Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where are the transcripts?
Gerd Schroeder
Where are the transcripts of the dialogue between House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad? Speaker Pelosi yesterday claimed that she said nothing to contradict the foreign policy of the President, but offers no details. I for one would like to hear the evidence for myself. Especially after hearing a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, claim last week that they have an "alternative Democratic foreign policy" that is different from the President's. How can both the Speaker and the Chairman both be telling the truth?
If the Democrats in Congress have the right to demand the transcripts of Vice President Cheney's Energy Working Group, then surely we have a moral right to know what was said between the Speaker and President Assad, and judge for ourselves where the truth lies.
It is interesting to note that there is no audio of the meeting that we see looped endlessly on TV. But it is clear through the body language of President Assad that he seems to be clearly lecturing her about something, while she appears to be dimly smiling and nodding. What is the discussion about? Will we ever know?
Conservatives have every right to ask the tough questions and take advantage of the sensitivity that the Speaker clearly has about this her visit.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...anscripts.html
Not surprised Dems are still trying to make something out of nothing. Pres Bush can fire them for any reason and at any time
So, Dems can demand transcripts of meetings Pres Bush and VP Cheney has....
but we can't demand the same of the Dems?
No.
You see that's why it is called the Presidential Records Act.
It only applies to the president.
It doesn't apply to members of Congress.
Nice try though!
It is natural for Dems to want full disclosure.........of Republicans
This double standard is why approval ratings of Dems is falling
How does it feel for your Dem Congress to have lower approval ratings then Pres Bush?
actually, the approval rating is for all of congress...dems and republicans...and there has always been an interesting phenomenon regarding the polling question about congress> People tend to view congress as a whole negatively yet view their own congressman and senators positively.
so the congressional approval rating is skewed by a variety of factors, yet the rating for Bush is all about HIM.
actually, the approval rating is for all of congress...dems and republicans...and there has always been an interesting phenomenon regarding the polling question about congress> People tend to view congress as a whole negatively yet view their own congressman and senators positively.
so the congressional approval rating is skewed by a variety of factors, yet the rating for Bush is all about HIM.
The poll is a reflection of the Dems and leadership, or lack thereof
I find it "strange" the liberal media did not have the approval ratings of the Democrat controlled Congress out in front like they do Pres Bush
Or the poll of San Fran Nan's drop in her approval ratings
Oh, it goes against their aganda - carrying the water for the Democrat party
no..the poll asks people's opinion about congress...not specifically their leadership.
and my points about the "I love my congressman but hate congress" phenomenon go unaddressed by you. why am I not surprised?
and who is in charge?
whose faces do the people see on TV more?
who are flip floping on the issues?
who are wasting time on investagations?
who passed the $400 billion tax increase?
who are coddling terrorists and dictators?
democrats
that depends on the network
not democrats
I think that congressional oversight - long unused - is hardly "wasting time"
somebody has to be fiscally responsible when the chimp at the top is flushing a trillion dollars down the shitter in Iraq.
no one.
Try again - the answer to all the questions is Dems
At least you admit the Dems are fucking everyone with higher taxes
even retired seniors
so much for Dems promises - Gone With The Fucking Wind
you disagree with my answers...so be it.... I disagree with your assertion that the answer to all of them is my party.
somebody has to pay for George Bush's very expensive war...thank god that the rich will pay more than the rest of us...although very few children of the rich actually serve and die in Iraq....and very few of the chickenhawks like you do that either
It may come as a shock to you - but the "rich" are paying more ion taxes with the tax cut
Do to economic growth and their investments - they are making more money and paying more in taxes
Why do libs have such contempt for the wealthy? They are paying the majority of taxes that fund your fucking social programs and handouts you love so much
Talk about biting the hands that feeds you
they will pay even more when the tax cuts get repealed.
and most of us are "biting" ourselves with tax cut repeal...but we believe it is the right thing to do....we have an incredibly costly war that is off-budget but will need to be paid for.
No, they will be paying less
When you want to tax something you want to encourage its use. By raising taxes, you will take away the incentive to invest, pump capital into business, you will discourage people working harder to make more money,a nd government will take in less money
It happens when government raises taxes on tobacco. People quit or by on the internet - thus zero taxes are collected
I am sure married couples and retired seniors will show their thanks for their higher taxes when the cast their next vote
I am sure married couples and retired seniors will show their thanks for their higher taxes when the cast their next vote
no..they will be paying more.... and a marginal increase in tax rate will have little to no effect on the wealthy's incentive to invest or pour capital into business.... they will continue to do so because it makes them money...even if they have to pay a marginally higher rate to Uncle Sam, the return on capital inthe marketplace is attactive and beats putting your money in your mattress.
So if you are right why not raise the rates back to the years of Pres Peanut?
Lets really soak the rich to the tune of 70%
