Pelosi paid husband with PAC funds

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Obama is Pelosi.

Jimmy Carter offered America hope.....well you are backing him again.

Obama is nowhere close to Nancy Pelosi. I wish he were. In reality he's a pragmatic centrist. This Obama = Pelosi scheme that you and a few other people are trying to pull is ridiculous.

I genuinely wish a real liberal like Pelosi was on the presidential ticket. Too bad Obama is as close as we get.

When has Obama voted differently from Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and the other arch-liberals in the Senate?


And what's the difference between Obama and Pelosi on anything?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In short I do not want the Democrats to catch the Republicans in the level of party corruption.

And voting for them because I'm being told I have to stops that how?

You tell us third party voters that we have to vote for Democrats. In no way does that prompt them to curb unethical behavior. Quite the opposite, it encourages bad behavior because you're telling them they'll get your vote as long as they're not quite as bad as Republicans.

So you can bet your ass that they'll come as close as possible without crossing the line.

Great plan. Slightly less evil.

Take your pragmatism and shove it up the dark side of your moon.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: bamacre
Post something bad about the Democrats, and they come in here and say something bad about Republicans.
Post something bad about the Republicans, and they come in here and say something bad about Democrats.

And people wonder why our country is fucked up.

You forgot one:

Post something good about Ron Paul, and both Democrats and Republicans come in here and say something bad about him.

As far as I'm concerned that's a hearty endorsement for Ron Paul.

But it would work as well for Pol Pot.

What, didn't want to go all the way to Hitler?

 

[Lemon law]

Ok Ok, even as a partisan democrat, this stinks.

As a Non California resident, I hereby pledge not to vote for Nancy Pelosi. Since I don't get a vote on this jury, I will have to let Pelosi voting jurors make up their own minds.

But I do hope to be a participant on various class action law suits against corrupt , morally bankrupt politicians, and similar key public officials at corruption central. But Nancy will simply have to wait in MHO. On the basis of this thread, I have moved Pelosi up to #87 on my priority list. And Pelosi is still way behind GWB, Dick Cheney, Hllliburton, Rice, Wolfowitz, Hadley, Gonzales, Phil Gramm, Addington, Lee, Tom Delay, Cunningham, Libby, Abramoff, blackwater, Eric Prince, Poindexter, Kissinger, Rove, and so many others. Pardon me, I do hope to get around to Pelosi sooner or later.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In short I do not want the Democrats to catch the Republicans in the level of party corruption.

And voting for them because I'm being told I have to stops that how?

You tell us third party voters that we have to vote for Democrats. In no way does that prompt them to curb unethical behavior. Quite the opposite, it encourages bad behavior because you're telling them they'll get your vote as long as they're not quite as bad as Republicans.

So you can bet your ass that they'll come as close as possible without crossing the line.

Great plan. Slightly less evil.

Take your pragmatism and shove it up the dark side of your moon.

Will you please use some logic. Slightly less evil is better than slightly more evil by a slight amount. You are going to waste a vote that could be cast for slightly less and make it slightly more possible for slightly more evil to win. I am slightly better than you are.

Also if you have a corrupt democrat there may be a slightly better Republican to vote for.

Any way you cut it third party voting is for people who are more interested in their own personal indignation than they are for doing something slightly better for their country.

This logic is just air tight. You are irrational and pissed off and are going to vote emotionally like a spoiled brat. Great. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Ok Ok, even as a partisan democrat, this stinks.

As a Non California resident, I hereby pledge not to vote for Nancy Pelosi. Since I don't get a vote on this jury, I will have to let Pelosi voting jurors make up their own minds.

But I do hope to be a participant on various class action law suits against corrupt , morally bankrupt politicians, and similar key public officials at corruption central. But Nancy will simply have to wait in MHO. On the basis of this thread, I have moved Pelosi up to #87 on my priority list. And Pelosi is still way behind GWB, Dick Cheney, Hllliburton, Rice, Wolfowitz, Hadley, Gonzales, Phil Gramm, Addington, Lee, Tom Delay, Cunningham, Libby, Abramoff, blackwater, Eric Prince, Poindexter, Kissinger, Rove, and so many others. Pardon me, I do hope to get around to Pelosi sooner or later.

You mean a massive list of people who aren't in power or won't be in a few months, including several in their 80s?

Interesting priorities.

You know, Bob McNamara is still alive. Maybe we should go after him too.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In short I do not want the Democrats to catch the Republicans in the level of party corruption.

And voting for them because I'm being told I have to stops that how?

You tell us third party voters that we have to vote for Democrats. In no way does that prompt them to curb unethical behavior. Quite the opposite, it encourages bad behavior because you're telling them they'll get your vote as long as they're not quite as bad as Republicans.

So you can bet your ass that they'll come as close as possible without crossing the line.

Great plan. Slightly less evil.

Take your pragmatism and shove it up the dark side of your moon.

Will you please use some logic. Slightly less evil is better than slightly more evil by a slight amount. You are going to waste a vote that could be cast for slightly less and make it slightly more possible for slightly more evil to win. I am slightly better than you are.

Also if you have a corrupt democrat there may be a slightly better Republican to vote for.

Any way you cut it third party voting is for people who are more interested in their own personal indignation than they are for doing something slightly better for their country.

This logic is just air tight. You are irrational and pissed off and are going to vote emotionally like a spoiled brat. Great. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

Why do I care about slightly less evil? Either way is still bad for me.

I want to vote third party, but every time assholes like you tell me to vote for Obama it moves me closer to voting for McCain just to hear you weep.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
In short I do not want the Democrats to catch the Republicans in the level of party corruption.

And voting for them because I'm being told I have to stops that how?

You tell us third party voters that we have to vote for Democrats. In no way does that prompt them to curb unethical behavior. Quite the opposite, it encourages bad behavior because you're telling them they'll get your vote as long as they're not quite as bad as Republicans.

So you can bet your ass that they'll come as close as possible without crossing the line.

Great plan. Slightly less evil.

Take your pragmatism and shove it up the dark side of your moon.

Will you please use some logic. Slightly less evil is better than slightly more evil by a slight amount. You are going to waste a vote that could be cast for slightly less and make it slightly more possible for slightly more evil to win. I am slightly better than you are.

Also if you have a corrupt democrat there may be a slightly better Republican to vote for.

Any way you cut it third party voting is for people who are more interested in their own personal indignation than they are for doing something slightly better for their country.

This logic is just air tight. You are irrational and pissed off and are going to vote emotionally like a spoiled brat. Great. Cut off your nose to spite your face.

Why do I care about slightly less evil? Either way is still bad for me.

I want to vote third party, but every time assholes like you tell me to vote for Obama it moves me closer to voting for McCain just to hear you weep.

You're voting for him anyway because you're not canceling one of his votes and that's the whole point. But golly, you gotta see that for yourself. I'm just telling you what is, not how to vote.

 

[chess9]

Voting is not about YOU, it's about the best governance possible given the constraints of Democracy.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: chess9
His Campaign Chairman got $15,000 a month from Fannie Mae until August of this year.
-Robert

i thought we'd been over this already.

Did I miss something?

What's your point?

-Robert

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
They weren't fleeing because of worship of the state over religion, they were fleeing because they didn't have a legal system enforcing a constitution of human rights. Your ideas here are just another form of idealism, the notion that the alternative to religious fanaticism is state fanaticism, but fanaticism has its roots in self hate and anything handy will do. To be liberal is to be liberal. Liberal is not fanatic. A liberal does not worship the state. To be liberal is to have knowledge of the self including how it wants to cling to things. I want to see those least attached, most catholic, and most inwardly free in charge for a bit. Time for the American Taliban to fade away. You see a pendulum but I see switchbacks up a mountain.

How can you be so aware of the evils of the right and yet so willfully and blissfully blind to the evils of the left? Obama is not for and does not represent the "inwardly free" - he's just a statist through and through, GWB worshipping at a different altar. You'll look back in 4 years and wonder why nothing fundamentally changed.

 

[palehorse]

Filth always rises to the top...

hang her.