Anyone else see a problem with Pelosi's threats? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/la-pn-gingrich-pelosi-20111205,0,1288811.story
What do you suppose Newt is afraid of? Pelosi responded to that by sending TPM a link to the publicly-available cache of files on the Gingrich ethics case and informing Gingrich that she doesn’t need to breach the confidentiality of the ethics committee chamber to embarrass him. “Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware,” a spokesperson for Pelosi said.
That really jives well with " served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff". Public info coming from the "committee that investigated him"? Or maybe from "four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location"?
She did manage to leave her post as Speaker of the House juuuuuust a little more ethically than Newt did. Wasn't Leroy disciplined in January 1997 by the House of Representatives for ethics accusations, while carrying on an affair with his soon to be third wife, all while trying to impeach Clinton for doing the same thing? So you have a problem with Pelosi's ethics but no problem with Leroy's ethics. Pot, meet head-hole.
Where did I mention whether or not I had any opinion on Gingrich's "ethics"? I think your jumping the gun on your arguments there, aren't you? My comment was in regard to Pelosi taking issue with anyone else's ethics. But you knew that, didn't you?
As far as I know, the only one's that have questioned Pelosi's ethics are RW nuts on a witch hunt. But given the two people involved in this situation, why would you question the eithics of the one that hasn't proven to be ethically challenged? We can't all be Leroy.
Something to read tonight.... http://ethics.house.gov/committee-report/matter-representative-newt-gingrich
So again, all you can do is call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "nut" and label anything that criticizes a liberal politician as a "witch hunt?" What if the position were reversed? How clean would the politics be then?
It was this little sentence I was responding to. No examples, no facts, but an accusation just the same. I call that a witch hunt.
While you are looking things up, why don't you try tuna fishing, SolarReserve, insider trading, Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner, obamacare waivers, ETHA, Del'Monte, Starkist, waterboarding, etc.
Oh, come now. This woman is the same person that said that a bill would have to pass before we could know what was in it. Ridiculous. Pelosi has many things to answer for and she should not be threatening anyone with any real or imagined wrongdoing in his past. Why don't you speak to the real topic of this thread, Pelosi's threat against Newt Gingrich, instead of using the redirection trick?
Is this half truth supposed to be an examples of Nancy Pelosi's ethics or the ethics of the entire Right-wing? First of all, Pelosi's entire statement was, "It's going to be very, very exciting," Pelosi gaffed, telling the local elected officials assembled that Congress"[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy." The entire sentence changes the meaning quite a bit but for some strange reason, the second half of the sentence is almost always dropped from the quote. Hum? SOUND BITE?? Oh yeah, a perfect one because certain people in society will simply buy the sound bite and rationalize their lack of truth verification. What I meant by the half truth being either representative of Nancy Pelosi's ethics or the ethics of the entire Right-wing, was that it has more to do with the second half of the quote. She said "away from the fog of controversy". Here are just a couple of false claims that came from Right-wing sources trying to kill any legislation on health care. All she was saying was that a lot of lies, Right-wing lies were being told during the debate process. The "fog" came entirely from the Right-wing and every major source of it. So ethics is at issue here for who really? This is good! A timeline of public claims about the health care. Thank you MM. In honor of the one year anniversary of the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Media Matters presents a timeline of one of the most disgraceful and pernicious myths about the law--death panels. Betsy McCaughey Launches Health Care Debate With A Lie McCaughey Helps Spread Falsehood Through Conservative Media PolitiFact Debunks McCaughey's Claim Fox News, Right-Wing Figures Continue To Push False Claim McCaughey Backpedaled On Claim When Confronted By Criticism Media Echo Chamber Pushes On With Falsehood Sarah Palin Amps Up The Falsehood By Introducing The Death Panel Myth Fox News Personalities Quickly Adopt "Death Panel" Claim Fox News Revive Discredited "Death Panels" Lie To Attack VA Conservative Media Resurrect Death Panel Lie To Claim That They Are Included In Merged House Bill Conservative Media Figures Link Nonbinding Mammogram Guidelines To "Death Panels" PolitiFact Names "Death Panels" Its 2009 "Lie Of The Year" Palin Revives Death Panel Myth To Ask If They Are "Back In" Senate Health Care Bill Conservative Media Revive "Death Panels" Yet Again With New, False Target: The Independent Medicare Advisory Board Despite Debunking And "Lie Of The Year" Designation, Conservative Media Figures Continued To Push Death Panel Myth In 2010 Right-Wing Media Seized on Orszag Comment To Claim That Health Care Law Contains Death Panels Right-Wing Media Figures Cited Ineffective Drug Avastin As Evidence Of Death Panels Right-Wing Media Kicked Off 2011 By Dusting Off "Death Panel" Lie
Wasn't Pelosi considered to be the most corrupt member of Congress, more so than even the likes of Charlie Rangel & Barney Frank?
The second half of that sentence makes no difference. Whether she believed that it would be clearer "away from the fog of controversy" or not, the fact remained that she did not appear to believe that the bill needed to be read before a vote was held. EVERYONE should have read that bill and understood it and discussion should have been made of the content before it was ever voted on. How can any full-time lawmaker even make the excuse that s/he did not read the bill prior to voting on it, let alone make a statement that a bill had to be voted on prior to understanding it.
Typical cut-n-cry tactic. "Look what she said!" Then you do and see they cut the quote, removing it from it's context, then cry foul. No wonder the politics on the right is disintegrating. Good. It deserves a slow painful death lol
