Did Ted Haggard die?theimmortal1 said:
Is Nancy Pelosi the worst person ever? Discuss..
- Thread starter theimmortal1
- Start date
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
Why would I want you to listen to me?
If you want to become educated that is your choice. I will not force you to become educated.
What facts? It is known that Pelosi is hard left and a huge feminist. Nothing I have said was false.
That is an intelligent question. And i do applaud you for asking such a question.
The answer is simple. It depends on how far it goes.
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
If you want to become educated that is your choice. I will not force you to become educated.
What facts? It is known that Pelosi is hard left and a huge feminist. Nothing I have said was false.
That is an intelligent question. And i do applaud you for asking such a question.
The answer is simple. It depends on how far it goes.
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
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
JollyRoger is the definition of socialist hypocriscy. He tries to bash Republicans because *gasp* hes gay and hes Christian.
Oh no.
I hate to break it to you but theres plenty of gay Christians that are Republican, that just so happen to be socially conservative.
There is NOTHING contradicting being socially conservative and gay. Nothing. Thats socialist spin.
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
Do you have a real response? Because if you are going to continue with your childish reponses I can direct you to children forums. Thank you
What's socially conservative about buying meth from your gay hooker?theimmortal1 said:
Perfection
The Great Head.
Because you've said nothing! Hard leftist and feminist are vague and useless terms especially when one is making such defamatory claims.theimmortal1 said:
Try debating things like what she says about issues (sources add a lot of credibility, too
) and her voting record instead spouting vacuous political jargon.
Kraznaya
Princeps
Show me proof that Pelosi wants more rights for women than men.
Urederra
Mostly harmless
The first woman in that position.... America really begins to look like Europe. That's good.
JollyRoger said:
Personally taking drugs away from the children of America.
So you agree that a female should not have the special right to marry another male if a male does not have the same right to marry another male?theimmortal1 said:
theimmortal1
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 539
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.
garric said:
No no. The Dems are still far to the right economically than Europe and without a doubt far, far to the right of any communist state. Socially, you're correct.
They were being protected by Mark Foley anyway.augurey said:
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
theimmortal1 said:
Obviously the leftists have gotten to you too. Since when is it ideal to give women rights?
theimmortal1 said:
I'll have you know, I worked the booths for at the fair for 3 years tirelessly for the Libertarian party in 2000, 2001, and 2002. Not only that I worked on campaigns here, and was vice chair for my local Libertarian Party.
I don't particularly like Pelosi, but she is far from the most authoritarian (opposite of Libertarian) person in US government today... that trophy rests the Bush administration mantle.
greenpeace
Peacelord
Well, just because she is left wing doesn't mean shes the worst human being on the face of the planet. I mean listen to yourself, your calling him an ignorant blinded socialist when, for all you know, he/she is a capatilist. All he is saying is that instead of saying "oh she is left-wing therefore she must be bad" say "she is bad because her policy on blah is wrong and this iss wrong and blah blah." That way, you yourself aren't the blind hate filled person you depict others to be.theimmortal1 said:
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
She votes the Democratic party line (as far as I can tell) 100% of the time. But in the past two years that's often in sync with Libertarian interests.
For instance, H R 2862 which "temporarily stopped federal law enforcement officials from being able to easily seize library and bookstore records. The authority to get the records without a traditional warrant was one of the provisions of the original 2001 Patriot Act. President Bush opposed any curtailing of federal law enforcement authority and threatened to veto any bill with this amendment attached.
The amendment said that, going forward, authorities would have to get a search warrant from a judge or grand jury instead of relying on approval from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which has a lower threshold of proof."
Traditional Libertarians would NEVER support handing the power of search and seizure over to a government authority. That's a Constitutionally protected right. By voting in favor of this bill, Pelosi was voting Libertarian.
Or H R 6 which "offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative wasy to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution."
Traditional Libertarians would oppose subsidies to industries on principle -- market forces should be sufficient to encourage the growth of necessary industries. By opposing this bill, Pelosi was voting Libertarian.
Or H J RES 10 "which approved the proposal of a Constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. The same bill was later defeated in the Senate."
Traditional Libertarians may not like seeing a flag burned but I've never met one who supported this kind of Statist flag-worshipping legislation. Do you really want people in prison for burning a flag? By opposing it, Pelosi was affirming the Libertarian principle of freedom of expression.
Here's a link to key votes in Pelosi's voting record over the past term.
To compare her to Stalin and Pol Pot on the basis of her deviance from Libertarian values is, well, an extreme statement. You may not like her because you don't like the way she looks on TV or the fact that she's so often clashed with George W Bush, but she's not an extremist -- except by the standards of Right-wing extremists.... The kind of people who Libertarians ought to oppose for their own anti-Libertarian ideals.
For instance, H R 2862 which "temporarily stopped federal law enforcement officials from being able to easily seize library and bookstore records. The authority to get the records without a traditional warrant was one of the provisions of the original 2001 Patriot Act. President Bush opposed any curtailing of federal law enforcement authority and threatened to veto any bill with this amendment attached.
The amendment said that, going forward, authorities would have to get a search warrant from a judge or grand jury instead of relying on approval from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which has a lower threshold of proof."
Traditional Libertarians would NEVER support handing the power of search and seizure over to a government authority. That's a Constitutionally protected right. By voting in favor of this bill, Pelosi was voting Libertarian.
Or H R 6 which "offered tax breaks and incentives in what supporters said was an effort to spur oil and gas companies to provide innovative wasy to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, conserve resources and reduce pollution."
Traditional Libertarians would oppose subsidies to industries on principle -- market forces should be sufficient to encourage the growth of necessary industries. By opposing this bill, Pelosi was voting Libertarian.
Or H J RES 10 "which approved the proposal of a Constitutional amendment to ban the desecration of the American flag. The same bill was later defeated in the Senate."
Traditional Libertarians may not like seeing a flag burned but I've never met one who supported this kind of Statist flag-worshipping legislation. Do you really want people in prison for burning a flag? By opposing it, Pelosi was affirming the Libertarian principle of freedom of expression.
Here's a link to key votes in Pelosi's voting record over the past term.
To compare her to Stalin and Pol Pot on the basis of her deviance from Libertarian values is, well, an extreme statement. You may not like her because you don't like the way she looks on TV or the fact that she's so often clashed with George W Bush, but she's not an extremist -- except by the standards of Right-wing extremists.... The kind of people who Libertarians ought to oppose for their own anti-Libertarian ideals.
