| Page 2 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression may not raise the eyebrows of the electorate. On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008 and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the personification of bozos. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I agree the letter was stupid. I think it will be mostly forgotten in two years. But, there will surely be some form of 'foot in mouth' disease displayed by whoever the candidate is. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 12:35 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression may not raise the eyebrows of the electorate. On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008 and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the personification of bozos. McCain also signed the Iran letter. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 12:36 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I agree the letter was stupid. I think it will be mostly forgotten in two years. But, there will surely be some form of 'foot in mouth' disease displayed by whoever the candidate is. Democrats won't let the letter die. It will be used as an example of Republican stupidity. Not all Republicans are that dumb of course but it will take a lot of convincing by someone to sweep this absurd action under the rug. Even John Kerry (who I have never particularly liked) sounds like a rational and mature representative of our country compared to the banana heads who thought the Iran letter was "smart" or appropriate. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/15 12:47 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:35 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression may not raise the eyebrows of the electorate. On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008 and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the personification of bozos. McCain also signed the Iran letter. Yeah, he's slid down the hill towards senility since 2008. Sad to see his deterioration. If she decides to make the run, I wonder who Mrs. Clinton will select as a veep candidate. I'm confident it won't be a "who is he?" selection. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/15 12:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:36 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I agree the letter was stupid. I think it will be mostly forgotten in two years. But, there will surely be some form of 'foot in mouth' disease displayed by whoever the candidate is. Democrats won't let the letter die. It will be used as an example of Republican stupidity. Not all Republicans are that dumb of course but it will take a lot of convincing by someone to sweep this absurd action under the rug. Even John Kerry (who I have never particularly liked) sounds like a rational and mature representative of our country compared to the banana heads who thought the Iran letter was "smart" or appropriate. According to Andy Borowitz: The North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un said on Tuesday that he feels “snubbed” by the decision of forty-seven Republican senators to write a letter to Iran but not to him, the official North Korean news agency reported. In an unusually forthcoming interview with the Korean Central News Agency (K.C.N.A.), Kim said it was “hurtful” that the Republicans would send a letter to one of the United States’ most longstanding enemies while “totally snubbing” another. .... “I don’t like to beat myself up, but part of me is like, ‘What does Iran have that I don’t have?’ ” he said. “I don’t know. Sometimes I feel like, when you actually get nuclear weapons, people start taking you for granted.” -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/ Just some of that story: "Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government: We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them. Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government: The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point.. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the humanitarian situation. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement." One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate." |
Hillary to speak
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:53:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 12:36 PM, John H. wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I agree the letter was stupid. I think it will be mostly forgotten in two years. But, there will surely be some form of 'foot in mouth' disease displayed by whoever the candidate is. Democrats won't let the letter die. It will be used as an example of Republican stupidity. Not all Republicans are that dumb of course but it will take a lot of convincing by someone to sweep this absurd action under the rug. Even John Kerry (who I have never particularly liked) sounds like a rational and mature representative of our country compared to the banana heads who thought the Iran letter was "smart" or appropriate. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 2:14 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. I am sure that's what most of the signers are hoping. What they did is un-American and despicable. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 2:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:47:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:35 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression may not raise the eyebrows of the electorate. On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008 and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the personification of bozos. McCain also signed the Iran letter. If Hillary was still in the senate, she might have signed to too, or at least been leaning that way. She was in lock step with McCain and the neocons the whole time she was there. Doubtful. She's changing her image. All she has in her mind is breaking the glass ceiling and going down in history. |
Hillary to speak
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 12:18 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I wonder if the typical Boobus Americanus has any idea how far over the line that letter was...or if he/she does, even cares. The Repubs have been behaving so outrageously since 2009 that even this transgression may not raise the eyebrows of the electorate. On the other hand, the Repub POTUS wannabes seem to have absolutely nothing to offer. Their best hope was someone who appeared statesmanlike even though it was only the appearance of it - Romney - but he's taken himself out of consideration. As bad a candidate as McCain was in 2008 and despite the fact that he hanged an albatross named Palin around his neck, at least he had some standing. The current crop of GOPers are the personification of bozos. What does Hillary offer? |
Hillary to speak
|
Hillary to speak
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:08:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 2:02 PM, wrote: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/ Just some of that story: "Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government: We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them. Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government: The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the humanitarian situation. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement." One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate." There is no comparison of the examples you set forth and what Cotton and the band of idiots just did. Furthermore, I am not in any way reacting to any liberal or Democratic media hype. I came to this opinion all by myself. No sitting senator or House member should attempt to undermine negotiations by directly addressing the party with whom discussions are being held and basically threaten that any progress or agreements will be voided once the current POTUS leaves office. Treason in my book. Sorry if you disagree. You've gone from stupid to treason. I'll buy stupid. Treason is what I'd expect Harry to say. -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
Hillary to speak
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 4:05 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:44:05 -0500, Califbill wrote: What does Hillary offer? Tits, saggy ones at that. I was going to say "balls" but I'll keep my mouth shut. I'm hoping for a crazy GOP pair in 2016...racist tea baggers. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 3:08 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 3/12/2015 2:02 PM, wrote: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/ Just some of that story: "Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government: We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them. Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government: The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the humanitarian situation. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement." One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate." course of action There is no comparison of the examples you set forth and what Cotton and the band of idiots just did. Furthermore, I am not in any way reacting to any liberal or Democratic media hype. I came to this opinion all by myself. No sitting senator or House member should attempt to undermine negotiations by directly addressing the party with whom discussions are being held and basically threaten that any progress or agreements will be voided once the current POTUS leaves office. Treason in my book. Sorry if you disagree. Impeachment for a long list of unauthorized acts culminating with attempts to make unauthorized deals with Iran would have been a better course of action. But this Congress doesn't have the balls to rein him in properly. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Hillary to speak
|
Hillary to speak
In article ,
says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/15 5:39 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? It would be fun to see the 47 prosecuted under the Logan Act. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/15 4:28 PM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 15:08:03 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 2:02 PM, wrote: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 12:18:47 PM UTC-4, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. I think many of you are being led by the nose by the Dems and the media. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/10/7-times-democrats-advised-americas-enemies-to-oppose-the-president/ Just some of that story: "Senator John Kerry (D-MA). Kerry jumped into the pro-Sandanista pool himself in 1985, when he traveled to Nicaragua to negotiate with the regime. He wasn't alone; Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) joined him. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the two senators "brought back word that Mr. Ortega would be willing to accept a cease-fire if Congress rejected aid to the rebels...That week the House initially voted down aid to the contras, and Mr. Ortega made an immediate trip to Moscow." Kerry then shilled on behalf of the Ortega government: We are still trying to overthrow the politics of another country in contravention of international law, against the Organization of American States charter. We negotiated with North Vietnam. Why can we not negotiate with a country smaller than North Carolina and with half the population of Massachusetts? It's beyond me. And the reason is that they just want to get rid of them [the Sandinistas], they want to throw them out, they don't want to talk to them. Representatives Jim McDermott (D-WA), David Bonior (D-MI), and Mike Thompson (D-CA). In 2002, the three Congressmen visited Baghdad to play defense for Saddam Hussein's regime. There, McDermott laid the groundwork for the Democratic Party's later rip on President George W. Bush, stating, "the president of the United States will lie to the American people in order to get us into this war." McDermott, along with his colleagues, suggested that the American administration give the Iraqi regime "due process" and "take the Iraqis on their face value." Bonior said openly he was acting on behalf of the government: The purpose of our trip was to make it very clear, as I said in my opening statement, to the officials in Iraq how serious we-the United States is about going to war and that they will have war unless these inspections are allowed to go unconditionally and unfettered and open. And that was our point. And that was in the best interest of not only Iraq, but the American citizens and our troops. And that's what we were emphasizing. That was our primary concern-that and looking at the humanitarian situation. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). In 2002, Rockefeller told Fox News' Chris Wallace, "I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11." That would have given Saddam Hussein fourteen months in which to prepare for war. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." The Constitution of the United States delegates commander-in-chief power to the president of the United States. Section 2 clearly states, "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." As Professor Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School writes, Senators have a good argument that "the President lacks the authority under the U.S. Constitution to negotiate a pure Executive agreement in this context. Almost all major arms control agreements have been made as treaties that needed Senate consent, and the one major exception, the Salt I treaty, was a congressional-executive agreement." One who might agree: former Senator Joe Biden, whose White House profile explains, "then-Senator Biden played a pivotal role in shaping US foreign policy." Among other elements of that role: decrying President George W. Bush's surge in Iraq as "a tragic mistake" and vowing, "I will do everything in my power to stop it." As Tom Cotton said this morning, "If Joe Biden respects the dignity of the institution of the Senate, he should be insisting that the President submit any deal to approval of the Senate, which is exactly what he did on numerous deals during his time in Senate." There is no comparison of the examples you set forth and what Cotton and the band of idiots just did. Furthermore, I am not in any way reacting to any liberal or Democratic media hype. I came to this opinion all by myself. No sitting senator or House member should attempt to undermine negotiations by directly addressing the party with whom discussions are being held and basically threaten that any progress or agreements will be voided once the current POTUS leaves office. Treason in my book. Sorry if you disagree. You've gone from stupid to treason. I'll buy stupid. Treason is what I'd expect Harry to say. It would be fun to see the 47 morons prosecuted under the Logan Act. A case could be made for prosecution. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 4:05 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:44:05 -0500, Califbill wrote: What does Hillary offer? Tits, saggy ones at that. I was going to say "balls" but I'll keep my mouth shut. I'm hoping for a crazy GOP pair in 2016...racist tea baggers. Hell, I am hoping for competence from either side. Preferably from both sides. Dem's have not shown a competent candidate yet. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad. Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush. Other than that, of course, the two incidents were the same. Everything is the same, right, Gregg? Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the times people have been accused of possibly violating it. There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well. Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act |
Hillary to speak
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad. Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush. Except for this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/12/2015 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad. Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush. Except for this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell. As much as I dislike Pelosi, there's still no comparison. She and Waxman didn't try to change policies or try to influence Assad *not* to negotiate with Bush. |
Hillary to speak
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 8:31 PM, wrote: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad. Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush. Except for this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell. As much as I dislike Pelosi, there's still no comparison. She and Waxman didn't try to change policies or try to influence Assad *not* to negotiate with Bush. Indeed. Pelosi urged Assad to negotiate a solution. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Hillary to speak
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:25:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the times people have been accused of possibly violating it. There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well. Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act Interesting read. I found this interesting in the 1975 case "Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." This was interesting too "Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[5]" Can anyone say "Clinton Global Initiative" ? ;-) I think the bottom line is, nobody has ever been convicted of this law and it isn't going to happen now. I doubt they really want to kick this tar baby because who knows who might get stuck. Hard to convict a Congressman as they are to advise and consent on foreign treaties. So they are advising and not consenting. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/13/2015 3:21 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:25:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the times people have been accused of possibly violating it. There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well. Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act Interesting read. I found this interesting in the 1975 case "Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." This was interesting too "Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[5]" Can anyone say "Clinton Global Initiative" ? ;-) I think the bottom line is, nobody has ever been convicted of this law and it isn't going to happen now. I doubt they really want to kick this tar baby because who knows who might get stuck. Hard to convict a Congressman as they are to advise and consent on foreign treaties. So they are advising and not consenting. Problem with the 47 is that they were advising the wrong side. |
Hillary to speak
On 3/13/15 3:10 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote: John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad. Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush. Except for this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell. Does Harry ever get it right? I trust Jon Stewart more than Harry D'oh. You really need to find a way to get over your "everything is the same" response to everything. Pelosi was trying to convince Assad to get over his evil ways, come to the negotiations table, agree to what the United States wanted, et cetera. That's not the same as telling Assad that Bush would be out of office soon and that whatever he might have been pushing for would be abrogated by Congress as soon as he left office. There's no question you read a lot on the web; the question arises as to whether you understand much of it. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Hillary to speak
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:53:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 8:31 PM, wrote: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote: On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in the meeting with President Assad. Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush. Except for this: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition." Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell. As much as I dislike Pelosi, there's still no comparison. She and Waxman didn't try to change policies or try to influence Assad *not* to negotiate with Bush. She did attempt to influence Assad though. The dummy Republicans did attempt to influence the Iranians. Are you saying the support of the President is what makes one instance a violation and the other not? -- Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner *behavior* causes problems. |
Hillary to speak
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/13/2015 3:21 AM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:25:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote: On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC. Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now. "They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers. She will tell them to pound sand. And pound sand they will. Another moronic left-wing opinion. Into which category do the Democrats fall? http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old, newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the letter to Iran that he drafted. 18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking. Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter. Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper. I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting gift? John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under Bush's watch. I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the times people have been accused of possibly violating it. There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well. Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act Interesting read. I found this interesting in the 1975 case "Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution." This was interesting too "Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941 Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[5]" Can anyone say "Clinton Global Initiative" ? ;-) I think the bottom line is, nobody has ever been convicted of this law and it isn't going to happen now. I doubt they really want to kick this tar baby because who knows who might get stuck. Hard to convict a Congressman as they are to advise and consent on foreign treaties. So they are advising and not consenting. Problem with the 47 is that they were advising the wrong side. Still hard to apply Logan act. Probably damn near impossible. Didn't Kerry when he was Senator, go off on an indecent interview tour. Forget which country. |
Hillary to speak
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 17:02:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 3/10/2015 4:58 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:36:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/10/2015 4:31 PM, jps wrote: On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:21:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/10/2015 3:55 PM, John H. wrote: On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 15:24:57 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 3/10/2015 3:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 3/10/2015 2:59 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Hillary is about to take the podium and explain the email mess. It will take a lot of will power, but I'll watch and listen to her. Does a Blackberry only allow one email address? She keeps talking about not wanting to carry around *two* devices. I know nothing about Blackberry cell phones but I know the Droid I have allows (and has) several email addresses that I use and they all work. Ok. One of the commentators on CNN explained this. Yes, a Blackberry can handle more than one email account however fed regulations at the time did not allow having a dot gov account on the same device that also has a personal email account. That regulation has been changed now. I was in the doctor's office. So, are you going to vote for her now. Is she believable? Did she do this in the interest of our country? I would say that she gave a believable story. She admitted that in retrospect it would have been better to carry two devices and have a dot.gov email account. The only testiness she showed was when she was asked if she'd go along with an impartial review of the private server and of the emails she did not release. In typical Hillary fashion she made it clear .... "No". Will I vote for Hillary? Hell no, and it has nothing to do with emails. I could never in good conscience knowingly vote for a deceitful, dishonest liar for POTUS. This position would leave you out of voting for president the last, uh let me see, forever? I think it's up to me to decide who is deceitful and a liar when it comes time to voting. Your mileage may vary. You're right, you could have voted for Ike. Not quite that old although I remember the "I Like Ike" buttons. I knew that but couldn't help the opportunity for a "you're so old that..." jab. I'm little far behind. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:37 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com