Article

2006-11-13 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by ed 2006-11-13 00:30|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Interesting. Ploy to placate the nuttier base elements - while the fix is in for Hoyer to win on party votes?

If Murtha does gain the job, the Dhimmi position will be a match to its rhetoric, a political rarity... and solid proof that the military disaster we've been anticipating is on the way.

Posted by .com 2006-11-13 03:20|| 2006-11-13 03:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Just shows what a sicking c*&t Pelosi is.

Just a reminder, when you negotiate with evil, evil alway wins.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-13 03:50|| www.sockpuppetofdoom.com]">[www.sockpuppetofdoom.com] 2006-11-13 03:50|| Front Page Top

#3 This reminds me of the time I was walking down my street and those two dogs were stuck together....

Posted by bigjim-ky 2006-11-13 06:24|| 2006-11-13 06:24|| Front Page Top

#4 "Let's put FIVE bullets in the revolver!"

Posted by mojo">mojo 2006-11-13 10:32|| 2006-11-13 10:32|| Front Page Top

#5 "I salute your courageous leadership that changed the national debate and helped make Iraq the central issue of this historic election. It was surely a dark day for the Bush Administration when you spoke truth to power," she wrote. "Your strong voice for national security, the war on terror and Iraq provides genuine leadership for our party, and I count on you to lead on these vital issues."

Murtha responded, "I am deeply gratified to receive the support of Speaker Pelosi, a tireless advocate for change and a true leader for our Party and our country."

The country asked for it and now we've got it. Unbelievable. Okinawa, get ready.

I hold Rove responsible. Clearly, Bush believed the Republicans would hold Congress, and he was blindsided. Changes could have been made to forestall this travesty.

Posted by KBK 2006-11-13 10:40|| 2006-11-13 10:40|| Front Page Top

#6 Well at least Kitten With A Whip tries to be loyal.
And she does owe the scumbag.

Posted by tu3031 2006-11-13 12:22|| 2006-11-13 12:22|| Front Page Top

#7 Aside from this disgusting love fest, Murtha and Pelosi have their political differences. But they have something in common: they must have the lowest IQs in the House. They are literally too dumb to know what they don't know. Remember Polosi's remarks on the SCOTUS Kelo decision:

Q: Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.

Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?

Ms. Pelosi: As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.

Q: Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.

Ms. Pelosi: Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.

So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.

Q: Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?

Ms. Pelosi: It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Q: Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?

Ms. Pelosi: The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.

Posted by KBK 2006-11-13 14:31|| 2006-11-13 14:31|| Front Page Top

23:55 Secret Master
23:48 JosephMendiola
23:33 JosephMendiola
23:19 trailing wife
23:18 Chinter Flarong
23:18 JosephMendiola
23:16 JosephMendiola
23:13 JosephMendiola
23:11 trailing wife
23:10 anon
23:07 trailing wife
23:01 Penguin
22:45 Penguin
22:41 Zenster
22:39 Zenster
22:20 gromgoru
22:06 gromgoru
22:02 tu3031
21:59 gromgoru
21:53 gromgoru
21:53 James
21:48 Broadhead6
21:47 gromgoru
21:35 Slomock Ebbong5742