|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Octavius declared:
| Quote: |
| (Besides your and Jinju's plan of mass Muslim slaughter). |
Never said that but go ahead a spread lies since your humor is so lame.
Just as I predicted, most of the posters have nothing much to say in response to the question posed. Gee, what a big surprise!
As for the Republican delegation, if they went without prior approval from the White House, then I also deplore it.
Adventurer:
Until the Dems broke with tradition during the Vietnam War, it was always the Executive Branch who initiated state visits. Even the Department of State answers to the Secretary of State, a Cabinet appointee, on this score. It's in the interest of consistency of approach, a tenet of foreign policy implementation until the liberals decided that they knew what was best. Carter is an especially egregious example of this tactic. It has nothing to do with whether one agrees or disagrees with the policies: that's what going to the polls is supposed to settle.
Pelosi is welcome to hit the campaign trail for the Democrat of her choice, and barnstorm for her views if she so chooses. Nothing more, nothing less. |
I understand what you're saying Steve, but Pelosi is still a member of Congress, and I know the old days members of Congress also visited countries people in Washington were having problems with.
You mention precedent and the Executive Branch, the abuse of power, I think, under this presidency is unprecedented in the eyes of many Americans. The failures in the Near East are more than an eye sore. People from all areas of the spectrum are upset with the branch. They think it has failed the people. The branch is ignoring, it seems, the Legislative Branch which is represented by democrats, and, Steve, both democrats and republicans voted for these democrats, because they don't trust George W. Bush. He is not his father, he is not James Baker. Now, I do believe in giving Bush six months to prove the surge can do something, but he has to change his approach to the region.
Pelosi has to respond to the American people just like Bush and, she is the speaker. Each branch has its place, and I don't see anything wrong with meeting the Syrians since the branch she represents does have its own prerogative. She is within her constitutional rights to do so, and to investigate things for herself. Bush has had years to get it right. He didn't. I don't think either the Republicans or Pelosi are traitorous for meeting Assad. Anyway, in the world of politics, Rumsfeld met Saddam, some officials in the GOP met the Taliban and sent them money. That's something to think about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, no, Christ no, we wouldn't want to actually talk to our enemies. As GWB knows, that might lead to our not having any enemies, and how would we cow the American populace without enemies to hold over their heads?
By all reports, what Pelosi said to Assad was everything the White House would have said had it had the balls to talk directly with him. We don't like your associations with Hezbollah and Hamas. We don't like your apparent support of insurgents crossing from Syria to Iraq. Here's an idea about peace with Israel. What the hell is treasonous about any of that?
Go Nancy. You've got my vote. In fact, could you replace Hillary as the woman candidate for the next presidential election? Because you might actually win and be a good president. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
I sometimes wonder if you aren't a plant to turn people off to the Democrats. Since even liberals on this board think you are loony - I would say you are doing a good job.
|
Best post on this silly thread.
So Pelosi is going to Syria, big deal. Not like she can do much other than say hello and hang with Syrian leaders for a couple days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Just curious do you really believe what you write? |
How ironic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| So Pelosi is going to Syria, big deal. Not like she can do much other than say hello and hang with Syrian leaders for a couple days. |
If you've read the thread you know it is not an issue of what Pelosi did, it is an issue of the Republican hypocrisy, lying and bullshit that is the issue. As usual.
It truly is sad. In the past, you had the Dems and the Republicans. Most looked at it as the lesser of two evils, really. Neither was seen as actually being tyrannical, more underhanded than the other, etc. It was a case, from the average Joe's perspective, of one being more pro business, the other more pro individual. How things have changed.
There was a reason why we were warned about the industrial military congressional complex. (Yes, that was the original draft. Aides changed it to exclude congress. I'll try to find the reference.)
The Republicans are out of control. It is time for them to be reigned in. It is also time for some changes to the Constitution. Namely, presidential direct vote and the end of businesses and groups being considered equal to persons. One man, one vote. No campaign contributions from any source but individuals, and none over $100 dollars. Further, election law should limit campaigns to 6 months or less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
If you've read the thread you know it is not an issue of what Pelosi did, it is an issue of the Republican hypocrisy, lying and *beep* that is the issue. As usual.
|
umm.. that's kinda what i was saying. People (generally leaning towards the right) are tripping over nothing and, sure being hypocrites.
That better for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RE: Elfie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
Ike called it the Militay Industrial Complex. The reference ti the symbitic relation between Industry and the militar, both being dependant upon Government funding, under control of the Executive as well as Legislative branches.
An exact reference to congress alone is not specified.
cbc |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
RE: Elfie
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex
Ike called it the Militay Industrial Complex. The reference ti the symbitic relation between Industry and the militar, both being dependant upon Government funding, under control of the Executive as well as Legislative branches.
An exact reference to congress alone is not specified.
cbc |
Do you have a reading problem? Read again, cbc. I didn't say the final draft or the known statement included congress. I said his original draft included congress.
Fer cryin'.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
By all reports, what Pelosi said to Assad was everything the White House would have said had it had the balls to talk directly with him. We don't like your associations with Hezbollah and Hamas. We don't like your apparent support of insurgents crossing from Syria to Iraq. Here's an idea about peace with Israel. What the hell is treasonous about any of that?
|
Thank you, daskalos. I was very curious what Nancy had said. It doesn't seem like she has done anything wrong, in fact, she's stepping up to the plate while Bush and Rice stay in the dugout. Since Bush and Rice are presumably absorbed by Iran and Iraq, what is wrong with what Nancy has done and said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can you believe it? Damascus Nancy gets a ringing endorsement from Jimmy Carter, the man who couldn't bring the hostages back from Iran despite being convinced that diplomacy would work. Forthwith excerpts with running commentary:
| Quote: |
Carter backs Pelosi's trip, despite Bush's rebuke
By Dugald McConnell
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter expressed his support for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria, rejecting White House criticism of the visit. "I was glad that she went," Carter said Wednesday. "When there is a crisis, the best way to help resolve the crisis is to deal with the people who are instrumental in the problem." [Gee, Jimmy, never thought of that before; how incisive]...Carter, however, said there was "no threat" that the Democratic speaker's visit would dilute the United States' ability to speak to Syria with one voice. [If you say so, we can all rest assured]...Pelosi defended her visit, saying her talks with Al-Assad focused only on topics on which she and Bush agree. [So why was the trip necessary, Nance? Are you a media ho?]Syrian cabinet minister Buthayna Sha'ban expressed his support for the visit and said, "Syria stands for freedom and for peace, and so does Nancy Pelosi."... [I'm trying not to gag].
The simple act of visiting the country and capitalizing on a photo opportunity could undermine the Bush administration's effort to isolate Syria for its behavior, according to Ken Pollack, of the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution [a liberal think tank, by the way]. The Bush administration charges that Syria allows insurgents to cross its borders and attack targets in Iraq -- an allegation Syria denies.
While Syria admits it financially supports Hamas and Hezbollah, it denies U.S. accusations that it provides them with weapons. [Oh, well, that makes a big difference]...
Carter said he recently wanted to visit Syria, in connection with a Palestinian election, but "for the only time in my life, as a former president, I was ordered by the White House not to go." [Well, gee, Jimmy, sorry they wouldn't let you keep playing president. Try retiring.] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Can you believe it? Damascus Nancy gets a ringing endorsement from Jimmy Carter, the man who couldn't bring the hostages back from Iran despite being convinced that diplomacy would work. Forthwith excerpts with running commentary: |
Do you mean the historical fact that he couldn't because Reagan/Bush had engaged in a traitorous quid-pro-quo with Iran? Brilliant rhetoric. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
stevemcgarrett wrote:
Can you believe it? Damascus Nancy gets a ringing endorsement from Jimmy Carter, the man who couldn't bring the hostages back from Iran despite being convinced that diplomacy would work. Forthwith excerpts with running commentary:
Do you mean the historical fact that he couldn't because Reagan/Bush had engaged in a traitorous quid-pro-quo with Iran? Brilliant rhetoric.
|
ZINGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!
Game. Set. Match. to EFLT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tiger Beer
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Smart move by Nancy Pelosi.
Someone has to establish dialog.
Something Bush and Co. should have done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Steve wrote:
| Quote: |
| Can you believe it? Damascus Nancy gets a ringing endorsement from Jimmy Carter |
Looks like some other people are endorsing Pelosi's visit as well...
| Quote: |
The speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, is scheduled to meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus today, and will deliver a message of calm from Israel.
"We hope the message will be understood," political sources in Israel said yesterday. "The question is whether Assad is looking for an excuse ... so that he can carry out an attack against Israel in the summer, or whether this is a mistaken assessment."
|
Okay, all you pro-Israel Republicans, let's work this one through...
1. Nancy Pelosi's trip to Syria is undermining US foreign policy.
2. Israel is endorsing Pelosi's visit, and using it to achieve their own foreign policy ends.
So, given the assumptions underlying Steve Mcgarrette's Jane Fonda comparison, we would have to conclude that Israel, the nation that US conservatives constantly praise as a steadfast friend of the USA, is openly working to damage US interests in the middle east!
I'd be interested to hear what McGarrette etc. think of Israel's involvement if Damascus Nancy's supposed treachery.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/844730.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Just curious do you really believe what you write? |
How ironic. |
At least I am not a "9-11 truther." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
