What If ?????

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

“Speaker Pelosi”

Just let that thought envelope your minds. Imagine that – you wake up and Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line to be President.

Even if I disagreed with the Republicans, I would never vote for a Democrat for the House just for this reason. Anyone who is honest, has to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to be Speaker because she is not qualified to be President, God forbid that woud become necessary.

Let’s here from honest Democrats if they disagree? Tell us if you really believe in your hearts that Pelosi would make a good President (shudder the thought).

2

First of all, Pelosi becoming Speaker is not guaranteed, if the Dems win the House. She has to be elected to the post by her peers. There is some talk that Murtha would like to be Speaker too. I guess you might not know how that works. You should spend more time reading about Congress, and less time spouting off about things you dont understand.

Anyway, moving forward, Nancy Pelosi already announced her plan for the first 100 hours, if she does become Speaker of the House. It sounds pretty good to me:

Hastert has a reputation for being out of touch and disengaged, as Speaker. After 8 years of Bush incompetence, I would prefer the next President to be someone who is sharp and focused.

Also, I guess you haven’t heard there are some rumors floating around that Dennis Hastert may be gay. Hastert lives full time with his chief-of-staff. And when Mrs. Hastert comes to Washington to visit her husband, she stays in a hotel… alone. I don’t know what else there is to the rumors beyond that, I assume that is just the tip of the iceberg.

So to turn your question around, how would you feel about the first gay President, if he was a Republican? Would you be okay with that?

3

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
“Speaker Pelosi”

Just let that thought envelope your minds. Imagine that – you wake up and Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line to be President.

Even if I disagreed with the Republicans, I would never vote for a Democrat for the House just for this reason. Anyone who is honest, has to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to be Speaker because she is not qualified to be President, God forbid that woud become necessary.
…[/quote]

So you’re implying that the guy that is president is qualified?

Doesn’t strike me as being honest.

4

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
“Speaker Pelosi”

Just let that thought envelope your minds. Imagine that – you wake up and Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line to be President.

Even if I disagreed with the Republicans, I would never vote for a Democrat for the House just for this reason. Anyone who is honest, has to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to be Speaker because she is not qualified to be President, God forbid that woud become necessary.

Let’s here from honest Democrats if they disagree? Tell us if you really believe in your hearts that Pelosi would make a good President (shudder the thought).[/quote]

Of course she’d be a HUGE improvement over Hastert, Cheney, and Bush, but so would lots of congressmen on either side. There’s no way to go, but up from here!

5

Sometimes it’s possible for an employee to screw a job up so badly, that person is asked to leave. The Boss doesn’t care who he’s going to replace that employee with… all he cares about is getting that person out the door.

I think that may be where many voters are at, in many regions of America. We’ll see on Tuesday.

6

On the bright side, a Speaker Pelosi would work to put a bottle of pinot noir on every American dinner table.

7

This whole “Pelosi might be speaker, ohhhh” scare tactic is the biggest crock of shit I’ve seen during this election.

That seems to be our Rep, Barb Cubin’s, biggest knock on her Dem challenger: He won’t say that he’s not going to vote for Pelosi for Speaker. WTF??? Why should he? She might not even be nominated, and like he’s pointed out how can you say who you will or won’t vote for before you’ve seen the ballot?

Is this the best the GOP can come up with? “Vote for us or Nancy Pelosi might be Speaker of the House, and that could somehow be worse than the fat gay dude that we’ve got now.”

8

I hope Nancy Pelosi insists on a Pay as You Go policy with the budget. We can’t just run up huge deficits with runaway spending, that is totally stupid. If she does that, I bet she will be the Speaker for a good long while. There needs to be a serious attempt to reign in spending and reduce the deficit, and Pay as You Go would be a huge step in the right direction.

Look at it this way, you give 2 people a one-week’s shopping list at the grocery store. One person has exactly 35 dollars in cash, and the other person has a credit card. When they’re done shopping, odds are high that the person with the credit card has a whole bunch of extra crap that wasn’t on the shopping list, in their shoppng cart. When you pay with credit and you know you’re putting off a payment until some vague time in the distant future, it gets really easy to spend money… too easy.

9

Steveo, only a true buttmunch like yourself would get excited about the third person in the chain of command having the possibility of becoming president.

Among other things, even in a worst case scenario, your country has (well, should have) a strong set of checks and balances and the rule of law to keep things under control.

I’m going to guess though that you know very little about Nancy Pelosi and are simply running on about some scare tactic you’ve bought hook line and sinker due to partisan hackery.

10

[quote]vroom wrote:
I’m going to guess though that you know very little about Nancy Pelosi and are simply running on about some scare tactic you’ve bought hook line and sinker due to partisan hackery.[/quote]

Well Steveo seems to think she would automatically become Speaker, so I think you’re right on target. That’s not how Congress works, she has to get voted into the Speaker position by the party. That’s hardly a sure thing, even if the Dems do win big on Tuesday.

11

[quote]100meters wrote:
Of course she’d be a HUGE improvement over Hastert, Cheney, and Bush, but so would lots of congressmen on either side. There’s no way to go, but up from here![/quote]

Who says that the Dems can’t be positive :-]

12

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
First of all, Pelosi becoming Speaker is not guaranteed, if the Dems win the House. She has to be elected to the post by her peers. There is some talk that Murtha would like to be Speaker too. I guess you might not know how that works. You should spend more time reading about Congress, and less time spouting off about things you dont understand.

Anyway, moving forward, Nancy Pelosi already announced her plan for the first 100 hours, if she does become Speaker of the House. It sounds pretty good to me:

Hastert has a reputation for being out of touch and disengaged, as Speaker. After 8 years of Bush incompetence, I would prefer the next President to be someone who is sharp and focused.

Also, I guess you haven’t heard there are some rumors floating around that Dennis Hastert may be gay. Hastert lives full time with his chief-of-staff. And when Mrs. Hastert comes to Washington to visit her husband, she stays in a hotel… alone. I don’t know what else there is to the rumors beyond that, I assume that is just the tip of the iceberg.

So to turn your question around, how would you feel about the first gay President, if he was a Republican? Would you be okay with that?[/quote]

First of all Brad, I do know how this all works, thank you very much.

It is certain that Pelosi would be in because from what I understand, Murtha notwithstanding, the Dem leaders have already said that they will back Pelosi.

I do think your Clinton-like tactic of diverting attention to this situation by making a wild rumor about the current speaker is not effective. I say this because it doesn’t take away the nightmare of Pelosi coming to power and being two heartbeats away from President.

The fact that you can read her “100 hours” ranting and come away with “it sounds pretty good to me,” shows that you are a far-left liberal who is out of touch with America’s history and the role of government in our lives.

13

[quote]100meters wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
“Speaker Pelosi”

Just let that thought envelope your minds. Imagine that – you wake up and Nancy Pelosi is 3rd in line to be President.

Even if I disagreed with the Republicans, I would never vote for a Democrat for the House just for this reason. Anyone who is honest, has to come to the conclusion that Nancy Pelosi is not qualified to be Speaker because she is not qualified to be President, God forbid that woud become necessary.

Let’s here from honest Democrats if they disagree? Tell us if you really believe in your hearts that Pelosi would make a good President (shudder the thought).

Of course she’d be a HUGE improvement over Hastert, Cheney, and Bush, but so would lots of congressmen on either side. There’s no way to go, but up from here!

[/quote]

Right…of course.

Hey, would Ted Kennedy make a good president in your view?

14

[quote]tme wrote:
This whole “Pelosi might be speaker, ohhhh” scare tactic is the biggest crock of shit I’ve seen during this election.

That seems to be our Rep, Barb Cubin’s, biggest knock on her Dem challenger: He won’t say that he’s not going to vote for Pelosi for Speaker. WTF??? Why should he? She might not even be nominated, and like he’s pointed out how can you say who you will or won’t vote for before you’ve seen the ballot?

Is this the best the GOP can come up with? “Vote for us or Nancy Pelosi might be Speaker of the House, and that could somehow be worse than the fat gay dude that we’ve got now.”

[/quote]

You should pay more attention to the news my friend. The Democratic leaders have already said as much that they will nominate her and vote for her as speaker.

There is no scare “tactic,” but a scary senerio about to happen. Do you really think Pelosi is qualified to be Speaker? To be President of the US?

15

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
I hope Nancy Pelosi insists on a Pay as You Go policy with the budget. We can’t just run up huge deficits with runaway spending, that is totally stupid. If she does that, I bet she will be the Speaker for a good long while. There needs to be a serious attempt to reign in spending and reduce the deficit, and Pay as You Go would be a huge step in the right direction.

Look at it this way, you give 2 people a one-week’s shopping list at the grocery store. One person has exactly 35 dollars in cash, and the other person has a credit card. When they’re done shopping, odds are high that the person with the credit card has a whole bunch of extra crap that wasn’t on the shopping list, in their shoppng cart. When you pay with credit and you know you’re putting off a payment until some vague time in the distant future, it gets really easy to spend money… too easy.[/quote]

Brad, I am actually impressed with your conservative views as I have disagreed with Bush’s spending policy. The only problem with what you say is that the Democrats have been, and still are the biggest spenders ever. What will happen is that the Democrats will raise our taxes – because they always do, and will cut defense spending – because they always do – but they will increase social welfare programs – because they always do.

We will therefore be more vulerable to the terrorists, weaker around the globe, while being robbed of more of our individual wealth. After years of this, the republicans will come back into power to fix the whole mess as did Reagan when had to fix the mess left by Jimmy Carter.

16

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
I hope Nancy Pelosi insists on a Pay as You Go policy with the budget. We can’t just run up huge deficits with runaway spending, that is totally stupid. If she does that, I bet she will be the Speaker for a good long while. There needs to be a serious attempt to reign in spending and reduce the deficit, and Pay as You Go would be a huge step in the right direction.

Look at it this way, you give 2 people a one-week’s shopping list at the grocery store. One person has exactly 35 dollars in cash, and the other person has a credit card. When they’re done shopping, odds are high that the person with the credit card has a whole bunch of extra crap that wasn’t on the shopping list, in their shoppng cart. When you pay with credit and you know you’re putting off a payment until some vague time in the distant future, it gets really easy to spend money… too easy.

Brad, I am actually impressed with your conservative views as I have disagreed with Bush’s spending policy. The only problem with what you say is that the Democrats have been, and still are the biggest spenders ever. What will happen is that the Democrats will raise our taxes – because they always do, and will cut defense spending – because they always do – but they will increase social welfare programs – because they always do.

We will therefore be more vulerable to the terrorists, weaker around the globe, while being robbed of more of our individual wealth. After years of this, the republicans will come back into power to fix the whole mess as did Reagan when had to fix the mess left by Jimmy Carter.[/quote]

Spending increased astronomically when the republicans took over the house.

17

In your 230 odd years history, how many times has it happened that the 3rd in line to be president actually did go on to eventually become president?

Assuming that Pelosi couldn’t do the job, couldn’t she simply do like Bush does? Read the fucking speeches she’d be given and avoid answering questions she hadn’t been prepped for in advance? It’s obvious from Bush that any stupid moron can hold that office, no matter how much a fuck-up his previous record shows him/her to be.

18

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Democrats will raise our taxes – because they always do, and will cut defense spending – because they always do – but they will increase social welfare programs – because they always do.[/quote]

So spending less on armaments and more on your very own people is a bad thing? Okaayyy…

19

[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Democrats will raise our taxes – because they always do, and will cut defense spending – because they always do – but they will increase social welfare programs – because they always do.

So spending less on armaments and more on your very own people is a bad thing? Okaayyy…
[/quote]

I think what Steveo is trying to say, is that the government should not be in the charity business. They’ve shown themselves to not be very efficient at it.

The government shouldn’t be in the retirement business either. There’s quite a few operations that the government shouldn’t be involved in, but…I guess that depends on your political ideoligy.

20

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I think what Steveo is trying to say, is that the government should not be in the charity business. They’ve shown themselves to not be very efficient at it.[/quote]

Why not work at being more efficient at it then? For a lot of people, the choice will be between inefficient government help and nothing at all.

Seems to me that most of the right’s policies tend to maintain or increase social injustices and inequalities. I’m all for responsible individuals who take charge of their own lives; but I also think that at some point, there’s a minimum that should be guaranteed by a society that considers itself just and fair.

Following your logic of getting the government out of every business where it’s not efficient, shouldn’t you also quit that war business? For all the untold billions that get swallowed up in those endeavors, the results sure aren’t there. Was is worth 1.5 trillions, over half a million civilian lives, and nearly 3000 of your own troops just to get rid of Saddam? Wouldn’t a “retirement gift” of 10 billions to have him go live out the rest of his life on some island in the Pacific have achieved the same result and a lot more cheaply?