| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |
| Type | Created | Category | Creator | Sort | Votes | Hides | Rating | |
| multiple | 25-Oct-2009 | monkeeeeeee | cerealkiller | by votes | 27 | 3 | 40.4% |
|
| User | Comment |
|---|---|
| southernyankee | posted 25-Oct-2009 10:26pm |
| Frostbrand | posted 25-Oct-2009 10:33pm How does a bullcrap question like this get out of Qual? |
| LJD | posted 26-Oct-2009 9:12am There aren't words to describe Pelosi....but arrogant is one...and I'm being kind |
| LJD | posted 26-Oct-2009 9:14am Good question Cereal Killer... |
| bill | posted 26-Oct-2009 12:31pm I'm not a big fan of Nancy Pelosi, but I honestly can't bring to mind any speaker of the house that I liked. I suppose it's hard to like most politicians.
Incidentally, her daughter (Alexandra Pelosi) did a good like documentary about George Bush "Journeys with George" (2002), following him around during his presidential campaign. |
| cerealkiller | posted 26-Oct-2009 1:41pm I can't understand how the hell she could be in Congress. She comes off like a brain-dead imbecile when she talks. |
| jettles | posted 26-Oct-2009 10:00pm this survey is a twit |
| Kristal_Rose | posted 27-Oct-2009 12:41am Don't know enough to comment. Stopped paying any attention to her. She seemed better than I could generally hope for. |
| Kristal_Rose | (reply to southernyankee) posted 27-Oct-2009 12:55am Last night I was trying to dream up a new house. I doubt anyone (most of all the incumbents) would want to dispense with either the house or senate, so the only option would be a third wing of the rep branch. Anyhow, the idea is to have a house of national proportional party-platform representation, so if there is a 6% green or 4% communist national popular interest, there is 6% green and 4% communist representation in that house. Better yet would be live popular vote on all matters that house deals with.
I still think that conflict of interest laws need to be way tighter, such that no direct or indirect funding from special interests can legally exist arising from legislation 7 years prior or 14 years after one takes office. Of course one might stay elected because they land their state a defense contract, but as long as the salary for staying elected isn't much of an enticement, I figure that much will have to remain part of the system. |
| mandy | posted 27-Oct-2009 4:32pm I don't care |
| FordGuy | posted 27-Oct-2009 4:41pm Once you go black you never go back.... |
If you'd like to vote and/or comment on this survey, please Sign On
| This Month's Best | Best Active | Best Inactive | Pick a Creator | Pick a Category | All |
| New Survey | Replies | Users | Search | Chat | Forum | Feedback | Statistics | Customize | Help |
Also,
The Dems for pushing such a partisan health care bill. The GOP for caring more making Obama look bad than trying to argue of the merits of the bill. The Dems again for putting the deficit at 3 trillion this year. The GOP again, for running a 1.5 trillion deficit over the last 4 years. All of them, except for Ron Paul and a few others for being long sold out to special interests and bankers. Ron Paul however is also a twit for being so right-wing he should have been born in the 1800's.
Seriously, I don't even see why it matters if we put the Democrats or the Republicans in office. They're not even "real" Democrats and they're not "real" Republicans because they represent their lobbyist's first, their state second, and their platform third.