Pelosi Enjoying $10,000 Per Night Hotel Stay

When did the Republican party hire an accountant? Would you ask them to tally up the final cost of the Iraq war. They owe the American people some line item details and we would also like to know the companies and politicians who made money from the deal and all the deaths. Why continue the class warfare against the Dems? Talk about hypocrisy.

You are 100% right. This reminds me of France just before the French Revolution. People out here are jobless and almost starving and these two are living the high life, not on their money, but yours and mine. Great example for everyone!

Would you ask them to tally up the final cost of the Iraq war

ahem...we're talking about VACATIONS here.

Please, try to keep up.

I don't know about you, but let's put this in perspective, shall we?

Obama is at a RENTAL home in Hawaii that costs $3,500 a night, the same place he has stayed for the past 3 Christmas Holidays.

How much did it cost Bush to vacation at the Ranch HE OWNED in Crawford?

Now, THAT would be a valid comparison, wouldn't it?

I'm calling BULL@!$%# on this article, which like the previous one that cites Obama's $4 million price tag and references an anonymous source provided by Fox News, is unsubstantiated.

I WENT to the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai website and got a quote for their nicest room, a "Deluxe Suite Prime Ocean View" at a cost of $3115 per night.

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

Yeah and the political climate during that vote when America was still strirred up from 9/11 was "you're either for us or for the terrorists". When musicians CDs are being crushed for coming out against the war you expect Congress (any members) to have a spine? Worked for the GOP to stir the big pot of fear for their gain. Why don't you fill us in on the rest of the countries, outside of the UK and Australia that were for the war? I guess they were all too liberal to jump to conclussions about WMDs and send their militaries in to harms way over a "guess".

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call

Been on Kona quite a few times. NCL Cruises do their Luaua at the Four Seasons, where they will tell you every single time about the $10K a night room.

1 (888) 340-5662 - it's a TOLL FREE call.

Tell you what, I'll hold your hand and walk you through it -

CLICK HERE

Scroll down that page....

Four Seasons Resort Hualalai

Presidential Villa

USA

Kailua-Kona

$10,300

Epic FAIL.

Tobii the Obama's pay for the cost of the rental out of their own pockets. The cost to the tax payers is for security and such things. The cost to Bush would have been equivalent because he would have needed all the same people around him every time he vacationed in Texas.

Although I don't approve of politicians spending ridiculous amounts of money on lavish vacations, I also must call into question the validity of these figures - as pointed out by bondi above.

It's sounds a bit too much like Foxaganda to me.

Regardless, "Nancy is quite wealthy, and it's her money." Wouldn't that be the argument the right would be making for her if she had an R next to her name rather than a D?

Both sides are guilty of this, aristocracy style spending is just getting worse - and is DEFINITELY a bi-partisan poison.

It's nice to have money. It's nothing the rest of us wouldn't do if we could afford it.

The cost to Bush would have been equivalent

Flying a security detachment and staff to Texas would cost the same as Hawaii? Do you own a map?

Shuk -

It's sounds a bit too much like Foxaganda to me

Go to my earlier post and click the link.

Hate the truth all you want - it's always right.

This article is about the amount of money that Pelosi is privately spending for her vacation. There is no emphasis on her security costs but there is an inappropriate back-hand slap at the cost for President Obama's security even though his privately paid lodging is less expensive than that of Pelosi.

No matter who is president, there will always be security entourage costs to protect him/her and it will be paid by US taxpayers even if the security is privatized AKA contracted out.

tobiii:

Flying a security detachment and staff to Texas would cost the same as Hawaii? Do you own a map?

Well, that's a pretty stupid argument.

Because GWB hails from a corner of the country closer to the Capital, therefore he's morally superior? By that reckoning, Joe Biden is the greatest man in national office since James Monroe.

Go to my earlier post and click the link.

I wasn't disputing the 10,000... the other figures are questionable, and despite that - exactly who is funding what is not indicated (obviously with the intention to mislead and propagandize holiday vacations).

So it's just Foxiganda. Fed employees pay for their own vacation expenses unless it's a security detail or other such expenses related to their position.

The rooms, the food, etc are all paid for by their salaries or other incomes... albeit much of it is grafted and through informational perks of being in positions of power.

How much did it cost Bush to vacation at the Ranch HE OWNED in Crawford?

Now, THAT would be a valid comparison, wouldn't it?

I'm afraid you're going to regret going there because it cost a lot more to fly Bush and his security teams back and forth from his MANY yearly trips to Crawford... than the TOTAL costs of both Obama and Pelosi's single annual vacations.

Your question boils down to what I like to call the trailer-park quandry. You can take vacations every other week as long as you're staying in a trailer park, or you can save up your money and go on vacation just once a year somewhere fancy. Now some people think it's smarter to take nearly constant but cheap vacations, while others think it's better to take fewer, but unforgettably awesome vacations. This is of course a matter of preference, so there is no one right answer.

Because GWB hails from a corner of the country closer to the Capital, therefore he's morally superior?

you're the one putting words in there, not me.

My point - we are comparing VACATIONS - and Lola-Ohio took it upon herself to bitch about the Iraq war.

Hence my post about Bush going to the Ranch HE OWNED in Crawford in comparison to Obama's RENTAL in Hawaii.

my exact words?

Now, THAT would be a valid comparison, wouldn't it?

She's paying her own hotel bill.

Stevie. That important fact was left out by the seeder on purpose. Never let the truth get in the way of a good partisan attack.

tobiii:

My point - we are comparing VACATIONS -

No, "we're" not. "We" are making implicit moral judgements about the choices certain public persons make with respect to vacations. To be honest, I think the two cases reveal almost the exact same character trait in both Obama and GWB. Given the awesome power and unlimited alternatives of being President of the United States of America, each man chose more or less "the place they grew up" as the most comforting and consoling location for the place they get away to. The cost is so irrelevant it's not even large enough to qualify as de minimus.

Lola-Ohio took it upon herself to bitch about the Iraq war.

As well she should.

my exact words?

That would depend on what you're comparing. And why.

She's making a "penny wise, pound foolish" comparison. You're making an anal-retentive-accountant's argument.

To your argument I pointed out that Joe Biden's vacations at his spread in Delaware are even cheaper than Bush's vacations at his spread in Crawford.

Where are the stats on the # of days and cost for dublyah's vacations? $4 mil is the TOTAL cost. dublyah? well...

http://www.politicususa.com/en/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush

So now you admit that she is paying her own hotel bill? So this, "You can believe that, it's tax payer funded" was a lie? You admit this? Good for you. The truth will set you free.

Yes, and she can afford to pay that bill because she used the taxpayer's money to fly back and forth to CA every weekend on a private jet.

But wait; there's more. She has been escorted by police officers during her stay. Total cost to taxpayers? More than $34,000. Just so she can vacation in Hawaii.

Of course we have to pay for her security. She's the House Minority Leader for Christ's sake. She needs to be protected from people like you and your fox friends. We would also be paying for her security if she had stayed home or even if she'd stayed at work in Washington.

Again, my basic question was not addressed. When did the Republicans hire an accountant? So noone is curious about who got rich off of the Iraq war? Wow. What a pack of losers. Talk about swallowing a camel.

She can afford to pay that bill because she is independently wealthy. And she traveled like all other high ranking government officials travel. It is part of her job to spend time in DC as well as in her home district. Her travel is work related and should be paid for by her employer.

ThunderStorm.

Er um, she ONLY did that as speaker of the house, and that was NOT here choice. It was mandated that she fly on a @!$%#ing military jet because she, at the time, was 3rd in line for the presidency.

Now that she is minority leader, she pays for her flights herself.

My belief is, when anyone goes on vacation, you pay for it out of your own pockets, not off the backs of the taxpayers.

We need to stop paying for politicians vacations. You don't see the government paying for our vacations, so why the hell are we paying for theirs.

She needs to refund every dime she billed the taxpayers. with all that insider trading she and Boehner has and all the millions they made, they can pay for their own vacations like the rest of us have to do if we can even afford one.

RON PAUL 2012

So now it's a PRIVATE jet? (which would mean NOT taxpayer funded) Two years ago, you all were bitching about the MILITARY jet and security detail she had because she was Speaker of the House.....If she took the damn Greyhound, or Amtrak, or drove her Gremlin you'd bitch about those too! And if you don't like her going home every two weeks, blame the GOP "leadership" who set the schedule for the House this past January. Boehner and company specifically set up the 2 week on/1 week off schedule so representatives could go back to their districts and "meet" with their constituents (while Boehner golfs of course). Do you know how long it takes to get from California to DC? or Hawaii to DC? or ALASKA to DC? Of course they're going to fly! And NO federal elected official (especially not ranking members - or ones that are/were in the line of succession for the Presidency) should be staying in some dive hotel or traveling without security....they have 24/7 security even if they're at home or in the Capitol.

More faux outrage from the propaganda party that can't bother to THINK its way out of a paper bag.

Yes - Webslinger! Nice!!

I want to know about the complete and total waste of taxpayers money for the R side of the congress who has gone out of its way to do NOTHING during the Obama administration except obstruct any real legislation and perverse and deny real governance on behalf of the American people.

Oh, I forgot, we're talking about "vacations." Yeah, sure.

Arieus: You need to pay attention. She paid for the vacation herself. The intent of the seeder was to make it appear that this was on the taxpayer dime, when she knew, and later admitted, that it was not.

Indeed!

Does the Republican accountant have any figures on how much we're spending on Cheney family security? Just curious. But granted this is specific and applicable to Dems only and probably deemed as off-topic. Let's see, my guess would be, Cheney's hire one of their "security contractors" and bill it to the American taxpayer. Sort of a twofer, of sorts, or double-dipping. And it looks "private". Of course the taxpayers are paying it, but no matter. Just the private part looks better, now doesn't it. What a bunch of fools.

Why do Republicans hate people who are wealthy taking nice vacations? Whether the room is $100 a night or $10,000 a night what's the difference? If Nancy Pelosi can afford to spend that much then you should celebrate her success. Isn't that what you are doing with Newt and Romney? Newt has a $500,000 credit line at Tiffany's for his mistresses but that is OK. Romney is expanding his California house so large he doesn't even know how big it is. Is it because she is a woman who makes more than you that there is a problem.

The Iraq war the Dems voted for?

STILL not true!!

And my sincere apologies for taking it upon myself to mention the Iraq war debt. How petty of me to inject such a ridiculous argument like that into the much more serious expenditure of liberal vacation spending.

Lola - I'm upset that you mentioned"Cheney" and "private part" in the same post!

Yes, some Demo's did vote for it but the" Republican President" started it and still the Republican congress and canidates running for President (except for a few) DON'T WANT IT TOO STOP!!!

and would like to start a new "WAR " in Iran !!!!!

President Obama voted "NO" on Iraq ! and bougth it to a halt!!!!

These Republican's are stupid, crazy and dangerous !!!!!

LOL got to love this. Keep up the good work republicans. I really dont think the dems would be nearly as popular right now without you guys constantly blowing up on stuff like this.

I swear I wish I lived in pelosi's district, just so i could revote for her. I mean if this is the best the right can come up with? looking at a single politicians expenses, completely in a void of all other politicians.

Yall must be terrified of her taking back over after all that fire pelosi crap. And this is the best you can come up with? when she spends her own money on a hotel room, after dealing with the right wings bull@!$%# for hours and days on end, that she opts for the luxury that she can afford?

OMG SHE MUST BE IMPEACHED, RECALLED AND THEN IMPEACHED AGAIN!!!!!

thanks for the laugh. Dont worry you will survive the house being under pelosi's control once again. Voting this up, as this is hilarious and the people need to see exactly what the right feel is outrage worthy.

The Iraq war the Dems voted for?

STILL not true!!

82 dems voted FOR it in the House! (close to 40% of their caucus)

29 dems voted FOR it in the Senate! (a majority of their caucus)

So to say that the dems did not vote for the war is disingenuous in least.

Say What You Mean, and Mean What You Say

lol. More like "Say what you are programmed to say."

Yes, some Demo's did vote for it but the" Republican President" started it and still the Republican congress and canidates running for President (except for a few) DON'T WANT IT TOO STOP!!!

dems only voted for the war because they didnt expect even a republican president would lie, when us blood was on the line. WE have our differences and both sides spin, but no one thought the president would actually lie us into war.

He controlls the executive branch, which means he controlls the intelligence congress is privy too.

and the right might not like it but the facts show that bush did in fact without vital info and that bush "fixed facts around policy"

he lied and left us 4 trillion in debt and more dead than 9-11 and a country with a lot more american haters in it.

same kinda crap they tried with Iran, had we not had known bush lied on iraq, we wouldnt have been so skeptical about all the crap about iran.
Attacking our ships with white boxes, and new conferences about final proof that iran is supporting the enemy that never seemed to ever ever pan out and the one time they did show weapons, it turned out they werent even iranian.

Pelosi spent the last two Christmas holidays in Kona at the same hotel in an elaborate suite that rents for $10,000 a night.

If she is able to afford this kind of coin doesn't this make her one of the 1%?

Of course I have no beef with the 1% and I appreciate her keeping the wheels of this economy lubricated. But having her as a leader of the "I hate the 1% party" seems a little backward, doesn't it? hmmm

So, only a minority of the combined congressional Dem caucus voted for it but it's somehow a "Democrat war?" By the way, the AUF was not a declaration of war forcing Bush to go into one. It required he be absolutely certain that force was the only way left to him. We all know now that he disregarded all advice, all facts on the ground and all requirements in order to make that war happen. By the time he started it, many of those (foolish) Democrats were already criticizing him for rushing into it. Of course, they were viciously attacked for "not supporting our troops" which is how the Bush Criminals always dealt with criticism of HIM personally.

But having her as a leader of the "I hate the 1% party" seems a little backward, doesn't it?

Who elected her to that position? You?

"fixed facts around policy"

From YOUR source!

However, the meeting took place several months before the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the resolution eventually used as the legal basis for the invasion of Iraq.

The contents of the memo were leaked to the UK press in 2005. Though its authenticity has never been seriously challenged, the British and American governments have stated that the contents do not accurately reflect their official policy positions at the time.

When did the Republican party hire an accountant? Would you ask them to tally up the final cost of the Iraq war. They owe the American people some line item details and we would also like to know the companies and politicians who made money from the deal and all the deaths. Why continue the class warfare against the Dems? Talk about hypocrisy.

If Republicans thought and argued like Democrats then we would change the subject and talk about the past and say something like...

Who started the War in Viet Nam? Answer: Democrats. Look at the lives it cost and the expense.

Who started the Korean War? Answer: Democrats. Look at the cost of lives and the expense.

If an attack on our soil is not justification... Who started WWII? WWI?

To think that Democrats are the Doves and the Republicans are the hawks is a ridiculous lie. More war and American lives lost under Democrats BY FAR.

Who cares who voted for what? Since some are suddenly so interested in accounting, why not an itemized bill to the taxpayers of Iraq war expenditures and a list of companies and politicians who became wealthy from it. They should have their asses taxed off to pay for it. Why do you care how Pelosi is spending her money, if you don't want to tax her either? Call me stupid, it makes no sense. Are any of you concerned about who is going to get stuck paying for this @!$%#? This is much more our business and we should demand it, than vacation expenditures, have we lost our collective minds?

Well.. after looking at the site for a whopping total of 2 minutes, one is able to determine that Amerpundit is about as biased as Faux news.

Desperately grabbing straws for the momentary sensationalism. National Enquirer also jumps to mind right along with WorldNUT Daily. Completely fabricated story, right along the lines of Obama supposedly taking that Africa trip that according to Brainless Bachmann was costing taxpayers 4m a day. It's a joke story and frankly not worthy of any more consideration (except that I can know say I know another joke site).

She's a 1%er that went to mass in a Catholic church, where the outrage from the left?

Dem caucus voted for it but it's somehow a "Democrat war?"

No one is making this argument, straw man much?

We all know now that he disregarded all advice, all facts on the ground and all requirements in order to make that war happen.

We do? where is a link to this assertion. Something credible would be great! Alt-net, huff-post and the like are not credible. Thanks

http://www.politicususa.com/en/cost-obama-christmas-vacation-bush

During Bush's two terms, the cost of operating Air Force One ranged from $56,800 to $68,000 an hour. Bush used Air Force One 77 times to go to his ranch in Crawford, TX. Using the low end cost of $56,800, Media Matters calculated that each trip to Crawford cost taxpayers $259,687 each time, and $20 million total for Bush's ranch flights.

If cost of the flight was the only expense involved to taxpayers Bush's vacations would still seem rather economical, but there is more, much more. Unlike the Obama's $4 million Christmas vacation price tag, which includes the cost of everything from transportation to accommodations for the First Family, the White House staff, and the White House press corps, Bush's numbers only include the cost of flying the president to Crawford. The cost of transporting and accommodating staff, media, friends and family is not included in Bush's vacation numbers.

In response to growing criticism that the president was on vacation too much, the Bush administration adopted the Rovian tactic of scheduling, "work events," while the president was in Crawford so that they could claim that President Bush's vacations were working vacations. During his infamous pre-9/11 August vacation, the AP reported that, "Using the ranch as a base, he will promote White House initiatives in Rocky Mountain National Park, Denver, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh and San Antonio."

Bush's "working vacations" cost taxpayers a small fortune in travel costs because President Bush and his staff would make day trips on Air Force One all across the country in order to counter the criticism that he was on vacation too often. For eight years, Bush essentially used Air Force One as his personal vacation taxi service.

What was also not counted in Bush's Air Force One mileage total were the vacations where Bush flew to Crawford from Camp David such as the following via Media Matters:

In a December 27, 2001, Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel article (accessed via Nexis), national correspondent Jeff Zeleny reported "[a]fter spending Christmas at the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland, the president and first lady boarded Air Force One to travel to their ranch near the village of Crawford."

And on December 26, 2007, The Associated Press reported that Bush took "Air Force One to fly from his Maryland mountaintop retreat to his Texas ranch here to see in the new year."

FactCheck.org was writing about the anonymous chain emails about Obama's travel costs and noted in July that the stories about Obama's travel expenses are, "part of continuing pattern of false and misleading claims about the travels of the president and the first lady," and that Obama used Air Force One less in his first two years in office than George W. Bush did.

That same pattern of false information about Obama's travel costs relative to Bush's is also rampant on right wing blogs, websites, and Fox News. The cost of Obama's Christmas vacation is a good example of how right wing media can take a small fact like vacation costs or the number of Americans paying taxes in a single year and build an entire misinformation campaign around it.

The total cost of Obama's Christmas vacation may be $4 million, but George W. Bush spent exponentially more taxpayers dollars, because he used Air Force One for political purposes in an attempt to distract the public from the amount of days that he was spending on vacation. In flights alone just for himself, George W. Bush spent five times more money flying just himself to Texas than Obama is spending on an entire Christmas vacation.

It is likely that the Bush administration spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on vacations, but the false outrage machine is on overdrive due to one Obama Christmas vacation.

By not including the cost of everything, the Obama bashers distorted the numbers to make it appear that Obama was lavishly spending taxpayer dollars on vacations, but a look inside the numbers reveals that nobody knows how to waste taxpayer dollars quite like the GOP.

Merry Christmas, Republicans. Here's to another false Obama smear debunked.

Lola-Ohio.......:why not an itemized bill to the taxpayers'

of every war we have been in ? Sound good to you and then at the end of it all we can compare which party has cost us more in lives and money. I mean to be fair we must look at every war and not just the one you choose.

Dennis,noone is arguing dove and hawk, I am a Democrat and believe we should walk softly and carry a big stick, and invest in defense technologies. Money should not be wasted, period. And we should never lower taxes during war time, that is equal sacrifice, since many of the poor sacrifice their blood by serving in the military. Don't put words in my mouth, how is it to be paid for now?

And to be fair, we should look at every single politicians vacations regardless of party and not just the ones you choose. Now isn't that productive. Who should pay for this Iraq war? Are you not interested to know who may have been in our representative government who financially benefitted from this? I care not the party. Get it. The lengths some will go to to cover up their own brand.

Lola-Ohio........I care not the party.

On this we are in agreement ,however when you speak of the repubs and their war only it makes me believe that you are not looking at the stupidity of both parties. Personally I wish that both parties be held responsible for their actions not one or the other. I gave up on the 2 party system ages ago when I came to the conclusion that what they both excel at is lying to the people.
p.s sorry if you felt I was attacking you,not my intent.

DD

No one disputes the document exists and is as stated, the only question there appears to be is what the term "Fixed around" meant.

Yes, the congress did cede their war making powers to the president ,with an "Authorization to use Military Force". That is unconstitutional and wrong, but that doesn't hold a candle to Bush actually to using that authorization to go to invade Iraq.

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

I also don't recall Democrats clamoring for him to go to war in the most idiotic way possible, with zero foresight, sending our military undermanned under armored , and creating terrorist groups where none existed prior...so that 4,500 Americans were killed, 30,000 severely wounded at a cost of 3 trillion, a war which benefits Tehran more than anybody else

If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign.

•On the Iraq war situation, as quoted at "William F. Buckley: Bush Not A True Conservative" at CBS News, (2006-07-22)

Oh yeah rather than thousands of American troops dying and maimed for life; It seems Saddam and his sons would have left Iraq ;

At the Crawford meeting, Bush told Aznar: "The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction. [Libyan dictator Muammar al-]Gaddafi has told Berlusconi that Saddam Hussein wants to go. [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak tells us that, in these circumstances, there exist many possibilities that he could be assassinated."

http://blog.sfgate.com/worldviews/2007/09/27/secret-memo-revealed-bush-fixed-on-war-but-could-saddam-have-been-bought-off/

I don't give a hoot what these people do with their money. What I care about is that they are ensuring those who make way more than they need to live comfortably get loopholes and tax breaks. I care that they turn a blind eye to the working class.

I expect we should provide security for all members of congress and don't begrudge them their vacations or believe we should dictate the locations of these vacations. However, it wouldn't hurt my taxpayer feelings one bit to limit the security provisions for these trips. If we set a cap on the allowance of security, I believe many presidents would opt to select more affordable destinations. Bringing an entourage to Hawaii or to Maryland should all be covered by a security allowance. If you want to go farther, you accept the diminished protection.

I know... It'll never happen.

This is of course was "Not intended to be factual", you start bringing in all these facts (Oh yeah, she is paying for it herself...) and it takes away from the Elaine & Amerpundint intent with articles like this. They are "not intended to be factual", but to get attention and inflame by by lying & twisting the words around, leaving out the actual facts to spread propaganda to get the reaction they want. Just another waste of time.

If you want to go farther, you accept the diminished protection.

Or, perhaps they should be given a security allowance, and if they go over it they should be required to reimburse taxpayers for the difference.

Auereus

Ok, Obama is PAYING for his own vacation, however a president is never really on vacation. so the country has to pay for the security detail that goes with that vacation. It is part of the job. So while Obama is paying for him and his family, the COUNTRY does pay for the Secret service and the flight, because THAT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE of being president.

As for Pelosi,

She can pay for whatever the @!$%# vacation she wants. If she wants to pay 10 grand a night to stay at an exclusive hotel, more power to her. She is paying for it out of her own pocket. Her flights to and from washington right now are out of her OWN pocket as well. When she was house speaker, the flights she took were on a 757 (air force), but not because she asked for that plane, it was because it was the SMALLEST PLANE THAT COULD GET TO SAN FRANCISCO WITHOUT A MID POINT REFUELING. That is NOT important for getting out there, but it is important if through an emergency, she needed to get back.

As for the declaration of war, how is it that congress ceded their powers? They authorized the president to take the country to war, that is their power. They did it twice, once for afghanistan and the war on terror, and again on Iraq. Not sure why they ceded their constitutional rights, that is how it is always done.

this is yet another piece of inconsequential, partisan rhetoric that neglects past far worse abuses by others, and conveniently leaves out facts that do not fit the storyline. it is also not known if the supposed facts in this article are actually factual, or if they are, if they matter.

do our politicians have it pretty good? yes.

do they spend too much on travel? one would assume so.

next story.

82 dems voted FOR it in the House! (close to 40% of their caucus)

29 dems voted FOR it in the Senate! (a majority of their caucus)

So to say that the dems did not vote for the war is disingenuous in least.

Simply untrue. WHAT did they vote for? The immediate invasion? Or to give the President the authority to use force as a saber-rattling method against Saddam? That is NOT a blank check for a war! They Dems were railroaded into giving this permission by overtly political ploys by the GOP. Labeling anyone who opposed as being unAmerican, and asserting that the Administration had EVIDENCE OF WMD's!! LIES!

The Dems voted on BS they were told by the President at that time. IT WAS NOT A VOTE TO GO TO WAR.

Still waiting on those WMD's, princess.

And for what it's worth, I STILL think Pelosi should be removed from office, and prevented from EVER being Speaker again because she collapsed like a folding chair, but somehow, living in VA, I don't seem to have much sway on CA politics.

in the off-topic sub-thread argument, the democrats voted on the intel of weapons of mass destruction, which was fabricated, at best. yes, they voted to use force, but they had bad facts.

Latest Polls find that only 48.1 percent of the people find Obama repulsive, while 47.1 percent find him palatable.

47.1% puts him 32% headed of the Republicans in Congress. If President Obama is so bad why does he lead in every head to head poll against the Republicans running for President?

I'm calling BULL@!$%# on this article, which like the previous one that cites Obama's $4 million price tag and references an anonymous source provided by Fox News, is unsubstantiated.

Bondibox, this is from the Hawaii Reporter, a newspaper in his own home state on Dec 27 2011

The total cost (based on what is known) for the 17-day vacation roundtrip vacation to Hawaii for the President, his family and staff has climbed to more than $4 million. Here's why.

TRAVEL: $3,629,622

The biggest expense is President Barack Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii via Air Force One, a cost the GAO office estimated at $1 million in the year 2000. Contacted today, the GAO confirmed there is no report the independent office affiliated with Congress has prepared since 2000 to operate Air Force One and Air Force Two.

However, the U.S. Air Force provides the most current numbers of $181,757 per flight hour. Travel time for Air Force One direct from Washington D.C. to Hawaii is about 9 hours or $1,635,813 each way for a total of $3,271,622 for the round trip to Hawaii and back.

The cost for USAF C-17 cargo aircraft that transports the Presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment to Hawaii was not made available. However, the flight time between Andrews Air Force Base and Hawaii is at about 21.5 hours roundtrip, with estimated operating cost of $12,000 per hour. (Source: GAO report, updated by C-17 crew member). The United States Marine Corps provides a presidential helicopter, along with pilots and support crews for the test flights, which travel on another C-17 flight. That is $258,000, not including costs for the 4 to 6 member crew's per diem and hotel.

Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii costs about $63,000 (White House Dossier), but add security and personnel for a total of about $100,000.

HOUSING: $151,200

The President and his family pay for their own beachfront rental (they are not staying in the Winter White House this year but rather a house on the same street further to the ocean point).

The Kailua rentals are fronted by the ocean and backed by a canal. So, the taxpayers must cover the costs for housing U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard and Navy Seals in beach front and canal front homes in Kailua.

That costs about $1,200 a day ($200 allocated per bedroom per day). Since security arrives one day early, homes are rented for 18 days.

That is about $21,600 per home for approximately 7 houses rented at a total cost of $151,200 for security to stay nearby.

HOTEL: $72,216

The President’s staff and White House Press Corps stay at one of Hawaii’s oldest and most elegant hotels, the Moana Surfrider. Hawaii Reporter confirmed they are again staying there this year. Besides its stunningly beautiful view of Waikiki, and its traditional architecture, it is one of the most pricey hotels in the state.

Government rates are $177 per night, but that only is available during certain times a year.

Rooms typically start at $250 but can cost on average as much as $450 a night, and are even higher during the holidays. Hotel spokeswoman Marsha Weinert said she could "neither confirm nor deny" the president's staff is staying there.A conservative estimate with rooms at the government rate of $177 per day (excluding a 9.25 percent Transient Accommodation Tax and a 4.712 percent General Excise Tax on each bill, meals, internet charges and other charges) means the taxpayers are covering more than $72,216 in hotel bills for an estimated 24 staff.

LOCAL TAXPAYER COSTS: $260,000

Local police over time for the president’s visit has historically cost Oahu taxpayers $250,000 but may be more expensive this year with the extended vacation.

The city ambulance the accompanies the president 24 hours a day through his entire visit is $10,000, according to city spokeswoman Louise Kim McCoy.

It's amazing to me that if this were an article about a prominent Republican or Conservative that every single of those who have posted excuses or rationalizations would be screaming foul and hypocrisy ... and hurling insults and slurs on the individuals character. But, because they are members of their own party, they defend the individuals without concern or equal disdain.

This is the height of hypocrisy.

I guess I understand how this is confusing to conservatives.

It is not possible for them to understand people who support programs or initiatives that they themselves might not directly benefit from. They think a wealthy person supporting raising taxes on the rich as some sort of hypocrite.

That's why they don't understand/don't people like Warren Buffet. Because he says he should be taxed more. I guess he just doesn't have the requisite level of selfishness they require to be looked upon favorably by them.

It used to be that their attacks just came from perceived wasteful spending of government money. Now it's even when they are spending their own money.

One moment they're touting those (conservatives) who have made their way to the top in our society, the next they're tearing down (Democrats) who have done the same thing but think that there should be a more equitable playing field for all.

The thing about Obama and Pelosi is that have gained wealth, but they have also spoken to the inequities of our current financial system, and it's under regulated state.

It's a greed thing, not a wealth thing. Get it?

I know you don't, but at least try.

Who started WWII?

Well, Dennis Chosen, I guess the fact that Germany delclared war on us seems to escape you

WWI?

I guess you've never heard of the Lusitania or the Zimmerman telegram...

I WENT to the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai website and got a quote for their nicest room, a "Deluxe Suite Prime Ocean View" at a cost of $3115 per night.

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

Yeah, it's instresting that some people do not want to acknowledge this fact, bondibox...

jimster,

what I understand as a wealthy person is that if taxes don't go up, then there will probably not be an economy left for me to make more money in the future. So that short term gain will end up being longer term pain when my wealth drops in value due to the drop in our economy.

THAT is what Warren Buffett is talking about as well.

The Iraq war the Dems voted for?

STILL not true!!

82 dems voted FOR it in the House! (close to 40% of their caucus)

29 dems voted FOR it in the Senate! (a majority of their caucus)

So to say that the dems did not vote for the war is disingenuous in least.

Based on lies sold to us by Republicans. Yes Dems were stupid for trusting a Republican President in retrospect, but at the time we were listening to known (by GW and Republican Crew) lies being given as rock solid truths.

SuperSaiyan

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

It appears the answer to the comment has already been addressed. Reading the entire thread is good before sticking one's foot in mouth.

1 (888) 340-5662 - it's a TOLL FREE call.

CLICK HERE

Scroll down that page....

Four Seasons Resort Hualalai

Presidential Villa - USA - Kailua-Kona

$10,300

Epic FAIL.

Ron W.-1891955
It's amazing to me that if this were an article about a prominent Republican or Conservative that every single of those who have posted excuses or rationalizations would be screaming foul and hypocrisy ... and hurling insults and slurs on the individuals character. But, because they are members of their own party, they defend the individuals without concern or equal disdain.

This is the height of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy = doing one thing while saying another.

Pelosi is paying for this with her own dime. Democrats have tried again and again to raise the tax rates on the wealthiest Americans - including themselves - while Republicans shoot that down, claiming to be against raising ANY taxes, unless those tax rates impact the poor and middle classes.

Where's the hypocrisy again?

I think people on the "right" simplistically believe that those on the "left" are against wealth in and of itself, which is, of course, wrong.

I still don't get why it supposedly cost $1.6 million to fly Pres. Obama to Hawaii, and only $63,000 (or $100,000 if you add the security and personnel costs) to fly Mrs. Obama and the girls. Did they fly commercial? A cheaper plane? Is AF1 16 times more expensive to fly with the Pres aboard than whatever plane flew his family? Or do the figures being bandied about JUST...NOT...MAKE...SENSE?!!!

Smith,

The problem is that they don't need to raise the rates to increase revenues. All they have to do is reduce the deductions allowed. But, that doesn't address the REAL PROBLEM which is WASTEFUL SPENDING all in the name to keep an agency's, department's, branch's, Congressman's, or Senator's budget from being shrunk due to not using up everything they were allocated! We can reduce spending easily, if Congress and the President just thought about it!

Why do Republicans hate people who are wealthy taking nice vacations? Whether the room is $100 a night or $10,000 a night what's the difference? If Nancy Pelosi can afford to spend that much then you should celebrate her success.

maybe because it is wealthy politicians busy telling us we have to "tighten our belts"while spending money we don't have and then proclaiming they have to raise "revenue"( ie tax the people for their wanton spending)? Is she gets it honestly who cares? I don't. But Pelosi got it by being a slick politician and being even slicker with some inside trading and other questionable things ---you know, the same things WE (you and I) would go to jail for doing.

"Nancy Pelosi is facing accusations of cronyism after a solar energy project, which her brother-in-law has a stake in, landed a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, despite the growing Solyndra scandal."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043282/Nancy-Pelosis-brother-law-given-loan-bigger-Solyndra-solar-plant.htmlsending jobs oversea

Nancy Pelosi and others in Congress guilty of insider trading (the same thing that sent Martha Stewart to prison):

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/11/14/CBS-Insider-trading-OK-for-Congress/UPI-41471321263000/

Nancy Pelosi who was going to "drain the swamp"...would it surprise you to know that she who own a large stake (oh, and guess when she bought it...yep right after it went public) in natural gas energy in heavily invested in getting the government to subsize ($9 billion) cars built to run on Natural gas? She stands to make a large profit on this legislation she said made as on of her top priorities:

http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2011/12/14/u-s-energy-bill-beneficiary-redefines-going-green/

tomwcraig
Smith,

The problem is that they don't need to raise the rates to increase revenues. All they have to do is reduce the deductions allowed. But, that doesn't address the REAL PROBLEM which is WASTEFUL SPENDING all in the name to keep an agency's, department's, branch's, Congressman's, or Senator's budget from being shrunk due to not using up everything they were allocated! We can reduce spending easily, if Congress and the President just thought about it!

For the most part, I agree, tom. I don't agree with starting 2 wars and cutting taxes, but that doesn't mean we don't have a @!$%#load of wasteful spending.

all in the name to keep an agency's, department's, branch's, Congressman's, or Senator's budget from being shrunk due to not using up everything they were allocated!

Exactly. Cut back on the military budget, the DEA and the failed war on drugs, subsidies to some (all?) farmers and the oil industry, etc.

CMLawyer,

part of it is because the entourage is much larger, the plane is probably a lot larger, though with a flight to Hawaii it may have been the other VC25, but the majority of the difference is that when flying the president, there is so much more in the way of logistics, the roads need to be blocked off etc... the arrangements are much more complex.

Now I am pretty sure that as a society, it would be really nice if the presidents life (all presidents, not just Obama) weren't always at such risk, that this type of expense wasn't needed, but it is. I am sure we would all love to go back were the president could freely commingle with the people, but that just isn't realistic in this day.

The security forces by the way are still paid for, regardless of whether he goes on vacation, but when he goes on vacation, the expense is the lodging of them.

And Martha Stewart didn't go to prison for insider trading. That charge was dropped because they couldn't prove that she did insider trading.

As for pelosi getting her money by being a slick politician, you really should look at her husband. HE is the one that made most of the family's money. But shame on them for being successful. She and her husband were millionaires long before she entered politics, so yeah double shame.

Jonathan , It sounds like the cons have class envy and are jealous *^)

I'm sorry but the security of elected officials is a necessary cost of living in a democracy. People's taxes are also used to protect EACH AND EVERY AMERICAN. These cops would have been paid the same salary whether or not Pelosi decided to vacation there or not.

Go and tell a secret service agent that they are a waste of money.

Go and tell a soldier that they aren't worth it. Or a cop.

These heroes risk their lives to protect our democracy and keep the peace. They do their job honorably so don't insult them by bringing politics into it.

Randy,

Well they don't complain about any right winger doing the same thing. Only about wealthy democrats who oddly enough are willing to increase their own tax rates.

I have no idea what it is.

Oh the hypocrisy is over flowing today……!!!..Are these the same liberals on here who claim to be involved with or support the OWS folks….??? It is all about the money to them or the lack thereof, unless of course it is their own party squandering the bucks…….What a fine representation we have with these two when all you hear from them when the cameras are rolling that the redirection of the economy will take time, patience and sacrifice……Evidently, they were not referring to their own…!!!!

pc man

You say this money is being squandered. Is money being squandered when cops, soldiers,etc protect you or just when its the security of America's elected officials?

SuperSaiyan

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

Pelosi got off cheap. Check out the following.

Grand Resort Lagonissi in Athens, Greece – The Royal Villa
$32,000/night

Hotel Cala di Volpe in Costa Smeralda, Italy – Presidential Suite
$34,000/night

Four Seasons Hotel in New York, USA – Ty Warner Penthouse suite
$35,000/night

The Hotel Martinez in Cannes, France – Penthouse Suite
$35,000/night

Palms Casino Resort in Las Vegas, Nevada – Hugh Hefner Sky Villa
$40,000/night

Hotel President Wilson in Geneva, Switzerland – Royal Penthouse suite
$65,000/night

Taj Boston $6 million Hotel Suite in Boston, USA
$6 million/two nights

You say this money is being squandered. Is money being squandered when cops, soldiers,etc protect you or just when its the security of America's elected officials?

I am confident my post is quite clear therefore, address the content, avoiding the derail or do not respond at all…………!!! This liberal ploy to attack a portion of a post does not work with me…….!!

Well, I guess Little Sure Shot, Ron W.-1891955, and tobiii didn't read the list too well since those are prices from 2008...

ELITE TRAVELER: 101 TOP SUITES 2008

And have also conviently ignored the price quote from the hotel themselves, as bondibox has already indicated in post #1.5

Reading the entire thread is good before sticking one's foot in mouth.

You may want to take your own advice, Ron W.-1891955...

The Dems voted on BS they were told by the President at that time. IT WAS NOT A VOTE TO GO TO WAR.

Hmmmmmm

The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

I understand how you may not "get it" though.

Still waiting on those WMD's, princess.

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq

To believe Hussein didn't have WMD, you have to believe that after the inspectors left in 98, Saddam Hussein destroyed all of his WMD and then decided that he'd lose billions of dollars in oil revenue because of the sanctions rather than tell anyone about it. Of course, that makes absolutely no sense and I've never heard anyone even try to come up with a credible reason why Saddam would do that, but hey, who says anti-war arguments have to make any sense?

I could mention the fact that Saddam had refused to let his scientists and their families leave the country or even give private interviews, the defectors who've talked about Hussein's WMD, all the rockets with empty chemical warheads on them, etc, but why shouldn't I just point out that the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas? That's no big secret, it was widely reported -- then promptly ignored. Just as you ignore them girly girl!

@Ron W #1.68: There is no hypocrisy here on my part. I not only do not criticize Obama for visiting his birth state and an amazing vacation destination on a federal holiday, I also did not criticize Bush for visiting his home state of Texas, also a beautiful destination.

The associated costs of protecting a high-ranking official is in the best interest of our own country. Those expenses should not be inciting such knee-jerk reactions. We live in a world of crazy people. If our Secret Service didn't offer protection from these crazies, who would run for office anymore?

I DID, however, criticize the FREQUENCY of the Bush visits, in light of the collapsing economy, the war, and the cost of fuel. And if Obama starts treating his job like he's moonlighting, you can bet I'll cry foul play, too.

The longer Obama stays in office, the more I like him. And I did NOT vote him in office!

SuperSaiyan - - - RE: Comment #1.87 ... If you can point out something in the thread that was written before I posted that I ignored or failed to acknowledge, feel free to continue trying to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself.

I'm sure prices have gone down since 2008 /sarc ...

If you can point out something in the thread that was written before I posted that I ignored or failed to acknowledge

Well, I can't say that I'm surprised that you didn't bother to read post #1.5...

feel free to continue trying to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself

Ironic this is coming from someone who ignores evidence that disproves their assertions, Ron W.-1891955...

I understand how you may not "get it" though.

Oh no, I get it, the wussy Dems got railroaded, and so did the American people. Justify it to yourself any way you want...the Dems were not looking, and were not happy with the idea of going to war AT ALL.

why shouldn't I just point out that the inspectors have actually found artillery shells tipped with mustard gas?

Do they leave "Mushroom Clouds?" Then they were not the subtle threats implied. We were told Saddam was Hell's Bells for nukes. That was a LIE.

I'm sure prices have gone down since 2008 /sarc ...

And I'm sure that you never bothered to look up the info from the hotel themselves...

supersaiyan,

well that specific room may be in the 'if you have to ask, you can't afford it category' so it may not even be listed.

Do they leave "Mushroom Clouds?" Then they were not the subtle threats implied. We were told Saddam was Hell's Bells for nukes. That was a LIE.

Are you under the impression that WMD only means "nukes"! You would be misinformed if that is the case.

Well, I guess Little Sure Shot, Ron W.-1891955, and tobiii didn't read the list too well since those are prices from 2008

It is you who did not read the list that well supersalyan. The site I got those suites from were the prices from November 2010.

The site I got those suites from were the prices from November 2010

Instresting that you haven't cited this site, Little Sure Shot...

SuperSaiyan - - - Not only did I READ Comment $1.5, I actually QUOTED from Comment #1.5 (funny that you would say I hadn't bothered to read it). I think the only thing I am ignoring or disputing is someone else's assertions which was made without valid support for the statement.

Yes "Ironic" ... Contrary to your assertion, there is no "evidence" that supports their assertions. Feel free to "provide" your proof of evidence. I believe the obama family has an affinity for The Four Seasons (whenever available).

EPIC, EPIC Fail ... and WEAK attempt to appear superior ...

Oh, and laughable too.

Donnie Donnie Donnie....

WMD in Iraq? Somebody should tell this guy...

Instresting that you haven't cited this site

http://most-expensive.net/hotel-suite

There you go sparky, bon appetite. Again, take note of the date that this person created this page. NOVEMBER 2010

I actually QUOTED from Comment #1.5 (funny that you would say I hadn't bothered to read it).

No, you didn't

This is your actual quote...

1 (888) 340-5662 - it's a TOLL FREE call.

CLICK HERE

Scroll down that page....

Four Seasons Resort Hualalai

Presidential Villa - USA - Kailua-Kona

$10,300

Epic FAIL.

Which is from post #1.7

I think the only thing I am ignoring or disputing is someone else's assertions which was made without valid support for the statement.

You didn't read post #1.5

EPIC, EPIC Fail ... and WEAK attempt to appear superior ...

Again, take your own advice, but I doubt that you will acknowledge anything that disproves your assertions, Ron W.-1891955...

SuperSaiyan- - - Note the Time Stamp/Markers below the Comments. They look pretty damn identical to me.

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

#1.5 - Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:51 AM PST

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

#1.73 - Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:10 PM PST

Anything else you would like to be wrong on? SuperSaiyan?

No, you quoted me quoting post #1.5, you did not quote it yourself, Ron W.-1891955.

Anything else you would like to be wrong on?

You may want to ask yourself that question...

"Nancy Pelosi is facing accusations of cronyism after a solar energy project, which her brother-in-law has a stake in, landed a $737 million loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, despite the growing Solyndra scandal."

Actually, Ronald Pelosi was not involved in the loan.

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/tag/ronald-pelosi/

If the fund generates big profits on its investment, Pelosi gets nothing. If the fund's investment gets wiped out, Pelosi's bank account won't take a hit.

http://factcheck.org/2011/12/ron-pelosis-connection-to-tonopah-solar-energy/

And Smith said that the project, which is just starting the construction phase, already has a 25-year purchase agreement to sell 100 percent of the electricity generated to NV Energy, the largest utility company in Nevada. “This essentially ensures the project has the revenue stream necessary to pay back the loan,” he said.

SuperSaiyan - - - NOPE ... Wrong Again. I was quoting bondibox

Want proof ... Here you go ...

bondibox

I'm calling BULL@!$%# on this article, which like the previous one that cites Obama's $4 million price tag and references an anonymous source provided by Fox News, is unsubstantiated.

I WENT to the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai website and got a quote for their nicest room, a "Deluxe Suite Prime Ocean View" at a cost of $3115 per night.

Show me this $10,000 a night suite. I'll go double or nothing on a confirmation phone call.

#1.5 - Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:51 AM PST
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were simply repeating a comment which was already out there trying to "acknowledge" it as being a "fact". (I wonder what amount bondibox went double on?)

Whatever it was he (and you) lose.

As far as Pelosi's brother's involvement. There is nothing wrong with that. Just because someone has a relative in government does NOT disqualify them from taking advantage of programs that the government may offer.

What is not allowed is using that relationship in a way that puts you ahead of others or otherwise improperly qualifies you for that program. The ONLY accusation that has been made is that because Pelosi's brother is somehow involved, that it is illegal, and that is patently false, in other words, it is bull@!$%#.

As far as Pelosi's brother's involvement. There is nothing wrong with that.

Isn't there something wrong with having the name, Pelosi? (sarc)

yeah well I think that probably has something to do with it. It is pelosi so it must be bad. They should start looking at themselves.

Jonathan, you are right. People are jealous because pelosi has been able to double her net worth while in congress. The fact that she made almost 1 megabuck by stopping VISA legislation is a tribute to her astute business practices. She deserves all that she can buy; after all, if you made it off the backs of taxpayers, wouldn't you--you bet!! Like barndoor frank, christ dodd and the rest of them, they are our current role models.

The fact that she made almost 1 megabuck by stopping VISA legislation is a tribute to her astute business practices.

She bought VISA stock for the long term, and the only shares that she has sold were actually at a loss.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1115/Did-Nancy-Pelosi-profit-from-Visa-stock-purchases

Pelosi bought in two more tranches, her financial disclosure records show. As her office released today, those were on March 25, 2008 (10,000 shares at $64) and on June 4 (5,000 shares at $86). Pelosi ended up with nearly $1.3 million in shares at an average cost of $64.50, well above the IPO price and consistent with an investor looking to buy a long-term holding, not flip the stock for a short-term profit.

In fact, since that time Pelosi has held on to nearly all of her Visa stake outside of one sale for between $15,000 and $50,000 - which delivered her a loss of $2,500 to $5,000 in the winter of 2008.

theralinc

I have more than doubled my networth since she got into congress. wow, I must be bad then because I took advantage of her election. Hell double so since I am not even in her district. I must be evil.

Oh and by the way, it is her HUSBAND who is the mogul, not her.

The presumptive nominee for the Republicans (Willard Romney) is worth about $250 million. He made his fortune buying distressed companies and moving the jobs overseas. The second place candidate made millions lobbying the government and has a revolving credit line of over $500,000 at Tiffany's and takes a luxury vacation in the Greek Isles during the campaign. Yet the Republicans are worried about Nancy Pelosi and how much she spends at a hotel.

What is that famous phrase about glass houses?

Jonathan, you are right. People are jealous because pelosi has been able to double her net worth while in congress. The fact that she made almost 1 megabuck by stopping VISA legislation is a tribute to her astute business practices. She deserves all that she can buy; after all, if you made it off the backs of taxpayers, wouldn't you--you bet!! Like barndoor frank, christ dodd and the rest of them, they are our current role models.

Unbelievable………..These are the very liberal types that march against wall street…….yet if a liberal counterpart screws the American public it is A...OK…amazing that these folks can even look into a mirror let alone live with themselves……..!!!!

Lola #60.1 When did the Republican party hire an accountant? Would you ask them to tally up the final cost of the Iraq war. They owe the American people some line item details and we would also like to know the companies and politicians who made money from the deal and all the deaths. Why continue the class warfare against the Dems?

This is about Pelosi now, not what the repubs or dems have done in the past.

Let us put this whole "trip to Hawaii/vacation" thing in perspective.

President Obama is from Hawaii. It was his childhood home. Just like the countless Viners who went to their familial homes this christmas to celebrate the season, President Obama went home to celebrate the holidays. During Bush's years in office, he went home for christmas. Other Presidents returned to their homes for christmas. It wasn't a "vacation to Hawaii" like a mainlander would take, it was a trip home for christmas. Get over it, our President is from Hawaii.

Second, yes, Ms. Pelosi went to Hawaii as well. Yes, she stayed at the Four Seasons. Yes, it does have ONE suite that costs $10,000 a night. However, I cannot find any reliable news source that confirms this is the suite she used. Now, it does make sense that this MIGHT be the suite utilized. As someone who has stayed at this hotel, I know that the Presidential Villa is the one suite that would provide the best security options for a visiting dignitary. With the Giffords shooting, the RWNJ "Second Amendment remedies" mantra, and the mental instability of fox viewers and teabaggers; I understand Ms. Pelosi's desire to protect herself from harm. However, despite it being the logical choice, there is no evidence showing that she stayed in that particular suite.

Third, what does it matter where she stayed. If she paid it out of her pocket, then she can stay anywhere she wants. Again, if I were paying for a suite, and wanted to insure protection from the gun-toting idiots out there, I would stay in that particular suite. The fact that she needed to obtain security in order to safely enjoy her time away from Washington does not speak to a sense of wealth, but rather to the danger of fox and the teabaggers stirring up violent rhetoric against her. It speaks to the vitriol and hate spewing from the right wing and their ties to right wing supremacy and militia groups. If you do not want to pay for her protection, maybe you should work on toning down the right wing violence against her.

Finally, yes, they had to take a plane to get there. I have been to Hawaii several times, and I have never attempted the trip by car. While I am a really good swimmer, I don't think anyone can hold their breath underwater for the trip.

Get over it!

wouldn't matter if she did or did not stay in that suite either, it was a holiday paid for out of her own funds.

All the kool ade drinkers condemn Fox and friends, imagine what it would be like if we didn't have the number 1 rated news channel. We would be fed more lies then one could shake a stick at. To prove my point, what news agency is reporting on the NLRB and the where they stand. None. All you want to hear is what your nose ring will allow you to hear. They tug on it and you listen. Sheep.

Phil-1006700
All the kool ade drinkers condemn Fox and friends, imagine what it would be like if we didn't have the number 1 rated news channel.

Most Watched doesn't = Best or Most Informative. In fact, in the case of Fox, it's been shown again and again their viewers are among the least knowledgeable.

Case in point: it's Flavor Aid. What the people drank to commit suicide in Jonestown under cult leader Jim Jones, it was Flavor Aid and poison.

There, you just learned something, and not from Fox "News".

Smith, All polls show FAUX Noise viewers are the least educated, least informed and least caring of the public. No wonder they have to pander to this bunch and tell lies over and over. All anyone has to do to view all the lies they have told over the years is enter into your search engine "lies Fox News have broadcast." Page after page of validated lies and facts come up. Enjoy!

# 1 rated CABLE "news" station. No where near the ratings of any of the non-cable stations that actually show news. Puts their watchers on cable (for the day) under a 30 min episode of Sponge Bob Square Pants (which is likely why Fox is constantly attacking Sponge Bob).

That Phil clearly thinks its an "us vs. them" CONTEST speaks volumes. YOU may choose to watch Gretchen's upskirts on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean it's not YOU being dragged around by YOUR nose ring.

Thank you Dr. Truth, that was a perfect perspective.

I'm sure if Democrats where dumb enough to care about stuff like this, then I bet we would be hearing about more Republicans vacation costs. Like this or this. But since we understand what Presidential costs could run, we don't have irrational tie raids. At least not too often, or in most recent cases, every week.