Ut Oh, Could Nancy Be Facing....

That would be, one assumes, as contrasted to the defensible hypocrisy of the Republicans.

Monte Cargo wrote:

The entirety of the Able2Know community apparently wants to let Pelosi off the hook after marching in a parade three positions away from a notorious NAMBLA advocate. I see no reason to change my own position on her after reading the many posts.

The march was in 2001, and this is five years later when the first connection is being discussed. That's because up to 2006, Nancy Pelosi wasn't three heartbeats away from the presidency and she wasn't being as heavily scrutinized. More scrutiny from the opposition always accompanies attainment of power, especially when superlatives are launched like "We will have the most ethical Congress in history" LOL!

The only place in the thread I haven't addressed at this point is:
I earlier branded OccomBill a liberal, though, which is rash.

Haven't got a lot of time, but to Dlowan, it's never nice to laugh at someone who's been called filthy names. There's a real human being behind the keyboard you're talking to. If you don't want to be considered a troll yourself, you might think about that. It takes a big person to admit a mistake. Apparently, not everyone is willing to make the leap.

You admit your huge lie, and we can talk.

Heck, even Pelosi is possibly a human being.

Being fecklessly slimed as a supporter of child abuse might cause even a "liberal" a heartbeat of distress, don't you think (if she took any time at all to reflect in her ceaseless quest to destroy the country).


Hey, have you condemned nambla yet?

I don't think I have seen you do it...and you have been on a thread mentioning Hays and pelosi for ages now...posting RIGHT BESIDE THEM!!!!!

You better denounce right fast, or people will be talking.

Well, those with no grasp of rational argument might be.

The entirety of the Able2Know community apparently wants to let Pelosi off the hook after marching in a parade three positions away from a notorious NAMBLA advocate. I see no reason to change my own position on her after reading the many posts.

The march was in 2001, and this is five years later when the first connection is being discussed. That's because up to 2006, Nancy Pelosi wasn't three heartbeats away from the presidency and she wasn't being as heavily scrutinized. More scrutiny from the opposition always accompanies attainment of power, especially when superlatives are launched like "We will have the most ethical Congress in history" LOL!

What in the world is so threatening about a poster thinking, "Hey, this woman knew who the other honored parade members were."? Why is this causing such a visceral reaction?

Let's try something:

What if I said that although I believed Pelosi knew Harry Hay was marching in the parade, she agreed with the other 95% of the groups that comprised the march and didn't necessarily support NAMBLA?

All that I am saying is that I believe she knew... The officials of the parade actually struggled with the idea of allowing Harry Hay to march and weighed the tradeoffs, finally allowing him in the parade. Whether Pelosi ever paid attention to this or not can only be conjectured.

Monte Cargo wrote:

The entirety of the Able2Know community apparently wants to let Pelosi off the hook after marching in a parade three positions away from a notorious NAMBLA advocate. I see no reason to change my own position on her after reading the many posts.

The march was in 2001, and this is five years later when the first connection is being discussed. That's because up to 2006, Nancy Pelosi wasn't three heartbeats away from the presidency and she wasn't being as heavily scrutinized. More scrutiny from the opposition always accompanies attainment of power, especially when superlatives are launched like "We will have the most ethical Congress in history" LOL!

The entirety of the A2K community is a bit of a stretch. Not all 50,000+ members have checked in to this thread. It's the stretching of truth and facts that will get you called on the A2K carpet, in case you haven't noticed yet.

Scrutiny is one thing. Claiming Pelosi supports NAMBLA is just plain stupid and illogical. You apparently find it funny.

Monte Cargo wrote:

What in the world is so threatening about a poster thinking, "Hey, this woman knew who the other honored parade members were."? Why is this causing such a visceral reaction?

What's threatening about it is that you aren't thinking it. You're posting lies to a public forum. We don't tolerate that too well around here.

Monte Cargo wrote:

Let's try something:

What if I said that although I believed Pelosi knew Harry Hay was marching in the parade, she agreed with the other 95% of the groups that comprised the march and didn't necessarily support NAMBLA?

All that I am saying is that I believe she knew... The officials of the parade actually struggled with the idea of allowing Harry Hay to march and weighed the tradeoffs, finally allowing him in the parade. Whether Pelosi ever paid attention to this or not can only be conjectured.

Now even you don't appear to know what you're saying. Either she knew, which you say you believe, or it's conjecture, which you admit. But wait, back at the top you also said you see no reason to change your position.

You're full of it!

Judge Kimba Woods was Bill Clinton's second unsuccessful nominee for attorney general in 1993. She hired an illegal immigrant as a nanny but she did pay the required taxes on the nanny and had broken no laws. Nontheless, this incident ultimately led to a withdrawal of her nomination.

Not sure what that has to do with Pelosi, though.

Oh, wait. I get it! Judge Woods supports NAMBLA!!!

You're obviously not a fool, so don't act like one!

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You're obviously not a fool, so don't act like one!

It must be infectious. Now Cyclops is jumping to conclusions without evidence to support them.

Monte, this whole topic/thread of discussion has been nothing but useless and baseless speculation.

It doesn't matter for a second if there were people with objectionable moralities and viewpoints marching in the same parade as Pelosi, and there's no reason whatsoever to imagine that it would; other than the fact that the Right Wing needs a new boogeyman, and Pelosi seems to be the candidate du jour.

You don't want to be treated like a troll, but you throw bombs and get in people's face constantly (at least for your first 150 posts). Try showing some respect if you want more respect.

You're obviously not a fool, so don't act like one!


Cycloptichorn

It has been my experience that there is a direct relationship drawn here between the length of time a poster has been on this board and whether or not their argument would therefore be deemed valid.

Perhaps, but in this case the argument itself is what was proved invalid, repeatedly. As a newbie on this site; I too learned the hard way that the standard of evidence is considerably higher here than most venues. The reference I provided to fallacious arguments was provided to me, right here, a couple of years back. When a poster, new or old, chooses to ignore evidence that their argument is fallacious AND chooses to continue forwarding it on multiple threads it is inevitable they will be deemed a troll by the opposition. There are trolls on both sides of the political spectrum, old and new, though the site does an excellent job of weeding out the worst offenders. Aside from the obvious effects of effective moderation, the charge has little to do with member longevity.

While I'm sure us old timers are more likely to give each other the benefit of the doubt after years of civil discussion and a good deal of mutual respect earned, I don't think this is maliscious. Would it be different in a coffee shop, bar or sewing circle?

John Murtha, of ABSCAM fame, yessiree, the most honest and most ethical operation ever is what Nancy advocates.

People who live in glass houses....