Forum: pol
Page 3033
Subject: I really really hate Nancy Pelosi

  Posted by: Jag - [360261522] Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 14:30
There can not be a worse Speaker of the House. After a bi-partisan stimulus package gets passed, Pelosi gives a speech on how Bush didn't act fast enough. I have never heard Pelosi speak without divisive comments about the President. She is like a derange Liberal parrot "aaaaaawk Bush Sux aaaaawk" "aaaaawk Bush sux aaaaawk".
 
1biliruben
      ID: 4911361723
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 14:44 		If it's just liberals that think Bush is a wicked bad prez, the country is 70% liberal.
 
2Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 14:51 		So when members of another political party makes an annoying sound, you "really really hate" them?

Is that the most appropriate response? Maybe you need to step away from politics for awhile. Get some perspective.
 
3Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:23 		I didnt know the Speaker of the House job was solely to make divisive comments about the President. She has helped lower Bush's apporval rating for her party, but is a chief reason Congress is even lower. She is an attack dog for the Democrats and that is not a role I want for the country's Speaker of the House. There is no meaning to her words, jusr anti-Bush rhetoric. She is classless, arrogant, disingenuous and when it comes to policy, totally inept. I can not think of one good trait for Ms. Pelosi. A bug-eyed jackass would best describe her.
 
4Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:29 		And "hate" would best describe your opinion of her? Why?

Seriously--it is enough that you disagree with her politics, but why have you taken it to a personal level? Don't blame her attacks on Bush for your personal attacks on her--she isn't responsible for your actions just as you are not responsible for hers.

I don't have any idea of why you think that the Speaker's job is to "solely" talk about the President. Surely you don't want me to point out comments by members of both parties when talking about Presidents of the opposing party?

So, like many on the Right, you think it is fine that someone like Newt Gingrich attacks Clinton personally, for years, in many places and in front of many audiences, but when Nancy Pelosi does it you can only describe your feelings as "hate."

Really, you need to look in the mirror here.
 
5Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 15:50 		It has nothing to do with her politics. I feel Dennis Kucinich is a man of character, although politically we are polar opposites. No Speaker, Republican or Democrat, has ever been as disingenuous as Pelosi. I don't blame any politician for going after another on policy, but to attack for the sake of attacking, especially in her position, is abhorrent.
 
6angryCHAIR
      ID: 29955918
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 16:19 		Jag---Do woman in power make you uncomfortable?
 
7Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 16:38 		You remind me of the radio talk show host here, that told me I dislike Barry Bonds because he is black.
 
8bibA
      ID: 53022118
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 16:46 		And did he have to tell you that you admire Speaker Gingrich for using the same behavior?
 
9Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 16:56 		I admire Newt for coming up with the Contract for America, a policy that was the chief reason for the posperity of the 90's. Gingrinch was focused on helping America, Pelosi's focus is demeaning the President.
 
10Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 17:02 		Contract on America wasn't implemented until 1996 when the 1990s were more than half over. The 1990s prosperity was the result of a Fed money policy and rising productivity.

I see that you don't bother to even respond about Gingrich's personal attacks on Clinton, as though Gingrich didn't make his mark in Congress as a bomb thrower himself. Makes you look a little bit of a shallow thinker.
 
11Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 17:14 		I am sure Gingrich did attack Clinton, but that was not his primary focus. The difference between Newt and the Wicked Bug-eyed Witch of West is Gringrich was a policy maker that throw the occassional bomb, Ms. Pelosi is a bomb thrower period.
 
12weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 17:29 		I have to agree with Jag here.
It is one thing to disagree on policy but personal attacks mostly by the extreme left have lowered the discourse in America.

PD:
It was the Contract WITH America.
For you to purposly call it the Contract ON America shows that you are incapable of honest discussion.

Here is the Contract:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting

Now you tell me....what part of the contract do you find to be so reprehensible to use the word ON?

The problem is:
People on the right will say:
"I like you, but I disagree with your ideas".
People on the left say:
"I hate you and your ideas".
 
13tree on the treo
      ID: 40842210
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 17:43 		Ms. Pelosi is a bomb thrower period.

if that is all you truly believe she does, then wow, you have a LOT in common with someone you hate...
 
14Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 17:49 		I am not Speaker of the House, although I should be.
 
15Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:08 		The problem is:
People on the right will say:
"I like you, but I disagree with your ideas".
People on the left say:
"I hate you and your ideas".

Look at the overall tone of these boards as an example of that.
 
16Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:37 		Jag, of course, being an example of an exception to that, Boxman.

weykool: Nonsense. The Contract was more than a simple listing of ideas. The problem was always how it was to be implemented. Surely you aren't implying that how the contract was to be implemented has no bearing, yes? Particularly when the criticism of the Contract was, as far as I can tell and remember, exclusively policy differences.

Maybe you don't remember the 90s, when the Right took it as an article of faith that they needed to personally attack Bill Clinton and many others. Not merely policy disagreements as was the case in previous Administration, but a concerted and deliberate attempt to smear the President's person.

Please, please, please: Don't come in here saying that it is the "Left" that has brought discord in this country down. The systematic attempt to lower political discourse in this country began in the 90s by the Republican Party. Just because lefties are trying to learn how to do it themselves during an Administration doing so much harm to this country doesn't mean that you can revise history as though everyone was fine during the 90s.

#11: You should keep in mind that the one person in Washington who has prevented impeachment proceedings from starting against George Bush and/or Dick Cheney is Nancy Pelosi, stating that it would be too divisive to do so even if they were guilty of impeachable offenses. If she was half of what you claim her to be we would be nearly a year into proceedings already.
 
17angryCHAIR
      ID: 29955918
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:39 		Barry Bonds is Black?
 
18Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:39 		The fact that we even have to have this discussion about why someone on the Right hates the Democratic Speaker of the House is just sad. It is even sadder that, somehow according to the Right, it is the "Left's" fault."

Take some fricking responsibility, fellas. Your party was, at one time, always preaching about how it was the party of responsibility. Guess that went away with fiscal restraint, respect for privacy rights, and moderation?
 
19Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:50 		O.J. isn't such a bad guy because he didn't kill 6 people and Poi Pot is not a monster because he could have killed 4 million instead of just 2.

Because Pelosi didn't try a BS impeachment attempt, that would of embarassed the Democrats, it does not make her any less divisive.
 
20Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:55 		On the last count I have seen 15,698 posts on why people on this forum dislike Bush, one thread on the disgrace, that is the Speaker of the House, is not uncalled for.
 
21walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:55 		C'mon Box, I know I don't say "I hate you and your ideas." Not to you, not to Jag, not to others I disagree with. And, I find myself making frequent comments asking Jag to stop saying "all liberals are x,y,z" when very few, if any, of the liberals here say "all conservatives are x,y,z." Your spin is just not fair or accurate.
 
22walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:57 		I guess, Jag, cos Pelosi is not nearly remotely even in the same league as our current Pres in terms of influence and responsibility. I really don't follow much of what she says. Bush and Cheney seemingly have implemented a far more powerful sway on policies in this country. Commenting on Pelosi feels like commenting on the bat boy instead of the general manager of a baseball team.
 
23Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:58 		Walk, I will have admit that you are the constant gentlemen, even if your political ideas are more screwd up than Britany Spears.
 
24walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 18:59 		Also, wasn't Newt the one who spearheaded impeachment proceedings against Bill for his lying indiscretions...all the time while Newt was committing adultery on his own wife?
 
25Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:01 		I have the news on about 16 hours a day and I never see or hear from Cheney. Where do you guys come up with all this hatred for Cheney?
 
26walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:03 		Britany was hot at one time, man ya gotta admit that. ;-)

My 9 year old daughter does not even follow Britney...but her sister, the 16 year old with child (Zoe), that is a topical story for the pre-teens.

I am a die-hard liberal, Jag, thank you. And I am sweating the SC primary right now, hoping for big Obama win. I am currently very down on billary. I hope they somehow falter with their aggressive tactics.

Back to Pelosi. I don't think she's really an issue. Bush, I do believe he's largely done a poor job for the country, and while I don't respect him cos I think he's not very smart, inclusive, open or completely in touch with reality, my issues with him and Cheney are about their decisions and how they come to make their decisions. I don't seek to find out what he said so I can bash him. I just consistently find that more often than not, what he decides is not in the best interests of the country (even though I think his intent is right).
 
27walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:04 		Cheney, he's the puppetmaster, Jag. You know that. Most of the policies we have, particuarly foreign policy, are Cheney orchestrated. He's considered the most powerful VP ever, and some believe that Bush was sorta selected by the republican powers than Cheney was selected by Bush. The theory of unitary exec power was all Cheney, too.
 
28Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:11 		I see this view expressed by many of the Left editorialist and my Liberal buddy is the same way, he hates Cheney with a passion, but when I press for proof, he relies on "it is just a gut feeling." I just tell him to quit listening to PBS before he gets an ulcer.
 
29walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:15 		Funny. I disagree on the gut feeling thing on Cheney though. It's pretty well documented that Cheney is responsible for much of our current exec policy. I am sorry for not providing links right now...maybe another time. I am watching the Dem primary results for SC. Apparently, they are projecting a big win for Obama, and Clinton might even come in 3rd.
 
30Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 19:35 		On the last count I have seen 15,698 posts on why people on this forum dislike Bush, one thread on the disgrace, that is the Speaker of the House, is not uncalled for.

Don't misquote me.
 
31Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 21:59 		The systematic attempt to lower political discourse in this country began in the 90s by the Republican Party. - PD

No, it began when the Dems nominated the Clinton crime family in the first place. Wht did you expect would happen? People would pretend not to notice? A polite silence?
 
32weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Sat, Jan 26, 2008, 23:39 		PD:

I will try one more time.

Specifically what do you find so objectional about the Contract WITH America?
Take the emotional rhetoric out of it.

The reason Bill Clinton was such a target was he was the most corrupt President this country has ever had.
Nixon did not resign because of the Watergate burglary.....it was because he covered it up and abused his power.
Clinton was not impeached because of his sexual escapades it was because he covered it up and abused his power.
If Nixon had told his buddies..."too bad you got caught, I will see what I can do about pardons when my term is up".....he would have finished his term.
How long did Clinton allow Laura MacDougal to sit in jail because she refused to testify against Clinton and end his presidency?
Like him or not at least Nixon had honor when it came to his friends.
Clinton had honor for nobody but himself.
 
33Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:51 		McDougal refused to throw dirt on the Clintons, weycool. She remained in jail because she refused to lie. In fact, the documentary The Hunting of the President details much of the witchhunt that was on by the Right wing against Clinton, a witchunt which began before he took office.

David Brock, a self-styled "Conservative Hit Man" detailed much of this in his two books Blinded by the Right and The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy.

In point of fact, much of the "corruption" by Clinton was manufactured, taken out of context, or small matters blown up by conspiracy theorists long after the decision was made to make the whole think personal. The bile directed at Clinton was already well on the way before the "evidence" was presented.

The difference between Clinton & Nixon was very clear: Nixon hid evidence of a crime (a burgerly) against his political opponents. Clinton hid evidence of a blow job. They aren't the same, or even close. Nixon's coverup was one of a pattern of Executive overreach. Clinton's demonstrated a sex addict.
 
34Perm Dude
      ID: 56015268
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 00:55 		As for the Contract, the full text (not just the preamble you posted) is here:

C(W)A
 
35Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 01:09 		Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy.
Was that in the fiction or non-fiction section?

I honestly can not believe there is even a debate on whether or not the media is Liberal.
 
36sarge33rd
      ID: 76442923
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 01:17 		fox-screws jag...ever heard of it? Or Baldys fave WND? And the infamous slanderous biatch AC?
 
37Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 02:17 		Thats the point Sarge, you can name the conservative outlets, but the Liberal ones are too numerous to count.

Harry Potter is probably more realistic than the book PD was mentioning.

PD, if you care for some non-fiction I would suggest Bias by a fine Jewish gentleman named Bernard Goldberg.

"In his nearly thirty years at CBS News, Emmy Award winner Bernard Goldberg earned a reputation as one of the preeminent reporters in the television news business. When he looked at his own industry, however, he saw that the media far too often ignored their primary mission: to provide objective, disinterested reporting. Again and again he saw that the news slanted to the left. For years, Goldberg appealed to reporters, producers, and network executives for more balanced reporting, but no one listened. The liberal bias continued"
 
38Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 04:38 		Walk: C'mon Box, I know I don't say "I hate you and your ideas." Not to you, not to Jag, not to others I disagree with.

You and Perm Dude are actually interesting to discuss politics with. Others here, which sadly outnumber you two, are constant dicks.

Boldwin: No, it began when the Dems nominated the Clinton crime family in the first place. Wht did you expect would happen? People would pretend not to notice? A polite silence?

Which reminds me. Who in the hell is Hillary Clinton to attack Obama in his dealings with Rezko when she herself was involved in nefarious real estate dealings?
 
39Tree
      ID: 39044278
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 09:49 		I am not Speaker of the House, although I should be.

Trust me Jag, you are, without any question, the Speaker of the House. what comes out of your mouth isn't any different than the sounds heard in this House.

 
40walk
      ID: 590432617
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:40 		Box, thanks. I think there are others here who are way cool, but if it's how you see it, perceive it, then it's your call.

Agreed on your hillary rezko comment. Obama could go on the offensive here, but I think it contradicts his platform. If she wins the nomination, she'll certainly here it loud and often (and to some degree, apporpiately, although I tend to be very anti-neg campaigning) from the republican contender.
 
41Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:46 		One thing to watch out with Obama are his backers. According to Fortune magazine this month, I only have the print copy handy, he's backed by Orin Kramer (Boston Provident), Paul Tudor Jones (Tudor Investments), Ken Griffin (Citadel Investment Group), and George Soros (Soros Fund Management).

I don't know enough about the other three, but Soros is a loon. The larger point is that all four are hedge fund gurus and may have well greatly contributed to some of the problems that Obama wants to address. If he comes off as a money whore like the rest of them I don't know how he'll have credibility beyond his catch phrases.
 
42weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:49 		PD:

I will ask you for a 3rd time.

Posting the link to the Contract with Amerca is something we could all have done a google search on.

The question is what specifically did you find so reprehensible?
It seems to me without specifics you are doing nothing more than parroting the party line and hatred that we so often see on these boards.
 
43Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 10:53 		No offense, but we're really getting spread out here.

Boxman's #41(a thought-provoking post BTW) belongs in the candidates thread, not an I hate Nancy Pelosi thread.
 
44Perm Dude
      ID: 21022711
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:14 		Jag, I don't think you have any idea of who David Brock was and now is. Do some research on it.

Weycool, here are some of the more objectional portions of the Contract:

reasonable limits on punitive damages

Meaning, of course, that we would rather limit the money companies have to pay when found guilty rather than try to win the cases in the courts.

term limits

A portion of the Contract that many of its supporters have done ignored. And for good reason. Why would a citizen want to constantly be represented by someone new to the process, facing career bureaucrats?

No U.S. troops under U.N. command

So the UN can only go to places without US troops? Or the US has to go it alone in these places? There are plenty of places in the world where we don't want to do it alone--in fact, places where UN troops are necessary. A better proposal is to say that if we don't agree with a particular UN mission that we don't send American troops. A blanket "no US troops under UN command" is unnecessarily vague. It also implies that there are not other places (like NATO) where US troops are not under another country's leadership.

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers

We did, of course, pass welfare reform, and it was Clinton, not Gingrich, who declared that the "era of big government is over." The balance struck in that agreement, IMO, was exactly right and did not reflect the Contract's goals. Thank goodness. And it worked.

capital gains cut

This has been a mantra among the Right for some time, and the fact that they put this in a section titled "Job Creation" is a joke. Cutting capital gains taxes has never been shown to create any jobs directly. The idea that if we just let the rich get ricber that they will create more jobs is nonsense.


And I'm not even getting into the direct policy intiatives in which the 104th Congress tried to implement these goals.

Now, don't get me wrong: Much of the Contract is fine, and very worthy. But the implication that no reasonable person could disagree with any of it is just plain silly and narrow.
 
45Pancho Villa
      ID: 47161721
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 12:26 		Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers

While at the same time opposing abortion, birth control and sex education.

 
46Boldwin
      ID: 1055190
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:28 		The difference between Clinton & Nixon was very clear... They aren't the same, or even close. - PD

Indeed they aren't even close.

Nixon had one innocuous enemies list that we don't even know he acted on.

The Clintons had every person on the right that remotely stood in her way, auditted [including me]. An egregious and exhaustive abuse of power.

Nixon had one illegal FBI file for which one of his aids served time.

The Clinton crime family had a comprehesive computer system full of illegal FBI files and an operation room for taking advantage of the dirt.

We shouldn't be talking about how bitter politcal discourse became during this period. It obviously didn't become bitter enuff because no one did any time as punishment for the volumes of scandals and crimes committed by the Clintons.

What was lowered was the bar for how vile a president could be and still get away with it.
 
47weykool
      Leader
      ID: 41750315
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:33 		Now, don't get me wrong: Much of the Contract is fine, and very worthy. But the implication that no reasonable person could disagree with any of it is just plain silly and narrow.
I agree with this comment.
Most of the objections you raised are very innocuous.
To make the leap from there to calling it a Contract ON America is absurd.

reasonable limits on punitive damages
Most reasonable people would agree that awarding millions of dollars because someone put hot coffee between their legs while driving their car is something that needs to be eliminated.
How we go about accomplishing that goal is something reasonable people can debate...but hardly the death of America.

term limits
A portion of the Contract that many of its supporters have done ignored. And for good reason. Why would a citizen want to constantly be represented by someone new to the process, facing career bureaucrats?
I agree with your position
But hardly something that would cause the death of America.

No U.S. troops under U.N. command
Not allowing troops to be under UN command does not preclude the US from sending US troops to a UN action.
Putting US trrops under the command could be detrimental to the US.

Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers
Simple econ 101.
Whatever you tax you get less....whatever you subsidise you get more.
Cutting the subsidy to teem mother has reduced the number.
I think we can all agree that is a good thing to reduce the number of teen pregrancy.
Agian.....certainly didnt cause the death of America.

capital gains cut
This has been a mantra among the Right for some time, and the fact that they put this in a section titled "Job Creation" is a joke. Cutting capital gains taxes has never been shown to create any jobs directly. The idea that if we just let the rich get ricber that they will create more jobs is nonsense.

The so called "tax cuts" implemented by Reagan have been the driving force behind the historical economic growth this country has enjoyed for the past 20 years.
The economic data shows that it is far more than the rich getting richer.
The truth is the rising tide has lifted all boats.

Agian, I have no problems with disagreements with specific items in the Contract.
I dont agree with everything in the plan either.
But to mindlessly call it the Contract ON America is nothing more than trying to lower the level of discourse in America.....and THAT...could lead to the death of this Country.
 
48angryCHAIR
      ID: 29955918
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 13:54 		WHAT a DICK!!!!
 
49Tree
      ID: 39044278
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:02 		lol. that was some pretty funny $hit. somebody went to a lot of time to scour the 'net finding all those "dickies"...
 
50Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:25 		PV: I'll move the post over, if you address it. Deal? :)
 
51Boxman
      ID: 571114225
      Sun, Jan 27, 2008, 14:35 		weykool: Not allowing troops to be under UN command does not preclude the US from sending US troops to a UN action.
Putting US trrops under the command could be detrimental to the US.

Could be? You're understating. The one worlders would love nothing more than to have the most powerful military at their beck and call. You think we nation build now? Just wait if, God forbid, the day comes where the UN is actually in charge of the show. That organization wants nothing more than control of us. See my posts in Big Brother's Toolbox (IIRC) about The Law of The Sea Treaty.
 
52walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 14:39 		Bush to Praise Pelosi in SOTU Address

The president will single out Pelosi and House Republican Leader John Boehner for their work in shaping the bill which comes before the full House Tuesday. And the re-emergence of Boehner as a legislative dealmaker could be hugely important if Congress were to go on and tackle a mega-bargain this year: pairing the president’s legacy education issue - No Child Left Behind - with expanded health insurance for working class children, a top Pelosi priority.


Can't you feel the looooove, Jag...?!?
 
53Jag
      ID: 360261522
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 14:50 		Bush does that crap all the time, my friend Putin, my buddy Chirac and my gal pal Pelosi. I would find it more refreshing if he referred to them as the Russian Jackass, the French Pansy and the Bug-Eyed Bitch.
 
54bibA
      ID: 370292814
      Mon, Jan 28, 2008, 15:39 		Is anyone out there who is at all surprised that this would be the type of statesman Jag would approve of?
 
55AirJar
      ID: 351123160
      Wed, Jan 30, 2008, 23:56 		so where is everyone boasting about the praise Pelosi received during the SOTU?

BTW: I agree...she's a POS!
 
56Tree
      ID: 35024315
      Thu, Jan 31, 2008, 06:35 		I agree...she's a POS!

please explain why you think she is, to quote, "a piece of $hit."

it's your first post in the thread, so i'm curious as to why you think such extremely harsh words about her.