PDA

View Full Version : ahhhh...our favorite speaker



david gibson
11-14-2010, 09:06 AM
she really said this?

"“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning"

you are right "ma'am" (disrespect intended a-la boxer) you didnt lose because of you. you lost because of all the other minions behind you who had fallen head over heels for The Apologists ill concieved socialistic agendas of redistribution of wealth, abominable spending and waste that will never stiumulate close to what was intended while saddling our descendants in unspeakable debt, and your misleading lies of transparency - "we have to pass the bill to see whats in it", not to mention joblessness and the private sectors complete distrust of this administation.

what arrogance to think that SHE and only SHE are the reasons behind the downward spiral the dems have found themselves in.

you cant make this stuff up!





http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/12/pelosi-we-didnt-lose-because-of-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ. com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

starjack
11-14-2010, 10:24 AM
She is in so much denile her own party is telling her to get lost.

Gerry Clinchy
11-18-2010, 09:53 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/us/politics/18cong.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a24

Nope ... Pelosi retains leadership of her party.



Some of the Democrats defeated this month counseled strongly against keeping Ms. Pelosi, and one did not mince words. “Have they lost their minds?” asked Representative Allen Boyd, a defeated Democrat, as he passed by the Cannon Caucus Room, where the election was occurring.

But her allies said Ms. Pelosi was the party’s best fund-raiser, had been unfairly maligned by Republicans who saw her as too effective and merited the loyalty of House Democrats whom she had led to the promised land of the majority in 2006 after 14 years out of power .

depittydawg
11-19-2010, 12:15 AM
she really said this?

"“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning"

you are right "ma'am" (disrespect intended a-la boxer) you didnt lose because of you. you lost because of all the other minions behind you who had fallen head over heels for The Apologists ill concieved socialistic agendas of redistribution of wealth, abominable spending and waste that will never stiumulate close to what was intended while saddling our descendants in unspeakable debt, and your misleading lies of transparency - "we have to pass the bill to see whats in it", not to mention joblessness and the private sectors complete distrust of this administation.

what arrogance to think that SHE and only SHE are the reasons behind the downward spiral the dems have found themselves in.

you cant make this stuff up!





http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/12/pelosi-we-didnt-lose-because-of-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ. com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

An analysis of the election results validates what Pelosi said. A majority of the congressional seats lost by the dems were blue dog seats. The majority of the progressives who won their seats in 2006 and 2008 were re-elected this time. Had the Dems passed the legislation in the Senate that made it through the house, they would have fared much better in the nov elections. Had Obama fought for the progressive agenda as did Pelosi, he would no doubt still be on the high side of 50% approval ratings.
The fault of the Democratic failure of the last 2-4 years lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid and Barrak Obama. Pelosi makes a nice target for the right wing media fire, but the reality is that she was a decent speaker. Her greatest fault is that she took impeachment off the table when the criminal was still in the White House.

depittydawg
11-19-2010, 12:28 AM
The Apologists ill concieved socialistic agendas of redistribution of wealth,

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/12/pelosi-we-didnt-lose-because-of-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ. com%3A+Washington+Wire%29

I get a kick out of this clamoring of "redistribution of wealth" from the Right Wing pundits. The re-distribution of US wealth has already taken place. It occurred over the last 25 years. Here is the data if you're interested.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

As of 2004 the top 1% of US families controlled about 35% of the wealth in the nation. The bottom 40% of US families owns considerably less than 1% of the wealth. This re-distribution of wealth took place when Obama was still a community organizer in Chicago. You've identified a real problem David. But you've missed the mark in establishing who caused it and when it occurred. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to find a decent paying job in America? Ever wonder why your father never had that trouble?

Cody Covey
11-19-2010, 01:14 AM
An analysis of the election results validates what Pelosi said. A majority of the congressional seats lost by the dems were blue dog seats. The majority of the progressives who won their seats in 2006 and 2008 were re-elected this time. Had the Dems passed the legislation in the Senate that made it through the house, they would have fared much better in the nov elections. Had Obama fought for the progressive agenda as did Pelosi, he would no doubt still be on the high side of 50% approval ratings.
The fault of the Democratic failure of the last 2-4 years lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid and Barrak Obama. Pelosi makes a nice target for the right wing media fire, but the reality is that she was a decent speaker. Her greatest fault is that she took impeachment off the table when the criminal was still in the White House.

I was a little young back then but i didn't know that Pelosi was around when Clinton was in office?

cotts135
11-19-2010, 06:06 AM
she really said this?

"“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning"

you are right "ma'am" (disrespect intended a-la boxer) you didnt lose because of you. you lost because of all the other minions behind you who had fallen head over heels for The Apologists ill concieved socialistic agendas of redistribution of wealth, abominable spending and waste that will never stiumulate close to what was intended while saddling our descendants in unspeakable debt, and your misleading lies of transparency - "we have to pass the bill to see whats in it", not to mention joblessness and the private sectors complete distrust of this administation.

what arrogance to think that SHE and only SHE are the reasons behind the downward spiral the dems have found themselves in.

you cant make this stuff up!





http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/12/pelosi-we-didnt-lose-because-of-me/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fwashwire%2Ffeed+%28WSJ. com%3A+Washington+Wire%29


If you mean that the redistribution of wealth has been going up , then I agree with you.;) but that's probably not what you meant is it?

YardleyLabs
11-19-2010, 06:55 AM
If you mean that the redistribution of wealth has been going up , then I agree with you.;) but that's probably not what you meant is it?
I think your sentence may be a little ambiguous. I suspect you were pointing out that, over the last 30 years, we have seen a consistent shifting of wealth from the lower 80% of the population to the top 20%.

road kill
11-19-2010, 07:21 AM
I think your sentence may be a little ambiguous. I suspect you were pointing out that, over the last 30 years, we have seen a consistent shifting of wealth from the lower 80% of the population to the top 20%.


Of course, much of that "lower 80%" got thier "wealth" from the efforts, investments and taxes paid by those EVIL "top 20%."

You are truly amazing.:rolleyes:


RK

Jason Glavich
11-19-2010, 07:22 AM
I think your sentence may be a little ambiguous. I suspect you were pointing out that, over the last 30 years, we have seen a consistent shifting of wealth from the lower 80% of the population to the top 20%.

So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?

I am ok with that, if you work hard for your money and become rich then good for you, if you don't try to improve yourself and you stay poor... sorry but I came from nothing, and do very well for myself, no one handed me anything. I am no where near rich but I prefer to only take care of my family not all the people who don't want to work and pay taxes.

And before you say there are no jobs blah blah blah Obama rules. I know of a decent paying job for the area (with good health care) that has been trying to hire someone in a high unemployment mid west state to run a newspaper production department, 30 people offered the job, all turned it down, why they feel they need to be paid more than the job can offer, because they can much just as much on unemployment, so why work? We can just extend unemployment benefits out to 10 years or so.

So are you the 20% or the 80%?

Buzz
11-19-2010, 08:18 AM
Of course, much of that "lower 80%" got thier "wealth" from the efforts, investments and taxes paid by those EVIL "top 20%."

You are truly amazing.:rolleyes:


RK


Yup. No one in that lower 98% did a thing to help that top 2% profit from their investments. No sweat, no ideas, nothing. Those investments just magically generate profits all on their own. The bottom 98% just sat of their fat arses and fed off the teat of that upper 2% and they don't appreciate it one stinking bit. Let them eat cake.

Yes, you are truly amazing. :rolleyes:

road kill
11-19-2010, 08:19 AM
Yup. No one in that lower 98% did a thing to help that top 2% profit from their investments. No sweat, no ideas, nothing. Those investments just magically generate profits all on their own. The bottom 98% just sat of their fat arses and fed off the teat of that upper 2% and they don't appreciate it one stinking bit. Let them eat cake.

Yes, you are truly amazing. :rolleyes:

If they work for the Govt or in a Union, yep, pretty much!!;-)


RK

Buzz
11-19-2010, 08:51 AM
If they work for the Govt or in a Union, yep, pretty much!!;-)


RK

Tell that to these guys.

http://www.detroitfirefighters.net/images/Dave/dave20.jpg


And these guys.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/12/12/ice-storm-top.jpg

And these guys.

http://images.watoday.com.au/2009/03/24/430316/x-Israeli-soldiers-420x0.jpg

And these guys.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Funeral+Held+NJ+Police+Officer+Shot+During+k6r1rls HTTIl.jpg

road kill
11-19-2010, 08:58 AM
Tell that to these guys.

http://www.detroitfirefighters.net/images/Dave/dave20.jpg


And these guys.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2007/12/12/ice-storm-top.jpg

And these guys.

http://images.watoday.com.au/2009/03/24/430316/x-Israeli-soldiers-420x0.jpg

And these guys.

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Funeral+Held+NJ+Police+Officer+Shot+During+k6r1rls HTTIl.jpg

Nicely played, show some pics of DHLR oe DE or maybe the UAW or possibly the SEIU.

Show some pics of those people hard at work at any of the social agencys SS or AFDC.
How about WEAC??

For every firefighter or policeman or lineman there are a million Govt/union workers that have rotund behinds from sitting on them.
They create NOTHING!!
http://davepear.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/bureaucracy.jpg
BTW--Those brave souls are always the ones the bureaucrats threaten to cut when honing budgets.

Spit the Kool-Aid out Buzz, it doesn't taste that good.:rolleyes:


RK

luvmylabs23139
11-19-2010, 09:32 AM
An analysis of the election results validates what Pelosi said. A majority of the congressional seats lost by the dems were blue dog seats. The majority of the progressives who won their seats in 2006 and 2008 were re-elected this time. Had the Dems passed the legislation in the Senate that made it through the house, they would have fared much better in the nov elections. Had Obama fought for the progressive agenda as did Pelosi, he would no doubt still be on the high side of 50% approval ratings.
The fault of the Democratic failure of the last 2-4 years lies squarely on the shoulders of Harry Reid and Barrak Obama. Pelosi makes a nice target for the right wing media fire, but the reality is that she was a decent speaker. Her greatest fault is that she took impeachment off the table when the criminal was still in the White House.

I think you are a bit confused.
THE CRIMINAL IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE NOW!!!!!

duckheads
11-19-2010, 10:25 AM
Hey Buzzard why didn't you post some pictures of those UAW workers they caught on tape. Or the people on welfare for their entire life. I know, i know it is the rich business men, aka THE MAN, who keep them on welfare. Where would all of the resident independants be without the emotion card to play all of the time?

road kill
11-19-2010, 10:44 AM
Hey Buzzard why didn't you post some pictures of those UAW workers they caught on tape. Or the people on welfare for their entire life. I know, i know it is the rich business men, aka THE MAN, who keep them on welfare. Where would all of the resident independants be without the emotion card to play all of the time?

Page 7.....

RK

Buzz
11-19-2010, 11:25 AM
Hey Buzzard why didn't you post some pictures of those UAW workers they caught on tape. Or the people on welfare for their entire life. I know, i know it is the rich business men, aka THE MAN, who keep them on welfare. Where would all of the resident independants be without the emotion card to play all of the time?

Last I checked, those UAW workers were fired. I wonder how many in management have been fired for their 3 martini lunches?

I don't see any reason to post pictures of welfare recipients when I was responding to RK's assertion that all union and government workers were feeding on the teat of the top 2%. Nope, dragging welfare into the conversation isn't playing the emotion card. :rolleyes:

road kill
11-19-2010, 11:27 AM
Last I checked, those UAW workers were fired. I wonder how many in management have been fired for their 3 martini lunches?

I don't see any reason to post pictures of welfare recipients when I was responding to RK's assertion that all union and government workers were feeding on the teat of the top 2%. Nope, dragging welfare into the conversation isn't playing the emotion card. :rolleyes:


I didn't use that word, YOU did, it's your only play.........and it's false, but maybe someone will believe you.


RK

menmon
11-19-2010, 11:29 AM
I get a kick out of this clamoring of "redistribution of wealth" from the Right Wing pundits. The re-distribution of US wealth has already taken place. It occurred over the last 25 years. Here is the data if you're interested.

http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

As of 2004 the top 1% of US families controlled about 35% of the wealth in the nation. The bottom 40% of US families owns considerably less than 1% of the wealth. This re-distribution of wealth took place when Obama was still a community organizer in Chicago. You've identified a real problem David. But you've missed the mark in establishing who caused it and when it occurred. Have you ever wondered why it is so hard to find a decent paying job in America? Ever wonder why your father never had that trouble?

I'm an advocate of redistrubution. If the same old people hoard it, I can't get any. See I would rather a playing field that churned it instead of a place that let a few keep it and my situation stay the same or erode.

mjh345
11-19-2010, 11:53 AM
So the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer?

I am ok with that, if you work hard for your money and become rich then good for you, if you don't try to improve yourself and you stay poor... sorry but I came from nothing, and do very well for myself, no one handed me anything. I am no where near rich but I prefer to only take care of my family not all the people who don't want to work and pay taxes.

And before you say there are no jobs blah blah blah Obama rules. I know of a decent paying job for the area (with good health care) that has been trying to hire someone in a high unemployment mid west state to run a newspaper production department, 30 people offered the job, all turned it down, why they feel they need to be paid more than the job can offer, because they can much just as much on unemployment, so why work? We can just extend unemployment benefits out to 10 years or so.

So are you the 20% or the 80%?

You say it is a decent paying job in the first part of your run on sentence. In the second part of your run on sentence you say that it doesn't pay anymore than unemployment.

What do you consider a decent paying job?
How much do you think unemployment pays in that mid west state?

Jason Glavich
11-19-2010, 12:33 PM
You say it is a decent paying job in the first part of your run on sentence. In the second part of your run on sentence you say that it doesn't pay anymore than unemployment.

What do you consider a decent paying job?
How much do you think unemployment pays in that mid west state?

What do you consider a decent paying job?

One that pays you for work being done. Not what you think you should make. Let's break down my run on sentence then. The job is decent, and it is a paying job, with health care. Other options available, it is a job, they are hiring, it's a foot in the door, it's an opportunity, it's not unemployment.

My statement of it pays decent but is less than unemployment was more of a statement of pay for work done.

Job A pays 10,000 a year for busting your backside scubbing toilets and septic tanks with a toothbrush.
Job B pays 8,000 for not doing anything at all

Job B doesn't sound too bad right?

It goes back to the argument of, if we kick out the illegals no one would do those jobs. Yes they would for a fair wage not 2.25 an hour tax free.

I was taught you work for your money. I know times are tough but if there are jobs available, why would you not at least get your foot in the door. A job with some benefits is better than no career path whatsoever!

Also not everything is meant to be taken so literally. Dollar per hour unemployment is pretty good.

WaterDogRem
11-19-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm an advocate of redistrubution. If the same old people hoard it, I can't get any. See I would rather a playing field that churned it instead of a place that let a few keep it and my situation stay the same or erode.

No surprise here. But last I checked millionaires in this country grew by at least 15+ percent last year. It's not everyone else's fault if you don't know how to find the cheese. Hint: Don't do what everyone else is.

Cody Covey
11-19-2010, 01:52 PM
Not only that but over half of millionares are first generation millionaires. It's so tragic that the people with no money don't provide jobs but thats just the way it works i guess.

depittydawg
11-19-2010, 09:36 PM
I was a little young back then but i didn't know that Pelosi was around when Clinton was in office?

Not sure what you mean with the reference to Clinton? But Pelosi has been in Congress since the late 80's I believe.

depittydawg
11-19-2010, 09:40 PM
Nicely played, show some pics of DHLR oe DE or maybe the UAW or possibly the SEIU.



RK

Are you suggesting that people who belong to these organizations don't work? If so, I suggest you spend a weekend in Las Vegas. Not only will you enjoy yourself; but you will be dazzled with the service you get from SEIU workers.

mjh345
11-19-2010, 11:58 PM
What do you consider a decent paying job?

One that pays you for work being done. Not what you think you should make. Let's break down my run on sentence then. The job is decent, and it is a paying job, with health care. Other options available, it is a job, they are hiring, it's a foot in the door, it's an opportunity, it's not unemployment.

My statement of it pays decent but is less than unemployment was more of a statement of pay for work done.

Job A pays 10,000 a year for busting your backside scubbing toilets and septic tanks with a toothbrush.
Job B pays 8,000 for not doing anything at all

Job B doesn't sound too bad right?

It goes back to the argument of, if we kick out the illegals no one would do those jobs. Yes they would for a fair wage not 2.25 an hour tax free.

I was taught you work for your money. I know times are tough but if there are jobs available, why would you not at least get your foot in the door. A job with some benefits is better than no career path whatsoever!

Also not everything is meant to be taken so literally. Dollar per hour unemployment is pretty good.

I asked you two questions, which you haven't answered. Instead you posed a question back to me, which I will answer by saying that I don't consider a job that pays no more than unemployment to be a decent paying job.
Now would you care to answer my questions?

Jason Glavich
11-20-2010, 01:49 PM
I asked you two questions, which you haven't answered. Instead you posed a question back to me, which I will answer by saying that I don't consider a job that pays no more than unemployment to be a decent paying job.
Now would you care to answer my questions?

Ok here's my answers. Unemplyment for each person varies, sorry can't agile you specifics.

To me a decent paying job is one that will hire you and pay you for working. Sorry if I think a job regardless of pay is still worth having. Maybe working at a job will get the a more desirable job down the line. Not every one can be the CEO and make 500k a year. In my opinion a paying job is a paying job. And if I lost everything and had to go back to entry level then I would. I can't get back to the top while collecting unemployment.

Hope that answers your questions.