Wacka Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 If Pelosi is so interested in talking with heads of state, why doesn't she start right here at home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Shiit, my whole head is STILL swimming in Crown Royal. It's gonna be a LONG day at work. You've got to work today? Good Friday is a holiday over here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I'm sorry, my right side of the head is swimming in cabernet. Please explain how someone defines meeting with the head of a state that is listed as an official sponsor of terrorism, for which there's a standing sanctions law that was passed by the government body that these traveling idiots represent, and the official position of the department that is charged by the Constitution to deal with foreign entities is to not engage in formal dialogue, as "a united front as far as U.S. policy towards Syria." If this was anything but manufactured controversy and rhetoric dreamed up by the WH then they, meaning the WH and their lackeys with press credentials, would be leveling this nonsense at ALL of the delegates that have traipsed (sic?) through Syria over the past few weeks. It's only an issue because Pelosi is over there and Bush thinks he's being upstaged. Even the GOP members of Congress seem to be tired of his tantrums, as evidenced by their blatant disregard for the marching orders coming from the WH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 That's my boy. Its the least I could do. Damn, that was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 You've got to work today? Good Friday is a holiday over here It is most places here, too. Not for my employer though. Buncha anti-christs, I tell ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 If this was anything but manufactured controversy and rhetoric dreamed up by the WH then they, meaning the WH and their lackeys with press credentials, would be leveling this nonsense at ALL of the delegates that have traipsed (sic?) through Syria over the past few weeks. It's only an issue because Pelosi is over there and Bush thinks he's being upstaged. Even the GOP members of Congress seem to be tired of his tantrums, as evidenced by their blatant disregard for the marching orders coming from the WH. Correct me if I got your positions wrong. You are outraged because the administration awkwardly handled a legal move to fire 8 US attorneys to gain political advantage over the Dems, yet you think that a state visit by the head of a Hill chamber (3rd in line for Presidency), which isn't authorized by the Constitution and which may be in full violation of a standing 200+ yr old law is a manufactured controversy? If nothing else, you're consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Damn...of all the liberal publications, you'd think the WSJ would be the last publication to slam Pelosi for this trip. I mean, when The Wall Street Journal starts busting on Pelosi, she clearly made a huge blunder for the Democrats. Forget whether she shoulda/coulda/woulda made this trip. She made it. She took an admittedly "alternate" foreign policy message to terrorists, and made a brutally egomaniacal blunder. I honestly believe that this trip, along with the photo of her looking like a baglady, will haunt the ever-loving crap out of this chick and her party heading in the '08 elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 If Pelosi is so interested in talking with heads of state, why doesn't she start right here at home? She would rather talk to an intelligent person instead of that moron Bush, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I honestly believe that this trip, along with the photo of her looking like a baglady, will haunt the ever-loving crap out of this chick and her party heading in the '08 elections. Oh brother. You think the average American voters gives two flying pieces of crap about this? The right manufactured this outrage to stir up their idiotic base. Funny how easily the talking points about "subverting the Constitution" and such were parroted on this board. Polly want a cracker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Oh brother. You think the average American voters gives two flying pieces of crap about this? The right manufactured this outrage to stir up their idiotic base. Funny how easily the talking points about "subverting the Constitution" and such were parroted on this board. Polly want a cracker? As if the world really needed more support for your intellect. There has been no change in rhetoric from supporters of the Constitutional process. One act was done within its scope, one without. Why aren't you invoking Marbury vs Madison now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Oh brother. You think the average American voters gives two flying pieces of crap about this? Today? No. Eventually? Absolutely. I know you're prone to only think about the immediate past because that's just how you're handicapped, and maybe we'll get you your own parking space someday, but right now we'll just accept the reality that forward-thinking and -planning are not something you're capable of doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 As if the world really needed more support for your intellect. There has been no change in rhetoric from supporters of the Constitutional process. One act was done within its scope, one without. Why aren't you invoking Marbury vs Madison now? It's really silly to say that the Constitutional process has been subverted. That just isn't the case at all. This is all about stirring up the beleagured, depressed and demoralized Conservative base. Outrage over nothing is a key ingrediant in rallying that section of our poltical family. A liberal women from California taking on a role on the world stage, just intolerable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Today? No. Eventually? Absolutely. I know you're prone to only think about the immediate past because that's just how you're handicapped, and maybe we'll get you your own parking space someday, but right now we'll just accept the reality that forward-thinking and -planning are not something you're capable of doing. Nope, this will fade away with the newscycle. And I'm offered a parking space each year but turn it down. I can park across the street and walk a little. Get a little more exercise that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 It's really silly to say that the Constitutional process has been subverted. That just isn't the case at all. This is all about stirring up the beleagured, depressed and demoralized Conservative base. Outrage over nothing is a key ingrediant in rallying that section of our poltical family. A liberal women from California taking on a role on the world stage, just intolerable! If the liberal women (sic) was just another grandmother visiting Assad, no one would care, when the liberal women (sic) is 3rd in line for the Presidency and is the leader of the House going on an official visit to a state head, she is conducting diplomacy. She may also be violating the Logan Act. I guess when Dems take to trampling on the Constitution, the Reps are supposed to sit quietly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 If the liberal women (sic) was just another grandmother visiting Assad, no one would care, when the liberal women (sic) is 3rd in line for the Presidency and is the leader of the House going on an official visit to a state head, she is conducting diplomacy. She may also be violating the Logan Act. I guess when Dems take to trampling on the Constitution, the Reps are supposed to sit quietly. Nice dig on the Logan Act. I wish Bush would charge her under it. That would be funny! Wouldn't that be a gas if all Americans were forbidden from discussing things with foreign governments! What a joke! Pelosi has every right to discuss issues of war and peace with anyone she wants. She won't be negotiating any foreign treaties, though. That's not her job. But trying to get the peace process moving forward is well within her perview. Peace! No wonder the right is freaking out! Israel might have to give up some land or something. Ick! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nice dig on the Logan Act. I wish Bush would charge her under it. That would be funny! Wouldn't that be a gas if all Americans were forbidden from discussing things with foreign governments! What a joke! The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. Nothing to see here, move along. (And yes, the Rep House members would also fall under this) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States. Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the United States without authorization. Nothing to see here, move along. (And yes, the Rep House members would also fall under this) Who said she was negotiating? She was just forwarding the views of some in the U.S. on issues related to Syria, which isn't against the interests of the U.S.. By the way, there was a representative from the State dept. with her delegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Its the least I could do. Damn, that was fun. Pongo, that bastard will swing from the gallows tomorrow for his racist views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Correct me if I got your positions wrong. You are outraged because the administration awkwardly handled a legal move to fire 8 US attorneys to gain political advantage over the Dems, yet you think that a state visit by the head of a Hill chamber (3rd in line for Presidency), which isn't authorized by the Constitution and which may be in full violation of a standing 200+ yr old law is a manufactured controversy? If nothing else, you're consistent. You are wrong. I am outraged at the handling of the US-atty purge because, although it's not unconstitutional it's a complete subversion of the justice department orchestrated not for performance reasons, but to directly influence the next round of elections. That's not a manufactured controversy...it's real and people are pleading the fifth and resigning over it. Pelosi's trip, and/or any of the other congress-persons who have gone to Syria, is/are not unconstitutional. You can keep saying it's not authorized, but people a hell of a lot smarter than you or I dissagree with you. If what she and the countless other reps over there did was even remotely a violation of any law, then the State Department wouldn't have been there briefing her and sitting in on the meetings. Also, if this was an egregious violation as you suggest, the WH would not single out a single congress-person...that's not the case here. There's nary a peep from this admin about anyone else other than Pelosi. That's a personal issue, not a constitutional one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 There's nary a peep from this admin about anyone else other than Pelosi.Is it possible that is because only Pelosi was delivering, admittedly, a foreign policy that is different than the policy of our president and, consequently, our country? I don't know if what she did was unconstitutional, but I completely agree that what she did was amazingly self-serving and completely moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts