OT:Nancy Pelosi actually does something right

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hxRsh.1044$ya1.508@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:LuRsh.640$JB.220@trnddc05...[color=green]
>> That goes to show you what a little busy-body she really is.
>>
>> She is backing a move in California that will make parents into criminals
>> for spanking their own child.
>>
>> I do not advocate beating little Johnny senseless, but smacking his ass
>> on occasion is probably a good thing. It teaches Johnny consequence for
>> being an idiot. I am in favor of a parent showing Johnny just where the
>> line is in life, and whipping his little ass for crossing the line. Now,
>> when Johnny shows up at the Emergency Room for crossing the line, then we
>> need to have a talk with his parents for their own crossing of a line.
>> But, setting limits is not an activity that should make a parent into a
>> criminal. Pelosi is a busy body that we would be better off without.
>>[/color]
>
>
> I don't recall, but was she one of the mouths behind the now-defunct San
> Francisco gun ban?
>[/color]

I'm not sure about that. I would not be surprised, but that is an assertion
that I could not make with any certainty. What I am sure about is that Nancy
Pelosi is the very embodiment of "San Francisco Liberal". A SF liberal is
the worst kind.

Liberals in general think that we need a view of law and order that gives
society the greatest possible latitude, but an SF Liberal thinks that social
order must accomodate the lowest common demoninator -- which demands that
social order be structured around any given individual. It is impossible to
structure social order of 250 million people around each and every
individual, but that is what the SF Liberals would have us do.

I am prepared to debate, at length, a liberal vs a conservative social
order. I firmly believe that both have merit, and the best social order is a
balance. How do we achieve the balance and who (whom) gets to decide are
good questions. But Nancy Pelosi represents the far left of the liberal
social order, and she is to be looked at with extreme scepticism. Hold this
woman at arm's length. She should not be part of any mechanism that
determines the balance of social order.

I subscribe to the theory that social order is something that kids learn by
osmosis in school, and in interacting with peers. I happen to think that
school -- as an arm of society in general, and government in particular --
should be teaching a very tight social line. We all know that society
accepts a much broader set of guidelines, but when the guidelines at places
like school are tight, then the kids learn limits and consequence. But, if
the guidelines in school have no constraints, then the problem is that when
kids get into the real world, they find constraints and consequences that
they never imagined, and are not prepared to deal with. Teaching a "loose
social oder" is easy on the front end, but has huge problems on the back
end. A cursory look at Calif. prisons paints a picture of the back end
problems -- they are filled with kids that have no concept of consequence,
and thousnads more are knocking at the prison gates, not even realizing what
they are pounding on or that they are pounding at all.

When the line is narrow in school, kids figure out where the actual
boundaries are in real life. But, when there are no boundaries in school,
running up against them in real life can be quite the shock. Pelosi
represents the no-boundaries crowd.

" dbu.," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
news:Demsonhotseatnow-591187.16275321012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <TARsh.641$JB.620@trnddc05>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:xn0f1fks9t3bsr001@news.readfreenews.net...[color=darkred]
>> > Reasoned Insanity, 1/20/2007,9:12:29 AM, wrote:
>> >
>> >> She banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House
>> >> floor this month.
>> >> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_he_me/smoke_free_america[/url]
>> >
>> > I quit smoking 13 years ago after I got up to two packs a day.[/color]
>>
>> I quit smoking more than 30 years ago, and smokers bug the crap out of
>> me. I
>> hate to smell ciggybutt smoke, absolutely hate it. But, what I hate even
>> more is for the likes of Pelosi to get into the face of smokers in the
>> name
>> of helping me. I do not need that meddling little busy body getting into
>> anybody's face on my account.
>>
>> Sure, odds are that I will never visit the Senate rotunda, or wherever
>> these
>> guys are (were) smoking, but Pelosi is the kind of person that would ban
>> smoking in your own living room if she thought she could get such a ban
>> to
>> stick. She is the epitome of government's purpose being to "protecting me
>> from myself." (Or, protect US from OURSELVES, in the grander scheme of
>> things.)[/color]
>
> Whaaaat? Here I thought it was GWB who was taking away the rights......?
>
>[/color]


He is.

GWB would protect me from you, that confines your rights. (It confines my
rights too, but it isn't a problem for me until I notice, then it's too
late.)

Nancy is worse. She would protect you from you in the name of protecting me.

"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kupsh.47869$oA1.25783@newsfe19.lga...[color=blue]
> She banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House floor
> this month.
> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_he_me/smoke_free_america[/url]
>[/color]

Crap!

I was hoping she would use her body to stop a runaway cable car.

In article <A1Ssh.3105$uL6.2746@trnddc03>,
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> " dbu.," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
> news:Demsonhotseatnow-591187.16275321012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=green]
> > In article <TARsh.641$JB.620@trnddc05>,
> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:xn0f1fks9t3bsr001@news.readfreenews.net...
> >> > Reasoned Insanity, 1/20/2007,9:12:29 AM, wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> She banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House
> >> >> floor this month.
> >> >> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_he_me/smoke_free_america[/url]
> >> >
> >> > I quit smoking 13 years ago after I got up to two packs a day.
> >>
> >> I quit smoking more than 30 years ago, and smokers bug the crap out of
> >> me. I
> >> hate to smell ciggybutt smoke, absolutely hate it. But, what I hate even
> >> more is for the likes of Pelosi to get into the face of smokers in the
> >> name
> >> of helping me. I do not need that meddling little busy body getting into
> >> anybody's face on my account.
> >>
> >> Sure, odds are that I will never visit the Senate rotunda, or wherever
> >> these
> >> guys are (were) smoking, but Pelosi is the kind of person that would ban
> >> smoking in your own living room if she thought she could get such a ban
> >> to
> >> stick. She is the epitome of government's purpose being to "protecting me
> >> from myself." (Or, protect US from OURSELVES, in the grander scheme of
> >> things.)[/color]
> >
> > Whaaaat? Here I thought it was GWB who was taking away the rights......?
> >
> >[/color]
>
>
> He is.
>
> GWB would protect me from you, that confines your rights. (It confines my
> rights too, but it isn't a problem for me until I notice, then it's too
> late.)
>
> Nancy is worse. She would protect you from you in the name of protecting me.[/color]

I don't need protecting from myself. This is only one of the problems I
have with the today democrats.

And they, the lefties, thought GWB was their enemy, LOL.
--

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cTRsh.3077$uL6.1426@trnddc03...[color=blue]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:hxRsh.1044$ya1.508@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:LuRsh.640$JB.220@trnddc05...[color=darkred]
>>> That goes to show you what a little busy-body she really is.
>>>
>>> She is backing a move in California that will make parents into
>>> criminals for spanking their own child.
>>>
>>> I do not advocate beating little Johnny senseless, but smacking his ass
>>> on occasion is probably a good thing. It teaches Johnny consequence for
>>> being an idiot. I am in favor of a parent showing Johnny just where the
>>> line is in life, and whipping his little ass for crossing the line. Now,
>>> when Johnny shows up at the Emergency Room for crossing the line, then
>>> we need to have a talk with his parents for their own crossing of a
>>> line. But, setting limits is not an activity that should make a parent
>>> into a criminal. Pelosi is a busy body that we would be better off
>>> without.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>
>> I don't recall, but was she one of the mouths behind the now-defunct San
>> Francisco gun ban?
>>[/color]
>
> I'm not sure about that. I would not be surprised, but that is an
> assertion that I could not make with any certainty. What I am sure about
> is that Nancy Pelosi is the very embodiment of "San Francisco Liberal". A
> SF liberal is the worst kind.
>
> Liberals in general think that we need a view of law and order that gives
> society the greatest possible latitude, but an SF Liberal thinks that
> social order must accomodate the lowest common demoninator -- which
> demands that social order be structured around any given individual. It is
> impossible to structure social order of 250 million people around each and
> every individual, but that is what the SF Liberals would have us do.
>
> I am prepared to debate, at length, a liberal vs a conservative social
> order. I firmly believe that both have merit, and the best social order is
> a balance. How do we achieve the balance and who (whom) gets to decide are
> good questions. But Nancy Pelosi represents the far left of the liberal
> social order, and she is to be looked at with extreme scepticism. Hold
> this woman at arm's length. She should not be part of any mechanism that
> determines the balance of social order.
>
> I subscribe to the theory that social order is something that kids learn
> by osmosis in school, and in interacting with peers. I happen to think
> that school -- as an arm of society in general, and government in
> particular -- should be teaching a very tight social line. We all know
> that society accepts a much broader set of guidelines, but when the
> guidelines at places like school are tight, then the kids learn limits and
> consequence. But, if the guidelines in school have no constraints, then
> the problem is that when kids get into the real world, they find
> constraints and consequences that they never imagined, and are not
> prepared to deal with. Teaching a "loose social oder" is easy on the front
> end, but has huge problems on the back end. A cursory look at Calif.
> prisons paints a picture of the back end problems -- they are filled with
> kids that have no concept of consequence, and thousnads more are knocking
> at the prison gates, not even realizing what they are pounding on or that
> they are pounding at all.
>
> When the line is narrow in school, kids figure out where the actual
> boundaries are in real life. But, when there are no boundaries in school,
> running up against them in real life can be quite the shock. Pelosi
> represents the no-boundaries crowd.[/color]

Excellent post. Too bad the LIEbrawls don't show one-TENTH the intellect.

[color=blue]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>[/color]

" dbu.," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
news:Demsonhotseatnow-C2C933.17565621012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=blue]
> In article <A1Ssh.3105$uL6.2746@trnddc03>,
> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> " dbu.," <Demsonhotseatnow@repubsofhook.com> wrote in message
>> news:Demsonhotseatnow-591187.16275321012007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...[color=darkred]
>> > In article <TARsh.641$JB.620@trnddc05>,
>> > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:xn0f1fks9t3bsr001@news.readfreenews.net...
>> >> > Reasoned Insanity, 1/20/2007,9:12:29 AM, wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> She banned smoking in the ornate Speaker's Lobby just off the House
>> >> >> floor this month.
>> >> >> [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070120/ap_on_he_me/smoke_free_america[/url]
>> >> >
>> >> > I quit smoking 13 years ago after I got up to two packs a day.
>> >>
>> >> I quit smoking more than 30 years ago, and smokers bug the crap out of
>> >> me. I
>> >> hate to smell ciggybutt smoke, absolutely hate it. But, what I hate
>> >> even
>> >> more is for the likes of Pelosi to get into the face of smokers in the
>> >> name
>> >> of helping me. I do not need that meddling little busy body getting
>> >> into
>> >> anybody's face on my account.
>> >>
>> >> Sure, odds are that I will never visit the Senate rotunda, or wherever
>> >> these
>> >> guys are (were) smoking, but Pelosi is the kind of person that would
>> >> ban
>> >> smoking in your own living room if she thought she could get such a
>> >> ban
>> >> to
>> >> stick. She is the epitome of government's purpose being to "protecting
>> >> me
>> >> from myself." (Or, protect US from OURSELVES, in the grander scheme of
>> >> things.)
>> >
>> > Whaaaat? Here I thought it was GWB who was taking away the
>> > rights......?
>> >
>> >[/color]
>>
>>
>> He is.
>>
>> GWB would protect me from you, that confines your rights. (It confines my
>> rights too, but it isn't a problem for me until I notice, then it's too
>> late.)
>>
>> Nancy is worse. She would protect you from you in the name of protecting
>> me.[/color]
>
> I don't need protecting from myself.[/color]


That's NOT what Nancy thinks.




This is only one of the problems I[color=blue]
> have with the today democrats.
>
> And they, the lefties, thought GWB was their enemy, LOL.[/color]

Yeah. I think this is a classic case of, "be careful what you wish for."