Do you approve of Nany Pelosi visiting Syria?

[Maimonides]

No even the Independents do not represent me!!!

Uh, independant means you do not belong to a political party. You just said:

I am a free thinker who does not limit myself to political party concerns!

EVEN NOW I do not deliniate myself a Republican. Democrate, or Idenpendant. I am me and I think as I do depsite what others think! Frack parties. I think as I do! I will not limit myself to other peoples thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is the definition of independant, or, at the very least, what was intended for independant in the poll. Independant is not a political party. It is the absence of one.

You are as done as a lambchop which is long overcooked.

Moments like this make me glad I've studied Freud.

I trust not Obama. I would vote Macain or Powell, and wonder about others but I would not trust Obama who has quite ties to bush. Whatever the case we wil know when we know wont we? Then it wil be too late.

Uh, Colin Powell isn't running in '08. He hasn't run for an election since he lost the 2000 Republican primaries.

What does this have to do with the thread's topic?

Help me to help you to understand that which rules over your independance as self and makes you a sheep which threatens my entire community!

Do gophers threaten your community, too? What about badgers, llamas, or bullfrogs?

From what I've been able to decipher in this thread, she is a democrat speaker of the house.

As for her beliefs, maybe some introduction for those of us who aren't American would be warranted int he OP?

Sorry. She's a Congressional Representative from California. I don't live in California so I'm not very familliar with her specific political stances. When the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, she became the 1st female Speaker of the House.

I know that she's against the war in Iraq & the Homeland Security Act, but that's about it.

 

[Speedo]

She's only acting in the finest traditions of the US government.

I'd like to give my sincere thanks to the US government for very quickly helping me prove me point.

An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, despite being considered terrorists by the United States, continues to receive protection from the American military in the face of Iraqi pressure to leave the country....

 

[Hygro]

Uh, Colin Powell isn't running in '08. He hasn't run for an election since he lost the 2000 Republican primaries.

Powell never ran for president, and certainly didn't lose the Republican primaries in 2000.

 

[Maimonides]

Technically, he didn't lose the primaries because he dropped out. He said something about the race putting too much strain on his family. My father was upset when he dropped out. I didn't think he had a chance, but I respect the man.

I was trying to point out to White Elk that Powell isn't running in '08.

 

[White Elk]

No even the Independents do not represent me!!!

So, I guess that leaves the extremists?
I would guess that since you seem to want Bush dead.

No that just leaves me. Leave the extremists out of it, and leave me the frack out of the extremists catagory. You strawman here... and you attempt to categorize me into a group which in current times supports murder for their political believes. Then you take my words in another thread out of context and say I want president bush dead. This pisses me the heck off! You dangerously misrepresent me. If you had said this in front of a real life crowd which numbers those that visit these OT forums... then you would be legally liable for slander. Personally I would rather call you out on a modern day duel than sue you. (legal, supervised, 'boxing match').

I am not Republican, nor Democrat, or any of the Independents. They all have ideals I agree with, but they all have ideals which I disagree with. So I choose not to willfully catogorize myself into political stereotyping which can never fit me.

As to wanting bush dead.... In the thread for which you speak, I spoke of legal proceedings for bush, for the same crimes that saddam was tried for. In that context I think bush should be given the same sentance of hanging as saddam was. That was another thread discussing another topic. Your bringing it here and using it as you did was pure shite!

No even the Independents do not represent me!!!

There is no 'Independent' party in the US.

I highlighted the S for you. In a later posting I did speak of party instead of parties. But the context and the syntax of my previous posts make clear that I was referering to the plural and not the singular. However I can forgive this lol for I later spoke in the sigular when I meant to speak in the plural. Though I will not forgive you for purposefully taking my words here and in another thread out of context to make it sound like I was an extremist who wanted gw bush dead. That was wrong!!! Less than a hundred years ago the law would have allowed me to shoot you dead for that. Now the law would allow for me to sue you for it if it had been spoken in a 'real life' forum rather than a web forum like this. The only reason you did not break a law here is because the law has not yet caught up to the times.

EDIT: Well perhaps I go a little overboard with my anger towards your slight to me. Yet you painted me as an extremist who wanted my president dead. Modern understanding of 'extremists' = terrorist. Calling me an extremist and saying that I "want" the president dead is such a dangerous misrepresentation of what I say, said, and think that it should be a crime. And yes if the law and our culture allowed for it as it did near a hundred years ago.. then yes I would shoot you dead for it if that was my only recourse and your words threatened my life as they would have. You basically called me a murdering traitor who wanted the president of the United States dead.

 

[White Elk]

I was trying to point out to White Elk that Powell isn't running in '08.

I know that Powell isnt running yet. Nor do I think he will. But I think he would have likely considered running in '08 if not for the way things turned out with bush.

 

[Atlas14]

I don't approve of anything Nanci Pelosi does. Certainly not this.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't approve of anything Nanci Pelosi does. Certainly not this.

Yep, she's doing what Newt Gingrich & Dennis Hastert did during the Clinton years, except they more actively subverted the President with their statements at the time.

 

[Hygro]

Technically, he didn't lose the primaries because he dropped out. He said something about the race putting too much strain on his family. My father was upset when he dropped out. I didn't think he had a chance, but I respect the man.

I was trying to point out to White Elk that Powell isn't running in '08.

http://politics1.com/othergop2k.htm

All of em save George Bush. No Colin Powell. This list includes people who dropped out early.

 

[sonorakitch]

Yep, she's doing what Newt Gingrich & Dennis Hastert did during the Clinton years, except they more actively subverted the President with their statements at the time.

Vaseline won't even let that one slide....there is a big difference between disrupting the political motives of a President and throwing off course the entire Department of State and nations foreign policy.

Unless you want to argue the flaws with having a Speaker not conduct foreign policy, I suggest you forget about that one.

~Chris

 

[White Elk]

She is the Speaker of the House. She made no negotiations and there were no deals on the table. She reached out and opened dialogue. The president wanted to continue to strong arm the world. But the majority of Americans and 2/3 branches of the government seem to think that bush is rogue. If not for bushs unconstitutional acts and deceit then I would be inclined to think that Pelosi should honor the executive branchs policy regarding talking (not dealing) with certain parties. But with everything thats happened with gw bush, I do fully support my Democracy over bushs monarchy. The Executive branch has been in the wrong for far too long. It is time to take our government back.

And Pelosi is no Fonda!

 

[Gladi]

Poll is up now.

My problem is that Syria is a dictatorship that supports international terrorism & is in a declared state of war with Israel, a close ally of the U.S. The State Department asked her not to go. Her visit lends legitimacy to a dictatoprship. What is she trying to accomplish? She is being completely irresponsible.

Bright day
Condoleeza Rice lended legitimacy to a dictatorship. What was she trying to accomplish? She was being completely irresponsible!

Really, Pelosi needs to do her own visiting as a member of legislative, and if she is doing her own visiting in the Middle East, visiting Syria is a given.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Also, the most important thing about legislators visiting foreign nations is not just informing the legislators, but informing foreign leaders about whats going on in the U.S. Government. This is especially true in dictatorships,. look at the Abyssinian crisis.
History has shown that dictatorships, tend to be thrown off in assessing a countries foreign policy after an election. Informing the Syrian government on what the Democrats plan on, as well as what is likely to happen, means that Syria is less likely to throw a wrench in any designs.

 

[JollyRoger]

Vaseline won't even let that one slide....there is a big difference between disrupting the political motives of a President and throwing off course the entire Department of State and nations foreign policy.

Unless you want to argue the flaws with having a Speaker not conduct foreign policy, I suggest you forget about that one.

~Chris

Hastert and Gingrich VERY OPENLY showed disdain for the President in their dealings with foreign leaders. Bush knew Pelosi was going to Syria and did not protest at all until she was on her way over there. Pelosi did not even come close to openly subverting the President's foreign policy as Hastert and Gingrich did. Plus, there have been 4 or 5 Republicans in Syria in the past couple of weeks. This is just the Bush White House playing the crying game.

 

[sonorakitch]

She is the Speaker of the House. She made no negotiations and there were no deals on the table. She reached out and opened dialogue. The president wanted to continue to strong arm the world. But the majority of Americans and 2/3 branches of the government seem to think that bush is rogue. If not for bushs unconstitutional acts and deceit then I would be inclined to think that Pelosi should honor the executive branchs policy regarding talking (not dealing) with certain parties. But with everything thats happened with gw bush, I do fully support my Democracy over bushs monarchy. The Executive branch has been in the wrong for far too long. It is time to take our government back.

And Pelosi is no Fonda!

Well, I will give it to you, memorizing party talking points is no easy task. But in fact it does not matter if she is Speaker of the House; the House of Representatives elects her to be the primary contact for the executive branch, not with foreign powers. She is not a representative of all the people of this country. It's funny that you refer to Pelosi's trip as an exercise in Democracy, whereas the historic actions of the executive branch is some sort of Monarchy. Understand that the President is elected by all Americans and the Speaker is not. In fact, the Speaker's role has nothing to do with policy creation, only the primary representative of the majority in power. The policy creation is only thanks to the media.

Hastert and Gingrich VERY OPENLY showed disdain for the President in their dealings with foreign leaders. Bush knew Pelosi was going to Syria and did not protest at all until she was on her way over there. Pelosi did not even come close to openly subverting the President's foreign policy as Hastert and Gingrich did. Plus, there have been 4 or 5 Republicans in Syria in the past couple of weeks. This is just the Bush White House playing the crying game.

Showing disdain for a President while overseas is wrong, but that in no way compares to Pelosi's actions. Newt and Dennis and the rest didn't fly around to North Korea or Afghanistan and meet with leaders, attempting to somehow alter the US's foreign policy. The only crying game here is being played by those of us who respect the separation of powers and the Constitution. No member of the House of Representatives should ever try to subvert the constitution by undermining the established foreign policy of the United States, without a clear mandate from the American people. To defend this is just a mockery of indepenedent thinking JR.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

Now, to put this further in the toilet, she may visit Iran. Wonderful.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/10/BAGV9P6C0S6.DTL

I have said so before and I will say it again, I don't really care if she went if on her own time and air ticket. Fine. But damn sure make it known you are not serving in the capacity of the US, only the 8th district of California.

~Chris

 

[JollyRoger]

Showing disdain for a President is wrong, but that in no way compares to Pelosi's actions. Newt and Dennis and the rest didn't fly around to North Korea or Afghanistan and meet with leaders, attempting to somehow alter the US's foreign policy. The only crying game here is being played by those of us you respect the separation of powers and the Constitution. No member of the House of Representatives should ever try to subvert the constitution by undermining the established foreign policy of the United States, without a clear mandate from the American people. To defend this is just a mockery of indepenedent thinking JR.

Hastert and Gingrich's actions were with foreign leaders and the statements they made on those trips were purposely contrary to Clinton's stated foreign policy meetings. I don't think it was wise for Pelosi to go but the Wall Street Journal piece is total garbage. First of all, Bush knew Pelosi was going and made no effort to stop her - so there is no way a Logan violation is going to fly. In fact, the State Department briefed her and provided logistical support.