Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Stay with me here: Nancy Pelosi says that if the Dems capture the White House, the Supreme Court and wider majorities in Congress, our government will be "more bipartisan." Can we all have some of what you're smoking, Nancy?   (abclocal.go.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

330 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Oct 2008 at 3:26 PM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



113 Comments     (+0 »)


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-10-28 1:32:22 PM  
I'm just gonna go with 'Better'. As long as they all work together and start making changes to deal with the current foreign and domestic issue we face then I'm okay with whomever has been elected.

I'm not sure I care if things are more bi-partisan. Design by committee is no design at all.
 
2008-10-28 1:32:26 PM  
By "bipartisan" she means the same thing she and pretty much every other politician always does when they say that - that things will go exactly how she wants them to.
 
2008-10-28 1:37:59 PM  
Considering that we're barely recovering from six years of Republican rule, I'd say a decade or so of Democratic rule is in order. You know, to restore things like habeas corpus and the 4th amendment.

discount sushi: I'm just gonna go with 'Better'. As long as they all work together and start making changes to deal with the current foreign and domestic issue we face then I'm okay with whomever has been elected.

This.

I'm not sure I care if things are more bi-partisan. Design by committee is no design at all.

Also this.
 
2008-10-28 1:39:31 PM  
I'm sure she was trying to suggest that Dems would bring Rep colleagues into the mix and not just steamroll them, but she said in Pelosian so it came out as nonsense. And it's obviously BS, too. Typical.
 
2008-10-28 1:59:05 PM  
Pelosi and Reid will screw up Obama's plans, but if he wanted to really go down in history, he could do this risky venture:

If Pelosi/Reid really say no to Obama's plans, especially the bit about changing the power of influence in Washington, he could launch a campaign of change/replace your congresscritter while President, and specifically look for people to elect people who will support this legislation, and this is they key... regardless of party affiliation. Hugely risky and failure means and end to Obama's presidency, but if it worked, the old-school Democrats and Republicans would have been voted out and replaced by "Obama Democrats" and "Obama Republicans", which would revolutionize BOTH parties at the same time, kicking out the ultra lefty idiots and the neocon religious nuts in one fell swoop. He would be a hero and demon to both parties.

It can and will never happen, but that would be an awesome scenario with history-altering implications.
 
2008-10-28 2:19:24 PM  
We really need more pro wrestling style physical altercations in the House and Senate. The whole operation is woefully lacking in entertainment value as it is.
 
2008-10-28 2:49:21 PM  

m0llusk: We really need more pro wrestling style physical altercations in the House and Senate. The whole operation is woefully lacking in entertainment value as it is.


That would sure boost ratings on CSPAN.
 
2008-10-28 3:10:55 PM  

Kyndig: By "bipartisan" she means the same thing she and pretty much every other politician always does when they say that - that things will go exactly how she wants them to.


When I think "Bi", I always think San Francisco pol.
 
2008-10-28 3:15:07 PM  
Subject: Nancy Pelosi

Published: October 22, 2006

Nancy Pelosi condemed the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".

"First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she r esponded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs".

"There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class".

"Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, buy their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich".

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5 % account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job securuty which is ridiculous". How much of this "trickle down" ever get to the unemployed and minorites in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all currrent lower Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how new these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrents in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as Americans"

A Bush spoksman responded to this interview by saying "Mrs. Pelosi has set a new standard for the spin business".

/I checked, this story is 110% true
//she was crazy in 2006, and she's crazy now!
 
2008-10-28 3:29:57 PM  
yeah, about as bipartisan as California.
 
2008-10-28 3:30:53 PM  
There will be conservative democrats and liberal democrats. The GOP is dead.
 
2008-10-28 3:31:44 PM  
Yet more of a reason to vote McCain/Palin! That neurotic biatch needs a beat down!
 
2008-10-28 3:31:50 PM  
Is this the same woman who has presided over a Congress that has done nothing but increase the size of government and spend more money that we dont have?
 
2008-10-28 3:31:53 PM  
i luv barbara boxer
i h8 nancy pelosi
 
2008-10-28 3:32:24 PM  
bad medicine
 
2008-10-28 3:32:59 PM  
PELOSI! PELOSI!
 
2008-10-28 3:33:17 PM  
Republicans complaining about one party rule?

Where were you from 2000 until 2007?
 
2008-10-28 3:34:03 PM  
As bipartisan as blaming Republicans for the economic crises before the bailout vote.

Hello socialism.
 
2008-10-28 3:34:42 PM  
She is 100% correct.

A split congresss leads to members siding with their parties as the two sides jockey for control.

When one party has a solid lead, members of the other party are far more likely to cross over and vote with the leading part, since it doesn't damage the balance of control.
 
2008-10-28 3:36:22 PM  

eqtworld: Subject: Nancy Pelosi

Published: October 22, 2006


Please tell me that is fake. That is crazier than, I think, any post I have ever read on fark.
 
2008-10-28 3:36:29 PM  

vernonFL: Republicans complaining about one party rule?

Where were you from 2000 until 2007?


Our one party rule wasn't filibuster and veto proof.
 
2008-10-28 3:37:08 PM  

Xerxes99: Yet more of a reason to vote McCain/Palin! That neurotic biatch needs a beat down!


Take a deep breath, make yourself a hot cup of tea, put on some soft music, and shut the fark up.
 
2008-10-28 3:37:13 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Pelosi and Reid will screw up Obama's plans, but if he wanted to really go down in history, he could do this risky venture:


Pelosi and Reid like their power, but they are not ideological warriors who will impose their agenda over Obama. Quite the contrary, they will veiw their futures as tied directly to Obama (the converse is not true, Obama doesn't owe them anything) and he will have no problem bringing them under control.

If you want to be scared of someone pushign their agenda through, be scared of Obama I guess. But the idea of Obama as a slave to Pelosim, which conservaives have been pushing, is totally idiotic.
 
2008-10-28 3:37:22 PM  
Actually that makes a lot of sense, even if subby doesn't quite get it. You'd have to be a student of history to know that when the Democrats are in control, our economy does better and the two parties seem to get along better. Policy concerns are put before political concerns, leaving the democrats to imagine and create a brighter future for our nation while the republicans excel as critics, a much needed role to guarantee that the worst policies are identified and eliminated. With democrats in control, all have their place, and our government can do its job. When republicans are in control, it's about getting as much out of the government is possible while simultaneously trying to destroy it.
 
2008-10-28 3:37:53 PM  
Hey Subby, TFA doesn't mention anything about the Supreme Court, and for good reason: The way Bush has packed the Court these last 8 years, along with the slow turnover rate, means that it's still pretty much Right-leaning and will be for a while.

That being said, yeah, even I, an unabashed Lefty, am not buying that line of crap from Pelosi. She and Reid need to be flushed at the earliest opportunity; they say they were hamstrung by the small majority these past two years but they have no one to blame but themselves.
 
2008-10-28 3:38:36 PM  

m0llusk: We really need more pro wrestling style physical altercations in the House and Senate. The whole operation is woefully lacking in entertainment value as it is.


img2.timeinc.netView Full Size

Stay Classy America!
 
2008-10-28 3:39:05 PM  

Saiga410: Please tell me that is fake.


It's fake. Because snopes said so. link
 
2008-10-28 3:39:29 PM  

eqtworld: /I checked, this story is 110% true
//she was crazy in 2006, and she's crazy now!


Last time you checked huh? (new window)

asshat.
 
2008-10-28 3:39:32 PM  

eqtworld: Subject: Nancy Pelosi

Published: October 22, 2006

Nancy Pelosi condemed the new record highs of the stock market as "just another example of Bush policies helping the rich get richer".

"First Bush cut taxes for the rich and the economy has rebounded with new record low unemployment rates, which only means wealthy employers are getting even wealthier at the expense of the underpaid working class".

She went on to say "Despite the billions of dollars being spent in Iraq our economy is still strong and government tax revenues are at all time highs. What this really means is that business is exploiting the war effort and working Americans just to put money in their own pockets".

When questioned about recent stock market highs she r esponded "Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs".

"There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class".

"Profits from the stock market do not reward the hard work of our working class who, buy their hard work, are responsible for generating these corporate profits that create stock market profits for the rich. We in congress will need to address this issue to either tax these profits or to control the stock market to prevent this unearned income to flow to the rich".

When asked about the fact that over 80% of all Americans have investments in mutual funds, retirement funds, 401K's, and the stock market she replied "That may be true, but probably only 5 % account for 90% of all these investment dollars. That's just more "trickle down" economics claiming that if a corporation is successful that everyone from the CEO to the floor sweeper benefit from higher wages and job securuty which is ridiculous". How much of this "trickle down" ever get to the unemployed and minorites in our county? None, and that's the tragedy of these stock market highs."

"We democrats are going to address this issue after the election when we take control of the congress. We will return to the 60% to 80% tax rates on the rich and we will be able to take at least 30% of all currrent lower Federal Income Tax taxpayers off the roles and increase government income substantially. We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest."

When asked how new these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrents in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as Americans"

A Bush spoksman responded to this interview by saying "Mrs. Pelosi has set a new standard for the spin business".

/I checked, this story is 110% true
//she was crazy in 2006, and she's crazy now!


HAHA- nice job checking it out. There is an obscure website called Snopes that says this is made up:
Link

/some people will believe anything
 
2008-10-28 3:39:42 PM  
Stay with me here: Nancy Pelosi says that if the Dems capture the White House, the Supreme Court and wider majorities in Congress, our government will be "more bipartisan." Can we all have some of what you're smoking, Nancy?

Perhaps because all the lobbyists, pork-sucking CEOs, and truly bad people who fark up our country are Republicans. We can't balance it out in their ranks, so we have to take over the government completely for it to finally be fair and even.
 
2008-10-28 3:39:51 PM  
i187.photobucket.comView Full Size
 
2008-10-28 3:40:28 PM  
I've seen a school around here described as the "most diverse" in the district because it's "99% minority." It's the same sort of thinking.
 
2008-10-28 3:40:32 PM  

mercator_psi: The way Bush has packed the Court these last 8 years, along with the slow turnover rate, means that it's still pretty much Right-leaning and will be for a while.


Define packed.

He nominated 2 people to the bench. He replaced a conservative with a conservative, and a moderate with a conservative.
 
2008-10-28 3:40:34 PM  
From 1994 to 2000, the US saw the greatest growth of an economy of all time. Dem president and Rep congress.

That's how it should be. The Dem president sets a liberal agenda and the Rep congress reigns it in a little for a good balance.
 
2008-10-28 3:40:38 PM  
She may well be one of the stupidest people on the planet.
 
2008-10-28 3:40:51 PM  
The Icelander Considering that we're barely recovering from six years of Republican rule, I'd say a decade or so of Democratic rule is in order. You know, to restore things like habeas corpus and the 4th amendment.

The Democrats are guilty as fark of promoting unreasonable searches and seizures. Democrats voted heavily in favor of the original Patriot Act, they support a wide array of bullshiat in the War on Drugs, they were on board for the "pardons for illegal wiretaps"/FISA bill, and the liberal wing of the SCOTUS is entirely responsible for the Kelo v. City of New London travesty. I'll give you habeas corpus, though, they've mostly opposed Bush administration erosion of that. They can have a cookie for limiting themselves to deleting only one of the Bill of Rights.

/oops, gun control
//give me the cookie back, assholes
 
2008-10-28 3:41:23 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: vernonFL: Republicans complaining about one party rule?

Where were you from 2000 until 2007?

Our one party rule wasn't filibuster and veto proof.



Honestly, there is no way the Dems will get that. Lieberman is already basically a Republican and will not go along with it and the Democrats do not look poised to get 60 seats even including Lieberman.

I think tehy will get 58 if they are lucky.
 
2008-10-28 3:41:23 PM  

eqtworld: /I checked, this story is 110% true


With whom did you check, exactly?
 
2008-10-28 3:41:28 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: I'm sure she was trying to suggest that Dems would bring Rep colleagues into the mix and not just steamroll them


This.

The Grand Old Party's history of keeping their business of running the government from their private clubhouses needs to end.
 
2008-10-28 3:43:31 PM  

hawtsautz: HAHA- nice job checking it out. There is an obscure website called Snopes that says this is made up:
Link

/some people will believe anything


A lie can get around the world before the truth gets its boots on. Fortunately, Snopes is the velcro sneakers of truth.
 
2008-10-28 3:44:02 PM  
Bipartisanship to libs means doing what they want. Just like free speech to libs means you're free to say anything they would agree with.
 
2008-10-28 3:44:07 PM  

helix400: mercator_psi: The way Bush has packed the Court these last 8 years, along with the slow turnover rate, means that it's still pretty much Right-leaning and will be for a while.

Define packed.

He nominated 2 people to the bench. He replaced a conservative with a conservative, and a moderate with a conservative.


Hyperbole: I has it. Sorry for the confusion. Still, I don't see the SCOTUS suddenly being transformed into Pinko Central.
 
2008-10-28 3:44:38 PM  
I doubt it will be bi-partisan. But it should be better. The GOP wasn't even listening to its own party.
 
2008-10-28 3:46:19 PM  
Take idiots Dubya and Palin out of the equation and most Democrats have no problem working with most Republicans - so yes.
 
2008-10-28 3:47:52 PM  
It's actually very easy to understand, Submitter.

Which party is running on the overall message of working together to try to fix things, and which party is running on the overall message of ZOMG IF YOU ELECT THE BLACK GUY (WHO HANGS OUT WITH TERRORISTS!) THE TERRORISTS WILL KILL US ALL!!! ?

Which party is running a campaign and candidate that's garnering the support of prominent members of both parties, and which party has a candidate continually making speeches claiming that the places where people won't vote for them are not "really" American?

So yeah. Even if the White House, Senate and House of Representatives were 99% Dem, I'd say that they'd still be more bipartisan than if the Reps were only a slight majority.
 
2008-10-28 3:49:13 PM  

trippdogg: Take idiots Dubya and Palin out of the equation and most Democrats have no problem working with most Republicans - so yes.


I said it before and I'll say it again, whether or not you like the result a congress controlled by the democrats with a large margin will indeed be more bipartisan.

When the senate or house is split ~50/50, the two parties are constantly jockeying for power and control and senators are under immense pressure to stick with their party.

If the senate is 60/40, then members of the minority party are much freer to cross over and work with the majority party. In fact, they feel they need to to have any influence.

Bipartisanship increases.
 
2008-10-28 3:49:41 PM  
The Democrats are guilty as fark of promoting unreasonable searches and seizures.

To be fair, judges let the fourth, fifth sixth and eighth amendments go to shiat.

They are supposed to be the voice of non-political reason but too often judges are openly partisan and earn their way by adhering to the same "get tough (and tougher and tougher and tougher) on crime" rhetoric as their legislative counterparts.
 
2008-10-28 3:50:11 PM  

cchris_39: She may well be one of the stupidest people on the planet.


A pretzel and a heart attack away from the Presidency until 1/20...then she's a skinhead suicide mission and a Biden overdose on botox away from the presidency.
 
2008-10-28 3:50:52 PM  
jaided.comView Full Size


/hopefully with better labeling this time
 
2008-10-28 3:52:10 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man:

Our one party rule wasn't filibuster and veto proof.


Maybe Republicans should have thought of the damage they were doing to their party over the last 8 years. They have done so much damage to the party that people are about to vote them out and give Democrats a filibuster and veto proof majority.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.