Misogyny rules when Conservatives attack Nancy Pelosi
Misogyny rules whenever the target is a liberal woman in Congress who has some real power. I've written this before, but I'll repeat it again: Even the media elites who try to appear even-handed as the CIA story came up would never attack a member of Congress they way they do Nancy Pelosi. Even Newt Gingrich was spared the vitriol that I hear day in and day out when Pelosi is the target.
Gingich's attacks on Pelosi were outrageous too, but the media lapped them up because he's a conservative -- so it's OK.
"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."
And that is just fine for the corporate elites who run network news. She's stupid, a liar, dishonest, despicable, ugly and a hag who hates America. Gee, and people wonder why women get all touchy about media stereotypes.
I have a topic for Howard Kurtz. "Is the abuse directed at Nancy Pelosi warranted?" I put it in terms that would fit his show. But the underlying context is the incredible sexism that fuels so much of this.
Media Matters put together a short compilation video that give us just a sample of the hatred that conservative analysts are allowed to use against Nancy.
Commenting on the controversy surrounding what Nancy Pelosi was told about the use of harsh interrogation techniques, numerous media figures have resorted to attacking Pelosi's looks, for example, by characterizing her as being incapable of "human facial expression," referring to her "fashionable" "Botox shots," and calling her a "hag."...read on
I may start a "Wingnut Week" soon. What I will do is write my pieces as if I were a conservative (maybe Newt) and I'll incorporate the very personal attacks they use to push their talking points. To be continued...
Shouldn't that be msogyny now?
I like going to the Asian msogynist parlors around Dallas.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
so our OB's-msGYN's are free to practice their hate all over America." "lil Bush
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
The guys using sexist comments about Pelosi would be even more offensive if their own looks gave them any room to talk.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
just another GOP Hypocrisy...
exclusive province of the fairer...well, better stop there.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Riiiiiicky, you better be careful or you'll have some esplainin' to do.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
for television on-line commentary since Ricky was taken sometime between the birth of the inter and its marriage to the tube.
And the splanation is that I had several bottle of Vita Vita Vegamin before I wrote that nasty thought and was trying to be sarplastic, too.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Sometimes you leave me in the dark with your comments and I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but even those comments make me laugh. I love the way you are "sarplastic" :)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Thanks, you took us right into racial stereotypes too. You damned libruls...
Oh snap! I must watch my language when speaking about old tv comedy shows. Father forgive me for I have sinned in a brand new way. I spoke of the Indy 500 race and didn't even realize it.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Ricky/Desi fue gavacho.
Udate: On second thought, POP was bordering back to sexism. The phrase is aimed at a woman.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Ricky, you're a female?
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
No.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I think that's why I always liked to read Mickey Spillane.
I was a dangerous infant.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Very mysterious. Very dangerous. And infantile.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
the HATERs enjoy personal attacks. they don't want to be wronged about the war(s) and torture. they will do their best to demonize pelosi instead of the real culprits. they treated pelosi like crap during the BUSH administration. some of it has been effective as i hear dems./liberals and independents use their anti-pelosi talking points. to me it's very disappointing.
I think its important to note that the whole "What did Pelosi know and when did she know it" canard is a complete misdirection of necessary attention.
In other words, WHO FUCKING CARES!
This is as if I were a defendant in a murder trial, and I told the jury that I had told a cop that I planned to commit the murder or that I had committed the murder. The cop could be indicted in another trial, but there's no way that affects the original trial.
I am still waiting for an interviewer to ask Newt or whomever, "Are you dumber than a bag of hammers or do you believe we are?"
and wins a cardboard or wooden container of rocks to honor him for being the third person in a row to go "outside the box" in articulating the lack of intelligence of a properly contained collection of carpentry tools.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Why in a bag? I can understand hammers being in a box, but why a bag?
drawing a blank on the term, if there even is one.
While both a box of hammers and a bag of hammers use alliteration, bag shares the short "a" sound in hammer. Box simply does not. Box shares the short "o" with rocks, or, if your prefer to keep this on thread, with botox.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
there's no alliteration on box or bag of hammers....it would have to be a hunk of hammers..to be alliterative. Why is this so important to me? :)
and a hammock of hammers. I simply don't know what I could have been worryinjg my pretty little head over.
Perhaps I ambest described in the words of a Bob Somerby line at Daily Howler today "this guy’s head contains a bag of squirrels." Of course Bob should have said sack of squirrels, but you get the picture.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
dude...check it
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter...
Chock full o'nuts, too.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
thorough especially since you yourself wrote the entry on
box of rocks.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?ter...
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
LOL!
We're all right evidently...
Crazy English language and it's many slang words and terms, I curse you!
I picked up an new one for Woo.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
look that up.
This site is giving hammers a bad name.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
To say this before the trolls (you know who they are) come in and screech about it: But there's just as much sexist commentary in here about right-wing women as there's been about liberal women on conservative sites. I've done it myself, so I can't bash the right for it...it is inappropriate, though.
I will try to be more vigilant.
and I ain't proud of it.
right wing women. And the only sexist stuff you got in trouble for
could be debated as to which gender it pertained.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Are we talking about how Bay Buchanan is an evil, evil person, or how Michelle Malkin is willing to sell all remaining dignity for the right price?
women when it comes to this. They work to put anti-woman, anti-child policies in place, and they contribute the oppression of all of us, themselves included. Their conduct is ultimately worse than name calling.
If they are going to go that route, I won't lose sleep if something happens to remind them that at the end of the day, misogynist men don't like them anymore than they like liberal women.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
honest here.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
enough. But honest.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
However with the shit they've been talking about her over the last 10 years, it should have been longer with more vile things being said. I've heard them. Over and over and over....
They're going by their circa 1993 playbook: attempting to kneecap Congressional Dems by taking out the Speaker. Plus she represents American hell (aka San Francisco), is a woman, and is a semi-liberal Democrat. All of these things make her a prize target for the wingnut right.
I think its totally within bounds of reasonable (non-sexist) behavior to point out that Nancy Pelosi blinks alot. In fact, I don't think its sexist to refer to the Speaker as Nancy "Blinkie" Pelosi.
when you see people blinking a lot, I assume on camera, what you are usually seeing is an intolerance to the camera lights. They can be rather hard on the eyes. Although, Nancy could just be being flirtatious.
what is your source that Pelosi has had botox treatment, and that she is lying?
Healthy older women are supposed to be wrinkle free and unable to move half of their facial muscles.
Rapid blinking in public speaking and lying is psychology 101. You can also observe where her eyes point out, as that is a tell tale of which side of the brain you are using... lying and recalling true information involve opposite hemispheres.
While true blinking CAN be a "tell", I doubt Pelosi would have gotten as far as she has if that was hers.
I mean, no politician would ever get far by lying. Our super duper political system would make it impossible for that to happen, eh?
In any case, I am not interested in nitpicking Pelosi's facial expressions. I am not interested in how fast she does or doesn't blink, or what she said or did not say. Her actions speak for themselves.
If I were to be partisan regarding liberal politicians, I would reserve my energy for a real liberal politician. A socialite who not only did not oppose the previous administration, but she did in fact enable plenty of their disastrous policies... it is in no way shape or form a politician that I would consider even remotely liberal or deemed of unmitigated benefit of the doubt.
You misunderstand...I do not defend Pelosi nor say she does lie...I never said that. Just defending a charge of liar without any conclusive proof. As for lying itself...I just said that blinking would not be such an obvious "tell" for her.
Where is the proof she lied? If she did, yes, whe deserves appropriate reprocussions. But Pelosi is NOT the big fish here (ooops sexism, sorry ;)).
All who are guilty need to be called on it regardless of party. But I've seen no evidence yet of Pelosi's guilty of anything.
of all the docs ASAP.
Furthermore, for 2 years of the Bush junta, she was #3 in the peg other. If she didn't know about it, she was being mighty incompetent after all the initial brouhaha revolving around the publication of the first set of pics from Abu Graib (sp?).
So she is either utterly incompetent, or a liar. Hardly an improvement... the fact that she rushed to take impeachment off the table, thus granting a virtual carte blanche for the then GOP government in power... tends to point towards the fact that she may be both: an incompetent liar.
As I said, one only needs the actions of a politician to judge them. Given her track record, I fail to see how Pelosi becomes worthy of unmitigated benefit of the doubt just because the GOP is acting like they always do: like a pack of jackals.
So was the former "President" and look where he is today.
Her impeachment is off the table jazz, lost me all support of her, but I'll be damned to dump her in a witch hunt to satify the rightwing trolls. Unless she's guilty of a crime. It's still a country of laws. Sorta.
Pelosi fucked up. She's done. She'll lose her Speakership and become a nobody.
She's a rank amateur anyway...and was never qualified for that spot.
She got it, because there was no way that the "old boy's club" in the Senate was going to elevate a woman to Majority Leader.
The Democrats kowtowed to the female lobby...and they are gonna pay for playing politics BADLY by losing control of the House. Which is REALLY ridiculous considering the size of the majority. They will wind up with an even weaker Speaker than Nancy the loser.
No. I'm not mysogynistic...I'm a realist. This is what happened. Facts, no matter how painful...are facts.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Right up there with Rush's reasons for Powell's endorsement of Obama.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
will learn something if she goes under. (I doubt it).
Never trust or make deals with the repubs.
Don't cover up shit.
Stop being panty waists.
We'll see.
The trouble with having women as the speaker of the house is that the guys can't get a word in edgewise.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Per the abuse v. sexism post I placed below, "flirtatious" and "all the botox" are potentially sexist comments too. Although, I guess someone could argue that the same critiques could be used for Rick Warren.
remark, is merely a commentary for explanation of blinking....women, and men do use it to flirt...so maybe borderline, but certainly not misogynist.
... but blaming someone of "lying" which is gender-free... it is sexist?
someone a liar without any appreciative proof is not sexist..it is slander.
The burden of the proof is on you on this one... if you are going to accuse other people of slander. Because accusing other people of slander sans proof, it is in itself slander too.
For that matter, do you have any proof that a married middle age woman in a position of immense responsibility would be unprofessional enough to be "flirtatious" in a public appearance.
I HAVE to proof a negative? May wann go get you some schoolin' there boy. YOU are the one that need the proof. Ever hear of innocent til proven guily? Cause you're starting to sound awgully right-wingish to me.
you print it. That also applies to posting, but as many know, I rarely do so.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
it is okay if I proof God doesn't exist?
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
---from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams.
"Those things which without ceasing I have declared unto you, do them, and exercise yourself in them, holding them to be the elements of right life. First believe that God is a living being immortal and blessed, according to the notion of a god indicated by the common sense of mankind; and so believing, you shall not affirm of him anything that is foreign to his immortality or that is repugnant to his blessedness. Believe about him whatever may uphold both his blessedness and his immortality. For there are gods, and the knowledge of them is manifest; but they are not such as the multitude believe, seeing that men do not steadfastly maintain the notions they form respecting them. Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them is truly impious. For the utterances of the multitude about the gods are not true preconceptions but false assumptions; hence it is that the greatest evils happen to the wicked and the greatest blessings happen to the good from the hand of the gods, seeing that they are always favorable to their own good qualities and take pleasure in men like themselves, but reject as alien whatever is not of their kind."
Epicurus: Letter to Menoeceus
I think his point is not to spread belief nor disbelief, but to point out that mankind is limited, as is our language, so it's pointless to use such limited tools to describe that which is supposed to be limitless.
There's also seems to be an element of derision of supernatural retribution as being a cheapening of religion, as well as a God was created in the image of Man argument, but not necessarily a complete denial.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So I am "rightwingsh" now... is that all you have?
BTW, logic 101... you can actually prove a negative. In fact science is partially built on the capacity to prove negatives.
You know what...I'll just say innocent until proven guilty, and leave it at that.
your ad hominem attacks are doubleplus funny in a desperate sort of way. So let me state it clearly for you: in order for you to prove that Pelosi is not lying, you can simply prove that in this case she is telling the truth. I mean, what a f*cking concept to transform a statement it into its logical equivalent if a negative is so intractable for your feeble little mind, eh?
Examples, an atheist can use an Epicurean logic prove to prove god does not exist in two seconds, but a religious nut can't prove god does in fact exist.
The whole "you can't prove a negative" meme was brought forth by intellectually lazy people who were trying to get out of a logical pickle.
Proof is agnostic regarding the positivity or negativity of the subject at hand.
PS. I see you rewrote your post. Alas, I must tell you... that I think it is pathetic you have to blame me, of all people, of being a rightwinger. Is that how it works? Dem über alles?
No wonder you belittle all the peons who argue with you. Bet a sack of hammers you have a whole lot of friends.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
actually, your post tells us more about you than me.
I always get a kick from intellectually insecure people and their stereotypes...
"Given all the botox she has had, I am surprised she can even blink. So I assume she is doubleplus lying if she can overcome all that botulism stretching her skin."
Did you write that yourself, or plagiarize it from the right wingers John's post is attacking?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Maybe we have a different scale of values, I tend to think that enabling a fascist cabal as being orders of magnitude worse than me pointing out some socialite's affinity for plastic surgery.
Double points for calling me a FOX viewer. Pretty telling... that some of you can so easily tolerate the obvious winger trolls. But blow a fuse when someone points out the obvious. LOL.
and I see they deleted your post from which I took the quote.
Invoking your graduate degree to divert attention when losing an argument on a topic unrelated to that degree is not a sign of intellectual security.
[Please stop fighting now. Thanks-Sitemonitor]
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
and observed.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I already answered the question... if reading and comprehension are lacking by your part it is your problem, not mine.
A negative can be proven. Logic and proof methods, I suggest you take an introductory college level course on the subject. It would save a lot of effort and wasted bandwidth before some posters engage in intellectually disingenuous arguments.
I am particularly damn tired of all the red herrings some of you come up with on a constant basis.
afraid so slick! now you get the picture cant buck the botts!
Actually, the "you can't prove a negative," is an old philsophical construct that now has the nature of a canard. It had nothing to do with laziness.
Now certain principles of physics can be proven this way; a man can't leap off a cliff and expect a suspension of the laws of gravity.
Science tends to use a different logic than philosophy in general, where one can detect the presence of hidden influences like anti-matter or dark matter, or even the negative numbers of algebra. But that's not the same as proof in the case of the former; that's why they send out space probes to try to gather the proof. However, they're not working on guess-work or wishful thinking either.
As for Epicurean logic, it's not the only form of logic. He inherited it from Democritus, and it seems to be based more on experientialism (like Utilitarianism), but not necessarily on pure ratiocinations. Of course Socrates, Plato and Aristotle seemed to have contempt for the physical world.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
That's why people often associate it with lying. If a person has chronic stage jitters it would appear that s/he was "lying" when in fact s/he was just apprehensive about speaking in front of a large crowd, for example.
Let's be careful about asserting arm chair diagnoses as fact.
and she did such a bang up job as the leader of the opposition in the house during the Bush years... that she deserves all the benefit of the doubt! (sarcasm).
I'll go with Occam's razor on this one...
However even if you don't think she's "a good liberal", that doesn't make her a liar. Which is why I was pointing out the likely origins of the "blinking is a sign of lying" meme.
And everyone deserves "the benefit of the doubt". It's called being innocent until proven guilty.
If she is not lying, by all means... she should publish the docs and make sure a clear investigation is conducted towards clearing the allegations that torture was being conducted as a state policy by the American government.
Until she does any of that, she is just covering her ass... if the Dems are going to put party over country. I find that as problematic as I did when the GOPers do it.
I venture to guess by the protrusion of her boney upper eyelid socket that she also had a quickie brow lift (quicker downtime than a regular facelift).
But, that being said, I still say that we need an Independent Special Prosecutor to uncover all the truth in this sordid mess and let the swords fall where they may. Democrat, Republican, Independent (Lieberman??)...matters not to me.
Tie that scarf around Lady Liberty's eyes nice and tight and let's have at it.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I am in no mood to tolerate the GOPers partisanship, and it would be pretty hypocritical if we were able to tolerate it when it comes to Dem politicians.
The fact that she is the one left out of a chair now that the music has stopped speaks volumes about how politically tone deaf some of the leadership of the Dem party really are.
I certainly do not like Pelosi either, but gees Newt that's a bit much.
Of course when he says "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime." old Newt was looking in the mirror. Despicable dishonesty is something with which he would be quite familiar.
How ironic that Christanic extremists hate women just as much as their Islamic colleagues.
I may start a "Wingnut Week" soon.
Ohhh this sounds interesting :)
she put on the table when she took impeachment off it.
Sleep with dogs and don't be surprised to wake up with fleas... only a Democrat would be stupid enough to not only abide and enable the GOP while she was the speaker of the house, but to be so politically daft as to put herself in a situation in which her dumb ass may end up being blamed for the crap she was enabling the Bush junta.
Excellent idea, John.
Sometimes people are SO emotionally invested in sexism that they cannot comprehend what the anger is about. When the tables are turned, it becomes a little clearer... In fact, this is one of the techniques used in old "sensitivity training" workshops to tackle racism and sexism, addressing and treating people as though they were Black or any minority or female. If the trainer was good at it, it certainly caused a lot of re-thinking about what had been "automatic" in the past. At least after the anger was dealt with for being treated so shittily!
So, do it, and enjoy it!
PS. I got off on the sexism part, but letting the spirit of Newty fill your soul while writing about right-wing matters works, too!
Namely, the wingnuts will think you are serious and will quote you all over their websites to "prove" their idiotic statements. Look how they responded to Colbert and Archie Bunker!
Always remember, conservatives are totally devoid of wit, humor, and irony, or any appreciation that these things even exist. They tend to be rather simple-minded black-and-white sorts who "don't do nuance".
Abuse is not the same as sexism. I think its sexist to call Pelosi "ugly" and a "hag" simply because its a double standard compared to how a man is evaluated. I think its totally legitimate to criticize her for being stupid, dishonest, despicable and a liar (were that criticism to be warranted). Of course it is hyperbolic and as I mentioned a distraction too.
Yes, this is their arguement because they have nothing else. What can they say about Pelosi that hasn't been done 10x worse by the repugs? - I don't like all of what Pelosi is doing but at least she isn't a republican!
The funniest part about this clip is drug addict Rush Limpballs talking about somebody else having withdrawals and about their picture being a poster for birth control. Has that fuck looked in a mirror latey? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66...
seriously, if a GOPer is blaming someone of something... at this point you can bet your ass that he or she is or was at some point guilty of whatever action/policy/opinion/fuckup she or he is blaming other people.
.
Dear John Amato,
Limbaugh IS a misogynist, a racist, and an off shore child molester.
However, it isn't so much about what Nancy knew and when, but why, as the third most powerful person in the Federal Government, in 2007, she removed all forms of accountability KNOWING that Bush admitted that indeed,he ordered people to be TORTURES. The elephant in the room is NOT her sex, but rather why her silence, THEN?
Great, NOW she says she was lied to...
... Why wasn't that her story back then?
And, why were the other's that were breifed/lied to, silent, even to this day?
Are they not really working that CON in Congressperson, or what?
This isn't about JUST Pelosi, but she is rather emblematic of a larger, systemic problem in D.C...
They take an Oath to support and defend the Constitution of the USA WITHOUT ANY mental reservations OR a purpose of evasion! Yet, they consistantly lobby, debate and attempt to legislate away our Foundational Liberties and Freedoms.
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
I have on numerous occasions pointed out the unfortunate appearances of certain Conservative women(Coulter, Buchanan, Malkin, Hannity, et al). My comments concerning the unattractiveness of these women usually stems from their ugly, wicked, ruthlessly mean behavior. And I won't let up. Bullies can't ever comprehend compassion.
You devil!
LOL! He'll come after you with murder in his heart if you list him as a *woman*.
Wasn't he a construction worker? That's just behind biker, cop, indian chief, cowboy, and sailor as being the most macho of professions.
the makeup of the Village People.
Once again, the GOP must not have read the latest Gallup Poll showing everyone except Evangelicals and the Elderly abandoning the party. Or maybe they have, and figure they have nothing to lose. I'd PAY to
have this MediaMatters YouTube Ad run on National TV!
I know I know. She's a Democrat, but they aren't all that liberal either.
Basically they hate women who aren't lined up to be their 'little ladies' like Malkin, Bachmann and Coulter. That would include liberal women and women who are democrats as well...
:)
As for Newter Gingrich's "I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime," that is laughable on the face of it, in light of what his close personal friends have done to this country, and all the plotting and planning he did against the govt when Clinton was Pres.
Snewt's 'Contract On America' has it all over Pelosi's shortcomings by an incalculable factor, when it comes to "despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort[s]."
I guess he's not into self reflection.
me-oww!
just because the GOP hates women, doesn't make Pelosi's policies any more palatable.
These are two unrelated issues IMHO.
I feel bad for Pelosi, on a personal level, that she has to be the focus of such attacks... and honestly, I don't think she deserves to be attacked in that manner just because she happens to be of the female persuasion. The fact that Pelosi is a victim of the viciousness by the same people she fought to enable while she threw us liberals under the bus, however, does nothing to alleviate the pain, us liberals have suffered, from having her as the supposedly "liberal" speaker of the house.
If anything she should not be surprised she is being made the scapegoat by the same party that paraded "personal responsibility" by blaming their fuckups on everyone else. What was she expecting, loyalty from a group of rabid hyenas?
I haven't seen this mentioned, but has anybody noticed that CNN has a new feature called "Wingnut of the Week" by Daily Beast columnist John Avlon?
Each week, he picks a wingnut from the right and the left to profile. The first one was Michele Bachmann on the right and Cynthia McKinney on the left.
I just found it funny(?) that he would appropriate the term "wingnut" for use against both sides. Talk about fair and balanced.. hmph..
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/08/wingnut...
David
ps -- can.not.wait for your Wingnut Week series, John! Sure it will blow Avlon out of the water!
"Is the abuse directed at Nancy Pelosi warranted?"
On this issue, no. However-- she's done nothing that warrants my support, either. Pelosi has consistently helped enable the Bush agenda and undercut her own liberal base.
Let them chew her up. Let them stupidly demand "investigations" into the crimes she knew about but didn't expose... while also denying they've committed any crimes.
"I think this is the most despicable, dishonest and vicious political effort I've seen in my lifetime."
Does Newt hear himself speak?
This from one of lowest of the low.
Newt makes Rove seem almost human.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
membership next month.
I've been a feminist since my teens, but resisted joining an organization during that time and in my early 20's. Now that I am creeping towards my 30's, and misogynist conservative men and women are still working to make life much harder for women and children, and the men who love women and children, I think it's high time I did so.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
Frankly, I don't really like the way most women (Republican or Democrat) are commented on in lots of blogs including this one. Although, not as prevalent as other blogs, I still see comments on C and L about women (mostly Republican mouthpieces) being referred to as c*nts. Most of the time it is cleaned up, but not always. A lot of the time the comment is allowed to stand. I don't care if Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are the most vile beings on earth, once a person goes there with their comment, they have lost all credibility with me. There are other ways to describe a female than to use a particularly vulgar term for a woman's body part.
I never see men being referred to as bastards or other body parts (ok, maybe with the exception of Dick Cheney) although Rush seems to illicit comments about his girth on a number of occasions. The double standard will continue. Women have always gotten commented on about their appearance -- it wasn't that long ago that Michelle Obama was criticized for going sleeveless for cripes sake. And Hillary was always commented on about her hair and/or her choice of pantsuit.
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
That word has been used to denigrate women for so long...and even used to denigrate men who are "acting" like women. The word always insinuates women are less than others, whether we are the direct target of the word or just collateral damage...
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
agreed
Are we really that shocked that this is what happens to a woman? That there is this blatant attack on a female's looks instead of debating the issue? There is a double standard for women, and there has always been one. And, this is just not a conservative thing. I can't tell you how much ground liberals/progressives lose when we refer to Ann Coulter as Mann Coulter or use other disparaging words to refer to female conservatives. If we want the media to stop commenting on Pelosi's face, then we need to stop commenting on Malkin's. I guess we should practice what we preach and stop being so damn hypocritical on this issue. *steps down from soapbox*
Anywho...I would love to believe that Pelosi is innocent on this issue (whatever that really means); however, I think at best she enabled torture and at worst...well we don't know what the worst is. But, this is all a sideshow to distract people from the real culprits, the Bush junta. Pelosi is a small fry compared to those guys. This whole thing is just to confuse and distract, and as usual, Democrats are only happy to play along.
yes, thank you for pointing out the mann coulter double standard as well.
"Woman not good as us. Woman stay in cave and cook food I caught today. Woman should not be Speaker. Rush Rules!"
NOBODY 2012
with their attack dogs, why is anyone sticking up for Pelosi at all? She sure as hell isn't a liberal, she sure as hell isn't a progressive, and she's been nothing more than a cheerleader throughout the Bush Regime, right down to repeating almost word for word the same bullshite lies that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc, used as their excuses for the Iraq invasion. So they bring her down. Who really cares. She's as corrupt and fraudulent as they are.
its okay concerned , the truth is thier are few here that are real liberals , im not sure thier ever was, the new dummycrats are the new wing of the repiblican dickskinners who wont hold thier politicians to a high standard of honesty, it no longer matters if they are being sold a push cart filled with shit because , we got a black guy whos pretty !speacks great, has a walt disney like family,
Just an observation from a passerby. There is some great humor on this site mixed with the vitriol for some opposition players. However, I have to question why there is no discussion on the possibility that Ms. Pelosi actually is lying about what she knew.
But it appears that former Sen Bob Graham's remarks lead some credibility to her comments. And now, it appears that another Sen is confirming these comments.
That's why I'm in favor of investigations. We need to know the truth.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
My children try to use it on me all the time: "But, But, But... he did it, too!!"
Republicans are just moving the goal posts. If there was no torture, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation in the first place. (and the CIA didn't use "EIT" as a name for what they were doing until 2006, so they are being a bit untrustworthy themselves)
If she knew and did nothing, then she is a political coward. However, given the fact that the Bush administration has proven themselves over and over again to be liars: Does "We don't wiretap..." ring a bell? I suppose that I have come to doubt anything that comes out of remnants of a horrid administration that lied right and left in order to justify their actions.
Only when the last tree has died
and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught
will we realize we cannot eat money.
That not strawman (argumentum ad reductio), but a tu quoque in third party.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
ConLib,
Incorrect. I've been questioning her stance...
... In 2007, when we were all having the discussion on waterboarding, Pelosi took all forms of accountability "OFF THE TABLE". WHY? And now? Major flip flop in principles, NO?
Is she saying that in 2007, when America was having this debate about TORTURE, she wasn't lied to but today, she was?
I see a major inconsistency in her story. I fear there are too many partisan loyalties to wade through on this one. Far too many people are refusing to see this hole.
Either the CIA is lying, Pelosi is lying or neither "RECALL" the facts. However so, knowing this truth does, in no way, change the FACT; TORTURE HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH!
.
Starve the WAR Beast...
... Save the World.
Perhaps it is time for Rachel Maddow and the women on the view to start bashing the gas bags on both sides of the aisle. Gingrich can be referred to as Old Flappy Tits and Kennedy Mr. Crusty Sacs. Limpbaa can be The Boneless Porker and Matthews, well that's easy, The Virgin. So many spoiled little boys on both the left and the right deserve to watch their heros trashed by the women folk. I say bring it on ladies and watch the cowards snivel to their mommies about how mean the girls are.
but personally, the fact she is woman has nothing to do with anything. The fact that she, along with her dink buddy Harry Reid, is a feckless idiot has everything to do with it.
Government + the Federal Reserve = organized crime
Comments are closed on this entry