Once again Nancy opens her mouth and removes all doubt...

Stupid is as stupid does.

Pelosi's argument is that, in democracies, there ought to be a set of shared values that all political parties share. As she notes, this would mean that electoral turnover would have less of an impact on public policy.

This is quite similar to John Rawls' theory of the "overlapping consensus" - see here External Link .

Rawls is *the* preeminent figure in modern political theory/philosophy. It's embarrassing to take Pelosi's words out of context* and sarcastically accuse her of ignorance about political theory when, in reality, what she was saying is quite similar to the dominant view in contemporary political theory.

*You can dispute whether or not Pelosi is empirically correct that the gulf between the parties places one outside the overlapping consensus required for a stable democracy. But that doesn't mean she has the theory wrong.

Apparently Boehner & Co. don't think elections matter either otherwise they wouldn't have slapped a little polish on the broken down Pinto with two flat tires and claimed it was a Cadillac.

>"what she was saying is quite similar to the dominant view in contemporary political theory"

That may be the dominant view among the political class, but it would be news to the American people.

>"Pelosi's argument is that, in democracies, there ought to be a set of shared values that all political parties share."

Then Pelosi presupposes a country made up of people with the same values and outlook. America was once such a country, but that America was sacrificed on the altar of Diversity.

Quote from the Imbecile

“To my Republican friends: take back your party. So that it doesn’t matter so much who wins the election, because we have shared values about the education of our children, the growth of our economy, how we defend our country, our security and civil liberties, how we respect our seniors, . Because there are so many things at risk right now -- perhaps in another question I'll go into them, if you want. But the fact is that elections shouldn't matter as much as they do ...But when it comes to a place where there doesn't seem to be shared values then that can be problematic for the country, as I think you can see right now.”

Couple of thoughts:

Elections demonstrate that we do not have “shared values” – Democrats want to murder children in the womb– we don’t, Democrats do not want children to be educated, but to be uneducated and manipulatable voters– we don’t, Democrats want to destroy and/or control the private sector with big government hypertrophic regulations that have never worked– we don’t, Democrats do not believe you have the right to use your property if they want it – we don’t, Democrats do not want to defend the country, but want to surrender our national prominence to multinational bodies– we don’t, Democrats think that you can regulate people to freedom provide we are free to do only what they want us to do (except if you want to abort children or commit sodomy or smoke “medical” marihuana – they have a blast) – we don’t and Democrats want to kill our seniors with “healthcare” act death panels – we don’t.

I guess elections don’t matter if Republicans or conservatives get elected, only when Democrats do.

If elections don’t matter, then why did the unions pour millions in to the Wisconsin Supreme Court race?

If we have “shared values” then why does Nancy Pelosi’s husband not voluntarily allow his companies to be organized?

We do not share the values of Democrats who think it is democratic for elected officials to leave the state and refusal to do their job, but demand to be paid. Democrats did that 150 years and today is the anniversary of the war they started that lead to the deaths of 600,000+ dead Americans.

The smaller our government gets, the less elections should matter.

There's a college kid commenting on Rawls. Adorable. He even says Rawls is "the preemininent" political philospher. I love this kid. One thing to remember about Rawlsian "consensus" and "veils of ignorance" the "objective" truths they posit are only binding if you agree with the Rawlsian liberal worldview. No contradiction allowed. College professors can enforce that because they are all Leftists and they decide the grade. In the real world people don't agree; Rawlsians, Pelosi and Zack don't like the real world because they don't get to dictate the result. Hence, they don't like elections with consequences. They are american fascists.

The comment seemed to come from the Temple Mount. Remember her favorite word is "The Word."

Remember ladies you can think like that when you get your botox and millions from your husband's work. She is doing it all for the children. She is a mother and a grandmother.