Talk:Nancy Pelosi

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reginod (Talk | contribs) at 21:33, May 14, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Recommend

Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians - Myk 02:25, 3 April 2007 (EDT)


  • Perhaps users might want to know when she was first elected, and how many terms she has served, and exactly where her district is.....there are several overlapping the city and county of San Francisco, I seem to remember. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 20:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
I would agree with this. Also, we need to look closely at campaign contributions she's given to other members of Congress; it appears with her $50-90 million net worth, she basically purchased the House leadership position by surrounding herself with people she contributed money to get them elected to the House in the first place. RobS 20:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Which see, all previous Speakers. It is germain, but hardly unusual. And nothing illegal about it. Newt and Tip O'Neil gave away millions. I did like your contributed picture better, Rob. I think it captured her true "inner beauty". --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 21:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
Newt and them guys didn't have the personal wealth Pelosi has. While yes, some of these figures control donors and bring influence that way, I don't beleive there's been a Party leader in recent memory who purchased her way to the top with her own personal fortune as Pelosi has. And there is no other explanation, how a clearly radical figure who openly confesses to holding radical minority views has been able to assume leadership of not just a major party, but now the the majority party.
Let's put Pelosi's wealth in perspective; her net worth is approximately twice that of GW Bush & John Edwards who are worth roughly the same, and about half of John Kerry's sole-and separate fortune apart from Theresa.
Actually I had a better photo yesterday but lost it, still trying to find it. Amazing what a little bondo and $249 Earl Schieb paint job can do, huh? RobS 21:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Liam....

I don't think a hit piece, without citation, even on one so deserving as Madame Speaker, is appropriate.  ;-) --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 22:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

There are citations. I'll add a few more.

  • Liam, sign your posts, please. Nothing on her being the first woman Speaker? I think "Criticism" should fall below the other items on the page, eh? I complain about the same things on Reagan, etc. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 00:59, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I'm writing more for the Pelosi page right now. And sorry I only just now learned how to sign my posts. --Go liam 01:03, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Thanks, Liam...you might want to check check wastingtonpost.com for Thursday's lead editorial..... --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 01:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Quotation

The current "quotation":"The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America's children."

The actual quote:"When I accept the Speaker's gavel, I will be taking it out of the hands of the special interests and put it into the hands of America's working families and children for a better future. There will be civility, integrity and bipartisanship. We'll conduct ourselves in the manner the American people expect."[1]

  • I am happy to see that Madame Speaker, aside from her foreign policy aspirations, also agrees, through word and deed (using non-union migrant workers at her winery), with the majority of Americans who are against labor unions. --~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 17:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

NY Post quote...fictitious and misleading...

The actual, full quote from the article follows....

Pelosi actually chided the White House for not objecting to the visit to Damascus on Sunday by three GOP House members. "I didn't hear the White House speaking out about that," she whined.

Actually, the White House did just that: "We ask that people not go on these trips," said spokeswoman Perrino. "We discourage it. Full stop."

Besides, even Pelosi must understand that there's a huge difference between three regular legislators calling on Assad and the Speaker of the House - arguably the highest-ranking Democrat in Congress - doing so. As such, she is seen as the representative of the president's political opposition - one that desperately seeks to undercut and reverse his foreign policy.

More than two centuries ago, Congress passed the Logan Act, which forbids private citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. As an elected official, Pelosi isn't restrained by the law - but its meaning is clear.

Negotiating with world leaders - particularly those at odds with the United States - should be left to the president, or those authorized by him to do so.

I have removed the quote.--~ Sysop-TerryK MyTalk 17:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hype

  • Pelosi indicated at a press conference that she had carried a message from the government of Israel. She then said she carried a message from the President. [1] Both of her claims about message carrying were lies. Pelosi told reporters the meeting "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert". She may face criminal charges.

This is a little hyperbolic, now. Whose gonna do it, one of the fired US Attorneys? RobS 20:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, there are many who were not fired. And, last I checked, the Attorney General can perform all of their tasks, lol. --~ TK MyTalk 21:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
    • Yah but you know the chance of this happening is 1000 to one; you probably got better odd on somebody trying to introduce impeachment proceedings against Bush. RobS 22:08, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Rob, do I detect some note of disapproval at political appointees being removed from "at the pleasure of" appointments? --~ TK MyTalk 22:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Iglesia, the guy removed in New Mexico is a real scream. A week after he's removed, the new appointee indicts a former Democratic mayor and the former 30 year Democratic State Senate Majority Leader for embezzeling $4 million during constuction of a new Courthouse (see the irony there--even building a Courthouse is a corrupt enterprise in New Mexico). And of course $40,000 of the stolen cash ended up in Bill Richardson's campaign chest. Now considering the Courthouse has been in use now for nearly 5 years, how did this all manage to evade news headlines unitl the day after the US Attorney was removed? This one will be interesting to follow in Washington. RobS 22:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I actually brokered a interaction between a United States Senator and the Attorney for the San Diego area, where the Senator was demanding action on filing against Illegal Immigrants, which was not being done. The Senator actually contacted the White House wondering why this particular appointee was refusing to prosecute crimes, unless it was the 6th or so offense. Fast-forward several months, and this same Senator is one of the chief complainant's against the President, claiming the firings were unjustified and purely political! I wonder how one takes the "politics" out of political appointments? ROFL! --~ TK MyTalk 23:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Yep. It's like Krauthammer said, Gonzales gets the boot after this screw up. RobS 23:26, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

That stuff about Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt

It appears that the inclusion of the info about those three congress members is disputed. I'm figuring its a matter of it detracting too much from Pelosi's account of the trip? I suppose that could be the case. It might fit better on the Syria page. Or is there another reason, maybe regarding the way I worded it? Because I could change that too.--Nomine Cervus 07:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  • IMO, including the information about the three Republican Representatives is germain, so long as one explains the reason for the mild criticism they received was due to their relative minor stature, compared to the Speaker of the House, who is third in line to the Presidency. Also, they did not hold press conferences asserting they were the bearer of diplomatic messages. As stated, it erroneously gave the impression that 1) the White House didn't criticize their going, and 2) maybe because they were of the same political party, they received less heat. You might also google, and add a line their going wasn't something new, dozens of Members of Congress have visited there, much to the displeasure of the White House, including Senator Specter, another Republican. I might add they all got the same baloney words from the dictator. ;-) --~ TK MyTalk 07:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
    • True; there is a big difference between a routine Congressional fact finding mission and (1) a stated aim prior to undermine US foreign policy (2) all the doggie doo Pelosi stepped in when carrying through her threats. RobS 13:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

WashPost Editorial

Um, you know, posting the WP editorial in its entirety probably goes beyond the bounds of "fair use" and into the land of copyright violation. Maybe it should be excerpted instead? (especially since it has a link to the full editorial for anyone who wants to read it...) --WJThomas 13:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

  • LOL. Sorry, it is fair game. But nice try. --~ TK MyTalk 18:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't claim to be an expert, nor do I want to belabor the point, but reproducing a copyrighted work in full is almost certainly a violation.--WJThomas 14:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, thanks for your concern. --~ TK MyTalk 09:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
As someone who has worked in the journalism industry, WJ Thomas is right. Fair use allows for reproducing a couple of paragraphs. You CANNOT reprint a editorial in full unless you have the express permission of the originiator of the material. Proper procedure online is to have a graph or two and then link to where the original material is located.--Dave3172 09:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
Indeed. For that matter, it's also a violation of CP's Commandments. AKjeldsen 09:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
  • We have actually been over this elsewhere. Most publications exempt their Editorials from the ususal. In this case I actually asked the Editor, before using it. Please try to be less imperious, it isn't friendly. As an Administrator here, I really don't need to be reminded of the Commandments, but I thank you for your dedication. --~ TK MyTalk 06:26, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Photo

You sure that photo was for the meeting with Assad? I thought it came from the Saudi leg of the trip, where she probably did run into more a traditional, conservative, fundemental Islamic society, in which case she is to be commended for taking her revolutionary ideological hat off. RobS 16:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The photo was taken while she visited a mosque in Syria.http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2007-04/04/content_843088.htm --WJThomas 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
So it's incorrect to say she was dressed to visit Assad? RobS 16:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, I thought women couldn't go into mosques? How does a non-beleiver get an exemptions? I guess it shows what a woman worth $90 million can purchase for herself, huh? RobS 16:44, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Apparently they can, as the article mentions other (Syrian) women inside the mosque. It also says that Pelosi visited a tomb said to contain the head of John the Baptist, which is interesting in that I didn't know such a place existed...--WJThomas 18:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
  • As I said it, so it was. She met with Assad before or after the mosque deal. Please contact me Rob. --~ TK MyTalk 06:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I suggest you spend your time doing constructive edits and creating pages, rather than arguing items like this. Notice the same suit? Have you seen the photos of her arrival for the meeting? Leaving it? Have you gotten someone at the Speakers office to run it down for you? No. I didn't think so. I get suspcicious of people who stop to argue things like this. I hope I am wrong. --~ TK MyTalk 09:35, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Not trying to be a pain, just trying to help make Conservapedia an accurate and trustworthy research tool. Meanwhile, I'm working on edits online and creating larger pages offline. And if you'd rather I just keep my mouth shut when I see errors, I can do that, too.--WJThomas 18:42, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, I think you know the answer. Or should. Of course no one wants you to "just keep your mouth shut". Certain things I check out before I do them. Because of my access and background, I just pick up the phone and ask. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to if the Speaker was snapped entering or leaving the Mosque? No. Is it important to the integrity of this project as to exactly when the Speaker removed, wore again, and removed again, her scarf? No. Did the speaker, within a 24 hour period wear a scarf in difference to their religion, or hers? Yes. Does it bother me? No. I think it common courtesy if she did so. Is the press making itself look even more inane and marginalizing itself once again, in making this an issue? Yes. Is it silly for editors to pick at such things, merely because they self-identify as members of the press? Yes. As it wasn't that important, I did revert the copy attached to the picture. But when seeing several dozen such discussions in a day, is my patience and tact impacted to the negative side? Yes. --~ TK MyTalk 18:43, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Legislation? Life before Congress?

Nothing. --~ Sysop-TK /MyTalk 18:19, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Harry Hay

Wait--so Pelosi is some sorta child-molester symp because she was in a parade that also happened to have some other old pervert? That's really really really weak, even for this place. (Double Wait--Grandpa Walton was gay???)--WJThomas 10:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

This isn't any old pervert, this is the widely recognized Granddaddy of the organized gay rights movement in the United States. And his longtime membership the CPUSA & NAMBLA is of historic interest to students of Progressive activism. The commonality of views with other Progressive leaders and activists such as Nancy Pelosi is not just incidental or coincidence. RobS 10:41, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I understand who H.H. is. What I'm saying is, his mere presence in the parade doesn't say anything (factual or otherwise) about Pelosi. If being in the same parade makes her a suspected commie and pedophile, it would also make commies and pedos out of Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448, all of whom were also in the parade along with Hay, Pelosi, and 175 or so other groups/individuals.--WJThomas 12:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Borders Books & Music, ROTC-San Francisco, the San Francisco SPCA, KKSF 103.7 FM, the Anti Defamation League, the San Francisco Fire Department, Golden Gate Bridge Director Joseph Blue, Most Holy Redeemer Parish, the Triangle Tae Kwon Do Club, and American Legion Post 448 are not Speaker of the US House of Representatives, a Constiutional Office third in line of succession to the Presidency. And after Bush & Cheney get impeached, it will be too late to discover the politcal base of support that created Nancy Pelosi. Call it full disclosure. RobS 12:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

All righty, then. Of course, if that's the standard, perhaps you should add a NAMBLA disclosure to the Rudy Giuliani entry, 'cuz he's done the same thing (marched in "gay pride" parades with NAMBLA).--WJThomas 21:35, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Giuliani marched with the "founder of the gay movement in America" [2] in this cite compared with Thomas Jefferson, Emma Goldman, and Rosa Parks? RobS 22:16, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Worse than that--he marched directly behind the NAMBLA float in NYC's gay pride parade, right past St. Pat's. And he's proud to be a supporter and honorary member of the Stonewall Vets Association (Stonewall being the riots that kicked the modern gay rights movement into high gear).--WJThomas 23:07, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
You're still mixing apples and oranges. Harry Hay is the Rosa Parks of gay liberation, and you are discussing something entirely different. RobS 12:19, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
How is it entirely different? Pelosi appears in the same parade as a guy who's a gay liberation forefather and NAMBLA supporter (though not a member). Giuliani appears in a parade with a whole bunch of actual NAMBLA members, and joins up and hangs out repeatedly and proudly with a whole crowd of gay lib founders/activists (the Malcolm X's of the movement, if you will), and even rides on their float to lead the parade, and becomes an official member of their group to boot. If anything, Rudy's transgression (if we can call it that) is worse than Pelosi's...--WJThomas 13:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
We don't know if Hay is a member or not. If NAMBLA has a whole series of his material on their website, who is in what position to who here? The history shows there would be no NAMBLA, i.e., an above ground organized movement, or as CPUSA members call it, the "open party" engaged in organizational and politcal activity. And it is absoltulely clear that NAMBLA does much more than advocate issues of "sexual freedom". RobS 13:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not disputing that they're a bunch of lowlife sleazemeisters. I'm just saying that if it's wrong for Pelosi to associate with them, it's equally wrong for Giuliani (and that the same sort of informational disclosure should be in his entry here).--WJThomas 15:57, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Let's see a cite. RobS 15:58, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
Sure: "This year’s ("gay pride") parade, however, in one respect, was different. In the caravan marched the Republican candidate for mayor, Rudy Giuliani....Rudy marched just behind the float of the North-American Man-Boy Love Association." Patrick Buchanan, NYPost, 7/17/1993
Buchanan plays the NAMBLA card again. I'll do a lexis-nexis. RobS 16:29, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I see, too, that the entry sez Pelosi marched "along with" Harry Hay. The cites show the parade lineup: Hay, then The SF LGBT Community Center Project, Team San Francisco (whatever that is), the San Francisco Fog Rugby Football Club (I'm bettin' that's some wild scrum!), "Healing Waters", and then Pelosi. Intentional or not, the sentence above makes it sounds like she was at Hay's side, hand in hand, when in reality it would seem that they wouldn't even have been able to see each other. --WJThomas 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

All Quarters

A)"All quarters" implies conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats--Pelosi was criticized by one side (the right), not both/all. B)Yah, Murdoch's NYPost is conservative, the Washington Post editorial page has become increasingly conservative, and the Philadelphia Inquirer (note spelling) piece is not an editorial, but a commentary by a conservative columnist.--WJThomas 22:38, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

No one as best I can determine defended Pelosi (no one other than her extreme liberal base). Even Pelosi backtracked. The cite says, "Our message was President Bush’s message". [3] What, pray tell, does this mean? Pelosi agrees with Bush's foreign policy? Pelosi was out promoting Bush's foreign policy? Of course she had to say it in Portugal, and not here, cause she'd be skewered by her own base for furthing Bush's efforts to destroy the planet and civilization as we know it. But she knew by the time she got to Portugal what a colossal farce this trip had been, and had to go on record somewhere disclaiming her actions. RobS 22:46, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
1) Dems of all stripes defended Pelosi (not just the the "extreme liberal" ones), and some Republicans(!) did, too. 2)"Our message was Bush's message" clearly means that Pelosi didn't say anything contrary to administration policy or to embarrass the president. Or, to phrase it another way, she and the president are on the same page. She continued, "It became clear to President Assad that even though we have our differences in the United States, there is no division between the president and the Congress and the Democrats on the message we wanted him to receive." 3) She said this in Portugal not because she was trying to hide, but because that's where she was when the reporter reached her by telephone. --WJThomas 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Gimme a cite after the Washington Post editorial was published of a Democrat (outside her base) that defended her. RobS 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
April 09, investment banker, respected diplomat, Council on Foreign Relations board member (including chairman of its Terrorism Task Force), semi-hawkish Dem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTNKwqXpoc --WJThomas 08:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

See Also?

Maybe I'm missing something--what do Lorena Ochoa and Ségolène Royal have to do with Pelosi?--WJThomas 23:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I second the motion to remove. RobS 00:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
  • They could possibly be Democrats, who support Pelosi, however since there isn't any mention of them in the article, I think the editor, WJThomas, should possibly explain......--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:22, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Gay Rights and Abortion

Should these maybe be separate headings, or is the plan to tie them together somehow? It's a little confusing as it stands.--WJThomas 20:14, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

  • She's a well known sodomite. All will reveal in good time. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 05:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

My Most Humble Edits

A new Pelosi paragraph shows up, and it has some issues—typos, grammar mistakes, unsupported factual assertions, incomplete information. I spend a few minutes cleaning it up, and doing so in a way that (I thought) was completely “fair and balanced”, as they say. But TK reverts the whole enchilada with nary a how-do-you-do, and then locks the article as if I’m vandalizing or somesuch. So let’s go over said edits in the interest of full disclosure:

RobS wrote: “In may 2007 Pelosi stuck in a $25 million pork project that would benefit her rich husband, Paul Pelosi, in the Water Resources Development Act. The project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties near owned by Paul Pelosi and will significantly boost the property values.”

  • I changed “may” to “May”, as proper nouns should be capitalized. No clue why that should be reverted.
  • I added a comma after “2007”. Ditto.
  • I added in the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran, which happens to be fact (according to the cited National Review article). The original sentence made it sound as if the earmark was completely Pelosi’s idea, which is not the case. Even assuming that Pelosi agreed to the request solely to increase her riches, it’s still a fact that it was not (apparently) her idea. To suggest otherwise is deceit.
  • I changed “pork project” to “earmark”. “Pork project” is a loaded term, a value judgement—one person’s pork project is another’s vital economic development—so I went with the more neutral “earmark”. In addition, the previous paragraph had already noted that “earmarks” are often a source of corruption, so the reader understands that “Pelosi’s earmark” may equal “corruption”.
  • I added “Republicans charge” before “would benefit her rich husband”. “…(W)ould benefit is a factual assertion, one that is impossible to support. “Republicans charge…” is more accurate (as that’s what’s going on here). I’d also accept “conservatives charge…”, or “some charge…”, or drop the “Republicans charge…” and change “would’ to “could”.
  • I removed “rich” modifying “husband”, because A) it’s extraneous (we already know the Pelosis are rich), B) it’s irrelevant to the issue, C) it comes across as pejorative (is it wrong to be rich?).
  • I added “$15billion” in front of the name of the bill, because that’s the size of the bill, and to give some sense of scale to the earmark.
  • In the portion, “…project involves renovating ports near four separate commercial real estate properties…”, I changed “near” to “only a mile”. “Near” is nebulous, unclear—how near is “near”? In this case, “near” is a mile or so. I first considered just “a mile”, but then added “only” to try to keep within the spirit of the original.
  • Later in the same sentence, I also removed a second “near” that was clearly placed there in error (“…near four separate commercial real estate properties near owned by Paul Pelosi.”—makes no sense). Again, no need to revert that.
  • Changed “will” to “may” in, “will significantly boost the property values.” As above (see “would”), an unsupportable factual assertion.
  • At the end of the paragraph, I changed “Pelosi’s” to “Pelosis” (plural, not possessive). Once again, no reason to revert spelling/grammar errors.

In addition, the article could/should note (if you want to make Pelosi sound more craven) that, A) the Pelosis increased their SF real estate holdings in December, perhaps in anticipation of her Speakership (and therefore the ability to get the previously-rejected earmark passed), and B) new House ethics rules (pushed by Pelosi) require sponsors of earmarks to sign a statement saying they will not personally benefit from said earmark (which Pelosi did), and that the nature of the controversy is “whether she acted properly when she certified that she had no financial interest in the waterfront redevelopment project, given the possibility, however speculative, that it could cause the value of her husband’s property to rise.” Both points are in the cited article, and would bring clarity to that section of the entry.--WJThomas 12:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

  • the source of the earmark request, the Port and mayor of SanFran
Going into the relationship between the mayor of San Fransisco & the San Fransisco's highest ranking member of its Congressional delegation may be somewhat extraneous, but it could be done if necessary.
  • Pork is what is is.
  • Republicans charge
This is AP reporting; we are not AP.
  • Given it is the rich responsible for all the worlds problems, from oppressing minimum wage workers to Halliburton starting the war in Iraq, this is an extremely important point. RobS 13:15, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Re: “not one author”

Look at the article—how many authors does it have? Now if you like your characterization better—that’s fine, but don’t try to justify your edits by mischaracterizing the facts. --Reginod 13:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

One man's earmark is another mans pork. RobS 13:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I see three problems with this--
This is a total non sequitur and it fails to respond to my point. It even manages to be about a totally different edit.
The article says earmark—not pork—find an article that says pork and I won’t touch it, but since the author being used as an authority here chose to call it an earmark that’s what the article here should say.
Pork is spending for the sake of spending alone—like a bridge to no where—the article suggests that this spending is something that actually provide some real benefit, suggesting it is not actually pork (but see point two above, find a source that calls it pork, properly attribute it and I won’t complain)
--Reginod 13:44, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Pork benefits the home state of district, depending if your Senator or House member. RobS 14:05, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
You are still not responding to the substance of my post—and are not responding at all to the initial post.
Not all earmarks are pork. Pork is spending that is a benefit only to a representative’s district. If a representative comes from a district where they make Kevlar vests and he/she earmarks millions to buy vests from that factory for the military, it is an earmark and is not pork (assuming the military needs those vests). --Reginod 16:49, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
This goes beyond benefiting the district. RobS 17:11, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Then it isn’t pork.--Reginod 17:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  1. ↑ http://www.kxmb.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=111801
    2. Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Nancy_Pelosi&oldid=160892"