I hope sooner than later. I have nothing good to say about her. She really scares me.
I wish you had provided more info and links where I could learn exactly what you are talking about. I'd rather that you added them under comments so everyone could look it up but if not, please e-mail them to me personally. I'd like to read them.
I'm upset about the "Fairness Doctrine". It will destroy talk radio. I really like listening to it everyday and feel that a privately-owned radio station should have the right to broadcast whatever views it wants. I like listening to Boortz, Rush and Hannity every day. I don't feel that the government should monitor radio stations for political views and then require that those stations present opposing views. How many opposing views would there be? I'm not a Christian but Christian radio stations will be effected too. They will no longer be allowed to air an opinion (like pro-life) without being forced to have the opposing opinion aired. The government is trying to take away our free speech. I disagree with many Christian views, but I will fight (vote) to ensure that they have the liberty to express their views--just like anyone else.
And the bit about her demanding a commercial airplane (charged to our military budget) was over the top. She thinks much more of herself than anyone else does. How can she not see what a fool she's making of herself?
2007-02-15 15:52:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Witchy 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Ummmm, I guess this could go in the religion section.
I don't like Nancy Pelosi very much either, but you have to recognize that the American people voted for a change because of the existing christian leadership. I know it is hard to accept, but most ham and eggers, don't want George Bush or Nancy Pelosi telling them what to do, or who to worship. It is shows like Focus on the Family and the 700 club, telling us that Katrina was a result of homosexual lifestyles or unwed parents, that turns regular joes away from your religion. Pat Robertson recently said that God was sending a tsunami to the pacific NW. Most citizens don't want sign bearing Christians running around blaming natural disasters on the minority group dejour. It reminds us of how Christian americans used to blame similar disasters on Black people and unmarried women. Its just crazy, and if taken seriously by our leadership can cause problems for everyone, that is why Americans will always vote against a party, no matter which one, when it starts to lean too much in one direction.
It happened in 2000 when America was tired of Clinton's secular humanism, and will happen again in 2008 because america is tired of the evangelical pressure being exerted by Pat and Co. The only way republicans are winning in 2008 is if Hillary is the democrat representative, even then it will be a tight race. This is coming from a republican by the way.
2007-02-15 07:34:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by ɹɐǝɟsuɐs Blessed Cheese Maker 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
True colors? You mean, you're upset that she suggested those groups who LOBBY political issues, yet retain their Religious status??? ALL other religious groups who Lobby political issues, within ANY political circle, gets labeled a LOBBYIST... and has to follow those guidelines. If Focus on the Family or the 700 Club do not wish to be called Lobbyists... then they need to quit LOBBYING.
What's good for one group, is good for all the others. If they can't follow suit.... then they should free up ALL other Religious groups who lobby as well.
She is not trying to silence Christians. She's actually made a very good point on all of this. If you are a Religious group, you shouldn't be lobbying Political circles. If you wish to Lobby... then you aren't a Religious group... you're a Political group. There is a difference.
2007-02-15 07:36:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kithy 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just because it ended with a question mark does not mean it was a question.
Anyone is better than the idiot sitting in the oval office at the moment wiping his butt with the Bill of Rights since he seems to think we should have none.
2007-02-15 07:24:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I can't speak for all Americans, but I can say that I recognized her true color long ago. She's sort of a tannish pink. Sort of a true pink with a touch of brown added. Not too heavy on the brown, though.
2007-02-15 07:29:01
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A person makes a name for themselves on what they accomplish and merits. Not being he first of something. First Lady speaker of the house.
She has an attitude of being the first lady speaker of the house. That will get her no where.
2007-02-15 07:28:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by Just So 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yawn......
Retranslation.....
I'm upset that Nancy Pelosi's interests conflict with mine. I am going to promote my Christian news media that agrees with me.
It isn't silencing Christians to ask you to respect the separation of Church and State.
Silencing Christians would be destroying your churches and forbidding you to worship.
Unless Nancy Pelosi advocates destroying churches, your question is very silly.
2007-02-15 07:28:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Why not provide the details rather than spit out some vague talking points. If you want people to see her 'true colors' tell us what you think those colors are.
2007-02-15 07:24:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Probably when Libs actually realize that Hillary Clinton voted, and supported the war in Iraq.
2007-02-15 07:25:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
I am a Christian.
Please tell me what is so "bad" about Nancy Pelosi.?
What are her true colors?
2007-02-15 07:26:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋