Nancy Pelosi's potentially-damaging information on Newt Gingrich

[OutHouse]

"Leader Pelosi

Leader? really???? god that makes my skin crawl.

 

[PokerGuy]

This post is laughable - you're essentially saying you're not interested in politics other than as a hater.

Anyone who follows politics for any amount of time and is not disgusted by both sides is either an ignorant fool or a blind partisan (or both - like Craig).

If you don't know anything about Gingrich

For a lawyer you sure have a hard time reading: I never said I don't know anything. I said I don't know a whole lot, meaning I don't know as much about him as I do about some other politicians.

you were either a child when he was Speaker or you went out of your way to avoid paying attention to any news source, ever.

Actually, neither. At different times in your life you have different priorities and you pay more or less attention to different things. Newt hasn't been relevant in politics for at least 10 years, I know he's got "baggage" from what I've read, but I don't know the details.

Who do you support for President? Who have you voted for in the past?

I don't know yet. I like different aspects of different candidates, but just about any choice is better than the post turtle. More important is what kind of congress the president gets to work with. If the senate and house are republican, the post turtle's damage will be contained.

Concisely, why is Speaker Pelosi "one of the worst idiots of all time"?

Sorry, can't be concise on that one, there's an enormous volume of reasons. She's the most despicable of politicians: an ultra leftist elitist hypocrite.

other than that the talking heads on Fox News don't like her.

Sorry, fail again, I don't watch fox news.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So let's sum this up: You don't know "much" about one of the most important political figures in the last 30 years, including what his "baggage" entails. You haven't chosen a candidate for President, despite the fact that the existing candidates have all been in the mix for months. You won't say who you voted for in the past. You can't identify a single reason that you dislike Nancy Pelosi, other than the vague generality that she is an "ultra leftist elitist hypocrite." Despite the fact that you make nothing but scathing criticisms of Democrats (including completely gratuitous and empty-headed ones) and none, that I can tell, of Republicans, you purport not to have a party affiliation.

Seriously, if you know and care this little about politics, why are you even here? You seem like a complete nihilist, which I suppose is your right, but it doesn't lend itself to intelligent discussion.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are strongly partisan but purport to be neutral - it's just cowardly and lazy. I myself am a Democrat but support a number of Republican principles (see the Seattle welfare fraud thread for examples). I am not ashamed of that, but I'm also not afraid to call out Democrats for stupidity, laziness and dishonesty where it's warranted. You are unmistakeably a Republican but you pretend to be independent because it costs you less in debate, since you can claim you are unbiased, when you're obviously nothing but. Instead you just come off like an ignorant coward and a troll.

 

[rudder]

So Nancy has time to read all the volumes of paper on Newt... but not enough time to read the obamacare bill.

And what the hell was she doing on an ethics committee? That is like putting Sandusky on the Ideas To Prevent Pedophilia committee.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

So let's sum this up: You don't know "much" about one of the most important political figures in the last 30 years, including what his "baggage" entails. You haven't chosen a candidate for President, despite the fact that the existing candidates have all been in the mix for months. You won't say who you voted for in the past. You can't identify a single reason that you dislike Nancy Pelosi, other than the vague generality that she is an "ultra leftist elitist hypocrite." Despite the fact that you make nothing but scathing criticisms of Democrats (including completely gratuitous and empty-headed ones) and none, that I can tell, of Republicans, you purport not to have a party affiliation.

Seriously, if you know and care this little about politics, why are you even here? You seem like a complete nihilist, which I suppose is your right, but it doesn't lend itself to intelligent discussion.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are strongly partisan but purport to be neutral - it's just cowardly and lazy. I myself am a Democrat but support a number of Republican principles (see the Seattle welfare fraud thread for examples). I am not ashamed of that, but I'm also not afraid to call out Democrats for stupidity, laziness and dishonesty where it's warranted. You are unmistakeably a Republican but you pretend to be independent because it costs you less in debate, since you can claim you are unbiased, when you're obviously nothing but. Instead you just come off like an ignorant coward and a troll.

Good god that is some ownage.

 

[Ausm]

Leader? really???? god that makes my skin crawl.

Much more effective then Boner just look at the amount of Bills produced and passed.

 

[Ausm]

So Nancy has time to read all the volumes of paper on Newt... but not enough time to read the obamacare bill.

And what the hell was she doing on an ethics committee? That is like putting Sandusky on the Ideas To Prevent Pedophilia committee.

She was on the committee that kicked his ass out why wouldn't see have time/access to volumes of damning evidence on that scumbag.

 

[CPA]

This from the women who has personally benefited from insider trading secrets regarding VISA. Continue spewing your filth Nancy.

 

[uclaLabrat]

So let's sum this up: You don't know "much" about one of the most important political figures in the last 30 years, including what his "baggage" entails. You haven't chosen a candidate for President, despite the fact that the existing candidates have all been in the mix for months. You won't say who you voted for in the past. You can't identify a single reason that you dislike Nancy Pelosi, other than the vague generality that she is an "ultra leftist elitist hypocrite." Despite the fact that you make nothing but scathing criticisms of Democrats (including completely gratuitous and empty-headed ones) and none, that I can tell, of Republicans, you purport not to have a party affiliation.

Seriously, if you know and care this little about politics, why are you even here? You seem like a complete nihilist, which I suppose is your right, but it doesn't lend itself to intelligent discussion.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are strongly partisan but purport to be neutral - it's just cowardly and lazy. I myself am a Democrat but support a number of Republican principles (see the Seattle welfare fraud thread for examples). I am not ashamed of that, but I'm also not afraid to call out Democrats for stupidity, laziness and dishonesty where it's warranted. You are unmistakeably a Republican but you pretend to be independent because it costs you less in debate, since you can claim you are unbiased, when you're obviously nothing but. Instead you just come off like an ignorant coward and a troll.

DVC l33t!

 

[cybrsage]

Mitt is more electable, sure, but you don't become governor for Kennedy and Kerry without giving the Democrats everything they want on policy, ala Obamacare.

I don't get what people have against a state installing a state run healthcare system for their state. States' Rights are all about each state doing what is right for their own people.

A Fed Gov run healthcare system would be a disaster. If we had 50 different state run healthcare systems, each could learn from the other, each could be come stronger, better.

Ask the nations of the EU if they want a single healthcare system for all of them, run by the EU, and you will find almost all of them will say no. Even those who are rabidly pro state run health care will not want the EU telling their people how to run the healthcare in their area. The member states of the EU are much like the US states, only the EU is a confederation while the US is a federation (overly simplistic government type naming, but it mostly fits).

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

I don't get what people have against a state installing a state run healthcare system for their state. States' Rights are all about each state doing what is right for their own people.

A Fed Gov run healthcare system would be a disaster. If we had 50 different state run healthcare systems, each could learn from the other, each could be come stronger, better.

Ask the nations of the EU if they want a single healthcare system for all of them, run by the EU, and you will find almost all of them will say no. Even those who are rabidly pro state run health care will not want the EU telling their people how to run the healthcare in their area. The member states of the EU are much like the US states, only the EU is a confederation while the US is a federation (overly simplistic government type naming, but it mostly fits).

Did you mean to post this in this thread?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Good god that is some ownage.

Yeah, Pokerguy vs. DVC in a political debate is like Danny Devito vs. Mike Jordan in a game of one on one b-ball:biggrin:

 

[cybrsage]

Did you mean to post this in this thread?

Yes, though there was a quote error I did not notice. This should have been included:

Mitt is more electable, sure, but you don't become governor for Kennedy and Kerry without giving the Democrats everything they want on policy, ala Obamacare.

I will add it to my post for clarity sake. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[OutHouse]

So let's sum this up: You don't know "much" about one of the most important political figures in the last 30 years, including what his "baggage" entails. You haven't chosen a candidate for President, despite the fact that the existing candidates have all been in the mix for months. You won't say who you voted for in the past. You can't identify a single reason that you dislike Nancy Pelosi, other than the vague generality that she is an "ultra leftist elitist hypocrite." Despite the fact that you make nothing but scathing criticisms of Democrats (including completely gratuitous and empty-headed ones) and none, that I can tell, of Republicans, you purport not to have a party affiliation.

Seriously, if you know and care this little about politics, why are you even here? You seem like a complete nihilist, which I suppose is your right, but it doesn't lend itself to intelligent discussion.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are strongly partisan but purport to be neutral - it's just cowardly and lazy. I myself am a Democrat but support a number of Republican principles (see the Seattle welfare fraud thread for examples). I am not ashamed of that, but I'm also not afraid to call out Democrats for stupidity, laziness and dishonesty where it's warranted. You are unmistakeably a Republican but you pretend to be independent because it costs you less in debate, since you can claim you are unbiased, when you're obviously nothing but. Instead you just come off like an ignorant coward and a troll.

lol you should consult for Law and Order.

 

[OutHouse]

Yeah, Pokerguy vs. DVC in a political debate is like Danny Devito vs. Mike Jordan in a game of one on one b-ball:biggrin:

hahahahahhaha

 

[cybrsage]

Yeah, Pokerguy vs. DVC in a political debate is like Danny Devito vs. Mike Jordan in a game of one on one b-ball:biggrin:

Dunno...if the movie was a comedy, Danny would end up being in an accident that gave him the ability to jump amazingly high. It would be done in an cheesy way (to make the jump obviously fake), and it would probaby be quite funny.

I can see the press conference now, Jordan saying about how happy he is to support the new greatest BBall player on the planet...etc.


I think it could work. Twins was not all that bad, after all.

 

[feralkid]

So let's sum this up: You don't know "much" about one of the most important political figures in the last 30 years, including what his "baggage" entails. You haven't chosen a candidate for President, despite the fact that the existing candidates have all been in the mix for months. You won't say who you voted for in the past. You can't identify a single reason that you dislike Nancy Pelosi, other than the vague generality that she is an "ultra leftist elitist hypocrite." Despite the fact that you make nothing but scathing criticisms of Democrats (including completely gratuitous and empty-headed ones) and none, that I can tell, of Republicans, you purport not to have a party affiliation.

Seriously, if you know and care this little about politics, why are you even here? You seem like a complete nihilist, which I suppose is your right, but it doesn't lend itself to intelligent discussion.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are strongly partisan but purport to be neutral - it's just cowardly and lazy. I myself am a Democrat but support a number of Republican principles (see the Seattle welfare fraud thread for examples). I am not ashamed of that, but I'm also not afraid to call out Democrats for stupidity, laziness and dishonesty where it's warranted. You are unmistakeably a Republican but you pretend to be independent because it costs you less in debate, since you can claim you are unbiased, when you're obviously nothing but. Instead you just come off like an ignorant coward and a troll.

 

[monovillage]

Lots of points to disagree with here, first one is Nancy Pelosi. She's scum, she's taken financial advantage of her position many times to benefit herself and her husband. She's also used her position to financially benefit her contributors. You can look up the VISA links and health care exemptions if you'd like and that's just a start. When compared to Obama some of the Republican candidates don't look bad at all, in fact a couple look pretty good, it's not as if Obama sets a very high mark to beat. I'll be forever grateful to Newt for helping to break the Democrat lock on the House, if not for his efforts back in 94' I think we'd still be in a constant Democrat controlled house. He's a politician, that pretty much means he, along with Obama is a slimy bastard and it pretty much means that Pelosi is a slimy bitch. Big surprise! Only partisans would argue about the amount of dirty baggage their politician is carrying.

 

[Ausm]

So let's sum this up: You don't know "much" about one of the most important political figures in the last 30 years, including what his "baggage" entails. You haven't chosen a candidate for President, despite the fact that the existing candidates have all been in the mix for months. You won't say who you voted for in the past. You can't identify a single reason that you dislike Nancy Pelosi, other than the vague generality that she is an "ultra leftist elitist hypocrite." Despite the fact that you make nothing but scathing criticisms of Democrats (including completely gratuitous and empty-headed ones) and none, that I can tell, of Republicans, you purport not to have a party affiliation.

Seriously, if you know and care this little about politics, why are you even here? You seem like a complete nihilist, which I suppose is your right, but it doesn't lend itself to intelligent discussion.

I have nothing but contempt for people who are strongly partisan but purport to be neutral - it's just cowardly and lazy. I myself am a Democrat but support a number of Republican principles (see the Seattle welfare fraud thread for examples). I am not ashamed of that, but I'm also not afraid to call out Democrats for stupidity, laziness and dishonesty where it's warranted. You are unmistakeably a Republican but you pretend to be independent because it costs you less in debate, since you can claim you are unbiased, when you're obviously nothing but. Instead you just come off like an ignorant coward and a troll.

That sums up about 90% of the Rabid Republicans on this board...EXCELLENT analogy.

EPIC PWNAGE!!

 

[feralkid]

Only partisans would argue about the amount of dirty baggage their politician is carrying.

Agreed; so why did you just do it?

 

[monovillage]

Agreed; so why did you just do it?

Because i'm partisan? Here's a quarter kid, go buy a clue.

 

[OutHouse]

That sums up about 90% of the Rabid Republicans on this board...EXCELLENT analogy.

EPIC PWNAGE!!

DUDE! it fits you like a glove as well.

 

[hal2kilo]

Much more effective then Boner just look at the amount of Bills produced and passed.

Boner is leader of the house in name only. He only gets done what Cantor allows him to get done.

 

[waggy]

That sums up about 90% of the Rabid Republicans on this board...EXCELLENT analogy.

EPIC PWNAGE!!

It also sums up 90% of the dems.

politics in general is a mess.


anyway. anyone that votes for Newt is a idiot. While i don't care for Obama i do not think Newt is the answer. not that it matters who we put in office. It's no longer "for the people" its "for the business and what they can do for me". all that will change is what business controls what.

 

[Ausm]

DUDE! it fits you like a glove as well.

LOLwut??