Racist. (As a service to the board, which allows you to post such hateful **** while punishing people who point out what a jingoistic **** you are, like ALWAYS, I went ahead and removed the rest of my response. Go Rockets.)
Wow rimrocker, you really hit a nerve with traitor. We haven't seen a meltdown of this magnitude since 1986. His reaction to getting owned is par for the course as usual but even his "level" of vitriol/hate has hit a new, although not surprising, low. To sum up tj,basso and all their ilk, when liberals/democrats do anything it's treasonous,scandalous,morally bankrupt,illegal and indecent, representing Satan himself. When conservatives/republicans do the same things it's patriotic,honorable,pure,righteous,strong and done with the grace of God. That is basically tj and basso in a nutshell. To think they'll ever waver in this mindset is delusional. This is their game and this is all they're ever going to bring to the table as far as political discourse is involved. You got owned tj and no amount of crying/whining/fake outrage is going to change that fact.
Wow, you got me. I guess it either took you five hours to learn how to right click or you saw the Little Green Football reply to the numerous sane people who pointed out the ridiculousness of slamming Pelosi for wearing a scarf... http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25010_When_Angry_Blind_Leftists_Attack&only and it was a scarf, not a hijab... that's what Condi's wearing. (For the record, here's Maha's post where the pics were posted... http://www.mahablog.com/2007/04/04/pelosi-wears-scarf-righties-bark-at-moon/ Sigh. Fact: State Department approved her trip. Fact: Nobody in the administration told her not to go. Fact: The President only expressed misgivings when the trip was underway. Fact: Executive Branch provided the air transport. Fact: Pelosi was briefed by State Dept. officials. Fact: State Department officials accompanied her on all visits. Fact: She repeated the Bush position on Syria. Fact: She didn't go beyond the Bush position. Fact: The Republican Congressman who also accompanied her thinks the critics are out of lines. Fact: Congress is entitled to visit other countries to gain information that allows to better do their job of making laws, allocating funds, and overseeing the Executive Branch. Fact: Section 9 (Limits on Congress) of the Constitution says nothing about Congressional trips. Fact: Countless Congressional trips have been made before, even to countries we were having problems with and even by Speakers (see Gingrich and Hastert) who were much less deferential to the Excutive Branch than Pelosi. Also, I know you have great respect for other countries and you probably spend your free time reading about the practices of numerous cultures, so I'm sure it was while you were educating yourself that you learned the term "Hijab," and not from this original post on Little Green Footballs... http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25004&only (Again, she's weraing a scarf, not a hijab.) And, in contrast to your fearful mutterings, every Muslim woman I've ever seen in this country was doing nothing but respecting the traditions of my country. As Hamilton said: In a free government, the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. By the way, what's The Conquistador doing posting at this time on a Friday night?
Every video clip I've seen of Pelosi makes her look like a woman completely giddy with her power. That grin on her face ... On this subject: They're all felons, with a few exceptions - the worst are those who have the most power to pursue their objectives. This left/right bashing is idiotic. I don't support either, because neither deserves my support - I'm sick of picking the lesser of two evils. They're both ****ing evil. The whole system needs to be flushed out. But, is Pelosi a felon? Maybe, but her crimes are far less damaging than what the Bush Administration have done in their two terms. Maybe she just needs more time, but to try and draw an equivalency between the two at this point is, at the very least, premature. I'm sure she'll measure up eventually, but basso blew his load too soon on this one I think. PREMATURE ACCUSATION
racist? why yes, i believe you are, but your latest diatribe is just more unfounded, illiberal, incoherent bull****.
Will basso and tj ever get tired of being publicly humiliated. There is almost something masochistic about it.
rimrocker, perhaps you'd also like to point out the fact that Pelosi misrepresented Israel's position on peace talks. If I were a Jew, I'd be very fearful of the liberals' new-found power. Very fearful.
Gotta love the posts from Batman during his 'danger zone' of midnight to 4:00am eastern time... btw -- nothing I posted was racist.
Wow, TJ you got completely lambasted by the pictures of Condi and Laura showing the exact same thing you were whining about earlier. But aside from that typical one-upsmanship on which you seem to be eternally on the losing end, let's talk about the meat of what you said here. Who's to say Muslim women dressed in garb they feel is honoring their religion isn't American? Who's to say being Muslim isn't American? Before you start spouting off about what is and isn't American let's hear your idea of what it means to be an American, and how women using their right to practice their religion isn't upholding an American tradition. Furthermore your statement was just plain ignorant. There are muslim women all over the U.S. who aren't dressed like that. You have shown your prejudice, ignorance, and been completely owned in just two posts in the same thread. I expected better.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=5&article_id=81211 looks like they don't like her in beirut either. [rquoter]When a dilettante takes on Hizbullah By Michael Young Daily Star staff We can thank the US speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, for having informed Syrian President Bashar Assad, from Beirut, that "the road to solving Lebanon's problems passes through Damascus." Now, of course, all we need to do is remind Pelosi that the spirit and letter of successive United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as Saudi and Egyptian efforts in recent weeks, have been destined to ensure precisely the opposite: that Syria end its meddling in Lebanese affairs. Pelosi embarked on a fool's errand to Damascus this week, and among the issues she said she would raise with Assad - when she wasn't on the Lady Hester Stanhope tour in the capital of imprisoned dissidents Aref Dalila, Michel Kilo, and Anwar Bunni - is "the role of Syria in supporting Hamas and Hizbullah." What the speaker doesn't seem to have realized is that if Syria is made an obligatory passage in American efforts to address the Lebanese crisis, then Hizbullah will only gain. Once Assad is re-anointed gatekeeper in Lebanon, he will have no incentive to concede anything, least of all to dilettantes like Pelosi, on an organization that would be Syria's enforcer in Beirut if it could re-impose its hegemony over its smaller neighbor. Inasmuch as it is possible to evoke sympathy in such cases, one can sympathize with Hizbullah. In 2000, the party lost much of its reason to exist as a military force when the Israelis withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The manufacturing of the Shebaa Farms pretext, thanks to the diligent efforts of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, bought Hizbullah an extension, a handy fig leaf allowing it to keep its weapons. Last summer, however, the party's initiation of a war devastating to Lebanon, followed by its efforts to lead a coup against the majority, demolished any lingering cross-sectarian support that Hizbullah had enjoyed. Hizbullah's weapons are no longer regarded as weapons of resistance by most Lebanese, but as weapons of sectarian discord. The party's effort to torpedo the Hariri tribunal has created a perception that it is siding with Rafik Hariri's murderers - little helped by Hizbullah secretary general Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah's public statements of solidarity with the Syrian regime. But perhaps most worrying for Hizbullah's leadership is its knowledge that the party cannot return to where it was before July 12, 2006, when the war with Israel began - at least without pushing the Lebanese political system perilously closer to war. For one thing is absolutely clear: Without some sort of Syrian return to Lebanon, and even then, Hizbullah has no future as simultaneously a political and military party. For years, pundits and analysts have spoken of Hizbullah's "integration into Lebanese society." Their underlying premise was that the party somehow desired this. Optimists pointed to Hizbullah's participation in successive parliamentary elections as an example of its willingness to "assimilate." The naivete deployed was remarkable. It rarely occurred to the experts that Hizbullah did not start as, nor truly is, a social services organization. It is an Iranian-financed military and security enterprise overseeing a vast and competent patronage system designed to win Shiite backing, allowing Hizbullah to retain its weapons. It never occurred to the experts that Hizbullah's objective in participating in the political system was not to jettison its military identity, but rather to safeguard it within the confines of Lebanese institutions it could thereafter influence. And it never occurred to the experts that Hizbullah was not interested in integration at all, at least on terms that would require surrendering its autonomy, even if it readily exploited its stake in the state as an additional means of patronage, much like other Lebanese political actors. These conditions no longer apply in Lebanon. With the society divided, Hizbullah cannot impose its conditions as it once did. This, Nasrallah knows. At the same time, the party's officials are too astute not to recognize that a return of Syrian domination, while it might buy Hizbullah a new lease on life, is more likely to lead to a Sunni-Shiite war, its end result, in all probability, being the collapse of Assad's regime, which would not be able to resist sectarian discord coming from Lebanon. That leaves a third option: Hizbullah's embrace of the Lebanese system through an agreement to disarm and transform itself from a Leninist political-military party into solely a political one deferring to democratic rules. None of these choices appeals to Hizbullah. This is why it is trying to avoid a decision by taking over effective control of the government, to better determine who will be elected president once Emile Lahoud's term ends. Hizbullah's demand for 11 ministers out of 30 must be understood in this context, as an instrument to bring the government down, or threaten to, and use this as leverage to choose a friendly president. If the party and Syria can influence the presidency, and given the fact that they already rule over Parliament through Berri, this would allow them to hold Lebanon hostage in the coming years and rebuild the political and military infrastructure that was the basis of their intimidation. That's why both Syria and Hizbullah were especially alarmed with statements from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's entourage last week, that the UN was working on defining the Shebaa Farms border, whether Syria agreed with this or not. If the international organization sets final boundaries and persuades Israel to withdraw, Hizbullah will have even less of an excuse to hold on to its arms. More worrying for the Syrians, this would sever any remaining linkage between a resolution of Lebanon's territorial dispute with Israel and Syria's. Syria would no longer be able to link the military neutralization of the Lebanese-Syrian border area to an Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights. Perhaps Pelosi and other foreign officials will understand this simple equation one day, after again failing to persuade Assad to sell Hizbullah out. Unfortunately, foreign bigwigs come to town, their domestic calculations in hand; then they leave, and we're left picking up the pieces. [/rquoter]
^ I agree that Pelosi's rhetoric was too optimistic and does complicate things for not just the Bush Admin. but also Israel and other countries. If this thread had been confined to criticizing poor judgement on Pelosi's part that might have been one thing but to title and start out the thread intimating that Pelosi might've committed a felony that made it almost impossible to have a reasonable or credible debate on the subject.
I'm just wondering if it were WW2, would Pelosi show up with a swastika on her arm to meet and appease Hitler?...
