Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

[POINTER94]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Quote jimonica,

Pelosi was accused of adding an amendment excluding Samoa for a minimum wage increase.


Where did this come from?

 

[jimonica]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Teeheehee, I'll just let you girls cheerlead each other on with your cute little flags and graphics.d

 

[xtraham]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

I'm not going back to DC, I'm gonna just keep refreshing,

and watch the

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Custom wrote,
"Oh come on Custom what does that have to do with Polosi and Samoa? We have to strictly stick to the issue.

I didn't write that, you did.... try to keep the facts straight.

So stick to it, you were the one that ran off at a tangent to try and derail the subject in the first place.... you are so Lib. "

Ya know I can't even joke with you righties it goes right over your heads. That comment was in response to QC's instructions to keep this strictly on Mrs Pelosi.

There you go trying to rewrite history.... you quote me and say it's in response to someone else?... do you suffer from ADD?

 

[jimonica]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Pointer,
I know I should answer any of question until you answer the ones I asked of you, but I'll go ahead.

Plainsman wrote,
""There's something fishy going on here," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.

During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, "just as it was for the minimum-wage bill."

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, "No, it would not be."

"So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?" Mr. McHenry pressed.

"The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain," Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum."
Barney is going to pop a blood vesel!"

My fault for not fact checking a right winger.8)

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

And as usual not knowing the truth, the right wingers pounced all over this. Now we find out Samoa had an long standing exemption from the minimum wage. But some how Pelosi was supposed to be aware of this.

So what you are saying is that Nancy is incompetent?

 

[jimonica]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Custom,

READ THIS VERY CAREFULLY. SCROLL UP TO QC'S LAST POST AND YOU WILL READ THE FOLLOWING.

"Please try and comment only on your opinion of Ms. Pelosi's ethics regarding this particular vote. Thank you."

That is a quote from your fellow right winger QC. Dooo yooouuuuu noooowwwww understaaaaannnndddd.

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

I understood you perfectly the first time... question is, do you understand anything you read? And if so, why do you try to defend the indefensible?

 

[jimonica]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Custom asked,
"So what you are saying is that Nancy is incompetent?"

Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing there wasn't WMD,
Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing we need more than 150k troops.
Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing that he was getting us into a quagmire.

Oh sorry, I forgot I have to keep this thread strictly on Mrs Pelosi.d

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

BTW, I dropped the Customby part of my handle.... try to keep up to date.... Monica

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Custom asked,
"So what you are saying is that Nancy is incompetent?"

Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing there wasn't WMD,

He was in good company, like most of the world, and most of the Democrats?

Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing we need more than 150k troops.

He is trying to fix that, despite the screams from the anti-war cowards.

Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing that he was getting us into a quagmire.

He knew... some world problems are a quagmire, something most grownups know.

And will you please get with the program, I hope to one day be a Captain.

Oh sorry, I forgot I have to keep this thread strictly on Mrs Pelosi.">

 

[Plainsman]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Custom asked,
"So what you are saying is that Nancy is incompetent?"

Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing there wasn't WMD,
Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing we need more than 150k troops.
Not anymore incompetent than GWB not knowing that he was getting us into a quagmire.

Oh sorry, I forgot I have to keep this thread strictly on Mrs Pelosi.d

Now that is a typical lib response, finally see the facts for what they are and blame President Bush.

Are you still in HS jm? It would explain a lot.

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Are you still in HS jm? It would explain a lot.

Eric, he/she is a Lib... real critical thinking to the level of the average HS student isn't required.... that and emotional development are both discouraged.

 

[jimonica]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Okay Crrruuuuunnnccchhh!

First of all, when you say everyone knew Iraq had WMD, we have to decipher between chemical WMD and nuclear.
Everyone knew Iraq had chemical WMD, Regan sold them to him. And after Sadaam used Chemical weapons on his own people, Rumsfeld was photographed shaking his hand. No Crunch, we didn't go to war over mustard gas. That's WW1 technology. We went to war because of yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds over New York city. All lies and there were plenty of skeptics.

 

[QC]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Hmmmmmm . . .

jimonica,

I actually asked that you keep your answer to my specific question on Ms. Pelosi. Which you did not and of course misconstrued my request to regard this entire thread.

With that said, it is obvious that you still have not answered my question. Let me rephrase since I have obviously confused you. Is voting on a bill, which holds provisions that could obviously benefit an individual financially, ethical? You can answer this question without regard for any individual if it will be easier for you.

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Crunch, we didn't go to war over mustard gas. That's WW1 technology. We went to war because of yellow cake uranium, aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds over New York city. All lies and there were plenty of skeptics.

Yet GWB has a mandate from the Congress of the United States of America to invade Iraq, and the vote was almost one-sided (if pressed I can give you the exact vote count and who dissented).

Most of the rest of the World believed the same, including the Premier intelligence gathering organization of the World.... The Mossad.

The UN passed resolution 1441 in 2002 with a 15 to 0 vote in favor authorizing "serious consequences" if Iraq didn’t fulfill it’s obligations to the treaty that ended the first Gulf War in 1991.... Iraq continued to shoot at our planes right up to the day we went forward with GWII. They interfered with inspections, they tried to kill off large segments of the population that didn’t get with Saddams program, and were basically asking for an ass whooping.... we gave them one.

And here you are today doing the “lib thing” of being a “Monday Morning Quarterback”

If you aren’t ashamed of yourself by now, you are self conscienceless, and I pity you.

 

[crunch]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

Okay Crrruuuuunnnccchhh!

Thanx Monica.... and I do see the dichotomy here, I'm just not as respectful as you are.

 

[jimonica]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

QC wrote,
"Hmmmmmm . . .

jimonica,

I actually asked that you keep your answer to my specific question on Ms. Pelosi. Which you did not and of course misconstrued my request to regard this entire thread.

With that said, it is obvious that you still have not answered my question. Let me rephrase since I have obviously confused you. Is voting on a bill, which holds provisions that could obviously benefit an individual financially, ethical? You can answer this question without regard for any individual if it will be easier for you."

I answered the question QC. And I asked you a question, which you didn't answerer. I'll C&P the answerer to your question and my question that you didn't answerer.

In the following paragraph you'll read that I said precedent has been set by republicans voting on bills where they stand to gain and you right wingers kept your lips firmly closed, now when the shoe is on the other foot your lips are flapping all over the place.

Jimonica wrote,
"I know you want hamstring me with boundaries on what I can talk about, but precedent has been set. I think you know QC, that this is a no brainer. Let me give you a couple examples that come off the top of my head. We have Bill Friest voting health care issues when he and his family owns one of the biggest HMOs in the country. Then he lied about his shares being in a trust and not having access to his account. And I'm sure you all remember Anthony Scalia going on a duck hunting trip with Cheny just weeks before hearing a case involving the Vice Presidents office."

The following is the question I asked of you QC. Sorry maybe you didn't answer because I didn't use a question mark, my bad.

Jimonica wrote,
"Also, are you righties trying to tell me that anyone who owns stocks in business cannot vote on a minimum wage bill because of a conflict of interest. If that's the case than we couldn't have a vote, which is probably what the right wingers would like when it comes to the minimum wage anyway."

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

I have a question. Do the Samoans pay their income taxes to the US Deparment of Treasury?

 

[QC]

Re: Pelosi doesn't want tuna with good taste....

jimonica,

That is not an answer, they are examples of potentially similar conflicts. If I had asked for examples then you may have been in the ballpark, I asked if you thought voting on that bill was ethical for Pelosi.

I believe your subsequent question is childish. I submit that the Pelosi conflict of interest is significant and specific, while your example is very broad and general. Again, Pelosi's issues are that the company directly affected by a specific exception within the legislation is headquartered in her district and she owns a boat load of stock in that very same company. I don't think this is analogous to your examples at all, and I believe that 99% of fair minded people would agree regardless of party affiliation.