Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran

phoenix80 said:
^^^ You're full of balloney ^^^
Click to expand...

Typical childish response from someone too intellectually lazy to bother informing himself.
And its spelled BALONEY. At least spell it correctly if you're going to attempt a put down on me.

The red underline under a word signifies a spelling mistake.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Team Infidel + DTOP

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents her from meeting with Assad. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. If you don't think thats the best use of her time, your entitled to that opinion, but there is nothing illegal about it as long as she doesn't attempt to enter unto treaty or attempt to negotiate a treaty. Heck if you could meet with Assad if he would agreed to it, it still be perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

I never stated that it was illegal for her to meet with the Syrians. All I said that it wasn't her place as the Speaker of the House to represent the US in foreign policy matters.
 
Team Infidel said:
I never stated that it was illegal for her to meet with the Syrians. All I said that it wasn't her place as the Speaker of the House to represent the US in foreign policy matters.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, that particular part was directed more at DTOP than you. I just didn't want to write 2 messages to 2 different people that were more or less thinking alike.

10pm and still in the Office. Time to go home.

Later all.
 
mmarsh said:
Typical childish response from someone too intellectually lazy to bother informing himself.
And its spelled BALONEY. At least spell it correctly if you're going to attempt a put down on me.

The red underline under a word signifies a spelling mistake.
Click to expand...

I often do not use my intellectual power on people like you who dont deserve it. It is useless. plus until now you were on my iggy list but I just removed you to see what BS you spread around here. Need to put you back on iggy list again.

have fun dude:biggun:
 
mmarsh said:
Team Infidel + DTOP

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents her from meeting with Assad. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about it. If you don't think thats the best use of her time, your entitled to that opinion, but there is nothing illegal about it as long as she doesn't attempt to enter unto treaty or attempt to negotiate a treaty. Heck if you could meet with Assad if he would agreed to it, it still be perfectly legal.

She didn't go to Syria because of Iraq but because of Israel. Th only time Iraq came up was went she asked Assad to better patrol the Syrian-Iraqi border to keep terrorists out. On that point she is echoing the Bush Administrations demands.

But her main reason was to convey the message that Israel was willing to talk peace if Assad would stop supporting the Palestine terrorists. In other words as Israel has no Diplomatic ties to Syria, the Isreali Government asked her to to go on their behalf...

"She said the delegation gave the Syrian leader a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert whose essence was that Israel was ready to hold peace talks with Syria".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17920536/

The real question is why Olmert didn't ask the Bush Administration to carry the message. I think the reason is because Bush has done so much to antagonize the Syrians that a message as important as this one would be better received by Syria if it were delivered by an enemy of the Bush Administration.

Or perhaps the Israelis don't trust the Bush Administration...

Either way, it speaks volumes in what low esteem our Foreign policy is held at the moment.
Click to expand...

From what I read in the Washington Post that was all BS and she said something with out proper authorization...Enjoy the smoke blowing :bang:
 
phoenix80 said:
I often do not use my intellectual power on people like you who dont deserve it. It is useless. plus until now you were on my iggy list but I just removed you to see what BS you spread around here. Need to put you back on iggy list again.

Oh, you don't use it more than you realize. As a matter of fact, in the last year the only contribution of note is your pathetic attempts to insult or provoke various people you disagreed with by your snide and rude comments. Such as above. (Something the mods have warned you on repeatedly, I might add). You're not even a good forum troll, I almost feel sorry for you...

So you go right ahead, and ignore me. You'll be doing me a giant favor. :D


Anyway, back to the smarter, more tolerant, polite people.

Donkey

Your referring to the editorial made by the Washington Post. I read that article. The Post was carrying up a charge made by the WH (surprise!) that Pelosi had "screwed up the message" to Assad. (Kind of odd, first the WH says Pelosi is being counterproductive by meeting Assad, then it accuses her of incompetance. Seems like a big contradiction to me). Pelosi responded the very next day demanding that they prove their claim. So far no reply. No surprise.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mmarsh... the Washington comPost is not the most reliable daily periodical out there. They just happen to be the one that the left loves to read.

Facts are facts, and the facts are that Pelosi needs to get back to her bench in the Senate and get the suplimental passed without all of the porkbelly spending that is on the current one.

Thanks for her support in National Security.
 
Team Infidel said:
mmarsh... the Washington comPost is not the most reliable daily periodical out there. They just happen to be the one that the left loves to read.

Facts are facts, and the facts are that Pelosi needs to get back to her bench in the Senate and get the suplimental passed without all of the porkbelly spending that is on the current one.

Thanks for her support in National Security.
Click to expand...

The Senate in the United States of America is not the U.S. House of Representatives, that means U.S. Senators serve in the United States Senate, and the Speaker of the House serves in the United States House of Representatives.
 
mmarsh said:
Typical childish response from someone too intellectually lazy to bother informing himself.
And its spelled BALONEY. At least spell it correctly if you're going to attempt a put down on me.

The red underline under a word signifies a spelling mistake.
Click to expand...

ACTUALLY you're BOTH wrong, its spelled Bologna, just like the city in Italy from whence it came.

The woman is overstepping her authority and the reasons for doing so are pretty transparent. To deny them is to proclaim yourself an idiot unworthy of political comment.

The powers of congress clearly delineated in the Constitution...
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...

The limits of the Congress...
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Click to expand...

The powers of the office of the President...
Veto power over all bills; appointment of judges and other officials; makes treaties; ensures all laws are carried out; commander in chief of the military; pardon power.
Click to expand...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10

The Executive is the only branch of the government charged by the Constitution with the power to conduct foreign relations.

Madame Speaker Pelosi needs to sit the :cen: down and do her god damned job!
 
Last edited:
Team Infidel said:
mmarsh... the Washington comPost is not the most reliable daily periodical out there. They just happen to be the one that the left loves to read.

Facts are facts, and the facts are that Pelosi needs to get back to her bench in the Senate and get the suplimental passed without all of the porkbelly spending that is on the current one.

Thanks for her support in National Security.
Click to expand...


Correction:

I didn't mention the WP, Donkey did. And he was referring to an editorial that was written by a conservative contributor that was critical of Pelosi-Assad Meeting. So right right off the bat your claim of liberal media bias has no basis.

I agree that the WP and others veer left in its opinions, but the fact YOU and the right doesn't agree with the WP writes doesn't make it a bad newspaper or its facts wrong for that matter. Right now, If a media is critical to the GOP/Conservative Issues its automatically labelled as Leftwing Bias.

The whole "liberal bias" in the media is entirely a myth. If you look who owns the so called left-wing media is almost entirely owned Large Corporations which are all Right-wing controlled. Why do Right-wing corporations own leftwing media outlets? Because it makes them vast amounts of money. The have put the company bottom line over politics.

The fact is the NY Times, the Washington post, the Chicago Tribune, the Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal as the best and most prestigous newspapers in the country and perhaps the world.

To prove what I said is true let me say this:

The WSJ is a conservative paper, and as you can guess, I don't agree with everything they write, especially the editorials. But I would still say that its a top-notch newspaper.

As for Pelosi, as I said thats your opinion and you're entitled to it. Personally given the level of epic-level incompetence of the current administration, I am glad to see somebody, make that *ANYBODY* can some responsibility in Foreign Affairs, even if it is not technically their role.

Don't you think its rather hypocritical for the GOP to be lecturing anybody on pork after just suffering through the most pork-ladened sessions of congress in recent memory? It's equivalent to Adi Amin giving lessons on Human rights. Incidentally, the pork you are referring to are leftovers from the 109th Congress. Articles that slipped in 2006 but never passed. Once again the right blames the Dems blame for its own follies.

Why the Dems haven't removed these articles from the 109th Congress is the better question, but I can hazard a few guesses. The Dems arn't all pefect, but compared what we just survived I definatly view them as the lesser of two evils, at least for the time being.
 
Last edited:
This is why I hate getting into political arguements. Members liberalism forces me to swing to the far right and I don't like that.

Bottom line is this. Pelosi needs to stay within her lines of operation and do her job, not the job of Sec State. This is a very sensitive, strategic issue, and at this time, I don't believe it is her responsibility to get involved.

Caveat to this.... I would say the same thing if it were a Republican Speaker of the House.
 
This is why I hate getting into political arguements. Members liberalism forces me to swing to the far right and I don't like that.

Then we do agree on something.

I feel the same sensation, but of Conservatives. The more rightwing they pull, the more left-wing I pull.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top