• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pelosi fires back at '60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption'

I find it kind of amazing that the same people who pass out at the thought of doing away with a tax preference for corporate jets also pass out at the thought that the third highest ranking person in government has access to a plane as a perq of her employment.

Remove the corporate welfare.
 
Do as I say, not as I do, the motto of Congress.

Why should I obey the law when they don't?
 
She is an idiot...and why the hell shes still in a position of authority is amazing....if its proven she insider traded she should get the SAME treatment as Martha Stewart

The fact that it isn't illegal for any law maker to practice insider trading, is amazingly beyond belief.
It doesn't matter which side of the isle it's from.
 




Let me open this by saying that anyone caught using their office to inside trade should end up behind bars regardless of the letter following their name. But it does give me a special warmth to see that Queen Pelosi is being exposed as the crook, liar she is.


j-mac
I think any public official convicted of insider trading should have all of their wealth confiscated. Every bit of it. Houses, jewelry, cars, cash, everything. Then they should be hanged until dead and their bodies left hanging for three days.

But I have no strong opinion.
 
It's completely legal for them to do so. :shrug:

Indeed it is. And it's up to us, the voters, to separate the chaff from the wheat depending on how we define "chaff" and "wheat."

As for Pelosi in particular, however, there's not much to be said about someone who professes in one sentence to being a devout Catholic and then says in the very next sentence that "they" have a "conscience problem." The problem with Pelosi is more than about telling pronouns.
 
Indeed it is. And it's up to us, the voters, to separate the chaff from the wheat depending on how we define "chaff" and "wheat."

As for Pelosi in particular, however, there's not much to be said about someone who professes in one sentence to being a devout Catholic and then says in the very next sentence that "they" have a "conscience problem." The problem with Pelosi is more than about telling pronouns.


And ofcourse robotic hand movements.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom