What We Look For In Our Leaders

[Harry Dresden]

You've never had any leaders. Only mis-leaders.

youve never had a brain.only a dried up piece of shit in your cranium....

 

[MKDavis]

This one is about leadership traits and Obama's associations. Many of which would keep him from getting a security clearance because many of them have been involved in planning the overthrow of the government.

You may wish to examine the security clearance standards more closely. This canard was debunked by the St. Petersburg Times last October 10th (see politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/].

QUESTION: "List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact"

RESPONSE: Obama is not bound to his father or stepfather because both are deceased, nor is he bound "by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact" to his relatives in Africa.

QUESTION: "Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities? Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?"

RESPONSE: Obama could truthfully answer "no," because he was neither a member nor contributed to such organizations. Neither serving alongside William Ayers, nor granting funding to Khaladi's group meets the disqualifying criteria. Associating with members of a disqualifying group does NOT disqualify a candidate for a security clearance, nor does his association with Rev. Wright or Frank Marshall Davis. Security clearance criteria evaluate the subject's participation in subversive organizations, not guilt by associating with members. Further, activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration (see tpub.com/content/aviation/14243/css/14243_219.htm).

The SF86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, can be downloaded at opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf. Question 29, Association Record, asks about disqualifying associations.

Then are we in agreement?

- Obama would not need to report those "questionable" associations because he was neither a member of, nor contributed to, disqualifying organizations.

Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, Barack Obama would meet the eligibility criteria for access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B et al.) information. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, his association with radicals does not render him ineligible for access. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, candidates are assessed by examining THEIR actions, not the actions of their associates. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, "guilt by association" is an invalid basis for adjudicating security clearances.

Obama has a few friends that have committed violent acts against the United States. He also trained ACORN members which one of their goals is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil. These two issue alone would prevent him from getting a security clearance.

I held a TS clearance and I got flagged just because I was molested when I was 6. Any issue in one's past that could cause you to be resentful or hateful has to be investigated.

Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind. His visit to terrorist states in the Middle East would be the same. It doesn't take much. His family is another...but not exactly a good reason. Seems Bill Clinton couldn't get a clearance ether. Funny....Democrats seem to have serious issues when it comes to clearances.

While your anecdote is interesting, it does not refute existing personnel security standards. The United States Government does not include guilt-by-association as disqualifying. It is the actions of the subject, not the actions of his associates, that may be disqualifying. Neither Obama's friendships nor visits are disqualifying criteria according to the personnel security standards of the United States Government. Please READ the security clearance information provided by the government. Please READ the St. Petersberg Times debunking of this myth.

Frank Marshall Davis's son, who lived with Davis until he joined the military, retired as an Air Force Intelligence Officer (TS/SCI). Obviously his father's FBI file was NOT disqualifying. If this long-term association is not disqualifying, what makes you think that any short-term acquaintance or friendship is disqualifying?

Unfortunately you seem to misrepresent speculation as fact once again. I challenge you to prove that Obama's FRIENDS "committed violent acts against the United States." Proof must consist of empirical evidence (not speculation) that such people actually were "friends," and that they "committed violent acts against the United States." Ayers, for example, was a professional associate. Please prove that they actually were "friends." Please do the same for any other such "friends."

Please provide empirical evidence (not speculation) that an actual "goal" of ACORN "is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil." The goals of ACORN are clearly documented at acorn.org.

FYI: "Peaceful overthrow" may be an oxymoron, because the only way our government could be overthrown is by force. If change is peaceful, then it is a hardly qualifies as an "overthrow."

The personnel security standards consider membership in organizations devoted to VIOLENT overthrow, not "peaceful overthrow," to be disqualifying. Causing "economic turmoil" is not a disqualifying factor, nor is training ACORN members.

Further, what "visits to terrorist states" do you consider disqualifying?

BTW: I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues in a cordial manner.

"The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth." - William O. Douglas

 

[MKDavis]

"I'll give you a few of the names of his friends.

William Ayers - Domestic Terrorist

George Soros, Tony Rezko - Criminals

Rev. Jeremiah Wright - Racist

Frank Marshall Davis - Communist"

Please provide primary source evidence that Rezco and Ayers were Obama's "friends," Rev. Wright is a racist, and Soros is a criminal. Specifics please! An association does not a "friend" make!

Mainstream media ignores such claims because they are unsubstantiated accusations. For example, AIM's "Obama's Communist Mentor" is a travesty of journalism.

I posted links.

Try clicking on them and friggen read what it says.

The MSM ignores them because they're in on it. They've lost their objectivity. Early in 09' they were actually having conference calls with Obama in the morning on how they were gonna spin the news to help him.

In a few seconds you could google this and find out what they were doing.

What do you consider to be Primary Source....a source from the MSM???

Are you fucken high????


You show people the facts and because it's not from Obama's state-run media sources they refuse to pay attention to it.

This is exactly how Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela. You bore me.....fucken mindless fool.

I'm sorry. I thought I was debating with some who had a basic education, but apparently I was mistaken. Here is the meaning of "primary source evidence":

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.

In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied."

Because your posts suggests English may be your second language, here is the dictionary.com distinction between applicable degrees of affinity, such as between "friend" and "acquaintance":

"Acquaintance, associate, companion, friend refer to a person with whom one is in contact. An acquaintance is someone recognized by sight or someone known, though not intimately: a casual acquaintance. An associate is a person who is often in one's company, usually because of some work, enterprise, or pursuit in common: a business associate. A companion is a person who shares one's activities, fate, or condition: a traveling companion; companion in despair. A friend is a person with whom one is on intimate terms and for whom one feels a warm affection: a trusted friend." Capiche?

Please note that these terms depend on the degree of closeness between subjects. Empirical evidence suggests that although Obama may have been an "associate" of Ayers, Rezco, Soros, Wright, and Davis, there is no evidence that their degree of affinity makes them "friends." No evidence has been presented that Obama was on intimate terms with any of them, although Obama's GRANDFATHER was apparently friends with Davis. To misrepresent such acquaintances as "friends" seems to be an calculated exaggeration, designed to smear Obama through guilt-by-association.

Because you apparently require more guidance, primary source evidence of their friendship would come from the subjects themselves, or from individuals who personally witnessed such friendship. Primary source evidence of Wright's "racism" must come from his words and actions. What did Wright SAY or DO that you consider "racist"? Did Obama, Ayers, or Rezco SAY they were friends? Did they socialize often? Your links provided no such evidence. Capiche?

Speculation is not evidence. Misrepresenting speculation as fact, such as Mudwhistle seems to have done, is a form of deception known as a "half-truth." Such deception is typical of disinformation campaigns, such as that conducted by the Bush administration in misrepresenting the Iraqi threat, and such as that conducted by ACTUAL anti-Semites in the 20th Century (through the "protocols of the Elders of Zion" and other fabrications). People who reside outside Right-Wing Fantasyland usually require compelling evidence before making such accusations. Like they say on CSI: "Follow the evidence!"

Because Mudwhistle seems to be stuck in the mud, and is now resorting to juvenile ad hominem attacks, perhaps another reader could provide such evidence to substantiate these claims. Thanks!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The President and Speaker get 6 'yes''s from me, Reid gets 5 out of 6. GW Bush gets 1 yes out of six (O.K. he seems like a fun guy to get drunk with) and Cheney gets 0 out of 6.


Any other stupid questions?

i was right....the H stands for Hack....anyone who gives Pelosi and Reid that much credit.....is a leftist Hack....

Reid's completely incompetant.

But you've got to give credit where credit is due: Hate Pelosi all you want, but she's been quite effective as a Speaker, doing exactly what her job is - getting Dem bills passed.

If Pelosi wasn't as good at her job as she is, the health care bill, the stimulus package, and countless other bills wouldn't have been passed. And that's her job - to get those bills passed. Don't like it?

Build a better system.

 

[mudwhistle]

You may wish to examine the security clearance standards more closely. This canard was debunked by the St. Petersburg Times last October 10th (see politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/].

QUESTION: "List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact"

RESPONSE: Obama is not bound to his father or stepfather because both are deceased, nor is he bound "by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact" to his relatives in Africa.

QUESTION: "Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities? Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?"

RESPONSE: Obama could truthfully answer "no," because he was neither a member nor contributed to such organizations. Neither serving alongside William Ayers, nor granting funding to Khaladi's group meets the disqualifying criteria. Associating with members of a disqualifying group does NOT disqualify a candidate for a security clearance, nor does his association with Rev. Wright or Frank Marshall Davis. Security clearance criteria evaluate the subject's participation in subversive organizations, not guilt by associating with members. Further, activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration (see tpub.com/content/aviation/14243/css/14243_219.htm).

The SF86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, can be downloaded at opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf. Question 29, Association Record, asks about disqualifying associations.

Then are we in agreement?

- Obama would not need to report those "questionable" associations because he was neither a member of, nor contributed to, disqualifying organizations.

Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, Barack Obama would meet the eligibility criteria for access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B et al.) information. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, his association with radicals does not render him ineligible for access. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, candidates are assessed by examining THEIR actions, not the actions of their associates. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, "guilt by association" is an invalid basis for adjudicating security clearances.

Obama has a few friends that have committed violent acts against the United States. He also trained ACORN members which one of their goals is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil. These two issue alone would prevent him from getting a security clearance.

I held a TS clearance and I got flagged just because I was molested when I was 6. Any issue in one's past that could cause you to be resentful or hateful has to be investigated.

Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind. His visit to terrorist states in the Middle East would be the same. It doesn't take much. His family is another...but not exactly a good reason. Seems Bill Clinton couldn't get a clearance ether. Funny....Democrats seem to have serious issues when it comes to clearances.

While your anecdote is interesting, it does not refute existing personnel security standards. The United States Government does not include guilt-by-association as disqualifying. It is the actions of the subject, not the actions of his associates, that may be disqualifying. Neither Obama's friendships nor visits are disqualifying criteria according to the personnel security standards of the United States Government. Please READ the security clearance information provided by the government. Please READ the St. Petersberg Times debunking of this myth.

Frank Marshall Davis's son, who lived with Davis until he joined the military, retired as an Air Force Intelligence Officer (TS/SCI). Obviously his father's FBI file was NOT disqualifying. If this long-term association is not disqualifying, what makes you think that any short-term acquaintance or friendship is disqualifying?

Unfortunately you seem to misrepresent speculation as fact once again. I challenge you to prove that Obama's FRIENDS "committed violent acts against the United States." Proof must consist of empirical evidence (not speculation) that such people actually were "friends," and that they "committed violent acts against the United States." Ayers, for example, was a professional associate. Please prove that they actually were "friends." Please do the same for any other such "friends."

Please provide empirical evidence (not speculation) that an actual "goal" of ACORN "is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil." The goals of ACORN are clearly documented at acorn.org.

FYI: "Peaceful overthrow" may be an oxymoron, because the only way our government could be overthrown is by force. If change is peaceful, then it is a hardly qualifies as an "overthrow."

The personnel security standards consider membership in organizations devoted to VIOLENT overthrow, not "peaceful overthrow," to be disqualifying. Causing "economic turmoil" is not a disqualifying factor, nor is training ACORN members.

Further, what "visits to terrorist states" do you consider disqualifying?

BTW: I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues in a cordial manner.

"The way to combat noxious ideas is with other ideas. The way to combat falsehoods is with truth." - William O. Douglas

Yes...and I think you can't tell the truth from fiction.

Your problem is you refuse to look at the facts.

Frank Davis may have been the father of an Air force Officer that held a TS-SCI clearance (By the way that was what I was given) but being the son of such a person does not mean you can't get a clearance. It just means that you will be investigated because of it. Let me assure you if anything had been found during that investigation that would have prevented him from getting one he never would have recieved one.

I think you need to read about "Project Vote" and "Camp Obama" if they haven't already been deleted from the internet. All the proof is there about "peaceful overthrow of the government" and Obama's avid belief in it.

http://www.projectvote.org/our-mission.html
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaACORN.htm
http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/10/04/camp-alinsky-obama/
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-acornproject-vote-and-the-seiu
http://www.projectvote.org/

Look those two up. Google them or look on Yahoo. I suggest Yahoo.

I can't tell you anything. Judging from the past most folks like you can't be shown the evidence and believe it. Just look for yourself. I'm done talking to you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This one is about leadership traits and Obama's associations. Many of which would keep him from getting a security clearance because many of them have been involved in planning the overthrow of the government.

You may wish to examine the security clearance standards more closely. This canard was debunked by the St. Petersburg Times last October 10th (see politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/].

QUESTION: "List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact"

RESPONSE: Obama is not bound to his father or stepfather because both are deceased, nor is he bound "by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact" to his relatives in Africa.

QUESTION: "Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities? Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?"

RESPONSE: Obama could truthfully answer "no," because he was neither a member nor contributed to such organizations. Neither serving alongside William Ayers, nor granting funding to Khaladi's group meets the disqualifying criteria. Associating with members of a disqualifying group does NOT disqualify a candidate for a security clearance, nor does his association with Rev. Wright or Frank Marshall Davis. Security clearance criteria evaluate the subject's participation in subversive organizations, not guilt by associating with members. Further, activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration (see tpub.com/content/aviation/14243/css/14243_219.htm).

The SF86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, can be downloaded at opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf. Question 29, Association Record, asks about disqualifying associations.

Then are we in agreement?

- Obama would not need to report those "questionable" associations because he was neither a member of, nor contributed to, disqualifying organizations.

Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, Barack Obama would meet the eligibility criteria for access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B et al.) information. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, his association with radicals does not render him ineligible for access. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, candidates are assessed by examining THEIR actions, not the actions of their associates. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, "guilt by association" is an invalid basis for adjudicating security clearances.

Obama has a few friends that have committed violent acts against the United States.

Really? Name one, aside from Ayers, who was already adressed in the last post.

He also trained ACORN members which one of their goals is the peaceful overthrow of the government and to cause economic turmoil.

Only in you and Glenn Beck's eyes. Thankfully, no one cares what you two think.

These two issue alone would prevent him from getting a security clearance.

Provably incorrect.

I held a TS clearance and I got flagged just because I was molested when I was 6. Any issue in one's past that could cause you to be resentful or hateful has to be investigated.

Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind.

No, not quite. No matter what Joseph McCarthy thinks, a friend in the Communist Party won't stop you from getting clearance. This post has nothing to do with the law - only what you seem to wish the law was.

His visit to terrorist states in the Middle East would be the same. It doesn't take much. His family is another...but not exactly a good reason. Seems Bill Clinton couldn't get a clearance ether. Funny....Democrats seem to have serious issues when it comes to clearances.

None of these things are true.
Neither Barack Obama nor Bill Clinton were ever denied clearance.

 

[mudwhistle]

You may wish to examine the security clearance standards more closely. This canard was debunked by the St. Petersburg Times last October 10th (see politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/800/].

QUESTION: "List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact"

RESPONSE: Obama is not bound to his father or stepfather because both are deceased, nor is he bound "by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact" to his relatives in Africa.

QUESTION: "Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities? Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?"

RESPONSE: Obama could truthfully answer "no," because he was neither a member nor contributed to such organizations. Neither serving alongside William Ayers, nor granting funding to Khaladi's group meets the disqualifying criteria. Associating with members of a disqualifying group does NOT disqualify a candidate for a security clearance, nor does his association with Rev. Wright or Frank Marshall Davis. Security clearance criteria evaluate the subject's participation in subversive organizations, not guilt by associating with members. Further, activity younger than 16 is specifically excluded from consideration (see tpub.com/content/aviation/14243/css/14243_219.htm).

The SF86, Questionnaire for National Security Positions, can be downloaded at opm.gov/Forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf. Question 29, Association Record, asks about disqualifying associations.

Then are we in agreement?

- Obama would not need to report those "questionable" associations because he was neither a member of, nor contributed to, disqualifying organizations.

Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, Barack Obama would meet the eligibility criteria for access to TS/SCI (SI/TK/G/B et al.) information. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, his association with radicals does not render him ineligible for access. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, candidates are assessed by examining THEIR actions, not the actions of their associates. Despite continuing right-wing disinformation, "guilt by association" is an invalid basis for adjudicating security clearances.

Obama has a few friends that have committed violent acts against the United States.

Really? Name one, aside from Ayers, who was already adressed in the last post.

Only in you and Glenn Beck's eyes. Thankfully, no one cares what you two think.

Provably incorrect.

I held a TS clearance and I got flagged just because I was molested when I was 6. Any issue in one's past that could cause you to be resentful or hateful has to be investigated.

Obama's close friendship with Frank Davis is reason enough to keep him from getting a clearance of any kind.

No, not quite. No matter what Joseph McCarthy thinks, a friend in the Communist Party won't stop you from getting clearance. This post has nothing to do with the law - only what you seem to wish the law was.

His visit to terrorist states in the Middle East would be the same. It doesn't take much. His family is another...but not exactly a good reason. Seems Bill Clinton couldn't get a clearance ether. Funny....Democrats seem to have serious issues when it comes to clearances.

None of these things are true.
Neither Barack Obama nor Bill Clinton were ever denied clearance.

All are true...and you're just another apologist for him.

You say name one...but then you immediately exclude the most obvious one Bill Ayers. That's convenient....but also dishonest.

Trust me....if you knew the full truth about Obama I think even you would be shocked.....but then again you can't seem to do anything but defend him...so...nevermind.

 

[mudwhistle]

Our President's background points to him being a possible terrorist suspect.

Investigations don't find everything. However if you set a high standard for getting clearances folks like Obama would never slip through the cracks and get one....thus put this country at risk.

I wish our standards for who can run for President were just as stringent.

 

[xotoxi]

Yes...Czar is just another word for advisor...a Russian word I might add. And it actually means emperor or king.

Did Obama come up with this name?

 

[xotoxi]

Why is the guy on the left labled "LEFT", but the guy on the right is labled "FAR RIGHT"?

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes...Czar is just another word for advisor...a Russian word I might add. And it actually means emperor or king.

Did Obama come up with this name?

I don't think Obama could be that original...but for some reason he likes using the word.

By the way...which one of his czars has been through a screening process before Congress?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes...Czar is just another word for advisor...a Russian word I might add. And it actually means emperor or king.

Did Obama come up with this name?

I don't think Obama could be that original...but for some reason he likes using the word.

By the way...which one of his czars has been through a screening process before Congress?

Did you complain about the czars before Obama? Or did they only upset you once Obama became President?

By the way, "Czar" is the Russian transliteration of "Caeser".

 

[xotoxi]

Yes...Czar is just another word for advisor...a Russian word I might add. And it actually means emperor or king.

Did Obama come up with this name?

I don't think Obama could be that original...but for some reason he likes using the word.

By the way...which one of his czars has been through a screening process before Congress?

You really don't have anything of substance to talk about, do you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Did Obama come up with this name?

I don't think Obama could be that original...but for some reason he likes using the word.

By the way...which one of his czars has been through a screening process before Congress?

Did you complain about the czars before Obama? Or did they only upset you once Obama became President?

By the way, "Czar" is the Russian transliteration of "Caeser".

Which means "Emperor". Tell me something I don't know.

I'm not complaining about the use of the word...I just don't think it's exactly kosher that he's going around the rules set forth in the constitution and putting people in charge of important aspects of our government without going through the normal process set forth in said Constitution.

They can only be in an advisory position...not run a department or act as supervisors.

Yet another breach of the US Constitution.

By the way SEIU President Andy Stern is current working in the White House. SEIU...Service Employees International Union.....ACORN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Stern

 

[xotoxi]

They can only be in an advisory position...not run a department or act as supervisors.

An example?

 

[mudwhistle]

Why is the guy on the left labled "LEFT", but the guy on the right is labled "FAR RIGHT"?

My normal answer would be..."How the fuck do I know???"

I didn't publish it nor did I draw it.

 

[mudwhistle]

They can only be in an advisory position...not run a department or act as supervisors.

An example?

Look dude...go get some coffee or grow a brain because I have no patience for idiots.

 

[xotoxi]

Why is the guy on the left labled "LEFT", but the guy on the right is labled "FAR RIGHT"?

My normal answer would be..."How the fuck do I know???"

I didn't publish it nor did I draw it.

The question was rhetorical. Thanks for answering though.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOKxEuwQNCA]YouTube - Burpy Kitty[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

Why is the guy on the left labled "LEFT", but the guy on the right is labled "FAR RIGHT"?

My normal answer would be..."How the fuck do I know???"

I didn't publish it nor did I draw it.

The question was rhetorical. Thanks for answering though.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOKxEuwQNCA]YouTube - Burpy Kitty[/ame]

Rhetorical..and silly.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Reid's completely incompetant.

But you've got to give credit where credit is due: Hate Pelosi all you want, but she's been quite effective as a Speaker, doing exactly what her job is - getting Dem bills passed.

If Pelosi wasn't as good at her job as she is, the health care bill, the stimulus package, and countless other bills wouldn't have been passed. And that's her job - to get those bills passed. Don't like it?

Build a better system.

when you pass or in her case shove things down the throats of a HELL OF A LOT of citizens who dont like whats being passed,then YOU and all of her little minions can say she is doing her job.....i and a HELL OF A LOT of others feel she is a detriment to not only the Democratic party BUT the country as well....if the Speaker looks out and sees a good 50% of the country does not like the bill being readied,and says fuckem....then she aint doing her job....maybe to you.....but then this is why this country is falling apart....the party is the only thing that matters ....