"WASHINGTON -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told the Wall Street Journal that she is considering a two-staged effort to boost the shaky U.S. economy, arguing for action now on a stimulus package of $60 billion to $100 billion, followed early next year by a companion measure that would include a "permanent tax cut."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122600310456906045.html

Not sure why the WSJ published this, since according to Yoss, it is merely speculative and there is nothing to discuss until a bill is proposed.

It's not speculative if she actually talked about doing it. Big difference.

No, she is saying she favors a stimulus, like she and others have said she favors the Fairness Doctrine.

There are no details about the stimulus she is thinking about, just that she favors it.

Little difference, unless you want to get into a discussion about the definition of difference.

which is what Chuck Sschumer did, same thing, but I am sure you'll parse this too.

Well, what about this quote then,

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.” (emphasis added)

Sounds like someone in the Democratic Congressional leadership
talked about reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine. I'lll take it you see how this issue and the stimulus issue are either both speculative or both real, based on your own criteria.

Did he ever talk about doing something legislatively about the issue as Pelosi did? Somehow I think you would have posted that statement if he had. Obviously if he made that statement in 2007 he has done nothing in the last year.

this is why you cannot take him seriously

Seriously, what did he mean when he said it is time to reinstute the fairness doctrine.

And I don't say the specific words from Pelosi that she said a legislative solution. Please post Pelosi's statement that says she will do something legislatively, then explain what the definition of reinstitute is.

Oh, TMOS of all people, says that I can't be taken seriously! That's great. Maybe you can work some crazy abortion opinion into this somehow too!

It sounds as though he was expressing an opinion. And then he didn't follow through on it, either by word or deed. Pelosi appears to be talking about actually introducing legislation.

Appears - would you be ... opining? Can't be. That would be speculation, which is not worth anyone's time.

So, just to sum up, you cannot find any quote in the article a specific statement from Pelosi that says she is introducing a bill, planning to introduce a bill or even thinking about planning to introduce a bill.

But in your OPINION, you believe she might introduce legislation.

Now, please explain why this is legitimate discourse, but yesterday's thread about the Fairness Doctrine is nonsense.

Ok, I do not want you attorneys to be disturbed by the smell of hot buttered popcorn straight from the microwave, but I had to get that and a slice of pizza ready to watch this answer

What are you talking about? It specifically says she called for "a $60 billion-to-$100 billion stimulus package this month, followed early next year by a companion measure that would include a "permanent tax cut."

700 billion bailout here, 25 billion Ford and GM bailout there, 100 billion stimulus package over there...pretty soon it adds up to "real" money...money we don't even have now...and they haven't even started trying to pass any of the gazillion empty promises (lies) they made to get elected.

Did she introduce a bill? Or is she just opining. Which is what you said you were doing. So stop wasting your time by speculating. Or concede that this is the same as the Fairness Doctrine discussion.

No YOU said that, I didn't. You also said

[/quote]

No, here is what you said.



I concede that while you did not say you think or believe, you said sounds and appears. But I would say that you were not stating a fact,, but if you say it is not opinion, I will let you define it how ever you wish.



Ooh, got me on that one. Another point for Yoss on something tangential.

Now, one more time, since you said it appeared that Pelosi was actually talking about introducing legislation, even though the article doesn't say that, please explain how that is different that our prior discussion about what democrat support for the Fairness Doctrine appears to mean for future legislation.

This has gone past being ridiculous. OK, once more. She called for "a $60 billion-to-$100 billion stimulus package this month, followed early next year by a companion measure that would include a "permanent tax cut." So she called for not one, but two pieces of legislation. No one, to my knowledge has done that for the Fairness Doctrine.

It doesn't say legislation. You said it appeared that she was talking about introducing legislation. The article doesn't say that.

But I agree, this has gone beyond ridiculous. So, I guess it's okay for you to speculate about what legislation may or may not be proposed, but not for others. I wil check with you in future before I post in a thread that is speculating about future legislation.

Everyone, Yoss has stated it is not wasting time to talk about this potential legislation, but defintitely wasting time to talk about Fairness Doctrine.

I'm shocked I tell you, shocked