1) Pelosi took too many shots to the head, and 2) O needs to buy her a muzzle......nm

• Obama's Nancy Pelosi Problem - Backwards typist
  • I literally cringe every time I see - sm
    • she looked like the whack-a-mole character during that "speech" the other night.. - nm
      • LOL, I LOVE that imagery, whack-a-mole is right!!!!!...nm - Cyndiee
      • Oh....I know. - sm
  • 1) Pelosi took too many shots to the head, and 2) O needs to buy her a muzzle......nm - Cyndiee
    • I get it now!....(sm) - Just the big bad
      • Say what?? I am talking about a specific person whom I personally think...sm - Cyndiee
        • That's interesting...(sm) - Just the big bad
          • JTBB grow up! - please
            • I reall dislike this: When somebody is cornered, - mar
            • Take your tears somewhere else...(sm) - Just the big bad
              • Who was crying tears? - Please
              • I am SO disappointed, JTBB - I thought you were different.
              • LOL!!............................. - sm
        • O.k..Cyndiee, 'grow a heart', will you?..sm - mar
          • Okay, and thanks for being getting me off this board, wow, it has been fun and intelligent.nm - Cyndiee

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

We all remember the 5 million people are losing their jobs each month statement that she said TWICE!  The woman doesn't have a clue and it's embarrasing!

Especially Reagan, but nothing new. 

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

But wait! There’s more!

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument – that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war – then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That’s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don’t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation’s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.

SALT LAKE CITY - Utah is the only state that requires people to fill out an application and pay a fee before entering a bar.

But the shelf life of this law - enacted 40 years ago in a state where nearly two out of three residents are members of a religion that shuns drinking - appears to be dwindling.

In Utah, and across the country, governors and lawmakers faced with budget deficits are advocating loosening laws that restrict alcohol consumption in the hopes of boosting tax revenues.
- In Georgia, Connecticut, Indiana, Texas, Alabama and Minnesota, lawmakers are considering legislation this year that would end the ban on Sunday liquor sales. All but 15 states sell booze on Sundays.

- In Nebraska, a state lawmaker has proposed allowing beer to be consumed in state parks as a way to boost tourism.

- Other states, including Utah, are considering allowing the sale of liquor on Election Day.

Drinkers shouldn't break out the bubbly just yet: Two dozen states, including California, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Virginia, are looking to help their budgets by raising alcohol taxes.

Alcohol taxes are a popular budgetary crutch for lawmakers because liquor sales tend to hold up relatively well, compared with other revenue streams, during hard times, said Steve Schmidt, vice president of the Alexandria, Va. based National Alcohol Beverage Control Association.

In 2008, revenue reported by liquor suppliers rose 2.8 percent from the previous year to $18.7 billion, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. That's slower than the 6 percent average annual growth rate since 2000.

The council's president, Peter Cressy, calls liquor "recession resilient" not recession proof - a point that industry officials make when cautioning lawmakers about raising taxes.

Earlier this month, distillers in Kentucky poured bottles of bourbon on the statehouse steps there to protest a proposed tax increase.

In Pittsburgh, a 10 percent tax placed on alcohol last year inspired an animated satire, resulted in some bars printing signs saying the tax's architect was not welcome and one restaurateur challenging Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato to a charity boxing match.

Ben Jenkins, a spokesman for the Distilled Spirits Council, said states would be better off if they simply made alcohol more accessible to meet consumer demand. States that lift the ban on Sunday sales see a 5 percent to 8 percent annual sales increase, he said.

"Dozens of states consider alcohol taxes and every year most of them fail because the legislators become educated as to the effects a tax increase on alcohol would have on the hospitality industry," he said. "Since 2001, we've seen 245 major tax proposals and 227 of them have failed."

Those opposed to reforming Utah's liquor laws cite concerns about overconsumption and drunk driving. But religion also plays a key role.

About 60 percent of the state's residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which tells its members not to drink alcohol. An even greater percentage of lawmakers - 80 percent to 90 percent - are Mormon, though some of them are open to changing the law for the sake of the state's economy.

The state's private club system as it's currently known, was created in 1969 after voters - encouraged by the church - killed a proposal to allow the sale of liquor by the drink in restaurants.

But for Utah's $6 billion-a-year tourism industry, liquor laws are a major issue, too. They say it hurts their efforts to compete with neighboring states like Colorado for the lucrative convention and ski market.

If there was ever a question if Utah has an image problem because of its quirky liquor laws, business travelers like Marty Cano can answer it.

"Originally, I thought alcohol was illegal here," the Austin, Texas IT consultant said one recent night after downing a few pints of beer at the Poplar Street Pub, a few blocks away from the downtown Mormon temple.

Utah's bar industry has come up with a compromise to the hassle of making patrons fill out forms. Its leaders have proposed scanning driver's licenses before customers enter a club to verify nobody under 21 enters. Some lawmakers would like information about who goes into a bar stored on the scanners so police could use it.

There are other ways in which Utah's liquor laws are getting stronger. Last year, it became the only state to ban the sale of flavored malt beverages from grocery and convenience stores.

Other states, meanwhile, are trying to eliminate much less onerous hassles associated with buying alcohol.

In Colorado and Kansas, grocery stores are fighting for the right to sell full-strength beer. Most of the opposition in those states isn't coming from morality groups, but instead from liquor stores who like having a corner on the market.

A similar effort is occurring in Tennessee, where lawmakers are considering allowing the sale of wine in supermarkets.

In Alabama, a proposal to raise the amount of alcohol allowed in beer from 6 percent alcohol by volume to 13.9 percent is being considered, although some church groups fear it would result in people getting drunker quicker.

Dave Morris, owner of Salt Lake City's Piper Down, an Irish-themed pub, said keeping a database of who enters a bar would be "a public relations nightmare" but he says he's willing to accept scanning IDs if it helps tourism officials lure more visitors to the state, and put more money into the pockets of his customers.

"If they have more money, they can come out more often," he said. "It will all trickle down."

---

Coulter once again calls for the execution of NY Times journalists for treason. 

Can someone send  Ann a message that we need to try Bush and his boss Cheney for their crimes first, then we will work on the media. 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607140015

This is from an article before the elections.  This sure would be a good start in the right direction. 

The act is a tough document, authored by Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco-area congresswomen who has been the Democratic House leader since 2002. She will likely be the House Speaker if the Democrats win next Tuesday.

Here are some of the new rules Pelosi wants:

No House member may accept any gift of any value from lobbyists, or any firm or association that hires lobbyists.

No free travel, which means an end to the corporate jet line every Friday at Reagan National Airport.

No free tickets to Redskins games; or no meals of any value, even at a McDonalds; no front-row seats at entertainment venues. No, no and no.

Temptations resisted

To reduce temptations to cheat, Pelosi's bill attacks the usefulness of members to richly endowed lobbyists.

House members will no longer be able to slip in special-interest projects on unrelated legislation. Such measures will no longer be allowed on a bill once negotiations between the Senate and House are complete.

Further, all bills will be made available to the public a full 24 hours before a final vote; presumably this gives watchdog groups a chance to flag any skullduggery.

Under the Pelosi rules, lobbyists will no longer be able to use the House gym (you'd be surprised how much gets negotiated in a sauna). Lobbyists will no longer be allowed onto the House floor or to use the cloakrooms just off the floor, preventing last-minute arm-twisting.

What's more, no member or staffer will be able to negotiate for employment in the public sector without disclosing such contacts to the House Ethics Committee, and within three days of such contact being made.

Finally, all of this will be audited and investigated by a new Office of Public Integrity, and that office reports, directly and only, to the U.S. Attorneys Office.

At this point, you'd be entitled to ask, heard this before, what makes you think it will be accepted by Congress?

Can it work?

No doubt there will be attempts to water down some of these new regulations. In fact, many of these proposals have been in other bills that have been defeated in the recent past.

But several key congressional experts tell CBC News that Pelosi means business and might just be able to push this through. They put it this way.

Pelosi and the congressional Democratic leadership are not likely to get much credit simply for gaining control of the House.

Conventional wisdom already sees such a victory, should it happen, first and foremost as a repudiation of the Bush administration and the Republicans.

This Honest Leadership and Open Government Act is a way of hitting the bricks running. Plus, it could be enormously popular with voters of all persuasions.

They point out Pelosi herself has little national profile and wants quickly to paint some bold strokes. She promises the act will be the first legislation tackled if she leads a new Congress.

Also, Pelosi can and will extract promises of support from those getting leadership positions and plush committee chairmanships and the like.

These new rules will apply in the House as soon as they are passed by simple majority.

The Senate has different rules, but for Republicans and Democrats there, the pressure to comply with the Pelosi standards will be huge.

Nancy Pelosi has NO charisma but she is both knowledgeabe and competent. Both parties agree. Even the diehard Republlicans in both houses are embarrassed by John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin and many are  now calling for her to be replaced. I genuinely feel badly for her.........she was chosen only to prove he is a "maverick" and did not strictly follow party lines.She was not given much time to prepare before being thrust in the spotlight. This will probably destroy what could have been a bright future for her.

Seriously, did anyone see her interview with Katie Couric? She has to get "her head arount Putin's"??? I was genuinely embarrassed for her.

I also wondered can't she just look in his eyes like George Bushi did and see his soul?

I will NEVER post again to this board. Such vitriol from some of the posters and it is not worth it. I  do not like the  feeling of being attacked for a simple statement.

We all have our own personal beliefs and opinions.I am just wondering, though, how many people running for a powerful office  are routinely filmed being blessed by their pastors for "protection against witches".

I also wonder how many "Christians" would slash their state's Special Olympic budget and then objectify their own special-needs child for political gain.

Pelosi Bungling Democratic Win With Hastings Appointment

Sunday, November 26, 2006

By Susan Estrich

They took a trip to the UK for partridge hunting and it cost us $88K. Aren't we so kind to them. Yeah, go ahead AIG, take all the trips you want. We don't mind. You all need that time to think up another trip.

Pelosi wants another $300B from the bailout. Don'cha just love her? She's so wonderful.

both say they demand a PLAN from all three before they will agree to give them any money, that they wanted full accountability and transparency.  (I had to DOUBLE-CHECK to make sure it WAS Pelosi and Reid I was hearing.)

I think this is a good idea.  Maybe if those conditions had been applied to Paulson, the Wall Street crooks would have had to toe the line a bit.  Instead, sadly, Wall Street gets a blank check, NO oversight, NO transparency, and Paulson keeps changing his mind about what to do with the money.

I don't want to see America lose GM, Ford or Chrysler.  They have the technology available to them to manufacture cars that can get 50 miles per gallon.  (I bought one in the mid 1980s.)  Maybe they need to spruce up the old ཽ Mustangs, or even the beloved ཱུ Chevies with that kind of gas mileage for those of us who can't afford the expensive hybrids they want to offer. 

The main problem, though, seems to be the arrogance of the CEOs of these companies (particularly with the private jet issues).  One of these CEOs (I can't remember his name now) was asked if he would resign if it was for the good of the company, and he flatly refused and indicated there was nothing wrong with his performance.  In my opinion, the cockier their attitude, the less they may be likely to get.

The other option of bankruptcy would force restructuring, and I believe would force out the incompetent CEOs and managers, developing a viable plan and starting from scratch, while still operating and not needing to lay off so many workers.

I've known for well over a year now that we were in a recession.  I used to watch the Dow every day, did a happy dance and sang a little song (with apologies to Neil Sadaka):  "Dow, doobie do, Dow down.  Come on, Come on, Dow, doobie do, Dow down.  Goin' broke is hard to do."

I think those of us with the least noticed this trend a long, long time ago.  I realized then that until and unless the richest of the rich started to feel the "pinch," people like us would never have a chance because we were the invisible Americans.  (I guess this is the "bottom-up theory.")

In a convoluted sort of way, this might help some Americans.  I know it's going to hurt a lot of people, as well, but the less money people can spend, the more prices will be forced to go down.  That old "what the market will bear" kind of thing.  So working from the "bottom up," as Obama has mentioned, seems to go along with the way I've been thinking this for a long time now.

Regulations must be put back in place regarding Wall Street.   They all will be getting their Christmas bonuses this year -- quite hefty ones -- and you and I are paying for them.  Meanwhile, Christmas in my home is looking very bleak this year.

I read somewhere that the CEO of any company, by law, shouldn't be allowed to earn more than the President of the United States earns.

Sounds like a good place to start.

My wishes for a great evening to you all. 

these types of people in this story below.  We need to secure our borders instead of cuddling illegal aliens. Please read. 

Houston Police Officer Richard Salter was shot in the face last week while serving a drug warrant and is in critical condition. Doctors are optimistic because recently Salter, a 27 year vet and the top narcotics officer in Houston, moved two of his fingers. It has now been released that Wilfido Joel Alfaro, 29, a drug smuggler with multiple run-ins with the law in both the US and Mexico, was an illegal alien from El Salvador and had deportation orders. He was arrested multiple times after being ordered to leave the United States, but remained here due to sanctuary city policies.

Mayor Bill White of the sanctuary city of Houston, Texas was quick to point the finger at the federal government rather than taking responsibility for his actions in making Houston a haven for illegal aliens and drug smugglers. It is really sickening that these "leaders" are quick to wash their hands of any responsibility.

It took the Mayor nearly a week to release details that Alfaro - who was killed during the incident - was an illegal alien and that there were multiple times that Alfaro could have been removed from this country. Of course Bill White didn't acknowledge that if Houston actually actively worked with the feds instead of harboring illegal aliens this police officer would not have been shot. Mayor Bill White is a disgrace to the whole of the United States of America.

In an interview I saw on TV tonight (Update: I added the interview video at the end of this entry) Michael Berry of KTRH said that Alfaro's "residence" was basically a $40,000 home that was frequented by gang members and was a known drug haven that was defended by a $50,000 security system fully equipped with multiple cameras, sensors and burglar bars on all the windows. Basically a fortress. It was also revealed that the wife of Alfaro is part of the Avila crime cartel and that her cousin Bruno Avila shot and killed the first female Hispanic cop in Houston last year.

There can be no greater disrespect for law enforcement than knowingly putting them in harms way by allowing a criminal element to reside in your city unchallenged and then being arrogant enough to shrug when one is shot in the face. Mayor White's response to this tragedy is the equivalent of a shrug and every American should be outraged!