|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com