PDA

View Full Version : Why dembots have no credibility.



LWW
02-16-2012, 06:13 AM
Speaker Pelosi ran up a bar bill averaging roughly $1,000.00 per week ... just on her personal plane trips ... all at taxpayer expense.

For those who worship at the altar of the state, this means paid for by people who paid only under threat of violence from the state.

The dembots in America, and many abroad, saw no issue with such waste of taxpayer money.

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS ... she really did that. (http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/123472/)


OTOH, these same dembots have their collectivist shorts bunched in a knot because Rick Santorum used donations ... note to statists, this is a concept similar to charity in that the money was given by the free will of the donor ... to buy a $2.49 taco.

HOLY HYPOCRITE BATMAN ... it's true! (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=377551#Post377551)


Now, I can see how someone could see things through such a tight moral POV as to believe Santorum's act was wrong ... but I can't see how that same POV could excuse Pelosi's act as well. Without raging hyperpartisan hypocrisy of course.

At the same time, I can understand how someone could view it so loose that they see Pelosi's actions as just peachy ... but I can't see how they could hole this view and then get all atwitter over a taco expenditure, without that hypocrisy thingie that is.

I will now await our resident leftists explaining how this works.

Soflasnapper
02-16-2012, 04:58 PM
No, why YOU have no credibility.

For these are all pretty much wholesale lies. Start with that these costs included flying Congressional delegations and those costs, NOT only her personal trips.

A bar bill? No, and that doesn't even track with the bad reporting that those expenditures were for food and drinks (and all other costs). There would have to be zero expenditures for in-flight food for this to be all for the bar bill, even assuming there were no other costs.

Wait! Other costs? What other costs?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Judicial Watch calculated that Pelosi’s CODELs spent precisely $101,429.14 over two years for what it calls “in-flight expenses." We asked Judicial Watch for an explanation of its accounting, and the group sent us a spreadsheet that covered three of the nine Pelosi CODELs represented in its documents, plus 47 speaker shuttles to and from Pelosi’s home district. From the three CODELs it covers, it’s clear that Judicial Watch is counting as “in-flight expenses” <span style='font-size: 14pt'>any non-reimbursable Air Force expenditure besides transportation costs. That category actually includes all non-plane costs of the trip, including baggage fees, meeting room rentals and refreshments, and, frequently, good-will lapel pins — as well as meals, ground transportation and lodging in U.S. territory. </span></div></div>

More complete explanation than you've heard, evidently. (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/pelosis-party-plane/)

LWW
02-17-2012, 04:32 AM
Thanks for proving my point.

Did you even read your spoon fed "TRUTH" that you presented?

Of course you didn't.

If you had, you would realize that they rationalize it all away as being false since Pelosi didn't herself singly drink and eat $101K ... it was her pals that also helped.

Praise be to dear leader that they weren't limited to a single $2.49 taco each.

Soflasnapper
02-17-2012, 12:15 PM
You caught me! I'm actually legally blind, and cannot read anything! I use a trained monkey I call Larry, who can read headlines to grab them for me, and then hope for the best.

Ok, enough joking around. **I** don't read what I post? Ridiculous, of course.

What part of 'the alleged BAR bill not only included costs of food, but also baggage fees, meeting room charges, overnight stay room charges, and other assorted attendant charges,' is so hard for you to admit you didn't understand? Or wish to dispute, factually?

It's like the $600 dollar hammers. They got those figures through choosing to put other accounting figures on top of the parts cost. If you cannot understand accounting

LWW
02-17-2012, 05:30 PM
$600 exist ... but they aren't a waste.

Giving the SOTH such an expense account is.

At least they didn't spend $2.49 on a taco.

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 11:28 AM
Since the current SOTH is a notorious lush, what do you think his state-provided liquor bill is for his state-provided air travel? (Pelosi is a tee-totaller, doesn't drink alcohol.)

LWW
02-18-2012, 12:42 PM
1 - I think he should pay for his own drinks.

2 - Boehner flies at taxpayer expense to and from Ohio/DC... on a commercial flight and not on a military charter.

3 - The argument that since Pelosi didn't drink all the booze herself is incredibly lame.

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 02:56 PM
3 - The argument that since Pelosi didn't drink all the booze herself is incredibly lame.

Another case of your 'hard of reading' disability. Should look into getting some help with that!

Didn't make any such argument as that at all.

She didn't drink ANY of it (not just not all of it), and even that isn't the point.

The point is that the supposed 'bar' tab was comingled and conflated with about 8 other costs, so we have no idea WHAT the cost of the adult beverages amounted to, except that we certainly know it was NOT the entire collective cost of all the things included in that figure. Unless all those other cost sectors were zero, and there is no evidence that they were.

pooltchr
02-18-2012, 04:34 PM
Even so, the cost of one bottle of wine is usually more than that of an Arbys sandwich. I'm still trying to figure out why eating at a fast food restaurant is even an issue. We all remember Bill's love of a Big Mac.

Steve

LWW
02-18-2012, 04:53 PM
I'm trusting that none of the bottles was less than $2.49.

It is, as usual, you who are missing the point.

The point being that the moonbat crazy left will wail and gnash their collectivist teeth until their panties are all in a bunch condemning the purchase of a $2.49 taco with funds freely donated to the taco buyer ... while at the same time tripping over each other to see who can take a bullet first to defend Miss Nancy pizzing away $101K of money taken from the unwilling under threat of violence.

Get it.

Soflasnapper
02-18-2012, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even so, the cost of one bottle of wine is usually more than that of an Arbys sandwich. I'm still trying to figure out why eating at a fast food restaurant is even an issue. We all remember Bill's love of a Big Mac.

Steve </div></div>

It's the vagaries of campaign finance law.

I guess no one remembers the 'controversy' when Al Gore was found to have gone into a specially provided building where phone lines were made available by campaign hard monies so as not to use his official phones for campaign purposes (so as not to violate the Hatch Act), where he duly went, and then by accident used the wrong calling card or credit card.

This was a national controversy in the allegedly liberal media for some weeks. It was nonsense, or hyper-legalism run amok, and not any kind of serious violation of any spirit or letter of the law.

Same here now with Santorum's case. There probably is a niggling minor violation of campaign law, and it makes no difference to me or hardly anyone who isn't feigning the vapors and clutching their pearls in mock outrage. So I'm partially agreeing with LWW here. But not in the false juxtaposition of the misrepresented Pelosi story, which even if true, was no violation of even the most technical of rules, just an embarrassing story, had it been factually grounded.

JohnnyD
02-19-2012, 03:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speaker Pelosi ran up a bar bill averaging roughly $1,000.00 per week .just on her personal plane trips ... all at taxpayer expense.

For those who worship at the altar of the state, this means paid for by people who paid only under threat of violence from the state.

The dembots in America, and many abroad, saw no issue with such waste of taxpayer money.

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS ... she really did that. (http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/123472/)


OTOH, these same dembots have their collectivist shorts bunched in a knot because Rick Santorum used donations ... note to statists, this is a concept similar to charity in that the money was given by the free will of the donor ... to buy a $2.49 taco.

HOLY HYPOCRITE BATMAN ... it's true! (http://billiardsdigest.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=377551#Post377551)


Now, I can see how someone could see things through such a tight moral POV as to believe Santorum's act was wrong ... but I can't see how that same POV could excuse Pelosi's act as well. Without raging hyperpartisan hypocrisy of course.

At the same time, I can understand how someone could view it so loose that they see Pelosi's actions as just peachy ... but I can't see how they could hole this view and then get all atwitter over a taco expenditure, without that hypocrisy thingie that is.

I will now await our resident leftists explaining how this works. </div></div> A wonderful thread for all to understand.Jesus loves all.LWW is the king of writers.Peace to you as you are truely a gifted person.

JohnnyD
02-19-2012, 03:33 AM
Bringing in the sheep,bringing in the sheep,LWW is bringing in the sheep.
GO LWW GO.
The man,The myth,The legend LWW.
LWW is truely the voice of reason.
Thank you sir for giving us a much better forum.
I am glad that child named wolf has been humiliated.
We have a wonderful forum now.

LWW
02-19-2012, 04:31 AM
Actually it is Obama rounding up the sheep ... I am merely trying to light the way to truth for those who reject the false messiah.