Based on how he cries at the drop of a hat I say he's a girly-man and Nancy Pelosi has bigger balls than he does. Your take on him?
jhmover said:....and Nancy Pelosi has bigger balls than he does. Your take on him?
brianhoberg said:..."we are here to serve and represent the american people. It is about the American people, not about us". ...
stu454 said:Being a ruthless cunt doesn't mean she has balls. It means she's a ruthless cunt.:victory:
brianhoberg said:I like how in his address yesterday he re-iterated "we are here to serve and represent the american people. It is about the American people, not about us". Something Reid and Pelosi seemed to forget.
We can comment on Pelosi because we've seen what she's represented and been like for the past 4 years. Let's give Boehner a chance instead of calling him a pussy.
RBBailey said:What's dangerous about him?
knewsom said:Right now, nothing - despite being speaker of the house, his power is entirely stymied by the Senate and the President... but who knows what the future holds? My point is that politicians that believe their own BS so strongly that they cry on tv or that are at least such good liars that they can work themselves up to that on cue, are extremely dangerous. Bush believed everything that he said - people bought his bullshit because he didn't know it was bullshit. That kind of emotional attachment to a political position is dangerous, just by itself - it inhibits rational, critical thinking, replacing them with faith-based positioning (not specifically religious, just faith in an idea). This leads to ideas like "Of course greed couldn't cause the market to fail, greed is good," "Humans couldn't possibly affect the global climate, therefore global-warming must be a liberal conspiracy," "deficit spending is OK because we'll just pay for it later with the growth the tax-cuts create," "We're fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them over here," etc, etc, etc. Call me crazy, but I prefer pragmatic decision-making based on statistical likelihood and theory reinforced by factual data.
knewsom said:Right now, nothing - despite being speaker of the house, his power is entirely stymied by the Senate and the President... but who knows what the future holds? My point is that politicians that believe their own BS so strongly that they cry on tv or that are at least such good liars that they can work themselves up to that on cue, are extremely dangerous.
knewsom said:....Call me crazy, but I prefer pragmatic decision-making based on statistical likelihood and theory reinforced by factual data.
MarkP said::rofl: I have yet to see a Leftist driven by data. It is always emotional. Your points are a good example.
The Left is about to be taken to the woodshed by the bond vigilantes.
It's Contained!
So what does this data tell you Knewsom?