« With a little help ... | Main | Just a FYI - is rape treated differently than other crime? »

January 05, 2007

Why am I supposed to be excited about Pelosi?

I don't engage in vulva voting.

And considering her faux-humble roots, her willingness to keep corrupt Dems in positions of power, and her advocacy of legislation that wants to shut down the free speech of individual citizens (like this blog), Pelosi's vulva is actually an embarrassment...

on more than one level ...


Posted by Darleen at January 5, 2007 07:26 AM


Hold on a second. Pelosi is the "greatest threat to free speech EVER" according to "grassrootsfreedom"...and yet the Bush is allowed to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant?

Posted by: Brad at January 5, 2007 11:56 AM

That's right, Brad! We all know that BusHitler is a tool of the vast ZioNaziNeocon conspiracy, and is depriving us all of our rights, whereas Nancy is not only the second coming, but the greatest thing since sliced bread! What's more, she champions THE CHILDREN!

P.S. Happy New Year, Darleen!

Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 5, 2007 12:22 PM

I like that term, "Vulva voting", by the way.

Posted by: TalkinKamel at January 5, 2007 12:23 PM

-- from NY Daily News, January 4:

President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans’ mail without a judge’s warrant, the Daily News has learned. The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a “signing statement” that declared his right to open people’s mail under emergency conditions.

That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it…


“You have to be concerned,” agreed a career senior U.S. official who reviewed the legal underpinnings of Bush’s claim. “It takes Executive Branch authority beyond anything we’ve ever known.”

Posted by: Brad at January 5, 2007 12:55 PM


Calm down. Here's the real story:


Posted by: gahrie at January 5, 2007 11:30 PM

I'm excited. About Mz Pelosi. About her new role as Speaker, that is. Hopefully the Congess will now get busy and put and end to further troop increases in Iraq.

Maybe we can finally quash this neocon attempt to re-colonize the Middle East once and for all.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 6, 2007 08:04 AM

Happy New Year to you, too, TK!

Thank you, gahrie, for the link. IMO it again proves what the blogsphere does best ... it can field the experts -- in this case people who can understand legal procedures and legalese -- as opposed to the MSM that boasts mere journalists who many times let their own agenda drive their stories rather than the facts.

Um... Carl? "re-colonize the ME"? You'd better explain yourself on that one, because it sounds more like the "Jews are controlling US foreign policy/it's all about Israel" crap that has come out from under the rocks in Washington lately with SanFranGran's coronation.

Posted by: Darleen at January 6, 2007 10:49 AM

Um... Carl? "re-colonize the ME"? You'd better explain yourself on that one, because it sounds more like the "Jews are controlling US foreign policy/it's all about Israel" crap

Huh? The phrase "re-colonize the ME" doesn't suggest anything whatsoever about Jews. Are you so unable to discuss the merits that your first instinct is to play the anti-semitism card where it's completely inappropriate?

Posted by: Josh at January 7, 2007 09:57 PM

Anti-semitism? What's that got to do with anything?

I am anti-colonial however.

All I'm saying is that a form of Middle Eastern re-colonization is the logical end of the current policy. At least the way the Neo-cons are putting it together in Iraq.

Of course the American people will not support such a policy.

Mr Bush doesn't realize this yet, but he will. QUestion is, how many casualties will it take for him to gain some understanding of the real world.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 7, 2007 10:56 PM


I'm still not understanding what you mean with the "anti-colonial" charge.

Usually when I hear people talk in such terms, they are talking about Israel as a "Western colonial entity" -- usually coupled with 'talk' about how much better things would be if Israel just ceased to exist.

Then there is the whole "we're only in Iraq because of Israel" meme.

Posted by: Darleen at January 8, 2007 06:57 AM

Frankly Mz Darleen, I don't know why the devil we are in Iraq. There's no WMD and Hussein is dead. The Iraqis clearly don't want us there and give tacit and active support to insurgent attacks on US forces. Just like they did in Vietnam.

Absent a complete takeover of the country lasting a few generations, there's no hope of any sort of stability in Iraq. The Shia are in charge thanks to US bayonets and are giving out payback to the Sunnis for being oppressed for the last 70 years. Their allied militias also attack US troops, when they arn't shooting SUnnis.

This 'surge' business being proposed for a few months is nonsense. A surge lasting a few generations might work. The Brits were in India for a hundred years and left a stable democratic system. The US isn't prepared to attempt the same thing in Iraq; Americans wouldn't support it in any case.

It's time to withdraw from this mess.

Posted by: Carl W. Goss at January 8, 2007 08:36 AM

Sorry, Carl, but I'm afraid we're staying until this can be plausibly blamed on Democrats.

Posted by: Josh at January 8, 2007 11:19 AM