Nancy Pelosi attacks the POTUS

May 22, 2004

Sedition or Treason for those acts were only for enlisted troops on the front lines. It is well within her right to voice her opinion whether I agree with it or not.

Me thinks you better check your history and the definitions of those two words. They are NOT limited to military personnel only.

Fallacy of non sequitur and not even a reasonable argument here. Basically all you said is "she's bad because I don't like her". Sure she doesn't like Bush and neither do I but that doesn't mean we're out to destroy the USA.

Your opinion, certainly not mine. By saying non sequitur -and- not even a reasonable argument, are you not being a bit redundant just to make a point? My statement was totally valid, just as valid as anyone else's opinion, and related to this subject spot on.

If you'll check my post, you'll see I never said or implied she was trying to destroy the USA, so please don't try and setup a straw man by putting words in my mouth. She is merely contributing to discouraging our troops and putting a smile on our enemy's face by calling the President, The Commander in Chief, incompetent; which he is not, in my opinion.

Bro John

May 23, 2004

What do you guys think of this?

barracuda, what do you expect from a liberal democrat from San Francisco? The following facts about Pelosi speak for themselves.

Pelosi Voted Against Persian Gulf War In 1991 And Liberation Of Iraq In 2002.

Pelosi Questioned Readiness Of American Troops.

Pelosi Prefers Increased Domestic Spending To Increased Defense Spending.

Pelosi Doesn

Anonymous · May 23, 2004

Great research .... KitKat

May 23, 2004

Most of those things are more partisan than unpatriotic. Liberalism bothers me only because it is a proven failure whenever it's tried (regardless of political affiliation)...yet they continue with the old tired rhetoric. I hope they continue because most Americans are seeing through it now.

But when we are in a war it is a different matter. When ANYONE makes public statements which demoralize our troops and embolden our enemies it is irresponsible at the very least. Apparently this is what the citizens in the district of San Francisco want representing them....but I can't understand why the entire Democratic Party wants her as their spokesperson in the House of Representatives. Don't they know it is political suicide to have this woman leading them?

I hope they never figure it out.

May 23, 2004

YOD...

Bro John

mobile21 · May 23, 2004

Well considering this "war on terrorism" according to the administrations defination may well last 20 to 50 years.

Unless God has other plans in store........

other one · May 23, 2004

I agree mobil, I am just making a point that they expect this to last for a vey long time and no one should seriously expect everyone to keep quiet about politics for any length of time.

sam

Steff · May 23, 2004

Pelosi Voted Against Persian Gulf War In 1991 And Liberation Of Iraq In 2002.

Perhaps she thought the wars weren't justified. This hardly qualifies her as "liberal" both wars were fought at our expense and we'll never see the money we invested in Iraq back. If you think the war is about anything other than big oil take a close look at the history surrounding the middle east.

Pelosi Questioned Readiness Of American Troops.

After Vietnam I believe it was wise to do so, we lost a lot of troops needlessly in Vietnam because we were not prepared.

Pelosi Prefers Increased Domestic Spending To Increased Defense Spending.

I would agree, we have enough problems here at home to be dumping more and more money into military spending for the Iraq war. I'm not saying cut off military spending but leave it at the pre-war levels and concentrate elsewhere, it sould like a good plan to me. Do you honestly know how many people are out of a job these days?

Pelosi Doesn

May 24, 2004

What can I say except? -------Congratulations to the Democratic Party for electing Nancy Pelosi!!

Kitkat

Edited May 24, 2004 by kitkat

May 24, 2004

Actually I don't think that was necessary.

I know I don't like it when someone makes a personal attack on Bush's character. I hope that "our" side would be above that

both wars were fought at our expense and we'll never see the money we invested in Iraq back. If you think the war is about anything other than big oil take a close look at the history surrounding the middle east.

This statement contradicts itself.

If the war is about "big oil" then we will see our investment back

But let us know when you stop using "big oil" in you automobile and/or to heat your house. Until then it seems a bit hypocritical to complain about those who get it for you.

What did those 3,000+ dead people at the Twin Towers have to do with "big oil"?