Lets talk about Nancy Pelosi
- Thread starter ironsides
- Start date
"Post #32. Exactly what street experience were you referring to, if not prostitution? Was it drugs? Crime? Begging? What?"
I usually don't chew my cabbage twice. But for an Undisputed Champion Idiot, here it goes again:
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION! It happens at the street level.
Just ask the Twelfth Imam, The Mahdi, the Muslims have been hoping for, Hussain Obama.
I usually don't chew my cabbage twice. But for an Undisputed Champion Idiot, here it goes again:
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION! It happens at the street level.
Just ask the Twelfth Imam, The Mahdi, the Muslims have been hoping for, Hussain Obama.
But you were just explaining to us how fluid and changing language can be. I mean, if grammar doesn't matter then word definitions shouldn't either. I guess it's only acceptable when you do it.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION! It happens at the street level.
Really Yukon? Exactly how does community organization happen at the street level? Did Pelosi and Clinton perhaps go into the hood, rounded up a few drug addicts, prostitutes, pimps, panhandlers and started organizing them? Exactly how does it work? You are not making sense. The fact is, community organizing has nothing to do with streets.
And exactly when have they supposed to have done this community organizing? When Hillary was in White House she perhaps went into the street and did community organizing? Or when she was the Governor’s wife in Arkansas?
How about Pelosi? Exactly when did she go into the streets and did community organizing?
You are talking nonsense and you know it. You were caught in your words, you wrote something without thinking. You clearly meant to call them prostitutes. What you are saying in reference to community organizing (that Pelosi and Clinton went into the streets and started organizing pimps, pushers etc.) is rubbish and you know it.
Really Yukon? Exactly how does community organization happen at the street level? Did Pelosi and Clinton perhaps go into the hood, rounded up a few drug addicts, prostitutes, pimps, panhandlers and started organizing them? Exactly how does it work? You are not making sense. The fact is, community organizing has nothing to do with streets.
And exactly when have they supposed to have done this community organizing? When Hillary was in White House she perhaps went into the street and did community organizing? Or when she was the Governor’s wife in Arkansas?
How about Pelosi? Exactly when did she go into the streets and did community organizing?
You are talking nonsense and you know it. You were caught in your words, you wrote something without thinking. You clearly meant to call them prostitutes. What you are saying in reference to community organizing (that Pelosi and Clinton went into the streets and started organizing pimps, pushers etc.) is rubbish and you know it.
This statement right here just shows your true inability to reason.
Patronizing and insulting are two different things. So isn't slapping and being mad.
If I was to continuously slap you wouldn't you get mad?
What about punching and hurt? If someone was to punch you over and over... OR you punch someone over and over... wouldn't it hurt? If you see that punching and hurt are two completely different definitions.
"I'm not hurting you...I'm punching you...look it up in the dictionary...two different words altogether." WHACK! WHACK! WHACK!
Your inability to see that when a person patronizes another that the person being patronized most likely will feel insulted.
You may already get this and you just like being an arse.
What any regular person says about anyone is of no consequence.
But when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid refers to the wife of former U.S. President, G.W.H. Bush as a b1tch, in his feeble attempt to demean her son, the total moral turpitude of all the liberals is clearly revealed.
No matter how SirJosephPorter might spin it.
But when the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid refers to the wife of former U.S. President, G.W.H. Bush as a b1tch, in his feeble attempt to demean her son, the total moral turpitude of all the liberals is clearly revealed.
No matter how SirJosephPorter might spin it.
You are changing the subject, Yukon. Harry Reid may or may not have called Laura Bush a bitch, I don’t know. We are talking about the Republican attempt to smear Pelosi, their politics of personal destruction, mud slinging, by calling Pelosi a bitch, a hag and a prostitute.
This statement right here just shows your true inability to reason.
Patronizing and insulting are two different things. So isn't slapping and being mad.
If I was to continuously slap you wouldn't you get mad?
You are also changing the subject, EagleSmack. That is a common enough tactic, if one doesn’t have anything of significance to say about a subject, then change the subject where he does have something of significance to say. Yukon tried the same tactic.
But I am far too old a hand at this to fall for that. First admit that patronizing and insult are two different things, then we will argue whether patronizing leads to insult (I don’t think it does, but that is a separate issue).
Patronizing and insulting are two different things. So isn't slapping and being mad.
If I was to continuously slap you wouldn't you get mad?
You are also changing the subject, EagleSmack. That is a common enough tactic, if one doesn’t have anything of significance to say about a subject, then change the subject where he does have something of significance to say. Yukon tried the same tactic.
But I am far too old a hand at this to fall for that. First admit that patronizing and insult are two different things, then we will argue whether patronizing leads to insult (I don’t think it does, but that is a separate issue).
Perhaps the Mods can weigh in here and let us all know when and why SJP was made the "subject" police. I wasn't even aware the position was up for grabs. I think at the very least it should have been advertised, especially if it is a paid position.
I wouldn't worry about it too much, Y.J. George has got a pretty thick skin and some think a thick head too.
Why only George, JLM? Everybody in politics has a thick skin. He has to, otherwise he won’t survive in politics.
Thus do you think that Pelosi feels insulted by the extreme right wing Republican base calling her a bitch, a hag and a prostitute? No way, she probably regards it with amused contempt.
I know that- I was just having a little fun with Y.J. He gets so upset if anyone so much as frowns at George.
When one speaks the truth, it is not a smear. How about Nancy Pelosi being a hypocrite. Talking about conserving and preserving our resources, yet she thinks it is Ok to fly all around the country in her own jumbo jet. "Airedale 1
"Lying about the CIA not telling her about waterboarding. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi gets a failing grade from America in her handling of the “harsh interrogation” technique matter, known as waterboarding-gate. According to a recent Gallup Poll, only 31% of those polled approved of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handling of the waterbaording controversy as to what she knew and when she knew it. 47% disapproved of her handling while 23% were watching the finals of American Idol."
Surprise, surprise, surprise … now Speaker Pelosi seems to be backpedalling on her criticism of the CIA. She is back to the more popular Democratic spin of, “it’s all Bush’s fault”. After all, when former Democratic operatives and now CIA Director like Leon Panetta call your bluff what is San Fran Nan to do?
Her planning to see that California gets its financial bailout along with a new high speed rail between SF ans LA.
I don’t think the Speaker is ever that powerful, ironsides. Gingrich had ambitions to be the most powerful person in Washington, he fully hoped to rival Clinton and to subdue, conquer Clinton. He failed miserably.
Speaker has certain powers which she can use only in the House. She has no jurisdiction outside the House. Even in the House she is bound by what her party thinks.
Depending upon the personalities, some Speakers can be very effective in the House. Thus Gingrich was very effective, while Hastert was simply a figure head (Tom Delay and Dick Army being the real powers behind the throne).
But to say that Speaker is the most powerful person in American politics is stretching a bit. That honour goes to the President.
Normally I would agree with you, but in this case I feel that Nancy Pelosi trumps the President. Between her and Harry Reid they have things pretty locked up.
When one speaks the truth, it is not a smear. How about Nancy Pelosi being a hypocrite.
I don’t know about that, ironsides, I suppose most politicians are guilty of hypocrisy to some extent (it is only when it becomes egregious, like with Gingrich or Limbaugh, that it gets to be a problem).
I was referring to her being called a bitch, a hag and a prostitute. That was clearly the politics of personal destruction, nothing else.
As to 47 % disapproving of her, I am not sure that the number is all that significant. It depends upon how the Democratic Party performs in 2010. If they maintain control of the House, she remains the Speaker.
Remember how unpopular Gingrich was with American public? It got so bad that Clinton only had to point out that Gingrich supported something, 55% of Americans automatically would be opposed to it. Yet he remained Speaker for a long time, until he was drowned in his own hypocrisy.
Pelosi’s future depends upon factors beyond her control, like how Democrats fare in 2010.
I don’t know about that, ironsides, I suppose most politicians are guilty of hypocrisy to some extent (it is only when it becomes egregious, like with Gingrich or Limbaugh, that it gets to be a problem).
I was referring to her being called a bitch, a hag and a prostitute. That was clearly the politics of personal destruction, nothing else.
As to 47 % disapproving of her, I am not sure that the number is all that significant. It depends upon how the Democratic Party performs in 2010. If they maintain control of the House, she remains the Speaker.
Remember how unpopular Gingrich was with American public? It got so bad that Clinton only had to point out that Gingrich supported something, 55% of Americans automatically would be opposed to it. Yet he remained Speaker for a long time, until he was drowned in his own hypocrisy.
Pelosi’s future depends upon factors beyond her control, like how Democrats fare in 2010.
One could argue with that, ironsides, but even you are saying that between Pelosi and Reid they have it locked up. So evidently you also don’t think that she is the most powerful person in Washington.
As to the two of them having everything locked up, isn’t that how Washington works? I would think that normally the Leader of the Senate and Speaker of the House would have everything locked up. President has no power, no authority to enact any legislation.
Usually there is the threat of filibuster hanging over the head of the majority party, but here even that thread is minimal. All Democrats need is vote of just one republican to break the filibuster.
So you are right with this contention, but I don’t think that is anything unusual in Washington politics.
No, Pelosi is the most powerful person, Reid not so powerful. This power will and is only breeding more corruption. The sheep are being lead to the slaughter so to speak. ACORN will be the tool that ultimately bankrupts the U.S.