Nancy shoots blanks out of gate

[cplmilt]

oversight is hard to argue with - a witch hunt is something else

Oversight is holding hearings to make sure that the president didn't knowingly lie to the american people to start a war, a witch hunt is holding hearing to see if the president got a blow job.

america send congressmen and women to solve problems - not dig up dirt

don't worry they won't have to dig very far.

and pelosi putting up a dirty guy for #2 - suggests she has issues with corruption herself

On this point I'll have to aggree with you since the republicans putting up trent lott suggests they have issues with bigotry.

 

[Kulindahr]

I suspect that the vote for Dem majority leader will be forgoten the first time a Subpoena is issued to the Republican leader.

I don't think it will take that much, although some will keep a memo about it in their files, to use against her someday... just in case.

 

[Kulindahr]

Chance,

The Democratic Party owes a great deal to Murtha. I also believe that the entire country does also, but that debate is another topic.

I am no insider, but it seems to me that the nomination for Majority Leader was nothing more than a courtesy, an honorific that no one believed would become a reality. This is politics after all.

If Madame Speaker had truly backed him, I don't think the vote would have been so lopsided. I see his nomination and her "support" as nothing more than an acknowledgement of his role in the outcome of the elections, and the new direction that our National Political Dialogue has taken - particularly with respect to Iraq.

Hoyer was the man from the start, in my opinion. Nancy would have been shooting herself and the party in the foot had she truly supported Murtha, OR openly supported Hoyer.

I think her opening act is a success. The right man is in the job, she displayed loyalty to a member who contributed greatly to her being the Speaker, and Murtha is still actively engaged in what I feel is the the primary challenge facing this country - What are we going to do about Iraq?

Just my two cents. And now a question for you. What's up with making Lott the Minority Whip? Do you think they're setting up their 2008 "Southern Strategy"? Or is he the best the party has to offer?

That's an insightful analysis -- a possibility I hadn't considered in my search for meanings.

As far as Lott... I'm baffled.

 

[chance1]

Chance,

The Democratic Party owes a great deal to Murtha. I also believe that the entire country does also, but that debate is another topic.

I am no insider, but it seems to me that the nomination for Majority Leader was nothing more than a courtesy, an honorific that no one believed would become a reality. This is politics after all.

If Madame Speaker had truly backed him, I don't think the vote would have been so lopsided. I see his nomination and her "support" as nothing more than an acknowledgement of his role in the outcome of the elections, and the new direction that our National Political Dialogue has taken - particularly with respect to Iraq.

Hoyer was the man from the start, in my opinion. Nancy would have been shooting herself and the party in the foot had she truly supported Murtha, OR openly supported Hoyer.

I think her opening act is a success. The right man is in the job, she displayed loyalty to a member who contributed greatly to her being the Speaker, and Murtha is still actively engaged in what I feel is the the primary challenge facing this country - What are we going to do about Iraq?

Just my two cents. And now a question for you. What's up with making Lott the Minority Whip? Do you think they're setting up their 2008 "Southern Strategy"? Or is he the best the party has to offer?

It's possible you're right but I just don't think Pelosi's first foray is to back a guy who loses 2:1. Just don't get how that is an honor to him. More humiliating I think.

I agree the right guy is in the job - but in my opinion despite Nancy.

As for Murtha and Iraq, he wants to pull out period. He is one very dangerous dude who has cred cause he's a vet - just don't get that - since you've held a guy, you know what you're talking about or you hold the moral high ground.

As for Lott, see my post on the thread about him. I think the Repubs picked him cause he's a hard ass and knows all the fun ways to stop the majority. Bad move in my opinion. But he's not a racist like some/one on the board has suggested. Hate it when people throw around that term like it's so common.

Thanks for your thoughts - they are appreciated in a thread where basically no one else has addressed them

 

[Andreus]

As for Lott, see my post on the thread about him. I think the Repubs picked him cause he's a hard ass and knows all the fun ways to stop the majority. Bad move in my opinion. But he's not a racist like some/one on the board has suggested. Hate it when people throw around that term like it's so common.

chance

your posts may be some of the most dishonest partisan posts i have ever seen here at jub

i think i just lost all respect for you

 

[chance1]

chance

your posts may be some of the most dishonest partisan posts i have ever seen here at jub

i think i just lost all respect for you

I'll consider the source andreus

I try to see your points of view - which are totally 1 sided

I even agree with u sometimes

You and others like you NEVER agree that you could be wrong

You stonewall a thread about Pelosi possibly screwing the pooch on day 1

You allow Dem leaders to act disrespectfully w/o ever taking them to task

you would never submit that a Repub could do a good job

or that a Dem who supported a Bush policy might be right or have integrity

The world according to andreus or the world according to jub or the world according to alfie, your partner

And I still haven't fully digested Bush = Hitler

So sorry if I have absolutely no reaction to you losing respect for me

 

[Andreus]

that looks like a reaction to me

you rave the word racist in three threads and then act liek until someone uses it against Lott, you never heard it before. that is just Lying for the sake of lying. Winning an arguement at all costs.

I didnt stonewall anything, i merely disagreed with you about pelosi

I am quite independant in my thinking and it took alot of work on behalf of the republicans to get me this disgruntled with them. I am not the only one in america who feels this way.

blame no one but them.

You need to take a break and consider how dedicated you are to the republican cause and how absolutely unfathomable that is for alot of us here.

 

[james1200]

chance, you can't call someone out for being dishonest when you won't even admit to being a republican...you still claim to be a democrat. if there is nothing wrong with that side of the political fence, why haven't you ever claimed to be what you so obviously are...i mean i could scream all day that my skin is white but it won't change the fact it's brown. know what i'm saying?

 

[tmb1]

denial denial denial

avoid avoid avoid

I love u guys

Nancy's first official act is shitting on the desk - and you can't deal

Jesus christ could you be any more negative? Why don't you try watching c-span to get what is said instead of right wing blogs and fauxnews(or any news for that matter). The whole press conference held afterwards(most of which wasnt held on any news channels) was very positive about the meetings, the votes and especially about improving america in the upcoming congress. Why don't you try to be positive(patriotic) about this. As the repuglicans kept asking us about Iraq, "dont you(dems) want us to win in Iraq."...well sir chance, dont you want us to have a good congressional 2 years and have things that improve america? Or do want to just repeat right wing talking points and continue with the negativity.

Maybe republicans wont be happy until they lose a veto proof majority in future elections. Just keep up with your negativity and you are well on your way there.

 

[NickCole]

Good lord!

All right, Chance, here's the deal.

Pelosi was voted in. Just as Trent Lott was voted in and Steny Hoyer was voted in. That's how the process works. House Democrats chose her for their leader, they expect her to lead and they'll respond to her as a leader. Not as a Dictator, as a Democratic leader.

Pelosi threw her support behind Murtha because she, right or wrong, felt she had to. Murtha and Pelosi have been strong allies, most importantly when it comes to Iraq. When people who said we need to get out of Iraq were still being branded anti-American and unpatriotic and pro-terrorist, Murtha used his considerable power and credibility to publicly back that position in the strongest possible terms. Pelosi believed that was the correct position and that voicing opposition to Bush & Co, despite the obvious political peril, was the only way for Democrats to prevail. Murtha bought into that and was Pelosi's ally. Then it turned out they were right. Murtha wanted to be Majority Leader and he asked Pelosi's help. She and Steny Hoyer have not been close allies and she had a big reason to be loyal to Murtha. Without Murtha standing up to BushRepublicans when he did, sticking to his position against strong odds, and setting the stage for other Democrats with lesser (or no) Iraq War bona fides to support getting out of Iraq (Lamont for instance), Democrats probably wouldn't have won both the House and Senate. So Pelosi backed Murtha. She owed him. In a weird way, all Democrats owed him her support.

But the outcome is a shining moment for Democrats and bodes well for the next couple of years. They did not march in lockstep with their leader, as BushRepublicans have done to disasterous result. Democrats thought for themselves and made a choice that was the right choice even though their leader urged something else. It wasn't an issue of national security, it was choosing another of their own leaders and being independent in their thinking rather than bowing to Pelosi was strong and smart. Pelosi will now have to work with Hoyer, and she will. It's a balance of power that will serve all of us well.

Pelosi has enough capital to pull together Democrats in the House when it's of vital importance. Clearly this was not an issue for which she thought it wise to use up so much capital, and I agree with her.

It's an excellent outcome, and it's revealing that some like you are trying to make it ugly. You would have complained endlessly if Democrats had voted Murtha as Majority Leader, but they didn't. So you try to attack Pelosi, when the truth is it's GOOD she didn't prevail this time. She's going to win sometimes and lose sometimes -- that she lost this time is GOOD. But rather than applaud the outcome that even you preferred, you try to turn it into something bad about Democrats.

 

[OtterJoq]

boring I know

but in her first big test, Nancy got an F

She pushes for ethically challenged anti-war glamour guy John Murtha

and alas, he doesn't get the votes

Not sure why she didn't like Mr. Hoyer. Possibly becuase it's been claimed that in a secret vote, they prefer him to her frankly.

I read this about Murtha and the situation on msnbc.com

John Murtha, a longtime senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, has battled accusations over the years that he has traded federal spending for campaign contributions, that he has abused his post as ranking party member on the Appropriations defense subcommittee, and that he has stood in the way of ethics investigations. Those charges come on top of Murtha's involvement 26 years ago in the FBI's Abscam bribery sting.

"Pelosi's endorsement suggests to me she was interested in the culture of corruption only as a campaign issue and has no real interest in true reform," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a Democratic-leaning group. "It is shocking to me that someone with [Murtha's] ethics problems could be number two in the House leadership."

"Hoyer gains his influence the 'regular' way," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "He travels, and he raises money for his leadership [political action committee], which doles it out to help Democrats get elected. Murtha doesn't bother with that nicety. For years, he has used his powerful perch as the ranking Democrat on the defense appropriations subcommittee to dole out earmarks to build influence. Hoyer raises campaign cash; Murtha taps the taxpayer for influence."

Looks like Nancy screwed the pooch out of the gate. Many more decisions to make for her but not such a hot start for Ms. Pelosi

Some cheese with that whine?

Quite a crop of sour grapes this season, no?

 

[chance1]

Good lord!

All right, Chance, here's the deal.

Pelosi was voted in. Just as Trent Lott was voted in and Steny Hoyer was voted in. That's how the process works. House Democrats chose her for their leader, they expect her to lead and they'll respond to her as a leader. Not as a Dictator, as a Democratic leader.

Pelosi threw her support behind Murtha because she, right or wrong, felt she had to. Murtha and Pelosi have been strong allies, most importantly when it comes to Iraq. When people who said we need to get out of Iraq were still being branded anti-American and unpatriotic and pro-terrorist, Murtha used his considerable power and credibility to publicly back that position in the strongest possible terms. Pelosi believed that was the correct position and that voicing opposition to Bush & Co, despite the obvious political peril, was the only way for Democrats to prevail. Murtha bought into that and was Pelosi's ally. Then it turned out they were right. Murtha wanted to be Majority Leader and he asked Pelosi's help. She and Steny Hoyer have not been close allies and she had a big reason to be loyal to Murtha. Without Murtha standing up to BushRepublicans when he did, sticking to his position against strong odds, and setting the stage for other Democrats with lesser (or no) Iraq War bona fides to support getting out of Iraq (Lamont for instance), Democrats probably wouldn't have won both the House and Senate. So Pelosi backed Murtha. She owed him. In a weird way, all Democrats owed him her support.

But the outcome is a shining moment for Democrats and bodes well for the next couple of years. They did not march in lockstep with their leader, as BushRepublicans have done to disasterous result. Democrats thought for themselves and made a choice that was the right choice even though their leader urged something else. It wasn't an issue of national security, it was choosing another of their own leaders and being independent in their thinking rather than bowing to Pelosi was strong and smart. Pelosi will now have to work with Hoyer, and she will. It's a balance of power that will serve all of us well.

Pelosi has enough capital to pull together Democrats in the House when it's of vital importance. Clearly this was not an issue for which she thought it wise to use up so much capital, and I agree with her.

It's an excellent outcome, and it's revealing that some like you are trying to make it ugly. You would have complained endlessly if Democrats had voted Murtha as Majority Leader, but they didn't. So you try to attack Pelosi, when the truth is it's GOOD she didn't prevail this time. She's going to win sometimes and lose sometimes -- that she lost this time is GOOD. But rather than applaud the outcome that even you preferred, you try to turn it into something bad about Democrats.

Nick - I respect your opinion about this and I appreciate your honest appraisal of the day's events. I take issue with the following:

1 - Murtha's conviction we can disagree with but for Pelosi to choose him as #2 just because of Iraq . . . . . . . . not a good move. One thing that Murtha got involved in vs. Hoyer's stewardship - interesting.

2 - I think NP is not a close ally of Hoyer because she is aware that given their drothers, the House would vote him in and her out - so it's like a boss at work hiring someone who can't replace him/her and not hiring someone who is too strong/possible replacement.

I agree that voting in Murtha would have been a problem, not for the Repubs who could've attacked his ethics. I didn't attack her merely pointed out that she backed a 2:1 loser which frankly looks bad and I explained my reasoning - can't read the room or doesn't have the support.

I applaud the more moderate dems for chosing Hoyer - he is a good man with a clean background. Murtha quite frankly was a very poor choice by Pelosi - period. I take issue with her choosing him.

I wish the Dems well. It will serve the country better. I hope that moderate heads will prevail. Those kinds of thoughts are believed to be nutty on JUB where the masses scream for red meat instead.

Thanks for the post

PS - where does the "Steny" come from - nickname??

 

[chance1]

Don't take my word for this being a bad play by Pelosi - check out Chris Cillizza's article on washingtonpost.com
Pelosi's Murtha Gamble

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi's (D-Calif.) surprise decision to endorse Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) over Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) in the upcoming Majority Leader's race presents considerable risks and rewards for the early days of her speakership.
The announcement, which was made public late last night, sent a shockwave through the race. Hoyer was widely seen as the favorite in the race, but Pelosi's endorsement left neutral observers wondering whether she knows something they don't.
In her official statement, Pelosi cited Murtha's "strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq" as the reason for her endorsement. Murtha, as anyone paying attention to American politics knows, made huge news late last year when he announced his support for an immediate redeployment of American troops from Iraq. Pelosi quickly followed Murtha's lead -- a decision that drew strong criticism from some within the Democratic party.
On other major issues, however, Pelosi and Murtha part ways. She favors abortion rights, he opposes them. She favors gun control, he opposes attempts to impose limits on gun ownership.
Putting policy aside, Pelosi and Murtha are close personally -- he managed her Minority Whip race in 2001 and her election to Minority Leader in 2002.
Hoyer noted that relationship in his response to the news. "Nancy told me some time ago that she would personally support Jack," said Hoyer. "I respect her decision as the two are very close." Hoyer and Pelosi, on the other hand, are more often rivals than allies -- an antagonism dating back (at least) to 2002 when Pelosi defeated Hoyer for the Whip position.
Should Murtha win the majority leader post, Pelosi would emerge emboldened, having hand-selected her leadership team and shown the importance of longtime loyalty in her decision-making process.
A Murtha loss, especially by a wide margin, could cripple Pelosi.
On a practical level, a Hoyer victory would ensure a less-than-stellar working relationship between the top two Democrats in the House. While Pelosi and Hoyer would dismiss any lingering resentments, it's unfathomable that tension would not exist.
On a more symbolic level, a Murtha loss would raise serious questions about Pelosi's political acumen -- questions she had largely put to rest in the runup to the 2006 election. Betting very publicly on the losing candidate sends a signal of weakness, not strength, to the Democratic caucus and would likely re-ignite worries that she is too beholden to the liberal wing of the party. (Remember that 22 of the 41 incoming freshmen have already endorsed Hoyer for Majority Leader and allies of the Maryland Congressman insist more incoming lawmakers have privately promised him their support.)
Pelosi's move is a calculated gamble to strengthen her grasp on her party before the 110th Congress even begins. Like any gamble, it has the potential to backfire -- leaving her weakened before she is even officially sworn into her new post. We'll find out on Thursday whether Pelosi's "all-in" gambit pays off.

 

[NickCole]

1 - Murtha's conviction we can disagree with

What conviction?

but for Pelosi to choose him as #2 just because of Iraq . . . . . . . . not a good move. One thing that Murtha got involved in vs. Hoyer's stewardship - interesting.

It wasn't only because of Iraq, though that was a monumental thing he did for Democrats, it was also out of loyalty to him and an attempt to create a unified leadership.

2 - I think NP is not a close ally of Hoyer because she is aware that given their drothers, the House would vote him in and her out - so it's like a boss at work hiring someone who can't replace him/her and not hiring someone who is too strong/possible replacement.

Pelosi was chosen by acclamation. If they'd wanted Hoyer they could have chosen him. They chose Pelosi. Hoyer as Majority Leader doesn't threaten her position; her concern is that he's going to make it more difficult for her to do her job.

I agree that voting in Murtha would have been a problem, not for the Repubs who could've attacked his ethics. I didn't attack her merely pointed out that she backed a 2:1 loser which frankly looks bad and I explained my reasoning - can't read the room or doesn't have the support.

She can read the room and she knew she didn't have the support. I wouldn't want a Speaker --or any leader-- who gives up what she believes is best just because it seems she doesn't have support for it. I want a Speaker who WORKS for support for what she believes in. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but what good is a leader who gives up without even trying?

Pelosi is concerned about keeping Democrats unified, and justly so. Pelosi's ability to unite the different factions of Democrats is one of the main reasons she's Speaker. She knew how to do it when nobody else did. A potent tool for keeping a group unified is a strongly allied leadership. She'd have been guaranteed that with Murtha; with Hoyer that may be a problem. If Hoyer, as number two to her, doesn't work with her then that's going to create problems for Democrats.

I agree Hoyer is a better choice on paper, but he's better only if he and Pelosi can work together as a unified team.

he is a good man with a clean background. Murtha quite frankly was a very poor choice by Pelosi - period. I take issue with her choosing him.

Oh for God's sake! Abscam was 26 years ago and Murtha was never even charged, much less indicted or convicted!

PS - where does the "Steny" come from - nickname??

Far as I know it's his full first name.

 

[CO Bob]

I didn't see anyone respond very directly to what Chance asked. I saw slander and insult and seventh-grade level taunts, I saw a lack of reading comprehension, I saw a confusion between what is broadcast on TV news and what people know, and I saw a certain arrogance that dismisses anything received as irritating or diminishing to 'heros'.

Quite normal for the likes of Andreus and The General. But Chance is correct, she is already showing signs of weak leadership.

As the new year unfolds, her leadership will be severly tested. The blue dog democrats will give her fits, siding with conservative values. Many of these democrats were elected in a "feel good" election climate. Minimum wage & stem cell research brought out the democratic vote. Conservatism still won battles though, and these newly elected "conservative" democrats will need to find leadership from some source. Nancy Lugosi will have her hands full convincing them to follow.

 

[Andreus]

lol

disaproval from the repubs here has become a love letter to my heart. thanks !!

Pelosi is not a republican. She can suggest who she prefers without it meaning that all party members need to be obediant.

you will regret the inference that she can't lead the party when you witness the devastating effect her influence in the party will have on the Republican agenda that has been given the official " No Thanks" from the american voters.

Her power is uniting the party against the republican agenda, while allowing the members of the party the rights to decide the internal business without being harried by her power.

that is how real leaders function. the are not gauged by their absolute power, they are gauged by their ability to work with all people no matter their beliefs. She has an obligation to the american people to follow through on the promises of the election term.

that means congressional oversight, a definition of what victory in Iraq is, a plan to acheive it, a return of civil rights to americans, and the ability to compromise with others.

it seems she is doing what she was asked to do.

you guys are just getting puckered up from all the sour grapes.

 

[chance1]

It is a sign of how comfortable you and your fellow travelers are with fascism that you chaff and squirm and grimace in the face of REAL debate and democracy. For six gloomy years, your party has squelched all dissent and debate within its own ranks and attempted to silence its opposition, too. Now, in this, the "Second Spring" of our democracy, it isn't surprising that you are disoriented and discombobulated by this thing we call "choice," this thing we cherish called "difference of opinion."

You assert that Pelosi is "showing signs of weak leadership" and I ask on what basis you make this assertion -- is it on the basis of the "strong leadership" that Coward Hassert showed by covering up for that Republican pervert, disgraced Cong. Foley, or is it the "strong leadership" GOP party leader Foley showed by diligently trying to get in the pants of young boys? Was disgraced Senate Majority Leader, Dr. Bill Frist, showing your favorite flavor of "strong leadership" when he crawled into Mrs. Sciavo's death bed, or was it "strong leadership" when the Republican controlled House changed its ethics laws to accommodate the corruption of disgraced GOP leader Tom Delay? You and your party are in no position, none, to talk about leadership: you are all followers, and you follow crazy people.

It's always "you and your party" or "you and your Repub leaders" etc.

You attack the questioner - it's absurd really that you are a liberal - which has one it's values being open minded and accepting.

Then you go into a random rant about this or that - never about the thread subject which in this instance is Nancy's Pelosi's choice of Murtha and his ass whooping via votes.

You never question anything a Dem does - you just attack back.

Not a good quality

 

[Zeremonie]

There aren't very many mods online right now, so I will briefly venture into this thread, and will defer to Snapcat & Springybok when they're around again. This forum really hurts my head.

this post is just odd in this thread because Chance it sorta looks like you're hijacking your own thread with an off topic post here. But oh well.

If JUB followed some of the etiquette of court room arguments, this post would be seen as over personalization instead of arguing facts and law. Objectionable at trial, but in CE&P I think we just let this kind of thing go. ?

Please play nice: see this post here - there one jubber calls another a phoney. Please try to discuss issues without personalizing it. I'm not going to issue any points. This isn't my forum at all anyway.

Please oh please:
please use the post report button when you have an issue with a post. Telling others to get back on topic is really nothing but an off topic post in a thread. You are free to use the post report button as much as you like! I promise that all post reports get read ... it's the reason I've found my way to this thread.

I think this post here might be real discussion - like an opinion piece in a newspaper.

I can't figure out who is calling who a dog in this thread but please don't mudsling like that. Please. This is not worth warning points, imho, but just as a general matter, if you want to discuss real issues, these kind of digs don't improve the topic.

another actual discussion post

nobody demands that anyone respect anyone at jub but these posts again don't actually further any discussion about Pelosi.

GA, you write some interesting commentary in this post, and then end it with a big pic of a pooch. You know, and this is just my two cents, I tend to think the pen is mightier than the sword, and when you right a good commentary, you only distract from your own post with a big pic in it. But that's really just my two cents.

I have know idea what this post has to do with Pelosi. That's okay, I'm fine not knowing. I would only comment that it is still wiser to argue issues and facts then to bring up an old kitchen sink into the argument. Apparently at some point, someone called someone ladies. ?? And again, I have the same thoughts about the sheep pic as mentioned above.

Having attempted to look carefully at this thread, I remind myself why I don't spend anytime moderating in this area of the board. Mostly I'm clueless as to what's going on, the behind scenes battles that happen, and I'm disappointed as to the lack of substance in the threads.

I'd like to ask you all to put on the hats of real debaters when you venture into CE&P and leave the digs, and the innuendos, and mudslinging to the politicians we elect. They are the politicians. We are intelligent constituents who can make informed comments and decisions.

I'll ask Snapcat & Springboksfan to have a look at this thread, and perhaps they will have some firmer decisions with respect to the conversation in this thread.

 

[smelter]

1 - Murtha's conviction we can disagree with but for Pelosi to choose him as #2 just because of Iraq . . . . . . . . not a good move. One thing that Murtha got involved in vs. Hoyer's stewardship - interesting.

2 - *snip*

I agree that voting in Murtha would have been a problem, not for the Repubs who could've attacked his ethics. I didn't attack her merely pointed out that she backed a 2:1 loser which frankly looks bad and I explained my reasoning - can't read the room or doesn't have the support.

I applaud the more moderate dems for chosing Hoyer - he is a good man with a clean background. Murtha quite frankly was a very poor choice by Pelosi - period. I take issue with her choosing him.

I wish the Dems well. It will serve the country better. I hope that moderate heads will prevail. Those kinds of thoughts are believed to be nutty on JUB where the masses scream for red meat instead.

Chance, I really take exception to your innuendo about Jack Murthas ethics. Whether you realize it or not, you are engaging in another form of swiftboating. We all understand that you despise the Democrats .... that's a given. What's not a given is Jack Murtha's guilt in Abscam .... he was absolved of blame and never even charged .... a fact you conveniently fail to mention. What remains is Republican talking points that you've accepted as truth.

What ever happened to respect ..... respect and honor afforded to those who willingly answer the call for service to this country in time of war. Should partisan political viewpoints be a license to besmirch, lie about and ignore the heroism of these men? Has it degraded so much that winning elections are so important that nothing is sacred anymore?

Republicans swiftboated Senators Kerry and Max Cleland ... hell they even swiftboated one of their own in the primaries .... Senator John McCain. Are the current heroes of the Afghanistan and Iraq War doomed to the same fate if they dare to stand in opposition to this President? This President and his not-so-merry band of men dismiss courage in others as easily as they dismiss their own cowardice when it was their turn to step up.

You claim to wish the Dems well ..... frankly, it's going to take more than your words to convince me!

 

[james1200]

There aren't very many mods online right now, so I will briefly venture into this thread, and will defer to Snapcat & Springybok when they're around again. This forum really hurts my head.

this post is just odd in this thread because Chance it sorta looks like you're hijacking your own thread with an off topic post here. But oh well.

If JUB followed some of the etiquette of court room arguments, this post would be seen as over personalization instead of arguing facts and law. Objectionable at trial, but in CE&P I think we just let this kind of thing go. ?

Please play nice: see this post here - there one jubber calls another a phoney. Please try to discuss issues without personalizing it. I'm not going to issue any points. This isn't my forum at all anyway.

Please oh please:
please use the post report button when you have an issue with a post. Telling others to get back on topic is really nothing but an off topic post in a thread. You are free to use the post report button as much as you like! I promise that all post reports get read ... it's the reason I've found my way to this thread.

I think this post here might be real discussion - like an opinion piece in a newspaper.

I can't figure out who is calling who a dog in this thread but please don't mudsling like that. Please. This is not worth warning points, imho, but just as a general matter, if you want to discuss real issues, these kind of digs don't improve the topic.

another actual discussion post

nobody demands that anyone respect anyone at jub but these posts again don't actually further any discussion about Pelosi.

GA, you write some interesting commentary in this post, and then end it with a big pic of a pooch. You know, and this is just my two cents, I tend to think the pen is mightier than the sword, and when you right a good commentary, you only distract from your own post with a big pic in it. But that's really just my two cents.

I have know idea what this post has to do with Pelosi. That's okay, I'm fine not knowing. I would only comment that it is still wiser to argue issues and facts then to bring up an old kitchen sink into the argument. Apparently at some point, someone called someone ladies. ?? And again, I have the same thoughts about the sheep pic as mentioned above.

Having attempted to look carefully at this thread, I remind myself why I don't spend anytime moderating in this area of the board. Mostly I'm clueless as to what's going on, the behind scenes battles that happen, and I'm disappointed as to the lack of substance in the threads.

I'd like to ask you all to put on the hats of real debaters when you venture into CE&P and leave the digs, and the innuendos, and mudslinging to the politicians we elect. They are the politicians. We are intelligent constituents who can make informed comments and decisions.

I'll ask Snapcat & Springboksfan to have a look at this thread, and perhaps they will have some firmer decisions with respect to the conversation in this thread.

all i can picture while reading this is zermonie in black leather whipping chance...hot. now, back on topic