Can anyone in the GOP match Pelosi or Boxer for vileness?

Discussion in 'US' started by stoatman, Aug 11, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Pelosi has been showing her incredible vileness the past few weeks (if you need me to point at examples then you are a Muppet), and one cannot quite easily forget Barbara Boxer's "call me Senator, I worked really hard to get that title" comments.

    As far as I can tell, all the particularly vile characters are in the supposedly "nice" party, and the supposedly evil characters in the "nasty" party aren't really very nasty at all.

    Am I wrong? Can the GOP muster a creature vile enough to challenge Pelosi or Boxer for the title? Or even challenge Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Rahm Emmanuel, David Axlerod, or that old chap with the silly voice and a safe seat whose name I can't remember?
  2. The nasty characters in the nasty party really are VERY nasty
  3. names, we need names! Who, and why?
  4. Isn't it remarkable how much Americans hate their own government?

    Anybody care to have a guess on the odds of another civil war in the US in the next decade, blue states versus red states?

    1/20 might be about right, excepting an assassination. Make your own book if that happens.
  5. It'll kick off in Texas.

    But fair point there. Who have the GOP got to match Pelosi of Kennedy (T.)?
  6. Aren't these 'people' in the Democratic party a bit like those 'people' in the Labour party in the UK? Do they not share similar vilenesses?

    IMHO, Democrats have the same issues with envy, spite, unpleasantness and greed that Labour do in the UK.

    One only has to look at the likes of Campbell, Michael Martin, Whoreperson and Broon to see the similarities.
  7. Its the problem with those who lead the way in espousing the values of the socialist left: they are the first ones to reach the stumbling block.
  8. They get voted in by those without riches and power on the basis that they hate it as much as the proles, only to find themselves, when voted in, cossetted in the very lap of that which they hate.

    They find themselves in the lap of comfort, power and riches, dealing with the movers and shakers, where sh!t gets DONE, because money and power moves stuff along, and that's when the real hate starts. It's when the self-hate starts.

    They hate themselves for living like gods and actually rather liking it, so, to salve their consciences, they become more shrill in public, more outspoken, more 'left', more pro-prole, but of course, it's become a pantomime for an audience of the stupid. They forget where they came from, and why their values meant so much, and so they start to trip up, to make daft statements and policies that are wrong at every level, but sound right from the clouds in which they now reside.

    Whoreperson, living the high life on expenses, becoming ever-more shrill about wimmin's rights; forgetting that she and women in general have plenty of them, or she wouldn't have her job with all those perks.

    Clinton's wife, admonishing some poor reporter/translator for mis-reading a question, because SHE'S THE FACKING BOSS, RIGHT?!?!

    Pelosi and Boxer, getting all high and mighty and talking down to people for not respecting THEIR TITLES!!

    Labouristas getting uppity, and just LOVING their new ermine robes and their titles of LORD AND LADY!
  9. Easy. Going back a bit, how about Nixon or perhaps the members of HUAC? Dan Quayle (OK, so being a moron shouldn't make you vile)? Newt Gingrich?

    (Anyone remember Gingrich being forced to admit during his criticism of one defence program that no, he hadn't bothered to read up on all the facts, and yes, he was being funded by the competitor of the system he was criticising?)

    Among "leading supporters", what about Pat Buchanan? Fox News?

    Having a vileness competition among politicians is pointless. Insisting that the most vile are in "that" Party, but not in "my" Party is just naive.
  10. There are an equal amount of jerks in both parties... just that the Republicans don't actually put their really rude members up for election, instead they use them as rabble rousers and organizers. Personally I don't trust any politicians... they are all cheap actors on the take from the same lobbyists who's loyalty is to their party rather than their constituants.
  11. You are having to go back quite a way there...

    Gingrich never struck me as being particularly that vile.

    Fox News was actually the only organisation that gave both parties a fair shake of the stick in the last election cycle, and had very little time for the loony elements on the Republican side. Don't forget that the other 4 cable news networks were busy making up and repeating ridiculous lies about Sarah Palin and running interference for Obama.

    Don't get me wrong, this isn't a vileness competition. I have just been so irked the last few months by the venom spewing from the DNC (in particular Pelosi and Boxer), and their rank hypocrisy, that I wanted to see if I was missing any GOPers who are just as bad. It looks like I wasn't...

    I rather share the viewpoint of Tray Parker and Matt Stone (creators of South Park) -- I hate both sides, I just hate the DNC more.