Nancy Pelosi is an ass

[tripod]

Which is why I didn't say YOU called her a bitch, I wasn't even talking to you in the post of mine you objected to. I explained that the STORY was that she was an egomaniacal bitch. I insulted the people you came on here to say "Hell yeah!" yet again to another UNTRUE story about her, once again, not you.



Haha, That's cute, but it's also the exact same "insight" I watched unfold on abcs news all night. You didn't exactly come up with that yourself. I was laughing at how desperate people are to find fault with her, even bringing in the ill effects of global warming that would be caused by her one plane- I find that absurd in light of how detrimental the war is to the world ecological system. Her plane is really the big problem?

You can't expect a sane person to believe that none of this is about her being female, whether that is your personal reason for your views or not. I was making a general comment that much of America is chomping at the bit to see her disgraced, and you know that's true.

Add the fact that she is a Democrat AND a female... she is doubly hated!!! I love it though... all I know is, she better fly something that is too expensive to crash to the earth, sending Nancy into the afterlife! I don't think losing a 100,000,000 plane is worth killing Nancy Pelosi, they'll most likely pass on that idea! Plus, those C-32's are AWESOME compared to a 747 or even a 757!

 

[meatpackingbubba]

Madame, you are close to impossible. Your evasions are endless and truly simplistic.

What post of yours did I object to? Where did I say her plane was "the big problem"? Where did I say that no one thinks she is a bitch?

It is not my place to speak for others. All I put forth were my own opinions, which in this case centers on everyone having personal responsibility and on people "walking the walk". Hypocrisy is wide spread, and the republicans do not have an exclusive on it, as Hillary Clinton and her commodity deal illustrated.

Based upon your postings here and elsewhere, it seems to me that you are the person chomping at the bit. Nancy Pelosi will rise or fall based on her own merit. She is one of the most powerful figures in Washington, and she is bound to attract some heat. She is no more loved nor hated than many other occupants of her post have been.

Personally, I wish her the best and am glad to have a counterweight to an administration whose hubris seemed to know no bounds. She has the opportunity to do great things, or be a party hack. That will be determined over the course of the next two years.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

;-)~

 

[madame_zora]

Madame, you are close to impossible. Your evasions are endless and truly simplistic.

Sigh, you really are going to make me do this, eh? Okay, here you go. I have no pressing engagements.

What post of yours did I object to?

I said in post 154:

The story went from Pelosi's egomanical demand for a luxury jet for her whole entourage to the sad (for the newsmen) revelation that she hadn't initiated the request, and in fact bush himself had. She had agreed to take any plane that would ferry her across the continent without stopping to refuel, and after making a big fucking stink about it all night, when the truth came out, the news caster just said "that's nice of her". What a bunch of fucking morons we have to deal with in this cuntry.

You replied in post 155:

Why do so many here need to personalize every discussion of anything controversial? Just because an individual may not hold the same opinion on an issue does not make it appropriate to disparage them as morons and worse.

Get it yet? I called people morons, and you replied that "so many here need to personalize every discussion of anything controversial".
You went on to object to calling them "morons and worse", the word I had used, so I drew the logical conclusion that since your post came immediately after mine, and referred to my exact language, that you were referring to my post. I'm pretty clever like that. Mind like a steel trap.

Where did I say her plane was "the big problem"?

Second paragraph of same post, 155:

It is probably hypocritical of Speaker Polosi to be railing against global warming while using such a large jet to travel. It will contribute an outsized amount of polution relative to the number of persons traveling. But the Speaker certainly has no corner on the market for hypocrisy in politics.

third paragraph of same post 155:

As for the security issue which is put forth as justification for the use of the larger jet, it is really a non-starter. A smaller jet without cross-country capability is still a military transport and refueling would presumably take place at an Air Force base en route. These bases are hardly insecure locations. Furthermore, security concerns do not prevent the Speaker from appearing at a variety of public events or meeting with her constituents at which security is far less than sitting on a tarmac for twenty minutes. If she is going to fly in the big bird, at least recognize the impact that her choices have in dollar and environmental costs and get off the "more environmentally conscious than thou" soapbox.

How was I wrong in arriving at the conclusion that you think her plane is a big problem? Maybe it's that you spent two paragraphs saying how it's a big problem. You should really stop typing when you want to keep your opinions secret.

Where did I say that no one thinks she is a bitch?

Where do I start? You really do wear me out, but I'm in an obliging mood.
What you said in post 159 was:

Madame, I did not say anything about Speaker Pelosi being a woman or a bitch. I don't think she is a bitch, and the fact that she is a woman is irrelevant.

So I replied in post 160:

Which is why I didn't say YOU called her a bitch, I wasn't even talking to you in the post of mine you objected to. I explained that the STORY was that she was an egomaniacal bitch. I insulted the people you came on here to say "Hell yeah!" yet again to another UNTRUE story about her, once again, not you.

See, the reason we go 'round and round is that you can't retain even very simple imformation that's printed on the same goddamned page. I have to go through reprinting things that already appear here, that everyone else can comprehend just fine. I resent it, because I know you're not that stupid, you're just being assinine.

Any time you stick your foot in your mouth, you try to change the way the conversation went, but it's still right there in fucking print. I guess you win though, because lying isn't as bad as foul language, right?

It is not my place to speak for others. All I put forth were my own opinions, which in this case centers on everyone having personal responsibility and on people "walking the walk". Hypocrisy is wide spread, and the republicans do not have an exclusive on it, as Hillary Clinton and her commodity deal illustrated.

Yes, you put forth your opinions, as replies to me, then tried to act as if you weren't replying to me. Now you wonder why I call you a fucktard. Please, find me a politician who is not a hypocrite and I blow them, man or woman. Can we please stick to what we're talking about, or are there any more women/democrats to demonise for what passes as same shit, different day for our male republican politicians? Interesting choice for a second person to cast into the flames. Telling, one might say. As is the fact that I'm the person on here you seem to enjoy fighting with the most.

It was a mistake to take you off ignore- you fight with your bruised ego.

Based upon your postings here and elsewhere, it seems to me that you are the person chomping at the bit. Nancy Pelosi will rise or fall based on her own merit. She is one of the most powerful figures in Washington, and she is bound to attract some heat. She is no more loved nor hated than many other occupants of her post have been.

Of course, I'm the person chomping at the bit! Why didn't I just recognise that? I'm the person chomping at the bit because I laugh at assholes who...wait for it...chomp at the bit?

Seriously, is your iq above your shoe size? Is your picture in wikipedia next to "circular argument"?

Personally, I wish her the best and am glad to have a counterweight to an administration whose hubris seemed to know no bounds. She has the opportunity to do great things, or be a party hack. That will be determined over the course of the next two years.

Yeah, that's nice of you to give her such a chance, while examining her air accomodations in relationship to her sincerity as a person. I believe you, really. Fucktard.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

There is so much I could say but I'll not sink to the gutter to keep you company.

I will repeat, though, that I wish Speaker Pelosi the best. She has a great opportunity before her and has stated her desire to rise above partisan politics for the good of the nation. Let's see how it plays out.

 

[Full_Phil]

Boy, you really DIDN'T sleep!

---The story went from Pelosi's egomanical demand for a luxury jet for her whole entourage to the sad (for the newsmen) revelation that she hadn't initiated the request, and in fact bush himself had. She had agreed to take any plane that would ferry her across the continent without stopping to refuel, and after making a big fucking stink about it all night, when the truth came out, the news caster just said "that's nice of her". What a bunch of fucking morons we have to deal with in this cuntry.

Whether a typo or not, I will henceforth join your bandwagon and never capitalize the currently sitting president's name again. I like the connotation. And why do I keep looking at Ms. Pelosi and think she might be great in the sack.

 

[madame_zora]

Boy, you really DIDN'T sleep!



Whether a typo or not, I will henceforth join your bandwagon and never capitalize the currently sitting president's name again. I like the connotation. And why do I keep looking at Ms. Pelosi and think she might be great in the sack.

I never capitalise that twat-waffle's name.

And Nancy IS hot. I wish I was in as good shape as she is NOW, and she's 64! That's gotta be pissing people off, that's she's attractive AND has a brain. Believe me, I fully expect the onslaught of insults from the insecure for as long as she's in that position. If the insults had any content at all it would be different, but they're just insults about her demeanor- what a load of horseshit.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

Where are you tuning in to get your information? I hear almost nothing that can be considered insults directed at Speaker Pelosi.

 

[Sklar]

Have you listened to AM radio? Hannity seems to have it bad for her. Almost as bad as his Derail Hillary agenda.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

I would not think of wasting my time listening to that blowhard. Good grief...there are too many decent sources of information to pay him any mind whatsoever.

But you do make your point...there are mindless partisans out there that will sling mud and unsubstantiated accusations, just as those on the other side of the debate do.

 

[faceking]

She will never have another opportunity to act with dignity and decorum such as the one she had the day she was sworn in, and she blew it bigtime. Where does she get off with this "most powerful woman in America" bullshit? That's called lording it over people, and it's poor form. She's deluded if she thinks she has any real power, anyway. God owns that.

Of course, the big difference between God and politicians is that God never thinks he's a politician.

Ummmmmmm why do think ... amidst claim that Bush is the WORST PRESIDENT in the HISTORY of the US...

that a Congress led by a Plastic Queen has a worse approval rating.....

 

[mindseye]

Ummmmmmm why do think ... amidst claim that Bush is the WORST PRESIDENT in the HISTORY of the US...

that a Congress led by a Plastic Queen has a worse approval rating.....

Apples. Oranges.

• Polling traditionally shows that people will give a lower rating to a body of people than they will to the individual members of the body. ("Congress? They suck! My own congressman? He's not so bad...") Accordingly, comparing the approval ratings of George Bush to the approval ratings of the whole Congress is not a valid comparison.
• Even if it were a valid comparison, polls do not agree that Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush.
• When comparing Bush's approval to Pelosi's approval -- and especially when comparing Bush's disapproval to Pelosi's disapproval -- Pelosi faresbetter.
• Pelosi's job is supposed to be partisan; she is the ranking member of the opposition party. Mitch McConnell's position as House Minority Leader complements her role. Bush has no such complement, yet he has made no effort to serve as president to everyone, nor has he put partisanship aside for the good of the country.
• You bumped a six-month thread for this?

Below are the results of job approval polls for George W. Bush, Congress, and Nancy Pelosi, from national polling firms during the past 30 days. Not every firm asked all three questions. ABC's reporting of Nancy Pelosi's approval rating is not a typo, but I agree it may be a statistical outlier. (source: PollingReport.com - Public Opinion Online)

[FONT=Courier New]               Bush        Congress      Pelosi
             Appr. Dis.   Appr. Dis.    Appr. Dis.
Newsweek      29   63       
NBC           31   63      24    63
Pew           29   61                    36   33
CBS           30   62      [/FONT][FONT=Courier New]26    61
[/FONT][FONT=Courier New]FOX           32   61      29    55
ABC           33   65      37    60      53   35
Diageo        33   63      25    68      37   37
[/FONT]

 

[B_Hickboy]

dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig
dig

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I have a problem with anyone who goes to office with an enormous agenda, and not seeking what is the will of the majority of the public or what is best for the nation.

Also, I have a problem with a high government official who runs one of the largest pac's in the country. It is a conflict of interest for her to be heading up a huge political action committee.

I get emails nonstop from the democratic national committee, and garbage they send out is enough to make even FDR barf. You are supposed to be doing what is best for the country not sitting up there hate filled throwing temper tantrums.

Also, the public is sick of the corruption. One of the huge promises we were made was they were going to stop business as usual. It's even worse now, and the cronies getting favors is unbelievable. There is more pork now than at a hog processing plant.

We were promised earmaked projects would no longer be stacked in bills. Each project had to come up for full consideration. Rep. Murtha of Pennsylvania wanted a huge drug intelligence center set up in his district. Now we all know how Pennsylvania is the entry point for all drugs coming into the nation. When a congressman questioned the earmarked project, Murtha openly threatened him on the floor, and said he'd see to it that the other congressman never got another earmarked project. A vote to reprimand Murtha was taken. Being Pelosi's crony, nothing happened.

Open your eyes people!

 

[mindseye]

Rep. Murtha of Pennsylvania wanted a huge drug intelligence center set up in his district. Now we all know how Pennsylvania is the entry point for all drugs coming into the nation. When a congressman questioned the earmarked project, Murtha openly threatened him on the floor, and said he'd see to it that the other congressman never got another earmarked project. A vote to reprimand Murtha was taken.

I'm quoting this part, minus the ad hominem "crony" epithet to cite a source, and three corrections -- two significant, one nitpicky:

• The nitpicky correction: no vote was taken to reprimand Murtha; the motion was tabled by a procedural vote.
• One significant correction: Hootie's description sounds like Murtha was creating a drug intelligence center. The National Drug Intelligence Center was created in 1993, and is located in the district Murtha represents; Murtha's earmark was to continue funding for the already-existing center for another year, and keep the jobs that it represented.
• Another significant correction: Hootie described the center as "huge"; the entire annual budget for the NDIC is $39 million. (That's with an "m" -- chump change for the federal government.) $39 million represents the cost of about four hours of the Iraq War. (source: nationalpriorities.org)

 

[D_Bob_Crotchitch]

I'm quoting this part, minus the ad hominem "crony" epithet to cite a source, and three corrections -- two significant, one nitpicky:

• The nitpicky correction: no vote was taken to reprimand Murtha; the motion was tabled by a procedural vote.
• One significant correction: Hootie's description sounds like Murtha was creating a drug intelligence center. The National Drug Intelligence Center was created in 1993, and is located in the district Murtha represents; Murtha's earmark was to continue funding for the already-existing center for another year, and keep the jobs that it represented.
• Another significant correction: Hootie described the center as "huge"; the entire annual budget for the NDIC is $39 million. (That's with an "m" -- chump change for the federal government.) $39 million represents the cost of about four hours of the Iraq War. (source: nationalpriorities.org)

A procedural vote is still a vote. It was to keep it out off the floor and out of the press.

$39 million is still a lot of money. If you add up all the $39 million projects, it becomes billions. It is just one more example of pork. We were promised it was going to stop, and it hasn't. If they cut out all the pork in the national budget, it would trim billions upon billions out of the national deficit. Pork projects are used to buy votes at home.

I still don't see why there should even be such a center in Pennsylvania. It's like years ago, Cranston and Kennedy screamed against defense spending but forced the defense department to buy more of the arms made in their states than the defense department wanted.

Where does it stop? As speaker of the house, Pelosi has the power to stop a lot of it. She can bury the bills in scheduling. Will she do as we were promised? So far, she has not.

 

[dcwrestlefan]

Nancy is a Democrat and from my hometown. Her dad was mayor of Baltimore at one time. So she gets some points there.

I am disappointed with the lack of progress on Iraq. We need to leave there. We should not have gone to begin with. Nancy and the rest should push this issue harder.

Not to hijack the thread, but one of my least favorite Dems looked pretty ridiculous recently. It's way past time for this guy to retire.

YouTube - Robert Byrd Barbaric

 

[mindseye]

A procedural vote is still a vote. It was to keep it out off the floor and out of the press.

But it wasn't a vote to reprimand Murtha, as you stated. There's a difference between a representative voting "Aye, I think we should set aside this resolution and move on to more pressing matters" and "Aye, I condone what Jack Murtha did." As for keeping it "out of the press" -- what press are you reading?

In any case, I've already stipulated that this issue is a minor quibble. Here's the major one:

$39 million is still a lot of money. If you add up all the $39 million projects, it becomes billions. It is just one more example of pork.

I disagree that this is an example of "pork" today (although it may have been in 1993). Spending money to maintain the status quo in one's district, to keep people employed in the jobs they've held for 14 years, is not pork. The money Murtha requested represented a 0% increase over the agency's 2006 budget.

If you're concerned with spending (and the "billions and billions" of dollars in the federal deficit), join me in supporting an end to the Iraq War. Shaving even a single day from the war would cover the funding for NDIC for the next six years.

Where does it stop? As speaker of the house, Pelosi has the power to stop a lot of it.

Ta-da! She has stopped "a lot of it"! Regarding overall pork -- and not just the example you cherry-picked, the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste writes:

According to the Chinese calendar, 2007 is the Year of the Pig. Fortunately for American taxpayers, it will be a smaller pig than usual. The 2007 Congressional Pig Book has not been this little since 1999, as only two of the 11 appropriations bills were enacted by Congress and the remaining nine were subject to a moratorium on earmarks. There are no indoor rainforests, National Peanut Festivals, mariachi music grants, or teapot museums to be found.