| |
Main
Date: 30 Oct 2006 09:27:27
From: larry
Subject: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
By Robert J. Caldwell (San Diego Union-Tribune)
ober 29, 2006
Democrats are trying to frame the midterm elections as a referendum on
an unpopular war and an unpopular president. Republicans say this
election is really a choice between a mainstream GOP and congressional
Democrats who are well to the left of the American electorate.
Do the Republicans have a case? Based on the abundantly documented
public record, they do. This is especially true on the House side
where political gerrymandering has favored election of the most
liberal Democrats. Nancy Pelosi's party should be having a very tough
time, indeed, selling itself as a mainstream alternative to
congressional Republicans.
Start with Pelosi herself, the San Francisco Democrat and current
House minority leader who would almost certainly become speaker of the
House if the Democrats take control Nov. 7. As speaker, Pelosi would
be second in the line of presidential succession after Vice President
Cheney. Moreover, as speaker she would control all legislation in the
House and be by far the most powerful member of the United States
Congress.
Polls show that most Americans know nothing about Pelosi and many
don't even know who she is. With the election barely a week away, it's
time they learned.
Pelosi is fond of deflecting the “San Francisco Democrat” charge by
noting that as a mother and grandmother, she's hardly the left-wing
icon figure her critics allege. But there is no denying her voting
record over eight terms as one of the most liberal members of the
House of Representatives. Pelosi's lifetime rating by the Americans
for Democratic Action, the liberal benchmark for members of Congress,
is 96 percent. Her lifetime rating by the counterpart American
Conservative Union is 2 percent.
Equally relevant are Pelosi's views and voting record on issues
directly related to national security and the war against terrorism.
Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't
consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national
security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections.
Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act,
opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted
against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security
Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist
communications. Pelosi also reportedly told colleagues that she would
appoint as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee overseeing
America's counterterrorism efforts Rep. Alcee Hastings, an
ultra-liberal and at least formerly sleazy Florida Democrat. Hastings
was impeached and removed as a federal judge by a
Democratic-controlled Congress in 1988-89 on bribery and obstruction
of justice charges.
A Pelosi-run Democratic-controlled House would also make New York
Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel chairman of the tax-writing Ways and
Means Committee. Rangel says he would oppose extending any of the Bush
tax cuts past their expiration in 2010 – imposing a huge tax increase
on an economy fueled by Bush's first-term tax reductions.
Control of the House Judiciary Committee in a Democratic House would
go to Michigan Rep. John Conyers, another zealous liberal. Conyers has
spent the last few years compiling a case for impeaching President
Bush. Pelosi denies that a Democratic House would pursue Bush's
impeachment but Conyers pointedly demurred from echoing Pelosi's
denial.
Chairmanship of the investigative House Government Reform Committee
would go to California Rep. Henry Waxman, among the most partisan
liberal Democrats in the House. No one doubts that Waxman would use
his committee and its subpoena power to launch a flurry of
investigations of the Bush administration, including its
counterterrorism intelligence programs.
Beyond putting these luminaries of the Democratic left in charge of
the House, one wonders if properly informed voters would want to risk
America's security by elevating the House Democratic caucus itself to
the majority.
House Democrats have voted, often by overwhelming margins, against
nearly all the pillars of the Bush administration's counterterrorism
policy and programs. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly
against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for
captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance
legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National
Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland
Security.
Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001,
half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S.
intelligence agencies. This year, 93 House Democrats voted against the
2007 Defense Authorization bill, which included appropriations for the
major U.S. intelligence agencies.
On securing the U.S.-Mexico border – arguably a tangential national
security issue – Democrats have an equally weak record. More than half
the House Democratic caucus voted against legislation authorizing
construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. More
than half of all House Democrats also voted against legislation last
month to increase immigration law enforcement.
Republicans are in trouble this year because majorities of Americans
have soured on a frustrating war in Iraq and on President Bush, and
because Congress' GOP majorities have performed poorly or at least
unevenly.
Nonetheless, the Republicans' critique of the Democratic Congress in
prospect has a powerful array of facts on its side. Most of Nancy
Pelosi's Democrats are too liberal for the country. Worse yet, they
would be decidedly weak in protecting national security in a time of
war. That ought to be a determining factor for voters about to make
some fateful choices.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be careful what you wish for-- you just might get it.
Larry
|
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:59:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <qddck2tgtoulrfgvfa3q1md9suabkk5eba@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> By Robert J. Caldwell (San Diego Union-Tribune)
> ober 29, 2006
>
>
> Democrats are trying to frame the midterm elections as a referendum on
> an unpopular war and an unpopular president. Republicans say this
> election is really a choice between a mainstream GOP and congressional
> Democ
...snip, snip...
Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
political rant in this golf ng.
The GoP must really be getting desperate.
William Clark
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
> Be careful what you wish for-- you just might get it.
>
> Larry
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:03:30
From: JJK
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
> political rant in this golf ng.
>
> The GoP must really be getting desperate.
Larry's OP here may have been copied verbatim from somewhere else.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:13:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
> political rant in this golf ng.
>
> The GoP must really be getting desperate.
Why is it that you left wing gun-grabbers are always in Acedemia polluting
our children's minds? This US Constitution must really be a nuisance to
you. If you had your way; just how high would taxes be and how many
social programs would exist at the Federal level?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:35:56
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Mon, 30 2006 15:13:12 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
>> political rant in this golf ng.
>>
>> The GoP must really be getting desperate.
>
>
>Why is it that you left wing gun-grabbers are always in Acedemia polluting
>our children's minds? This US Constitution must really be a nuisance to
>you. If you had your way; just how high would taxes be and how many
>social programs would exist at the Federal level?
Easy answer-- look at France--Our liberals' ideal! Confiscatory tax
rates that engender a whole tax avoidance industry. NOBODY pays the
legal taxes including the government officials who job it is to
enforce the tax codes.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:57:49
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <9v2dk2hpguv9kebusll5b36nqqcdhnotfm@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 2006 15:13:12 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
> >William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
> >> political rant in this golf ng.
> >>
> >> The GoP must really be getting desperate.
> >
> >
> >Why is it that you left wing gun-grabbers are always in Acedemia polluting
> >our children's minds? This US Constitution must really be a nuisance to
> >you. If you had your way; just how high would taxes be and how many
> >social programs would exist at the Federal level?
>
> Easy answer-- look at France--Our liberals' ideal! Confiscatory tax
Tell us, Larry: where is France held up as this ideal?
> rates that engender a whole tax avoidance industry. NOBODY pays the
> legal taxes including the government officials who job it is to
> enforce the tax codes.
>
> Larry
--
'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.'
"It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix'
(Edwin on Mac OS X)
'[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' --
'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the
IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:08:05
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <e1t1h.14575$Fd7.4689@bignews6.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
> > political rant in this golf ng.
> >
> > The GoP must really be getting desperate.
>
>
> Why is it that you left wing gun-grabbers are always in Acedemia polluting
> our children's minds? This US Constitution must really be a nuisance to
> you. If you had your way; just how high would taxes be and how many
> social programs would exist at the Federal level?
Does any of this rant have one thing to do with the post? No, just
another excuse to blather.
Do you even PLAY golf?
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:43:48
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Mon, 30 2006 18:08:05 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>In article <e1t1h.14575$Fd7.4689@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
>> > political rant in this golf ng.
>> >
>> > The GoP must really be getting desperate.
>>
>>
>> Why is it that you left wing gun-grabbers are always in Acedemia polluting
>> our children's minds? This US Constitution must really be a nuisance to
>> you. If you had your way; just how high would taxes be and how many
>> social programs would exist at the Federal level?
>
>Does any of this rant have one thing to do with the post? No, just
>another excuse to blather.
>
>Do you even PLAY golf?
I played Wednesday and Saturday last week, shot 78 and 80-- from the
tips.
Larry
|
| | | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:03:30
From: JJK
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"larry" wrote:
> I played Wednesday and Saturday last week, shot 78 and 80-- from the
> tips.
Sounds about right. You carded a 158.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:06:48
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <4g3dk2l1dea5t41es93kpumip599gkund9@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 30 2006 18:08:05 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <e1t1h.14575$Fd7.4689@bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> > Let's all say a big 'thank you' to Larry for starting yet ANOTHER OT
> >> > political rant in this golf ng.
> >> >
> >> > The GoP must really be getting desperate.
> >>
> >>
> >> Why is it that you left wing gun-grabbers are always in Acedemia polluting
> >> our children's minds? This US Constitution must really be a nuisance to
> >> you. If you had your way; just how high would taxes be and how many
> >> social programs would exist at the Federal level?
> >
> >Does any of this rant have one thing to do with the post? No, just
> >another excuse to blather.
> >
> >Do you even PLAY golf?
>
> I played Wednesday and Saturday last week, shot 78 and 80-- from the
> tips.
>
> Larry
Based on most of your posts, I would say that you played after 'tip'ping
more than usual at the 19th hole!
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 09:43:56
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
the Democrats took over.
Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
Larry?
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:04:25
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On 30 2006 09:43:56 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
>I've noticed
I doubt it. History keeps repeating-- and we suffer because people
refuse or are unable to see that we are on the verge of doing again
what Britain did after WWII, what we did after Watergate, and many
other instances in which the country overreacted and dropped into FAR
worse problems. Britain dropped Churchill, we elected Jimmy Carter
and got 22% mortgage interest rates and a decimated CIA, etc. But
this time I fear there we cannot afford a big mistake. We are under
seige from a smart and completely ruthless enemy-- the first time in
US history we have faced such an enemy. This will be a test to see
whether democracy can stand against such an onslaught. In the past
we could afford our lunatic lefty fringe-- but maybe not this time.
Larry
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 09:50:37
From: Bob L
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162230236.898108.156340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
> They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
> the Democrats took over.
>
> Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
> administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
> maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
> hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
> Larry?
>
They should talk abou the economy because it is in great shape.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 10:07:21
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Mon, 30 2006 09:50:37 -0800, "Bob L" <nospam@nospam.com > wrote:
>
>"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1162230236.898108.156340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
>> They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
>> the Democrats took over.
>>
>> Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
>> administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
>> maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
>> hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
>> Larry?
>>
>
>They should talk abou the economy because it is in great shape.
A few years ago the economy was this good--AND with very low
deficits-- and so we ran Richard Nixon out of office-- and got Jimmy
Carter and instant inflation and 22% mortgage rates. 4 more years of
him would have sent this country into a depression.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:03:30
From: JJK
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"larry" wrote:
> A few years ago the economy was this good--AND with very low
> deficits-- and so we ran Richard Nixon out of office-- and got Jimmy
> Carter and instant inflation and 22% mortgage rates. 4 more years of
> him would have sent this country into a depression.
Apparently, you forgot about Ford's WIN buttons.
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:58:57
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <UMKdnZqpf4j5ptvYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Bob L" <nospam@nospam.com > wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1162230236.898108.156340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
> > They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
> > the Democrats took over.
> >
> > Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
> > administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
> > maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
> > hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
> > Larry?
> >
>
> They should talk abou the economy because it is in great shape.
You need to look at more recent info. Things are not so rosy.
The DOW is still under Clinton-era times, inflation adjusted.
Real income for wage earners is down
We create fewer jobs than needed to meet demand. But the unemployment %
doesn't reflect that. But it only talks about those still looking for
work.
And the housing market just took a dump.
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 07:25:26
From: spring
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
> You need to look at more recent info. Things are not so rosy.
>
> The DOW is still under Clinton-era times, inflation adjusted.
>
>
The Dow is still actually under the Reagan era...!
Lets see how far back we can go with this
|
| | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:02:00
From: FredK
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"Bob L" <nospam@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:UMKdnZqpf4j5ptvYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1162230236.898108.156340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
> > They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
> > the Democrats took over.
> >
> > Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
> > administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
> > maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
> > hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
> > Larry?
> >
>
> They should talk abou the economy because it is in great shape.
>
Be careful there, Wal-Mart was only up a tiny amount last quarter - and it's
all those good paying Wal-Mart jobs that are leading the economic revival
for the worker in the US. There isn't any way to outsource being a greeter
at Wal-Mart to Bangalore.
|
| | | | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:53:48
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
FredK wrote:
> There isn't any way to
> outsource being a greeter at Wal-Mart to Bangalore.
Bangalore picked help desk. Mexico and AARC jointly picked greeter.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:14:05
From: multi
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth
fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi
doesn't become the speaker."
Sean Hannity, Fair and Balanced, Aug 29, 2006
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 22:58:12
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"multi" <multi@asm.org > wrote in message
news:s8cdk25g6d4sbei87afad6hv8s0v9b4798@4ax.com...
> "This is the moment to say that there are things in life worth
> fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosi
> doesn't become the speaker."
>
> Sean Hannity, Fair and Balanced, Aug 29, 2006
>
He won't have the guts to die for his convictions --- or he'd be in
Iraq/Iran/North Korea.
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:10:15
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
annika1980 wrote:
> I'm willing to accept the notion that the President's influence on the
> economy is negligible.
Wow..be careful, they might take away your communist party card :)
> I do think he could do something about the gas prices, however, with
> his ties to the Saudis. In fact, just as the Saudis promised Bush the
> oil prices came down right in time for the elections.
So, you think it's "ok" for a sitting President to manipulate (albiet
lower) the price of a publically traded commodity?? Yikes, I think you
just earned your lifetime communist party card. :)
> So let's look at what a President can influence. Foreign policy,
> including the war in Iraq is a mess, thanks to these guys. Corruption
> is rampant among the Repubs in Washington. Can you say Jack Abramoff?
Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
side can claim the high ground here.
> The President wipes his butt with the Constitution and nobody says a
> thing.
> Habeus Corpus? Who needs it?
> Right to privacy? What's that?
Where is the Supreme Court? Are all of them for Bush? Pullleaze
> Leaking the identity of CIA undercover ops? Who cares?
She wasn't undercover. That story has long since died a death....try
another one.
> Granting Halliburton billions in no-bid contracts? No conflict of
> interest there.
It's either going to be Haliburton or Bechtel....which would you
prefer?
Both are "neocons", both are "big business".....or maybe we should have
hired out 100,000 unemployed hillbillies? Which would make you
happiest?
> The President created a war and now uses the war as an excuse to take
> your rights from you. Don't you see something wrong with that?
> Then he brags about "keeping America safe." He should add "since
> 9/12/2001."
> He didn't do too good a job of keeping us safe on 9/11/2001.
I see...I'll give you that one...provided no other attack happens
between 9/11/2001 and 9/11/3001.
> Bush and his cronies (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz) are not
> only a disgrace. They are dangerous. They've taken this nation in a
> direction opposite of what our forefathers imagined. They are the true
> axis of evil. The Evil-Doers, as Bush calls them.
In your humble opinion of course....some might think "your way" is the
wrong way too.
Is it then ok for them to call you an evil doer?
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 23:22:02
From: \R&B\
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote
>
>> Bush and his cronies (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz) are not
>> only a disgrace. They are dangerous. They've taken this nation in a
>> direction opposite of what our forefathers imagined. They are the true
>> axis of evil. The Evil-Doers, as Bush calls them.
>
> In your humble opinion of course....some might think "your way" is the
> wrong way too.
> Is it then ok for them to call you an evil doer?
The most disturbing part of the neocon strategy is the one the goes like
this:
We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here.
Now, on the surface, that sounds like a reasonable approach. And that's
exactly what the neocons expect -- for brain dead conservatives (and
everyone else) to simply see what's on the surface of that strategy.
Certainly, on the surface, no one wants to fight the terrorists on Main
Street in Mayberry RFD. But the part of that "over there" strategy that no
one ever talks about is the part that lies beneath the surface.
Ponder what "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"
really means, and you begin to see beneath the surface of the neocon's
ill-conceived logic. What they're really saying is that in order to keep
terrorists from fighting us over here (which is a big leap), we have to keep
fighting them over there (wherever "over there" happens to be at the
moment -- at the present time, it's Iraq and Afganastan. Tomorrow it may be
Iran.). Implied in that thinking -- the part the neocons and the Bush
Administration don't ever mention -- is that to keep the fight from spilling
into the streets of America, we're going to have to sustain a perpetual
fight against the terrorists over there -- SOMEWHERE -- more or less
forever. That's right -- forever. Unless you think it's reasonable to
assume that the terrorists will just give up the fight before they're all
killed. Or unless you think we'll kill them all. (Good luck with that
one -- "killing them all" is about as likely as killing off all the cock
roaches on the planet.)
You see, in order to sustain that "over there" strategy, the government has
to sustain a never-ending war...somewhere...to keep us from having to "fight
them HERE." This is all based on the assumption that if we don't fight them
over there, the fight will pour into American streets. And Lord knows, no
one wants that.
To paraphrase FDR, "the only thing we've had to hear is fear itself" from
this Administration.
Hell, they've done the terrorists' jobs for them by scaring the shit out of
many Americans.
I wonder if the American people are up for a war that has no end, a war that
cannot be won on any of the terms the Administration set out to achieve or
has articulated. To date, the Bush Administration has been unable to
articulate what the end game is. How do we define victory?
(Oh, and forgive me for using the words "articulate" and "Bush" in the same
sentence. I know. It's preposterous.)
To date, the neocons have predicted that the war would be over in weeks, not
months. They've predicted that we'd be welcomed as liberators. They
predicted the war would be funded by Iraqi oil. They predicted that we'd
find WMDs. They predicted that Democracy would spread in the Middle East,
making the region more friendly to America. They told us the mission was
accomplished. They predicted that we were in the final throws of the
insurgency. They predicted troop reductions, only to see the opposite take
place.
Whaddya say for the next year or so, these Nostradamus-wannabes, the
neocons, sit out any more prediction-making, since they haven't gotten a
single one right yet.
The latest intellectually dishonest word game the Republican spin machine is
playing is the one that asks the question, "Do you want America to win in
Iraq....or not?" It implies that a simple yes or no answer is the only
acceptable way to play this Q&A game. But the game is a trap, sort of like
asking someone if they're going to stop beating their wife.
But the correct answer is neither yes or no. The correct answer -- which,
oh, by the way, I hear no one on the left offering -- is this: "I want
what's best for America, and no one has yet proven to me that winning in
Iraq will mean a Goddamn thing, either way, for America....other than a
guarantee of more American lives being lost.....to accomplish exactly WHAT,
no one is sure of."
Randy
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:05:55
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
: Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
: side can claim the high ground here.
Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
causes this corruption?
Power.
Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:18:56
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <1T3jagtvI87mN34@redshark.goodshow.net >,
Chris Bellomy <puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid > wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> : side can claim the high ground here.
>
> Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> causes this corruption?
>
> Power.
>
> Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
>
> On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
I couldn't agree more!
Robin Williams has a line in his new movie that goes something like '
politician are like diapers, you should change them often and for the
same reason '
That phrase really resonates with me!
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 16:57:59
From: Long Putts
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Group: rec.sport.golf Date: Tue, 31, 2006, 4:05pm (CST+6) From:
puevf@tbbqfubj.arg.invalid (Chris=A0Bellomy)
>it makes sense to support turning control of
>Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to
>keep either party from assuming the arrogance
>of permanent power.
>--
>Chris Bellomy
>C-List Charter Member
>http://clist.org/
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
(No golf content) Yes it does but it ain't going to happen. The more
tenure my representatives have the more "pork" that will come back to my
district. My federal tax dollars at work. Now limits on how many terms
one can serve might work, except my representatives would have to vote
that into law and . . . that ain't going to happen.
Happy Golfing
- -
Make more long putts
It drives your opponents crazy
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 18:14:06
From: sfb
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Congressional term limits will take a Constitutional Amendment ala the 22nd.
"Long Putts" <Oldebogeyman03@webtv.net > wrote in message
news:16321-4547D4F7-54@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
(No golf content) Yes it does but it ain't going to happen. The more
tenure my representatives have the more "pork" that will come back to my
district. My federal tax dollars at work. Now limits on how many terms
one can serve might work, except my representatives would have to vote
that into law and . . . that ain't going to happen.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 08:53:34
From: aeiouy
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1162260615.143089.271670@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> annika1980 wrote:
>> I'm willing to accept the notion that the President's influence on the
>> economy is negligible.
>
> Wow..be careful, they might take away your communist party card :)
>
>> I do think he could do something about the gas prices, however, with
>> his ties to the Saudis. In fact, just as the Saudis promised Bush the
>> oil prices came down right in time for the elections.
>
> So, you think it's "ok" for a sitting President to manipulate (albiet
> lower) the price of a publically traded commodity?? Yikes, I think you
> just earned your lifetime communist party card. :)
He drove them up to make billions for his oil buddies. Let's see. On Jan
22, 2001 (two days after GWAssmunch was sworn in) US Brent was $27 a barrel.
As of 10/27/06 it's at $59. Down from a high of $78 a barrel this summer.
Did you forget about this little 2000 campaign statement by Bush: candidate
Bush said President Clinton should simply "get on the phone with the OPEC
cartel and say, '[w]e expect you to open your spigots,'" promising that as
president, he would "use the capital that my administration will earn, with
the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot."
>
>> So let's look at what a President can influence. Foreign policy,
>> including the war in Iraq is a mess, thanks to these guys. Corruption
>> is rampant among the Repubs in Washington. Can you say Jack Abramoff?
>
> Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> side can claim the high ground here.
The Hell you say. Please list the total number of Senators and Reps by
party that were caught in the Jack Abramoff scandel and see who's worse than
who. Does the name Delay ring any bells? Cheney's secret energy task force
meeting. Halliburton, Halliburton and lets not forget Halliburton. The
Medicare vote. EPA saying Ground Zero air is safe. The list just gets
longer and longer. All this from a party that Promised to restore Honor and
Dignity to the White House...another lie. What does it take for you to wake
up; a shotgun blast to the side of the face?
>
>> The President wipes his butt with the Constitution and nobody says a
>> thing.
>> Habeus Corpus? Who needs it?
>> Right to privacy? What's that?
>
> Where is the Supreme Court? Are all of them for Bush? Pullleaze
7 out of 9 were appointed by Republicans. I'd say that gives them a lean to
the right.
>
>> Leaking the identity of CIA undercover ops? Who cares?
>
> She wasn't undercover. That story has long since died a death....try
> another one.
>
>> Granting Halliburton billions in no-bid contracts? No conflict of
>> interest there.
>
> It's either going to be Haliburton or Bechtel....which would you
> prefer?
> Both are "neocons", both are "big business".....or maybe we should have
> hired out 100,000 unemployed hillbillies? Which would make you
> happiest?
What would have made me happiest if we hadn't gone charging into Iraq on a
pack of lies. Him, Cheney and the rest SPEWED bullshit for months and you
fools ate it up all the while swearing it tastes like chocolate ice cream
>
>> The President created a war and now uses the war as an excuse to take
>> your rights from you. Don't you see something wrong with that?
>> Then he brags about "keeping America safe." He should add "since
>> 9/12/2001."
>> He didn't do too good a job of keeping us safe on 9/11/2001.
>
> I see...I'll give you that one...provided no other attack happens
> between 9/11/2001 and 9/11/3001.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
>
>> Bush and his cronies (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz) are not
>> only a disgrace. They are dangerous. They've taken this nation in a
>> direction opposite of what our forefathers imagined. They are the true
>> axis of evil. The Evil-Doers, as Bush calls them.
>
> In your humble opinion of course....some might think "your way" is the
> wrong way too.
> Is it then ok for them to call you an evil doer?
They already do. You and your ilk called us traitors, defeatocrats and all
kinds of stupid slogans. We get the last laugh because we were right all
along. Too bad it's come at the expense of thousands of souls, billions and
billions of dollars and the standing that America once had in the world.
>
> Tex
A Texan, figures
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:39:37
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
I think she could beat you by 12 strokes & take you in a fair fight.
"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:qddck2tgtoulrfgvfa3q1md9suabkk5eba@4ax.com...
> By Robert J. Caldwell (San Diego Union-Tribune)
> ober 29, 2006
>
>
> Democrats are trying to frame the midterm elections as a referendum on
> an unpopular war and an unpopular president. Republicans say this
> election is really a choice between a mainstream GOP and congressional
> Democrats who are well to the left of the American electorate.
>
> Do the Republicans have a case? Based on the abundantly documented
> public record, they do. This is especially true on the House side
> where political gerrymandering has favored election of the most
> liberal Democrats. Nancy Pelosi's party should be having a very tough
> time, indeed, selling itself as a mainstream alternative to
> congressional Republicans.
>
> Start with Pelosi herself, the San Francisco Democrat and current
> House minority leader who would almost certainly become speaker of the
> House if the Democrats take control Nov. 7. As speaker, Pelosi would
> be second in the line of presidential succession after Vice President
> Cheney. Moreover, as speaker she would control all legislation in the
> House and be by far the most powerful member of the United States
> Congress.
>
> Polls show that most Americans know nothing about Pelosi and many
> don't even know who she is. With the election barely a week away, it's
> time they learned.
>
> Pelosi is fond of deflecting the "San Francisco Democrat" charge by
> noting that as a mother and grandmother, she's hardly the left-wing
> icon figure her critics allege. But there is no denying her voting
> record over eight terms as one of the most liberal members of the
> House of Representatives. Pelosi's lifetime rating by the Americans
> for Democratic Action, the liberal benchmark for members of Congress,
> is 96 percent. Her lifetime rating by the counterpart American
> Conservative Union is 2 percent.
>
> Equally relevant are Pelosi's views and voting record on issues
> directly related to national security and the war against terrorism.
> Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't
> consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national
> security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections.
> Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act,
> opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted
> against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security
> Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist
> communications. Pelosi also reportedly told colleagues that she would
> appoint as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee overseeing
> America's counterterrorism efforts Rep. Alcee Hastings, an
> ultra-liberal and at least formerly sleazy Florida Democrat. Hastings
> was impeached and removed as a federal judge by a
> Democratic-controlled Congress in 1988-89 on bribery and obstruction
> of justice charges.
>
> A Pelosi-run Democratic-controlled House would also make New York
> Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel chairman of the tax-writing Ways and
> Means Committee. Rangel says he would oppose extending any of the Bush
> tax cuts past their expiration in 2010 - imposing a huge tax increase
> on an economy fueled by Bush's first-term tax reductions.
>
> Control of the House Judiciary Committee in a Democratic House would
> go to Michigan Rep. John Conyers, another zealous liberal. Conyers has
> spent the last few years compiling a case for impeaching President
> Bush. Pelosi denies that a Democratic House would pursue Bush's
> impeachment but Conyers pointedly demurred from echoing Pelosi's
> denial.
>
> Chairmanship of the investigative House Government Reform Committee
> would go to California Rep. Henry Waxman, among the most partisan
> liberal Democrats in the House. No one doubts that Waxman would use
> his committee and its subpoena power to launch a flurry of
> investigations of the Bush administration, including its
> counterterrorism intelligence programs.
>
> Beyond putting these luminaries of the Democratic left in charge of
> the House, one wonders if properly informed voters would want to risk
> America's security by elevating the House Democratic caucus itself to
> the majority.
>
> House Democrats have voted, often by overwhelming margins, against
> nearly all the pillars of the Bush administration's counterterrorism
> policy and programs. A majority of House Democrats voted repeatedly
> against the Patriot Act, against authorizing military tribunals for
> captured terrorists, against modernizing electronic surveillance
> legislation to permit monitoring of terrorists by the National
> Security Agency and against creation of the Department of Homeland
> Security.
>
> Twice in the 1990s and twice more since the terrorist attacks in 2001,
> half or more of House Democrats voted to cut finding for U.S.
> intelligence agencies. This year, 93 House Democrats voted against the
> 2007 Defense Authorization bill, which included appropriations for the
> major U.S. intelligence agencies.
>
> On securing the U.S.-Mexico border - arguably a tangential national
> security issue - Democrats have an equally weak record. More than half
> the House Democratic caucus voted against legislation authorizing
> construction of 700 miles of fencing along the southern border. More
> than half of all House Democrats also voted against legislation last
> month to increase immigration law enforcement.
>
> Republicans are in trouble this year because majorities of Americans
> have soured on a frustrating war in Iraq and on President Bush, and
> because Congress' GOP majorities have performed poorly or at least
> unevenly.
>
> Nonetheless, the Republicans' critique of the Democratic Congress in
> prospect has a powerful array of facts on its side. Most of Nancy
> Pelosi's Democrats are too liberal for the country. Worse yet, they
> would be decidedly weak in protecting national security in a time of
> war. That ought to be a determining factor for voters about to make
> some fateful choices.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Be careful what you wish for-- you just might get it.
>
> Larry
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:24:03
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
I'm willing to accept the notion that the President's influence on the
economy is negligible.
I do think he could do something about the gas prices, however, with
his ties to the Saudis. In fact, just as the Saudis promised Bush the
oil prices came down right in time for the elections.
So let's look at what a President can influence. Foreign policy,
including the war in Iraq is a mess, thanks to these guys. Corruption
is rampant among the Repubs in Washington. Can you say Jack Abramoff?
The President wipes his butt with the Constitution and nobody says a
thing.
Habeus Corpus? Who needs it?
Right to privacy? What's that?
Leaking the identity of CIA undercover ops? Who cares?
Granting Halliburton billions in no-bid contracts? No conflict of
interest there.
The President created a war and now uses the war as an excuse to take
your rights from you. Don't you see something wrong with that?
Then he brags about "keeping America safe." He should add "since
9/12/2001."
He didn't do too good a job of keeping us safe on 9/11/2001.
Bush and his cronies (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz) are not
only a disgrace. They are dangerous. They've taken this nation in a
direction opposite of what our forefathers imagined. They are the true
axis of evil. The Evil-Doers, as Bush calls them.
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 01:45:04
From: Brian Foster
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Why don't you and Alec Baldwin just get out of here?
I would not want to live in any place that was as bad as you describe. I
would move.
So we look at the same thing and see it entirely differently :)
Now that is a great country!
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162243443.604330.293910@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I'm willing to accept the notion that the President's influence on the
> economy is negligible.
> I do think he could do something about the gas prices, however, with
> his ties to the Saudis. In fact, just as the Saudis promised Bush the
> oil prices came down right in time for the elections.
>
> So let's look at what a President can influence. Foreign policy,
> including the war in Iraq is a mess, thanks to these guys. Corruption
> is rampant among the Repubs in Washington. Can you say Jack Abramoff?
> The President wipes his butt with the Constitution and nobody says a
> thing.
> Habeus Corpus? Who needs it?
> Right to privacy? What's that?
> Leaking the identity of CIA undercover ops? Who cares?
> Granting Halliburton billions in no-bid contracts? No conflict of
> interest there.
>
> The President created a war and now uses the war as an excuse to take
> your rights from you. Don't you see something wrong with that?
> Then he brags about "keeping America safe." He should add "since
> 9/12/2001."
> He didn't do too good a job of keeping us safe on 9/11/2001.
>
> Bush and his cronies (Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz) are not
> only a disgrace. They are dangerous. They've taken this nation in a
> direction opposite of what our forefathers imagined. They are the true
> axis of evil. The Evil-Doers, as Bush calls them.
>
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:39:52
From:
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Mon, 30 2006 09:27:27 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:
>By Robert J. Caldwell (San Diego Union-Tribune)
>ober 29, 2006
>
>
Thanks for the descriptive subject line. It makes the thread easy to
plonk.
--
jvdp
http://www.rsgincinnati.com
|
| |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:33:10
From: Tex
Subject: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <UMKdnZqpf4j5ptvYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Bob L" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1162230236.898108.156340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
> > > They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
> > > the Democrats took over.
> > >
> > > Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
> > > administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
> > > maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
> > > hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
> > > Larry?
> > >
> >
> > They should talk abou the economy because it is in great shape.
>
> You need to look at more recent info. Things are not so rosy.
>
> The DOW is still under Clinton-era times, inflation adjusted.
Yes, and regardless of how you'd like to spin that, it was declining
rapidly while Billy the Blow Boy was still in office. The Dot-Com
(Gore is the Internet) Boom/Bust of the late 90's inflated everyone's
expectations...citing those expecations as a barometer to show a
President's capabilities just shows your lack of reality.
> Real income for wage earners is down
It's not the job of the Government to control how much you make...or
can make.
> We create fewer jobs than needed to meet demand. But the unemployment %
> doesn't reflect that. But it only talks about those still looking for
> work.
Fact is, there are many people that simply can't handle the work being
asked of them. Do you place blame at the Federal Government? Why not
the States? Why not the School system? Why not at the feet of people
who can't handle the work!
> And the housing market just took a dump.
Yup, big drop....from lofty numbers. Still more robust than it has
ever been. Interest rates (6%) are still at historical lows when
compared over a 3,5,10 yr period. If you can't afford your house now,
you bought too much house. If you can't afford your gasoline for your
car, you've bought too much other "shit". If you can't afford your
heating/cooling bill for your house, it's either too big or you need to
upgrade your insulation.
None of those things can be fixed by a President....they are a personal
choices/problems.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 31 Oct 2006 06:03:30
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"Tex" wrote:
> <snip> The Dot-Com
> (Gore is the Internet) Boom/Bust of the late 90's inflated everyone's
> expectations...citing those expecations as a barometer to show a
> President's capabilities just shows your lack of reality.
Cite the transcript of Gore claiming that he invented or "is" the internet.
|
| | |
Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:59:27
From: long&left
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Tex wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> In article <UMKdnZqpf4j5ptvYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Bob L" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1162230236.898108.156340@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I've noticed that Republicans rarely like to discuss what they've done.
>>>> They'd much rather make projections about how bad things would be if
>>>> the Democrats took over.
>>>>
>>>> Why not talk about all the good things that the Republican
>>>> administration and Congress have accomplished in the last 6 years? OK,
>>>> maybe not the economy, Iraq, immigration, or the price of gas. But
>>>> hey, at least they're keeping the Queers from getting married, right
>>>> Larry?
>>>>
>>> They should talk abou the economy because it is in great shape.
>> You need to look at more recent info. Things are not so rosy.
>>
>> The DOW is still under Clinton-era times, inflation adjusted.
>
> Yes, and regardless of how you'd like to spin that, it was declining
> rapidly while Billy the Blow Boy was still in office. The Dot-Com
> (Gore is the Internet) Boom/Bust of the late 90's inflated everyone's
> expectations...citing those expecations as a barometer to show a
> President's capabilities just shows your lack of reality.
>
>> Real income for wage earners is down
>
> It's not the job of the Government to control how much you make...or
> can make.
>
>> We create fewer jobs than needed to meet demand. But the unemployment %
>> doesn't reflect that. But it only talks about those still looking for
>> work.
>
> Fact is, there are many people that simply can't handle the work being
> asked of them. Do you place blame at the Federal Government? Why not
> the States? Why not the School system? Why not at the feet of people
> who can't handle the work!
>
>> And the housing market just took a dump.
>
> Yup, big drop....from lofty numbers. Still more robust than it has
> ever been. Interest rates (6%) are still at historical lows when
> compared over a 3,5,10 yr period. If you can't afford your house now,
> you bought too much house. If you can't afford your gasoline for your
> car, you've bought too much other "shit". If you can't afford your
> heating/cooling bill for your house, it's either too big or you need to
> upgrade your insulation.
>
> None of those things can be fixed by a President....they are a personal
> choices/problems.
>
> Tex
>
your ideas will never fly Tex...way to logical. The idiot masses scream
when the government so much as tries to run their life a bit, but then
whines and snivels when the government doesn't provide .25 per gal gas,
higher wages (for doing less work), less unemployment, and affordable
housing all the while spending all of their disposable income on
cigarettes and ski boats.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:47:12
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
MnMikew wrote:
> > It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
> > Pelosi.
>
> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
> >
What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:17:45
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162406832.851605.254240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> > It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
>> > Pelosi.
>>
>> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
>> >
>
> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
>
Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:04:12
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:17:45 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:
>
>"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1162406832.851605.254240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> MnMikew wrote:
>>> > It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
>>> > Pelosi.
>>>
>>> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
>>> >
>>
>> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
>>
>Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
Actually, for the first 200 years of US History, it was
Democrat=Racist. They were the Klan and they were the party blocking
Civil Rights in the entire South up through the 60s. Lincoln was a
Republican.
Larry
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:49:38
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
larry wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:17:45 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162406832.851605.254240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> MnMikew wrote:
>>>>> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
>>>>> Pelosi.
>>>> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
>>> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
>>>
>> Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
>
> Actually, for the first 200 years of US History, it was
> Democrat=Racist. They were the Klan and they were the party blocking
> Civil Rights in the entire South up through the 60s. Lincoln was a
> Republican.
Do a little research on Lincoln's law practice prior to him running for
political office. It will open your eyes.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 00:34:57
From: JJK
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:xYmdnfwhG-kPr9TYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> larry wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:17:45 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162406832.851605.254240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>> MnMikew wrote:
> >>>>> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
> >>>>> Pelosi.
> >>>> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
> >>> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
> >>>
> >> Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
> >
> > Actually, for the first 200 years of US History, it was
> > Democrat=Racist. They were the Klan and they were the party blocking
> > Civil Rights in the entire South up through the 60s. Lincoln was a
> > Republican.
>
> Do a little research on Lincoln's law practice prior to him running for
> political office. It will open your eyes.
Nothing will open Larry's eyes. He uses Gore Vidal's book on Lincoln as an
accurate historical record.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:33:40
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <R2b2h.12094$HY5.8938@trnddc06 >, "JJK" <surpher@verizon.net>
wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com> wrote in message
> news:xYmdnfwhG-kPr9TYnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > larry wrote:
> > > On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:17:45 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1162406832.851605.254240@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > >>> MnMikew wrote:
> > >>>>> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
> > >>>>> Pelosi.
> > >>>> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
> > >>> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
> > >>>
> > >> Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
> > >
> > > Actually, for the first 200 years of US History, it was
> > > Democrat=Racist. They were the Klan and they were the party blocking
> > > Civil Rights in the entire South up through the 60s. Lincoln was a
> > > Republican.
> >
> > Do a little research on Lincoln's law practice prior to him running for
> > political office. It will open your eyes.
>
>
> Nothing will open Larry's eyes. He uses Gore Vidal's book on Lincoln as an
> accurate historical record.
No, I think he uses Mad magazine for his unimpeachable source.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 06:48:03
From: JJK
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Larry belched:
> > > > Actually, for the first 200 years of US History, it was
> > > > Democrat=Racist. They were the Klan and they were the party
blocking
> > > > Civil Rights in the entire South up through the 60s. Lincoln was a
> > > > Republican.
"Bert Robbins" wrote:
> > > Do a little research on Lincoln's law practice prior to him running
for
> > > political office. It will open your eyes.
> >
JJK wrote:
> > Nothing will open Larry's eyes. He uses Gore Vidal's book on Lincoln as
an
> > accurate historical record.
"William A. T. Clark" wrote:
> No, I think he uses Mad magazine for his unimpeachable source.
Actually, Larry revealed here that Vidal's book was his source of info on
Lincoln. He didn't realize the kind of book it is. However, MAD is most
likely Larry's 2nd source of news and critical information.
BTW, is Ted Koppel really related to Alfred E. Neuman, or is that just a
silly rumor?
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:56:35
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
annika1980 wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
>>> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
>>> Pelosi.
>> Don't forget Billary and Obama.
>
> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
>
I understand that Obama is of mixed race with black only being one of
the contributors to his genetic soup. He is more like Tiger in that respect.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:19:38
From: John B.
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Tex wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > :
> > : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > :> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > :>
> > :> : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> > :> : side can claim the high ground here.
> > :>
> > :> Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> > :> but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> > :> causes this corruption?
> > :>
> > :> Power.
> > :>
> > :> Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> > :> whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> > :> tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
> > :>
> > :> On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> > :> Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> > :> party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
> > :
> > : Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
> > : the White House.
> >
> > I'm not real fond of any solution that tells the people who
> > they can't vote for.
>
> You are tough nut to crack...but I love a challenge. We already have a
> 2 term limit for President...why not limit the terms for House /
> Senate?
Because it stereotypes members of Congress. It says they're all bad
after X yrs., when that is only true of a minority of them. It also
ensures that once anybody has been in ofc. long enough to understand
how the extremely complicated political and legislative processes work,
he/she has to leave. Term limits would give us a House full of
neophytes.
I personally don't feel the framers every imagined a Senator
> in office for 50+ yrs
Maybe not, but if the people of West Va. want to have the same guy
representing them for 50+ yrs., that's their right under the
Constitution. Who are we to tell them that they can't have that?
...Now, the idea of the House turnover every 2
> years would great imagination...trouble is, they all spend 6 mos (or
> more) of the 2 years running for the next election!
>
> > : Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
> > : company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
> >
> > That's not bad. Not bad at all!
>
> So can I count on your vote?
>
> Tex
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:12:08
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
You Republicans love to prey on fear especially when you're about to
lose.
It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
Pelosi.
But you wanna know what us Democrats and Undecideds really fear?
Another two years of Republican slime.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:18:34
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
annika1980 wrote:
> You Republicans love to prey on fear especially when you're about to
> lose.
> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
> Pelosi.
>
> But you wanna know what us Democrats and Undecideds really fear?
> Another two years of Republican slime.
>
Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, where the hell has she been? Her seat in San
Francisco should be safe so, shouldn't she be out campaigning for other
house candidates.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:24:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:18:34 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>annika1980 wrote:
>> You Republicans love to prey on fear especially when you're about to
>> lose.
>> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
>> Pelosi.
>>
>> But you wanna know what us Democrats and Undecideds really fear?
>> Another two years of Republican slime.
>>
>
>Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, where the hell has she been? Her seat in San
>Francisco should be safe so, shouldn't she be out campaigning for other
>house candidates.
She knows that if people knew who she is and that she could become
Speaker, it could cause them to vote Republican. Thus she is keeping
quiet.
Larry
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:26:05
From: sfb
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Locked up in a closet in the basement of the DNC headquarters. Moderate
Democrat candidates do not want a San Francisco left winger campaigning for
them.
"Bert Robbins" <screw@you.com > wrote in message
news:qPadnb_0PLhnedXYnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> Speaking of Nancy Pelosi, where the hell has she been? Her seat in San
> Francisco should be safe so, shouldn't she be out campaigning for other
> house candidates.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:16:55
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162404728.293510.316170@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> You Republicans love to prey on fear especially when you're about to
> lose.
The Dems have made fear mongering an art form.
> It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
> Pelosi.
Don't forget Billary and Obama.
>
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:10:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On 1 Nov 2006 10:12:08 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:
>But you wanna know what us Democrats and Undecideds really fear?
>Another two years of Republican slime.
What they should fear is a repeat of the 1946 election - with this
time the Democrats coming to power with an anti-Republican vote - but
failing to take advantage of it.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 11:25:23
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:10:43 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On 1 Nov 2006 10:12:08 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>But you wanna know what us Democrats and Undecideds really fear?
>>Another two years of Republican slime.
>
>What they should fear is a repeat of the 1946 election - with this
>time the Democrats coming to power with an anti-Republican vote - but
>failing to take advantage of it.
Exactly right, Howard. That scenario could well repeat-- and it
resulted in a MONSTER win for the Democrats after the Republicans won
that year and then overplayed their hand. It also resulted in Harry
Truman beating Dewey.
But we read history-- and if they would happen to win the House, we
will simply give them "enough rope" and get out of their way. They
will show the country that they are not ready to govern. 2008 will be
another wipeout.
Larry
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 09:48:24
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : Chris Bellomy wrote:
> :> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> :> : side can claim the high ground here.
> :>
> :> Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> :> but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> :> causes this corruption?
> :>
> :> Power.
> :>
> :> Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> :> whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> :> tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
> :>
> :> On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> :> Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> :> party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
> :
> : Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
> : the White House.
>
> I'm not real fond of any solution that tells the people who
> they can't vote for.
You are tough nut to crack...but I love a challenge. We already have a
2 term limit for President...why not limit the terms for House /
Senate? I personally don't feel the framers every imagined a Senator
in office for 50+ yrs...Now, the idea of the House turnover every 2
years would great imagination...trouble is, they all spend 6 mos (or
more) of the 2 years running for the next election!
> : Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
> : company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
>
> That's not bad. Not bad at all!
So can I count on your vote?
Tex
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 09:44:48
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <1162391114.577020.101120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> > > : side can claim the high ground here.
> > >
> > > Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> > > but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> > > causes this corruption?
> > >
> > > Power.
> > >
> > > Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> > > whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> > > tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
> > >
> > > On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> > > Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> > > party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
> >
> > Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
> > the White House.
> > Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
> > company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
> >
> > Tex
>
> Hear, Hear! I fully agree with that.
So I can count on your vote? :)
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:04:56
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <1162403088.416028.127510@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article <1162391114.577020.101120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > > > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> > > > : side can claim the high ground here.
> > > >
> > > > Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> > > > but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> > > > causes this corruption?
> > > >
> > > > Power.
> > > >
> > > > Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> > > > whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> > > > tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
> > > >
> > > > On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> > > > Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> > > > party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
> > >
> > > Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
> > > the White House.
> > > Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
> > > company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
> > >
> > > Tex
> >
> > Hear, Hear! I fully agree with that.
>
> So I can count on your vote? :)
>
> Tex
Absolutely! Throw your name in the hat and I'm there.
Since I'm beginning to think we could drive down the street and drag
just about anyone off to be President, after assuring age and
citizenship of course, and not do worse than we have been doing for the
past few presidencies, it isn't a stretch and you probably couldn't do
worse! ;-)
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 19:24:20
From: Matt 'Ocho' Aamold
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-9BEF35.12045601112006@individual.net...
> Absolutely! Throw your name in the hat and I'm there.
Tex will just write his name on the brim of your hat.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 06:25:14
From: Tex
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Chris Bellomy wrote:
> Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> : side can claim the high ground here.
>
> Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> causes this corruption?
>
> Power.
>
> Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
>
> On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
the White House.
Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
Tex
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 16:17:41
From: Chris Bellomy
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
:
: Chris Bellomy wrote:
: > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
: >
: > : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
: > : side can claim the high ground here.
: >
: > Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
: > but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
: > causes this corruption?
: >
: > Power.
: >
: > Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
: > whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
: > tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
: >
: > On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
: > Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
: > party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
:
: Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
: the White House.
I'm not real fond of any solution that tells the people who
they can't vote for.
: Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
: company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
That's not bad. Not bad at all!
--
Chris Bellomy
C-List Charter Member
http://clist.org/
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 08:55:31
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: OT: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <1162391114.577020.101120@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com >,
"Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
> Chris Bellomy wrote:
> > Tex <marktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > : Both sides are corrupt...and have been and will be caught....neither
> > : side can claim the high ground here.
> >
> > Let's say that your premise is correct. (I don't accept it entirely,
> > but I'll not belabor the point, I have a better one to make. What
> > causes this corruption?
> >
> > Power.
> >
> > Specifically, what causes pols to believe they can get away with
> > whatever they want? Uninterrupted power. Pols who fear accountability
> > tend to stay closer to the straight and narrow.
> >
> > On that basis, it makes sense to support turning control of
> > Congress over on a semi-regular basis, just to keep either
> > party from assuming the arrogance of permanent power.
>
> Term limits! 4 terms in the House, 2 terms in the Senate, 2 terms in
> the White House.
> Also, Federal Law, leave office, can't work for a Lobbying group, nor a
> company that does more than 25% of it's business with Government.
>
> Tex
Hear, Hear! I fully agree with that.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 19:37:25
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
MnMikew wrote:
> > > I suppose it'll have to stick until you can provide some other reasons
> > to dislike or fear him.
> >
> Some on the left see him as the second coming, be very afraid.
One wonders if you guys will ever run out of straw.
Republicans must be clairvoyant because every day I hear them tell us
what the Democrats really think and what the Dems will do if they get
elected. "They'll raise your taxes, take your guns, and burn down your
churches and in 4 years we'll all be speaking French."
Funny how Repugs know everything about how Democrats think and feel,
yet can't explain their own actions.
Repugs feign outrage when a Democrat like Kerry says something
controversial, no matter how true the underlying premise. They claim
that these statements will demoralize the troops they've sent to fight
and die for nothing.
Did you catch ABC news last night? One female soldier in Iraq admitted
on camera that it was time for them to go home, while another soldier
admitted that we don't really control much of the fighting zone in
Iraq. IOW, it's a quagmire that gets worse every day.
But stay the course, right GWB? Oh wait, that's right ... he never
ever said that!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 10:00:00
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162438645.278109.246870@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> > > I suppose it'll have to stick until you can provide some other
>> > > reasons
>> > to dislike or fear him.
>> >
>> Some on the left see him as the second coming, be very afraid.
>
> One wonders if you guys will ever run out of straw.
As soon as the dems run out of shit. Never.
>
> Republicans must be clairvoyant because every day I hear them tell us
> what the Democrats really think and what the Dems will do if they get
> elected. "They'll raise your taxes, take your guns, and burn down your
> churches and in 4 years we'll all be speaking French."
Actually it will be Spanish. And don't forget their adopt a Taliban
initiative.
>
> Repugs feign outrage when a Democrat like Kerry says something
> controversial, no matter how true the underlying premise.
So you think the troops are stupid as well eh? Nice. And of course the Dems
never feign outrage about anything.
>
> Did you catch ABC news last night? One female soldier in Iraq admitted
> on camera that it was time for them to go home, while another soldier
> admitted that we don't really control much of the fighting zone in
> Iraq. IOW, it's a quagmire that gets worse every day.
I bet you believe polls as well.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:25:39
From: Tex
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
annika1980 wrote:
> MnMikew wrote:
> > > It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
> > > Pelosi.
> >
> > Don't forget Billary and Obama.
> > >
>
> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
No fear...but he's got zero executive experience. I mean, NADA. Zippo.
Zilch.
Sure, he speaks well, looks good on TV....but, think of it this way.
You are hiring an executive for your company...one candidate comes in
with zero experience, but talks well, looks good....the other candidate
comes in with a year or two of being an executive for a smaller firm
where he didn't fuck anything up.
Who are you going to hire?
Tex
p.s same goes for Hillary....which is why, typically Senators don't get
elected President....zero executive experience.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:16:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
On 1 Nov 2006 13:25:39 -0800, "Tex" <marktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote:
>annika1980 wrote:
>> MnMikew wrote:
>> > > It's either fear of Osama, Saddam, John Kerry, or now the evil Nancy
>> > > Pelosi.
>> >
>> > Don't forget Billary and Obama.
>> > >
>>
>> What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
>
>No fear...but he's got zero executive experience. I mean, NADA. Zippo.
>Zilch.
>Sure, he speaks well, looks good on TV....but, think of it this way.
>You are hiring an executive for your company...one candidate comes in
>with zero experience, but talks well, looks good....the other candidate
>comes in with a year or two of being an executive for a smaller firm
>where he didn't fuck anything up.
>
>Who are you going to hire?
>
>Tex
>p.s same goes for Hillary....which is why, typically Senators don't get
>elected President....zero executive experience.
She does know how to ignore a subpoena. She did that for 2+ years and
then mysteriously the Rose Law Firm billing records appeared in the
White House living quarters. If Nixon had done that, he would have
finished his term, like Clinton, laughing all the way!
Larry
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:36:25
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
MnMikew wrote:
> > What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
> >
> Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
I suppose it'll have to stick until you can provide some other reasons
to dislike or fear him.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:11:17
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162413385.189482.202360@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MnMikew wrote:
>> > What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
>> >
>> Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
>
> I suppose it'll have to stick until you can provide some other reasons
> to dislike or fear him.
>
Some on the left see him as the second coming, be very afraid. Theres many,
many more qualified than him to run for prez. Heck, even Kerry, though
barely.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:16:44
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: How bad is Nancy Pelosi???
|
In article <4qsgrlFom00vU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1162413385.189482.202360@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > MnMikew wrote:
> >> > What exactly do you fear about Obama, besides him being black, I mean.
> >> >
> >> Ahh I see, Republican = racist. Now theres some clear liberal thinking.
> >
> > I suppose it'll have to stick until you can provide some other reasons
> > to dislike or fear him.
> >
> Some on the left see him as the second coming, be very afraid. Theres many,
> many more qualified than him to run for prez. Heck, even Kerry, though
> barely.
I've met him and he is very impressive. Articulate and very able to
speak will with plenty of charisma. The problem I have with him, at
this point, is that he really hasn't done anything in the Senate to show
me why I would want him as President.
He is a liberal, and a bit more liberal than me, but I could live with
that.
|
|
