Sorry chief, disagreement != thread crapping. Just because everyone doesn't drop everything their doing to obey your demands for whatever doesn't make it thread crapping.
Get over yourself.
Sorry chief, disagreement != thread crapping. Just because everyone doesn't drop everything their doing to obey your demands for whatever doesn't make it thread crapping.
Get over yourself.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
The Republicans always wants a villain, and now that Hillary didn't get the democratic nod, and the democratic left is contained, Pelosi is easy to blame. As a partisan democrat, I am not totally thrilled with her either, but look at the problems she faces. While the GOP is lock step 100% behind the failed policies of GWB, the democrats are far more diverse. And Pelosi also has to look at the total journey of legislation, it does her no good to force something through the house, only to have it get filibustered in the Senate. Or fail to pass. Then Pelosi has to keep the Federal Government functional for two years that are almost passed now. Hoping meanwhile that we will get a democratic white house and a much stronger legislative majority.
Maybe a stronger and better house democratic majority leader than Pelosi would have delivered better results, but at least elements on the far right and far left of the democratic party are tolerant of her, and Pelosi is probably doing the best possible job given the circumstances. But to explain why this congress could not do more, the answer is, the GOP would not let them and would have forced the democrats to destroy the country as the price of doing any better.
Maybe a stronger and better house democratic majority leader than Pelosi would have delivered better results, but at least elements on the far right and far left of the democratic party are tolerant of her, and Pelosi is probably doing the best possible job given the circumstances. But to explain why this congress could not do more, the answer is, the GOP would not let them and would have forced the democrats to destroy the country as the price of doing any better.
I agree, disagreement does not equal thread crapping. Please get to more disagreement and less thread crapping in the future.
Thanks in advance.
I just don't get it. If people can point to important legislation that is not being passed by Pelosi and co. in the House that would have been passed otherwise, I'm totally down with trashing her. If you can point to bad legislation that the House has passed, that's cool too. (RightisWrong pointed out FISA, which I agree with him on. That's one piece of legislation though.) It wouldn't matter if Pelosi had a 1 seat or a 100 seat majority for most of the problems mentioned though. The Iraq war would have continued onwards due to the Senate, Bush still wouldn't have been impeached due to the Senate, etc.
And you seem to have quickly come to enjoy fighting more than rational discussion. Either way, my request still stands. Don't do it for me, do it for everyone else on here.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,562
- 14,964
- 146
Thanks for posting those numbers...I was about to do it myself.
It proves my point...while the Dems DO have a majority in the House, it's slim enough that they can't FORCE any legislation, then, coupled with the tie in the Senate, (discounting the two Independents) the legislation would still have to get past all the partisan wrangling and filibustering there, only to be vetoed by Bush anyway...
People keep bitching about the Congress not getting anything done...HOW can they?
(I know, by passing ONLY legislation that Bushie wants passed) :roll:
It proves my point...while the Dems DO have a majority in the House, it's slim enough that they can't FORCE any legislation, then, coupled with the tie in the Senate, (discounting the two Independents) the legislation would still have to get past all the partisan wrangling and filibustering there, only to be vetoed by Bush anyway...
People keep bitching about the Congress not getting anything done...HOW can they?
(I know, by passing ONLY legislation that Bushie wants passed) :roll:
What I find strange is that lots of people on here talk about wanting government gridlock, and then they complain about government gridlock when they get it. This is what it looks like folks, so those voting for divided government should desire a lot more of this. If you do that's fine, but it seems a bit strange to complain so much about something you are striving to perpetuate.
When you're presented with the evidence you always ask for, you're too quick to dismiss it. Why am I going to round up a bunch of evidence - that I don't need to post my opinion - for some stranger on the Internet who's too stubborn and dense for it to be worthwhile?
So, I'll continue posting my opinion, and I'll continue laughing whenever you want evidence from me or anyone else.
That's not thread crapping, it's making the best use of my time.
We only want gridlock when it is our side on the shit end of the numbers game
You will note my sudden love for gridlock and many democrats on this msgboard who suddenly changed their tune about rubberstamp legislative branches.
Though to be honest the latest republican rubberstamp has left a very foul taste in my mouth. One I wont probably forget. Much like that glue they use to stick your braces on. Ill probably remain a gridlock guy like I was before the Bush spend train left the station in 01. Even if republicans have a chance to hold power. Just not worth letting one side advance their agenda at a pace a rubberstamp allows.
The fact that you think posting unsubstantiated opinions is the best use of your time on this board sure does explain a lot.
Do you even know what the word "opinion" means, you twit? Besides, I already gave you the first example that came to mind, but alas, it wasn't enough and was totally glossed over. You're alone on this chief. Even your fellow party members are refusing to fall into rank and file on this.
Yeap, I know what opinion means. What's your point? Opinions can be backed up by evidence, or they can not be. Yours are not (at least not evidence you're willing to put forth). In the world of opinions this makes yours pretty crappy.
Your first example was exceptionally poor, as the divisiveness you claimed from it had no real world results as reported by the Republicans themselves. That's why it wasn't good, I figured that was obvious.
That's okay if other people don't like Pelosi, but I've spent a considerable amount of my education studying Congress and so I probably know a bit more than most about it. Most of the objections they appear to have to her would apply to any speaker. This is why I was suggesting that their problems lie more with the structure of Congress than Pelosi.
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,650
- 2,930
- 136
As a registered Democrat who's basically a centrist with some Libertarian economic leanings who grew up in CA, Pelosi is more evil than Barbara Boxer but not as evil as Dianne Feinstein. She is a LOT more worthless and ineffective then either one of them. Her decision making ranks down there with Gray Davis. At least if you're going to be a terrible politician, back it up with some moxie like Willie Brown did.
Which is why I didn't bother going further. A scalding lecture just before a critical vote which is intended to be divisive is, in fact divisive. But, predictably, you dismiss it with whatever trivial grounds you can justify to yourself. Just remember that when you justify those trivial grounds to yourself, they don't necessarily fly with everyone else.
Keep studying.
Scalding lecture? Have you even listened to it? It was hardly scalding, especially by Congressional standards. Your evidence for her being the "epitome of divisiveness" was a speech that had no discernable divisive result. Yeah, I must be crazy... that sounds like great evidence. I have a rock that keeps tigers away if you want to buy it.
You want to borrow some of the books I have? Seems like you could use them.
Muse
Lifer
- Jul 11, 2001
- 41,117
- 10,332
- 136
The issue of warrantless wiretaps isn't as cut and dried as you might think. There's a law on the books about getting warrants for wiretaps but a lot of times they tap first, and try to get approval later. It's the way things go (or went, anyway). I know, it seems like something they can't or shouldn't be able to do, but that's the way they did things, and maybe still do.
Muse
Lifer
- Jul 11, 2001
- 41,117
- 10,332
- 136
I prefer all of the above to Schwartzenegger. I do not endorse the above statements.
BTW, Pelosi did not grow up in CA (as stated above). From Wikipedia:
Early life and career
Pelosi was born to Italian-American parents in Baltimore, Maryland.[1] The youngest of six children, she was involved with politics from an early age. Her father, Thomas D'Alesandro, Jr., was a U.S. Congressman from Maryland and a Mayor of Baltimore. Her mother, Anunciata, was born in Italy and emigrated to the U.S. in 1911.[2] Thomas L. J. D'Alesandro III, one of her five brothers, also served as Mayor of Baltimore from 1967 to 1971.
Pelosi graduated from Institute of Notre Dame, a Catholic all-girls high school in Baltimore, and from Trinity College (now Trinity Washington University) in Washington, D.C. in 1962. Pelosi interned for Senator Daniel Brewster (D-Maryland) alongside future House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.[3] She met Paul Frank Pelosi (b. April 15, 1940 in San Francisco, California)[4] while she was attending Trinity College, and they both took a summer school class at Georgetown University called "The History of Africa, South of the Sahara."[5] They married in a Catholic church on September 7, 1963. After the couple married they moved to New York, and then to San Francisco in 1969, where his brother, Ronald Pelosi was a member of the City and County of San Francisco's Board of Supervisors.[6]
After moving to San Francisco, Pelosi worked her way up in Democratic politics. She was elected as party chairwoman for Northern California on January 30, 1977. She later joined forces with one of the leaders of the California Democratic Party, 5th District Congressman Phillip Burton. And in 1987, after her youngest child became a high school senior, she decided to run for political office.
Pelosi is a board member of the National Organization of Italian American Women.[7]
There were specific provisions in the law for wiretapping for a short period of time while applying for a warrant to do so. It seemed like a good tradeoff between the need for swift action, but retaining oversight. But, that was then... this is now.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter