Page 1 of 2
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:41 pm
by GORDON
From here.
She'd bring them tips on how to beat their women without leaving bruises.
And nuclear warhead blueprints.
Maybe some plutonium, if she has a spare pocket.
Edited By GORDON on 1191272098
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:31 pm
by GORDON
And she'll bring a copy of "Smack my bitch up" from Prodigy and it'll become Iran's national anthem.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:58 pm
by TheCatt
I'm confused, I only saw pictures of her wearing that in the mosque, and she was not wearing it when meeting with the head of Syria.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:04 pm
by GORDON
The freedom/syria group said she wore it on the streets, I just assumed she did.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:10 am
by GORDON
Carter stands up for Pelosi.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/carter.pelosi/index.html
I bet she's actually glad about that.
Edited By GORDON on 1175785822
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 11:29 am
by thibodeaux
If Carter likes it, I think that's more evidence that it was a bad idea. Here's the payoff:
Syrian cabinet minister Buthayna Sha'ban expressed his support for the visit and said, "Syria stands for freedom and for peace, and so does Nancy Pelosi."
Yes, I'd say Nancy Pelosi's stance on freedom is approximately that of the ruling thugs of Syria: plenty of freedom for her and her friends, not so much for you and me.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:06 pm
by GORDON
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:11 pm
by GORDON
She found out the head scarf wasn't polling well on dtman.com, so she ditched it for the photo op.
But it isn't far away, is it...
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:14 pm
by GORDON
"Pratfall in Damascus"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....pf.html
If you're a democrat, you know you've screwed up if even the Washington Post won't cover for you.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:08 pm
by thibodeaux
No shizzle
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:42 am
by unkbill
TheCatt wrote:I'm confused, I only saw pictures of her wearing that in the mosque, and she was not wearing it when meeting with the head of Syria.
Me to because what she was wearing was a scarf not a hijab which covers your shoulders. Which is traditional and would be considered a great insult not to cover her head in a Mosque. Which is why when it was around her neck in public(My God with her hair showing) it was just a plan scarf.
She might not have been right in going but some people just have to make up shit to make her look bad instead of sticking with the facts.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:30 am
by GORDON
unkbill wrote:TheCatt wrote:I'm confused, I only saw pictures of her wearing that in the mosque, and she was not wearing it when meeting with the head of Syria.
Me to because what she was wearing was a scarf not a hijab which covers your shoulders. Which is traditional and would be considered a great insult not to cover her head in a Mosque. Which is why when it was around her neck in public(My God with her hair showing) it was just a plan scarf.
She might not have been right in going but some people just have to make up shit to make her look bad instead of sticking with the facts.
From the front page post, as quoted from the group in Syria who saw it:
As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect <span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus</span> all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women’s rights in the Middle East.
The pics I posted may have been in a mosque, but she still kept wearing it outside. For comfort or something. Even though it set a horrible example.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:20 am
by GORDON
unkbill wrote:She might not have been right in going but some people just have to make up shit to make her look bad instead of sticking with the facts.
And some people will defend the actions of a democrat no matter what.
Did you know what she did was probably illegal?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
It mentions her name right in that article, but it'll probably get removed, soon.
For posterity:
Current Events
On April 6, 2007 an article in the Wall Street Journal contended US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's diplomatic overture to Syria on April 2, 2007 without Presidential or State Department authorization was a violation of this Act.[2]
So keep on defendin.
I hope the democrats never start hanging human babies up to dry in barns so that they can be dried and smoked. Half the country would defend it then we might actually have a shooting war on our hands.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:56 am
by GORDON
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264334,00.html
State Department officials said Thursday they made it quite clear they did not want Pelosi to visit Syria, a nation that is listed as a state sponsor of terror and is home to terror group Hezbollah, which started a low-grade war with Israel last summer.
But FUCK the State Department because Pelosi is a DEMOCRAT and DEMOCRATS CAN DO NO WRONG.
Right?
They are Democrats first, Americans second.
Edited By GORDON on 1175875041
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:28 pm
by TheCatt
So what did the Republicans do when they visited?
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 1:39 pm
by GORDON
Probably evil. Fucking republicans.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:23 pm
by unkbill
GORDON wrote:So keep on defendin.
I already said that she might not have been rignt but lets ignor that.
So I'm just saying your Reform party of Syria based in Washington is full of shit. She did not wear it in front of the horrible prez of Syria. Just her not wearing it in front of him sent old clerics into fits. How dare a women be in public in front of the man and press like that. Again I'm not saying your wrong on her being there just base your arguement on fact not propaganda.
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:50 pm
by GORDON
Ok. I'll just never assume that the suppression of women is evil, then we can agree.
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:54 pm
by DoctorChaos
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 5:00 pm
by GORDON
I'm having a REALLY hard time believing CNN is skewing facts to make Bush look good and Dems look bad.
