Pelosi's 'hundred hours'

This ding-bat can't clean her own house, never mind the House of Reps.

Break the links with lobbyists? - Yea, right. Her party is in BED with some of the biggest lobbyists around.

Enact the 9-11 report? - VETO!!!! Did we elect the 9-11 commission to make decisions or did we elect ding-bats?


Why go on. This witch has ZERO CREDIBILITY.

None of which will happen. It's just political trash talking.

Democrats are incapable of leading the country.

What has this Ding-Bat said about N. Korea possibly testing a nuke this weekend?

Has dinggy mentioned what she will do to clean Irans house?

What is her position of an exit strategy in Iraq?

There are not 5 people in that House that should actually be there.

This Ding Bat, Bella Pelosi is not one of the 5.

Struck a nerve, hmm?

Neither of you have a substantive argument as to why these things cannot/will not happen... just reflexive ones.

You'd really better get used to the idea, though...

Cycloptichorn

I do not need to get used to it.

Voters like you who keep touting their "party line" get the govt you deserve.

If you want a govt that wastes your money chasing "sex scandles" and not important issues, keep voting Dummycrats and Repuglicans into office.

What has Ding-Bat accomplished in her limited role as minority leader? Anything of substance.

(You answer better not be it's the Repuglicans fault, as that is an excuse)

Try to give an objective answer.

I'm not supporting a 'third party' candidate in the upcoming election, so discussions of how bad the Republicans and Democrats are, are somewhat immaterial to the topic. I agree that the Dems are hardly better than the Republicans, but at least they are somewhat better.

I'm not sure what you want me to say about what Pelosi has 'accomplished' as minority leader. Certainly she has done a medium job blocking legistlation from the Republicans which I don't agree with, what the hell else is she supposed to do? Republicans won't consider a single bill or amendment that is sponsored by the Dems, so how is she supposed to get anything substantive done at all?

That is an objective answer. Furthermore, I agree with every one of the things she spelled out as her 'agenda,' so how am I supposed to be pissed that she wants to do things I agree with?



She hasn't said anything about N. Korea as far as I know, the same as most Democrat or Republican leaders.

I don't think she thinks that Iran's house really needs cleaning all that badly - same as I and a majority of the world population.

And as for an exit strategy for Iraq? She has the same exit strategy as the Republicans do - none.

Cycloptichorn

"I'm not supporting a 'third party' candidate in the upcoming election, so discussions of how bad the Republicans and Democrats are, are somewhat immaterial to the topic."


"She hasn't said anything about N. Korea as far as I know, the same as most Democrat or Republican leaders.

I don't think she thinks that Iran's house really needs cleaning all that badly - same as I and a majority of the world population.

And as for an exit strategy for Iraq? She has the same exit strategy as the Republicans do - none. "

And therein lies the problem. YOU will continue to get the same BS when the Dummys get control from the Repugs and the people will be the losers.

Therefore, arguing about who is the biggest scoundrel is irrlelvant.

This November, the voters should vote out every incumbant on the ballot, regardless of party. But YOU won't, then you will complain.

You'll note that I wasn't making an argument about who the biggest scoundrel is. Just reporting on some of the things Dems are looking to do when they get into office, and agreeing with them.

Cycloptichorn

They don't deserve your vote.

Well maybe Rep Ford does, but that is about it.

It is a nice opinion that you hold, but given two options, I will be voting for the lesser of two evils.

The alternative? Not vote, and let the current bunch keep screwing things up? No thanks

Cycloptichorn

The alternative is to take action against the status quo.

We protest every "efing' thing in this country EXCEPT the people who do us the most harm, these elected officials.

How about a MILLION TAXPAYER MARCH to Washington calling for the resignation of every member of the Senate.

How about every taxpayer e-mailing their Reps and insisting they resign or be voted out.

I see A2K can organize a meeting of members yet A2K members would NEVER jointly organize to change the membership of the Senate.

Nah, we'll just argue about who the bigger scumbag is and call each other names.

We are a lazy bunch, us Americans.

I don't disagree with that.

Everyone is waiting for the movement to start, and then join, but they don't want to do the initial work.

And then there are the legions who have grown fat off of the current system; they will fight you tooth and nail to stop you. I'm not sure the country is ready for an armed rebellion yet... but that is what it would take.

Cycloptichorn

We can arm ourselves with one little finger on a ballot. Those who have "grown fat" got fat way before GW got in office and under this economic system will remain fat.

Yet they represent only less than 10% of the voters. They have no power at the voting booth, unless we let them have the power (which we do by continuing to vote for Dem and Repug.)

If middle America voted against the imcumbant, how can things be any worse?

The vast majority of non-incumbents don't seem to be substantially different than the incumbents themselves; they are still beholden to the same party system, to lobbyists, to money.

I'm not sure how the problem will be solved by merely voting in new leadership. And in this case, there aren't enough elections to replace anyone, not even half of anyone, this cycle; it would take years to do what you are suggesting, years during which those with the vast majority of money would fight you tooth and nail the entire way.

Cycloptichorn

A friend and I were just discussing how the right is working really hard to demonize Nancy Pelosi. Be afraid, be very afraid!

Then we better start this November. The sooner the better. Imagine rolling the House every 2 years. Do you think the message will be sent?

One thing that Pelosi and the other Democrats will do is restore some economic justice. Any objective review of our economic situation would show that the country is increasingly a plutocracy. Besides hurting the vast majority of our citizens, this will eventually bring about discord, which may get bloody. Here is an interesting piece regarding the sad shape our workers face in the working world.



^10/6/06: The War Against Wages

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Should we be cheering over the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial
Average has finally set a new record? No. The Dow is doing well largely
because American employers are waging a successful war against wages.
Economic growth since early 2000, when the Dow reached its previous
peak, hasn't been exceptional. But after-tax corporate profits have more
than doubled, because workers' productivity is up, but their wages
aren't -- and because companies have dealt with rising health insurance
premiums by denying insurance to ever more workers.

If you want to see how the war against wages is being fought, and what
it's doing to working Americans and their families, consider the latest
news from Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart already has a well-deserved reputation for paying low wages
and offering few benefits to its employees; last year, an internal Wal-Mart
memo conceded that 46 percent of its workers' children were either on
Medicaid or lacked health insurance. Nonetheless, the memo expressed
concern that wages and benefits were rising, in part "because we pay an
associate more in salary and benefits as his or her tenure increases."

The problem from the company's point of view, then, is that its workers
are too loyal; it wants cheap labor that doesn't hang around too long,
but not enough workers quit before acquiring the right to higher wages
and benefits. Among the policy changes the memo suggested to deal with
this problem was a shift to hiring more part-time workers, which "will
lower Wal-Mart's health care enrollment."

And the strategy is being put into effect. "Investment analysts and
store managers," reports The New York Times, "say Wal-Mart executives
have told them the company wants to transform its work force to 40
percent part-time from 20 percent." Another leaked Wal-Mart memo
describes a plan to impose wage caps, so that long-term employees won't
get raises. And the company is taking other steps to keep workers from
staying too long: in some stores, according to workers, "managers have
suddenly barred older employees with back or leg problems from sitting
on stools."

It's a brutal strategy. Once upon a time a company that treated its
workers this badly would have made itself a prime target for union
organizers. But Wal-Mart doesn't have to worry about that, because it
knows that these days the people who are supposed to enforce labor laws
are on the side of the employers, not the workers.

Since 1935, U.S. workers considering whether to join a union have been
protected by the National Labor Relations Act, which bars employers from
firing workers for engaging in union activities. For a long time the law
was effective: workers were reasonably well protected against employer
intimidation, and the union movement flourished.

In the 1970's, however, employers began a successful campaign to roll
back unions. This campaign depended on routine violation of labor law:
experts estimate that by 1980 employers were illegally firing at least
one out of every 20 workers who voted for a union. But employers rarely
faced serious consequences for their lawbreaking, thanks to America's
political shift to the right. And now that the shift to the right has
gone even further, political appointees are seeking to remove whatever
protection for workers' rights that the labor relations law still provides.

The Republican majority on the National Labor Relations Board, which is
responsible for enforcing the law, has just declared that millions of
workers who thought they had the right to join unions don't. You see,
the act grants that right only to workers who aren't supervisors. And
the board, ruling on a case involving nurses, has declared that millions
of workers who occasionally give other workers instructions can now be
considered supervisors.

As the dissent from the Democrats on the board makes clear, the majority
bent over backward, violating the spirit of the law, to reduce workers'
bargaining power.

So what's keeping paychecks down? Major employers like Wal-Mart have
decided that their interests are best served by treating workers as a
disposable commodity, paid as little as possible and encouraged to leave
after a year or two. And these employers don't worry that angry workers
will respond to their war on wages by forming unions, because they know
that government officials, who are supposed to protect workers' rights,
will do everything they can to come down on the side of the wage-cutters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

In a pitiful and vicious diatribe, Pat Buchanan tried to shift blame from Hastert to Pelosi. He is claiming that Pelosi deserves blame for marching in a gay pride parade that, he thought, included the participation of a man-boy love association. His outburst made you wonder about his sanity.

"One thing that Pelosi and the other Democrats will do is restore some economic justice. "

Based upon what record or accomplishment has this ding-bat ever been credited for making any kind of valuable economic legislation (except tax increases). Feel free to include any dummycrat in your independant analysis.

Also, why is Pat Buchanon wrong? When you accept homosexuals in your society as the norm, be prepared for homosexual behavior such as boys "doodling" other boys.

When you accept homosexuality as a norm, this activity is no different than hetrosexual activities such as boys chasing girls.

So explain why is Buchanon wrong?