PDA

View Full Version : Tough times, need to cut back expenses..?



Qtec
06-01-2011, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christie Lands In Bergen County In State Police Helicopter For Son's Baseball Game </div></div>

link (http://ridgewood.patch.com/articles/christie-lands-in-bergen-county-for-sons-baseball-game#photo-6344157)

Q

eg8r
06-01-2011, 10:09 AM
Absolutely a complete waste of money. Now when Christie starts wasting as much as Pelosi did with her big private yet we really will be on the brink of disaster.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-01-2011, 11:02 AM
As long as he reports his use of it, and the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill, good for him. If that is not the case, I'm sure someone will bring charges against him.

Until then, it remains a non-story.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-01-2011, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christie Lands In Bergen County In State Police Helicopter For Son's Baseball Game </div></div>

link (http://ridgewood.patch.com/articles/christie-lands-in-bergen-county-for-sons-baseball-game#photo-6344157)

Q </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christie arrived shortly before 4 p.m. to watch his son Andrew play baseball for Delbarton School. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>He was driven from the helicopter about 100 yards to the field in a black car with tinted windows.</span>Responding to a question from Patch about the use of the helicopter to attend the game, Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak said, "It is a means of transportation that is occasionally used as the schedule demands. This has historically been the case in prior administrations as well, and we continue to be judicious in limiting its use."

NJ.com reported that the helicopter landed just before lineup cards were exchanged and that Christie and his wife, Mary Pat, left the game in the 5th inning.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The site also reported that the governor had no public events on his schedule, so it was unclear where he had traveled from</span>. The website reported that Christie had a private meeting Tuesday night at the governor's mansion with a group of Iowa donors who are trying to pursuade him to run for president.

The helicopter is one of five new choppers purchased by the state police, costs $12.5 million and can fly at 200 miles per hour, according to the NJ.com report.

</div></div>


Couldn't even walk his fat blubber ass across the field!

What a huffing puffing humpwhale!

G.

eg8r
06-01-2011, 11:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As long as he reports his use of it, and the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill, good for him. </div></div>We know all politicians take advantage of these types of "amenities". It sucks and should be watched after extremely closely.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 01:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As long as he reports his use of it, and the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill, good for him. If that is not the case, I'm sure someone will bring charges against him.

Until then, it remains a non-story.

Steve </div></div>

This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

Not sure if this is lawful, and just bad optics, or whether there is a cause of action that can be brought under NJ law.

It's not a non-story, as Christie is being begged to join the presidential race.

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 01:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Absolutely a complete waste of money. Now when Christie starts wasting as much as Pelosi did with her big private yet we really will be on the brink of disaster.

eg8r </div></div>

This wasn't a private jet, but an AF asset, and its use was not Pelosi's choice. Other than that....

Gayle in MD
06-02-2011, 01:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As long as he reports his use of it, and the taxpayers don't end up footing the bill, good for him. If that is not the case, I'm sure someone will bring charges against him.

Until then, it remains a non-story.

Steve </div></div>

This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

Not sure if this is lawful, and just bad optics, or whether there is a cause of action that can be brought under NJ law.

It's not a non-story, as Christie is being begged to join the presidential race. </div></div>

And he used the same hellicopter to fly him to a political meeting with Tea Party POls!

I don't get why they want him for president, when the majority in NJ, don't want him? maybe, it's because he screams at teachers? the right just loves that!

Or, maybe it's because he already said, he's not fit to be president? They love that, TOO!

eg8r
06-02-2011, 02:53 PM
[quote]This wasn't a private jet, but an AF asset, and its use was not Pelosi's choice. Other than that....[quote]That is the most ridiculous thing you have said since you got here. This whole time I thought you were at least logical but I am beginning to question that.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-02-2011, 03:58 PM
I am logical, and I was correcting your statement that Pelosi wasted money on a PRIVATE [j]et.

It was neither private, nor her decision to 'waste' the money in that way.

It was a security decision, made after the 9/11 attacks, to make sure the 2nd in line presidential successor (after the Veep, it's the Speaker) had secure travel in case of a similar tragedy.

Speaker Hastert got the same thing-- use of a jet supplied by the US government.

Since he only had to go back and forth to Ohio, he didn't need a plane with so long a range. Since Pelosi would be back and forth across the whole country (to SF), anything smaller would have required stopping or mid-air refueling, both of which could be problematic in the event of a wholesale attack on this country.

Do you hate the truth, or this country's securing its Constitutional leadership's safety, enough to score false talking points against Pelosi? Or did you simply not know this?

eg8r
06-02-2011, 09:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am logical, and I was correcting your statement that Pelosi wasted money on a PRIVATE [j]et. </div></div>She wasted thousands of dollars. She did not need to have her own private jet. What other senator was using AF assets to fly themselves and all their family and friends around the country? Security decision my rear end. She did not need anything to go long range either, but goodness gracious she might have to fill up on the way like everyone else. Wholesale attack? Have you been watching too much Hollywood?

eg8r

Qtec
06-02-2011, 11:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Security decision my rear end. </div></div>


LOL. I know you hate FACTS but too bad. Wriggle out of this one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As Media Matters for America noted, contrary to <u>Gingrich's claim that "Denny Hastert did not get a private plane,"</u> House Sergeant-at-Arms Wilson Livingood said in a February 8, 2007, statement: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"In a post 9/11 threat environment, it is reasonable and prudent to provide military aircraft to the Speaker [of the House] for official travel between Washington and her district. The practice began with Speaker Hastert and I have recommended that it continue with Speaker Pelosi."</span></div></div>

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In addition, then-<u>White House press secretary Tony Snow said in a February 7, 2007, White House press briefing,</u> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>"<u>After September 11th</u>, the Department of Defense -- with the consent of the White House -- agreed that the Speaker of the House should have military transport." He also said: <span style="color: #3333FF">"So Speaker Hastert had access to military aircraft and Speaker Pelosi will, too."</span> The next day, Snow stated, "It is important for the Speaker to have this kind of <u>protection </u>and travel," adding that such protection was "certainly appropriate for Speaker Hastert."</span> </div></div>

Oh boy!


Q

LWW
06-03-2011, 01:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

Not sure if this is lawful, and just bad optics, or whether there is a cause of action that can be brought under NJ law.</div></div>

You crack me up dude.

Might I remind you of this gem from earlier today when you were defending the regime increasing it's limo fleet by 73%:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You would have them, what? Go out and hail cabs?</div></div>

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:00 AM
Pelosi demanded a much larger jjet, closer to an airliner that Gulfstream, that would cross the country with refueling.

Your cherry picking of data to defend your party masters would be most embarrassing to you, if you were capable of shame.

eg8r
06-03-2011, 07:16 AM
As was already stated his plane was much smaller than the one she was using. She did not need a huge jet to take her back and forth.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

</div></div>

Christie wrote a personal check for $2 grand and change to cover the trips to the ball games.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/u...ss=rss_national (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unapologetic-new-jersey-gov-christie-reimburses-state-for-helicopter-trips-to-sons-ballgames/2011/06/03/AGv6ynHH_story.html?wprss=rss_national)

And, as a little sidebar, those helicoptors need to log a certain number of hours anyway, whether they are out on training exercises for the pilots, or on routine traffic patrols. It's probably true that there was no additional expense created by the trips.
Steve

LWW
06-03-2011, 08:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

</div></div>

Christie wrote a personal check for $2 grand and change to cover the trips to the ball games.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/u...ss=rss_national (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unapologetic-new-jersey-gov-christie-reimburses-state-for-helicopter-trips-to-sons-ballgames/2011/06/03/AGv6ynHH_story.html?wprss=rss_national)

And, as a little sidebar, those helicoptors need to log a certain number of hours anyway, whether they are out on training exercises for the pilots, or on routine traffic patrols. It's probably true that there was no additional expense created by the trips.
Steve </div></div>

And for a fair and balanced comparison:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.</span>

Fed up with the condescending clowns in Congress? Send them a "pink slip!"

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.</span>

"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."

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Pelosi, D-Calif., recently joined President Obama on a Judicial Watch list of Top 10 corrupt politicians because of her "sense of entitlement," the group said.</span> ...

"We have ... folks prepping the jets and crews driving in (not a short drive for some), cooking meals and preflighting the jets etc," said one Department of Defense e-mail then.

Another official sent an e-mail questioning a series of Pelosi's requests for aircraft.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Any chance of politely querying [Pelosi's team] if they really intend to do all of these or are they just picking every weekend?" it stated. "[T]here's no need to block every weekend 'just in case'..."

The e-mail noted that the speaker's office had "a history of canceling many of their past requests."

Yet another e-mail exchange at that time revealed Pelosi's demand that jets pick her up at Travis Air Force Base rather than San Francisco's airport.

"She lives about 1.5 hours from SFO and much closer to Travis. … Whether it is the best use of assets is not the question. But instead is it worth upsetting the speaker. …"</span> ...

Judicial Watch said the newly obtained 2,000 pages of documentation show Pelosi's military travel cost the U.S. Air Force $2,100,744.59 over two years – including $101,429.14 for in-flight expenses, including food and alcohol.

Among the newest highlights revealed:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Pelosi used Air Force aircraft to travel back to her district at an average cost of $28,210.51 per flight. Of 103 Pelosi-led congressional delegations (CODEL), 31 trips included members of the House speaker's family.</span> ...

Pelosi's office could not be reached for comment. The answering machine said the office would be closed until Monday, and the mailbox was full, so no messages could be left.

Judicial Watch Inc. describes itself as a constitutionally conservative, nonpartisan educational foundation that promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. </div></div>

OH DEAR (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123472)

Qtec
06-03-2011, 09:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pelosi <u>demanded </u>a much larger jjet, </div></div>

Geez. You just told G on another thread that when she makes a claim, back it up with a link.


Q

Qtec
06-03-2011, 09:24 AM
WND...........LMAO


Q

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am logical, and I was correcting your statement that Pelosi wasted money on a PRIVATE [j]et. </div></div>She wasted thousands of dollars. She did not need to have her own private jet. What other senator was using AF assets to fly themselves and all their family and friends around the country? Security decision my rear end. She did not need anything to go long range either, but goodness gracious she might have to fill up on the way like everyone else. Wholesale attack? Have you been watching too much Hollywood?

eg8r </div></div>

She wasn't just a Senator she was the Speaker Of The House for whom there is a mandate for a certainly level of security, since the SOTH, is third in line to the Presidency.

To say, or think, she demanded it, is not true.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

</div></div>

Christie wrote a personal check for $2 grand and change to cover the trips to the ball games.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/u...ss=rss_national (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unapologetic-new-jersey-gov-christie-reimburses-state-for-helicopter-trips-to-sons-ballgames/2011/06/03/AGv6ynHH_story.html?wprss=rss_national)

And, as a little sidebar, those helicoptors need to log a certain number of hours anyway, whether they are out on training exercises for the pilots, or on routine traffic patrols. It's probably true that there was no additional expense created by the trips.
Steve </div></div>

That doesn't cover the expenses, nor does it address that FACT, that he also demanded a limo to drive his big butt a nundred yards, nor the fact that he didn't pay a penny, until he realized that the spotlight was on his un-necessary spending, after screaming and pointing his big fat finger at, and insulting his own constituents, ever since he's been in there, on austerity issues, hence, another Repiglican hypocrite, only in his case, maybe we should say another Rehoglican hypocrite.

Hence, his approval ratings are dropping, along with other REpiglican Governors.

G.

LWW
06-03-2011, 09:35 AM
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political-war-lounge/326851/power-intoxicated-pelosi-demands-jumbo-jet/

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

She wasn't just a Senator she was the Speaker Of The House

G.
</div></div>

Actually, she wasn't a Senator at all. You would do well to understand the basic structure of our government if you are going to participate in political discussions. A Senator can not be Speaker of the House, and Speaker of the House can not be a Senator. Nancy is not, nor has never been, a Senator.

Steve

LWW
06-03-2011, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

She wasn't just a Senator she was the Speaker Of The House

G.
</div></div>

Actually, she wasn't a Senator at all. You would do well to understand the basic structure of our government if you are going to participate in political discussions. A Senator can not be Speaker of the House, and Speaker of the House can not be a Senator. Nancy is not, nor has never been, a Senator.

Steve </div></div>

And again with the high bar.

eg8r
06-03-2011, 09:48 AM
LOL, the senator part was my mistake. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

She wasn't just a Senator she was the Speaker Of The House

G.
</div></div>

Actually, she wasn't a Senator at all. You would do well to understand the basic structure of our government if you are going to participate in political discussions. A Senator can not be Speaker of the House, and Speaker of the House can not be a Senator. Nancy is not, nor has never been, a Senator.

Steve </div></div>

I didn't say she was a Senator, but we all know you can't read, and we all know you can't control your vast hatred enough to stay away from my posts.

Idiot!

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 10:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

Not sure if this is lawful, and just bad optics, or whether there is a cause of action that can be brought under NJ law.</div></div>

You crack me up dude.

Might I remind you of this gem from earlier today when you were defending the regime increasing it's limo fleet by 73%:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You would have them, what? Go out and hail cabs?</div></div> </div></div>

There is a child's game, called which one is not like the others.

You should look into it and play it a little, so that you can understand that even things that appear similar are different once you look more closely.

'Them,' in my reference, referred to our foreign diplomats stationed abroad, and foreign diplomats and foreign leaders visiting this country, engaging in their official duties, and needing ground transport with security. Those people are supplied a limousine or a regular car with a driver (the article makes clear they count regular sedans in the same category as limos and do not break them out by type).

In this case, we're talking about a governor using the state helicopters for his personal family activities, unrelated to his duties or security concerns, when the car or limo I agree he deserves to have at his disposal could both get him there and make sure he was secure. Not for the first time, and he was a vocal scofflaw insisting he didn't have to and wouldn't reimburse the state for travel or security (even when it was for his personal life).

Gov. Christie may be a bully, but he's a smart bully, and he has shown the wisdom to pretend to agree with his critics, and change his decision not to re-pay the state and the taxpayers. I'm sure he wanted to stay with his prior decision, thinking it was right, but bowed to the election consequences of angering the people this way.

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 10:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

</div></div>

Christie wrote a personal check for $2 grand and change to cover the trips to the ball games.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/u...ss=rss_national (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/unapologetic-new-jersey-gov-christie-reimburses-state-for-helicopter-trips-to-sons-ballgames/2011/06/03/AGv6ynHH_story.html?wprss=rss_national)

And, as a little sidebar, those helicoptors need to log a certain number of hours anyway, whether they are out on training exercises for the pilots, or on routine traffic patrols. It's probably true that there was no additional expense created by the trips.
Steve </div></div>

Yes, he changed his position and did what he should have done already without the pressure. His prior position was what I said it was, and it's now changed.

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 10:16 AM
It's all just more Wonkie Weenie RW bravado BS anyway, most of it went through under BUSH!


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to General Services Administration data, the number of limousines in the federal fleet increased from 238 in fiscal 2008, the last year of the George W. Bush administration, to 412 in 2010. Much of the 73 percent increase--111 of the 174 additional limos--took place in fiscal 2009, more than eight months of which corresponded with Obama's first year in office. However, some of those purchases could reflect requests made by the Bush administration during an appropriations process that would have begun in the spring of 2008.

The GSA said its limousine numbers are not reliable, even though the federal fleet numbers are officially recorded every year. In a statement, GSA spokeswoman Sara Merriam said, "The categories in the Fleet Report are overly broad, and the term 'limousine' is not defined," adding that "vehicles represented as limousines can range from protective duty vehicles to sedans." Asked whether the GSA actually knows how many limos it has in its fleet, Merriam responded that GSA "cannot say that its report accurately reflects the number of limousines."

Leslie Paige, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste, was outraged that the GSA's numbers may not be accurate. "They can't figure out a way to define a limo? How hard can it be? If the government can't track limos, I'm not sure we should trust the numbers they put out there on anything," she said.

Although the overall limo numbers in the fleet report were up in 2010, federal agencies and departments did not benefit equally. The State Department, with 259, had more limos than any other agency in 2010 and has gained 194 limos just since fiscal 2008. Of those new limos, 98 were defined as "law enforcement," which the GSA said means they are equipped with sirens or lights, high-performance drivetrains, or are used for surveillance or undercover operations.

The State Department in a statement said its limos are deployed by overseas diplomats and in the United States by Secretary of State Clinton and "distinguished foreign visitors." Many of the limos in its fleet are armored to protect against attack. The department said its Obama-era increase in armored limos is "both in proportion to the increased threat to diplomats serving overseas and is in proportion to the increase number of diplomats we have serving in high threat environments." Appropriations documents indicate the State Department was engaged in a longer-term effort to increase the number of armored vehicles that would have stretched back to at least 2007.

The department said it defines a limo as a vehicle that carries a VIP or "other protectee," rather than by the type of car, but said most of its limos are Cadillac DTSs, which cost the taxpayer more than $60,000 for a 2011 base model and support the additional weight of armoring. The department said it also purchased a limited number of 7-Series BMWs for ambassadors in countries where vehicles are right-hand drive.

The Department of Homeland Security, which in 2010 had the second largest number of limos at 118, dropped four limos from 2008 to 2010. A spokesman for DHS said the majority of its limos are used by the Secret Service, which is part of the department, but declined to elaborate on exact numbers, citing security concerns.

Paige, of CAGW, called the new federal limos "one more reason why there is so much cynicism in the public about what goes on in Washington." She said terrorism and security has become the catchall justification for increased federal spending.

The increase in limos comes at a time when the Obama administration is increasingly working to burnish its green energy credentials by targeting the federal fleet. On Tuesday, Obama released a presidential memorandum requiring agencies to purchase only alternative fuel vehicles by 2015. The memorandum limits executive fleets to mid-sized and smaller cars "except where larger sedans are essential to the agency mission." It also exempts law enforcement and security vehicles, which could make up the majority of the federal limo fleet.

According to a March report by the GAO, the federal government spent $1.9 billion on new vehicles in fiscal 2009, and burned through 963,000 gallons of fuel a day with its fleet of 600,00 vehicles.

The number of limousines in the federal fleet has varied over the years. In 2007, the number dropped to 217 from 318 a year before. But due to the fuzzy GSA accounting, it's unclear exactly how many federal limos have been on the road.

According to the GSA report, for example, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which had zero limos in 2008, added six limos to its fleet in 2009. But agency spokesman Lars Anderson said that's because six standard overseas sedans, including a 1997 Ford Crown Victoria in Bangladesh, and a 2009 Mercury Grand Marquis in El Salvador, were incorrectly recorded as limos.

If the data is correct, some federal employees who once rode in style now face more proletarian transportation options. The Department of Veterans Affairs, for example, ran a fleet of 21 limousines in 2008 under George W. Bush, according to the fleet report. It now makes do with only one. The Government Printing Office also lost all of its six limos between 2009 and 2010. The VA and the Government Printing Office did not respond to calls for comment.

</div></div>


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
06-03-2011, 10:37 AM
I am the one that made the mistake and called her a Senator. They are pointing out the fact that you did not pick up the mistake and actually repeated. It was a dumb error on my part and oversight on yours.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yes, he changed his position and did what he should have done already without the pressure. His prior position was what I said it was, and it's now changed. </div></div>

He did it because the left wing media was making it into a big deal. As I pointed out, the helicopters are flying anyway...where they fly isn't such a big deal Do you really think that this was anything that most pols don't do?

Do you think the Obama's wrote a check to pay for flights to Hawaii for family vacations, or those long weekend flights to Chicago? Of course not!

This whole thing is nothing but more politics.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yes, he changed his position and did what he should have done already without the pressure. His prior position was what I said it was, and it's now changed. </div></div>

He did it because the left wing media was making it into a big deal. As I pointed out, the helicopters are flying anyway...where they fly isn't such a big deal Do you really think that this was anything that most pols don't do?

Do you think the Obama's wrote a check to pay for flights to Hawaii for family vacations, or those long weekend flights to Chicago? Of course not!

This whole thing is nothing but more politics.

Steve </div></div>

LMAO! We got it, Steve, Republicans good, Democrats bad.

Yet, you go out of your way to post a non story over Weiner's twitter account being hacked into, as though he broke some Federal Law?

No evidence of any big spending, there, nor of any law breaking, nor of anything untoward.

Fux Noise is making as much of it as they can, helps to cover up the big republican loss, remember, the one you had no clue about, in up-state NY? You didn't even know it had been a Republican district for generations!

Christie is a bully. Yaps about spending, then flies his fat backside around spending thousands, AND using a LIMO to drive his fat ass a hundred yards.

Oh, all OK with Steve, Republoicans good/Democrats Bad...we got it!

G.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
LMAO! We got it, Steve, Republicans good, Democrats bad.

G. </div></div>

At least you could come up with something original, rather that borrowing ideas from someone you hate!

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-03-2011, 12:10 PM
Hate, is not part of my principles, Steve.

If I don't care for someone, I usually just avoid them.

While we can't all like one another, on a public forum, for the sake of other members, I would prefer to engage in a mutual total ignore.

But, you refuse. Even when I ignore you posts for months upon months, you still talk every one of my posts, with non stop insults and attacks.

You can't control yourself.



Hence, who is the hater?

G.

pooltchr
06-03-2011, 01:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hence, who is the hater?

G. </div></div>

You are...but we already knew that.

Steve

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:02 PM
No ... what you did was make a kneejerk lame defense of the regime, as if we didn't have foreign diplomats anywhere in the world prior to the immaculation of dear leader.

If you could show a 73% increase you would have a weak case, but we both know you can't.

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hence, who is the hater?

G. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">STFU!.

G. </div></div>

Soflasnapper
06-03-2011, 02:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Yes, he changed his position and did what he should have done already without the pressure. His prior position was what I said it was, and it's now changed. </div></div>

He did it because the left wing media was making it into a big deal. As I pointed out, the helicopters are flying anyway...where they fly isn't such a big deal Do you really think that this was anything that most pols don't do?

Do you think the Obama's wrote a check to pay for flights to Hawaii for family vacations, or those long weekend flights to Chicago? Of course not!

This whole thing is nothing but more politics.

Steve </div></div>

Christie is not in good standing with the people of NJ, as he is upside down in his approval rating. He's made many people angry with his decisions and bullying style, and it's somewhat of an insult to the media on the right to say they do not care about the abuse of public services by a state official for his own personal life. I'm sure they feel the same way.

As for what the president does, when he takes purely personal trips he reimburses the government for as many first-class seats equivalent price as the private parties he takes with him, including his wife or children. So, yes, of course, he's written checks whenever that's taken place. I'm surprised you hadn't read that, which is included in the standard reporting on such trips.

No, that doesn't cover the costs of security, but he has those costs necessarily at all times in any case. And this reimbursement formula is the standard one that has been used by all presidents doing this kind of thing.

LWW
06-03-2011, 02:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Christie is not in good standing with the people of NJ, as he is upside down in his approval rating. </div></div>

Where do you come up with this shiite?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely New Jersey Voters finds that 46% give Christie good or excellent marks for the way he has handled New Jersey’s budget crisis. Thirty-five percent (35%) rate his performance as poor. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

On the other hand, 38% of Garden State voters think Obama has done a good or excellent job handling the federal budget crisis, while 41% give him poor marks in this area.

Among all New Jersey voters, 53% at least somewhat approve of the job Christie is doing as governor, including 30% who Strongly Approve. That’s in line with surveys since he took office early last year. Forty-four percent (44%) at least somewhat disapprove of Christie’s performance, with 31% who Strongly Disapprove.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">April 13, 2011 - New York's Cuomo Outscores Christie, Other Governors In States Polled By Quinnipiac University; More New Yorkers Approve Of New State Budget

Word format

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has a 64 - 16 percent job approval rating among registered voters, higher than the governors in any state polled by Quinnipiac University so far this year.

The next highest governor is New Jersey's Christopher Christie, with a 52 - 40 percent approval rating in a February 9 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Most New Jersey voters continue to approve of new Governor Chris Christie's job performance despite the continued finger-pointing over who's to blame for a mix-up that appears to have cost the state $400 million in federal education funds. </div></div>

Perhaps you read the poll upside down? (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/new_jersey/nj_voters_like_christie_s_budget_performance_bette r_than_obama_s)

OH NO! (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1587)

GOOD GOLLY! (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/new_jersey/57_in_new_jersey_approve_of_governor_s_job_perform ance)

LWW &lt;--- Slaying leftist mythology since 1980.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 12:06 PM
Where do I get it?

Bloomberg had this. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-24/christie-negative-ratings-rise-to-record-among-new-jersey-voters-in-poll.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Christie Negative Ratings Rise to Record Among New Jersey Voters in Poll
By Terrence Dopp - May 24, 2011 10:55 AM ET


New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s ratings turned more negative this month as the percentage of voters giving him low job-performance scores climbed to the highest since he took office in January 2010, a survey found.

Christie, a first-term Republican, is doing a fair or poor job according to 60 percent of voters queried, up from 55 percent last month, according to a PublicMind poll released today by Fairleigh Dickinson University in Madison, New Jersey.

Fewer people had a “favorable” opinion of the 48-year-old governor -- 40 percent, down from 47 percent in April. At the same time, 45 percent had an “unfavorable” view of him, up from 41 percent last month and the highest since he took office, the poll shows.

“May may be good for flowers, but it’s not so good for the governor,” Peter Woolley, director of the PublicMind polling institute, said in a statement. “May is budget tensions in Trenton, budget battles in towns and budget disappointments in school districts.”

The telephone survey was conducted May 16-22, when lawmakers were deliberating Christie’s proposed $29.4 billion spending plan for the 2012 fiscal year, which starts in July. </div></div>

LWW
06-04-2011, 01:22 PM
You are just what the regime counts on ... a voter that will believe whatever they are told to believe.

Did you have to click on the link to the poll that was in the Bloomberg article.

Of course you didn't.

If you had, you would have seen that this "POLL" over sampled democrooks by a ratio of 5 for every 3 republicans ... and that the survey sample was 66% white while New Jersey is 68.6% white ... it also seems to be heavily loaded with a disproportionate amount of gubmint employees.

Put simply ... they recruited a sample that would give them the result they wanted, and that result was the result that fits with what you want to believe.

OH DEAR ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey)
YOU'VE BEEN PIMPED ... (http://www.monmouth.edu/polling/admin/polls/MUP39_1.pdf)again.

Soflasnapper
06-04-2011, 07:13 PM
Please.

Josh Marshall's TPM runs a poll of the polls, the averages of the polls, and it also shows Christie upside down on job approval, even though such an average includes the Rasmussen results.

LWW
06-05-2011, 05:38 AM
Would you like to discuss which poll has been shown, repeatedly, to be the most accurate ... and which polls have been shown to be the least accurate?

Probably not.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2011, 07:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am the one that made the mistake and called her a Senator. They are pointing out the fact that you did not pick up the mistake and actually repeated. It was a dumb error on my part and oversight on yours.

eg8r </div></div>


"She's not just a Senator"

Where do I say she is a Senator????

Anyway, none of you picked up on my real error, she's second in line, for the presidency, not third in line, LOL.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2011, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This story already includes the fact that Gov. Christie refuses to reimburse the state for travel and security.

Not sure if this is lawful, and just bad optics, or whether there is a cause of action that can be brought under NJ law.</div></div>

You crack me up dude.

Might I remind you of this gem from earlier today when you were defending the regime increasing it's limo fleet by 73%:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You would have them, what? Go out and hail cabs?</div></div> </div></div>

There is a child's game, called which one is not like the others.

You should look into it and play it a little, so that you can understand that even things that appear similar are different once you look more closely.

'Them,' in my reference, referred to our foreign diplomats stationed abroad, and foreign diplomats and foreign leaders visiting this country, engaging in their official duties, and needing ground transport with security. Those people are supplied a limousine or a regular car with a driver (the article makes clear they count regular sedans in the same category as limos and do not break them out by type).

In this case, we're talking about a governor using the state helicopters for his personal family activities, unrelated to his duties or security concerns, when the car or limo I agree he deserves to have at his disposal could both get him there and make sure he was secure. Not for the first time, and he was a vocal scofflaw insisting he didn't have to and wouldn't reimburse the state for travel or security (even when it was for his personal life).

Gov. Christie may be a bully, but he's a smart bully, and he has shown the wisdom to pretend to agree with his critics, and change his decision not to re-pay the state and the taxpayers. I'm sure he wanted to stay with his prior decision, thinking it was right, but bowed to the election consequences of angering the people this way. </div></div>

Excellent Post.

Note:
Never heard any of them complain about Bush going home every weekend, and being on vacation for years during his presidency!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

LWW
06-05-2011, 07:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am the one that made the mistake and called her a Senator. They are pointing out the fact that you did not pick up the mistake and actually repeated. It was a dumb error on my part and oversight on yours.

eg8r </div></div>


"She's not just a Senator"

Where do I say she is a Senator????

Anyway, none of you picked up on my real error, she's second in line, for the presidency, not third in line, LOL.

G. </div></div>

Please, don't ever go on "ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A FIFTH GRADER" expecting to win anything.

Soflasnapper
06-05-2011, 12:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Would you like to discuss which poll has been shown, repeatedly, to be the most accurate ... and which polls have been shown to be the least accurate?

Probably not. </div></div>

Rasmussen recently missed accurately calling a Hawaiian vote by 60 freakin' percentage points. Most embarrassing for those who say it's always so accurate. It's not. They bias their samples in such a way as to always show 4-5% greater support for the Republican than ANY OTHER POLL, all of whom are not wrong.

Qtec
06-07-2011, 03:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The State Police said Wednesday that Mr. Christie had used its helicopters 35 times in his 16 months in office; neither that agency nor the governor’s office would say how many of those were for personal or political matters. </div></div>

Q

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:11 AM
Oddly enough ... you haven't documented any of that.

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Would you like to discuss which poll has been shown, repeatedly, to be the most accurate ... and which polls have been shown to be the least accurate?

Probably not. </div></div>

Rasmussen recently missed accurately calling a Hawaiian vote by 60 freakin' percentage points. Most embarrassing for those who say it's always so accurate. It's not. They bias their samples in such a way as to always show 4-5% greater support for the Republican than ANY OTHER POLL, all of whom are not wrong. </div></div>

Actually, they were ... at least much more often than Rasmussen:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">For all the derision directed toward pre-election polling, the final poll estimates were not
far off from the actual nationwide voteshares for the two candidates. On average, pre-
election polls from 23 public polling organizations projected a Democratic advantage of
7.52 percentage points on Election Day, which is only about 1.37 percentage points away
from the current estimate of a 6.15-point Obama margin in the national popular vote.

Following the procedures proposed by Martin, Traugott and Kennedy (see Public Opinion
Quarterly, Fall 2006, pp. 342-369) to assess poll accuracy, I analyze poll estimates from
these 23 polling organizations. Four of these polls appear to have overestimated McCain
support (indicated with a * below), while most polls (17) overestimated Obama strength.
Pre-election projections for two organizations’ final polls—Rasmussen and Pew—were
perfectly in agreement with the actual election result (**).

The following list ranks the 23 organizations by the accuracy of their final, national pre- election polls (as reported on pollster.com).

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>1. Rasmussen (11/1-3)**</span>
1. Pew (10/29-11/1)**
2. YouGov/Polimetrix (10/18-11/1)
3. Harris Interactive (10/20-27)
4. GWU (Lake/Tarrance) (11/2-3)*
5. Diageo/Hotline (10/31-11/2)*
5. ARG (10/25-27)*
6. CNN (10/30-11/1)
6. Ipsos/McClatchy (10/30-11/1)
7. DailyKos.com (D)/Research 2000 (11/1-3)
8. AP/Yahoo/KN (10/17-27)
9. Democracy Corps (D) (10/30-11/2)
10. FOX (11/1-2)
11. Economist/YouGov (10/25-27)
12. IBD/TIPP (11/1-3)
13. NBC/WSJ (11/1-2)
14. ABC/Post (10/30-11/2)
15. Marist College (11/3)
16. CBS (10/31-11/2)
17. Gallup (10/31-11/2)
18. Reuters/ C-SPAN/ Zogby (10/31-11/3)
19. CBS/Times (10/25-29)
20. Newsweek (10/22-23) </div></div>
TRUTH VERSUS MYTH (http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/elections_and_campaign_/poll%20accuracy%20in%20the%202008%20presidential%2 0election.pdf)

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They bias their samples in such a way as to always show 4-5% greater support for the Republican than ANY OTHER POLL</div></div>

Once again, you are dead wrong:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Rasmussen Reports and Gallup are the only two firms that produce daily tracking polls. Both measure the President’s Job Approval on a daily basis. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Gallup measures the Approval among all adults while Rasmussen measures it among Likely Voters. Generally, polls of all adults produce results that are more favorable to Democrats than polls of Likely Voters.</span> </div></div>

It's like a nightmare for you, it just keeps getting worse ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports)

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:45 AM
ON THE MONEY!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The current winning percentage for President-Elect Barack Obama in the election is 52%-46%. So how did the final polls from major polling organizations shape up with the actual winning percentage? Rasmussen and Ipsos were dead on, and Fox News got the margin almost spot on as well:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>52%-46% Rasmussen</span>
53%-46% Ipsos/McClatchey
50%-43% Fox News
52%-44% IBD/TIPP

Zogby had an 11-point margin for Obama - 54%-43%, along with Gallup - 55%-44%. When it comes to even-handed, reliable polling, you cannot do better than Rasmussen.

UPDATE: CBS News predicted a 51%-42% Obama win; NBC News had it 51%-43%; ABC News had it 53%-44%. </div></div>

The march of truth continues! (http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2008/11/rasmussen-ipsos-most-accurate-2008.html)

LWW
06-07-2011, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the January 2010 special election for the Senate seat from Massachusetts, Rasmussen Reports was the first to show Republican Scott Brown had a chance to defeat Martha Coakley. Just after Brown's upset win, Ben Smith at Politico reported, “The overwhelming conventional wisdom in both parties until a Rasmussen poll showed the race in single digits in early January was that Martha Coakley was a lock. </div></div>

I GOTTA LOTTA MO FO YA, I GOTTA LOTTA MO ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports)

Soflasnapper
06-07-2011, 05:43 PM
From the Wiki piece:

Criticism
[edit] New York Times

In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias. [22]. However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a 'house effect.'[23] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[24] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering. [25] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election which could be assessed for accuracy. In response, he wrote that he was “looking appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen who don’t poll in the final days before an election. [26]

After Election night that year, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model. [27] <span style='font-size: 17pt'>He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate Race, which Rasmussen showed the incumbent 13 points ahead, where he in actuality won by 53[28] - a difference of 40 points, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998."[27]</span>
[edit] Other

TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[29] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[30] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[31]

The Center For Public Integrity has claimed that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[32] The Washington Post reported "... the Bush reelection campaign used a feature on his site that allowed customers to program their own polls. Rasmussen asserted that he never wrote any of the questions or assisted Republicans in any way..." The do-it-yourself polling service is used by Democrats as well as Republicans today through a company that licenses Rasmussen’s methodology.

Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[33][34] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[35] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"[34]

LWW
06-08-2011, 02:53 AM
And again, when it is required by your political masters to advance the agenda, you will cling to the exception and demand that it be treated as the rule.

LWW
06-08-2011, 03:01 AM
And from the NYT (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/the-uncanny-accuracy-of-polling-averages-part-iv-are-the-polls-getting-worse/) Rasmussen fell off in 2010 largely because they didn't poll illegals.

But, if you can't count on the undocumented democrat voter and the necro-American voter ... how would the democrooks ever be anything beyond a fringe party?

Gayle in MD
06-08-2011, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please.

Josh Marshall's TPM runs a poll of the polls, the averages of the polls, and it also shows Christie upside down on job approval, even though such an average includes the Rasmussen results.
</div></div>

Rasmucous!!! LMAO!

Only a hard right rightie would consider anything they come up with!