Nancy has Issues

[Jimmy Biggs]

Something Ms Polosi does NOT understand is Arabs have 0 ZIP ZERO NADA Respect for a women

http://www.examiner.com/a-658704~Pelosi_s_rocky_road_to_the_Middle_East.html

[Jimmy Biggs]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/04/carter.pelosi/index.html

[MagicRatt]

......another stooge. Since when did she become an ambassador on US foreign policy?

[nos351]

I say keep her over there. That way maybe congress cant screw things up worse.

[George Klass]

Pelosi is being accused by Bush and Cheney of trying "micromanage the war", a charge that is probably legit. On the other hand, Bush and Cheney have been "managing the war" themselves for the last four plus years, and the results speak for themselves.

Now, as to MagicRatt's question about Pelosi having the right to deal with U.S. foreign policy, she has that right, based on our Constitution. While the presidents war-related powers are dealt with in a single clause ("the President shall be the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy."), the Constitution outlines expansive congressional powers, a view that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Congress is expressly empowered to declare war and implicity to declare an end to a particular war. Congress has the power to "raise and support armies" and to "make rules for the government and regulation of land and naval forces".

So, regardless of what we think of Pelosi, she and Congress are not micromanaging the war in Iraq, they are just fulfilling their constitutional resposnsibilities.

My question is not about Pelosi's right to get involved with foreign policy. My question is does she have a clue as to what she is doing, or is she just as ignorant about what is going on over there as Bush and Cheney?

[MagicRatt]

George, I never questioned her right. I know she has the right to go wherever she wants, but I agree with you whether or not she has any clue about the middle east. Since she has already pissed off the israilis, I think we now know the answer to that question.......

Rich

[nos351]

If she was younger I could see her making a run at the White House. Who knows, she may have a non-public blessing from Bush to do what she is doing.
George is right, she has every right to do what she is doing.

[Faceman]

[QUOTE=George Klass;302599]Pelosi is being accused by Bush and Cheney of trying "micromanage the war", a charge that is probably legit. On the other hand, Bush and Cheney have been "managing the war" themselves for the last four plus years, and the results speak for themselves.

QUOTE]


George, Pelosi is making this country look terrible. She is very high profile person whom they are using for there propaganda purposes, and she is fine with this because it hurts the President. What the San Francisco liberal fails to recognize is the long term damage she is inflicting in her own government by the actions she has taken this week.

[MagicRatt]

I say keep her over there. That way maybe congress cant screw things up worse.


...x2!! maybe the syrians could kidnap her and put it on you tube??

[George Klass]

Face, are you quite sure that you want to discuss who has done more long-term damage to the reputation of the United States, between Pelosi or Bush-Cheney?

[MagicRatt]

[quote=George Klass;302599]Pelosi is being accused by Bush and Cheney of trying "micromanage the war", a charge that is probably legit. On the other hand, Bush and Cheney have been "managing the war" themselves for the last four plus years, and the results speak for themselves.

QUOTE]


George, Pelosi is making this country look terrible. She is very high profile person whom they are using for there propaganda purposes, and she is fine with this because it hurts the President. What the San Francisco liberal fails to recognize is the long term damage she is inflicting in her own government by the actions she has taken this week.



Face, I agree completely, but she is also doing this to boost her own politcal agenda........

[joesmithz28]

George, this isn't about who is doing more damage. Bush and Cheney clearly didn't run the foreign policy of this country to perfection. That much is obvious. But for other politicians in our government to go against the wishes of the state department (u know, the people in charge of foreign relations and diplomacy) and travel to places like Syria, without having a clue of the damage she is doing is just as counterproductive as the quagmire in Iraq.

This debate isn't about what the president did wrong. It's about what the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE is doing wrong. Quit twisting arguments to suit your view.

[Faceman]

Face, are you quite sure that you want to discuss who has done more long-term damage to the reputation of the United States, between Pelosi or Bush-Cheney?

Bush was elected by 50 million people in a national election to be the commander and chief, like or not, agree with him or not, Pelosi was elected by a small district in San Francisco and doesn't speak for the whole country.

When she runs for President then she can publicly humiliate this country until then she should watch what she says and does.

She made a huge mistake with the Israelis, and a bigger one sitting down with Assad in front of the FREE worlds media like she was running the Free world.

[Faceman]

[quote=Faceman;302605]



Face, I agree completely, but she is also doing this to boost her own politcal agenda........

No doubt, it is always about her and her agenda, nothing to do with helping the middle east, or the United States.

[taxman]

...x2!! maybe the syrians could kidnap her and put it on you tube??

Maybe Assad could post some pics of her breasts for the guys on Trash or be trashed?

[George Klass]

While I don't disagree with anyone here about Pelosi and her political agenda, I do want to respond to something that Joe brought up, namely that it's the government and the State Department that are responsible for making foregn policy.

This is not quite true. The government (or those that are elected to govern) are tasked with representing the wishes of the people of the USA. In this regard, the foreign policy is determined by the people of the USA. In this past election, the people of the USA made their wishes known, and that was to change the course of the way this country was being run. The people may be fickle, they may be inconsistent, they may even be wrong, but the way it works over here is that they get to say what they want, and they get to say it on a daily basis and evey now and then, they get to vote on it if they choose too, and it's going to be run the way the people of the USA want it to be run, not the way some elected officials want it to be run. Either the elected representatives do what the people of the USA want or they get thrown out of office and a new idiot gets his or her turn.

If we didn't want the government to be a representative government, the framers of the Constitution would have authorized the USA to have a King or a Dictator, but they diden't, they authorized the USA to be run by REPRESENTATIVES of the people of the USA. How soon some of you forget; "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Now, the fact that the people that we have tasked with representing us (the Dems and the Repubs) are as fucked up as they are is not the fault of the framers of the Constitution, it's our fault, for ever voting for any one of them in the first place.

[taxman]

I'll bet most of the bitching is from the people that don't even vote.

[George Klass]

taxman, I'm hoping that you are smarter than that, but in any case, most of the bitching is from people that are not satisfied with the way things are going and do not see an alternative.

[joesmithz28]

Touche.

[taxman]

My dad was an American Political Historian and he told me when you hear someone complaining about the government ask them if they vote. I've been doing that for about 40+ years. You should try it sometime George, you'll be amazed.
Maybe I'm not that smart, but it doesn't look like I'm alone either.

[Driven2xs]

too bad she didn't take Hillary with her. MIGHT have been irritating enough that the Arabs "teach them to speak when spoken to".. ROFLMAO!!

I really don't know which one is more irritating. They both register 12 on a scale of 1-10.

[George Klass]

taxman, your dad may have programmed your belief system (as he had been) about not being permitted to complain about government unless you vote, and you obviously still beleive it, however, believing it does not make it true.

It was total propaganda when he told you about it and it's total propaganda now too.

[Driven2xs]

I disagree George.

If you care enough to bitch, you should get off your lazy ass and vote.

Otherwise, you deal with the hand in which you are given.

[Bluenoser]

[quote=MagicRatt;302615]

No doubt, it is always about her and her agenda, nothing to do with helping the middle east, or the United States.
Sounds like a typical democrat, though, doesn't it?:)

[Jimmy Biggs]

I was a non voter in my 20's because I thought I didn't matter........ I never apprieciated what many died for for me to have that freedom....... I now don't miss an election

In the case of the Democrats I have real issue that no one now is giving credit for the success we are having there now...... I listened to a Marine this morning that just came back and he said something that really hit home;
We are NOT LOOSING we are busy killing the terrorists every day that next year will be killing Americans in Kansas

[taxman]

taxman, your dad may have programmed your belief system (as he had been) about not being permitted to complain about government unless you vote, and you obviously still beleive it, however, believing it does not make it true.

It was total propaganda when he told you about it and it's total propaganda now too.

My dad didn't program me, he simply stated a question to ask (it really has nothing to do with politics, it's apathy). You aren't paying attention George, my dad was a Liberal like you and I am not, thank god.
Your propaganda speech doesn't faze me, it shows me how narrow minded you are. Try asking a few complainers first and then come back and and tell me what a moron I am.
I'm beginning to think Gunny is right about you.:rolleyes:

[George Klass]

OK, can we agree to disagree?

But let's say that I vote for some duffus over the other duffus, and my duffus happens to win. Do I have a right to bitch about my duffus if and when he does something stupid, just because I voted? Is there something in the U.S rules and regulations or the U.S. Constitution that forbids disagreement with those in government if you didn't happen to vote? I must have missed that part.

Look, I understand completly with what you believe (what you have been programmed to beileve) but to me, it's a limiting belief. Stand back and look at the statement without your belief tapes running and I think that you will agree with me. If duffus A and Duffus B are so close to being the same, that means that regardless of which one gets elected, there is no real difference.

It's like signaling for a left turn when you are in the left turn only lane. Why? There are no alternatives.

[O.C White]

It's not so much a right George, it a point of legitimacy.

You say it all the time on the FFW board about non-racers offering their opinions, or racers who do not race the class telling them how their opinion isn't warranted.

Now tell me you haven't, and the FFW board will explode with the links I post up.

[taxman]

OK, can we agree to disagree?

But let's say that I vote for some duffus over the other duffus, and my duffus happens to win. Do I have a right to bitch about my duffus if and when he does something stupid, just because I voted? Is there something in the U.S rules and regulations or the U.S. Constitution that forbids disagreement with those in government if you didn't happen to vote? I must have missed that part.

Look, I understand completly with what you believe (what you have been programmed to beileve) but to me, it's a limiting belief. Stand back and look at the statement without your belief tapes running and I think that you will agree with me. If duffus A and Duffus B are so close to being the same, that means that regardless of which one gets elected, there is no real difference.

It's like signaling for a left turn when you are in the left turn only lane. Why? There are no alternatives.

If you vote you can bitch, if you don't vote you can bitch, it really doesn't matter because most everybody bitches once in a while. My point is the question and your still missing it. Since your focused on programing George, who did your programing? You need to reboot to get the point.
Tell me, what percentage of eligible voters voted in the last election? Do you get it now?

[Jimmy Biggs]

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

[George Klass]

In the 2004 federal elections, out of 221,256,931 eligible voters, 122,294,978 actually voted, or 55%. And of the eligible voters (those over 18, etc.), 174,800,000 had actually registered to vote.

Federal elections usually draw out the highest percentages of voters, but for some elections, it can go down ot 35%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.htnl

[taxman]

Thank you.

[Faceman]

[quote=Faceman;302666]
Sounds like a typical democrat, though, doesn't it?:)

Sure does.

[Faceman]

While I don't disagree with anyone here about Pelosi and her political agenda, I do want to respond to something that Joe brought up, namely that it's the government and the State Department that are responsible for making foregn policy.

This is not quite true. The government (or those that are elected to govern) are tasked with representing the wishes of the people of the USA. In this regard, the foreign policy is determined by the people of the USA. In this past election, the people of the USA made their wishes known, and that was to change the course of the way this country was being run. The people may be fickle, they may be inconsistent, they may even be wrong, but the way it works over here is that they get to say what they want, and they get to say it on a daily basis and evey now and then, they get to vote on it if they choose too, and it's going to be run the way the people of the USA want it to be run, not the way some elected officials want it to be run. Either the elected representatives do what the people of the USA want or they get thrown out of office and a new idiot gets his or her turn.

If we didn't want the government to be a representative government, the framers of the Constitution would have authorized the USA to have a King or a Dictator, but they diden't, they authorized the USA to be run by REPRESENTATIVES of the people of the USA. How soon some of you forget; "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Now, the fact that the people that we have tasked with representing us (the Dems and the Repubs) are as fucked up as they are is not the fault of the framers of the Constitution, it's our fault, for ever voting for any one of them in the first place.


George please read this article. http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

"The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."


Ms. Pelosi and her Congressional entourage spoke to President Assad on various issues, among other things saying, "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace." She is certainly not the first member of Congress--of either party--to engage in this sort of behavior, but her position as a national leader, the wartime circumstances, the opposition to the trip from the White House, and the character of the regime she has chosen to approach make her behavior particularly inappropriate."

[George Klass]

Good question taxman, about my programming. Obviously, my parents (both staunch Republicans) did most of the programming, most of which I have since re-programmed, but I'm still much more conservative than liberal. My father particularly was a staunch bigot, hated blacks, etc. I didn't buy into his prgramming on that score. Just because we have been programmed doesn't mean that we have to stay programmed. We are free to substitiute a new belief if we want to.

All of us have been programmed one way or the other. All of us have our belief systems operating 24/7. None of this is a problem unless your belief limits you from thinking. Here is what I mean by this statement. Something happens and we react according to what we believe. That's not necessarily thinking, but reacting, being on auto pilot so to speak. For instance, yesterday here in L.A., a movie director and his son died in a head-on wreck on the PCH (Pacific Coast Highway for you foreigners). The guy in the other vehicle was an illegal alien who was drunk (3x over the legal limit). If we have a belief about illegal aliens (and who doesn't?), that's the first thing that jumps into our heads. Everything I have in my belief systems about illegals is immedietly triggered and I react accordingly (that fucking Bush, why doesn't he do something about the illegals, etc.?). But what caused this wreck was not that the guy was an illegal, but that he was drunk. Everybody around here is now talking about the illegals, and no one is talking about the drunk drivers. Our beliefs about illegals are much stronger than they are about drunk drivers. If instead of having a belief system in play on this situation, I actually took the time to THINK about it, this tragedy would be related to drunk drivers more than illegals. This would take thinking, instead of reacting to my beliefs.

And Gunny, you are correct. In my opinion, participants have more of a say about FFW rules than do the non-particpants. That's because only the participants are affected by the rules. As far as our government is concerned, all of us are affected by what our leaders do or don't do. And because I'm affected, I bitch. One other thing that's different here. I am paying the salary of these idiots, whether I voted for them or not.

[George Klass]

Face, you are not going to get me to ever back up Pelosi, on anything. What I commented on was her Constitutional right to meet with any other head of state. What she says to him or what she tells him, that's another story. There is also this political crap about her visit, and the rebuke from Bush and Cheney. Wasn't it just a week ago that three Republican reps also travled to Syria and met with Assad? How come there was no issue with that visit?

[taxman]

Just because we have been programmed doesn't mean that we have to stay programmed. We are free to substitiute a new belief if we want to.

I don't get it George, are we programmed or do we have free will?

[nos351]

You guys may want to research the Logan Act in regards to Pelosi. Ahh faceman already has it.

[George Klass]

Intersting question taxman. In my opinion, we are programmed (our beliefs), but we have free will to change the programming (and get new beliefs). Again, in my opinion, very few people ever change their beliefs. To do that would require re-thinking about whaterver the issue is, and it's easier to just fall back on our beliefs from the past.

Do you know why we stick to our beliefs so passionately? It's because we beleive that our beliefs (about anything) is RIGHT, and to question them might require us to come up with a new belief, which would make out old belief WRONG, and we will fight to the death to be RIGHT.

[nos351]

I though I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

[George Klass]

Did you ever notice that regardless of what we believe, we will only find data (but not necessarily facts) to back up what we believe, and never seem to find any to show us that we could be wrong? Absolute proof of something opposite of what we believe could be staring us in the face, and we will not ever see it.

You have no doubt heard the old saying, "seeing is believing". It's 100% backwards. It should read, "beliving is seeing".

[Ed-vancedEngines]

I now forget which US President it was, but our president was very incensed when Jesse Jackson decided to be a self-proclaimed ambassador and visited with Omar Khadaffi of Lybia during a disagreement and conflict period then.

ON the other hand we have had former US Presidents to visit with foriegn nations as authorised by the current president to do so. My opin is that if anyone should be an independent ambassador of the US Foreign Policies, who better than a former US President going with the sitting president's blessings and authority.

NO to members of either party in either house striking out on their own to either to try to be the official peacemaker in conflict with our Cheif Executive Officer. Especially no when it is soley for political reasons to undermine our sitting president.

What about Pelosi on her own also rying to be an independent ambassador for Israel, on behalf of the US Government? She is making it very obvious that she has no clue about diplomacy or about any of what backgrounds of cultural beliefs are involved by any of the nations she is visiting.

WE have an Idiot out there now roaming around the world as an unofficial Representative of the US Government that can get us all into some deeper crap than we are in now.

Ed


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." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble



consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House



The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

[nos351]

Very true George, but come on, that is how we analyze things and form opinions. Its just that when we form an opinion we dont want to let go of it.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

Did you ever notice that regardless of what we believe, we will only find data (but not necessarily facts) to back up what we believe, and never seem to find any to show us that we could be wrong? Absolute proof of something opposite of what we believe could be staring us in the face, and we will not ever see it.


George,
I agree and I disagree.

When I am doing indepth research about an issue that is controversial I try to prove the opposing view to me and I dig for information that supports the opposite view of my own. Then I also try to find information substantintuating my viwes and end up trying to get a broader over all view of what is real.

Ed

[nos351]

I speculate in the markets daily. I very seldom hold a position overnight. I have to be able to admit that I am wrong in a moments notice. If I dont, I lose serious money. There is an old saying the Market is always right and dont fight the market.

[George Klass]

So true, nos351. We are all opinionated idiots, but by God, our opinions (at least mine) are RIGHT.

We have all heard the story about the rat and the cheese, but if you didn't, here it is again. A scientist puts a piece of cheese at the end of a tunnel, one of three tunnels. The cheese is in tunnel #3.

The rat looks around, and goes down tunnel #1, doesn't find any chesse, and then goes down tunnel #2. Still no chesese, so he eventually goes down tunnel #3, and finds the cheese.

The scientist repeats this excersize over the next week, always putting the cheese at the end of tunnel #3. Eventually, the rat goes immedeitly down tunnel #3, doesn't wast any time in tunnels #1 or #2.

Then, the scientist moves the cheese to the end of tunnel #1. The rat, as usual, charges down tunnel #3 and guess what, he finds no cheese. He retreats to the front of tunnel #3, looks around, and goes down the tunnel again, looking for the cheese. After a while, the rat realizes that there is no cheese in tunnel #3 and starts all over again with the other two tunnels, and finds the cheese in tunnel #1.

The difference between the rat and man is that the rat is willing to re-program what he believes, and get on with his life. Man, on the other hand, would go down tunnel #3 forever, or until he starved to death, because he is more interested in being in the RIGHT tunnel than in eating.

[George Klass]

Ed, what you are describing sounds like the most logical and rational way of seperating facts from theory, or reality from fantasy. I wish that I was so disiplined.

[bigpoppapreston]

Bush was elected by 50 million people in a national election to be the commander and chief, like or not, agree with him or not, Pelosi was elected by a small district in San Francisco and doesn't speak for the whole country.

When she runs for President then she can publicly humiliate this country until then she should watch what she says and does.

She made a huge mistake with the Israelis, and a bigger one sitting down with Assad in front of the FREE worlds media like she was running the Free world.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w45/bigpoppapreston/041104_DailyMirror.jpg

but here's the thing, kerry is dumber than bush!

while pelosi is running to syria, bush is bogged down in iraq, our boarders are virtually wide open and more than 95 percent of shipping containers shipped to the U.S. is not being inspected.

america is so terribly complacent by the thought of not being hit again "on a major scale" since sept 11, 2001 that we can't comprehend that 9/11 happened on bush's watch.

we fail to understand or remember the terror attacks by the hand of two snipers. and what about the anthrax attacks did we ever find the perpetrator that was responsible for that?

during the 2004 elections, how many times were americans terrorized by our own government with the raising of the terror alert indicator simply to fear the people to vote for this current administration?

how come once the election was secure for bush, we heard no more of terror alerts.

do not feel that we are safe! we were not safe under clinton and we are not any safer now under bush.

it's time to hold these politicians accountable for their misdeeds.

if the shit hits the fan, they in washighton have a very well built bunker to run and hide in, we have our asses!

[nos351]

It will be alright. Obama is the new Jesus.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/03/obama.as.jesus.ap/index.html

[Ed-vancedEngines]

What if Syria gets mad about the Pelosi Sham Visit?

Instead of them getting honored by the third in line for US Presidency chain visiting with them they find out they were wasting time and being fooled while Pelosi was playing more political games.

Wonder how any nation would feel about being played the fool for selfish political games by Americans.

Ed

[purpleplymouth]

if the shit hits the fan, they in washighton have a very well built bunker to run and hide in, we have our asses
Buy lots more ammo!!

[Cooperacing]

This is a funny thread. Alot of you guys need to go and learn what the responsibilities of certain politicians are and then come back and read this thread. Everybody before Pelosi visited the middle east. ALL HOUSE SPEAKERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN MILITARY NON-STOP TRAVEL. A lot of you guys don't make comments until you hear a negative spin. If I was Bush, I wouldn't want anyone going over there to see what the "real" deal is and then come home and call my bluff.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

Better check again. Pelosi requested her Military Plave to have a bedroom also. Agree that it is not uncommon for the Speaker of the House to have Military Aircrft to use. No one else ver has had such a large and as luxurous Military Aircraft as she requested.

Yep' It is very common for members of both houses to go on Fact Finding Tours and to even visit with foreighn leaders. It is not alright for one to purposely visit a country declared as an enemy and to act as an authorised representive of the U.S. of America's Government and to talk and negoiate with them. It is not alright if she is a Republican, Democrat, or Independent.

Didn't you read the post about what is and is not permitted?



Quote:
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." Some background on this statute helps to understand why Ms. Pelosi may be in serious trouble

Quote:
consider this statement by Albert Gallatin, the future Secretary of the Treasury under President Thomas Jefferson, who was wary of centralized government: "it would be extremely improper for a member of this House to enter into any correspondence with the French Republic . . . As we are not at war with France, an offence of this kind would not be high treason, yet it would be as criminal an act, as if we were at war." Indeed, the offense is greater when the usurpation of the president's constitutional authority is done by a member of the legislature--all the more so by a Speaker of the House

Quote:
The Supreme Court has spoken clearly on this aspect of the separation of powers. In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall used the president's authority over the Department of State as an illustration of those "important political powers" that, "being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive." And in the landmark 1936 Curtiss-Wright case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed: "Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it."

[O.C White]

What about Jimmy Carter in the mid 90's with his visit to North Korea?

[Ed-vancedEngines]

Carter, Ford, etc. are different. They were US Presidents and may have already had some ties or a relationship with those whom they visit. I also believe that Carter was going with permission of the current US President.

It was Jesse Jackson that defied a president to visit he enemy.

It was also Sen John Kerry that was making deals with Iran while he was running for office.

Ed

[O.C White]

Ed,

if I posted Carter went in the mid 90's how could he go with the current President's permission?

[Ed-vancedEngines]

Carl,
We always have a current US President. He went with the then current US President's permission is my way of thinking.

On the other hand Jesse Jackson defied the THEN CURRENT US PRESIDENT to visit our enemy.

Ed

[N2Ojunkie]

What is sad is that we have failed to learn from the mistakes of leaders that have come before this administration and we are repeating them.


The foreign policy of this administration is laughable, and is going to cause us problems long after they are gone.

[George Klass]

I never really thought about the term "foreign policy" before. I'm not sure exactly what it even means in fact. Does it mean "the U.S. policy toward foreign nations?". If it does, what is that policy, I would like to know? Or, does it mean "the U.S. policy that we require of foreign nations"? Is our policy (yours and mine in this case) that foreign nations must obey a set of rules and guidelines, rules that they have to follow, because we say so, because we think that those are what they should do"? In other words, is our foreign policy for the other countries best interest, or OUR best interest?

If our foreign policy is for our country to follow in dealing with foreign countries, that's one thing, but if our foreign policy is for some foreign county to follow, I think I can see why we are not loved in this world.

[O.C White]

I think it should be called Foreign Relations instead of policy.

(Donning flame suit) You can't institute your policy on another country. You can have good relations with them. For example, we have good relations with Kuwait. But we have never attempted any foreign policy on them.

[Ed-vancedEngines]

I never really thought about the term "foreign policy" before. I'm not sure exactly what it even means in fact. Does it mean "the U.S. policy toward foreign nations?". If it does, what is that policy, I would like to know? Or, does it mean "the U.S. policy that we require of foreign nations"? Is our policy (yours and mine in this case) that foreign nations must obey a set of rules and guidelines, rules that they have to follow, because we say so, because we think that those are what they should do"? In other words, is our foreign policy for the other countries best interest, or OUR best interest?

If our foreign policy is for our country to follow in dealing with foreign countries, that's one thing, but if our foreign policy is for some foreign county to follow, I think I can see why we are not loved in this world.


Very good and very true.

Ed

[Shelton_Barrs]

While I don't disagree with anyone here about Pelosi and her political agenda, I do want to respond to something that Joe brought up, namely that it's the government and the State Department that are responsible for making foregn policy.

This is not quite true. The government (or those that are elected to govern) are tasked with representing the wishes of the people of the USA. In this regard, the foreign policy is determined by the people of the USA. In this past election, the people of the USA made their wishes known, and that was to change the course of the way this country was being run. The people may be fickle, they may be inconsistent, they may even be wrong, but the way it works over here is that they get to say what they want, and they get to say it on a daily basis and evey now and then, they get to vote on it if they choose too, and it's going to be run the way the people of the USA want it to be run, not the way some elected officials want it to be run. Either the elected representatives do what the people of the USA want or they get thrown out of office and a new idiot gets his or her turn.

If we didn't want the government to be a representative government, the framers of the Constitution would have authorized the USA to have a King or a Dictator, but they diden't, they authorized the USA to be run by REPRESENTATIVES of the people of the USA. How soon some of you forget; "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Now, the fact that the people that we have tasked with representing us (the Dems and the Repubs) are as fucked up as they are is not the fault of the framers of the Constitution, it's our fault, for ever voting for any one of them in the first place.

Do you realise that if our "representatives" strickly listened to what the majority of th"the people" wanted things could be quite different today? Women quite possibly would not be allowed to vote, blacks could quite possibly still be slaves, and we may even still be under British rule....we elect our representatives, but to think they are elected to do exactly what the majority wants when the majority wants it is foolish....

[Shelton_Barrs]

It's not so much a right George, it a point of legitimacy.

You say it all the time on the FFW board about non-racers offering their opinions, or racers who do not race the class telling them how their opinion isn't warranted.

Now tell me you haven't, and the FFW board will explode with the links I post up.

Bingo Carl...that is exactly how I feel...if I were to post on FFW board and tell them how I thought they should run their org and classes and how screwed up it was (not really saying it is, I don't know) and then told them I had a Firebird and had intention of ever racing with them what do you think they would say to me?