- This topic has 265 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
jficquette.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 30, 2008 at 11:24 AM #278411October 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM #278953
Veritas
ParticipantPelosi’s continued culture of corruption or stupidity or maybe cupidity:
“WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.”
October 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM #279220ParticipantPelosi’s continued culture of corruption or stupidity or maybe cupidity:
“WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.”
October 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM #279231ParticipantPelosi’s continued culture of corruption or stupidity or maybe cupidity:
“WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.”
October 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM #279268ParticipantPelosi’s continued culture of corruption or stupidity or maybe cupidity:
“WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.”
October 1, 2008 at 2:33 PM #279279ParticipantPelosi’s continued culture of corruption or stupidity or maybe cupidity:
“WASHINGTON — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid her husband’s real estate and investment firm nearly $100,000 from her political action committee over the past decade, a practice that she voted to ban last year and that her party condemned as part of the “culture of corruption” when Republicans did it.”
October 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM #279242jficquette
Participant[quote=Aecetia]John,
Back to Pelosi’s speech, she did it on purpose because of all the Dem. dissent and the Reps. took the bait. You might not like her, but it was very calculated and not just her spouting off. She did it to blame the bill not passing on the Republicans. It was a smart move. We will see what they do next. Bush is obviously pandering to his global buddies in his speech today.[/quote]I saw her follow up press conference. It was obvious that she knew she had messed up and she knew that everyone else knew it too. I don’t think that someone who is responsible to get things done would intentionally sabotage their own efforts.
If she really wanted to make the Reps look bad she should have been bi-partisan, gotten it passed and then after about 6 months time when the Dow is around 6k she could start blaming the Reps for passing it.
Besides, 95 Dems voted against. Dems didn’t even need a single Rep vote since they are in the majority. She is not much of a leader or else she would have gotten the votes.
Besides, assuming your right, is not too much to ask for true leadership? Why do we have someone who wants to play games in that position? Aren’t yall tired on having people in important positions who put their party first rather then their country?
John
October 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM #279512Participant[quote=Aecetia]John,
Back to Pelosi’s speech, she did it on purpose because of all the Dem. dissent and the Reps. took the bait. You might not like her, but it was very calculated and not just her spouting off. She did it to blame the bill not passing on the Republicans. It was a smart move. We will see what they do next. Bush is obviously pandering to his global buddies in his speech today.[/quote]I saw her follow up press conference. It was obvious that she knew she had messed up and she knew that everyone else knew it too. I don’t think that someone who is responsible to get things done would intentionally sabotage their own efforts.
If she really wanted to make the Reps look bad she should have been bi-partisan, gotten it passed and then after about 6 months time when the Dow is around 6k she could start blaming the Reps for passing it.
Besides, 95 Dems voted against. Dems didn’t even need a single Rep vote since they are in the majority. She is not much of a leader or else she would have gotten the votes.
Besides, assuming your right, is not too much to ask for true leadership? Why do we have someone who wants to play games in that position? Aren’t yall tired on having people in important positions who put their party first rather then their country?
John
October 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM #279521Participant[quote=Aecetia]John,
Back to Pelosi’s speech, she did it on purpose because of all the Dem. dissent and the Reps. took the bait. You might not like her, but it was very calculated and not just her spouting off. She did it to blame the bill not passing on the Republicans. It was a smart move. We will see what they do next. Bush is obviously pandering to his global buddies in his speech today.[/quote]I saw her follow up press conference. It was obvious that she knew she had messed up and she knew that everyone else knew it too. I don’t think that someone who is responsible to get things done would intentionally sabotage their own efforts.
If she really wanted to make the Reps look bad she should have been bi-partisan, gotten it passed and then after about 6 months time when the Dow is around 6k she could start blaming the Reps for passing it.
Besides, 95 Dems voted against. Dems didn’t even need a single Rep vote since they are in the majority. She is not much of a leader or else she would have gotten the votes.
Besides, assuming your right, is not too much to ask for true leadership? Why do we have someone who wants to play games in that position? Aren’t yall tired on having people in important positions who put their party first rather then their country?
John
October 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM #279558Participant[quote=Aecetia]John,
Back to Pelosi’s speech, she did it on purpose because of all the Dem. dissent and the Reps. took the bait. You might not like her, but it was very calculated and not just her spouting off. She did it to blame the bill not passing on the Republicans. It was a smart move. We will see what they do next. Bush is obviously pandering to his global buddies in his speech today.[/quote]I saw her follow up press conference. It was obvious that she knew she had messed up and she knew that everyone else knew it too. I don’t think that someone who is responsible to get things done would intentionally sabotage their own efforts.
If she really wanted to make the Reps look bad she should have been bi-partisan, gotten it passed and then after about 6 months time when the Dow is around 6k she could start blaming the Reps for passing it.
Besides, 95 Dems voted against. Dems didn’t even need a single Rep vote since they are in the majority. She is not much of a leader or else she would have gotten the votes.
Besides, assuming your right, is not too much to ask for true leadership? Why do we have someone who wants to play games in that position? Aren’t yall tired on having people in important positions who put their party first rather then their country?
John
October 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM #279569Participant[quote=Aecetia]John,
Back to Pelosi’s speech, she did it on purpose because of all the Dem. dissent and the Reps. took the bait. You might not like her, but it was very calculated and not just her spouting off. She did it to blame the bill not passing on the Republicans. It was a smart move. We will see what they do next. Bush is obviously pandering to his global buddies in his speech today.[/quote]I saw her follow up press conference. It was obvious that she knew she had messed up and she knew that everyone else knew it too. I don’t think that someone who is responsible to get things done would intentionally sabotage their own efforts.
If she really wanted to make the Reps look bad she should have been bi-partisan, gotten it passed and then after about 6 months time when the Dow is around 6k she could start blaming the Reps for passing it.
Besides, 95 Dems voted against. Dems didn’t even need a single Rep vote since they are in the majority. She is not much of a leader or else she would have gotten the votes.
Besides, assuming your right, is not too much to ask for true leadership? Why do we have someone who wants to play games in that position? Aren’t yall tired on having people in important positions who put their party first rather then their country?
John
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.