NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/pelosi.waterboarding/


"I think that the House has an absolute obligation to open an inquiry, and I hope there will be a resolution to investigate her. And I think this is a big deal. I don't think the speaker of the House can lie to the country on national security matters," the Republican leader said in an interview with ABC Radio.

Im inclined to agree with Newt. I must say, however, how amused I am that the Newt was rather silent when it was the Bush White House lying to the country, and I dont recall him ever asking for an inquery into the Bush Admin.

But, that would mean Newt is a partisan hack desperatly trying to maintain some degree of political relevence after the country decided they no longer required (or wanted) his services.

Which is pretty much the case.

Anyway, what say NSG?

newt is right. if anything turns up during the investigation/persecution of bush admin officials, by all means, follow those leads!

Why is everyone banging on about this Pepsi woman?

investigate pelosi for what?

newt is right. if anything turns up during the investigation/persecution of bush admin officials, by all means, follow those leads!

Silly Free Soviets, you misread what he wanted. He only wants an investigation of democrats.


I think that this will show once again the honesty of the American left compared to the dishonesty of the American right. Im willing to bet we will see more right wing politicians calling for Pelosi's head (because she is SO PARTISAN AND HURTZ THEIR FEELIN'S!!!11!) yet these same people will fly into a fit of rage whenever someone suggests that the Bush Admin officials and CIA heads face investigation and prosecution.

While Im willing to bet just as much that the American left will be calling for all their heads, no matter what party affiliation.

Im willing to bet big money that any minute now one of the resident NSGers on the hard right will come out from under his bridge and demand Pelosi be investigated. Im also willing to bet that this same NSGer will mostly likely have been someone who screamed 'BUT BUSH PROTECTED 'MERIKA!1!' when it was suggested he and his kabal be punished.

EDIT: You know what else is funny? Wasnt Newt one of the goons he screamed about how releasing the torture memos was BAD because it HURT AMERICA? Wasnt he one of the ones who always said that torture KEPT US SAFE?

Yet....its ok now to invesitage someone because they have a (D) in front of their name, and it was bad of her to agree even though it KEPT US SAFE?

Typical intellectually dishonest right wing tripe.

Why is everyone banging on about this Pepsi woman?

she drives right-wingers insane.

also, she's one of the most powerful people in USia, at least in terms of elected officials.

investigate pelosi for what?

apparently calling the cia a pack of liars is treason or something now

apparently calling the cia a pack of liars is treason or something now

Things would've been so much easier for them if MKULTRA had worked.

apparently calling the cia a pack of liars is treason or something now
it would be good to investigate just what the congress was told by the cia and how well it matches up with the truth.

I think that this will show once again the honesty of the American left compared to the dishonesty of the American right. Im willing to bet we will see more right wing politicians calling for Pelosi's head (because she is SO PARTISAN AND HURTZ THEIR FEELIN'S!!!11!) yet these same people will fly into a fit of rage whenever someone suggests that the Bush Admin officials and CIA heads face investigation and prosecution.

While Im willing to bet just as much that the American left will be calling for all their heads, no matter what party affiliation.\

Please lend me your crystal ball. I need it for something... personal.

I don't really foresee the democrats giving up partisanship out of some grand altruistic motive. They're politicians, and politicians do what is best for them.

Things would've been so much easier for them if MKULTRA had worked.

*Drags Terra away in a dark van*

Who said it didn't? :wink:

Newt is a moron.

If Pelosi is investigated, it'll open the door for the MANY MORE Republican criminals to be investigated as well. I'd gladly sacrifice Pelosi to destroy Bush, Cheney, and many other Republicans, active and not so. Pelosi's from a Democratic state, she'd be replaced by a Democrat. The other Republicans might well not all be from Republican states.

Why is everyone banging on about this Pepsi woman?

Because, we Wanted Coke, and all they serve is Pepsi, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/dry.gif

I mean, look at what theyre doin to the poor guys with the Pepsi-Lady's consent:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-dead-coke-can-pepsi-cans.jpg

Kinda dumb since it has already been made clear that "waterboarding" was not mentioned in that 2002 report to Pelosi. But if they want an investigation then I say "Knock yourself out Newt!"

"Knock yourself out Newt!"

Preferably down some stairs, resulting in a persistent vegetative state. Terry's Law wouldn't sound like such a good idea now, would it? :D

Silly Free Soviets, you misread what he wanted. He only wants an investigation of democrats.


I think that this will show once again the honesty of the American left compared to the dishonesty of the American right. Im willing to bet we will see more right wing politicians calling for Pelosi's head (because she is SO PARTISAN AND HURTZ THEIR FEELIN'S!!!11!) yet these same people will fly into a fit of rage whenever someone suggests that the Bush Admin officials and CIA heads face investigation and prosecution.

While Im willing to bet just as much that the American left will be calling for all their heads, no matter what party affiliation.

Im willing to bet big money that any minute now one of the resident NSGers on the hard right will come out from under his bridge and demand Pelosi be investigated. Im also willing to bet that this same NSGer will mostly likely have been someone who screamed 'BUT BUSH PROTECTED 'MERIKA!1!' when it was suggested he and his kabal be punished.

EDIT: You know what else is funny? Wasnt Newt one of the goons he screamed about how releasing the torture memos was BAD because it HURT AMERICA? Wasnt he one of the ones who always said that torture KEPT US SAFE?

Yet....its ok now to invesitage someone because they have a (D) in front of their name, and it was bad of her to agree even though it KEPT US SAFE?

Typical intellectually dishonest right wing tripe.
Although you stated the following:

Im inclined to agree with Newt.
You turned it into bashing him.

Now what is it that you agree with, and do you want Pelosi investigated?

BTW, your link is broken.

Because, we Wanted Coke, and all they serve is Pepsi, http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/html/emoticons/dry.gif

I mean, look at what theyre doin to the poor guys with the Pepsi-Lady's consent:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-dead-coke-can-pepsi-cans.jpg

That is the greatest picture I've ever seen.

Oh Leroy, you are such a moron. :p

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/ ... rboarding/




Im inclined to agree with Newt. I must say, however, how amused I am that the Newt was rather silent when it was the Bush White House lying to the country, and I dont recall him ever asking for an inquery into the Bush Admin.

But, that would mean Newt is a partisan hack desperatly trying to maintain some degree of political relevence after the country decided they no longer required (or wanted) his services.

Which is pretty much the case.

Anyway, what say NSG?

I say that MSNBC needs to start cutting back on their writers.

Between Newt, Rush, Steele and Cheney, Olbermann's show is writing it's self, at the moment.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/15/ ... rboarding/




Im inclined to agree with Newt. I must say, however, how amused I am that the Newt was rather silent when it was the Bush White House lying to the country, and I dont recall him ever asking for an inquery into the Bush Admin.

But, that would mean Newt is a partisan hack desperatly trying to maintain some degree of political relevence after the country decided they no longer required (or wanted) his services.

Which is pretty much the case.

Anyway, what say NSG?
People we shouldn't investigate: George W Bush who supported torture and Dick Cheney who is actively advocating that we use torture

People we should investigate: Nancy Pelosi who was briefed by the CIA in 2002 probably not about using torture

The Republicans are hoping if they shout loud enough people won't realize they are out of their god damn minds. Luckily for them journalists are idiots and are hyping the "investigate Nancy Pelosi!" bait & switch instead of the "CHENEY IS SAYING WE SHOULD TORTURE PEOPLE!"

investigate pelosi for what?

Not being a Republican, what else?

Please lend me your crystal ball. I need it for something... personal.

I don't really foresee the democrats giving up partisanship out of some grand altruistic motive. They're politicians, and politicians do what is best for them.

Youve mistaken me. I said 'left wing Americans'. Not 'democrats'.

Although you stated the following:


You turned it into bashing him.

Now what is it that you agree with, and do you want Pelosi investigated?

BTW, your link is broken.

Of course Im bashing him, he's a twit. Ill bash him all I want.

And I said, flat out, I agree Pelosi should be investigated and punished if she signed off on warcrimes.

But, I know this dance. This is the part where you pretend I said something different and troll me.

Youve mistaken me. I said 'left wing Americans'. Not 'democrats'.

My bad. A clever distinction.

How left wing? You go far enough, and you'll find dishonesty on both sides.

Silly Free Soviets, you misread what he wanted. He only wants an investigation of democrats.


Didn't you get the memo.

They are no longer the democratic party; they are the democratic socialist party!

Dirty commie muslim baby killing gay lovers!

Of course Im bashing him, he's a twit. Ill bash him all I want.

And I said, flat out, I agree Pelosi should be investigated and punished if she signed off on warcrimes.

But, I know this dance. This is the part where you pretend I said something different and troll me.
Hey, I am no Newt fan but the way you sucker punch suggests that you can't look at the reason you agree with him in a conscientious manner.

Wait... why are people still paying attention to Newt? Is it 1997?

Hey, I am no Newt fan but the way you sucker punch suggests that you can't look at the reason you agree with him in a conscientious manner.

What the fuck? That makes no god damn sense. I agree with him dispite him being a twit. Even a stopped clock and all that. The reason I agree with him is that he's right, period. I want the rule of law to be upheld, and anyone, no matter what, who had a hand in the law being broken should be punished in some way, even if that way is by losing their next election.

His motives, however, are differet. Hes just being a partisan idiot, desperate to stay relevent and in the spot light (and there are a few crazies, ie the whole FOX news viewing base, who lap up everything he says) and doesnt care at all about the rule of law, justice, or human rights. He just wants to stick it to the mean lady with the (D) in front of his name. He's right, but for the wrong reasons.

What the fuck? That makes no god damn sense. I agree with him dispite him being a twit. Even a stopped clock and all that. The reason I agree with him is that he's right, period. I want the rule of law to be upheld, and anyone, no matter what, who had a hand in the law being broken should be punished in some way, even if that way is by losing their next election.

His motives, however, are differet. Hes just being a partisan idiot, desperate to stay relevent and in the spot light (and there are a few crazies, ie the whole FOX news viewing base, who lap up everything he says) and doesnt care at all about the rule of law, justice, or human rights. He just wants to stick to to the mean lady with the (D) in front of his name. He's right, but for the wrong reasons.

I agree with all that except for the fact that I like it when he is in the spotlight and making a fool out of himself.

*watches as the G0P clock moves right before my eyes from it's only chance in 2016 to at least 2020*
:D

What the fuck? That makes no god damn sense. I agree with him dispite him being a twit. Even a stopped clock and all that. The reason I agree with him is that he's right, period. I want the rule of law to be upheld, and anyone, no matter what, who had a hand in the law being broken should be punished in some way, even if that way is by losing their next election.

His motives, however, are differet. Hes just being a partisan idiot, desperate to stay relevent and in the spot light (and there are a few crazies, ie the whole FOX news viewing base, who lap up everything he says) and doesnt care at all about the rule of law, justice, or human rights. He just wants to stick it to the mean lady with the (D) in front of his name. He's right, but for the wrong reasons.
In your first post, you agree with Newt.....post a broken link to the story about Pelosi and then accuse him of being a partisan hack.

Pot, kettle, black.

This is almost as bad as H2's mustard thread.

In your first post, you agree with Newt.....post a broken link to the story about Pelosi and then accuse him of being a partisan hack.

Pot, kettle, black.

This is almost as bad as H2's mustard thread.

What the fuck are you talking about? There is no hypocrisy here. Do you read what I type? Oh, right. This is that 'trolling' part of the dance I was talking about. I said Newt has the right idea, but the wrong motives. Im critisizing him for his reasons and motives.


You know what? Youre going back on ignore. I dont think Ive ever seen you contribute anything but frusteration, trolling, and dishonesty to a thread. I cant remember why I ever even took you off.

This is almost as bad as H2's mustard thread.

Clinton lost. In part because she campaigned unethically. Deal.

In your first post, you agree with Newt.....post a broken link to the story about Pelosi and then accuse him of being a partisan hack.

Pot, kettle, black.

This is almost as bad as H2's mustard thread.

You go out of your way to misunderstand every poster who you feel wronged you during the 2008 election every chance you get. To make KoL's post fundamentally clear, so you cannot continue your troll.

KoL agrees with Newt that Pelosi should be investigated. However, KoL does not trust Newt's motivations. KoL believes that Newt has the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. So, while he agrees with Newt that Pelosi should be investigated, he still believes him to be a partisan hack.

Now, I eagerly await your feeble attempt to twist my post into some ridiculous strawman.

You go out of your way to misunderstand every poster who you feel wronged you during the 2008 election every chance you get. To make KoL's post fundamentally clear, so you cannot continue your troll.

KoL agrees with Newt that Pelosi should be investigated. However, KoL does not trust Newt's motivations. KoL believes that Newt has the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. So, while he agrees with Newt that Pelosi should be investigated, he still believes him to be a partisan hack.

Now, I eagerly await your feeble attempt to twist my post into some ridiculous strawman.


Im glad Im not the only one who sees a pattern in who CH decides to troll.

Im glad Im not the only one who sees a pattern in who CH decides to troll.

So you understand my response to him?

You go out of your way to misunderstand every poster who you feel wronged you during the 2008 election every chance you get. To make KoL's post fundamentally clear, so you cannot continue your troll.

KoL agrees with Newt that Pelosi should be investigated. However, KoL does not trust Newt's motivations. KoL believes that Newt has the right idea, but for the wrong reasons. So, while he agrees with Newt that Pelosi should be investigated, he still believes him to be a partisan hack.

Now, I eagerly await your feeble attempt to twist my post into some ridiculous strawman.
You seem to be developing a pattern. This is your first post in this thread and you use it to defend KOL/Trve, and you have done this more than once before.

Let's set the record straight:

This has nothing to do with the 2008 election. It has to do with Tvre calling Newt a partisan hack whilst displaying the same in kind.

Twice I have noted that the link to the story was broken and it appears that the OP has no intention of fixing it.

It appears that the OP doesn't really want to give air time to the broken linked story or why he even agrees with Newt, and when I pressed him to provide a consciencious reason why he agrees with Newt, he posts the following:

His motives, however, are differet. Hes just being a partisan idiot, desperate to stay relevent and in the spot light (and there are a few crazies, ie the whole FOX news viewing base, who lap up everything he says) and doesnt care at all about the rule of law, justice, or human rights. He just wants to stick to to the mean lady with the (D) in front of his name. He's right, but for the wrong reasons.
WTF is that? Perhaps Tvre is playing to the "viewing base, who lap up everything he says".

Now.....will the OP fix the link? Will the OP prove that Newt is "desperate to stay relevent". Will the OP prove that Newt "doesnt care at all about the rule of law, justice, or human rights."?

So the thread really isn't about "Gingrich: 'Absolute obligation' to investigate Pelosi", it is about Newt being a "partisan hack"?

It appears that the OP doesn't really want to give air time to the broken linked story or why he even agrees with Newt, and when I pressed him to provide a consciencious reason why he agrees with Newt, he posts the following:


WTF is that? Perhaps Tvre is playing to the "viewing base, who lap up everything he says".

Now.....will the OP fix the link? Will the OP prove that Newt is "desperate to stay relevent". Will the OP prove that Newt "doesnt care at all about the rule of law, justice, or human rights."?

So the thread really isn't about "Gingrich: 'Absolute obligation' to investigate Pelosi", it is about Newt being a "partisan hack"?

I think its fairly clear what Trve is saying, even if you don't agress with him. Newt has not been demanding investiagations over the allegation that Bush and Cheney authorised tourture but is demanding that Peolsi is investigated over having got briefed on possible water boarding in 2002.

The only apparent difference (aside from the fact that the allegations about Bush and Cheney are more severe) is that she is a democrat while they are republicans. This strongly suggests partianship. Further more, if Newt is using the "rule of law, justice or human rights" to further a partisan agenda, it does suggest that he doesn't have the greatest respect for any of them.

Further more, seeing as Trve clearly sets out his complaints over Newt's motives, I don't see why you are complaining that the thread is about Newt being a partisan hack. I am unaware that threads on such a topic have been banned.