Lefties: How do you feel about Speaker Pelosi?

If you're a lefty, did speaker pelosi speak to your concerns?


  • Total voters
    14
I have to disagree with you. It has nothing to do with whether or not she is either tough or successful. It has everything to do with the stances she takes.

Edit: In other words, if she were a conservative things would be different.

Immie

Doubtful. If she gave in to the Republicans on every issue, they'd just move further to the right.

so lets just move further to the Left.....that will solve everything.....

What's so wrong with the center? Fat chance, I know.
 
Also, the attempt at false equivalence is BS and we don't even need to rely on hypotheticals. Boehner gets laughed at for his crying jags, but he's not subjected to half the level of bile from the left that Pelosi was from the right.

give the guy a chance.....his time is coming.....Pelosi had a few years to build up her wonderful reputation....

She was under bitter attack before she ever picked up the gavel.
 
Doubtful. If she gave in to the Republicans on every issue, they'd just move further to the right.

What I meant was if she was a conservative, they would have adored her. It was her position on things that made her Public Enemy #1 - #15 as far as conservatives were concerned. And if she was conservative, the liberals would have despised her.

Immie

So, if she were a Republican, Republicans would like her? Well, yeah, but that's totally missing the point.

Also, the attempt at false equivalence is BS and we don't even need to rely on hypotheticals. Boehner gets laughed at for his crying jags, but he's not subjected to half the level of bile from the left that Pelosi was from the right.

It appears that you have totally missed the point. That being that if she were a conservative they would adore her. The only reason they don't is BECAUSE of the party she calls her own. They would cum in their shorts if she were on their side.

What does Boehner have to do with this discussion?

Immie
 
What I meant was if she was a conservative, they would have adored her. It was her position on things that made her Public Enemy #1 - #15 as far as conservatives were concerned. And if she was conservative, the liberals would have despised her.

Immie

So, if she were a Republican, Republicans would like her? Well, yeah, but that's totally missing the point.

Also, the attempt at false equivalence is BS and we don't even need to rely on hypotheticals. Boehner gets laughed at for his crying jags, but he's not subjected to half the level of bile from the left that Pelosi was from the right.

It appears that you have totally missed the point. That being that if she were a conservative they would adore her. The only reason they don't is BECAUSE of the party she calls her own. They would cum in their shorts if she were on their side.

What does Boehner have to do with this discussion?

Immie

Because of your claim liberals would have the same sort of reaction to someone not on their side holding the gavel.
 
So, if she were a Republican, Republicans would like her? Well, yeah, but that's totally missing the point.

Also, the attempt at false equivalence is BS and we don't even need to rely on hypotheticals. Boehner gets laughed at for his crying jags, but he's not subjected to half the level of bile from the left that Pelosi was from the right.

It appears that you have totally missed the point. That being that if she were a conservative they would adore her. The only reason they don't is BECAUSE of the party she calls her own. They would cum in their shorts if she were on their side.

What does Boehner have to do with this discussion?

Immie

Because of your claim liberals would have the same sort of reaction to someone not on their side holding the gavel.

Oh? You think the liberals like Boehner?

Boehner is no where as strong willed as Pelosi and he is also a he, although he does allow his feminine side too much leeway!

Anyway, they still despise him.

Edit: And with that, look for any reply from me, tomorrow. I'm not staying on tonight. Have a good one.

Immie
 
Last edited:
It appears that you have totally missed the point. That being that if she were a conservative they would adore her. The only reason they don't is BECAUSE of the party she calls her own. They would cum in their shorts if she were on their side.

What does Boehner have to do with this discussion?

Immie

Because of your claim liberals would have the same sort of reaction to someone not on their side holding the gavel.

Oh? You think the liberals like Boehner?

Boehner is no where as strong willed as Pelosi and he is also a he, although he does allow his feminine side too much leeway!

Anyway, they still despise him.

Edit: And with that, look for any reply from me, tomorrow. I'm not staying on tonight. Have a good one.

Immie

Never said liberals like Boehner. Simply that they aren't characterizing him as a creature lurking in the dark.

I'm about to head out myself. Take it easy.
 
I've got Harry Dresden telling me in another thread that Lefties didn't like Speaker Pelosi, and i don't believe it.

So I'm asking: were any of you criticizing Pelosi on USMB last summer? I seem to remember the sentiment being that she was about the only one looking out for Liberal issues, while Obama was dropping the ball and Harry was trying to survive.

I could be wrong, but I don't remember any Liberals bashing Pelosi.

I'm a Christian Left/Universalistm, liberal Constitutionalist, and progressive Democrat.

I find most things that Pelosi, Obama and others have done for political agenda violate Constitutional duty to equal protection of interests in representing the whole nation.

The health care bill introduced unconstitutional mandates, and contradicted pro-choice defenses against pro-life legislation to "save lives" at the expense of Constitutional ethics.

So I find both the actions and words of Pelosi and Obama to be in conflict with Constitutional duties and ethics, and thus damaging to the public trust, which you might call "embarrassing."

I agree with Obama's appointment of Sotomayor with the understanding that if a consistent immigration policy is going to be enforced, where violations by either individuals or organized groups or employers will incur restitution proportionate to the length of time and degree of the violations, then it will help to have Latino representation on the federal level so that the law enforcement comes from inclusion and not perceived as outside.

I believe most of the liberal agenda is better achieved through organization, promotion, and management of cost-effective nonprofit and business programs that can end poverty and abuse by providing private community-based counseling, education, and training on a localized level that does not require legislation or micro/mismanagement by govt bureaucracy. I don't believe the government should be abused to create or fund such programs that work better by private programs with the freedom to work by localizing accountability, representation and consent of each community, district or state. Only if a program or policy is proven to work universally could that be adopted as national policy -- but by choice, by informed consent, not imposition by majority-rule. If it's a truly effective solution, it can be proven to work and chosen freely, not by political manipulation. Otherwise, to push an agenda or policy without informed consent of the public or any proof it meets Constitutional standards or ethics is an abuse of public trust, authority and resources in violation of Government duties:
ethics-commission.net

I believe the Democratic Party owes restitution to the constituency and communities claimed to be represented, for abusing the votes and elections to push for party agenda instead of reforms that are Constitutionally sound. The partisan conflicts caused, which cost more money for political lobbying and campaigning, draw attention and resources away from the community-based programs proven to work which deserve that support.
This has been going on, exploiting and destroying poor communities, so that is one reason I joined the Democratic Party to address the cause at the root and to pursue corrections.

I believe in the goals of the Party, but the way to achieve them must be Constitutional.
These politicians who have hijacked the Party, from the Black vote to the Green vote and the Pink/Peace vote just to get elected to power, owe restitution for the damages done.
 
Last edited:
shes a good representative of the people so in the how do you feel about the cry baby of the house ?if he was in charge and a disaster happened he cry like a girl and not be able to act .
 
Also, the attempt at false equivalence is BS and we don't even need to rely on hypotheticals. Boehner gets laughed at for his crying jags, but he's not subjected to half the level of bile from the left that Pelosi was from the right.

give the guy a chance.....his time is coming.....Pelosi had a few years to build up her wonderful reputation....

She was under bitter attack before she ever picked up the gavel.

like i said....because many knew her from her work here in California.....
 
thats a matter of opinion Sallow.....i think she is pretty far to the left.....its people like her that drove me out of the Democratic party in the early nineties.....

Of course it is..

But I base my parameters on the variables I've seen over most of the 50 years of my life. And what was considered far right some 30 years ago..now seems to the "center". The Birchers may have went on and on about how John F. Kennedy was a man beholdened to the Pope and a communist (A neat trick!) but no one took them seriously. Now President Obama is a foreign born/muslim/communist (A neat trick!) and mainstream serious contenders for the Presidency on the right are "parroting" the same view.

you cant compare the politicians of 30 years ago with the shit we have now....no matter who was in charge back then ....you knew the Country was being taken care of....today....the Country is 3rd behind their own interests and the Parties.....
I see the constant need for more campaign money as the only culprit.

If we had publically financed elections and everyone who meets a set criteria gets the same amount of money and donated airtime (by the networks), the influence of the big-money backers would be less.

But the media would fight this tooth and nail - they benefit tremendously from that campaign money.
 
I have to disagree with you. It has nothing to do with whether or not she is either tough or successful. It has everything to do with the stances she takes.

Edit: In other words, if she were a conservative things would be different.

Immie

Doubtful. If she gave in to the Republicans on every issue, they'd just move further to the right.

so lets just move further to the Left.....that will solve everything.....
Correct.
 
Of course it is..

But I base my parameters on the variables I've seen over most of the 50 years of my life. And what was considered far right some 30 years ago..now seems to the "center". The Birchers may have went on and on about how John F. Kennedy was a man beholdened to the Pope and a communist (A neat trick!) but no one took them seriously. Now President Obama is a foreign born/muslim/communist (A neat trick!) and mainstream serious contenders for the Presidency on the right are "parroting" the same view.

you cant compare the politicians of 30 years ago with the shit we have now....no matter who was in charge back then ....you knew the Country was being taken care of....today....the Country is 3rd behind their own interests and the Parties.....
I see the constant need for more campaign money as the only culprit.

If we had publically financed elections and everyone who meets a set criteria gets the same amount of money and donated airtime (by the networks), the influence of the big-money backers would be less.

But the media would fight this tooth and nail - they benefit tremendously from that campaign money.

i agree with you here.......
 
Because of your claim liberals would have the same sort of reaction to someone not on their side holding the gavel.

Oh? You think the liberals like Boehner?

Boehner is no where as strong willed as Pelosi and he is also a he, although he does allow his feminine side too much leeway!

Anyway, they still despise him.

Edit: And with that, look for any reply from me, tomorrow. I'm not staying on tonight. Have a good one.

Immie

Never said liberals like Boehner. Simply that they aren't characterizing him as a creature lurking in the dark.

I'm about to head out myself. Take it easy.

No, they reserved that distinction for Newt. :eusa_shhh:

Immie
 

yea use my State as your example......still agree?.....
You mean the one with the Republican governor for the past 8 years?

hey Synth...i hate to tell you this but this State is VERY much a Democratic State and has been for years......the Voting public Democratic.... the Legislature Democratic.....
when mean old Pete Wilson left there was a something like a 16 billion Dollar Surplus....Gray Davis got in and everything starts going downhill.....the Legislature here tells the Governor how high to jump.....not the other way around.....it will be interesting to see how "Bulldog" Brown fares against them........he already seems to be avoiding questions about the State Unions.....
 

Forum List

Back
Top