Nevermind the whole Murtha incident... .. ..which her own party REBUKED her for.. .. . . . How about appointing Reyes as the HEAD of the 'Select Intelligence Committee' ??
How can anyone defend that 'decision' ? The HEAD of the committee.. ... .......the one who's supposed to know more than any of the others ?? He couldn't DEFINE nor DESCRIBE 'HEZBOLLAH'.. .... . . . and he 'guessed' wrong, when he guessed that our #1 enemy, Al Queda, was a foundationally Shiite organization !! And you think he's the ritght man for the job ?!?! Or are you an 'honest liberal', and can admit that neither Nancy Pelosi nor Reyes are qualified for their positions ????
2006-12-18 04:21:50 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the first respondent proved that you can't ever get a straight answer from a liberal !!
2006-12-18 04:27:07 · update #1
And the second respondent did the same !!
2006-12-18 04:27:43 · update #2
5 out of the first 6 respondents did NOT answer the question !! Liberals ALL !!
Should we Republicans begin reporting liberals for not answering the question ??
2006-12-18 04:30:07 · update #3
'killer' you received a 'thumbs up' from me . Surprised ?
2006-12-18 05:03:20 · update #4
Your first answer is a typical LIB answer, it wasnt an actual answer at all, answering a question with a question or slur....
That answers your question though, they wouldnt ever admit it!
2006-12-18 04:26:04 · answer #1 · answered by Katz 6 · 6⤊ 5⤋
The war between the parties continues. I know what she isn't qualified for - she isn't qualified to be a Republican. She is highly qualified to be a Democrat. I do not mean that as a slam against Democrats either. There are people here who have lengthy lists of appointees by Bush and other Republican leaders that have shady backgrounds and questionable morals. The same goes for the other side of the aisle. Not liking her appointments doesn't explain why you think she is unqualified for her position. It would be nice if you could actually address her lack of qualifications. Perhaps those issues could be debated and answered rather than just talking about her appts. and then labeling her "unqualified" because you don't like them. You speak of evasiveness, but calling her unqualified and then neglecting to point out exactly why you deem her so is pretty evasive in itself.
2006-12-18 12:45:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not qualified is a rather harsh term. while she may not live up to the classic standards of some of the best of the House, her style is definitely more refined than some of the more recent speakers. so "not qualified" is better described as "not experienced." a couple months and things will change, i'd bet on that. seriously, we gave bush 6 years to put his approval ratings in the toilet. it's only just that a recently appointed politician deserve a small fraction of that.
reyes on the other hand, probably will not change. it has been seen that he has a certain inconsistency at press conferences, and so inferrably in other situations as well. however i would like to point out that the head necessarily does not know all or more than the others. it is their job to find vulnerabilities and point them out to the actual branches of their division.
and i'm a liberal. you can't classify liberals as unable to answer clearly. if so, then bush is a proud liberal
Bush:
2003: there are wmd's in iraq
2005: we didn't find any wmd's. woohoo "slam dunk", in his own words.
but i'm positive that you will give the best answer to a conservative, even though you are asking liberals...why did i even bother answer your question?
2006-12-18 12:31:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
no. politics has never been about who is actually qualified to do something. we elected bush and frist and hastert and foley and zell miller didn't we? at least pelosi hasn't deliberately ignored reports of someone abusing the pages on her watch. as far as i'm concerned none of the politicians in government know about anything other than getting elected. you don't go into politics because you know a lot about something. none of the leaders in either party are really "qualified" to have the positions they do jave. bush sure as hell doesn't have the qualifications to be president
2006-12-18 13:41:11 · answer #4 · answered by C_Millionaire 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
compared to Bush, a chimpanzee is qualified.. so I'd say Pelosi is over-qualified for the position... or are you saying that's a more trying job than the presidency? No one is perfect... I even gave Bush some slack for a while.... but Pelosi will do a good job.. she might be a little headstrong but that is what the nation needs right now to balance Bush a little bit... in the next presidential election you will see a moderate win and then the bickering about extremists will simmer down some and people like yourself will speak upon deaf ears because no one will want to hear your forked speak anymore. but until then enjoy!
P.S. Where's bin laden? He's not in Iraq......
2006-12-18 12:36:03 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yeah, choosing between Hastings and Reyes put Little Nancy in a real pickle, didn't it? What a bunch of LOSERS!!!
And gawd help us once these morons start making "decisions"!!!
Notice how the Weak Sisters can't "answer" without making the subject my boy George while ADMITTING that she's not qualified - what a bunch of nitwits!!!
2006-12-18 12:25:14 · answer #6 · answered by Fast Eddie B 6 · 4⤊ 5⤋
The day a Republican admits Bush is not qualified for his job and lied and manipulated the country and Congress into backing his vendetta against Iraq, I will say she is unqualified.
EDIT: No you should grow up and realize that just because you dont like the answer doesnt make it not an answer. Why dont you try posting questions that are answerable instead of highly biased and illogical that would be a start.
2006-12-18 12:24:40 · answer #7 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 9⤊ 7⤋
You haven't demonstrated how she's not qualified. Instead you've mis-characterized (spun) a number of incidents and then claim that they prove your original point, that she is unqualified.
2006-12-18 12:31:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Her most egregious blunder has to be assigning Alcee Hastings to that committee. He is a convicted bribe taker who, because of her, has access to classified information. Am I the only 1 who has a problem with this?
2006-12-18 12:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
The liberals would never admit that their favorite socialist
is NOT QUALIFIED for the job.
2006-12-18 12:26:40 · answer #10 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
Sure, as soon as you admit that Bush is not qualified for the job of commander in chief.
The first respondent proved that reps can't admit the same for their own party.
2006-12-18 12:25:14 · answer #11 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 6⤊ 7⤋