Is Nancy Pelosi the worst person ever? Discuss..

[aaglo]

Like mise said; who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?

@theimmortal1:
Oh, how could I understand her politics, since I don't know what is her politics in the first place. So far I've gathered she's a socialist and a feminist, which does not sound as bad as you say. Not even if you are a librarian.

 

[bhsup]

Like mise said; who the hell is Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Pelosi is a U.S. Congresswoman in the House of Representatives. She represents some district in California, and is currently the House Minority (party) Leader. As the Democrats have taken back control of the House with this last election, she will become the Speaker Of the House of Representatives in January 2007 when the new Congress is sworn in.

The Speaker of the House is a very powerful position, and is also 2nd in line of succession, right behind the Vice-President, to take over as President if anything incapacitates the current President.

She's pretty liberal, and I'm a bit worried, but I'm also willing to give her time to adjust to her new position and see if she mellows a smidge.

 

[Phlegmak]

I'm a libertarian. And I love many Republicans and Democrats. However, I think Ms Pelosi (if shes human) is the absolute worst person alive in America. Shes like a wanna be Stalin/Pol Pot/feminist all together. How the hell can she be a leader of anything?

Now she is going to be the House Speaker.

The equivalent to her would be like if Bush nominated Buchanon to be Sec. of Defense.

Discuss.


The democrats would dominate American politics if they would have better leadership (as in more moderate?...Dean/Pelosi...gag)

What specifically makes her so bad?

She wishes to perform a segregation and instate a state of denial, a state of Communism.

And why do you believe this?

What facts? It is known that Pelosi is hard left and a huge feminist. Nothing I have said was false.

And what reason do you have to believe this?

If a person simply wants females to have equal rights under the law as males then thats is perfectly acceptable. In fact that is what is ideal.

However, when someone begins to want females to have more rights, then that is a problem. The most obvious example of something similar is affirmative action.

Simply giving anyone something extra that they would not achieve based upon their merits alone is not acceptable. Pelosi wants that. If a female simply wants males and females to be viewed equally then theres nothing wrong with that. Advantages under the law should be frowned upon

And the evidence that says she wants to do this is where?

Neomega..its obvious you have no idea about American politics or more specifically Nancy Pelosis politics. Like I said if you have anything informative to say then please add it. However so far it seems you simply are some socialist machine. You can spit out the lines they've fed you, but it makes no difference. Anyone that knows American HoR politics knows Nancy Pelosi is a far left partisan. Thats her record. If you are the uninformed to know that, then please step outside the thread.

Neomega is a socialist based on . . . ?
Pelosi is a leftist based on . . . ?

EDIT:

To answer the opening post's question:

Is Nancy Pelosi the worst person ever?

The answer is no.

theimmortal1, typically in debate people bring facts and discuss them. You've brought no facts, just your simple statement, "Pelosi's bad, mmmkay?" The forum isn't structured, as you complained, but no one has a reason to agree with you if you give us no information.

EDIT2:

She's pretty liberal

For what reason do you believe that? And while we're at it, what definition of "liberal" are you using?

 

[bhsup]

For what reason do you believe that? And while we're at it, what definition of "liberal" are you using?

Definition used? The common one in America today in the context of "conservative vs. liberal". I know it's isn't the age-old definition, but that doesn't matter. Rubbers used to refer to rubber-made galoshes, not condoms. Gay used to mean happy, not homosexual. Word meanings can change.

As for the reasons that I believe she is liberal? Because I've heard her speak. Just as hearing Dornan speak led me to believe that he is a conservative.

 

[Phlegmak]

Definition used? The common one in America today in the context of "conservative vs. liberal". I know it's isn't the age-old definition, but that doesn't matter. Rubbers used to refer to rubber-made galoshes, not condoms. Gay used to mean happy, not homosexual. Word meanings can change.

As for the reasons that I believe she is liberal? Because I've heard her speak. Just as hearing Dornan speak led me to believe that he is a conservative.

Can you provide me with an actual definition of what you mean by liberal? "Not conservative" isn't enough.

What has she said that makes her liberal?

 

[bhsup]

No, frankly I'm not going to. I watch a lot of c-span and news shows and have seen enough of her speeches and talks to recognize that she's a liberal. If you would like to research her on your own and make your own decision, be my guest, but I don't feel the need to back up a common sense statement with "proof".

And I didn't say "not conservative" was the same as liberal. I would say Jack Danforth is definitely not a conservative, but I wouldn't call him a liberal either.

It's rather like asking me to prove the sky is blue. I just don't see why I should have to prove the obvious.

 

[Neomega]

Why is it to most Libertarians that economic conservatism seems to trump social liberalism everytime? For some reason Fascist states seem to trump EuroSocialism in the eyes of most libertarian members. =/

because the government's money is the root of it's power.

But the reasonis more perception. Right now, most people saying they are Libertarians are doing so because they don't want to be known as conservatives.

A large amount of left leaning Libertarains are siding with the democrats, beause the republicans are/were in power

 

[Godwynn]

Oh no! She is for a balanced budget!

Read up on her positions here.

 

[Phlegmak]

No, frankly I'm not going to. I watch a lot of c-span and news shows and have seen enough of her speeches and talks to recognize that she's a liberal. If you would like to research her on your own and make your own decision, be my guest, but I don't feel the need to back up a common sense statement with "proof".

It's not common sense. That's why I'm asking.

And I didn't say "not conservative" was the same as liberal. I would say Jack Danforth is definitely not a conservative, but I wouldn't call him a liberal either.

Maybe not, but this sentence and what you said above definitely don't give me definition of liberal.

It's rather like asking me to prove the sky is blue. I just don't see why I should have to prove the obvious.

Because it's not obvious to me at all.

The reason I ask all of these questions is because "liberal" is a term thrown around by pundits all the time. It's a term thrown around by users on Civilization Fanatics Center all the time. I have YET to see an actual definition of it. The word liberal simply means free or a person who believes in civil liberties. I just looked it up on dictionary.com and it centers on freedom and progress. What's the problem here?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

I ask what makes her liberal because I don't see it. Then again, I don't go out of my way to read her words or listen to her, except in a few clips I download.

So now, not only do I not have any reasons to believe she wants to institute communism in the US, I have no reason to believe she's a liberal, a socialist, nor a feminist. I have no reason to believe she's for big government, and I have no reason to believe she's the worst person in the world.

 

[bhsup]

Whoa now, I never, ever said she's the worst person in the world. To quote my first post in this thread...

Like her nor not, come January she will become our new Speaker of the House of Representatives. Let's give her time to prove herself in this new position. As the minority leader, she had to be contrary, though I do think she took that way too far frequently, but as Speaker she has the chance to strike a different note now.

And a post of mine in the results discussion thread...

It's now obvious that my prediction abilities are as good as the Flat-Earth Society's cartographic abilities. While control of the chambers is still in the air, the Dems have clearly made gains in both chambers.

So here's my official "crow eating" post. I was wrong, wrong, so very wrong. Hats off to the Dems in general and the actual race winners in particular.

I do not hate Democrats nor think of them as evil or anti-American. I happen to think that the policies they tend to support would be the wrong direction for America to go.

Godwynn's link actually spells out a lot of her positions that make me label here liberal. Gun control, pro abortion, health care, immigration, education (which even Bush has a liberal streak about), et cetera.

EDIT: Another quote from me in the results discussion thread, just to prove I don't hate Dems.

Well now, let's not get TOO depressed. Keep in mind that even though they are Democrats and will likely pass legislation that will be detrimental for the nation as a whole, they ARE Americans. I don't doubt their love of country just because they have confused ideas about how to govern. They aren't about to sell us out to the ChiComs (especially now that Beijing Bill isn't Prez anymore) or otherwise lead the USA down the road towards destruction.

It won't be fun, but the USA can survive a few years of a Democrat controlled Congress.

Besides, it looks like the new cigarette tax amendment is going to fail in Missouri, so my night is looking up.

 

[Godwynn]

Godwynn's link actually spells out a lot of her positions that make me label here liberal. Gun control, pro abortion, health care, immigration, education (which even Bush has a liberal streak about), et cetera.

She is an economic moderate at least. She wants a balanced budget, something this administration has failed to achieve.

 

[Antilogic]

She is an economic moderate at least. She wants a balanced budget, something this administration has failed to achieve.

Thank you for mentioning this. I think it's funny that Clinton cut government jobs and balanced the budget (so the "big government" party reduced balanced government spending) and the Bush administration has spent such an incredible amount of money that the budget has no hope of being balanced in the next couple years (the "small government" is spending how much?).

And immortal1, I'm still waiting for these things called facts...I'm glad somebody posted them (although it took until the end of page 2 to have facts).

 

[nc-1701]

Oh no! She is for a balanced budget!

Read up on her positions here.

She sounds great! Now I can only hope Something happens to Bush&Cheney so she can become POTUS

 

[Neomega]

Thank you for mentioning this. I think it's funny that Clinton cut government jobs and balanced the budget (so the "big government" party reduced balanced government spending) and the Bush administration has spent such an incredible amount of money that the budget has no hope of being balanced in the next couple years (the "small government" is spending how much?).

keep in mind, Clinton only did this under the pressure of the new contract with america republicans

 

[MobBoss]

Worst person ever? Nope. Not even close.

But then again, she is not the type of person I want two beating hearts away from being President of the United States.

 

[ShannonCT]

Worst person ever? Nope. Not even close.

But then again, she is not the type of person I want two beating hearts away from being President of the United States.

Luckily, Bush and Cheney are never in the same place at the same time. It would be hard to take them both out at once.

 

[JollyRoger]

Luckily, Bush and Cheney are never in the same place at the same time. It would be hard to take them both out at once.

Cheney could have a heart attack upon hearing the news of Bush's death.

 

[IglooDame]

Good question.

I have two answers.

Firstly, I see freedom is being all inclusive. I see a libertarian as something that is free. Therefore they must be economically free, and individually free. One without the other, cannot be free. They would simply be partially free.

On an individual level, which explains why I vote the way I do in American elections. Quite simply, economic matters mean much more than individual matters. I'm not gay. I don't plan on having an unwanted pregnancy. Therefore bitng the bullet on the positions doesn't hurt that much compared to the alternative. I would much rather have lower taxes and more economic freedom.

Do you plan on getting arrested? Do you plan on getting labeled a terrorist? How about getting your home confiscated because your son or daughter was selling pot out of the basement? Those are some 'individual matters', and I'd wager that you'd much rather have certain individual rights preserved at that point than have a lower tax rate.

This sense of 'the two are equal, but economic freedom is more equal than individual freedom' among fellow libertarians baffles me.

And thus, while I dislike Pelosi based on her socialist tendencies (and opposition to one particular individual freedom traditionally opposed by Democrats), I don't consider her any worse than a fiscal conservative statist/bible-banger the likes of which you might find across the midwest, or for that matter until recently in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

At least she is clear about it. I save my sharpest arrows for Hillary Clinton, who gives statist vibes, is as socialist as they come, and doesn't appear to have even the limited respect for individual freedoms that Pelosi does, unless it will get her a few more votes. And yes, I'm generalizing.

 

[Phlegmak]

Whoa now, I never, ever said she's the worst person in the world.

Ug. I know that. It's in the title of the thread and in the opening post.

It's times like this I wish there was an emoticon for someone slapping the head of another person. There were many times when that sort of emoticon could have come in handy.

 

[Godwynn]

This sense of 'the two are equal, but economic freedom is more equal than individual freedom' among fellow libertarians baffles me.

I agree. It's like they are saying "You can buy my freedoms from me." I wonder if they would say the same if we offered them a tax cut in exchange for their guns.