Pelosi on 'stupidity' of Supreme Court, war spending

Well we can't all be happy as too how we spend the money , but is it really our nations money? I read it was China who was financing our debts, if in fact this is true, we really should be flying the Chinese flag and asking them for their opinion.

Peolosi and the rest of them don't get it, if we don't spend on the war and protect America against terrorists, we will never have to worry about all the other projects because we won't be here, and cancer, etc. willz be the least of our worries. Our enemy isn't the Supreme Court nor Bush and they just don't get it. This worries me.

Mrs. Pelosi is priceless...for the Republicans. Who writes her speeches? The GOP would be in a lot more difficulty if the Democrats had real leaders in the House and Senate.

If Nancy's head were not so full of cotton, hay, and rags she might be able to get some results. Even with an obtuse George II. It was stupidity for her to take the impeachment issue off the table. Had she not done so she could have lead our esteemed and exalted president around on a leash.

Judy:

Please tell us how spending $200 billion a year in Iraq is protecting us from terrorists here.

And with that money, why is the head man, Osama Bin Laden, still on the loose??

If anyone is stupid here,its Pelosi! She is not even competent to carry any members shoes that are seated on the Supreme court.x

Can't blame the Supreme Court, it is already filled with conservative judges. The only element missing is term limits. If that is lifted, we will have a Dictator in power for years to come with the Supreme Court applauding.

Lou, stifle yourself. You sound like a hysterical Loon. Anyway, if we didn't have term limits are you trying to say that the nation would re-elect Bush in 2008? I know I would vote for him over any piece of garbage the Democrats are putting up.

Lou:
What are you trying to say? Which "Dictator" are you referring to? If it is Bush, as I suspect, then your statement is nonsense. If term limits were lifted, Bush would lose in a landslide in the upcoming election. If your statement refers to someone other than Bush, I'm curious to know who it is and why you think conservative Supreme Court justices would be applauding.

"I'm astounded by the Supreme Court," said Pelosi. "What's another word for stupidity? I'm trying to be nice because this is a nice occasion."

Another word for stupid. Bush of course. A puppet president with a crazy mans arm up his back. Dick Cheney and Bush have done more harm to this country than allot of people can comprehend. Now the Supreme Court has been corrupted by these two mad mens vision of a totalitarian government.

Lou's point is not that far off. With more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, Bush (and any conservative president who follows down the road until the mix changes) has a proportionally greater chance of pushing his agenda without needing to consider the lengthy and inefficient problem of Congressional debate. As a Unilateral Executive (if you prefer that to "Dictator"), he'd be even more able to disregard Congress (something that proponents of the Unilateral Executive -- otherwise known as Republicans -- would applaud).

I'm taking the reference to "term limits" as the lack thereof for Supreme Court Justices, which means that once they're in, they STAY in until they die or retire.

JD,

Who cares about Bush but only you and Springfield. He has a little over a year left. He wanted to be a Dictator but couldn't. He even said it, himself.

My point is that the 3 branches aren't balanced anymore. Looking long term, what Bush did was secure a situation in where a Dictator can come to power.

The only thing saving us so far is term limit. But once term limit is repealed, we would look like Venezuela. It looks like it's far fetched for you, but it happened in Venezuela: a friendly Legislative, and a friendly Judicial branch, paved the way to Mr. Chavez on the road to dictatorship.

It can happen here too now that all the chips are in place. With the wrong timing and wrong person, this could be us (if not already).

When Fascism Comes to America it will be Wrapped in the Flag and Carrying a Cross -- Sinclair Lewis

Anyway, if we didn't have term limits are you trying to say that the nation would re-elect Bush in 2008? I know I would vote for him over any piece of garbage the Democrats are putting up.

Posted by: John D | November 8, 2007 11:22 AM

Hey garbage man look in the mirror and then take out the trash. I guess since your corrupt hero GW has trashed the bill of rights, the next logical step is to repeal the 22nd ammendment. The GOP is lost in a sea of debasement. The republican candidates are a bunch of crybaby, bed wetting, fear mongering, totalitarian losers. Rudy would have never won re-election had Sept 11th not happened. He's a loser who was reviled by New Yorkers. But he is corrupt so that makes him a viable candidate for the republicans.

Cross-dressing loser.

http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/

Do she mean I should be able to file suit without regard to the statutes of limitations that were enacted by our elected officers? She will probably next demand their resignation for following the law as written.

Try this one, JD & Company:

We have another 9/11 attack right before the election next year. Bush, who has no trouble ignoring the law, declares that because of a national emergency, the upcoming elections will be delayed.

The Supreme Court, now at 5-4 with Bush I and Bush II appointees, agrees that this is legal.

Goodbye 22nd amendment.

Hey Bob,
Why not? The liberal Supreme Court justices took away our personal property rights... and are willing to put international law over our own constitution. You liberals applauded those unconstitutional actions ... so quit whining.

"The liberal Supreme Court justices took away our personal property rights..."

Welcome lobotomized neocon K W Smith. Sooo glad to have you chime in. If you're refering to the eminent domain decision last year, that was the same court that signed off on Bush v Gore. Sorry, not everything bad in the world can be blamed on "liberals."

Bwwaaaahaaahaaa

"Congress and the president have clashed repeatedly over expanding the children's health insurance program, known as SCHIP, to more low-income children."
....

What a total fabrication in that article. This is why Democrat Americans remain stupid with articles like this one. The Democrats wanted to expand SCHIPs to people making $83K per year and "kids" who are 25 years old. That isn't low income and those aren't kids!

Bush wanted to up the funding in the current progam that covers low income families and vetoed the bill because the Democrats wanted to expand it to middle income families with 25 year old adults living at home.

Bravo for President Bush!

Dave,
Nice selective amnesia you have there. It seems you are well acquainted with lobotomies.
Too bad the votes are a matter of record ... eh?
Maybe you could get Hillary to hide the courts records with her personal papers ... and avoid these embarrassing facts.

The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160479,00.html

Dave:

Don't worry about KW - he just cited Fox News as his source, thereby making any of his claims about liberal judges irrelevant.

Oh, and TMcA - that $83K dog does not hunt anymore. It has been shown that Bush could veto ANY exception to the rule - so the $83K would not have gone through anyway.

And one more thing - why is an extra $7 million a year too much money for our children, but $196 billion for Iraq is fine??

WellwellQueen nancy Pelosi thinks the U.S.Supreme Court are what's a nice word for stupid because this is a nice occasion. This woman is spoiled by Paul and her father who was tied to the Outfit when he was Mayor of Baltimore.Money means nothing to Nancy and that's why she is a tax and spend liberal who has proposed the biggest tax increase in history at$1.3 trillion dollars it will wreck the economy but, she's too dumb to notice.She has been a laugh since her first 100 hours and nothings getting done so tomorrow she passing another strings attached bill to bring the troops out of Iraq and abort our mission and victory.W will veto it how many times will this dumb bunch of Jackasses keep passing the same stupid bills. Insanity is defined as doing something over and over when it fails each time. That describes the Democrats. She's still harping about the children's health program that insures adults.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Bob ... just about what I expect from you sleazy smear merchants. You have no problem quoting media matters though ... right? Well, here is basically the same info from CNN ... and you can go look it up at the Supreme court site itself if you like.
I doubt any source would shake your ignorant, jaded ideology though ... not if it was gold-plated and notorized. Just change the definition of is ... and you can change everything. About what Obama has in mind .. for "change"

"Joining Stevens in the majority were justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined O'Connor's dissent."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

Hey Bob,
Just to answer your ignorant question .. The role of the federal government is national defense ... not to supply basic needs for children ... that is the parents' job. It is the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism

TMcA,
What if those 25 year old year old kids have Down Syndrome or some other physical or mental handicap? What is your alternative?

Oh Bobin, your post on Bush declaring a state of emergency, elections and the 22nd Amendment officially puts you in the Whacked-Out Loony Left Kook Club. While a Loon, you at least came across with some legitimate debate without all the maniacal hysteria of some of your ilk in most of your posting. But that one post jeapordizes any belief you may have somewhat of a clue.

John ... that same ignorant question again? Are you brain dead?
Down Syndrome and other genetic disabilities get federal subsidies from the day they are born! I don't get why a down syndrome baby is any different than a "normal" baby, it used to take doctors two or three years to diagnose some cases, but regardless, these babies get government entitlement checks beginning their first day .... so stop with your moronic question already. They are covered their entire lives.

"Oh Bobin, your post on Bush declaring a state of emergency, elections and the 22nd Amendment officially puts you in the Whacked-Out Loony Left Kook Club."

Posted by: John D | November 8, 2007 4:43 PM

Oh poor nutty John D, this autocratic, corrupt, constitution shredding miscreant would never do anything like usurp the bill of rights. Wait he's already done that. He would never repeal the 22nd ammendment.

Bush/Cheney 2008. A vote for more war & corrupt totalitarian leadership. Vote Bush/Cheney 2008 for a one pary system.

Freedom of speech, just watch what you say!!!

So, Madam Speaker, when are you going to allow a vote to cut-off funding for this war? You are speaking out of both sides of your face. Stand-up or shut-up. End the war.

Wow! I rarely read blogs, but this impresses me with how many crazies there are out there with computers. I was all set to chastise Nancy P for not pushing Dennis' HR 333 on impeachment as the only issue the House can pass with a simple majority without the Senate blocking it, or the President vetoing it, or simply destroying it with a "signing statement"
Now I feel sorry for her.

"Wow! I rarely read blogs, but this impresses me with how many crazies there are out there with computers."

Posted by: maclettie | November 9, 2007 12:02 AM

You'll have to ask John D about that one.