Users who Dugg This
Adam Smith
1 Followers
Thank God I am not Novenator
317 Followers
nurseyourself
574 Followers
Matt Graves
264 Followers
zimmerman2000us
-1 Followers
pc25Apr 12, 2011Submitter
a truly brainless twit. It was a different story after the 20088 election when the Obama, Reid, Pelosi mantra was "we won"
I remember Pelosi changing the rules in Congress effectively blocking any Republican input on any legislation that was being drafed
agmlauncherApr 13, 2011
To be fair, if it wasn't for this obvious hypocrisy, what she's saying here is true: it really shouldn't matter who is elected. This is why China is surging ahead of us. They have a very simple "just do it" mentality while we bicker back and forth in a tug of war because each party's ideals are so radically and completely different.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
macparrotApr 13, 2011
At the same time, the one party has complete control over policy (as well as what will be allowed for public speech and official attitudes). While I grow very tired of the lack of bi-partisonship from both sides and the complete unwillingness for either side to compromise, I'll take multiple parties that are somewhat beholden to the people that elected them to the do it our way or else position of China.
blendercoreApr 13, 2011
I agree with mac and so does he. . .
http://www.ted.com/talks/download/video/4521/talk/341
-in brief, politicians are middle of the road people; at the end of the day they are going to do what secures their postition and promotes thier intiail goals
pc25Apr 13, 2011Submitter
what don't you understand......It is about the hyocrisy......they felt they had the mandate in 2008 and went pedal to the metal with their far left progressive agenda. The newly elected congress is being accountable to the people that elected them. The democrats MISREAD the results of the election. They didn't have the MANDATE for that kind of change. The relality of the 2008 election totally overlooked the the MSM and the democrats was anyone but Bush or McCain.
hhusskApr 14, 2011
No, my friend. We're reading the same comment, but you're not putting it in context.
Nancy Pelosi is only saying election shouldn't matter because she's trying to deflect the Republican "Mandate" that was ignited in November of 2010. Unfortunately for her, she used the mantra "elections matter" and "elections have consequences" when Democrats took over the House, Senate, and ultimately, the Presidency.
She's clearly falling into hypocrisy by using this statement, regardless if you believe it in its altruistic form.
agmlauncherApr 14, 2011
Guys, seriously wtf....
Did you not read that I acknowledge the obvious hypocrisy? Why are you not able to separate ideals from their sources? Forget the fact that Hilary Clinton's twin assh**e said those words.
Would you have dugg me up of Noam Chomsky had uttered the same words?
anonadminApr 13, 2011
This type stuff always reminds me of something I once read in a book.
"When you choose the lesser of two evils, Evil always wins"
mogebierApr 13, 2011
"....it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election..." Says the old hag who took her sides victory in the 2008 elections as a blank check to ram all of their views and policies down our throats even while we objected.
4Herp2Derp0Apr 13, 2011
I actually agree to a certain degree. The election process in America has gone haywire. You don't see anything like it in any other country on the planet. Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars are spent for every major election now. It is a circus as well. So much garbage is fed to the American people that there is almost no chance of the majority making an educated decision in the voting booth. We are seeing candidates already gearing up and getting ready for an election that won't be happening for over a year and a half! No other election process is like this. It is getting insane. Soon we will be seeing people announcing their candidacy for president before the midterms. People in other countries must be in awe at how incredibly f**ked up and awful the American election process is.
One big thing we need to change is our voting methods. There needs to be one standard for the entire country. There also needs to be less hole punching and human counting and more computerized counting. We also need more and longer debates and less ads riddled with false or misleading claims and half truths.
Also, term limits for congress is a must! Being a politician should not be a career but rather a service. They should be payed the same amount as an average person and there should be very strict penalties, including jail time with MMS, for taking any kind of money from either individuals or corporations. Corporations should have zero influence in politics.
Set up an election fund. All donations will go into this fund and it should be dispersed evenly to all candidates. Make it illegal for personal finances to be used for elections. They can donate their personal stash to the election fund and it will be, once again, evenly dispersed. This evens out the playing field in a huge way. It should also be 100% illegal to make a campaign ad with lies in it. Punishment should be withdrawal from the election.
I could go on and on and on but unfortunately, nothing will ever get changed because the pricks who are in charge of changing it won't because it will hurt themselves.
bluto36Apr 13, 2011
we should have the govt approve and pay for the elections...
that is a great way to assure good honest elections happen.
and it is a very "progressive" idea. make sure the Govt approves of who we are electing before the first ballot is even cast.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
JewstinApr 13, 2011
completely cut out corporate and union interests from government, and limit the amount of time politicians can spend campaigning to only a few months. All candidates have to compete in debates against fellow competitors on national television, where they have to debate the issues, not Obama's a Muslim or hes pushing communism upon us (in short, politicians need to act more like adults and less like children, and accept defeat).
bluto36Apr 13, 2011
oh so you only have politicians beholden to govt interest instead of corporate or union interest like now.
and elections wont matter as much then... just like pelosi said
well that sounds just great!
macparrotApr 13, 2011
Who in the government will make the decision on what candidates are suitable? Whatever party is currently in control? You want to make it harder for corporations to dictate policy, make it illegal for them (and all large organizations including Unions and other special interest groups) to donate to campaigns.
JewstinApr 13, 2011
The Government is supposed to work for the people, so yes the people working for the government, politicians, should be up holding government interests, not business or union interest.
Elections shouldn’t matter that much. For instance, I am Canadian, and we are currently having an election, it was announced a month, so the politicians have one month only to campaign. Instead of spending 2.5 years campaigning, for only midterm elections like the Republican Party did after Obama was elected.
I am generally left leaning, however I am more than likely to vote for conservative party because I like their leader, and believe that he has done a good job. Quite simply, vote for the man not the party, or you will continue getting crap choices from the Republican Party.
Abraxas87Apr 14, 2011
Dude don't bother trying to explain our system to him. He will just shrug it off as Communism.
JewstinApr 14, 2011
Abaxas87 your probably right on this one, most extream conservatives are to ignorant to look past their party lines, to even look into systems that are run more efficiently then their own.
Either way here's to another minority conservative government cheers.
ultimisApr 13, 2011
How do you limit the number of people running for a office?
Also you're setting up a system where the wiser/smarter person might not win. Some people (lawyers) are good at debating; but terrible at governing. You've pretty much setup a advantage to one particular group. We're already a celebrity driven society; all this would do is make it worse. Bruce Willis, Arnold, and Jet Lee would be the future leaders of this country.
JewstinApr 13, 2011
It doesn’t have anything to do with the number of people in office.
As far as debates go, if you can’t debate how to run a country and give answers as needed in this debate, then perhaps you shouldn’t be running a country, just because a person is a lawyer doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to be any better at debating these things, over say a CEO or a economist ect. I'm not looking at who is the best debater; I’m looking at who will do the best job in the long run. Sure this wouldn’t sound great if you were a tea party supporter, but half those guys shouldn’t even be in power, and had they debated their rivals in a balanced environment, they may have had a harder time getting into power. Reagan was a movie star, and he did a good job when he was in power.
bluto36Apr 14, 2011
and if you cant fund your election... um well maybe you cant run a country???
under your rules Reagan would have never come to power, he was financed by a relative few people that believed in him, were unknown and were rich (makes them evil right?)
JewstinApr 14, 2011
no it explains allot of his policies which worked at the time, but overall helped lead to this current financial problem. you fund elections through taxes collected from all classes, unless you are creating employment, in which case some type tax cut should be available to cover certain costs like energy, training employees, buying of capital good expenses ect, not being given subsidies from tax payer money, or paying no taxes at all.
ultimisApr 14, 2011
You still haven't addressed the real problem. How do you limit the 30,000 people who will run for president? And do you hold debates for 30,000 people?
JewstinApr 14, 2011
Credentials and ability to lead, has the person shown that they are a capable leader, what have they done to show this, you don’t show huge debates of 30,000 people, you select the best and brightest and offer them the position not vice versa, could be handled by some kind of sub committee made up of the best and most trustworthy ex. Politicians, businessman, doctors, lawyers, economists ect.
vbdonApr 13, 2011
Having a shared election fund is insanity!!! Why should I be forced to bankroll an idiot or a criminal, just because some liberal nuts support him. Let each politician seek his or her own support and let the voters decide who gets the $'s.
bluto36Apr 13, 2011
agree!
shared election fund means govt approved elections
no thank you
4Herp2Derp0Apr 13, 2011
You do fully understand that you can use your exact argument for conservative candidates as well, right?
That is the only way you will even the playing field for everyone and bring the insane election spending under control. If you make it so the only ones who can successfully run are rich people, then you will only get candidates who will be rich and work for the rich instead of the majority(middle class).
Also, would you rather have our current system where corporations, both foreign and domestic, can shovel in as much money as they please for candidates that will help their bottom line instead of helping the people? Same thing with the rich that could shell out tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to one person that would be in the donors best interest.
The only way to make sure politicians cannot be bought and paid for is to get rid of the expensive elections and get more *gasp* fiscally conservative elections. This also includes corporations and even citizens from donating insane amounts of money to those candidates that will only benefit the very few. Put a cap on how much can be donated if need be.
Don't be against corruption in Washington while being against ideas that would help reduce the amount of corruption. Especially when you do not present counter ideas.
bluto36Apr 14, 2011
you think in Govt sponsored election some non-rich could ever win?
how? where?
how is Govt owning the election going to reduce corruption when Govt is the source of corruption?
counter idea,
remove all campaign finance restrictions for total 100% disclosure. if you are found to violate disclosure you are out.
unions, corporations, individuals can contribute as much as they want. any and all TV and Commercials.
i trust American voters, do you?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elcalrissianApr 13, 2011
Term limits, term limits, term limits!
We'll never get a good politician so long as they view the position as a money-making career.
ultimisApr 13, 2011
I agree up to a point. How do you keep it so 1,000,000 people don't run for office and swamp the electoral fund? The system you have described is actually really good for incumbents because they don't need to get their name out there.
So instead of having a handful of people bashing each other, back and forth; you would add thousands. It's not a cluster f**k I would like to see in our political system.
If you changed how it was funded you would also have to amend the constitution to make eligibility a lot harder.
4Herp2Derp0Apr 13, 2011
Well that is the best part of a group of people getting together to brainstorm. Someone puts forth a rough idea of what to do and everyone builds on it.
Sadly, the way things are run right now is that one person puts forth an idea and the other side almost instantly rejects it without building on it and revising it. Also, a lot of congressmen will say what they need to say to simply be re-elected. This is where term limits comes into play.
It is unacceptable to have federal politician be a career. I say 2 terms should be the limit with the possibility of another 1-2 more terms given they get at least 70-75% of the vote. Term limits are great but what if the person is doing a f**kin awesome job? That needs to be addressed. This should go for the presidency as well. If 3/4 of the voting population votes for someone for a 3rd term, they are obviously doing something right.
But anyways, I in no way think my plan that I just blurted out without even stopping to think about it is perfect, but it is something that we can build on to make it much better than our current system.
One thing in what I said can be agreed upon by everyone and that is standardization and modernization of our election process. I vote by filling in circles with a pencil and a computer analyzes it. Others vote by poking holes in cards and humans have to count it, and be paid with taxpayer dollars every time and for recounts. Yes, it would require an investment but it would pay for itself in less than 10 years, especially when you take into consideration the accuracy. You could even set up the software to back check against registered voters to weed out those that are not registered and throw those votes away. Or you could have a fingerprint reader in every booth and use that for identity confirmation. Fingerprint readers are not expensive and fake ID's can easily be made.
Let's work on that and then be pissed that there is nothing we can do to implement any of this because the few, but loud, will squash it because they can't understand it.
Abraxas87Apr 14, 2011
amen bro.
elliotysApr 13, 2011
Me thinks this was a coordinated comments section. . .
quisquisApr 13, 2011
Yeah... a bunch of people agree with the article. That MUST mean it's coordinated.
/sarcasm
elliotysApr 13, 2011
Yeah, but it wasn't an intellectual agreement, it was just a bunch of name calling with no substance. No one had an independent thought, it is like you guys are ran by a hive mind.
Also when your sarcasm is obvious you don't need to put the "/sarcasm" also usually an "/s" will suffice. When you put the second sarcasm it's like a double negative. Are you being sarcastic about your first sarcastic statement?
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
"No one had an independent thought, it is like you guys are ran by a hive mind."
Pot, meet kettle.
elliotysApr 13, 2011
So you agree with me. . .
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
Well, YOU had no independent thought. I have plenty of thoughts about what Pelosi just said.
http://quirkopatra.blogspot.com/2011/04/pelosi-tells-republicans-to-be-more.html
elliotysApr 13, 2011
I read it, and its just regurgitated republican talking points with very little basis in reality. I am sure YOU (i can use capslock too! Yay!) think the military is a socialist institution too huh? Also the insurance/bank bailouts were under Bush, remember? Also this huge deficit is from Bush policies, remember? Even staunch conservatives know you don't cut taxes when you go to war (common sense 101). Need I bring up medicare part D? As always the republicans talk a good game, but their actions contradict their words. Unlike my good friend Senator Kyle, who is a liar because he lies and that is what a liar does (see its not name calling its just stating the facts) this IS intended to be taken as a factual statementComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ultimisApr 13, 2011
"think the military is a socialist institution too huh?"
I haven't heard that one before. Very original.
"Also the insurance/bank bailouts were under Bush, remember?"
Nope not a talking point.
"Also this huge deficit is from Bush policies, remember?"
Well Quirkopatra is completely wrong. You're not a part of a hive mind. Even the liberal hive mind figured out these talking points have long been refuted and it makes you look like a retard to bring them up.
The rest of your post has almost very little thought put into it. I think you need to link up with your hive mind to get a update from 2009 to 2011. You're leaving yourself open to exploits and viruses that way.
elliotysApr 14, 2011
Refuted? Did Bush not leave us with a deficit? Did he not bail out the banks? Well, I'm not sure how to put my own spin on facts to make them sound original so i fail there. So yeah, you have probably heard all of these before because they are the truth. Refuted? Again you guys do not present any facts to contradict what I say, rather you just call me a retard and say you have heard them before. This time maybe you will remember them.
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
She sure didn't think so back in 2006.
casf1bApr 13, 2011
This woman serves in our Congress? My god, do all Democrats think like this now?
sydbloomApr 13, 2011
Yes.
vbdonApr 13, 2011
Of course they do. That's why people keep voting Republican. It's the only way to preserve our freedoms.
rthakidnApr 13, 2011
The arrogance of this woman is amazing. "take back your party" as if the politicians in the party have the authority to dictate how people are represented. I think the party is being taken back. One election at a time.
ridgerunner5Apr 13, 2011
Yep. The RINOs are being pushed out and new conservative blood is coming in to fill their seats.
dirtyfriesApr 13, 2011
Holy s**t what a stretch. You look at the complete quote in context and she's saying the elections shouldn't matter as much as the shared values between parties.
Christ, even when someone is trying to be bi-partisan you have to shill it into an issue.
She's right. This back and forth nonsense we try to play every few years at election time is just an ongoing childish squabble. So much time is spent trying to win that people ignore the basic concept of electing people to do the right thing for this country. And we're seeing the sad results of that right now in our Federal deficit talks. Both sides f**ked up and it's because they would rather fight than focus on the problem.
dusanmalApr 13, 2011
"elections shouldn't matter as much as the shared values between parties" is despicable... So, why have elections when "chosen people" can hush-up between them what is best for us. This is NOT about bipartisanship. This is about Political Class dictating "ordinary people" without ordinary people input, because they are stupid. Progressive mantra. Shame on you for even trying to interpret it as bipartisanship.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
dirtyfriesApr 13, 2011
No, you ill-equipped moron.
She's saying that the people in office are less important than the issues they represent.
Which is not only true, but as I said, the problem with the people becoming more important than the problem is evident in our current system.
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
Dirty... she hectored Republicans.
jdenzerApr 13, 2011
You're so full of it. How did she strong-arm them? She had a 257 seat majority. She only needed 218 to pass anything.
If your logic is correct, which it almost never is, then Bohner is hectoring the Dems.
It must kill you that a strong woman who was able to accomplish so much was a democrat. While the best the GOP can offer is some facebook drama queen and a tea bag caucus leader who can't even get her basic American history facts correct.
Either way as a woman, you should be proud that someone like Pelosi, who managed to reach 3rd in line for the Presidency. Could lead as strong if not stronger then most men in Congress.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
PyriteGenieApr 13, 2011
"How did she strong-arm them?"
Have we already forgotten that we had to pass Health Care Reform to find out what was in the bill?
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
jdenz - when did I say she strong-armed anyone? I'm talking about what she's saying here. She's ignoring her OWN party and hectoring the Republicans. It's rank hypocrisy. It reeks.
Hey, it's great that a woman became speaker...that doesn't mean I don't think this statement is full of s**t.
And woman or not, if I lived in her area, she would not get MY vote.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jdenzerApr 13, 2011
@quirk
If you are going to accuse someone of something. You should at least have a solid understanding of the word you're using. What proof do you have that Pelosi has bullied or intimidated the GOP. Or 'strong armed'
Plus you do understand that she is no longer the Speaker.
Accuse her of hypocrisy, that is fair enough. But to accuse her of hectoring the GOP, well that reeks of of BS
And I never said she deserves your vote for being a woman. But not respecting her accomplishments as a woman is shameful on your part. And like I said, I don't see any GOP woman rising to the occasion.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountApr 14, 2011
Her statement here was hectoring. It's not the first time, either. Remember the townhalls when she called angry voters "unamerican"?
"But not respecting her accomplishments as a woman is shameful on your part."
I said that it's good that a woman became speaker. And I totally disagree with everything she stands for. No shame here.
jdenzerApr 14, 2011
"she called angry voters "unamerican""
And that was the Republicans as a whole? And she hectored(Bullied) them to do what she wants?
Like I said, if you are going to accuse someone of something. Then you better be prepared to prove it. And so far you have offered nothing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darthrevan00m9Apr 13, 2011
I don't have a problem with the statement, but I think the fact that Pelosi is saying it rings really hollow.
PyriteGenieApr 13, 2011
When it no longer matter which party's candidate wins an election, it no longer matters to have an election.
dirtyfriesApr 13, 2011
You just made a jump.
She never said it didn't matter. She said it wasn't as important.
Those are two wildly different things. The issue is more important than the person.
PyriteGenieApr 13, 2011
And the two persons stand diametrically opposed. So the election is important.
sandylandersApr 13, 2011
This nonsense is coming from someone who was once in power and has been thrown out. We tried the progressive agenda and all we got was a budget busting healthcare bill that most likely will be repealed in the future or suffer loss in the supreme court. In addition, we got union and bank bailouts which neutered any pretense of fiscal discipline.
Elections do matter as they determine the direction of the country and right now Democrats have lost control and they know more defeat is coming.
scamper22Apr 13, 2011
Shared values are largely BS.
We rightfully have different values.
Oh more specifically, we all share different views on the importance of those values and the best ways to reach them.
"I care about education" - everyone thinks this. Now dig deeper
"Would you rather spend money on healthcare or education"
"Do you think parents should have school choice"
...
Pelosi is right that many things are at risk. Perhaps not surprisingly, when things are most at risk is when those details above matter most... and when differences are the most important.
It's crunch time if you will... when decisions matter... and elections are absolutely the most crucial and important tool in determining the policies going forward.
Of course, I know where Pelosi comes from. The progressive tradition (which impacts both the left and right as it did historically) where bureaucrats and academics can forge policy all on their own.
But again it's a pretty weak argument. People have different solutions to different problems. Only in isolated circles can you possible find agreement on how to solve a problem.
justlisteningApr 13, 2011
Term limits would fix most of the ills, and if we had them years ago Pelosi would have been long gone... along with a whole bunch of other professional politicians!
elcalrissianApr 13, 2011
i dont know why you'd be downdugg for this, it's a completely non-political and fair statement.
Harry Reid, Boehner, and most others have made millions out of their connections while in the Congress.
Individual campaign promises are ignored once they're in office. Its more important to get reelected than to vote their conscience.
So, what do we want in our congress? Someone like Mr Smith, speaking his mind and fighting for whats right. What do we get? Harry Reid.
pc25Apr 12, 2011Submitter
a truly brainless twit. It was a different story after the 20088 election when the Obama, Reid, Pelosi mantra was "we won"
I remember Pelosi changing the rules in Congress effectively blocking any Republican input on any legislation that was being drafed
ferretmanApr 13, 2011
Of course she'd say that--she'd rather not be bothered with such "distractions" at all!
7papa7Apr 13, 2011
Do you need any more evidence that she is a certifiable moron? She has once again proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that total stupidity inundates the democratic party.
bluto36Apr 13, 2011
not so much, she is mostly a sore loser and a good "progressive"
irvman21Apr 13, 2011
I don't hate Obama. I despise his policies, but I don't not hate him as a person.
Hate is reserved for people so vile, so evil, and so arrogant that even seeing a picture of them immediately causes rage to build inside. For me, Nancy Pelosi is one of the only people that has ever truly caused this reaction.
pc25Apr 12, 2011Submitter
the video is here
http://www.necn.com/pages/video?PID=I438xApAV9BvFmxPdkXJFgfxPHP9wXLx
justlisteningApr 13, 2011
Funny how elections should not be important.... since last November. If she and her progressive comrades have their way there may not be ab ellection.
sydbloomApr 13, 2011
Stalinist pig
professorpeakApr 13, 2011
So said the LOSER.
sydbloomApr 13, 2011
Stalinist pig
bigterguyApr 13, 2011
That's an insult to pigs educated in Marxism.
xtomtomxApr 13, 2011
I can hear Old Major rolling in his grave now.
bigterguyApr 13, 2011
Snowball listening? <haha>
xtomtomxApr 13, 2011
Sorry. I turned him into yummy crispy bacon.
Hey..it's not MY fault his kind are so delicious! :P
vbdonApr 13, 2011
Typical Lib. Hates democracy because people tend to be too smart to agree with any of the crap she dishes out. She doesn't believe elections should matter because she believes that only she and her elite class of liberals have the right to rule mankind.
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
To my Democrat friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the decline in education of our children despite increased spending, the growth of our economy, the reduction of the deficit, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors. How we protect the taxpayers. Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.
PyriteGenieApr 13, 2011
Looks like you're getting the same reception as did Pelosi. :)
Katyperryfan2Apr 13, 2011
This girl is f**ked up in the head she is a darwinist!
xtomtomxApr 13, 2011
Oh-Ho-Ho! Those darn silly elections! ~getting in the way of politicians' business.
I mean, seriously, how's a person supposed to take over the world when the will of the people keeps getting in the way?
/sComment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ieatskunkApr 13, 2011
Nancy Pelosi believes that illegal immigrants are patriots. She said so in a speech to a rally of them. She has zero credibility because she has demonstrated that she is very removed from reality.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
illinestApr 13, 2011
wait a second.
I was absolutely certain that I'd come to the comments and find that she was quoted out of context. I've never liked Pelosi but it didn't even cross my mind that she could be this stupid.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
elliotysApr 13, 2011
RTFA!
What more context do you need? She is basically saying our interests are shared so it shouldn't matter who wins. What is good for you is good for me.
GET IT?
quisquisApr 13, 2011
EXACTLY! Flat rate taxes all around.
Like you said, what's good for you is good for me.
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
No...she said that Republicans have lost control of their voters.
JewstinApr 13, 2011
haven't they?
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
Absolutely not. Republican voters really turned out in the last election.
JewstinApr 13, 2011
Could that be because the republicans spent 2.5 years campaigning for Mid Term elections instead of trying to lead or do anything meaningful?
atomheartmotherApr 13, 2011
How were they going to lead exactly, when they were in the minority and the POTUS was reminding them that "we won", and "elections have consequences"?
JewstinApr 13, 2011
They were given opportunity to contribute to Obama’s plans, Health care ect, but chose the idea that they were somehow also responsible for making major policy decisions when as you said they were a minority; it wasn’t their place to make major decisions but to contribute at that point in time, maybe earn the voters trust back. Either way, they chose not to contribute in order to help, and started claiming that Obama was bringing communism to the USA, and that he was a Muslim that wasn’t born in your country because some of his policies didn’t agree with “conservative ideals?” So in retrospect they spent more time campaigning to get what they wanted instead of what was necessary.
atomheartmotherApr 14, 2011
"They were given opportunity to contribute to Obama’s plans,"
Oh come on....Dems knew they didn't need GOP votes and wrote the legislation accordingly.
JewstinApr 15, 2011
and yet it took a year to put through a medical bill, they managed to convince Obama on more tax cuts for the rich ect... I don't think the Democrats would have taken so long to introduce any of their bills, if it were not for GOP stalling tactics. Sorry for late reply, I don't always get notified about new messages.
elliotysApr 13, 2011
RTFA!
What more context do you need? She is basically saying our interests are shared so it shouldn't matter who wins. What is good for you is good for me.
GET IT?
atomheartmotherApr 13, 2011
"She is basically saying our interests are shared so it shouldn't matter who wins."
I can't recall her saying anything remotely similar to that while she was wielding power. How very Church Lady conveeeeenient.
vbdonApr 13, 2011
Of course she is this stupid!!! She's been saying crazy things since before she was first elected. She is the perfect democrat, a total ditz!!
baliboyApr 14, 2011
bitch
whiteravenApr 13, 2011
Actualy, Pelosi is right bu, predictably, for the wrong reason.
At the federal level, elections should be rather trivial... is we obeyed the constitution, the government would have very discretion or power.
Of course, Pelosi's entire reason for being is to exert powers not granted by the constitution.
By the way leftists, you all hate lobbyists so much... want to know how to get rid of them? Confine government to it's assigned role and strip it of it illegally assumed powers and the lobbyists will just go home from lack of motivation. *Regulating* lobbying is a crime against the first amendment... giving lobbyists a reason to lobby is a crime against the constitution as a whole.
Closed AccountApr 13, 2011
Hypocrisy is a trait required prior to applying for membership in the Dumbycrat party. It is also helpful to be corrupt and dishonest.
macparrotApr 13, 2011
The Democrats certainly do not have a monopoly in hypocrisy in Washington
Purveyor55Apr 20, 2011
Pelosi's an idiot
aileneApr 16, 2011
hmmm, excuse me made comment before reading...i agree with Ms. Pelosi <gasp>
aileneApr 16, 2011
Is she kidding?
aileneApr 16, 2011
Is she kidding?
vintage_verbenaApr 15, 2011
classic Pelosi. Her political philosophy in a nutshell.
greenewaveApr 15, 2011
'The United States On A Suicide Mission'
Read more:
http://www.greenewave.com/the-united-states-on-a-suicide-mission-christopher-greene/
isenborgApr 14, 2011
And to think, we elect these people.
vanzant38Apr 14, 2011
IMO, elections don't matter.