David Broder To Reid - "Shut Up"

[Edward]

The voters wnat us out of Iraq after we win. Dems are surrendering and costing the nation the war

Libs have this fantasy it is a loss for Pres Bush - they do see past their hate how it is a loss for Amercia

The loss is the men and women who are dying for the opinion of Bush, his wife and family and those who agree with him. Representative Murphy who has served in Iraq openly denounces the President's position and points out that he is undermining our troops and betraying them and their families. How many more of our sons and daughters must die for the OPINION of assholes like you and the President? Murphy doesn't hate America instead he was willing to fight and die in Iraq and to serve his country and yet Bush and those who agree with him are betraying Americans in the Armed Forces by asking them to fight and to die for the opinion of the President and those who voted for him when they didn't sign up to die for their opinions instead they signed up to defend their country.

 

[Edward]

bullshit. have a dose of reality:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/the_skinny/main2730530.shtml


The Wall Street Journal reports on a new poll showing the public backs Congress in its showdown with the White House over Iraq.

The WSJ/NBC poll finds that by 56-37 percent Americans support setting a withdrawal date for U.S. troops. The poll also finds only 12 percent see improvement in Iraq since the start of President Bush's troop "surge."

Even soldiers serving in Iraq want us to sit a withdrawal date, provide clear timelines and benchmarks and to expect the military to adhere to those. This isn't an unreasonable expectation on the part of Americans. It is one thing to call upon all Americans to sacrifice to defend this country which we all would do even giving our lives yet it is another thing to ask Americans to die for the opinion of some guy named George and the rejects who voted for him.

 

[Gunny]

treason? fine line? BULLSHIT! Reid is SPEAKING. He is not providing AID nor COMFORT tothe enemy. He is not applying bandages to wounded AQ fighters, for crissakes! He is not housing insurgents in his family room!

and cute how you decide to "get back to the subject of the thread" when you get your ass handed to you....

He's walking the fine line of something. This is akin to Pelosi's trip to Syria. Reid is a public figure and his words are taken as that, not as a private citizen expressing his opinion. There IS a certain responsibility that goes with the power and the position and easy access to multi-media outlets.

I don't think it's treason. However, both he and Pelosi have done a number in recent weeks undermining the President of the US. They're playing petty partisan politics on the world stage with no regard for the consequences.

 

[Edward]

He's walking the fine line of something. This is akin to Pelosi's trip to Syria. Reid is a public figure and his words are taken as that, not as a private citizen expressing his opinion. There IS a certain responsibility that goes with the power and the position and easy access to multi-media outlets.

I don't think it's treason. However, both he and Pelosi have done a number in recent weeks undermining the President of the US. They're playing petty partisan politics on the world stage with no regard for the consequences.

You have got to be kidding me. It is the President who is undermining the Senator from Nevada and Representative from California (and the entire Congress) and not the other way around. He is trying to prevent them from representing those who elected them because he thinks that he and those who voted for him should have the final say on this war when the reality is that our Founding Fathers were opposed to the President having the power to sit U.S. policy relative to war. In simple words Madison believed that Congress should have the power to commence, continue and conclude a war and not the President and Hamilton believed that the President was nothing more than a General in Chief and Admiral in Chief and like Generals and Admirals could not sit policy independent of the Congress when it comes to the matter of war.

 

[Gunny]

You have got to be kidding me. It is the President who is undermining the Senator from Nevada and Representative from California (and the entire Congress) and not the other way around. He is trying to prevent them from representing those who elected them because he thinks that he and those who voted for him should have the final say on this war when the reality is that our Founding Fathers were opposed to the President having the power to sit U.S. policy relative to war. In simple words Madison believed that Congress should have the power to commence, continue and conclude a war and not the President and Hamilton believed that the President was nothing more than a General in Chief and Admiral in Chief and like Generals and Admirals could not sit policy independent of the Congress when it comes to the matter of war.

The US Constitution, as written by the founding fathers you are attempting to speak for, and following legal precedent specifically grants the President power as the SOLE arbitor of foreign policy, and specifically states that Congress has no authority.

Pelosi is Speaker of the House. In WHAT role exactly did she go to Syria since the Speaker of the House has no authority over foreign policy matters?

So Bush wasn't undermining shit. She went to Syria defying current policy as stated by the sole arbitor of foreign policy.

The battle for power between the legilature and executive branch has gone on since Day One. To my knowledge, no specific legal ruling has been made, so while your opinion may posess the merit of your side of the argument, it remains your opinion.

 

[Gunny]

a little backup for you ...

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 establishes the role of the President in regard to receiving foreign visitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...tion#_not e-0

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) is the legal precedent/ruling set forth by the US Supreme Court:


Quote:
The Court reasoned that, while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ht_Export_Corp.

It states simply that the US Constitution implicitly grants to the President the ability to conduct foreign policy -- not "negotiate" -- on behalf of the Nation.

It further states that the Executive branch, not the legislative branch is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way Congress cannot and should not.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether she was "chit-chatting" about foreign policy, or "negotiating" foreign policy. Either way, as a member of Congress, she was sticking her nose into the conduct of foreign affairs which the legal precedent clearly states is not Congress's business.

 

[Edward]

The US Constitution, as written by the founding fathers you are attempting to speak for, and following legal precedent specifically grants the President power as the SOLE arbitor of foreign policy, and specifically states that Congress has no authority.

Actually it does no such thing. If my representatives have no authority over foreign policy than I say, "give me liberty or give me death..." Yet, it doesn't say that. Congress's war powers and foreign powers are clearly enumerated and the President's are limited and the President's power in terms of foreign policy is limited by that of Congress. It is in fact a Congressional power that the President shares in. There isn't a single executive power that is not also shared by the Congress. This is a plain reading of the Constitution. Thre isn't anything in the Constitution which supports your argument that the President has sole power in terms of foreign policy and many of the statements of our Founding Fathers contradict this including those made at the Constitutional Convention and in their writings.

Pelosi is Speaker of the House. In WHAT role exactly did she go to Syria since the Speaker of the House has no authority over foreign policy matters?

As Speaker of the House she has the same authority over foreign policy as every other member of Congress as per Article I of the Constitution. On the other hand there isn't anything in Article I, or II which grants the President sole control over foreign policy. There isn't a single function of the President in Article II that is not shared by Congress in Article I, and this is because the Founding Fathers understood that while this power was the people's to exercise that it was best shared with the President.

So Bush wasn't undermining shit. She went to Syria defying current policy as stated by the sole arbitor of foreign policy.

Everyone of our Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves and shout, "the power of a King, the power to declare, continue and conclude a war and to set foreign policy cannot be held by one man for that is tryanny and monarchy." So my suggestion to you is to read the Constitution because it is obvious you are a fucking moron if you believed that a Congress who met in Philadelphia to draft the Constitution would give the power of foreign policy to the President without retaining that power for themselves. Why do you think the strongest branch of government in the Constitution is the legislature and why do you think Madison said this? The answer is because it was a Congress that drafted the Constitution.

The battle for power between the legilature and executive branch has gone on since Day One. To my knowledge, no specific legal ruling has been made, so while your opinion may posess the merit of your side of the argument, it remains your opinion.

And your opinion is so wrong that I am willing to revolt if I HAVE NO FUCKING SAY IN THE FOREIGN POLICY OF MY COUNTRY BECAUSE IF I CANNOT HAVE A PERSON WHO LIVES IN MY TOWN AND STATE HAVE A SAY IN THIS MATTER THAN I WILL NOT LIVE UNDER THE RULE OF A KING, A M0NARCH AND I LIKE THOSE WHO HAVE FOUGHT TYRANNY WILL DIE JUST LIKE THOSE WHO DIED IN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION DID WHEN THEY REVOLTED AGAINST THE ELECTED LEADERS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM WHO THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD DENY THE PEOPLE A SAY.

 

[Edward]

a little backup for you ...

The US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 3 establishes the role of the President in regard to receiving foreign visitors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...tion#_not e-0

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) is the legal precedent/ruling set forth by the US Supreme Court:


Quote:
The Court reasoned that, while the Constitution may not explicitly say that all ability to conduct foreign policy on behalf of the nation is vested in the President, such power is nonetheless granted implicitly. Moreover, said the Court, the Executive, by its very nature, is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way which Congress cannot and should not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ht_Export_Corp.

It states simply that the US Constitution implicitly grants to the President the ability to conduct foreign policy -- not "negotiate" -- on behalf of the Nation.

It further states that the Executive branch, not the legislative branch is empowered to conduct foreign affairs in a way Congress cannot and should not.

In other words, it doesn't matter whether she was "chit-chatting" about foreign policy, or "negotiating" foreign policy. Either way, as a member of Congress, she was sticking her nose into the conduct of foreign affairs which the legal precedent clearly states is not Congress's business.

This is your opinion and the opinion fo tyrants like you who sit on benches in our courts. Your argument is inherently flawed and wrong and I for one will not tolerate a Parliment or a Royal Minister of Justice who decrees that the person I vote for has no say in foreign policy for anything less than representation in foreign policy means war bitch and you can consider my cry of "no war without representation" as treason if you wish but you and the guy named George who occupies the White House have betrayed me by seeking to deny me and those whom represent me the right to determine our affairs as a nation and I for one will not live under a monarchy that is disguised as a constitutional republic anymore than our Founding Fathers accepted that the British government which was referred to as a republic at the time could behave in such a manner.

 

[Gunny]

This is your opinion and the opinion fo tyrants like you who sit on benches in our courts. Your argument is inherently flawed and wrong and I for one will not tolerate a Parliment or a Royal Minister of Justice who decrees that the person I vote for has no say in foreign policy for anything less than representation in foreign policy means war bitch and you can consider my cry of "no war without representation" as treason if you wish but you and the guy named George who occupies the White House have betrayed me by seeking to deny me and those whom represent me the right to determine our affairs as a nation and I for one will not live under a monarchy that is disguised as a constitutional republic anymore than our Founding Fathers accepted that the British government which was referred to as a republic at the time could behave in such a manner.

My argument is factually and legally correct. Your argument is your opinion, and based on your political beliefs, neither the facts nor the law. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

And I haven't called you anything, so try and drop tha tblood pressure a few notches before your head pops off your shoulders, dude.

 

[Edward]

My argument is factually and legally correct. Your argument is your opinion, and based on your political beliefs, neither the facts nor the law. Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.

And I haven't called you anything, so try and drop tha tblood pressure a few notches before your head pops off your shoulders, dude.

I will do whatever the fuck I want and I will call you whatever the fuck I want and not drop the blood pressure so you can feel good inside. I also don't give a flying fuck whether you have called me me something. I couldn't care less. I on the other hand will call you exactly what you are and you can fuck off if you don't like it.

My argument is based a) on the Constitution, and b) on the words of our Founding Fathers while yours is based on your opinion. Taking the words of Madison, "A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned, is that of foreign affairs." The Founding Fathers clearly understood that the Senate had power over foreign affairs (i.e., the President can negiotate with foreign states but he can do nothing of himself including adopting treaties, etc), and that the House by extension would deal with matters that dealt with foreign affairs. They deliberately gave the power to conduct foreign affairs to the Senate and allowed the President by extension to exercise some of those functions with the consent of the Senate. In addition, they gave other foreign powers to the Congress as a whole. So I suggest you take your retarded ass and spend some time reading the Constitution.

 

[Gunny]

I will do whatever the fuck I want and I will call you whatever the fuck I want and not drop the blood pressure so you can feel good inside. I also don't give a flying fuck whether you have called me me something. I couldn't care less. I on the other hand will call you exactly what you are and you can fuck off if you don't like it.

My argument is based a) on the Constitution, and b) on the words of our Founding Fathers while yours is based on your opinion. Taking the words of Madison, "A branch of knowledge which belongs to the acquirements of a federal representative, and which has not been mentioned, is that of foreign affairs." The Founding Fathers clearly understood that the Senate had power over foreign affairs (i.e., the President can negiotate with foreign states but he can do nothing of himself including adopting treaties, etc), and that the House by extension would deal with matters that dealt with foreign affairs. They deliberately gave the power to conduct foreign affairs to the Senate and allowed the President by extension to exercise some of those functions with the consent of the Senate. In addition, they gave other foreign powers to the Congress as a whole. So I suggest you take your retarded ass and spend some time reading the Constitution.

Wrong. Mine is based on the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

That would make YOURS opinion, and mine legal fact. The links are right up there for you to follow if you can't just read the pertinent information I highlighted and posted.

Doesn't get any simpler than that.

If you wish to continue to debate with me, you can either speak to me correctly or piss off. I don't much care which because you've got no game in this argument.

 

[Edward]

Wrong. Mine is based on the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.

That would make YOURS opinion, and mine legal fact. The links are right up there for you to follow if you can't just read the pertinent information I highlighted and posted.

Doesn't get any simpler than that.

If you wish to continue to debate with me, you can either speak to me correctly or piss off. I don't much care which because you've got no game in this argument.

It doesn't get simpler than, "They, together with the President, are to manage all our concerns with foreign nations. They must understand all their interests and their political systems." Alexander Hamilton, speaking of the Senate, made this statement. The President does not enjoy a single foreign policy power in Article II that is not held by the Senate and Congress in general. He can do nothing of himself in these matters including matters of war. If you wish to insist that the President is the sole arbitrator of foreign policy you are essentially disagreeing with our Founding Fathers. What some Judge said in an opinion means little to me because even a moron like you can become a Judge. If you can provide one foreign policy power that the President has which is not held by the Congress than I would be really interested as the Constitution makes it clear that the foreign policy powers rests with the Senate and Congress and that the President only has those powers by extension of the Congress. Simply put, "the foreign policy powers of the United States rests with Congress and they are the sole arbitrator on matters of foreign policy and while the President can do certain things when approved by Congress he can do nothing which is not approved by Congress. His powers are limited and he is essentiallhy carrying out the Congress foreign policy powers. My link is the Constitution and the words of the Founding Fathers while yours is to link to the opinions of fucking morons such as yourself who had the time to write their retarded opinion on a piece of paper. Now shut the fuck up, get appointed to the federal bench and write the shit you just wrote and I will shit on it like I shit on the retarded opinions of morons such as yourself who disagree with the Constitution and those who actually drafted it.

 

[Edward]

If you wish to continue to debate with me, you can either speak to me correctly or piss off. I don't much care which because you've got no game in this argument.

I will speak anyway I want and if you don't like it bitch then fuck off and vote for an ass who agrees with you because I will not play your fucking games as you and motherfuckers who agree with you violate my rights whether you assholes do it as citizens or as an elected official. I also will not pisss off as you and bitches who represent you violate my rights and claim that your opinion of the Constitution is correct. You whether a citizen or an elected official are still an asshole and I will tell you to fuck off and suck your cock and take your retarded, false opinion and shove it up your ass and tell you to cease and desist being a tryant or fucking face the consequence that the British did for violating the British constitution.

So get it through your fucking head. I don't give a shit that you can pontificate out of your ass about the meaning of the Constitution because the British and their representatives pontificated about the meaning of the British constitution too and our Founding Fathers taught bitches like you who lived there a lesson they will never forget which is that our rights are sacred to us and that no opinion can be used to justify a violation of our rights. Now take your power trip and fuck off and vote for a jackass such as yourself as I am sure there are a bunch of bitches in your city who agrees with your interpretation of the Constitution and I am sure that some of them will make it to the Supreme Court like the imbecile Sammy Alito who dropped out of his mother's whore of a vagina. Is that nice enough for you. Does it make you feel good that you can debate and vote like a little bitch and violate my rights because a bastard in your town or state runs for office whio agrees with your silly ass?

 

[Edward]

As a side note for those of you who have read what I have said to GunnyL I think you should be aware that one of the worst side-effects of our system of government is that some people think that since they can vote that this means that they can violate the rights of others and that since they have an opinion about the meaning of the Constitution that it is correct and yet the truth does remain that the Constitution while a great document only stands if it is based on the fact that the people have a say in all matters of our government and GunnyL is arguing that our representatives have no say in foreign policy and I for one will gladly revolt and repeat what Patrick Henry said which was, "give me liberty or give me death" if this is the case. I do not intend to stand by as the people who Bush represents make decisions that I and my representatives do not have a say in and I don't care how twisted you are or what your interpetation of the Constitution is because a) you are wrong about what the Constitution means if you believe that it gives the President the powers of a king and b) if you believe that since you have the right to vote and to elect those who agree with you it does not change the fact that so did those who lived in the Colonies and yet they had to revolt and it is an accepted fact that the British form of government was republican in nature and yet it was wrong in how it was implemented. Had tbe British followed their own constitution than a revolution would have been unnecessary and this is true of our current government as well. Jefferson believed that a revolution may well be necessary every couple of generations because those who would oppress would seek to do so and yet he has so far been proven wrong (except in the case of the American Civil War where the North violated the rights of the south by levying unfair taxes on southern states that northern states did not have to pay).

 

[red states rule]

bullshit. have a dose of reality:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/26/the_skinny/main2730530.shtml


The Wall Street Journal reports on a new poll showing the public backs Congress in its showdown with the White House over Iraq.

The WSJ/NBC poll finds that by 56-37 percent Americans support setting a withdrawal date for U.S. troops. The poll also finds only 12 percent see improvement in Iraq since the start of President Bush's troop "surge."

The men and women fighting the war say it is not lost

They are starting to speak out against the surrender bill and the appeasement coming from the left

These troops will NEVER be seen on 60 mimutes or on the front page of the Washington Post

HERO REIDS DEM THE RIOT ACT

April 24, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - A tough U.S. Marine stationed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq has a message for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid: "We need to stay here and help rebuild."

In raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.

"Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here," Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, www.patdollard.com.

"Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces," Rock wrote.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04242007...respondent.htm

 

[maineman]

The men and women fighting the war say it is not lost

that was not your point that I responded to....this was:

The voters wnat us out of Iraq after we win. Dems are surrendering and costing the nation the war.

I showed you the results of a WSJ poll which shows that that statement of yours is WRONG. And since when do we make foreign policy and military force utilization decisions based upon what people in uniform want?

 

[red states rule]

that was not your point that I responded to....this was:

The voters wnat us out of Iraq after we win. Dems are surrendering and costing the nation the war.

I showed you the results of a WSJ poll which shows that that statement of yours is WRONG. And since when do we make foreign policy and military force utilization decisions based upon what people in uniform want?

Considering the liberal media continues to ignore any good news form Iraq - what do you expect?

I find it interesting the troops voicing their opinions on how the Dems are wrong are ignored - but any of them who agree with the Defeatocrats are given glowing coverage

 

[maineman]

Considering the liberal media continues to ignore any good news form Iraq - what do you expect?

I find it interesting the troops voicing their opinions on how the Dems are wrong are ignored - but any of them who agree with the Defeatocrats are given glowing coverage

that doesn't change the fact that you made a statement about what the voters want and it is proven wrong by current polls..... maybe you shouldn't make such statements if they are not true.

 

[red states rule]

that doesn't change the fact that you made a statement about what the voters want and it is proven wrong by current polls..... maybe you shouldn't make such statements if they are not true.

Show the poll where Amercians want to lose the war - then I will say you are right

Dems are making sure the US loses the war

The good news is the surrender bill will be vetoed

 

[maineman]

Show the poll where Amercians want to lose the war - then I will say you are right

Dems are making sure the US loses the war

The good news is the surrender bill will be vetoed

once again....you cannot back up your own bullshit. why am I not surprised?

no one wants to lose the war.... but a majority of americans back the democrats plan to set atimetable for withdrawal based upon the actions of the Iraqis.... if they want to stop killing one another and killing us and sit down and form a government, that is great...if they don't, they don't need us to shed any more blood for them.

again.... will you PLEASE quit using the word surrender when you have been shown repeatedly that it is an inappropriate and inaccurate word?