Why are guys named lee always so dumb? Oh well, the reason there are problems with Turkey is that the bushies running the abortion called the Iraq war have not secured any borders and 3000 terrorists are living in iraq and attacking Turkey...no dem caused that problem...it was chickehawks who didn't understand what they were doing when we went to iraq and don't understand what they are doing with iran

Someone mentioned to me the other day that you never see Hillary campaigning with or talking about Nancy Pelosi who is third in line to the Presidency..wonder why?  Is it that she is afraid:

1) If America realizes it (I wonder how many people are consciously aware of it...if you saw Jay Leno last night I would bett not many, they asked a woman that question) they may not want two women in the top three spots in thsi country....Is America ready for that big of a change?

2) Most don't view Nancy P as being that effective as a Speaker of the House...the preception might transfer to her?

How would number 1 impact the thinking of men?  Maybe the rethinking of women?

It is understanable that the Democratic men won't bring it up...but if she wins the GE you can bet Republicans will.  This maybe her biggest liability
Grace,NY (


I'm curious what do others think...Why has she not mentioned  Nancy Pelosi?

Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country?

Do they realize that this would be the case?

Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?

Could this be the "sugar plum" they are holding back?

They poll on everything else where is the poll on this?

Van,

Yes, I did say that and I was wrong.  Sorry.

Tim M- I have had the same nightmare! That is when Americans better rise up and fight the mother of all battles.

Van,

Yes, I did say that and I was wrong.  Sorry.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:11 PM)


Thanks, that's all I was saying.
I am for Hillary, but I am not against Obama. There IS a difference.


Van

To the poster that said Obama will make a great president in the future.  Well America doesn't have 8 years to wait for a great president.  With the problems of Iraqi, Iran, healtchare, global warming, our economy and divided nation we need a great leader now!  We wasted 40 years doing nothing but fighting the cultural wars of the 60's.  Every issue brought forth in Bobby Kennedy's campaign is still revelant today and not resolved.  America is at the point in history of either rising to the challenges that face us or becoming consumed by it ala Rome.  I for one, don't want another 8 years of a can't do, will not do government.  Even Schip couldn't passed and it was originally a Republican Congress that passed it.  Voting for Hillary is like for more of the same and I'm so sick and tired of people supporting Hillary just because she is a woman and wouldnt it be nice for a woman to run things for the same.  This is a highschool contest.  Hillary's supporters our using the same type of logic as the Bush supportors did-wouldn't it be nice to have a president who is so down home that I can have a beer with.  If that is your only reason for supporting Hillary-you are just as crazy as the rest of Washington DC.  If Hillary wins the nomination, I will not vote for her and millions of others won't.  And by any small chance she becomes President, she will not be able to govern- because she will not win by a landslide and the fractous congress will remain and nothing will get done.  Politics as usual

Nat, SC  "Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country ?"  Your question would not be applicable if Senator Clinton won the election and her VP choice was a man.

"Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?" I would think that using this as an issue would back fire on the Republicians because it might alienate many women voters and women make up a rather large portion of the voting public.

Lastly, wouldn't it be beneficial for our country if we could look at candidates not as men or women, black or white, but as individuals who want to become the leader of our country?  Then we could look at their positions with respect to issues that face all Americans, women and men, black and white, and could assess which candidate mostly clearly articulates positions that we think are correct, and vote for that candidate based on those issues.

Lee Holmes wrote, "a united Russian-Iranian confederation."

What ever happenned to the axis of evil? You lied about habeas corpus not being in the Constitution. Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction. Why should anybody believe this new line of crap?

"I will not vote for her and millions of others won't.  And by any small chance she becomes President, she will not be able to govern- because she will not win by a landslide and the fractous congress will remain and nothing will get done.  Politics as usual."

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 2:37 PM)


Your bitterness and malicious wishful-thinking are a perfect example of being unable to support your candidate and demonizing Clinton instead.

Even more disturbing;
"I'm so sick and tired of people supporting Hillary just because she is a woman."

Replace, "Hillary", with, "Barack", and "woman", with, "African-American, or black", and what does that sound like?
That's right, and it makes as much sense, as in NONE.
You're a bigot, and you don't even realize it.
Don't be a hater...


Van

There is no use debating all this, when President Bush reaches the point of no return he will attack Iran, and our beloved Congress has already given him full authority by declaring the Iranian Military a terrorist organization.

Morally, the best thing that could happen to America would be a clear Obama win and a strong Obama presidency.

Geo-politically, the best thing that could happen is a strong Clinton family presidency.

Only one of those is a practical possibility, short of disaster.

An old monk friend said to me recently, "I would always rather have a smart abbot that a pious one."

So, Here we have a choice of two strong leaders of our mansion on a hill.

Hillary is a good Christian in her way as is Obama.  Theologically, they would not likely disagree about much.

Both are brilliant.

Only one has been tested by the fire and she has learned the wisdom of serpents from experience.

I trust Obama, I am very afraid of Hillary (wisely so, if you know).  And so are our adversaries around the world.  So is the political establishment in America... and, not incidentally, global corporatism loves her.

There ain't nobody stopping her now.



It could be worse.

Van, I think you went a bit far with the bigot thing. Some people are voting for Hillary just because she is a woman, which is really scary to me b/c with all the issues that this country is facing I would hope that people ultimately vote for the person who would do the best job. But those who are not informed of the issues, stances, and past of the candidates are voting for Hillary simply b/c she is a woman, a fact that she knows, admitted and has played on constantly. Sadly, she wants people to vote for her just b/c she is a woman b/c she knows that on the issues alone she comes up pretty darn short!!!

Nat, SC  "Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country ?"  Your question would not be applicable if Senator Clinton won the election and her VP choice was a man.


Dot ..I believe i said 2 out of the top 3.  Speaker of the House is third in line for the Presidency.  

Why does she never speak opf Nancy P and her accomplishments as a woman...

has Nancy P endorsed her?

Regardless of how things should be I broing up a valid question for all of those who question whether America is ready for Obama.  I question whether they are ready to have to women in as CIC or in line for it.

MSNBC  take a poll you guys love polls...I'm surprised the Clinton's havn't done one.  Then maybe they have...that is why you don't see Nancy with her.

BTW she is the one who is constantly pushing this woman thing

John Doe: You are slow on the trigger as usual,although obstuseness is your usual wont. The impetus for heretofore non-invasive action on the portion of the Turks[outside of artillary strikes which were yet launched on the Turkish side] into the Kurd north was US diplomatic efforts under intense labour by US Ambassador Wilson. Those efforts have been wiped out by the stupidity of the Democrat leftwing. It is expected that by next week,that the Turks will[already are in fact],demand that the US leave its hugely strategic Incirlk airbase. It has already recalled its ambassador to Washington.

Remarks, Turkish Army Chief of Staff Oct.17,2007[REUTERS,DER SPIEGAL]:'' The relations between our two nations[Turkey,US] will never be the same again''.

Dot: A fractured unsure plan by the Democrats offers no opportunities for success. The Iranians see the rubble left behind by nascent Democrat forays into this realm which have been proven failures. The recent Armenian declaration. The Pelosi trip to Syria. The confusion by the Democrat presidential leader over what conditions by Iran would trigger a military response[''oil''as it turns out].The anger of Iraqis over their federalization plan that they want no portion of. There will come a time when all of the diplomacy that the US can muster will avail nothing. When it becomes a vehicle of appeasement rather than one for real change. The leftwing places its crummy busted -flush hand down on a false hope that there will be a ''velvet revolution''in Iran. These hopes are already being crushed out by the Mullahs.

Lee: You forget that Irans seeking of the Bomb predates the Bush presidency by many years. Clinton did nothing. Bush tries,but is shouted down as a worse maniac than Ahmedinjezad by his nations unhinged leftwing. Meanwhile,the bomb WILL come,when it is another president at the helm and all except Bush[and possibly the Israelis,who have been sounding the alarm for years], will share blame for this eventual development.

Peter: You are being dishonest.[as well as obtuse.Why is this a recurring role with you people?]You know damned well that Habeas Corpus is a portion of this document. But one that is applied to CITIZENS. Not terrorists from a foreign nation representing no army and serving under no flag. Don't hand me this crap. If Bush ''lied'',then so did everyone else,including your frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president,as well as the Democrat leadership in this presentday Congress. And ''lied''YEARS BEFORE Bush took office.

And WTF are you Van? Some of the BS you say on here is borderline at best. Its easy to rant and rave on here but say this stupid she-i-t in someones face. That is what I thought, a different story. You come on here with your page long paste and think we are all supposed to be impressed at all of the free time you have. Well you get no acalades from me. As for Hillary, I cant stand the witch because I know what she stands for. My vote is already set and cant be changed, probably like most that consider themselves independent. There is no true independents, you flow to one side or the other. Point blank.....whoever raises the most money will win......you can debate all day long but that is the truth. Democrats cant win the Whitehouseso that is a wasted vote. Clinton won because of Ross Perot. Democrats will maintain Congress and we will continue on in 2009 the same way we are here today with the same tired arguments.

The unspeakable irony is that the "Christian Right" will support any of the republican candidates over Obama and Clinton, whose faith, although maligned by the nut cases, is central to their personality.

Both Hillary and Obama know more about prayer meetings, Bible verses, and revivals than Guiliani and Thompson combined.

One way or another, the corrupt Gothic pagan regime of Bushco will be followed by an administration whose leader's faith has been tested and has prevailed.  

An administration of imperfect humans who know the meaning of Amazing Grace.

"Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin," the hand wrote on the wall the night of Belshazzar's feast.  "You have been weighed in the balance and found wanting."

So it is for the Bushgoths.



To the hateful "Christian Right":


"The end is near.  Are you ready?"

Nat

Actually, in the second part of you submittal you did say what I quoted.  I have copied into this note.

I'm curious what do others think...Why has she not mentioned  Nancy Pelosi?

Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country?

Do they realize that this would be the case?

Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?

Could this be the "sugar plum" they are holding back?

They poll on everything else where is the poll on this?

No big deal, my main point is that I prefer to support a candidate on his/her position on the issues, not on other less important (to me) factors.

Lee Holmes

Thank you for your response. I understand all that you are saying. I reiterate that the WWIII comment is premature. Iran is a matter of concern for both parties and for both this administration, and the next be it Republican or Democratic. Another WW would be so disastrous, it is difficult to imagine.  

Van, you can call me all the names you want.  I wished I had the opportunity to meet you face to face.  I stand by my statements, Clinton is a divider and not a uniter- and at this juncture we need a president that can bring our country together to deal with the perilous challenges we face.  No more flip floping, triangulation.  We need a leader not a policy wonk poll taker.

                    It could be worse.

"But one that is applied to CITIZENS."

"Jose Padilla," and you're pretty damned dishonest (and obtuse) yourself.

IntheMIddle, TX (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:12 PM)

I really enjoy your humor.


Van

Nat

This is a copy of your post.

I'm curious what do others think...Why has she not mentioned  Nancy Pelosi?

Will Americans want/accept two women heading the country?

Do they realize that this would be the case?

Will Republicans use it against her if she wins the nomination?

Could this be the "sugar plum" they are holding back?

They poll on everything else where is the poll on this?

My point is that issues are more important than when or not candidate is man or woman.

Van, you can call me all the names you want.

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:01 PM)

Okay, thanks. I call 'em as I see 'em.



Van

Lee: And Jose was granted these rights.And was found guilty. And in a nation under Bush. Next. You will have to do better than one guy in a nation of 300 millions. And you will have to do way better than granting foreign terrorists engaged in self-proclaimed war against the United States the constitutional rights that they do not deserve and indeed,are not even applied to them.

James, both Obama and Hillary stated they could not promise to withdraw the troops by 2013 possibly later.. Edwards was the only one who could manage to that.. Obama is what they call an "empty suit" He spoke against the Patriot Act and then voted in favor of it.. he cannot stop funding the war and now he has the same position on Hillary as it.. Ron has a proper exit strategy out, and will legally natin build to stablize Iraq.. It will be a process and may take some time.. but 6 years that the democrats are advocating is not something our economy can handle.. I suggest you reeavaulate your choice.. Barack Obama is anything but a progressive... He's the same establishment candidate.. Ron Paul isn't :)

No Mark Thieme it could not be worse!
Whats with the religious crap theme Thieme...?
The sewer that is Washington is as bad as it can be.
It can not be worse!

Lee Holmes wrote, "Peter: You are being dishonest.[as well as obtuse.Why is this a recurring role with you people?]You know damned well that Habeas Corpus is a portion of this document. But one that is applied to CITIZENS."

On Sept. 20, 2007 you wrote, "First,you cry crocodile tears over the ''dismantling''of the Constitution when it comes to granting foreign enemy combatants Habeas Corpus rights which appears nowhere in the Document."

I responded with, "Read Article 1, Section 9, Lee." Does that look to you like I don't know that Habeas Corpus is in the Constitution? The word "CITIZENS" does not appear in that article and section. By the way "enemy combatants" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

You then wrote, "I saw that coming down the pike and was ready for it."

You saw that coming. So you knew that Habeas Corpus rights are in the Constitution and you wrote the lie anyway. You are the one being dishonest.

You then wrote, "If Bush ''lied'',then so did everyone else,including your frontrunner for the Democrat nomination for president,as well as the Democrat leadership in this present day Congress."

What gives you the impression that I believe anything they say on this matter? And, because they all lie, doesn't make it OK for you to lie or for Bush to lie.  

Ron Paul is a nutjob.

Peter: Habeas Corpus rights are extended to citizens of this nation. Not foreign enemy combatants.[particularly battlefield combatants fighting under no flag and wearing no uniform, as those who now crowd GTMO,and even here,Japanese and German soldiers were routinely denied Habeas Corpus rights during and after WWII]. Even the USSC in HAMDI and HAMDAN recognized that military courts tribunals could be used as a vehicle to try these individuals without the granting of Habeas Corpus rights that are shared by US citizens,these tribunals acting NOT under the umbrella of the US Constitution,but under foreign treaties that we entered into. Not once in the history of this nation has such a condition ever existed. Not even for AMERICANS[in the form of ex-Confederates as we see in Ex Parte Garland [1868].The commandant of Andersonville prison,Cpt.Henry Wirz,CSA,and the Lincoln assassination conspiritors were flatly denied these rights and tried by military tribunals whereupon all save Dr. Mudd faced the hangmans noose. The weight of legal history and precedent is against you. You are creating ''found law''out of a heretofore non-existant legal condition.[Take ''privacy''for instance. It does not appear in the Document either]. It is not so much that you are ''lying'' yourself,but suffer from the confusion that routinely affects partisans. Pass to Bush,and I make the accurate observation that this person did not generate these ''lies''in order to willfully decieve the American people. Any assertion that he did is itself a lie,which is not backed by ample istorical precedent.

Lee, your discussion of Habeas Corpus rights are correct in regards Prisoners of War, but the Bush administration defines Enemy Combatants as being neither civilians nor POWs and thus are entitled to the rights of neither.  This is a legal neverland in which a person can be designated an Enemy Combatant by the Executive with no right of oversight by anyone and no rights to call his own.  In effect he can be "disappeared" in the finest traditions of the Soviet Gulag.  At some point this extreme version of executive power will be abused and by all indications probably has been already.  I say probably because all such information is classified and personal accounts are either forbidden or dismissed as hearsay.  For the life of me I can't understand why that doesn't scare the bejeezus out of everybody, but ESPECIALLY those who claim to be conservative.  If conservatives claim to have getting government out of our lives as a primary motivation this flies in the face of that.  Although the older generation of my family is almost entirely gone they were all very conservative, and would certainly have been terrified at the thought of an American government that can make people vanish into a legal hole.  And no, that is not something that's exclusively for non-citizens under the legal arguments being used.

John B: Yet the vehicle for removing these prisoners from this ''neverland'',accepted by the administration,lay in the USSC HAMDAN and HAMDI decisions. HAMDI affirmed the right of the administration to restrict Habeas Corpus rights demanded by these combatants that are enjoyed by ordinary American citizens. It is extremely important to observe that ''American citizens''were the standard applied by Sandra Day O'Connor for the majority when the administration was dealt the first of these two setbacks in trying these enemy combatants. While rejecting the administration position that these could be tried in what was argued ''Cuban territory''at QTMO,setting up military courts there,operating under the UCMJ,the majority nevertheless confirmed that these defendants could be tried at a lower constitutional standard than ordinary Americans accused of crimes whereby national citizens would be tried in civil courts affording these full HC rights.
             The later HAMDAN also confirms this view while rejecting the administration basis of using ''unitary''executive power in order to set up military tribunals. The Stevens majority decision sets aside unitary right,while refusing to address Habeas rights demanded by the defendants. Here,Stevens and the liberal/swing majority makes plain that it will be Congress that will award the type of legal proceedings afforded these defendants,which Congress so performed in 2007. Quite separate from a legal ''neverland'',foreign enemy combatants will be tried under the Geneva Conventions[as opposed to the US Constitution or its US Codes where the UCMJ resides],Art III hearings whereby defendants would have legal representation,arguments in defense and prosecution,presiding judges, and weighing of evidence in order to determine guilt or innocence subtracting key areas of Habeas protections including certain evidence introduction[bearing upon national security], and confrontation of witnesses. As it now stands,Art.III,as applied,is a superior condition to those of any nation on earth that now holds individuals accused of battlefield crimes acting in a combatant status,because they apply to a treaty codifying international laws with respect to combatants that are nevertheless not observed by all of the treaties signitories. Only the United States of all of the planets nations has moved towards comportment with combatant rights and seeking the determination of justice for the crimes they have been charged of committing.  Putin would have these summarily shot.[and did,with the ''disappearence''of several Chechnyan rebel leaders]. So would Ahmedinjezad,or Assad,as would a plethora of African strongmen. Chavez would toss these into a hole never to see the light of day again,[while American leftists wax poetic at the ''justice''of this mans reign],as would Castro,the Red Chinese,the Indonesians,our own neighbors to the south in Mexico,and more than a few European countries in the East.
                   There is no disputing the imperfect nature of this legal environment.Its wheels grind slowly. Yet the struggle for fair legal rights continues even inside of a nation that has been labeled ''fascist''and ''totalitarian''[which is nonsense,else these debates would not even be occuring in such a condition],by it's critics. Everybody gets something in the new paradigm of international terrorism since 9/11.[terrorism,which,as I have pointed out,includes declarations of war against this nation]. Nobody gets everything. Not the everything-at-all-costs civil liberties factions, who feel that these terrorists are no differant than a 7-11 stickup man, nor the administration,which wished to hold them for the unseen duration of this war on terror. What we are seeing is the birth of an entirely new legal structure, divorced from traditional constituional right[as applied by America],that embraces the very international treaties liberals demand that we should have been adhering to all along in with regards to the environment[KYOTO],small arms[UN],and international law[The World Court].

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):