Pelosi is a plantain

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...e-chamber/

In an unusual breach of decorum, even for the divided Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chased Rep. Tom Marino across the House floor, taking offense at comments by the Pennsylvania Republican during debate on the border funding bill Friday night.

“We don’t have law and order,” Marino began as he wrapped up his comments on the border supplemental. “My colleagues on the other side don’t want to do anything about it.”

“You know something that I find quite interesting about the other side? Under the leadership of the former Speaker [Pelosi], and under the leadership of their former leader [Rep. Steny Hoyer], when in 2009 and 2010, they had the House, the Senate and the White House, and they knew this problem existed,” he continued. “They didn’t have the strength to go after it back then. But now are trying to make a political issue out of it now.”

Off-mic, Pelosi then approached Marino, crossing the aisle in view of cameras, and apparently challenged Marino’s assertion that Democrats did not do anything about the issue when they had majority control.

“Yes it is true,” Marino replied directly to Pelosi, who was House speaker in those years. “I did the research on it. You might want to try it. You might want to try it, Madam Leader. Do the research on it. Do the research. I did it. That’s one thing that you don’t do.”

Marino then urged lawmakers to support the border supplemental “because apparently I hit the right nerve.”

After Marino concluded his remarks and as many Republicans applauded their colleague, Pelosi crossed the chamber again in view of cameras, enraged, pointing and sticking her finger at Marino.

She then followed Marino up a Republican aisle, gesturing and arguing with him. Lawmakers on the GOP side gathered in dismay as one spoke out to tell the chair that the House was not in order, in an effort to halt the bickering.

Pelosi finally relented after Republicans tried to get between Pelosi and Marino, and she returned to the Democratic side of the chamber. The House then promptly voted to approve the $694 million border supplemental, 223-189.

*UPDATE: According to Pelosi spokeswoman Evangeline George, “Leader Pelosi just wanted to remind the Congressman that House Democrats had the courage to pass the DREAM Act – and have the courage to stand up for what the American people want: bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform.”

George added that “Pelosi accepted the Congressman’s apology.”

But Marino’s chief of staff, Bill Tighe, stressed that Marino did not apologize to Pelosi, and will not apologize.

“[Rep. Marino] did not apologize to Leader Pelosi and does not intend to do so as he has nothing to apologize for. She was entirely out of line in approaching him while he was recognized and delivering remarks on the Floor,” Tighe wrote in an email. “Her staff’s comment in your story about her accepting his apology in simply not true.”

Later, Marino took to Twitter to explain his side of the story.

"Rep. Pelosi called me an 'insignificant person' on the Floor of the House. I'll ponder that for a while driving to Williamsport tonight..."
"...of course I'll be driving myself, with no staff or security. And I'm just a country lawyer who worked in a bakery until he was 30...

I didn't even think it was possible for her to be less likeable, but she always manages to surprise me.

and let me just say, I didn't even know this guy, but, I think he must be some sort of saint for not decking her right there at his podium when she got in his face like that the second time.

I'm trying to understand why this is relevant.

*UPDATE: According to Pelosi spokeswoman Evangeline George, “Leader Pelosi just wanted to remind the Congressman that House Democrats had the courage to pass the DREAM Act – and have the courage to stand up for what the American people want: bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform.”

a likely story

The freaking video on ABCNews cuts off at exactly the point I actually watched it to see.

a likely story

She lied about him "apologizing" for no apparent reason, why wouldn't she lie about the rest? Given her history, I assume every single thing out of her mouth is either a blatant lie or the ramblings of a senile old woman.

The freaking video on ABCNews cuts off at exactly the point I actually watched it to see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzFRMWB2n6E

They mostly ignored her until the end, where he did some gaveling and asked for the House to get back into order.

They mostly ignored her until the end, where he did some gaveling and asked for the House to get back into order.

I'm disappointed. I would have loved to see the actual confrontation and watch that plum make an ass out of herself.

...shouldn't it be peach instead of plantain?

I always have thought of her as a massive you-can-guess-what since she claimed that the only way for the American public to read the healthcare bill she wanted passed was to vote for it without reading it:

[video=youtube;QV7dDSgbaQ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0[/video]

I didn't think it was that bad. *shrug*

I always have thought of her as a massive you-can-guess-what since she claimed that the only way for the American public to read the healthcare bill she wanted passed was to vote for it without reading it:

[video=youtube;QV7dDSgbaQ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV7dDSgbaQ0[/video]

Because most ordinary Americans not only read all laws passed, but also would want to read all 900-some pages of the ACA.

Because most ordinary Americans not only read all laws passed, but also would want to read all 900-some pages of the ACA.

what kind of argument is this? you can't pass pomegranate without telling the public what's in it. look at all the SOPA and whatever BS. now imagine trying to pass that without revealing what exactly the law said

what kind of argument is this? you can't pass pomegranate without telling the public what's in it. look at all the SOPA and whatever BS. now imagine trying to pass that without revealing what exactly the law said

We had that happen in Colombia last year.. or something very similar. Congress passed a law "without reading it" and "for some reason" there were all these things that gave absurd benefits and protections to (who would have guessed it) all congressmen. Politicians are just despicable.

what kind of argument is this? you can't pass pomegranate without telling the public what's in it. look at all the SOPA and whatever BS. now imagine trying to pass that without revealing what exactly the law said

That's not my argument (and it wasn't what Nancy Pelosi was arguing either).

Because most ordinary Americans not only read all laws passed, but also would want to read all 900-some pages of the ACA.

When a politician doesn't want constituents to read a bill they're passing, it's not out of concern for eye strain or wasting their time.

If you don't think that there would have been attorneys and other law experts combing through the bill to notify the public as to what exactly is in the bill, you're mistaken. They were denied the opportunity to read not out of a lack of interest, but rather a lack of conscience on Pelosi's part.

When a politician doesn't want constituents to read a bill they're passing, it's not out of concern for eye strain or wasting their time.

If you don't think that there would have been attorneys and other law experts combing through the bill to notify the public as to what exactly is in the bill, you're mistaken. They were denied the opportunity to read not out of a lack of interest, but rather a lack of conscience on Pelosi's part.

1) That clip is taken out of context
2) She's not saying "we're not going to tell you what's in it, lol" she's saying "if you really want to understand it, read it yourself" ("beyond the fog of controversy")

Can't find any news articles that say that experts were denied the right to read the bill, but I've only done a half-assed search anyways.

2) She's not saying "we're not going to tell you what's in it, lol" she's saying "if you really want to understand it, read it yourself" ("beyond the fog of controversy")

if that's what she meant, why didn't she say it?

if that's what she meant, why didn't she say it?

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

as opposed to "but you should read it with an open mind, away from the fog of controversy"

as opposed to "but you should read it with an open mind, away from the fog of controversy"

There are an infinite number of other ways she could've said it and I did not say that was the best way to say it. Invariably how you interpret that comment is based off of your world view, your political views, among others.

There are an infinite number of other ways she could've said it and I did not say that was the best way to say it. Invariably how you interpret that comment is based off of your world view, your political views, among others.

I don't trust any politician.