PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Nancy Pelosi goes overboard


petegz28
09-17-2009, 01:44 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8603009


what a fucking drama queen....


this bitch is a joke among jokes

petegz28
09-17-2009, 01:44 PM
By taking responsibility does she mean like when people call others "un-American" and accuse them of being Nazi's?

Norman Einstein
09-17-2009, 02:11 PM
Just exactly what was said that got the Ice speaker next to tears?

As a conservative I hope is wasn't something one of those that have referred to as the gun toting, bible thumping people that the obamma was talking about during the election cycle.

blaise
09-17-2009, 02:17 PM
They live!

RedNeckRaider
09-17-2009, 04:30 PM
She is a snapshot of what is wrong with our government. A worthless shit bag.

bluehawkdoc
09-17-2009, 04:42 PM
Actually she is a snapshot of what happens when a woman tries to morph into a horse.

hawkchief
09-17-2009, 05:18 PM
How can someone who's already "overboard", go overboard? What a completely worthless POS of a human being that the idiots of our country elected to public office. She's the poster-child for liberalism ran amuck in the U.S. Pathetic.

|Zach|
09-17-2009, 05:23 PM
http://www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/OVERBOARD.jpg

petegz28
09-17-2009, 05:39 PM
http://www.homevideos.com/movies-covers/OVERBOARD.jpg

You should be banned for putting the pick of a hottie like Goldie in a Pelosi thread:cuss:

Bwana
09-17-2009, 05:50 PM
Shocking! That's a first...................wait.

Norman Einstein
09-17-2009, 08:18 PM
Actually she is a snapshot of what happens when a woman tries to morph into a horse.

She only got half way morphed. Anyone want to guess which end she morphed into? Here is a hint for the common sense impared, it's not the front half.

Norman Einstein
09-17-2009, 08:19 PM
You should be banned for putting the pick of a hottie like Goldie in a Pelosi thread:cuss:

I disagree, he should have his head shoved up the horses ass. (see previous post)

Friendo
09-17-2009, 10:21 PM
I've never cared much for Pelosi, but she is absolutely right. This BS is shameful and un-American.

petegz28
09-17-2009, 10:24 PM
I've never cared much for Pelosi, but she is absolutely right. This BS is shameful and un-American.

What is un-American? Her calling people un-American and Nazis because they don't agree with her?

What BS do you think she is right about??

Friendo
09-17-2009, 11:03 PM
What is un-American? Her calling people un-American and Nazis because they don't agree with her?

What BS do you think she is right about??


you're kidding right?

birthers/deathers/secessionists/gun brandishing at rallies...I'm not on board with the wide brush on the racism charge. Hell, the reactionary Right's response to BO is mild in comparison to how it would have been towards Hillary. I recall death threats being bandied about regarding Bill Clinton (pre-Monica), who governed largely as a Moderate. You mf'ers are just plain crazy.

petegz28
09-17-2009, 11:09 PM
you're kidding right?

birthers/deathers/secessionists/gun brandishing at rallies...I'm not on board with the wide brush on the racism charge. Hell, the reactionary Right's response to BO is mild in comparison to how it would have been towards Hillary. I recall death threats being bandied about regarding Bill Clinton (pre-Monica), who governed largely as a Moderate. You mf'ers are just plain crazy.

Would that be like AWOL'ers, War Criminal'ers, etc, etc?

Guru
09-18-2009, 02:50 AM
She's one to talk about responsibility. Hypocrite.

Norman Einstein
09-18-2009, 04:32 AM
I've never cared much for Pelosi, but she is absolutely right. This BS is shameful and un-American.

If you are talking about disrespect towards the president, where was she when it was going on with Bush? Oh wait, she was the ring leader.

If you want to see disrespect and hatred for anything to do with Bush, find a video of the speech to the house and senate after 9/11. Hillary looked like she sucked a bucket of lemons every time they showed her face. They didn't catch her "off guard" it was an intentional grimmace for the cameras. 99% of the rest of those present were giving the then president a standing ovation.

I guess it's only disrespect when it's the other side against your side, from the liberal view of things.

craneref
09-18-2009, 07:51 AM
you're kidding right?

birthers/deathers/secessionists/gun brandishing at rallies...I'm not on board with the wide brush on the racism charge. Hell, the reactionary Right's response to BO is mild in comparison to how it would have been towards Hillary. I recall death threats being bandied about regarding Bill Clinton (pre-Monica), who governed largely as a Moderate. You mf'ers are just plain crazy.

So is the a wide brush slam agianst all of the Right calling them reactionary or are you referring to the MUCH smaller group of the reactionary Right? I believe the reactionary (insert poll following here) Left is much larger than the reactionary Right. Pelosi and other Dem's "Booed" President Bush and Sen Reid called President Bush a liar to school children. I agree that it was rude and a bad example for Rep Joe Wilson to yell out like that, but he immediately apologized for hi outburst including a call to the President. However, what he did is no worse than what Rep Pelosi and Reid did for 8 years with President Bush, so they should be hel to the same standards. I am waiting for them to call President Bush and apologize, then stand before the floor with Rep Joe Wilson and accept the same punishment. If it is wrong, then it is wrong, no matter which party or political view.

penchief
09-18-2009, 08:46 AM
By taking responsibility does she mean like when people call others "un-American" and accuse them of being Nazi's?

Spreading lies again? She didn't accuse others of being Nazis. She correctly pointed out that people were bringing Nazi signs to anti-health care reform protests and thought that was a bit much. You and your Glenn Beck drama queens like to twist those comments around for your own political expediency. Manufactured outrage has become the bread and butter of the right wing in this country.

Now I'm no big fan of Pelosi but it seems a bit dishonest to continue making false accusations in order to attack her character. If she's as bad as you say she is I'm sure there are many other things that you can attack her over that are accurate.

By the way, even Pelosi isn't as big a joke as Tom Delay was. That guy was overtly corrupt and proud of it.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 08:49 AM
Spreading lies again? She didn't accuse others of being Nazis. She correctly pointed out that people were bringing Nazi signs to anti-health care reform protests. You and your Glenn Beck drama queens twisted those comments around for your own political expediency.

Now I'm no big fan of Pelosi but it seems a bit dishonest to continue making false accusations in order to attack her character. If she's as bad as you say she is I'm sure there are many other things that you can attack her over that are accurate.

By the way, even Pelosi isn't as big a joke as Tom Delay was. That guy was overtly corrupt and proud of it.

I'm sorry, remind me again what the relevance is in pointing out that someone was carrying a swatstika? And then explain further her intent on her op-ed where she called people who disagree with her "un-American"?

And there we have it....point the finger at someone else to justify Pelosi......THAT is integrity!

penchief
09-18-2009, 09:11 AM
I'm sorry, remind me again what the relevance is in pointing out that someone was carrying a swatstika? And then explain further her intent on her op-ed where she called people who disagree with her "un-American"?

And there we have it....point the finger at someone else to justify Pelosi......THAT is integrity!

The point is to remind everyone that when it gets to that point it is getting out of hand. It is pointing out that civil debate is being threatened when people start accusing others of being Nazis, socialists, or terrorist sympathers. Based on the principles of our democracy and civil debate, those tactics are somewhat un-American.

What was the point of bringing those signs in the first place? Seems to me you are pointing your finger at the person who responded to the act instead of the persons who initiated the act. Why would you give those who initiated the act a free ride? They did what they did with intent. Why would you ignore their intent in order to assign motives to Pelosi when you have no clear basis to do so?

The reason you would do that is because of partisan politics. It's all a diversion from any honest debate of public policy. It's smear politics and that is what the right wing in this country has become all about.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 09:23 AM
The point is to remind everyone that when it gets to that point it is getting out of hand. It is pointing out that civil debate is being threatened when people start accusing others of being Nazis, socialists, or terrorist sympathers. Based on the principles of our democracy and civil debate, those tactics are somewhat un-American.

What was the point of bringing those signs in the first place? Seems to me you are pointing your finger at the person who responded to the act instead of the persons who initiated the act. Why would you give those who initiated the act a free ride? They did what they did with intent. Why would you ignore their intent in order to assign motives to Pelosi when you have no clear basis to do so?

The reason you would do that is because of partisan politics. It's all a diversion from any honest debate of public policy. It's smear politics and that is what the right wing in this country has become all about.


So your problem then is with Free Speech?

And I like how you just completely ignore Pelosi calling people "un-American".

If anyone here is playing the partisan role it is you. As shown by your clear and obvious condoning of Pelosi calling peope un-American.

blaise
09-18-2009, 09:25 AM
The point is to remind everyone that when it gets to that point it is getting out of hand. It is pointing out that civil debate is being threatened when people start accusing others of being Nazis, socialists, or terrorist sympathers. Based on the principles of our democracy and civil debate, those tactics are somewhat un-American.

What was the point of bringing those signs in the first place? Seems to me you are pointing your finger at the person who responded to the act instead of the persons who initiated the act. Why would you give those who initiated the act a free ride? They did what they did with intent. Why would you ignore their intent in order to assign motives to Pelosi when you have no clear basis to do so?

The reason you would do that is because of partisan politics. It's all a diversion from any honest debate of public policy. It's smear politics and that is what the right wing in this country has become all about.


I like how you complain about partisan politics and then immediately aftewards include a blanket statement about what the right has become all about.

Nice work.

ChiTown
09-18-2009, 09:40 AM
I like how you complain about partisan politics and then immediately aftewards include a blanket statement about what the right has become all about.

Nice work.

He's nothing, if not consistent....

penchief
09-18-2009, 10:05 AM
So your problem then is with Free Speech?

And I like how you just completely ignore Pelosi calling people "un-American".

If anyone here is playing the partisan role it is you. As shown by your clear and obvious condoning of Pelosi calling peope un-American.

Not at all. I am an advocate of free speech and an advocate of peaceful dissent. The dishonesty and bully tactics of those who want to subvert an honest debate are not abiding by the spirit of those virtues, IMO.

I didn't ignore it. I stated that it is not unreasonable to believe that the questionable behavior is un-American when compared to the institutions we have established in this country for having our voices heard. Is it okay to refer to certain behaviors as un-American?

Having protests and carrying signs is all good. Take to the streets. That is what I advocate. But disrupting organized town hall meetings by shouting down others, making false accusations, and interferring with the rights of others to their freedom of speech is not the same thing, IMO. Town hall meetings are avenues by which to express your free speech in a civil manner.

Why can't those who oppose the health care reform movement utilize the vehicles of free speech the way they were intended to be utilized? Why do they have to interfere with the free speech of others in order to exercise their own free speech?

You continue to evade the pertinent questions related to the behavior and intent of those who are initiating the questionable actions by making accusations against those who are commenting on the legitimacy of those questionable actions.

Why do you continue to give those who have resorted to questionable tactics a free pass while assigning motives to those who question those tactics?

petegz28
09-18-2009, 10:14 AM
Not at all. I am an advocate of free speech and an advocate of peaceful dissent. The dishonesty and bully tactics of those who want to subvert an honest debate are not abiding by the spirit of those virtues, IMO.

I didn't ignore it. I stated that it is not unreasonable to believe that the questionable behavior is un-American when compared to the institutions we have established in this country for having our voices heard. Is it okay to refer to certain behaviors as un-American?

Having protests and carrying signs is all good. Take to the streets. That is what I advocate. But disrupting organized town hall meetings by shouting down others, making false accusations, and interferring with the rights of others to their freedom of speech is not the same thing, IMO. Town hall meetings are avenues by which to express your free speech in a civil manner.

Why can't those who oppose the health care reform movement utilize the vehicles of free speech the way they were intended to be utilized? Why do they have to interfere with the free speech of others in order to exercise their own free speech?

You continue to evade the pertinent questions related to the behavior and intent of those who are initiating the questionable actions by making accusations against those who are commenting on the legitimacy of those questionable actions.

Why do you continue to give those who have resorted to questionable tactics a free pass will assigning motives to those who question those tactics?

What questionable tactics? Why do you hate the Constitution? No one did anything they were not legally entitled to do.

Pelosi called people un-American, swastiska toters and she has to accept the responsibility of those statements.

penchief
09-18-2009, 10:17 AM
I like how you complain about partisan politics and then immediately aftewards include a blanket statement about what the right has become all about.

Nice work.

Being non-partisan doesn't mean that you have to stop being objective. Just take a look at what has been happening. One would have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not recognize the tack that has become prevelant with the right. To feign non-partisanship by overlooking the obvious factors that have elevated the current state of partisanship would be counterproductive.

There is nothing I would like to see more than moderation and an emphasis on public policy return to the republican party. I want the republican party to be a viable public policy vehicle.

That said, pointing out that class warfare is taking place doesn't equate to class warfare, pointing out that racism exists isn't racist, and pointing out examples of partisan behavior doesn't equate to being partisan. I don't know why so many people take the approach that one must always equal the other.

JMO.

penchief
09-18-2009, 10:30 AM
What questionable tactics? Why do you hate the Constitution? No one did anything they were not legally entitled to do.

Pelosi called people un-American, swastiska toters and she has to accept the responsibility of those statements.

I love the constitution. I certainly defend their right to carry swastika signs. The disruptions are the actions I find questionable. Preventing others from peacably exercising their free speech rights in a forum designed to exercise free speech is un-American, IMO.

Interferring with the free speech rights of others is not in keeping with the virtue of freedom of speech. It is in contradiction to that virtue. The bully tactics employed by those who took their marching orders from the right wing playbook at those town hall meetings were disrupting free speech rather than exercising it.

Clearly, shouting others down in a forum designed to elicit free speech is a form of suppressing free speech.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 10:36 AM
I love the constitution. I certainly defend their right to carry swastika signs. The disruptions are the actions I find questionable. Preventing others from peacably exercising their free speech rights in a forum designed to exercise free speech is un-American, IMO.

Interferring with the free speech rights of others is not in keeping with the virtue of freedom of speech. It is in contradiction to that virtue. The bully tactics employed by those who took their marching orders from the right wing playbook at those town hall meetings were disrupting free speech rather than exercising it.

Clearly, shouting others down in a forum designed to elicit free speech is a form of suppressing free speech.

Clearly you are high. A Town Hall meeting is just that. It is not where one elected person speaks and the rest sit ther and shut up like they are told to do.

penchief
09-18-2009, 11:18 AM
Clearly you are high. A Town Hall meeting is just that. It is not where one elected person speaks and the rest sit ther and shut up like they are told to do.

Which is why they allow people to ask questions and express concerns?

Let me ask you a simple question concerning those people who were carrying swastika signs. Do you think they were from the nazi party advocating nazi party positions or do you think they were accusing those advocating for health care reform of being nazis?

If it's the former, they have every right to carry those signs and advocate their positions but they don't have the right to interfere with the freedom of speeach of others.

If it is the latter, they still have the right to state their case without interfering with the rights of others but it seems that scenario would expose your position as being extremely hypocritical. You bash Pelosi mercelessly by assuming that her intent was to call the sign toters nazis. While on the other hand, you are willing to give the sign toters a free pass for what was most likely the same thing you attacked Pelosi for doing without any proof.

Norman Einstein
09-18-2009, 11:32 AM
Which is why they allow people to ask questions and express concerns?

Let me ask you a simple question concerning those people who were carrying swastika signs. Do you think they were from the nazi party advocating nazi party positions or do you think they were accusing those advocating for health care reform of being nazis?

If it's the former, they have every right to carry those signs and advocate their positions but they don't have the right to interfere with the freedom of speeach of others.

If it is the latter, they still have the right to state their case without interfering with the rights of others but it seems that scenario would expose your position as being extremely hypocritical. You bash Pelosi mercelessly by assuming that her intent was to call the sign toters nazis. While on the other hand, you are willing to give the sign toters a free pass for what very likely could have been what you claim Pelosi was doing.

What I find quite humorous about the Town Hall meetings that the obots have put on is that if you want to ask a question you have to have that question vetted before anyone will ask it.

A true town hall meeting would allow extemporaneous questions to the person on the hot seat. If they have their act together they don't need to study the situation with a team of politcal hacks before they will accept the question.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 11:41 AM
Which is why they allow people to ask questions and express concerns?

Let me ask you a simple question concerning those people who were carrying swastika signs. Do you think they were from the nazi party advocating nazi party positions or do you think they were accusing those advocating for health care reform of being nazis?

If it's the former, they have every right to carry those signs and advocate their positions but they don't have the right to interfere with the freedom of speeach of others.

If it is the latter, they still have the right to state their case without interfering with the rights of others but it seems that scenario would expose your position as being extremely hypocritical. You bash Pelosi mercelessly by assuming that her intent was to call the sign toters nazis. While on the other hand, you are willing to give the sign toters a free pass for what very likely could have been what you claim Pelosi was doing.

Um, you need to study what Free Speech is about. Calling someone a Nazi is free speech. Particularly when it is directed towards elected officials. What you think of it from a civility standpoint is nothing more than opinion.

However, the point is Nancy does not want to practice what she preaches in regards to taking responsibility for her words.

penchief
09-18-2009, 11:46 AM
What I find quite humorous about the Town Hall meetings that the obots have put on is that if you want to ask a question you have to have that question vetted before anyone will ask it.

A true town hall meeting would allow extemporaneous questions to the person on the hot seat. If they have their act together they don't need to study the situation with a team of politcal hacks before they will accept the question.

I agree. Vetting questions is worthless. I hated it when Bush did it and I'll hate it when Obama does it. However, it didn't seem that they were being vetted at first. Maybe all the dishonest nonsense that started this entire ruckus has led to the vetting bullshit. But if you are going to vet questions why even bother with town hall meetings?

That said, if the case is that they started vetting because of the misinformation and unruly behavior that marked the previous town hall meetings, then that is a perfect example of why such tactics are counterproductive. Stifling the free speech of others by shouting them down with misinformation led to a situation that limited the free speech of everyone.

penchief
09-18-2009, 11:51 AM
Um, you need to study what Free Speech is about. Calling someone a Nazi is free speech. Particularly when it is directed towards elected officials. What you think of it from a civility standpoint is nothing more than opinion.

However, the point is Nancy does not want to practice what she preaches in regards to taking responsibility for her words.

Again, I'm not criticizing them for calling others nazis. The questionable conduct I was referring to is the shouting down of others. As far as the act of calling others nazis, why do you have a double standard? Seems you don't want to practice what you preach, either.

They were likely doing something that you ciriticize Pelosi for doing, yet she was likely not even doing what you accuse her of (calling others nazis). But you defend them for doing it.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 02:49 PM
Again, I'm not criticizing them for calling others nazis. The questionable conduct I was referring to is the shouting down of others. As far as the act of calling others nazis, why do you have a double standard? Seems you don't want to practice what you preach, either.

They were likely doing something that you ciriticize Pelosi for doing, yet she was likely not even doing what you accuse her of (calling others nazis). But you defend them for doing it.

They aren't taking responsibility for their words??? Really?

penchief
09-18-2009, 03:27 PM
They aren't taking responsibility for their words??? Really?

I just read again my post that you are responding to and I'm thinking that you meant to respond to another post. I don't get what you are asking me based on my post.

And why do you keep evading my question about the blatant double standard that you are applying? Here is your post that I initially responded to:

By taking responsibility does she mean like when people call others "un-American" and accuse them of being Nazi's?

Not only are you making a giant leap by assigning that particular motive ("accuse them of being nazis") to Pelosi when that is probably not what she was doing at all, but you are simultaneously ignoring the fact that those who were carrying those signs were doing exactly that (accusing others of being nazis).

Why is it okay for your side to actually do that which you falsely accuse the other side of doing? You are projecting what the sign toters did onto Pelosi and condemning her for it yet you are giving the sign toters a free pass.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 03:34 PM
I just read again my post that you are responding to and I'm thinking that you meant to respond to another post. I don't get what you are asking me based on my post.

And why do you keep evading my question about the blatant double standard that you are applying? Here is your post that I initially responded to:



Not only are you making a giant leap by assigning that particular motive ("accuse them of being nazis") to Pelosi when that is probably not what she was doing at all, but you are simultaneously ignoring the fact that those who were carrying those signs were doing exactly that (accusing others of being nazis).

Why is it okay for your side to actually do that which you falsely accuse the other side of doing? You are projecting what the sign toters did onto Pelosi and condemning her for it yet you are giving the sign toters a free pass.

My side?

penchief
09-18-2009, 03:41 PM
My side?

That appears to be the case. Otherwise, you wouldn't be holding them to a different standard than which you are holding Pelosi. And you wouldn't be projecting what they did onto Pelosi without solid evidence.

Even if you're only applying the logic that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it appears that you are defending them for exactly the same thing which you have prematurely condemned Pelosi based soley on your own speculation.

That doesn't seem very objective to me.

petegz28
09-18-2009, 03:43 PM
That appears to be the case. Otherwise, you wouldn't be holding them to a different standard than which you are holding Pelosi. And you wouldn't be projecting what they did onto Pelosi without solid evidence.

Even if you're only applying the logic that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, it appears that you are defending them for exactly the same thing which you have condemned Pelosi based soley on your own speculation.

Doesn't seem very objective at all to me.

I didn't support the Right calling or implying people were un-American about Iraq and I won't support someone like Pelosi doing it then coming out with this act and crying about people having to take responsibility for their words. She needs to start with herself.

penchief
09-18-2009, 03:54 PM
I didn't support the Right calling or implying people were un-American about Iraq and I won't support someone like Pelosi doing it then coming out with this act and crying about people having to take responsibility for their words. She needs to start with herself.

I agree that she should take responsibility for her own words. But why should she take responsibility for calling others nazis when she didn't do that?

I am glad to see that you didn't label those who opposed the unjustified invasion and occupation of another sovereign country as un-American. Opposing that type of broad condemnation based on honest differences is something we can agree on. But there were plenty who did label others as un-American based soley on the fact of their opposition and not their behavior.

I have also stated on this board mutliple times that I do not approve of disruptive behavior from liberals that infringe upon the rights of others. I believe that it undermines the message that liberalism ultimately represents. So I am sure we can agree on that as well.

So I would hope that Pelosi would not call someone un-American based soley on their opposition to health care reform. That, in itself, would be un-American behavior, IMO. But if she were simply calling the behavior un-American by those who wanted to stifle the free speech of others by shouting them down, I would agree with that based on our American ideals and institutions designed to ensure freedom of speech.

KCTitus
09-18-2009, 09:23 PM
I agree that she should take responsibility for her own words. But why should she take responsibility for calling others nazis when she didn't do that?

But, she did...when you accuse someone of carrying swastikas, what do you think I mean? That they're Masons? No, Mormons? No, Communists? No...

Swastika is the sole property of Nazi.

Dont be stupid...oh, wait, nevermind.

Norman Einstein
09-18-2009, 10:54 PM
I agree. Vetting questions is worthless. I hated it when Bush did it and I'll hate it when Obama does it. However, it didn't seem that they were being vetted at first. Maybe all the dishonest nonsense that started this entire ruckus has led to the vetting bullshit. But if you are going to vet questions why even bother with town hall meetings?

That said, if the case is that they started vetting because of the misinformation and unruly behavior that marked the previous town hall meetings, then that is a perfect example of why such tactics are counterproductive. Stifling the free speech of others by shouting them down with misinformation led to a situation that limited the free speech of everyone.

It's already happened in his town halls.

penchief
09-19-2009, 06:47 AM
But, she did...when you accuse someone of carrying swastikas, what do you think I mean? That they're Masons? No, Mormons? No, Communists? No...

Swastika is the sole property of Nazi.

Dont be stupid...oh, wait, nevermind.

I don't think they were carrying signs because they were nazis and I don't think she did either.

I'll ask you the same simple question I asked pretz. Do you think they were carrying swastika signs because they were from the nazi party advocating nazi ideals OR do you think they were suggesting that health care reform advocates were nazis?

I think it was the latter. And I think Pelosi was commenting on how taking the debate to that level is going too far. Just because she correctly pointed out that people were carrying swastika signs doesn't mean she was calling them nazis. IMO, she was pointing out the level of absurdity that has overcome the health care debate.

Now, if you think it is okay for you to assign motives to someone based on your own speculation I suppose that is your prerogative. However, if you are going to condemn Pelosi for something that you 'think' she did, why aren't you condemning the ones who were really calling somebody else nazis?

Do you have a double standard, too? I mean if you are going to project that behavior onto pelosi why aren't you concerned about the people who were carrying those signs as a way of calling others nazis?

penchief
09-19-2009, 06:57 AM
It's already happened in his town halls.

Well, I disapprove. The sad thing is that the idiocy of those who intended to sabotage those town hall meetings from the start probably ruined it for everyone. What good is a town hall meeting if idiots are going to turn it into a circus for the sole purpose of perpetuating misinformation and fear?

Unfortunately, the vetting that ensued probably had much less to do with honest questions and concerns than it did the blatant attempts to spread lies and stir hatred. Let's all hope that the childish behavior subsides so that we can return to having a more open and honest debate.

By the way, I haven't seen any of the later town halls. Are they not taking any questions from health care reform opponents or from people who have major concerns?

penchief
09-19-2009, 09:29 AM
But, she did...when you accuse someone of carrying swastikas, what do you think I mean? That they're Masons? No, Mormons? No, Communists? No...

Swastika is the sole property of Nazi.

Dont be stupid...oh, wait, nevermind.

I can't believe I missed this the first time. She didn't ACCUSE someone of carrying swastikas. They CARRIED swastikas. All she did was correctly point out that swastikas signs were being brought to town hall meetings.

There is some real congnitive dissonance going on in this thread. And a lot of projecting of motives, as well.

Norman Einstein
09-19-2009, 11:31 AM
I can't believe I missed this the first time. She didn't ACCUSE someone of carrying swastikas. They CARRIED swastikas. All she did was correctly point out that swastikas signs were being brought to town hall meetings.

There is some real congnitive dissonance going on in this thread. And a lot of projecting of motives, as well.

What has not been mentioned, that I've seen, is the people carrying the offending signage were indicating that the tactics used by the liberal political party smacked of the Nazi party from the past.

My opinion is the liberals are trying to avoid being tagged as the modern nazi party by pushing the presence of the signs as being owned by the opposition. My feeling is that she is upset because they are calling HER a Nazi, and rightly so.

Edit: OK, it has been seen! Sorry for those that pointed it out earlier.

JohnnyV13
09-19-2009, 11:44 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=8603009


what a ****ing drama queen....


this bitch is a joke among jokes

Damn you pete, I thought someone tossed her into the sea. But seriously, I watched the clip and didn't think it was so over the top. Sure, there's some posturing, but its pretty typical political hyperbole.

chagrin
09-19-2009, 11:53 AM
so lemme get this straight; she can come in each week, make outlandish accusations and insinuations but isn't help responsible for the words she uses?

what a gig :rolleyes: