Pelosi followup: Yes, the US DOEs seem to influence..

'fog, what about the Republicans and other Democratic politicians who accompanied the Speaker on this trip? Are they exempt from your vitriol? Why? Because they're men? Because they don't represent San Francisco?

I also noticed that since her visit, the USDOD shut down US Military access to YouTube and MySpace -- is that suppression of free speech also down to her, or did it just happen afterwards?

You guys are so desperate to deflect attention from the fact that the president is losing the support of the American people -- including all wings of the Republican Party -- so you drag out the fear that Neocons have of intelligent women, especially those who have "San Francisco values."

Sad and pathetic.

 

Ah, the president's favorite verb: emboldened. And also the president's favorite form of logic: none.

Syria is a sovereign nation. Why would they have to feel emboldened in order to carry out some domestic policies? Makes no sense.

And I do criticize Democrats all the time. The problem has been for the last six years that I've had precious few Democrats to criticize: my governor, both senators, the majorities in the house and Senate have all been Republicans. Since the election, the major problem with Congress leading is that the president's version of compromise is "give me everything I want or I'll veto." Shame on those Congressional Democrats for sending the president a bill that called for spending on body armor and improved medical treatment for wounded vets. How could they expect GWB to sign THAT bill?

 

And yet, I have never read any of those blogs. Amazing, isn't it?

My point about the body armor and the medical care was to illustrate an example of the difference between (a) things happening sequentially and (b) cause and effect. In other words, blogs shut down in Syria happened after Pelosi's visit. There's no argument there. Also, the president vetoed an Iraq funding bill ONLY after the Democrats had passed increased funding for body armor and increased long-term medical care [two things notably missing from Republican bills].

1. You are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the Syrians reacted as they did BECAUSE of Pelosi's visit.

2. You are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the increased funding for taking care of the troops HAD NOTHING TO DO with the president's veto.

Don't you see even the slightest bit of irony there?

Also, if you want to bar me from reading and responding to your threads, all you have to do is ask.

 

To quote your personal hero, "there you go again."

I do not hate the president. I have never said that I hate the president. Hating doesn't come that easy to me. I have problems with much that he does, and I have significant problems with the Big Government Big Deficit NeoCons who have been manipulating him since he became a presidential candidate. I criticize him and his positions often; I don't hesitate and I never will. That's my responsibility as a citizen.

But let's draw a distinction: in contrast to right-wing commentators and letter-to-the-editor writers during the Clinton administration, I don't believe that America has been "Held Hostage" since November 2000. I have never accused the first lady of being a lesbian, and I have never referred to either of the president's daughters as "the presidential dog." Also, I have never claimed that the head of a lobbying group was "My President."

I always refer to the President of the United States as "the president" or as "GWB [for brevity and contrast from his father]." That's called "respect" not "hate." That's how intelligent and polite discourse works, pard.