complaining THEN!
How two-faced !
|
desquirrel
|
posted on February 9, 2007 11:55:56 AM new
"but that there is "no evidence" Pelosi had actually requested a "757" or a "C-32" as Republicans have reportedly alleged."
But if those are the only ones which fit her "requirements", isn't it the same thing?
"Viqueira added that Pelosi said that, if she could not get a nonstop plane, she would "rather fly commercial ... without all the security."
Yeah, sure. LOL
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 12:01:31 PM new
I think when Hastert was in her position, he probably needed high security
But with pelosi in that position now it's different. Our enemies aren't going to come after her...threaten her...murder her....SHE'S ON THEIR SIDE.
So maybe the amount of necessary security depends on whether our enemies find them a threat to THEIR goals or not.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 9, 2007 12:04 PM ]
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 12:07:01 PM new
"Desperation Post of the Year!"
"""I think when Hastert was in her position, he probably needed high security
But with pelosi in that position now it's different. Our enemies aren't going to come after her...threaten her...murder her....SHE'S ON THEIR SIDE.
So many the amount of necessary security depends on whether our enemies find them a threat to THEIR goals or not."""
ROFLMAO !
LOLOLOL!!
You are truly an idiot !
What a load of blathering poppycock !
Let's change that last paragraph around a little....with a bigger and more accurate apraisal...
""So many the amount of necessary security depends on whether
HER
enemies find them a threat to THEIR goals or not."""
[ edited by mingotree on Feb 9, 2007 12:09 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 9, 2007 12:10:24 PM new
laugh all you want....
when kerry was running THEY were hoping he'd win. It was in all the news.
And pelosi is also on their side....wants us to admit defeat and withdraw our troops, giving THEM the victory.
So they certainly wouldn't be a threat to her.
|
mingotree
|
posted on February 9, 2007 12:12:09 PM new
Compound your idiocy...it's hilarious !!!!
|
classicrock000
|
posted on February 9, 2007 12:32:26 PM new
"Well, I don't think, in the interest of national security, that Pelosi will be allowed to travel without security."
Actually it WOULD be in the interest of national security if she traveled without security....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you dont want to hear the truth....dont ask the question.
|
