Story Comments
Posted by: buckncindykill 2 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
33%
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You mean like these truths?
Reply
- The refusal of many federal employees to fly coach costs taxpayers $146 million annually in flight upgrades.
- Despite trillion-dollar deficits, last year's 10,160 earmarks included $200,000 for a tattoo removal program in Mission Hills, California; $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyoming; and $75,000 for the Totally Teen Zone in Albany, Georgia.
- The federal government owns more than 50,000 vacant homes.
- Auditors discovered that 900,000 of the 2.5 million recipients of emergency Katrina assistance provided false names, addresses, or Social Security numbers or submitted multiple applications.
- Congress recently gave Alaska Airlines $500,000 to paint a Chinook salmon on a Boeing 737.-
100%
UrbanLegends1012 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That $146 mil figure was for a 12-month audit period that apparently ended sometime in 2007.
Reply
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3109985
Do you have any later numbers after GAO got some of the travel regs changed?
Notice the linked article discussed business class seats. how many times have you flown a domestic flight in the US where there were three cabins, coach, business and first-class? Not very many.
I'd submit not every premium seat was purchased simply because the USG traveler demanded it. A fair number of premium class seats get purchased, not at the insistence of the traveler, but because coach seats may not be available for the time period and route traveled. As a USG civilian and military traveler, I've had business class seats on one or more legs of a multiple hop flight simply because no coach seats were available. I've not asked for them, but that was the booking by the contract travel agency.
Granted, there could have been flights where the traveler refused to travel in coach. We've had travelers refuse to travel on certain airlines because of the poor service and rag-tag equipment used. I grant this is almost always non-US flag carriers, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. -
100%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Many of those federal employees are Republicans, right?
Reply
Many of those earmarks were requested by Republicans, too.
Perhaps if the previous administration didn't see itself as the victim of Katrina rather than the survivors it ignored, it could have made some of those vacant homes owned by the government available to the people whose taxes paid for them.
Did Alaska Airlines get that $500,000 before or after Governor Palin quit?-
25%
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My point is not left vs. right, or conservative vs. democrat progressive.
Reply
Start recognizing that MOST of Washington are doing as they please, and making excuses for them because "republicans did it too" or vice versa is perpetuating the disease of Washington politics.
Do you understand that?-
-
100%
buckncindykill2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
e.g., Nancy Pelosi?
Reply
Or even Obama himself. He promised a new era of unity, and can't even get his majority party to agree. If the Democrats claim to be the standard bearer for bipartisanship, then they need to get rid of the most partisan people in Congress right now; Pelosi and Reid.-
-
50%
Progressive2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not being a Democrat myself, I nonetheless agree that Pelosi and Reid are clearly Democrats...and the majority of your comments on this thread are clearly anti-liberal as well as pro-conservative.
Reply
As for Obama, I'd say being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after only nine months in office indicates the rest of the world disagrees with the American right-wing.-
50%
buckncindykill2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Winning the nobel peace prize after only 9 months in office indicates a desperate attempt by the laureate to decorate someone who is clearly as progressive and liberal as they are; who wants what is best for the rest of the world, not what is in the best interests of America.
Reply
Nobel's prescription for awarding the prize is 'for a specific action performed in the previous year, or for service to peace over an extended period." Since he was nominated for the prize BEFORE the presidential election, the prize has nothing to do with what he has accomplished over the last 9 months. It's simply a power play, trying to tap in to his overseas popularity while ignoring what the prize is truly meant for.-
50%
Progressive2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Since he was nominated for the prize BEFORE the presidential election, the prize has nothing to do with what he has accomplished over the last 9 months."
Reply
From my link below:
President Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday in a stunning decision designed to encourage his initiatives to reduce nuclear arms, ease tensions with the Muslim world and stress diplomacy and cooperation rather than unilateralism.
Nobel observers were shocked by the unexpected choice so early in the Obama presidency, which began less than two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline.
http://fe28.story.media.ac4.yahoo.com/news/story/m... -
100%
Beau78902 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Winning the nobel peace prize after only 9 months in office indicates a desperate attempt by the laureate to decorate someone...who wants what is best for the rest of the world, not what is in the best interests of America."
Reply
When will you realize that what is best for the entire world IS in fact in the best interests of America?
You cannot cite a single instance in world history where a nation that tries to oppress other nations in order to further its own interests has succeeded for any significant length of time.
I suspect the Nobel committee knows this, and recognizes what policies truly promote peace.-
100%
buckncindykill2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"When will you realize that what is best for the entire world IS in fact in the best interests of America?"
Reply
No, I don't accept that premise ad hoc. It is only in our best interests if it serves positively the US. For example, it is in the best interests of China not to accept Kyoto, because it will curb economic growth allowing its citizenry to climb out of poverty.
But does China's best interest serve the rest of the world? Does the continuation of third world pollution serve the rest of the world, when they continue to do it because to clean it up is cost prohibitive?-
100%
Beau78902 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's a short-term view. You will not be able to sustain oppression of the interests of most of the world for any length of time. Eventually, exploiting a majority of the world's population to advance our own interests will fail, and probably cause the downfall of the U.S.
Reply
Regarding this argument, it's irrelevant whether serving China's best interest serves the rest of the world. We're not talking about supporting what's best for China--we're talking about what's best for the world.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
Locky12
corl64
gamahuche
Beau7890
juvel
gsmittle
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.