DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 28, 2011, 10:05:10 AM
-
Observing the plight of the 99 percent from the top-down!
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who served as Speaker of the House and is now head of the House minority, is once again spending her Christmas at the exotic Four Seasons Resort Hualalai at Historic Kaupulehu in Kona on the island of Hawaii.
Pelosi spent the last two Christmas holidays in Kona at the same hotel in an elaborate suite that rents for $10,000 a night. Pelosi has again selflessly decided to occupy the Four Seasons Resort Hualalai. The 99-percent should feel fortunate to have Nancy on their side. OWS looks forward to her report when she returns.
Pelosi has been escorted by local police during her last two holiday visits to Hawaii Island at a cost of $34,000 to local taxpayers.
(http://s.michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/pelosiabercrombie-1.png)
-
IIRC, while a majority of the "99%" folks saw their annual incomes drop, during Obama's recession & policies, every congress critter in DC saw their annual incomes go up, quite substantially
-
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's wealth grows 62% to $35.2M, Boehner, Reid's worth increases too
http://is.gd/nDtsbu (http://is.gd/nDtsbu)
-
Thanks Ami
-
Another 99% supporter.....(she feels yo pain!)
sporting a $2000 sun dress & costing US taxpayers
nearly $4 million for a 17-day vacation in Hawaii
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/k78qT0qWjRH9Q3EYTBcKRw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD02MTI7cT04NTt3PTQxNg--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/d8c961d4e7df551c020f6a7067004e5c.jpg)
-
Obama is obviously a racist, because he has two daughters and both of them appear to be Black.
The government does not pay for wardrobe expenses.
Obama and Hillary are the first and third most popular persons in this country, so the Republican scumpumping machine has decided to go after Pelosi. This is just stupid propaganda and will be ineffective. Still, it's all they have.
-
Deflection alert!!
Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi, or even Obama's 2 children, or even Hillary. It's about DC, especially Dems, trying to lay claim to "knowing what the rest of us 99% are going thru", being "connected to us" as it relates to budgeting, and simply surviving day to day living, which includes watching our incomes and pensions go down, while theirs goes exponentially up......using OUR tax dollars
But cudos on the deflection effort
-
No hard times in Congress
Representatives’ net worth more than doubles during span when American median slips.
At least one group of Americans has been profiting despite the faltering economy: members of the U.S. House of Representatives. They're supposed to be the part of the government that's "closest to the people." But as the saying has it, they came to do good and stayed to do well. In their cases, mostly very well.
"Between 1984 and 2009, the median net worth of a member of the House more than doubled, according to the analysis of financial disclosures, from $280,000 to $725,000 in inflation-adjusted 2009 dollars, excluding home equity," the Washington Post reported Monday.
By contrast, the typical American saw his "comparable median figure sliding from $20,600 to $20,500." The data came from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics at the University of Michigan.
That means the average representative's net worth is 35 times that of the average American's. This helps explain why Congress is so out of touch with the ordinary Americans they claim to represent and who in too many cases are suffering unemployment, foreclosures, even evictions. And it looks like the Occupy Wall Street movement needs to march about 228 miles south, from Manhattan to Capitol Hill.
America was founded by "citizen legislators" who took off a few weeks a year from their businesses or farms to ride on horseback or carriage to Congress, where their business was to preserve their country's liberty.
The new report comes six weeks after a "60 Minutes" report detailing how members of Congress are effectively exempt from most insider-trading prohibitions for trading stocks, and have profited handsomely.
"If they were in the private sector, they would be doing 20 to 30 years" in prison, Nicholas Bavaro told us; he's president of Bavaro Benefit Advisors in Modesto. "This shows how the whole system is dysfunctional. They should have a Citizens Compensation Commission, like we have in California." Mr. Bavaro previously served on the commission, which sets state legislators' pay and benefits.
Although Mr. Bavaro no longer is on the commission, it commendably adjusted legislators' pay to reflect the suffering in the private sector. In 2009 it cut legislators' pay 18 percent, to $95,291 a year (plus $142 per diem). And earlier in 2011, it canceled their taxpayer-funded cars. No more fun, fun, fun because Daddy took the T-Bird away. Also the Lexus, the Escalade and the Mercedes.
By contrast, Mr. Bavaro pointed out, the pay of members of Congress increases automatically, based on increases in the cost of living, thanks to a 1989 law. However, since 2009 Congress has canceled its pay increases, freezing salary at $174,000. But according to a 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service, as recently as 1979, congressmen were making $60,663 a year, in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars. And they were making $89,500 in 1987, before the automatic pay increases began.
How many private-sector workers have that kind of a deal? And, unlike California legislators, members of Congress also receive generous pensions.
Mr. Bavaro is right. A citizens panel should set the pay of members of Congress. Congress itself would have to vote it into existence. But its job would be to return congressional compensation to something more in line with that of the ordinary Americans whose taxes fund congressional paychecks.
Editorial (http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/congress-333214-pay-bavaro.html)
-
I am not the one that posted a picture of Obama's family and a dumb remark about a dress.
Go deflect yourself, sirs!
-
Great rebuttal. Must have taken all of half an hour to mull something that substantive & debate provoking
-
Must have taken 10 minutes to find those stupid photos, and three seconds to come up with all that crap about deflection.
-
And yet again, great rebuttal to the points that were made, that you apparently can't refute, outside of the SOP 3rd grade insults, slurs, and deflection efforts
Bravo
-
Deflection alert!!
Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi, or even Obama's 2 children, or even Hillary. It's about DC, especially Dems, trying to lay claim to "knowing what the rest of us 99% are going thru", being "connected to us" as it relates to budgeting, and simply surviving day to day living, which includes watching our incomes and pensions go down, while theirs goes exponentially up......using OUR tax dollars
But cudos on the deflection effort
The first post in the thread and the Michelle Malkin source it came from and the Hawaii Reporter article the Malkin report came from were pretty specific in targeting Pelosi. Just because you added on to CU's post doesn't change the meaning of his post, nor the meaning of the posts from the sources his post came from. Not sure why XO would be deflecting anything or why you think he is.
Personally i don't have a problem with Pelosi vacationing anywhere she can afford to vacation. I do have a problem with her currently legal insider trading. And I'll have a problem with any party that blocks legislation that fixes that inequity.
-
The first post in the thread and the Michelle Malkin source it came from and the Hawaii Reporter article the Malkin report came from were pretty specific in targeting Pelosi. Just because you added on to CU's post doesn't change the meaning of his post, nor the meaning of the posts from the sources his post came from. Not sure why XO would be deflecting anything or why you think he is.
I'm sure Xo appreciates both the defense, and the effort to criticize more of my postings, but the fact that he commented on this as being some RW attack piece on Pelosi, as well as on Obama's Children, not to mention the knee jerk need to throw in the racist card, then fails to produce ANY substantive commentary on the point being made about the amount of income that Congress (especially in the House, especially in reference to House democrats who are supposed to be the representatives of "the average folk") is what allows me to conclude it as a deflection effort.
Had their been ANY attempt to actually debate the merits of why Congress should be making substantially more in net worth, than the average person, or to debate "who's in touch vs out of touch" with the American people, then we could have moved on from that point, no deflection.
But no, it was a knee jerk name calling and proclaiming of just how evil those conservatives are again, minus ANY effort to actually debate the topic at hand
-
My mission was not to defend XO. My mission was simply to point out to you how easy it would be to assume that an article with Pelosi in the title and in the body of the article would be about Pelosi.
Simple as that.
And I'm not sure why you think my mission is to attack you. Are you exempt from being called on the nonsense you post such as an article about Pelosi is not an article about Pelosi?
-
People who run for Congress tend to have the sort of job where they will not be fired for taking time off to run for office. They are wealthier than average are the ones who run for office. The average American cannot run for office and as a consequence, the members of Congress have never been typical Americans.
This seems to be true of Democrats and Republicans alike, but of course, for sirs a rich Democrat is a hypocrite, while a rich Republican is simply a "successful businessman".
There is an obvious campaign by the GOP on now to attack Pelosi, because the President is quite popular and Congress is not. That is a fact.
Of the first three posts in this thread, the first and third are attacks on Pelosi.
I am deflecting nothing.
-
How many Congressmen became wealthy while they were using their power and inside knoledge as congressmen to aggrandise?
-
Why don't you tell us?
So far as I know, this happens in both parties.
-
for sirs a rich Democrat is a hypocrite, while a rich Republican is simply a "successful businessman".
The HUGE difference is the Democrats pretend and make a big deal about
how they are are for the poor and can "feel their pain".....kind of odd to
basically have the mantra "i feel your pain" while you stay in $10,000 per night
hotel suites, jet aound on private jets, wear $2000 sun dresses, appoint a
bunch of Wall Street tycoons to your cabinet.
the President is quite popular and Congress is not. That is a fact.
The President's policies are anything but popular.
As of today Obama has a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18
-
Why don't you tell us?
So far as I know, this happens in both parties.
No Republicans are businessmen and wealthy before they become Congressmen.
Democrats are statesmen who become wealthy after they sip from the chalace of POWER!
-
All general statements are wrong.
Every congressman has his/her own story.
I judge them by how they vote.
-
All general statements are wrong.
Every congressman has his/her own story.
I judge them by how they vote.
Hahahahahaa!
Can you Imagine that there were no such thing as a hypothetical question?
Have we any examples of Congressmen voting contrary to their own business interest?
-
Being as they do not tend to reveal their own business interests, it would be impossible to do any sort of thorough study.
There certainly have been a lot of fools who have spent a fortune trying to get elected and failed to do so.
We had a swindler named Green who spent millions trying to get the Democratic nomination for Senator and failed.
The Republicans are less discerning and elected a swindler as governor" Rick Scott, who had earned the hatred of even most of those who voted for him.
-
Well when the politician is willing to spend three times the annual pay just to have his ads play,
One may suspect that the pay on the books is not the whole compensation package,
-
My mission was not to defend XO. My mission was simply to point out to you how easy it would be to assume that an article with Pelosi in the title and in the body of the article would be about Pelosi.
Simple as that.
While my mission was to explain precisely how I concluded it was a deflection, per your request.....& in great detail I might add. You are free to disagree as I'm not mandating compliance, merely demonstrating the how.
Simple as that
-
To be clear, i disagree with you characterizing the 1st post as not being about Pelosi, when clearly it was.
You characterizing that disagreement as being anything other than a disagreement is a deflection of that disagreement. background noise if you will.
-
And to be even clearer, I demonstrated/explained how Xo's follow-up was a mere deflection attempt vs actually trying to debate any issue seriously
We are now demonstrating how this tangent is completely irrelevent to the points attempting to be made in this thread...in other words, pointless...background noise, if you will
-
Doesn't matter about XO . What matters is you said the first post wasn't about Pelosi and it was.
Fade to background noise.
-
Actually what matters is you don't have to agree with my conclusion, that instead of debating the issue, Xo decided to deflect with garbage about how evil & nasty Republicans must be in daring to criticize Pelosi or Obama's daughters
But by all means, continue with this irrelevant blather ::)
-
There is no doubt the first post was about Pelosi, though you concluded differently. It must be that reading between the lines thing.
-
actually trying to debate any issue seriously
=================================
It has never been, and will probably never be, possible to debate anything with sirs seriously.
Every discussion ends in an argument of what sirs meant vs what sirs said.
-
actually trying to debate any issue seriously
=================================
It has never been, and will probably never be, possible to debate anything with sirs seriously.
Yea, because I always respond with attacking the poster, or call the article all kinds of names, or refer to someone I disagree with as dolts, morons, stupid.....oh wait, that'd be xo. Or ignore when a direct serious question is asked.....oh wait, that'd be xo as well
Every discussion ends in an argument of what sirs meant vs what sirs said.
LOL....precisely. Strange how you and Bt will consistently ignore what I've said, and set your anchor on what I must have meant, despite even futher clarifications of what I've said. That's the most substantive point you've made in quite a while Xo. My compliments
-
Sirs says:
Strange how you and Bt will consistently ignore what I've said, and set your anchor on what I must have meant
Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi...
Don't see how i set anchor on anything other than what you said.
-
See, if you were focused on what I had actually said, vs what you thought I meant, this tangent wouldn't have gone on beyond reply #13. You would have said "ahhh, well I don't agree, but I see where you're coming from". Something along those lines, but here you are, persevering on yet again, in reply #32, what you apparently think I meant, and ignoring what I've clearly said. Which also includes no mandate to agree with how I came to my conclusion
Here's also a good example for Xo, when he goes off erroneously trying to claim I'm the one who doesn't respond seriously. Note Xo's 1st salvo at "seriousness" in response #5, & again in reply #8, then my followup in reply #6, and again in responding to Bt with reply #13, when asked a direct question
At least with this completely irrelevant tangent, that little bit of substance can be highlighted
-
Don't see how i set anchor on anything other than what you said.
===================================
I agree on this point.
sirs says A, then when someone else points out that A is flawed, sirs says he really meant B, and makes some nasty crack about how the other person was unable to see that sirs really meant B, and how reminding him that he said A is a "deflection". . If anyone corrects him and tell him that he said A, he wants to change the topic to how Bush did not lie about WMD's or something else unrelated.
-
Not quite,
Sirs says A.....Xo insults A and calls both A and sirs names, Bt distorts, or worse misrpresents A to imply sirs said B.
Sirs adds to why A means A...Bt spends the next 4+ pages claiming how B must be A. Xo salivates in agreement, and calls sirs some more names
Movin on , gents
-
See, if you were focused on what I had actually said
What you actually said was this:
Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi...
Do you deny saying that? Is someone else posting under your name?
-
Ironic that you claim need for context, then post a snippet of what I said. Bravo
-
The snippet was the money quote. Do you deny that you said the lead post was not about Pelosi?
Because the snippet says you did.
I just don't see why you are arguing against saying what you clearly said. It is there in black and white.
-
I just don't see why you are arguing against saying what you clearly said. It is there in black and white.
=====================================
Why does a chimp like bananas? This seems to be instinctive behavior.
-
The snippet was the money quote. Do you deny that you said the lead post was not about Pelosi?
Because the snippet says you did.
I just don't see why you are arguing against saying what you clearly said. It is there in black and white.
The context you conveniently left out, to what I CLEARLY SAID was......It's about DC, especially Dems, trying to lay claim to "knowing what the rest of us 99% are going thru", being "connected to us" as it relates to budgeting, and simply surviving day to day living, which includes watching our incomes and pensions go down, while theirs goes exponentially up......using OUR tax dollars
But as I said, bravo to the double standard
and right on cue, there's Xo to add his SOP namecalling snark. A double bravo 8)
-
Perhaps you would have been better served by saying the broader issue is blah blah and Pelosi is an example of that issue instead of saying that the article wasn't about Pelosi.
Then we wouldn't be having this little side discussion.
Hope that is helpful.
-
To be clear, i disagree with you characterizing the 1st post as not being about Pelosi,
when clearly it was.
When did SIRS characterize the 1st post as not being about Pelosi?
SIRS stated this wasn't just about Pelosi or Obama after
others besides Pelosi were brought into the discussion.
In fact SIRS even cheered when Ami pointed out that both
Republicans and Democrats had gotten rich after taking elected office.
Shows that SIRS is not a blind partisan and will gladly also cheer facts that
are not flattering to Republicans.
And I think SIRS is correct.....it isn't really about Pelosi.
Small picture it's about Pelosi, Big Picture it's not.....isn't that obvious?...lol
it's about many on the Left pretending they "feel your pain"
and then running to $10,000 a night hotel rooms or $2000 sun dresses.
They pretend they are "one of the people" but they are really elite as hell.
-
instead of saying that the article wasn't about Pelosi.
where did SIRS do this when you first accused him of this?
SIRS said it wasnt about Pelosi (or Obama) after the discussion
had changed to include pictures of Michelle Obama as well.
And after others besides Pelosi are brought into the discussion
wouldn't in fact what SIRS said be true....that it wasn't just
"about Pelosi"?
-
It seems both Bt & xo have fixated on Pelosi, as if this is all about her, and damn anything that was said that couldn't have made it any clearer as to what this whole issue has been all about. Deflection perhaps?? naaaaaaa ;)
Wash, rinse, repeat (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16406.msg137188#msg137188)
-
CU,
Sirs reply to XO was based on this from XO:
Obama and Hillary are the first and third most popular persons in this country, so the Republican scumpumping machine has decided to go after Pelosi
reply 5
I'm pretty sure that XO was referring to your post 1 and your reply 4.
And then here is Sir's reply.
Xo must have missed the part that this isn't really about Pelosi, or even Obama's 2 children, or even Hillary.
If XO was responding to your two previous posts, which were about Pelosi and Michele, why would the subject no longer be about the two folks you mentioned?
And as a side note do we really care where Pelosi goes on her own dime?
-
Actually, its our dime.
And one last time, it's not near as much as where they go, as much as they're claim to be "connected to" that of the average citizen & feel our pain that Obama's economy has wrought us, when its apparent very few of us are able to routinely stay at $10,000/day hotels, or buy our kids $2000 dresses, or invest in enterprises that they are privvy to imminent legislation & knowledge to
But let's make this all about Pelosi
-
Actually, its our dime.
Are you saying taxpayers paid for her lodging?
-
Without a record of a differentiation between money used from her salary and whatever "perks" are provided for as a congress critter, vs money from her investments, certainly could have
-
If XO was responding to your two previous posts, which were about Pelosi and Michele,
why would the subject no longer be about the two folks you mentioned?
Well first you first claimed Sirs said it "wasn't about Pelosi"
Now you are changing it to "not about Pelosi & Michele".
But all that...what I see as nit-picking....really doesnt matter anyway.
Isn't it obvious that the bigger picture is that it's bout the hypocritical Left?
It could have just as easily been about Michael Moore, Al Gore, John Edwards, ect...
I mean very quickly the discussion went from Pelosi to including Michele Obama
before SIRS even mentioned Pelosi.
to me this pretty well shows it wasnt "just about Pelosi"
and really when ya think about it...."big picture" it's not about either Pelosi or Michele per se
it's about the Left
"oh we feel your pain" from our $10,000 a night hotel suite!
-
And as a side note do we really care where Pelosi goes on her own dime?
Oh I don't care where she stays...
except to expose her as the super, super wealthy elitist she is.
-
And as a side note do we really care where Pelosi goes on her own dime?
Oh I don't care where she stays...
except to expose her as the super, super wealthy elitist she is.
Her wealth is common knowledge. But thanks for sharing.
-
Her wealth is common knowledge. But thanks for sharing.
I doubt it's common knowledge that this FORMER Speaker of the House
that pretends "she feels your pain" stays in $10,000 a night hotel rooms while she voices
support for the Occupy Wall Street kids sleeping on the concrete.
Don't you find that odd BT?
That someone is out front proclaiming on national television how she supports
the movement while these kids...many of whom are jobless and/or homeless....
sleeping out in the cold on the pavement.....and she as a long time member of
the establishment goes and gets a $10,000 a night hotel suite?
If she has soooo much sympathy for the cause why not really slum-it...lol
and get a $6000 a night hotel suite & take the other $4000 & have some
warm coffee and food delivered to the people sleeping on the concrete?
-
I certainly hope that the sin of combining compassion with the enjoyment of personal wealth hasn't forced Ms. Pelosi to commit other sins like hanging around with Norman Lear or wishing people a Happy Holiday.
BSB
-
Yep....yep....let's keep making this about Pelosi. Join the convoy, B
-
That someone is out front proclaiming on national television how she supports
the movement while these kids...many of whom are jobless and/or homeless....
sleeping out in the cold on the pavement.....and she as a long time member of
the establishment goes and gets a $10,000 a night hotel suite?
The whole idea behind occupy wall street was to highlight the inordinate amount of influence the monied interests can exert on politicians eager for donations. I don't believe money equals speech and i don't belief corporations should be able to donate to politicians they can't vote for. Same goes for unions. It is ridiculous that Obama is trying to raise 1 billion dollars so he can be re-elected.
It is ridiculous that congressional candidates spend multiple-million dollars for a two year stint. And it is ridiculous that their votes can be bought. It is ridiculous that government can pick winners and losers and back them with tax payer dollars.
I don't believe that part of the OW folks message is that much different than what the tea party folks rallied around.
So in that sense i support the OW's for bringing that portion of their message to the masses.
What i don't believe in is class warfare and the 99% mantra is a horrible divisive slogan.
-
".....yep....let's keep making this about Pelosi. Join the convoy, B"
Ah, just who the hell do you think CU4 is talking about?
BSB
P.S. I just had a delicious Buffalo, American Bison, burger. Leaner than beef cattle, and better, but expensive. $8.99 a pound. I feel the OW protesters pain though.
-
Do they have Ted's Montana Grills (http://www.tedsmontanagrill.com/menu.html) up your way . It's a joint venture between Ted Turner and George McKerrow Jr ( who founded Longhorn Steaks) and they specialize in Bison dishes.
-
I'll be damned. I see they have 1 here in Ma. and not too far from me. I'll be there real soon.
BSB
-
A lot of the family restaurants (I try to avoid chains) serve bison and other "non standard" meats up here. Actually, one of my favorite burgers is emu.
-
Whole Foods sells bison. I think they may sell emu as well. If bison costs $8.99 a pound, you should be able to get three or four burgers out of it.
-
I find ostrich dry like rabbit. Is emu similiar?
-
I buy it either at Whole Foods, or another market down the street. Same meat, it's pre-packaged. National Bison, maybe? Something like that.
I get 3 burgers out it. I could get 4 easily if I felt like it.
BSB
-
I have never eaten emu.
I had some stew with rhea (South American ostrich) in it, but it was spiced with a lot of stuff, and tasted a bit like turkey drumstick. It was in a stew, so it was not dry.
The dish was listed on the menu as "potaje de ñandú guazú" in a sort of rural place in Paraguay.
-
I find ostrich dry like rabbit. Is emu similiar?
Only if it's overcooked. Emu (and ostrich for that matter) are nearly all dark meat, so they tend to be moist. An emu burger looks almost like bison, with a bit less fat.
-
I was at an upscale type restaurant over the holidays &
I had a craving for a hamburger....so I got one.
Even the burger at this place was expensive...
But it was the best burger I ever had.
I asked the waitress what made their burger soooo good?
She said their "secret" besides buying good meat
was that they serve a lot of filet mignons
and while preparing the steaks they trim the filet mignons.....
she said they take all the filet mignon trmmings and grind
that in with their hamburger meat and that is some of the flavor I was tasting.
-
that means the place i bought it made it wrong. no wonder it bellied up.it was a real dry ostrich burger.shame though since it was a ostrich themed restaurant. I regret not buying those egg shells I may never have another chance again.