Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Bodhi on April 04, 2007, 11:20:10 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/pelosi.mideast.ap/index.html
Just what the hell does she think she is, and what is she doing in Syria? Policy comes from the Whitehouse, and laws come from the Congress. She is a spokesperson for a majority in the house, not a policy maker. These rediculous publicity stunts from her and her ilk are just the kind of problem causing crap that is giving help to terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan.
This is also another example of wasting tax payers money to flaunt publicity for herself. This woman seems to forget that the speaker of the house is NOT the President of the United States.
-
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- A White House spokeswoman denounced a plan by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit officials in Syria as part of a trip to the Middle East.
Pelosi's outreach to a state sponsor of terrorism is a ``really bad idea,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a briefing in Washington. ``Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''
Perino's remarks come as a group of Republican lawmakers has embarked on their own trip to Syria. Michael Lowry, a spokesman for Representative Robert Aderholt, said that the Alabama lawmaker will visit Syria as part of a Republican delegation led by Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. Wolf is the top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department.
Perino wasn't available to comment about that trip.
Interesting that they criticize one group and not the other. Did you know about the Republican group, Bodhi? Are you as angry about them over there in Syria too?
I agree though - I don't think any President would appreciate Congress interfering with their foreign policy. And its not really their job or responsibility.
-
Representatives Frank Wolf (Republican, Virginia), Joe Pitts (Republican, Pennsylvania) and Robert Aderholt (Republican, Alabama) met with the Syrian Foreign Minister just 3 days before Pelosi did, so let's add them to the outrage list, too.
Congressional "fact finding" visits are a drop in the ocean of wasted taxpayer money. Actually, having some people who have been somewhere and met someone outside of the beltway is a good thing. I prefer it to clueless shut-ins who have never seen anything outside the border.
-
Now we just need Carter and CLinton to go there and resolve the conflict by just talking.
Just like they did in Korea.
-
You don't want an informed Congress on the political atmosphere of today's world?
Heck, didn't Newt Gingrich go to see Arafat in 1998, when Clinton was still in the White House?
Damn, why are politics always viewed from one side? Some of us are really fed up with BOTH groups... can't the petty bickering finally end and have some real decent measures past through Congress?
-
Republican Congressmen in Syria are fine, its a scientific fact that they are better at foreign relations than Democrats, who are only grandstanding.
shamus
-
Pelosi is 3rd in line to the presidency and represents a hell of a lot more than fact finding. At this stage of the game she is effectively the anti president.
-
See Rules #2, #5
-
women are well respected in that part of the world - I am sure her message carried alot of weight
LOL
me thinks it is j a way those turds (repubs included) can see the ME on the taxpayers dime
-
personally, the closer a politician is to the office of the Presidency, i think the more they should publically give respect and deference to the President's foreign policy decisions, especially during times of international crisis, because on the House Speaker level, it weakens the image of the President and the United States with their adversaries.
often in the past, visits to foreign governments at odds with the USA have been made by those willing to allow themselves to be used by our enemies for their purposes and to confer the enemy with legitimacy in return for face time and publicity - which could be useful during upcoming elections for instance, or with gaining credibility.
in that sense, the enemy and the traveling dog and pony show become allies against the administration. like Jesse Jackson going to Cuba to buddy up with Fidel or going to Venezuala to pal around with Chavez. or like Louis Farrakan chumming with Arafat in Palestine. Pelosi's trip isn't exactly the same, but the similarities are there.
thats just my opinion. Pelosi is too high ranking to ignore the President, and i find it more than irritating.
-
what about global warming... what with all these jet trips and all...
lazs
-
theres that too. the GW and CO2. and the cost. you might as well make a big pile of thousand dollar bills and set it on fire for all the good its gonna do. she's taking a vacation over there. i read that she was going here and there buying those big Arab carpet rugs, going to bazaars and buying knick-knacks and trying out all the different Arab foods and showing off for the cameras wearing that goofy babooshka.
-
They could have kept that idiot Aderholt for all I and many others in Alabama care. The district he represents is where a large majority of the meth heads and other low life scum live anyway. HOWEVER not everyone in that region of the state of Alabama is a meth head and low life scum. He should focus on the issues at home instead of parading through downtown Damascus in a victory parade.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
i read that she was going here and there buying those big Arab carpet rugs, going to bazaars and buying knick-knacks and trying out all the different Arab foods and showing off for the cameras wearing that goofy babooshka.
hehehehehehe... thats funny.
Ya know, sampling another culture is unprecedented in foreign policy - What is she thinking???? :rolleyes: :rofl
Oh that's right, she's not being an arse while a guest in a foreign country! Silly her.
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Heck, didn't Newt Gingrich go to see Arafat in 1998, when Clinton was still in the White House?
But... But Arafat was a Nobel Peace Prize winner...
-
hehehehehehe... thats funny.
Ya know, sampling another culture is unprecedented in foreign policy - What is she thinking????
Oh that's right, she's not being an arse while a guest in a foreign country! Silly her. - DYNAMITE
Should read: Ya know, prancing around acting like a tourist while getting face time for political reasons and legitimizing a for-real state sponser of terrorism is unprecedented in foreign policy - What is she thinking????
Oh that's right, she's not only being an arse while a guest in a foreign country, she's wasting tons of our money doing it! Shame on her.
:)
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Representatives Frank Wolf (Republican, Virginia), Joe Pitts (Republican, Pennsylvania) and Robert Aderholt (Republican, Alabama) met with the Syrian Foreign Minister just 3 days before Pelosi did, so let's add them to the outrage list, too.
Congressional "fact finding" visits are a drop in the ocean of wasted taxpayer money. Actually, having some people who have been somewhere and met someone outside of the beltway is a good thing. I prefer it to clueless shut-ins who have never seen anything outside the border.
Actually... i think Rolex has it right...
But I guess only Nixon can go to China and only Pubs can go to Syria...
-
Lets just agree to disagree. :)
my opinion is that her rank is too high, she is too close to the Presidency. my reasons are above. if you think about it, I think you will agree.
i actually don't think any of these ego freak politicians should be going to visit state sponsers of terrorism, Repubs included, but its particularly wrong in my opinion for someone like the House Speaker, who was asked by the Whitehouse not to go, for very good reasons.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Lets just agree to disagree. :)
my opinion is that her rank is too high, she is too close to the Presidency. my reasons are above. if you think about it, I think you will agree.
i actually don't think any of these ego freak politicians should be going to visit state sponsers of terrorism, Repubs included, but its particularly wrong in my opinion for someone like the House Speaker, who was asked by the Whitehouse not to go, for very good reasons.
<> :aok
-
Wait a minute, Congress DOES have some business in foreign policy after all - isn't it their responsibility to ratify treaties?
Does seem like a tempest in a teacup to me, esp. given the Republican delegation already having visited. It just doesn't seem possible to set the bar too low, where partisan bickering is concerned.
-
I'm thinking a "Pelosi/Fonda 2008" ticket is in the making....
:D
Mac
Stirring the Pot 24/7.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
I'm thinking a "Pelosi/Fonda 2008" ticket is in the making....
:D
Mac
Stirring the Pot 24/7.
Awwwwe Crap!
You see what you guys did? Now Mac's here...
Now you've done it...
:D
-
Now if someone were smart they would let her itinerary become common knowledge among certain terrorist organizations.
If we cant weed em out. Might as well manipulate them into working for us
:D
-
Pelosi could institute "Free P*ssy, Beer, and BBQ Day" and the Fox News victims would still find something to complain about.
-
namvet, I
you for your service in Vietnam. You have my respect for that. If I may, could I draw you out a bit more on your politics and how your view evolved?
-
I think you misunderstand my handle. I work with animals.
-
Originally posted by namvet
Pelosi could institute "Free P*ssy, Beer, and BBQ Day" and the Fox News victims would still find something to complain about.
(http://www.fairpress.org/graphics/PELOSI.jpg)
You sayin you would hit that?
-
Yep, like a pimp slapping his 'Ho for holding out...oh wait, you meant sex. Then no.
ack-ack
-
I think you misunderstand my handle. I work with animals. - namvet
Ok. Still, if you care to, I'd like to hear how your political views came to be what they are today. I don't really care to debate anything, I'm just curious.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Interesting that they criticize one group and not the other. Did you know about the Republican group, Bodhi? Are you as angry about them over there in Syria too?
I agree though - I don't think any President would appreciate Congress interfering with their foreign policy. And its not really their job or responsibility.
Oboe,
I am 100% against any congresspeople going if they are not asked to go by the administration or by congress. Congress has a job. Create laws and govern here, not political grandstanding in other countries.
-
This reminds me of Speaker Jim Wright in the 80's going to Nicaragua to apologize to Ortega for the US policy to his Soviet-Satellite-wannabe country
-
As a Muslim, I fully understand respect of our religion by visiting US officials and I applaud that respect. Had Speaker Pelosi worn the Hijab inside a Mosque, this would have indicated respect but for Pelosi to wear it on the streets of Damascus all the while she is sitting with the self-imposed Baschar al-Assad who has come to symbolize oppression and one of the reasons why women are forced to wear the Hijab as they turn to religion to express their freedom is a statement of submittal not only to oppression but also to lack of women’s rights in the Middle East. Pelosi just reversed the work of the Syrian civil society and those who aspire for women’s freedom in the Muslim countries many years back with her visual statement. Her lack of experience of the Middle East is showing.
Nothing more need be said
http://www.reformsyria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=66
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.fairpress.org/graphics/PELOSI.jpg)
You sayin you would hit that?
Sure but only if she wasn't charging for it and I was a dead man who had never been married or even had a chance in hell of getting some action before she instituted this policy.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Congress has a job. Create laws and govern here, not political grandstanding in other countries.
Pelosi is next in line for the Executive Branch and considering all the health problems Cheney has, you'd be a little more supportive.
Frankly, I can't stand Pelosi but I see no problem with her going to Syria so long as she doesn't bring offer or promise them anything (ie dictate policy).
-
Frankly, I can't stand Pelosi but I see no problem with her going to Syria so long as she doesn't bring offer or promise them anything (ie dictate policy). - Delirium
I don't know how you can say that, Delirium. The mere act of visiting a state that sponsers terrorism, against the wishes of the President of the United States of America is damaging in itself.
When you add the fact that she is a loose cannon who is in so far over her head, amped up by left wing Californians, that she is missing subtleties of statesmenship and gravely misjudging the middle east. Consider this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
-
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04052007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/diplo_show_turns_into_damascus_a___kiss_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm
Some excerpts
Yesterday, following a meeting with Syria's tyrant in Damascus, Pelosi proudly informed the world that "I conveyed the message from [Israeli] Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert that Israel is ready to restart negotiations as well as to talk peace."
Wow! Really?
Um, no.
Almost instantly, Olmert's office issued a clarification saying that Pelosi had mischaracterized Israel's position: The Jewish state will not negotiate with Syria until it ceases its sponsorship of terrorist organizations, stops destabilizing Lebanon and stops making common cause with Iran.
Whoops.
Pelosi made it clear last week, when she first announced her controversial itinerary, that her purpose in traveling to the Middle East was far more than fact-finding.
She was going to Damascus to open a new line of communication between the tyrannical Assad regime and the United States - a line of communication more appreciative of Syria's wants and needs than the Bush State Department has been.
In other words, she was effectively declaring herself a second secretary of State. Interesting. Isn't her current job challenging enough?
Or did she think it would help her rather steep learning curve as the speaker of the House to travel outside the United States, insert herself into a terrifically delicate diplomatic situation, and make a complete and total bellybutton of herself?
-
Too bad we don't shoot traitors like back in the day.
If she was on fire and I had drank 10 beers I'd not even piss on her.
Traitors rank on the bottom even below child molesters.
Any questions?
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Pelosi is next in line for the Executive Branch and considering all the health problems Cheney has, you'd be a little more supportive.
Frankly, I can't stand Pelosi but I see no problem with her going to Syria so long as she doesn't bring offer or promise them anything (ie dictate policy).
She is not the president. She is going against the wishes of the President. She also said she plans to open up a line of communication against the wishes of the administration.
Regardless of whether she is 2 nd in line to the Presidency, she still should not be in Syria with out Congressional Approval and especially not visiting a terrorist sponsoring country against the wishes of the President.
I reiterate that she is not a policy maker, but a lawmaker.
-
CNN is pretty unpopular here, but some of y'all might find the screenshot from them here interesting:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-cnn/
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Too bad we don't shoot traitors like back in the day.
If she was on fire and I had drank 10 beers I'd not even piss on her.
Traitors rank on the bottom even below child molesters.
Any questions?
So you would be happy to piss on the republican congressmen that were in Syria before her?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So you would be happy to piss on the republican congressmen that were in Syria before her?
why is it that 2 wrongs always make a right for the average dumbarsecrat?
strange defense eh..
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
CNN is pretty unpopular here, but some of y'all might find the screenshot from them here interesting:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/04/04/what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-cnn/
Great stuff. :aok
-
Here is the article I tried to link to, from The Jerusalem Post:
PMO denies peace message to Assad
By HERB KEINON
Talkbacks for this article: 87
The Prime Minister's Office issued a rare "clarification" Wednesday that, in gentle diplomatic terms, contradicted US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's statement in Damascus that she had brought a message from Israel about a willingness to engage in peace talks.
According to the statement, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert emphasized in his meeting with Pelosi on Sunday that "although Israel is interested in peace with Syria, that country continues to be part of the Axis of Evil and a force that encourages terror in the entire Middle East."
Also on JPost.com:
Alan Dershowitz on the right of return
Q&A with Shimon Peres
Pelosi tells Assad: Israel ready to talk
Olmert, the statement clarified, told Pelosi that Syria's sincerity about a genuine peace with Israel would be judged by its willingness to "cease its support of terror, cease its sponsoring of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad organizations, refrain from providing weapons to Hizbullah and bringing about the destabilizing of Lebanon, cease its support of terror in Iraq, and relinquish the strategic ties it is building with the extremist regime in Iran."
The statement said Olmert had not communicated to Pelosi any change in Israeli policy on Damascus.
Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks.
"We were very pleased with the reassurances we received from the president [Assad] that he was ready to resume the peace process. He was ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said after meeting Assad.
She said the meeting with the Syrian leader "enabled us to communicate a message from Prime Minister Olmert that Israel was ready to engage in peace talks as well."
According to officials in the Prime Minister's Office, however, this was not what transpired during her meeting with Olmert.
The officials said Olmert had told Pelosi that he thought her trip to Damascus was a mistake, and that when she asked - nevertheless - whether he had a message for Assad, Olmert said Syria should first stop supporting terrorism and "act like a normal country," and only then would Israel be willing to hold discussions.
The first part of that message, the officials said, was lost in what was reported from Damascus on Wednesday.
Pelosi said the congressional delegation she led raised the issue of kidnapped IDF soldiers Gilad Schalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev and conveyed "the importance of Syria's role in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis." She also said she had pressed Assad on Syrian support for Hamas and Hizbullah.
In a related development, Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmed al-Khalifa told the Bahrain daily Al-Ayam on Tuesday that the Riyadh Arab League summit set up "panels to communicate with all influential parties, including Israel, to activate the Arab Peace Initiative."
According to the Bahrain News Agency, Khalifa said the Arab League has formed "working teams to communicate with all parties, including Israel, the United Nations, the US, China and the European Union."
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why is it that 2 wrongs always make a right for the average dumbarsecrat?
strange defense eh..
Not sure what you mean. He asked if there were any questions. I just wanted to clarify the likely locations of any urine in case of a fire..... sheesh.
-
even if she was not completely wrong in the visit.. You got to admit that she really botched it about as bad as anyone could.. she embarrassed herself and world leaders... she came very close to causing an "incident" between Israel and syria.
she is pretty much a klutz.
lazs
-
as it turns out, her going is about the best result the president could have hoped for.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Oboe,
I am 100% against any congresspeople going if they are not asked to go by the administration or by congress. Congress has a job. Create laws and govern here, not political grandstanding in other countries.
Congress has a job to do for the American people, but that's always secondary to serving the party masters... this whole fiasco is just more 2 party waste of time lameness.
Pretending that repubs & dems will ever act any differently is simply delusional.
-
It doesn't bother me in the least that pelosi went to Syria or any other ME country. It's her intention to come back to the US that really concerns me. :mad:
-
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria? (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908)
Pelosi steps out of bounds (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds)
PMO denies peace message to Assad (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria? (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908)
Pelosi steps out of bounds (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070406/cm_usatoday/pelosistepsoutofbounds)
PMO denies peace message to Assad (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879247562&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)
Even if she blatantly committed a felony, her party masters will engineer a spin campaign of carefully scripted "talking points" the party slave attack parrots will spew all over the 'cable news channels" to cloud and obfuscate the truth while deflecting blame to the "other side".
It's how both parties get away with stuff.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Even if she blatantly committed a felony, her party masters will engineer a spin campaign of carefully scripted "talking points" the party slave attack parrots will spew all over the 'cable news channels" to cloud and obfuscate the truth while deflecting blame to the "other side".
It's how both parties get away with stuff.
You talk like you've got it all figured out and are superior. You maybe for all I know. I'm not kidding or trying to pick a fight. Some people are flat out more virtuous, better informed, and/or better reasoners than others.
Marine, what's the "truth" that newsies will obfuscate?
Or do you say so because news obfuscates truth purposefully and knowingly?
-
Originally posted by oboe
Wait a minute, Congress DOES have some business in foreign policy after all - isn't it their responsibility to ratify treaties?
Ahhhh...pull out your Constitution. The Senate ratifies treaties, not the House. The only authority possessed by the House in foreign policy is the ability to declare war.
The Logan Act seems to me to be the bottom line:
§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
This is from the gentleman who proposed the law:In proposing the law, Rep. Roger Griswold of Connecticut explained that the object was, as recorded in the Annals of Congress, "to punish a crime which goes to the destruction of the executive power of the government. He meant that description of crime which arises from an interference of individual citizens in the negotiations of our executive with foreign governments."
This was also part of the discussion when the Act was passed.On Jan. 16, 1799, Rep. Isaac Parker of Massachusetts explained, "the people of the United States have given to the executive department the power to negotiate with foreign governments, and to carry on all foreign relations, and that it is therefore an usurpation of that power for an individual to undertake to correspond with any foreign power on any dispute between the two governments, or for any state government, or any other department of the general government, to do it."
The Logan Act is not the only violation Pelosi appears to have committed. There's also the small detail that she also has violated her OATH to preserve and protect the Constitution by partipating in attempts to usurp the President's power in not only this recent trip but also in the attempts by the House, under her leadership, to conduct war. This is clearly a role given to the President NOT the Congress. I only wish that someone would finally have the balls to throw her skuzzy butt (sorry Skuzzy) in jail.
-
Originally posted by Hap
You talk like you've got it all figured out and are superior. You maybe for all I know. I'm not kidding or trying to pick a fight. Some people are flat out more virtuous, better informed, and/or better reasoners than others.
Marine, what's the "truth" that newsies will obfuscate?
Or do you say so because news obfuscates truth purposefully and knowingly?
Just pointing out the obvious. I'm not more enlightened than anyone and never said I was.
When one side accuses the other of criminal behavior, even if its true, they rally to spin their story, hide, delay and cry partisan politics to limit the damage done to THE PARTY, serving you and I and letting the chips fall where they may in the name of "justice" isn't in either parties interest.
Its true that party leaders prepare talking points, its also true the hacks on cable news polish that ****, no matter how indefensible or hypocritical, to look like a flower.
As far as finding out the truth, we'll all have to wait for someone like CREW to file a FOIA in a few years, many shady, perhaps unethical and or illegal, acts done during the Clinton, and other administrations, are just now being discovered via FOIA requests. But those scandals are already years old and forgotten.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Just pointing out the obvious. I'm not more enlightened than anyone and never said I was.
No worries. I accord folks the motive of "good will" until repeated viewings of what they write say, "ooh, he's sorta nutty."
I'm still trying to get straight who's who in here. Some folk assert merely because of chemical reaction. Others like to discuss. All of us at one time or another have a bad day, and we blurt.
The short term gains, if we measure them every 4 years, really makes folks short sighted. Then there's the attention span thing . . . uh, what was I saying?
All the Best,
hap
-
An interesting discussion. I see one suggestion that she has violated her oath by "usurping the president's power". If someone is participating in a war protest, is that oath break too? It seems to be an offshoot of the same conversation, attempting to influence public opinion in disagreement with the president. If so, this sounds like a first amendment chilling issue, and would be out of line with the wishes of the founding fathers, not to mention at odds with the constitution.
The same query applies to the Logan act. To outlaw dissent is one of the first steps towards abolishing the constitution. While that doubtless isn't the intention, it's just another baby step towards being able to crack down on any type of dissent because of political expediency. The country would be no better than PRC/China.
I think Pelosi is an idiot who probably pooched up on this trip, but I'm chilled by some of the sentiments that seem to advocate jailing her for disagreement.
-
Time for an independant investigation :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Mace2004
Ahhhh...pull out your Constitution. The Senate ratifies treaties, not the House. The only authority possessed by the House in foreign policy is the ability to declare war.
Good idea, Mace. Article I, Section I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives."
So, the Senate is part of Congress. And you correctly point on another foreign policy function of Congress - that of declaring war.
So I guess the idea that Congress' business consists only of passing laws is incorrect.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
An interesting discussion. I see one suggestion that she has violated her oath by "usurping the president's power". If someone is participating in a war protest, is that oath break too? It seems to be an offshoot of the same conversation, attempting to influence public opinion in disagreement with the president. If so, this sounds like a first amendment chilling issue, and would be out of line with the wishes of the founding fathers, not to mention at odds with the constitution.
The same query applies to the Logan act. To outlaw dissent is one of the first steps towards abolishing the constitution. While that doubtless isn't the intention, it's just another baby step towards being able to crack down on any type of dissent because of political expediency. The country would be no better than PRC/China.
I think Pelosi is an idiot who probably pooched up on this trip, but I'm chilled by some of the sentiments that seem to advocate jailing her for disagreement.
This is apples and oranges Chairboy. There is nothing remotely similar to someone expressing a dissenting political view and someone, especially a member of our government traveling to a foreign country and conducting their own foreign policy. She is not expressing her 1st amendment rights and, even if she were, no rights are absolute. I don't advocate jailing her for disagreeing with the President, I would seriously consider it if she is violating both the law and the Constitution by attempting to exercise Constitutional powers clearly not assigned to her. These are similar arguments to those regarding reigning in the Courts which have developed a distasteful tendancy to legislate from the bench usurping the powers granted to Congress, not the courts. If someone seriously thinks that Congress should be able to go forth and negotiate with foreign powers or the Courts can write legislation then amend the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by oboe
Good idea, Mace. Article I, Section I:
So, the Senate is part of Congress. And you correctly point on another foreign policy function of Congress - that of declaring war.
So I guess the idea that Congress' business consists only of passing laws is incorrect.
I simply pointed out, correctly I might add, with respect to international policy that the House possesses only a roll in declaring war. You do realize you've listed all of two powers related to international relations that the Constitution gives to Congress with regard to international relations? You also do realize of course that I never said their business only consists of passing laws?
Overall though, I'm not really sure what your point is but if you're trying to say that because the Senate ratified treaties and the House declares war...well...besides what the Constitution says you think that means what exactly? That they possess full authority to conduct the Executive Branch's job? Just because you may not like the President or his policy seems to be somewhat foolish to begin advocating for unconstitutional action on the part of the Congress. As I said in another post here, if you think Congress should be running foreign affairs then amend the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
Even if she blatantly committed a felony, her party masters will engineer a spin campaign of carefully scripted "talking points" the party slave attack parrots will spew all over the 'cable news channels" to cloud and obfuscate the truth while deflecting blame to the "other side".
It's how both parties get away with stuff.
usually but I disagree in this case.
If the tables were turned and a newly appointed outspoken hater of the current admin republican SOTH did what ole Nancy did, a back against the ropes democrat/liberal lead witch hunt would be burning the perpetrator at the nearest stake .. with the main medias abundant help & support
-
Mace,
I think we can both agree that Congress has a role in foreign policy, as the examples both you and I have given demonstrate. My point is that it is incorrect to say Congress' only business is passing laws - and I do realize you aren't the one who made that statement, but the statement was made and I had initially agreed with it - I needed to correct myself. I didn't mean to convey the impression it was your error.
No, I don't mean to suggest Congress possesses the full authority to conduct the executive branch's job, and no I don't think Congress should be running foreign affairs. I think a fair reading of any of my posts here would not give one the impression I hold those views. In fact, I doubt anyone here holds such radical views.
-
You're right Oboe. Looking back at your other posts I understand what you're saying, it's just that you weren't very clear in your post to me. I made the wrong assumption as to your point.
-
No worries, mate. Apologies for not being clearer about that to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
why is it that 2 wrongs always make a right for the average dumbarsecrat?
strange defense eh..
Because being A Democrat, ...Is easier than thinking !