See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:25 pm, rooster said:

   chap bemoans,
   It helps me get through your posts without wanting to slit my wrists, for starters.

   Please don’t let me stop you from fulfilling your lib destiny.

2. #102
   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:27 pm, txvet2 said:

   For those of you who can get it, Michelle is being interviewed right now on Roger Hedgecock’s show.

3. #103
   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm, chapoutier said:

   Please don’t let me stop you from fulfilling your lib destiny.

   No no. My lib destiny is to bleed you dry.

4. #104
   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, swede said:

   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm, CO2 Producer said:
   Um…what was the topic again?

   Topic? We don need no steenking topic.

5. #105
   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm, tarpon said:

   They don’t have as many readers or viewers as you do ^_*

6. #106
   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:42 pm, Stillwaiting said:

   keep in mind I look just like a young Micael Landon.

   A teenage werewolf?

   I’m going to start hanging around with you so I can snare a rebound or two!!!

   Oh, wait. I forgot, that’s on the list of things my wife won’t let me do. I never stray from the list.

7. #107
   On March 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm, warden said:

   On March 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm, chapoutier said:
   No no. My lib destiny is to bleed you dry.

   Nicely done.

8. #108
   On March 12th, 2009 at 8:10 pm, zorro said:

   Excellent work Michelle.

   Your work ethic and editorial skills are obviously far superior to those of the dying mainstream media. Well done and thank you for practicing journalism as it should be.

9. #109
   On March 12th, 2009 at 10:36 pm, Kevin K. said:

   On March 12th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, ITookTheRedPill said: (#87)

   Any time you see “foreign relations” or “international affairs”, realize that these are often code words for the globalist socialists.

   Not necessarily. I’m pretty darned conservative (with occasional libertarian moments), and I majored in International Affairs. Doesn’t mean that I believe in a global government. Sometimes you have to study a field to know where it is wrong.

10. #110
    On March 12th, 2009 at 10:36 pm, everydaydave said:

    This is why the US is in the trouble that it is. We have spoiled political leaders to the point, that they, D or R, can do whatever they want and not worry about the cost. I thought we elected you to listen to us, but now days it is not for the people that you serve but for what makes you looks good and not spend your own money for a half butt job, working part time and getting life time benefits.

11. #111
    On March 13th, 2009 at 2:46 am, RetFireman said:

    I, again, would like to ask:

    Why is it that Her Royal Heinous, Nanci Pelosi, requires the United States Military to ferry her and her entire family around on military aircraft? If it is to protect her and keep her safe, then what is it, EXACTLY, she feels she needs to be protected and kept safe from?

    According to all the Liberals “in the know” such as Michael Moore, Madonna, Charlie Sheen and any number of miscellaneous Hollywood types as well as several well placed and high up Senators and Congressmen, there is no such thing as a “War on Terror”, there is no such thing as a “Terrorist Threat”, Muslims do not hate us, Islam is a peaceful, fun loving, open and honest religion where murder, suicide and oppression of women, Christians and anyone else who does not practice their religion is strictly prohibited by their faith, and the biggest threat to this country, George W. Bush, is no longer the President and thus, effectively removed as a credible threat.

    Is there something that she and the rest of the Democrats know that we don’t? Is there something that they are not telling us about the state of our airlines and airspace that would make her flying on a regular commercial airline a serious threat to her health, life and well being and that of her daughter, son-in-law, grandchild and anyone else she feels the need to ferry all over the world on tax payer money?

    Do they not say that our airports do not require all the safety precautions, that those that have been placed by the Bush Administration go too far, are far too intrusive and inconvenient, and would that not be because there is no threat etc.?

    There seems to be quite a bit of hypocrisy here on the part of Her Heinous, the MSM, the Democrats and Liberals in general.

    If commercial air travel is safe enough for everyone else in this country, then why the hell is it not safe enough for her? After all, the issue with the Muslims were all due to Bush and his policies. According to the Liberals, Obama is this country’s saviour, the whole world loves him, his policies are near god-like and Muslims LOVE Liberals and their beliefs.

    So tell me…why should she still be on any United States Military Aircraft at all, let alone anything that is better than that which our men and women in uniform either going to or returning from hostile fronts, are forced to fly on? If she is that worried, she should be chartering her own, personal, aircraft from a private source, funded from her own budget, eliminating the slightest potential for anyone to know where and when she is flying and removing any issues she and her staff seem to have with the tax payer funded military transports she receives now, without so much as a “Thank You”.

12. #112
    On March 13th, 2009 at 5:02 am, WarTip said:

    On March 13th, 2009 at 2:46 am, RetFireman said: So tell me…why should she still be on any United States Military Aircraft at all, let alone anything that is better than that which our men and women in uniform either going to or returning from hostile fronts, are forced to fly on?

    Because it is paid for with “free” money and she believes that it is her right to save her money and only spend ours so frivolously?

13. #113
    On March 13th, 2009 at 5:27 am, graysonret said:

    If it is to protect her and keep her safe, then what is it, EXACTLY, she feels she needs to be protected and kept safe from?

    It’s called paranoia. Plus, an inflated ego problem. You see that in leaders who are egomanics. History is full of them.

14. #114
    On March 13th, 2009 at 7:44 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On March 12th, 2009 at 7:22 pm, CO2 Producer said:
    Um…what was the topic again?

    The topic is:
    

    Calling bull on ABC News & Time magazine’s apologists for Pelosi

    Pelosi and the MSM want you to believe that Pelosi is acting no differently than her Republican predecessor.

    Michelle very appropriately calls BS!

    While I certainly don’t think that Speaker Hastert was pure as the driven snow, it appears that Hastert used the jet privilege very responsibly, while Speaker Pelosi has not.

    It appears that Hastert used a Gulstream III, and requested it only when needed to fly to his home district.

    It appears that Pelosi was given use of the same type of jet, a Gulfstream III, and she became livid when forced to make a refuelling stop.

    In strong headwinds, the Gulfstream III does not have the range to make it from D.C. to SFO without stopping in “flyover country” to refuel.

    To make it from D.C. to SFO without having to stop for refuelling, a larger jet is required.

    Now, I actually don’t think it’s wrong for Pelosi to request a larger jet in order to make the trip non-stop.

    What is wrong is for her to lie and act like she never requested a larger jet.

    What is wrong is for her to say “I never requested a larger jet”.

    What is wrong is for her to say “It’s not a jet, it’s a RIDE on a jet” (implying that the jet is not “hers”, she is merely taking a “ride” on someone else’s jet) but then act like the jet really is exclusively for her (when the jet is not available, she throws a hissy fit).

    Pelosi appears to reserve the Gulfstream V (which is “a larger jet” than the Gulfstream III) EVERY WEEKEND, just to make sure that it is there for her when she wants it.

    The Air Force staff are clearly not happy with her practice of doing so. A lot of resources are dedicated to getting the plane and crew of 5 ready, and then Pelosi cancels.

    Pelosi is wasting our national resources so that she can have the equivalent of her own private corporate jet.

15. #115
    On March 13th, 2009 at 8:02 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    By JAKE TAPPER
    Feb. 7, 2007

    A source close to the controversy over the request made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for use of a military plane that can fly to and from her home district in San Francisco without having to stop to refuel, told ABC News that the Pentagon has rebuffed Pelosi’s request.

    The source said that Pentagon officials and the Bush administration have instead offered Pelosi use of the same plane made available to former Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill.: a C-20, which seats about 12 passengers and five crew members.

    A C-20 can make the 700-mile flight to Hastert’s Aurora, Ill., district easily but would generally have to stop to refuel to complete the 2,800-mile trip from Washington, D.C. to the San Francisco Bay Area, depending on the headwinds.

    Pelosi has expressed concern about having to stop and refuel, primarily for security reasons, her office said.

    It certainly appears that Pelosi originally did request a much larger plane:

    Various Republican officials in recent days have claimed that Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels — a luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It’s normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request.

    But then “settled for” an only slightly larger plane (the C-37 Gulstream V is only slightly larger than the C-20 Gulstream III, but it has a significantly longer range and can make the D.C. to SFO trip non-stop).

    And, as others have duly noted, the “for security reasons” excuse is B.S.! Pelosi is only supposed to have the plane for travel to her home district, so what about Pelosi’s “security” when she has to fly elsewhere? Does she fly commercial, or does she get “friends” to loan her the use of their jets?

16. #116
    On March 13th, 2009 at 8:07 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On March 12th, 2009 at 10:36 pm, Kevin K. said:

    On March 12th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, ITookTheRedPill said: (#87)

    Any time you see “foreign relations” or “international affairs”, realize that these are often code words for the globalist socialists.

    Not necessarily. I’m pretty darned conservative (with occasional libertarian moments), and I majored in International Affairs. Doesn’t mean that I believe in a global government. Sometimes you have to study a field to know where it is wrong.

    Kevin, I agree with you. The key word in my quote was “often”. I’m speaking of organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, where Michelle Obama sits on the board.

17. #117
    On March 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am, ITookTheRedPill said:

    Oh, now I understand….

    “for security reasons”

    …means Pelosi, like all of us, doesn’t like to go through security lines when flying commercially.

    So she prefers to fly on the private jet “for security reasons”.

18. #118
    On March 14th, 2009 at 2:26 am, frontierguy said:

    Nancy Pelosi is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. She owns vineyards that are non-union so that she does not have to foot the bill of services for her employees, most of whom are illegal aliens. She pushed legislation in California so that she would not be responsible for them even if they get hurt during work, that is the job of the taxpayers. There is no reason why the Baltimore Mafia Princess cannot buy her own jet and pay for her own travel.

19. #119
    On March 14th, 2009 at 2:09 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    frontierguy,

    Indeed.

    Instead of focusing on Servant Leadership,
    Pelosi focuses on Power and having others serve her.

    That is possibly the single biggest truth exposed by these emails.