Nancy Pelosi is an ass

[arktrucker]

I was talking to a friend of mine last week and we both wondered if when they hung Sadam if w called his daddy and said... 'I got 'em daddy.. I got that sombitch that treatened you' Just a thought.

 

[arktrucker]

I think the problem here is that Nancy has made some noise as Speaker of the House unlike Denny Hasstert.
The one thing I can say about Hasstert though is it proves our system does work, sometimes. You don't have to be a lawyer to be elected. You can be a wrestling coach, too.

 

[jdcnow]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, HickBoy. It's a scary thought that, as Speaker Of The House, she is I believe only 3 or 4 steps away from the Presidency, under the Constitution. She just rubs me the wrong way.

 

[mindseye]

When has Gorege Bush ever pumped his fists in the air and posed for a photograph while exclaiming "I'M THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN AMERICA!!!"?

Not an exact quote, but...

• "I’m the decider." (18 April 2006)
• "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." (4 Nov 2004)
• "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier just so long as I'm the dictator." (18 Dec 2000)
• "This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." (20 Oct 2000)
• wait for it... "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have." (14 Jan 2004)

So, um, political hubris isn't anything new.

However, I'm having trouble finding evidence that Pelosi actually "pumped her fists in the air" while claiming to be the most powerful woman in America. clarification: I don't have access to a television right now, but searching for "Pelosi" and "most powerful woman" at cnn.com, msnbc.com, and even foxnews.com haven't turned up any stories where she's described herself that way (but a few where other people have).

I have found this quote: (source, emphasis mine)

"So a day that began with the swearing in of "the most powerful woman in America" (although, contrary to Drudge's banner headline, which was based on a dubious Washington Times report, Pelosi didn't actually call herself that), fittingly ended with an ode to another powerful woman."

So I'm calling for evidence that she actually did the terrible thing you're accusing her of, Hickboy.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I still think the woman standing in New York harbour is the most powerful woman in America, green and corroded around the edges as she may be.

Pelosi is just an embarrassment for my old party and for the US. I suspect that she will accomplish nothing worthwhile - I just don't see that in her. I could be surprised; she could suddenly turn into some towering paragon. But if so, she hasn't started to do it yet.

The Black Caucus just gave William "Mr Freeze" Jefferson an ovation - another national embarrassment. And Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) just introduced HR 288, mandating that we respect all religious books. This is obviously meant to pander to the Islamic types in his Detroit constituency, but all it does is prove that when it comes to the Bill of Rights, at least one Democrat can't count to "1". It promises to be a great season.

 

[mindseye]

So, when someone suggests respecting Islam, it's "pandering". What do you call the myriad of occasions when Christianity is rammed down my throat? Is printing "In God We Trust" on our money pandering to Christians?

 

[coopturn]

So, when someone suggests respecting Islam, it's "pandering". What do you call the myriad of occasions when Christianity is rammed down my throat? Is printing "In God We Trust" on our money pandering to Christians?

No, but when a politician tries to legislate that we respect a religion or its texts in a nation where religious liberty is a Constitutional right and where hate crimes are prosecuted, such legislation is a waste of time, the taxpayer's money, and it is most definitely pandering. As for the printing of "In God We Trust" on money, why do you single out Christians? Are Christians the only ones who trust in God? What about the Jews or the Muslims?

 

[tripod]

You people... SHE MADE A GODDAMN TOUCHDOWN AND DID A FUCKING END ZONE DANCE BECAUSE SHE FELT GOOD!!!!! What is so fucking hard to understand about that?

 

[joyboytoy79]

No, but when a politician tries to legislate that we respect a religion or its texts in a nation where religious liberty is a Constitutional right and where hate crimes are prosecuted, such legislation is a waste of time, the taxpayer's money, and it is most definitely pandering. As for the printing of "In God We Trust" on money, why do you single out Christians? Are Christians the only ones who trust in God? What about the Jews or the Muslims?

Well, the next time i see "In Yaweh we trust" or "In Allah we trust", i'll consider equating the phrase to a pandering to Jews or Muslims.

The first amendment prohibits the singling out of any one religion from being promoted or prohibited by Congress. It does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that says ALL religious texts must be handled with equal respect.

 

[transformer_99]

She can be a ballbreaker, I think her penis is bigger than mine, but that's why she is where she is. I think it's refreshing she is heading into the job demanding accountability and responsibility, not to mention change, she's unwavering at the moment, we'll see how it turns out ? I mean complaining now, we know what wasn't working before. For better or worse, she's in and what we have to deal with.

BTW, I thought it a big mistake to put Bush in as President, not only was he put in, but the masses kept him for a 2nd term.

 

[tripod]

Well, the next time i see "In Yaweh we trust" or "In Allah we trust", i'll consider equating the phrase to a pandering to Jews or Muslims.

The first amendment prohibits the singling out of any one religion from being promoted or prohibited by Congress. It does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that says ALL religious texts must be handled with equal respect.

Right on brother... Right on!!!!!!!!

:arms:

 

[meatpackingbubba]

Something to contemplate:

The democrats did not defeat the republicans, the republicans defeated themselves with their own hubris. If the democrats want to be successful, they will need to avoid their own past mistakes in the same regard.

It would also be useful for them to remember that the majority of Americans prefer to eschew the far right and far left of the respective parties. It's time to free ourselves of ideology of extremes.

Personally I hold somewhat libertarian views: resist enlargement of government, both on the fiscal side as well as the social side. As Gerald Ford once remarked, a government big enough to give you everything is a government big enough to take it all away. This country is great because we favor individual liberty. With that comes individual responsibility, which in my book means don't rely on or expect government to take care of you.

Finally, and slightly off topic, I recall a remark from a very wealthy banker when discussing his son's desire to challenge an incumbent senator in an upcoming election:

"I'd rather own a politican than be one." ;-)

 

[stretcher74]

on the muslim issue it is pandering, quite frankly.

"In God we trust." is general enough to capture the faith of the founders while preserving the religious openess and freedom of choice that they envisioned.

Whether or not you belive in God or whatever form the intent in my mind is to tie the founding principles of the nation to the idealism of the enlightenment, in the sense that the inherent dignity of man is viewed as God-Given or at least a free-gift of the universe(read the preamble to the declaration of independence) and idealism springs from a faith-tradition merged with the ideas of classical greek democracy rather than earlier realpolitic of authoritarian euro-monarchy type systems.

My reading of the constitution is that congress does NOT have the power to compel respect for any particular religious document, book or flag for that matter. Such a change would require a full constitutional ammendment passed by a supermajority of both houses and would represent a further step on the road back to tyranny.

More metaphors: Respect is a two way street. I think it was Ben Franklin who said that the residents of Philidelphia were so open to a diversity of debate that they would gladly accept a Muslim guest speaker from the then exotic lands of the Mohammedians and hear out his argument.

What Franklin could not have envisioned was a future where the insane rants and pronouncements of such religious loudmouths (such as the Muslims) would go unchallenged in the marketplace of ideas or even be endorsed by an increasingly frail and effeminate intellectual class.

 

[joyboytoy79]

(...)

What Franklin could not have envisioned was a future where the insane rants and pronouncements of such religious loudmouths (such as the Muslims) would go unchallenged in the marketplace of ideas or even be endorsed by an increasingly frail and effeminate intellectual class.

It's very interesting how you can insult Muslims by labeling them all "religious loudmouths", while at the same time espousing a misogynistic and classist view of intellectuals.

So, basically what you're saying is... Franklin would never have imagined that a bunch of pansy pussy elitists would bow down before the ideas of heathens.

How very enlightened you are.

 

[LaurenceO]

Something to contemplate:

The democrats did not defeat the republicans, the republicans defeated themselves with their own hubris. If the democrats want to be successful, they will need to avoid their own past mistakes in the same regard.

It would also be useful for them to remember that the majority of Americans prefer to eschew the far right and far left of the respective parties. It's time to free ourselves of ideology of extremes.

Personally I hold somewhat libertarian views: resist enlargement of government, both on the fiscal side as well as the social side. As Gerald Ford once remarked, a government big enough to give you everything is a government big enough to take it all away. This country is great because we favor individual liberty. With that comes individual responsibility, which in my book means don't rely on or expect government to take care of you...

Thanks, Bubba. I wish more people could think. You are apparently one of the few. This post is refreshing and has slightly improved my mood today. Keep on!

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The title of this thread is telling.

I don't care for her all that much but I'm wondering where are the self-appointed moralizers from the right chiding us that nothing will ever be gained by name-calling.

 

[Rihanna]

The title of this thread is telling.

I don't care for her all that much but I'm wondering where are the self-appointed moralizers from the right chiding us that nothing will ever be gained by name-calling.

Well that seems obvious. They are too busy right now explaining to us why and how Nancy Pelosi is such "an ass". O, I'm sorry. Your question was rhetorical! :biggrin1: Stupid me. More coffee please!

 

[B_Hickboy]

I was talking to a friend of mine last week and we both wondered if when they hung Sadam if w called his daddy and said... 'I got 'em daddy.. I got that sombitch that treatened you' Just a thought.

:hijacked:

 

[B_Hickboy]

So, when someone suggests respecting Islam, it's "pandering". What do you call the myriad of occasions when Christianity is rammed down my throat? Is printing "In God We Trust" on our money pandering to Christians?

:hijacked:

 

[B_Hickboy]

No, but when a politician tries to legislate that we respect a religion or its texts in a nation where religious liberty is a Constitutional right and where hate crimes are prosecuted, such legislation is a waste of time, the taxpayer's money, and it is most definitely pandering. As for the printing of "In God We Trust" on money, why do you single out Christians? Are Christians the only ones who trust in God? What about the Jews or the Muslims?

:hijacked: