HEY NANCY

[85Sooner]

Shut THE F up and hand over the gavel. There is no need to rehash all of the damage you have done over the past 4 years. Go back to you 10K per day Hawaii vacation.

[The]

Pssst... I don't think she reads SoonerFans.

[3rdgensooner]

You could stop watching/listening.

[Sooner_Bob]

Pssst... I don't think she reads SoonerFans.

That's what you think . . . :texan:

[Pogue Mahone]

John Boehner is gonna ruin that spray-tan with his crying.

[REDREX]

Its a tough day for Nancy----She has to give back her private jet

[Veritas]

She's hated by her own party...her presence there is bad for the Dems and good for the Pubs.

Her cryptkeeper-like visage will serve as constant symbol of the jackassery passed by the Democrats during BHO's first two years, reminding voters not to make that ****ing mistake in 2012.

[The]

She's hated by her own party...her presence there is bad for the Dems and good for the Pubs.

Her cryptkeeper-like visage will serve as constant symbol of the jackassery passed by the Democrats during BHO's first two years, reminding voters not to make that ****ing mistake in 2012.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/books/blog/dick%20cheney.jpg

[2121Sooner]

I am sure gonna miss her goofy *** laugh everytime they passed some Obama piece of legislation....

[soonerscuba]

She's hated by her own party...her presence there is bad for the Dems and good for the Pubs.

Her cryptkeeper-like visage will serve as constant symbol of the jackassery passed by the Democrats during BHO's first two years, reminding voters not to make that ****ing mistake in 2012.Have you seen what the Republicans have in the stables? I wouldn't do that 2012 victory dance yet.

Pelosi was awesome, if you were a Dem. The House doesn't operate under unanimous consent, which means the minority can GADOCADWI on legislation. She was good at passing legislation that her base has wanted for decades, probably realized that she was on borrowed time from go and acted like it.

I look foward for the ritual switching of complaints about Dems being shut out and ignored and Republicans engaging procedure they found abhorrent a week ago.

[Breadburner]

She had a nice rack......

http://instapunk.com/images/PelosiMayor.jpg

[opksooner]

Italian libs.....................meh.

[sappstuf]

I about fell out of my chair when she said:


Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.

Quick fact check is in order...


When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

I can only imagine where our country would be at right now if Pelosi wouldn't have made deficit reduction such a high priority.....

[Half a Hundred]

You could stop watching/listening.

But then, how else could he get his rage boner on? :texan:

[dwarthog]

I about fell out of my chair when she said:



Quick fact check is in order...



I can only imagine where our country would be at right now if Pelosi wouldn't have made deficit reduction such a high priority.....

Did you ever hear the story of how Bush turned a surplus into a deficit?

If not, it should be getting rolled out shortly..... :D

[Aldebaran]

But then, how else could he get his rage boner on? :texan:

Keith Olbermann, presumably.

[saucysoonergal]

Quit your complaining and go sell a TV or something.







;)

[SC Sooner]

Sorry, but I wouldn't hit that, if she paid me. Well, I might consider it if she paid me, but I still wouldn't hit it.

[The]

Sorry, but I wouldn't hit that, if she paid me. Well, I might consider it if she paid me, but I still wouldn't hit it.

She's 70 years old.

What are your sexual opinions on Margaret Thatcher?

[DIB]

She's 70 years old.

What are your sexual opinions on Margaret Thatcher?

I would probably explode before I got it all the way in.

[3rdgensooner]

What are your sexual opinions on Margaret Thatcher?
She's no Barbara Bush

[saucysoonergal]

Or Tyne Daly for that matter.

[DIB]

She's no Barbara Bush

Pretty much this.

NSFW
Z7OQxkHfZi8

[Veritas]

Have you seen what the Republicans have in the stables? I wouldn't do that 2012 victory dance yet.

Pelosi was awesome, if you were a Dem. The House doesn't operate under unanimous consent, which means the minority can GADOCADWI on legislation. She was good at passing legislation that her base has wanted for decades, probably realized that she was on borrowed time from go and acted like it.

I look foward for the ritual switching of complaints about Dems being shut out and ignored and Republicans engaging procedure they found abhorrent a week ago.
C'mon man, you know I don't be doing a victory dance regardless of which party wins. Unless Ron Paul won, then I'd be doing a victory dance, but since he's a real conservative the GOP establishment will never let that happen.

I don't agree, though that Pelosi was awesome if you're a Dem. She was awesome if you are very very liberal; not so much if you're a moderate Dem. This is what a friend of mine who's a moderate Dem told me when I brought up the subject. Or at least he self-identifies as a moderate Dem. More left than me, but no so far left we can't be good friends. :D

[delhalew]

A woman who's audacity knows no bounds.

[bigfatjerk]

Nancy Pelosi is the best thing ever for the Republican Party. I hope she is always there as a leader of the democrat party, that's really truly a good thing for the conservative cause.

[SicEmBaylor]

That's what you think . . . :texan:

I've long been suspected of being a troll.

I'll admit it, I am Nancy Pelosi.

[SicEmBaylor]

Nancy Pelosi is the best thing ever for the Republican Party. I hope she is always there as a leader of the democrat party, that's really truly a good thing for the conservative cause.

The conservative cause and the Republican cause are neither compatible nor one in the same.

[The]

The conservative cause and the Republican cause are neither compatible nor one in the same.

True dat, cobra commander.

[soonerscuba]

The conservative cause and the Republican cause are neither compatible nor one in the same.How people haven't keyed in on the fact that SoH isn't a position for bipartisan bridgebuilders is also amazing, they need 50%+1 to do almost anything without a pressuring minority delegation of powers. You need somebody who puts votes in the bank, not warm and fuzzies in John Q Public's cockles. I also think this is why they are 3rd in line to the president, if it hits the fan to the point they are president, they can obviously get things done within a churning political environment.

[bigfatjerk]

The conservative cause and the Republican cause are neither compatible nor one in the same.

True but she wills still be good for both. I hope the republican changes to a smaller government party instead of the we spend less party.

[SicEmBaylor]

True but she wills still be good for both. I hope the republican changes to a smaller government party instead of the we spend less party.

They spend less? It depends on how you look at it. Spending always progresses, so it really isn't a fair measure to evaluate a President with his successor...rather you compare a President to his predecessor to evaluate spending. By that comparison, the GOP absolutely does NOT spend less. Bush not only vastly increased spending compared to Clinton but he also expanded the scope and power of the Federal government in ways that Clinton and Janet Reno could only dream of...it's why Clinton governed more conservatively than Bush did.

It isn't just about spending. It's about civil liberties, ethics, spending, foreign policy, the overall role of the Federal government....all of which the GOP has been wrong on for a very very long time.

I'm tired of this myth that the GOP is somehow the lesser of two evils. The differences between the GOP on the Federal level and the Democrats is so marginal that finding such a difference is an exercise in futility.

[SicEmBaylor]

If the GOP were truly a party of conservative principles then from '01-08 you would have seen reductions in the size and scope of the Federal government. You would have seen an increased emphasis on expanding freedom via the repeal of laws that limit our civil and individual liberties.

You would have seen a balanced budget, frugal spending, the elimination or reduction of unnecessary or at least redundant programs, and you would have seen a foreign policy more akin to the one Bush promised in his first campaign...a humble foreign policy that gets us out of the business of nation building.

Instead, the GOP governed completely in the wrong direction from their purported values. Of course, nobody should be surprised and here's why...

What most people do not and fail to understand is that the two major parties in this country are non-ideological. That's right, unlike European political parties that are based around an absolute core set of principles and ideology...ours are not.

The differences between our two parties are of policy not ideology. Now to be sure the GOP favors policies that are considered more conservative while the Democrat Party favors policies that are more progressive, but make no mistake...neither party adheres to an ideology. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has studied the history of the two major political parties -- both parties have flip-flopped and changed positions on issues so many times that it would make your head spin.

Having said that, every 3rd party in this country that I can think of is strictly ideological in the way most European parties are. They have to be as otherwise they'd be unable to seriously differentiate themselves from their bigger primary party cousins.

The sooner everyone realizes the nature and reality of our two parties the better.

[SoonerBorn68]

The House doesn't operate under unanimous consent, which means the minority can GADOCADWI on legislation.

The American voters started dealing with it. Remember Nov. 2?

[bigfatjerk]

I don't think I disagree with a single thing you've posted SicEm.

[SicEmBaylor]

I don't think I disagree with a single thing you've posted SicEm.

I can't imagine why anyone ever would. :D

[delhalew]

I don't think I disagree with a single thing you've posted SicEm.

You can make fun of his scooter or his football team, but my boy knows his Conservatism.:D

[soonercruiser]

I about fell out of my chair when she said:

Quick fact check is in order...I can only imagine where our country would be at right now if Pelosi wouldn't have made deficit reduction such a high priority.....

I nearly threw something at the TV when I saw & heard her say that!
That proves she is and will still be the Wicked Wich of The West!

[dwarthog]

If the GOP were truly a party of conservative principles then from '01-08 you would have seen reductions in the size and scope of the Federal government. You would have seen an increased emphasis on expanding freedom via the repeal of laws that limit our civil and individual liberties.

You would have seen a balanced budget, frugal spending, the elimination or reduction of unnecessary or at least redundant programs, and you would have seen a foreign policy more akin to the one Bush promised in his first campaign...a humble foreign policy that gets us out of the business of nation building.

Instead, the GOP governed completely in the wrong direction from their purported values. Of course, nobody should be surprised and here's why...

What most people do not and fail to understand is that the two major parties in this country are non-ideological. That's right, unlike European political parties that are based around an absolute core set of principles and ideology...ours are not.

The differences between our two parties are of policy not ideology. Now to be sure the GOP favors policies that are considered more conservative while the Democrat Party favors policies that are more progressive, but make no mistake...neither party adheres to an ideology. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has studied the history of the two major political parties -- both parties have flip-flopped and changed positions on issues so many times that it would make your head spin.

Having said that, every 3rd party in this country that I can think of is strictly ideological in the way most European parties are. They have to be as otherwise they'd be unable to seriously differentiate themselves from their bigger primary party cousins.

The sooner everyone realizes the nature and reality of our two parties the better.

Hear, hear.

Well stated sir!

[bigfatjerk]

I never really said the republican and tea party thing are the same thing. The Tea Party movement has to use the Republican party to do much of anything. And I think we all know that Nancy Pelosi is a good thing for both right now. The only time a third party really worked well in this country was probably when the Republican party formed. Really other than that a 3rd party hasn't worked so for the less government platform to move on it'll have to be through a major party.

All I really said was that Nancy Pelosi is good for that movement going on right now because she is probably the most hated person in politics.

[Half a Hundred]

The conservative cause and the Republican cause are neither compatible nor one in the same.

Sure they are. Conservatism by definition seeks to retain and increase the power of those in society that already have it. That's what Republicans are in favor of, too (and a lot of Democrats, thanks to campaign financing requirements). Of course, the terms used in our political parlance are all mixed up, and have been since FDR called himself a "liberal" (in reality, he didn't have all that much of a political ideology, being much more concerned with effective governance; his policies ended up being more closely aligned with social democracy than liberalism).

I wouldn't say you're a conservative. You're much more of a classical liberal, with a traditionalist streak.

[The]

It's cute that people in 2011 still think we have two parties.

We very obviously are a single party state that uses two different PR tactics.

[bigfatjerk]

Sure they are. Conservatism by definition seeks to retain and increase the power of those in society that already have it. That's what Republicans are in favor of, too (and a lot of Democrats, thanks to campaign financing requirements). Of course, the terms used in our political parlance are all mixed up, and have been since FDR called himself a "liberal" (in reality, he didn't have all that much of a political ideology, being much more concerned with effective governance; his policies ended up being more closely aligned with social democracy than liberalism).

I wouldn't say you're a conservative. You're much more of a classical liberal, with a traditionalist streak.

And how was anything he was doing was really effective? He only continued Hoover's policies and called it the New Deal and was somehow loved for it.

[3rdgensooner]

All I really said was that Nancy Pelosi is good for that movement going on right now because she is probably the most hated person in politics.

Do people really "hate" politicians? That seems awfully emotional.

[Veritas]

I wouldn't say you're a conservative. You're much more of a classical liberal, with a traditionalist streak.
Whaaaa....puffpuffpass there.

SicEm's an Old Right Paleoconservative...like myself. Takes one to know one.

Man, he sees himself being called a liberal of any streak his blood sugar will spike and he'll assplode.

[bigfatjerk]

Classic liberals were basically what our founding fathers were.

[Soonerson1975]

Classic liberals were basically what our founding fathers were.

Martha Washington was a hip hip hip lady

[Midtowner]

The differences between our two parties are of policy not ideology. Now to be sure the GOP favors policies that are considered more conservative while the Democrat Party favors policies that are more progressive, but make no mistake...neither party adheres to an ideology. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has studied the history of the two major political parties -- both parties have flip-flopped and changed positions on issues so many times that it would make your head spin.

Agreed to a point, but not to your characterization of things. "Conservative" and "progressive" are two terms which sound nice in campaign speech, but are at their essence, meaningless. I'd rephrase to say that Republicans tend to be pro-big business while Dems tend to be pro big business AND pro-entitlement spending.

Of course, I say that, and we all know that Bush and his Republican Congress delivered the medicare pharmaceutical coverage, one of the largest entitlements increases in recent memory.


The sooner everyone realizes the nature and reality of our two parties the better.

Or just vote Ron Paul. Voting Republican or Democrat gets us more of the same and there's not much difference in either party. If we voted Libertarian (or just Ron Paul), things would really change fast, at least assuming Paul wasn't assassinated.

[StoopTroup]

Dear Nancy....

Please turn in the G5 and the Exxon Mobil Gas card by Friday....


Sincerely,

John Boehner

PS: Thanks for the gavel sweet cheeks.

[Half a Hundred]

And how was anything he was doing was really effective? He only continued Hoover's policies and called it the New Deal and was somehow loved for it.

Hoover did not support direct employment programs like the WPA and CCC. The GDP rose consistently from 1933-1937, at which point the GOP forced Roosevelt to focus on deficit reduction. Then it dropped until WWII forced more massive deficit spending.

"Somehow?" Social Security meant that the elderly were no longer doomed to poverty after they couldn't work. The direct employment programs allowed men who were in the shameful position of unemployment to be able to provide for their families through their labor. The REA provided electricity to the countryside decades before it would have been profitable for private companies to do the same. Exact same situation with the TVA.

I know it's currently in vogue in right-wing circles to say that Roosevelt was ineffective, but you can't deny historical fact - people had very good reasons to support what Roosevelt did.


Whaaaa....puffpuffpass there.

SicEm's an Old Right Paleoconservative...like myself. Takes one to know one.

Man, he sees himself being called a liberal of any streak his blood sugar will spike and he'll assplode.

Paleoconservative - non-interventionist foreign policy, balanced budgets, government regulation of business only when necessary, and as much localized political power as possible.

That's also what classical liberalism stands for. The reason it became "conservative" in the middle of the 20th Century is because the term "liberal" became conflated with social democratic initiatives, and it was the older consensus on governing. However, in global political terms, paleoconservatism isn't conservative at all. It opposes the establishment of hereditary power, opposes the extension of that power through imperialistic means (war, economic domination of other countries), and supports the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to make their own place in society through hard work and merit. The last idea is especially important, and un-conservative, because the conservative position is that people have their places in society, and it is destabilizing for them to try and go outside that station.

So, in summary, the (excessively abbreviated) views on government of the ideologies:

Neoconservatism - the government should act to reward and support the most successful in society, through low taxes, subsidies, the use of military force to acquire raw materials, and other such policies. The strength of society is that of its strongest members. As such, power should be centralized in the hands of these members.

Paleoconservatism (classical liberalism) - the government should act to maintain a fair market for all participants. It should not reward those who choose not to participate in society, but it should also not act to enrich successful people, nor should it deny them opportunities to profit for themselves. This also includes the seizure of raw materials through military means. The strength of society is in the variety of opportunities available to any of its members. As such, power should be distributed among these people, through decentralized and local government.

"Liberalism" (social democracy) - the government should act to raise the standard of living for all citizens. It should provide a safety net for those hit with misfortune in life, while it should also determine which is more cost-effective: subsidizing those who do not want to participate, or having to pay for the residual effects of these people. It should also actively regulate the market, to prevent the harm that arises from market failures. It should also act to prevent individuals from acquiring too much power for themselves, both through economic and political means. As such, power should be distributed in a manner which is effective, and resistant to exploitation by individuals. This generally results in more centralized administration, greater bureaucratization, and more specialization.

[StoopTroup]

I sometimes wonder if Hollywood will ever cast Nathan Lane in a J.Edgar Hoover Movie and if LAS will be one of Hoover's G-Men? :D

[SicEmBaylor]

Sure they are. Conservatism by definition seeks to retain and increase the power of those in society that already have it. That's what Republicans are in favor of, too (and a lot of Democrats, thanks to campaign financing requirements). Of course, the terms used in our political parlance are all mixed up, and have been since FDR called himself a "liberal" (in reality, he didn't have all that much of a political ideology, being much more concerned with effective governance; his policies ended up being more closely aligned with social democracy than liberalism).

I wouldn't say you're a conservative. You're much more of a classical liberal, with a traditionalist streak.

Social Democracy is a liberal/progressive concept in and of itself. Roosevelt was very much an ideological liberal who looked for pragmatic progressive solution to social ills...more to the point...he believed the Federal government had a role and responsibility in fixing those social problems which, again, is a liberal or progressive concept.

I'm not sure what "definition" you have for conservatism, but I would most certainly argue the point that conservatism seeks to retain and increase the power of those in society who already have it, but I will admit that it's somewhat of a by-product.

[SicEmBaylor]

Whaaaa....puffpuffpass there.

SicEm's an Old Right Paleoconservative...like myself. Takes one to know one.

Man, he sees himself being called a liberal of any streak his blood sugar will spike and he'll assplode.

This is correct. Although classical liberalism with a traditionalist component is by and large the definition of paleoconservatism.

[SicEmBaylor]

Agreed to a point, but not to your characterization of things. "Conservative" and "progressive" are two terms which sound nice in campaign speech, but are at their essence, meaningless. I'd rephrase to say that Republicans tend to be pro-big business while Dems tend to be pro big business AND pro-entitlement spending.

Of course, I say that, and we all know that Bush and his Republican Congress delivered the medicare pharmaceutical coverage, one of the largest entitlements increases in recent memory.

This is simplistic nonsense.

[SicEmBaylor]

Hoover did not support direct employment programs like the WPA and CCC. The GDP rose consistently from 1933-1937, at which point the GOP forced Roosevelt to focus on deficit reduction. Then it dropped until WWII forced more massive deficit spending.

"Somehow?" Social Security meant that the elderly were no longer doomed to poverty after they couldn't work. The direct employment programs allowed men who were in the shameful position of unemployment to be able to provide for their families through their labor. The REA provided electricity to the countryside decades before it would have been profitable for private companies to do the same. Exact same situation with the TVA.

I know it's currently in vogue in right-wing circles to say that Roosevelt was ineffective, but you can't deny historical fact - people had very good reasons to support what Roosevelt did.



Paleoconservative - non-interventionist foreign policy, balanced budgets, government regulation of business only when necessary, and as much localized political power as possible.

That's also what classical liberalism stands for. The reason it became "conservative" in the middle of the 20th Century is because the term "liberal" became conflated with social democratic initiatives, and it was the older consensus on governing. However, in global political terms, paleoconservatism isn't conservative at all. It opposes the establishment of hereditary power, opposes the extension of that power through imperialistic means (war, economic domination of other countries), and supports the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to make their own place in society through hard work and merit. The last idea is especially important, and un-conservative, because the conservative position is that people have their places in society, and it is destabilizing for them to try and go outside that station.

So, in summary, the (excessively abbreviated) views on government of the ideologies:

Neoconservatism - the government should act to reward and support the most successful in society, through low taxes, subsidies, the use of military force to acquire raw materials, and other such policies. The strength of society is that of its strongest members. As such, power should be centralized in the hands of these members.

Paleoconservatism (classical liberalism) - the government should act to maintain a fair market for all participants. It should not reward those who choose not to participate in society, but it should also not act to enrich successful people, nor should it deny them opportunities to profit for themselves. This also includes the seizure of raw materials through military means. The strength of society is in the variety of opportunities available to any of its members. As such, power should be distributed among these people, through decentralized and local government.

"Liberalism" (social democracy) - the government should act to raise the standard of living for all citizens. It should provide a safety net for those hit with misfortune in life, while it should also determine which is more cost-effective: subsidizing those who do not want to participate, or having to pay for the residual effects of these people. It should also actively regulate the market, to prevent the harm that arises from market failures. It should also act to prevent individuals from acquiring too much power for themselves, both through economic and political means. As such, power should be distributed in a manner which is effective, and resistant to exploitation by individuals. This generally results in more centralized administration, greater bureaucratization, and more specialization.

You're a little off on your definition of paleoconservatism, but I'll get to it later. I'm on my way to enjoy some delicious Messican food so my blood sugar will spike to 1000.

[SoonerBorn68]

I sometimes wonder if Hollywood will ever cast Nathan Lane in a J.Edgar Hoover Movie and if LAS will be Hoover's G-string? :D

Fixed.

[SicEmBaylor]

I know it's currently in vogue in right-wing circles to say that Roosevelt was ineffective, but you can't deny historical fact - people had very good reasons to support what Roosevelt did.

Roosevelt was one of the most effective Presidents in American history. Denying otherwise is purely idiotic.


Paleoconservative - non-interventionist foreign policy, balanced budgets, government regulation of business only when necessary, and as much localized political power as possible.

That's also what classical liberalism stands for. The reason it became "conservative" in the middle of the 20th Century is because the term "liberal" became conflated with social democratic initiatives, and it was the older consensus on governing. However, in global political terms, paleoconservatism isn't conservative at all.

That's because there's no such thing as "global paleoconservatism." I've said many times around here that you can't apply the American political spectrum abroad because it simply does not and can not apply.


It opposes the establishment of hereditary power, opposes the extension of that power through imperialistic means (war, economic domination of other countries), and supports the idea that everyone should have the opportunity to make their own place in society through hard work and merit. The last idea is especially important, and un-conservative, because the conservative position is that people have their places in society, and it is destabilizing for them to try and go outside that station.

All correct, but your overall argument that paleoconservatism isn't conservatism because it can't be globally applied is utter nonsense. You can not apply American concepts of left/right conservative/liberal to Europe or anywhere else in the world. That fact doesn't mean that paleoconservatism isn't conservative. Paleoconservatism is, in fact, the only true form of American conservatism. Hell, even within Europe it's hard to come up with a universal/global standard of what conservatism is. The first problem you have is that, in Europe, conservatism is NOT an ideology at all. Burke is the perfect representation of this fact...an ideology requires a set of core principles and a world view. In Europe, this does not exist. Broadly speaking, you're right that European conservatism is originally rooted in the defense of and support of a monarchical structure; however in general terms it's simply a belief in slow, gradual, and methodical social change rather than rapid change or revolution.

But, once again, I agree with your individual points just not your premise that paleoconservatism isn't conservatism because it can't be globally applied. The idea that American conservatism has to meet a global ideological litmus test is somewhat absurd to me.

My only other complaint with your paleoconservative argument is that you fail to mention the strong populist/agrarian roots of the movement that is traditionally hostile to not only national power but national financial institutions as well. This is one of the biggest differences between paleoconservatism and neoconservatism and the Republican Party itself. The essence of paleconservatism is classical liberalism, but with a strong traditionalist component. There actually isn't a lot of difference between paleocons and libertarians, but there is a fine line between the two and that traditionalist component is the dividing line.