Democrats Take Control; What's With Pelosi?

[SDW2001]

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070104-120948-2278r.htm

I don't know if it's the media coverage causing a perception, or what she's actually saying, but something strikes me as odd about her statements. From the article:

"We have waited over 200 years for this time to come,"

Well...I guess. I realize there has never been a female speaker, but I thought the election was about her party taking control? She seems to be overly focused on this one event.

"We will not just break through a glass ceiling, we will break through a marble ceiling," she said. "In more than 200 years of history, there was an established pecking order -- and I cut in line."

OK, now that's getting a little creepy. The election wasn't about having a female speaker. At least, I've not heard anyone who thinks so.

After calling herself "the most powerful woman in America," Mrs. Pelosi flexed her right muscle like a weight lifter to much applause at an event yesterday titled a "women's tea."

This is the Wash Times we're talking about, so I'd like to know in what context she called herself that. Unless it was purely intended for humor, I can't see that being an appropriate (nor gracious) statement. I've been watching the coverage since the election, and to me it's almost like she's frozen in time at the moment they declared victory on election night. She said "Democrats are ready to lead" (and you may remember I took issue with that concept of elected representatives "leading"). I realize there will always be a lot of platitudes in politics, but it almost seems as if she's gloating and caught up in herself at the moment. That's especially odd, since she got slammed on the majority leader issue. I would have thought she'd take it easy with the rhetoric after that.

Your thoughts?

[Kickaha]

It does seem awfully grandstanding of her, given that there are much larger issues for her to face and overcome than this, given her new position.

Historic, yes. Important, yes. Good to see, yes.

But in the overall scheme of things, for gender equality to be taken seriously, it needs to be considered business as usual, not the unusual event.

Eh, let her have a day in the sun, as long as they get to business tomorrow. I think it's much more important to view this in the political aspects than the gender one. *shrug*

[Kickaha]

I suspect this is just going to get muddy, but what the hell.

In my opinion, the best way to demonstrate equality between any two groups is to just... do it. Don't make a big point of it. IMO, we should be long past the point where a woman doing *any* particular job is news. Yeah, there are still a lot of folks who find it incomprehensible, but y'know, that's their problem. I just take it as a given that women can do the same jobs. *shrug*

So yeah, it's historic, it's a first, yadda yadda yadda, but I'm *already* tired of the news articles focussing on her gender, instead of what Congress is going to do now. Her gender is irrelevant, IMO, as it should be, if there is to be actual equality.

And I think it's precisely the media coverage, rather than Pelosi herself, that is causing this reaction in me. SDW2001 suggested that in his first sentence, and I think he's likely right.

[Carol A]

I would like to see video coverage of her remarks in order to hear the tone she used.

If she said the words "I cut in line" with a big grin on her face, and the obvious intention of being humorous, I think that would be okay, and a fun thing to say.

If she said those words *seriously*... um... then - as a female - I would cringe. Such a comment would be *way* too self-centered and self-aggrandizing.

Again, if she flexed her muscle and *humorously* claimed to be "the most powerful woman in America," I would laugh at and enjoy the statement.

But if she said it seriously, I would be embarrassed - for her and for all women. :\

Yes, history has been made, and I am very glad about it. My fondest wish is that she will use her well-honed feminine skills to encourage the necessary compromises for a flood of sorely-needed legislation to benefit this nation.

But it shouldn't be *about her* after today. Just my opinion.

[Kickaha]

Uh, Shawn, I think you are GREATLY misinterpreting my position, but... whatever.

Equality: good.
Inequality: bad.

We'll know that we've reached true equality in our society when it *CEASES BEING NEWS*. That's all. News indicates an abnormality, an unusual occurrence, or something 'strange'. When we see a woman as Speaker of the House, President, etc, etc, and *no body says a damned thing*, I'll be one ecstatic camper, because it'll mean that it's just the norm, and we've finally gotten where we need to be.

I don't know, nor do I really care at this point, what 'problem' you think I'm closing my eyes to, and I'm going to chalk this up to a misunderstanding when we're in violent agreement.

[Kickaha]

Eh, maybe. Or they may just be overeager. Whatever.

[hardeeharhar]

What is with the arrival of AN personalities to this thread?

Edit:

Look out he is going in for the jugular:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/04/us/04congress_slide7.jpg

[icfireball]

Nanci Pelosi did talk VERY specifically about many of the important issues. And it is ok that she talked about her being the first women speaker of the house. This is history, and it is important in showing that women are more equal to men than they were 5 years ago, let alone 80 years ago.

[SDW2001]

I'm beginning to think these news organizations are *trying* to provoke a backlash.

Could be. But then again she is saying what she's saying. I didn't really think much of it for about a month. I thought it was the normal victory lap stuff. But it doesn't seem to be stopping. Maybe it will as they settle in.

[jimmac]

Could be. But then again she is saying what she's saying. I didn't really think much of it for about a month. I thought it was the normal victory lap stuff. But it doesn't seem to be stopping. Maybe it will as they settle in.


Oh. Is something bothering you?;)

[100mph]

... What's With Pelosi?

It doesn’t matter … as long as she rips republican a$$e$ apart for supporting these Military Industrial gangs:

1 (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083/)
2 (http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1218-03.htm)
3 (http://iraqforsale.org/profiteers.php)

;)

[Gilsch]

Oh. Is something bothering you?;)
:lol: :lol:

Too funny. Man, that's two minutes of my life down the toilet. :\

[Chucker]

In my opinion, the best way to demonstrate equality between any two groups is to just... do it. Don't make a big point of it. IMO, we should be long past the point where a woman doing *any* particular job is news.

Bingo.

[SDW2001]

Oh. Is something bothering you?;)

Not really, no. It ironically has nothing to do with her policies. Her conduct just seems odd to me. I don't have much more to say on it than I already did.

[dmz]

You guys need to realize that the only thing that has changed in D.C. is the spin.

[jimmac]

You guys need to realize that the only thing that has changed in D.C. is the spin.


Well that and the fact that the conservatives are no longer in charge.;)

[@_@ Artman]

You know why she wore purple at her swearing in? It was the color of the Suffragette Movement. Got to admit, she's using all the points that a politician can use to express her message. Good luck gentle lady. You'll need it. :smokey:

[dmz]

Well that and the fact that the conservatives are no longer in charge.;)
Either way, what's the difference? An economically illiterate "minimum wage increase for the poor" that is really there to buy Union votes?

Ohhhhhh noooooo, that's not pork. :no:

They'll argue about taxes while the Federal bloat goes on at exponentially expanding rates, and with it the Federal tentacles. Meanwhile Murdock plays bad cop and Redstone plays good cop -- keeping the masses distracted with a fake D.C. 'conflict.'

[jimmac]

Either way, what's the difference? An economically illiterate "minimum wage increase for the poor" that is really there to buy Union votes?

Ohhhhhh noooooo, that's not pork. :no:

They'll argue about taxes while the Federal bloat goes on at exponentially expanding rates, and with it the Federal tentacles. Meanwhile Murdock plays bad cop and Redstone plays good cop -- keeping the masses distracted with a fake D.C. 'conflict.'


Excuse me but if you want to talk about most dollars spent on useless things let's look at our fearless leader ( you know the guy who's supposed to be a conservative republican ).

Talk about keeping the " masses distracted " with his useless wars.......

He thinks he still has some power but now he's a blowhard lame duck ( quack! ).

And that just kind of makes me feel all good inside!;)

[franksargent]

:smokey:

It's all a Fem-ah-Nazi conspiracy I tell you, vote HRC in '08!

:smokey:

[FormerLurker]

Well, according to one of my inside sources
;)
the Dems really know how to throw a party, anyway:
As you may have heard, there was a very unusual musical gathering last night to celebrate the election of the first ever female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Without getting into the politics of a $1,000 per person fete, the nicknamed “House Band” for the event was a version of the Dead, featuring Bob Weir, Mickey Hart, Bill Kreutzman, and Bruce Hornsby. Missing players Phil and Jerry were substituted for by Mike Gordon of Phish and Warren Haynes of too many things to name. Pretty humorous to see most of the band wearing sport coats and button down shirts for the performance (Mickey apparently remains a non-conformist).

Show started with a rockin’ bass line explosion for the start of Shakedown Street. Good strong version with Warren playing appropriate guitar tones. Next up was Truckin’ which was given about a one minute jam at the end. Bob, recognizing the moment, slyly sidled up to the mike and said ”we did the Reader’s Digest version.” Nothing like knowing your audience, I guess. Third tune was introduced by Bruce as “a song I wrote with Don Henley” and the band played a nice version of End of The Innocence. The closer of the short but sweet first set was Touch of Grey, which was seemingly appropo of both the moment (lyrically) and of the guys in the band (physical appearances).

The second set started with Bruce playing a solo version of That’s The Way It Is, followed by the band coming onstage for a really strong version of the Beatles’ Come Together. Next up was Warren doing lead vocals for U.S. Blues, which was a romp and very upbeat. I don’t think the humor was lost on the crowd, either. The closing number saw Wyclef Jean join the band onstage and Mickey come front and center to announce that the next number was a show of support for New Orleans, which led the band into an elongated version of Iko Iko.

Overall, the band seemed to really enjoy themselves and played well. The crowd was largely receptive, with shots on the large overhead screens of Leader Pelosi and other Members and notables dancing away.

Afterwards, we were treated to some rap and dance music by Wyclef’s band and then a short set from Carol King.

[thuh Freak]

Cool. Where'd you hear that?

[FormerLurker]

Cool. Where'd you hear that?
The quote was direct from a friend who was there.

[midwinter]

Get a job.

[SDW2001]

Get a job.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[midwinter]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I said it just for fun.

[SDW2001]

I said it just for fun.

I'm aware...best line ever!

:lol:

[midwinter]

I'm aware...best line ever!

:lol:

Yet another joke of mine that only one other person gets. ;)

[thuh Freak]

Yet another joke of mine that only one other person gets. ;)

I lol'd.

[midwinter]

I lol'd.

Aw, you're just trying to make me feel better. ;)

[hardeeharhar]

Unfortunately, I have a tendency of reading threads backwards, so I didn't get the joke.

[SDW2001]

Unfortunately, I have a tendency of reading threads backwards, so I didn't get the joke.

The "folks" were going off about how awesome the Dem's party was. I believe mid's comment was directed at this description of the Dem's party:

As you may have heard, there was a very unusual musical gathering last night to celebrate the election of the first ever female Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco. Without getting into the politics of a $1,000 per person fete, the nicknamed “House Band” for the event was a version of the Dead, featuring Bob Weir, Mickey Hart, Bill Kreutzman, and Bruce Hornsby. Missing players Phil and Jerry were substituted for by Mike Gordon of Phish and Warren Haynes of too many things to name. Pretty humorous to see most of the band wearing sport coats and button down shirts for the performance (Mickey apparently remains a non-conformist).

Show started with a rockin’ bass line explosion for the start of Shakedown Street. Good strong version with Warren playing appropriate guitar tones. Next up was Truckin’ which was given about a one minute jam at the end. Bob, recognizing the moment, slyly sidled up to the mike and said ”we did the Reader’s Digest version.” Nothing like knowing your audience, I guess. Third tune was introduced by Bruce as “a song I wrote with Don Henley” and the band played a nice version of End of The Innocence. The closer of the short but sweet first set was Touch of Grey, which was seemingly appropo of both the moment (lyrically) and of the guys in the band (physical appearances).

The second set started with Bruce playing a solo version of That’s The Way It Is, followed by the band coming onstage for a really strong version of the Beatles’ Come Together. Next up was Warren doing lead vocals for U.S. Blues, which was a romp and very upbeat. I don’t think the humor was lost on the crowd, either. The closing number saw Wyclef Jean join the band onstage and Mickey come front and center to announce that the next number was a show of support for New Orleans, which led the band into an elongated version of Iko Iko.

Overall, the band seemed to really enjoy themselves and played well. The crowd was largely receptive, with shots on the large overhead screens of Leader Pelosi and other Members and notables dancing away.

Afterwards, we were treated to some rap and dance music by Wyclef’s band and then a short set from Carol King.

[FormerLurker]

Yeah - because everyone who attended the $1,000 per person party needs to put down the bong, get a haircut and a job, and take a damn bath...

:lol:

:err:

[midwinter]

Standing in line marking time--
Waiting for the welfare dime
'Cause they can't buy a job
The man in the silk suit hurries by
As he catches the poor old ladies' eyes
Just for fun he says "Get a job"

[hardeeharhar]

Ok... middy... I am not sure other people actually got the Bruce Hornsby reference...

[Gilsch]

Speaking of funny....what was funny was some not getting the Hornsby reference but assuming what Midwinter posted meant somehing else. :lol: :lol:

Brilliant.

[Gilsch]

Speaking of funny....what was funny was some not getting the Hornsby reference but assuming what Midwinter posted meant somehing else. :lol: :lol:

Brilliant. Some things will never change.

[midwinter]

Speaking of funny....what was funny was some not getting the Hornsby reference but assuming what Midwinter posted meant somehing else. :lol: :lol:

Brilliant.

I'm deep that way.

[Gilsch]

I'm deep that way.
Not fair. You deleted my reference to BH. Tsk tsk tsk.

[midwinter]

Not fair. You deleted my reference to BH. Tsk tsk tsk.

I didn't realize you were in charge of allusions around here. Did you really think about it before you made the rules? ;)

[addabox]

I think Speaker Pelosi should go seriously butch-- severe short haircut, fatigues and combat boots, flannel shirt with the sleeves off over a wife beater-- and hold a press conference the entire content of which is "We've come for your balls, motherfuckers", delivered in a harsh snarl. Then she could kick the podium over, and head for the door while yelling "No questions, dickwads!"

Because not only would that be awesome, but because it would cause at least half of the stupidest assholes in America to have their heads explode.

[midwinter]

I think Speaker Pelosi should go seriously butch-- severe short haircut, fatigues and combat boots, flannel shirt with the sleeves off over a wife beater-- and hold a press conference the entire content of which is "We've come for your balls, motherfuckers", delivered in a harsh snarl. Then she could kick the podium over, and head for the door while yelling "No questions, dickwads!"

Because not only would that be awesome, but because it would cause at least half of the stupidest assholes in America to have their heads explode.

Don't forget the platform:

mandatory abortions
mandatory gay marriage

but there's one more thing:

we're coming for your guns.

Edit:

I forgot this one: all American troops are now overseen by the UN.

[spindler]

This whole "She's a woman" thing is so dumb.

Most Americans aren't even thinking twice that there is now a woman house speaker. Sure there might be 20% of Americans who are 50 years behind, but other than that it is a non-event.

The only big deal here is that a woman was able to rise through the old boy network of politians. That was the hard part, not getting past the American voter.

[SDW2001]

I think Speaker Pelosi should go seriously butch-- severe short haircut, fatigues and combat boots, flannel shirt with the sleeves off over a wife beater-- and hold a press conference the entire content of which is "We've come for your balls, motherfuckers", delivered in a harsh snarl. Then she could kick the podium over, and head for the door while yelling "No questions, dickwads!"

Because not only would that be awesome, but because it would cause at least half of the stupidest assholes in America to have their heads explode.

While that would be truly hilarious, I think your second statement pretty much shows that you think of anyone who disagrees with your views.

[Bergermeister]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I thought both parts were rather funny, and sometimes wish the latter one really would happen. Easy way to lower the population, which would do wonders for the environment.

[addabox]

While that would be truly hilarious, I think your second statement pretty much shows that you think of anyone who disagrees with your views.

Yeah. We all dream of one day achieving your level of broad minded acceptance of opposing viewpoints. Still, somehow we manage to soldier on.

[midwinter]

Yeah. We all dream of one day achieving your level of broad minded acceptance of opposing viewpoints. Still, somehow we manage to soldier on.

Clearly you are a liberal. Which I say sneeringly. And by which I mean "I suspect you may have eaten a baby earlier today."

[addabox]

Clearly you are a liberal. Which I say sneeringly. And by which I mean "I suspect you may have eaten a baby earlier today."

Which is not a partisan attack as such suspicions are well founded. On account of the objectively true liberal penchant for baby eating.

[SDW2001]

Yeah. We all dream of one day achieving your level of broad minded acceptance of opposing viewpoints. Still, somehow we manage to soldier on.

"Broad minded acceptance" of other viewpoints is nothing other than the lack of a well thought out viewpoint of one's own. It also doesn't have to serve as a blanket excuse for accepting outrageous and truly radical views.

But beyond that, I seriously doubt that I categorize my opposition quite the way you characterize yours. There are plenty of people that I strongly disagree with...people with whom I maintain friendships, and/or whom I respect. On the other hand, it's pretty clear what your view of "the folks" is.

[addabox]

"Broad minded acceptance" of other viewpoints is nothing other than the lack of a well thought out viewpoint of one's own. It also doesn't have to serve as a blanket excuse for accepting outrageous and truly radical views.

Well, there you go. By defining things you don't agree with as "outrageous and truly radical" you get to pretend like your prejudices and petty hatreds are nothing of the kind, merely common sense. Conversely, if I take exception to something you believe it's evidence of my extreme partisanship and irrational rage.

What's really fun is that even noticing this is evidence of my extreme partisanship and irrational rage.

But beyond that, I seriously doubt that I categorize my opposition quite the way you characterize yours.

Certainly not. I have reasons I articulate. You pretty much stick with "what you're saying is a lie and you know it" or "I can't believe I'm reading this, so extreme and insane it is".

There are plenty of people that I strongly disagree with...people with hom I maintain friendships, and/or whom I respect.

That's lovely and moderate of you. Also, respectful and friendly. Except when you're not. But who can blame you, having to respond to outrageous extremists?

Obviously, everyone I disagree with is dead or on my list. On account of the rage.

On the other hand, it's pretty clear what your view of "the folks" is.


"The folks"? You mean as in decent, average, moderate Americans? Well, duh. I'm a vile elitist liberal godless dog that thinks he's smarter than all the hardworking tax payers in the heartland. Not that characterizing me that way is in any way intolerant or rude or disrespectful, since all the good moderate people know it's objectively true.

[midwinter]

"The folks"? You mean as in decent, average, moderate Americans? Well, duh. I'm a vile elitist liberal godless dog that thinks he's smarter than all the hardworking tax payers in the heartland. Not that characterizing me that way is in any way intolerant or rude or disrespectful, since all the good moderate people know it's objectively true.

HOW DARE YOU DENY YOUR HOMELAND BY CLAIMING YOU'RE FROM THE "HEARTLAND"!!! YOU'RE FROM THE DEEP SOUTH AND YOU KNOW IT!!! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT PEOPLE IN THE DEEP SOUTH PAY WAY MORE IN TAXES AND LOVES AMERICA MORE THAN ELITIST PINKO LIBERAL COMMIES!!! AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON PINHEAD ACADEMICS! EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THEY'RE SO DISCONNECTED FROM THE COMMON PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T BUY GAS OR PAY TAXES OR HAVE BILLS OR ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!1!!!!!!! ein!!!!!!!

[Bergermeister]

"Broad minded acceptance" of other viewpoints is nothing other than the lack of a well thought out viewpoint of one's own.

Uh, no.

[midwinter]

Uh, no.

Oh come on. Everyone knows that the acceptance of differing viewpoints as potentially valid is exactly the opposite of having a well-reasoned viewpoint of your own! Clearly, you eat babies.

[hardeeharhar]

You know what I always liked about eating babies... their fingers twitching as you swallow their arms whole...

Like a tickle from god, herself...

[addabox]

Mmmmmmm............baby arms.........

[pfflam]

Ahhh . . . I loves it all.


(6385+ posts!!? That's what happens when I turn my back)

[franksargent]

Is that all you so called liberals do is eat babies? Where I live in the US we call those people conservatives!

Over here the moderates go about effin' fetuses!

And the liberals, why they eff'em, then eat'em, then regurgitate'em, then feed'em to their young!

[midwinter]

Ahhh . . . I loves it all.


(6385+ posts!!? That's what happens when I turn my back)

I had a lot of grading to do. You know how it is...giant stack of papers to grade vs PO.

[Bergermeister]

You mean there's a choice?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I just saw pfflam make a post.

Treasure it. Relish it, people.

[jimmac]

"Broad minded acceptance" of other viewpoints is nothing other than the lack of a well thought out viewpoint of one's own. It also doesn't have to serve as a blanket excuse for accepting outrageous and truly radical views.

But beyond that, I seriously doubt that I categorize my opposition quite the way you characterize yours. There are plenty of people that I strongly disagree with...people with whom I maintain friendships, and/or whom I respect. On the other hand, it's pretty clear what your view of "the folks" is.

]"Broad minded acceptance" of other viewpoints is nothing other than the lack of a well thought out viewpoint of one's own. "

And what prey tell is your resorting to name calling?:lol:

Also I'm pretty sure your categorization of your own viewpoint bears little or no resemblance to other's or reality.

[jimmac]

Is that all you so called liberals do is eat babies? Where I live in the US we call those people conservatives!

Over here the moderates go about effin' fetuses!

And the liberals, why they eff'em, then eat'em, then regurgitate'em, then feed'em to their young!


Pass the stem cells!

Burp!:lol:

[FormerLurker]

Pass the stem cells!

Burp!:lol:
Eating stem cells?

Now that's just WRONG!!!








You've obviously never tried snorting stem cells. Ahh, the RUSH!

[Hassan i Sabbah]

So invigorating. But I had to give up when I just couldn't hide I was growing a second nose.

[SDW2001]

Well, there you go. By defining things you don't agree with as "outrageous and truly radical" you get to pretend like your prejudices and petty hatreds are nothing of the kind, merely common sense. Conversely, if I take exception to something you believe it's evidence of my extreme partisanship and irrational rage.

What's really fun is that even noticing this is evidence of my extreme partisanship and irrational rage.



Certainly not. I have reasons I articulate. You pretty much stick with "what you're saying is a lie and you know it" or "I can't believe I'm reading this, so extreme and insane it is".



That's lovely and moderate of you. Also, respectful and friendly. Except when you're not. But who can blame you, having to respond to outrageous extremists?

Obviously, everyone I disagree with is dead or on my list. On account of the rage.




"The folks"? You mean as in decent, average, moderate Americans? Well, duh. I'm a vile elitist liberal godless dog that thinks he's smarter than all the hardworking tax payers in the heartland. Not that characterizing me that way is in any way intolerant or rude or disrespectful, since all the good moderate people know it's objectively true.


When something strikes me as radical, I label it as such. The term doesn't apply to all views that differ from mine. Secondly, I frequently no..constantly) articulate specific reasons I agree or disagree with a statement. True, there are statements I simply laugh at or dismiss as insanity. Example: "George Bush hates the poor, and black people...especially black poor people." I don't think any reasonable person would believe such a thing. That's exactly that kind of statement I would dismiss as irrational and non-thinking.

As for the "folks," I'm merely saying you've made yourself clear on numerous occasions. It's ironic in the extreme really, because while you attack me for a lack of accepting other points of view, you condescend to those you disagree with. The implication is that if someone has another point of view (particularly a conservative one), he cannot possibly think for himself.

[Bergermeister]

Wow, counter to my heretofore understanding of myself, I must be an irrational, non-thinking unreasonable person because I believe that GW hates poor people and black people and therefore poor black people. In fact, I believe he hates (or at least doesn't give a damn about and probably thinks they are hinderances to his advancement) most anyone outside of his crony group. I also believe lots of other things about GW, but have never labeled anyone who believes differently with any titles.

[SDW2001]

Wow, counter to my heretofore understanding of myself, I must be an irrational, non-thinking unreasonable person because I believe that GW hates poor people and black people and therefore poor black people. In fact, I believe he hates (or at least doesn't give a damn about and probably thinks they are hinderances to his advancement) most anyone outside of his crony group. I also believe lots of other things about GW, but have never labeled anyone who believes differently with any titles.

Well, then you're irrational. GWB has more minorities in high ranking administration positions than any past President. Rice, Powell, Paige are all examples. There is nothing to suggest that he hates black people or poor people. In fact, his tax cuts have benefited the overall economy and the lower tax brackets significantly. What causes you to think what you do?

[Bergermeister]

Can you read?


I thnk I will increase the membership of my ignore list by one.

[jimmac]

Eating stem cells?

Now that's just WRONG!!!








You've obviously never tried snorting stem cells. Ahh, the RUSH!

:lol:

[Celemourn]

I suspect this is just going to get muddy, but what the hell.

In my opinion, the best way to demonstrate equality between any two groups is to just... do it. Don't make a big point of it. IMO, we should be long past the point where a woman doing *any* particular job is news. Yeah, there are still a lot of folks who find it incomprehensible, but y'know, that's their problem. I just take it as a given that women can do the same jobs. *shrug*

So yeah, it's historic, it's a first, yadda yadda yadda, but I'm *already* tired of the news articles focussing on her gender, instead of what Congress is going to do now. Her gender is irrelevant, IMO, as it should be, if there is to be actual equality.

And I think it's precisely the media coverage, rather than Pelosi herself, that is causing this reaction in me. SDW2001 suggested that in his first sentence, and I think he's likely right.

seconded.

[Celemourn]

When something strikes me as radical...

Ok. Think about that for a sec.







Done? Great. Now go read your previous posts.

[jimmac]

Good hit the nail on the head sort of news article.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/23/sotu.democrats/index.html

[jimmac]

Well, then you're irrational. GWB has more minorities in high ranking administration positions than any past President. Rice, Powell, Paige are all examples. There is nothing to suggest that he hates black people or poor people. In fact, his tax cuts have benefited the overall economy and the lower tax brackets significantly. What causes you to think what you do?


Geez! SDW just because he has these people on his payrole doesn't mean his policies reflect that. The tax cuts only helped a little once. After that it was just an attempt get favor from the american people. We have a lop sided economy with most of the favor going toward the rich. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.