View Full Version : Did Pelosi Committ a felony?
typomaniac
04-13-2007, 06:36 PM
Let me give you a hypo:
Two companies, A & B, are competitors. The CEO of company A makes a particular stance against company B. Let us say the stance is:
No one talk to that company without my permission because they are actively seeking to undermine this company and make the world buy their product.
The Vice President of the (input here, because we are getting a point across to loosecannon) decides to go and have a talk with company B. She says:
Company B, I am concerned about your operations...............
Are you telling me, that she is NOT, trying to alter company B's course? As such, in business, THAT is a negotiation. She has opened the door by PERSONALLY going to company HQ. Bad analogy, Yurt: corporate CEOs rule by almost complete autocratic power. No US president comes even remotely close to that.
manu1959
04-13-2007, 06:40 PM
Bad analogy, Yurt: corporate CEOs rule by almost complete autocratic power. No US president comes even remotely close to that.
most corprate ceos report to a board of directors, staff and wall street....very similar actually
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 06:40 PM
Are you telling me, that she is NOT, trying to alter company B's course?
We have no idea, because we don't know the nature of the talk.
But lets just say that is a very unlikely possibility.
It is FAR more likely that she was on a fact finding trip and that expressing concern was a part of that discussion.
As such, in business, THAT is a negotiation. She has opened the door by PERSONALLY going to company HQ.
That of course is just a wild assed conjecture based on your assumption of her intent.
Based on your thinking I could as easily conject that you are opening up a dialogue with me because you want to steal my identity.
Ludicrous, yes, but so is your assumption about Pelosi.
You are simpleton if you can't see it that way. You understand so little. May you learn something from your time on this Board.
Yurt
Oh so now I am a simpleton if I don't agree with your POV....
fine, on this side of the line people agree with me and they are simpletons, but they are sane.
on your side of the line people do not agree with my POV, they are complexitons and they are stark raving mad.
Have a nice day bug fuck insane.
manu1959
04-13-2007, 06:43 PM
We have no idea, because we don't know the nature of the talk.
But lets just say that is a very unlikely possibility.
It is FAR more likely that she was on a fact finding trip and that expressing concern was a part of that discussion.
That of course is just a wild assed conjecture based on your assumption of her intent.
Based on your thinking I could as easily conject that you are opening up a dialogue with me because you want to steal my identity.
ludicrous, yes, but so is your assumption about Pelosi.
Oh so now I am a simpleton if I don't jump to the crazy and wild assed assumptions that you do....
fine, one this side of the line people agree with me and they are simpletons, but they are sane.
on your side of the line people do not agree with my POV, they are complexitons and they are stark raving mad.
Have a nice day bug fuck insane.
you really shouldn't yell at your reflection....people will start to point and whisper....
Kathianne
04-13-2007, 06:43 PM
All that I'm seeing is some non-conservatives, note I'm NOT saying Democrats, spinning this as an apologia for Pelosi, and against those saying she is putting US cred at risk.
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 06:45 PM
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070413171900.9mgyitu3&show_article=1
looks like the rest of the world thinks what she did is negotiating...
Nothing in the article supports this leap of speculation.
Bad analogy, Yurt: corporate CEOs rule by almost complete autocratic power. No US president comes even remotely close to that.
That is why it is an "anology".
And no, CEO's are under the BOD, which are usually picked or voted on by the shareholders. If you want to get technical, then, no, I am not talking about closely held corporations. I am talking about a publicly held corp. Sure, it is not the same as the US Gov. It is though, an analogy. Read up on the rules about corporatte governance and you will understand why my analogy is actually quite perfect. Why is that? Because the US government set many of those rules.
Other than that, care to give me a perfect replica of the American Government so I can make a better example?
If not, would appeciate you stating so.
*waits*
manu1959
04-13-2007, 06:51 PM
Nothing in the article supports this leap of speculation.
you are blind huh
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 06:51 PM
you really should yell at your reflection....people will start to point and whisper....
people on Yurt's side of the line yell at their reflection
people on this side of the line point at them and laugh
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 06:52 PM
you are blind huh
No Manu, can you find a single sentence in that article that intimates that Iran wants to negotiate with pelosi?
manu1959
04-13-2007, 06:53 PM
people on Yurt's side of the line yell at their reflection
people on this side of the line point at them and laugh
you are a cat spitting at a mirror...
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 06:54 PM
That is why it is an "anology".
And no, CEO's are under the BOD, which are usually picked or voted on by the shareholders. If you want to get technical, then, no, I am not talking about closely held corporations. I am talking about a publicly held corp. Sure, it is not the same as the US Gov. It is though, an analogy. Read up on the rules about corporatte governance and you will understand why my analogy is actually quite perfect. Why is that? Because the US government set many of those rules.
Other than that, care to give me a perfect replica of the American Government so I can make a better example?
If not, would appeciate you stating so.
*waits*
Skip the crap, would you care to present us with an analogy that isn't bug fuck insane?
We have no idea, because we don't know the nature of the talk.
But lets just say that is a very unlikely possibility.
It is FAR more likely that she was on a fact finding trip and that expressing concern was a part of that discussion.
That of course is just a wild assed conjecture based on your assumption of her intent.
Based on your thinking I could as easily conject that you are opening up a dialogue with me because you want to steal my identity.
Ludicrous, yes, but so is your assumption about Pelosi.
Oh so now I am a simpleton if I don't agree with your POV....
fine, on this side of the line people agree with me and they are simpletons, but they are sane.
on your side of the line people do not agree with my POV, they are complexitons and they are stark raving mad.
Have a nice day bug fuck insane.
Thank you supporter of Al Sharkton and Jesse the "faithful" Jackson.
:salute:
people on Yurt's side of the line yell at their reflection
people on this side of the line point at them and laugh
No, people on your side of this imaginary line do nothing but insult and hope that insult pisses the other side off to the point of distraction. However, your "side" is pissing into the wind and seems to be enoying it a great deal.
Best of luck!
Skip the crap, would you care to present us with an analogy that isn't bug fuck insane?
Yes.
You = idiot
Idiot
You
:laugh2:
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 07:02 PM
No, people on your side of this imaginary line do nothing but insult and hope that insult pisses the other side off to the point of distraction. However, your "side" is pissing into the wind and seems to be enoying it a great deal.
Best of luck!
At least we don't start idiot threads about felonies commited by Pelosi and then present absolutely zero to back that up except an arcane law from 1799 that has NEVER been enforced.
BTW, I am sorry ya;ll are losing all the debates.
But that is evolution of the fittest.
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 07:04 PM
Thank you supporter of Al Sharkton and Jesse the "faithful" Jackson.
:salute:
You were proven wrong and ya know it.
here's your ass Yurt!!!
At least we don't start idiot threads about felonies commited by Pelosi and then present absolutely zero to back that up except an arcane law from 1799 that has NEVER been enforced.
BTW, I am sorry ya;ll are losing all the debates.
But that is evolution of the fittest.
Who is this "we"? I am talking about you simpleton.
You were proven wrong and ya know it.
here's your ass Yurt!!!
hahahhahaahaha. Thank you for my weekend. I shall enjoy it.
:salute:
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 07:07 PM
I am talking about you simpleton.
And i responded to you bug fuck insane
Dilloduck
04-13-2007, 08:24 PM
And i responded to you bug fuck insane
loose cannon---loose stool
pull it together dude. You be slippin' !
manu1959
04-13-2007, 08:44 PM
loose cannon---loose stool
pull it together dude. You be slippin' !
slippin!....he has fallen and can't get up he needs life alert...
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 09:26 PM
loose cannon---loose stool
pull it together dude. You be slippin' !
I have a cold and i don't feel sufficiently mean to ream Yurt the way he deserves.
Forgive me. But I promise he is on my list.
What's your problem?
shattered
04-13-2007, 09:27 PM
I have a cold and i don't feel sufficiently mean to ream Yurt the way he deserves.
Forgive me. But I promise he is on my list.
What's your problem?
YURT is on your list? GAFFER? Man.. You ARE a fucking nutcase.
loosecannon
04-13-2007, 09:29 PM
YURT is on your list? GAFFER? Man.. You ARE a fucking nutcase.
No dummy read the thread:
The simpleton sane folks are on my side of the line the complexiton bug fuck insane crew is on your side of the line. Just ask Yurt. He drew the line.
Have a good weekend bug fuck insane.
shattered
04-13-2007, 09:31 PM
No dummy read the thread:
The simpleton sane folks are on my side of the line the complexiton bug fuck insane crew is on your side of the line. Just ask Yurt. He drew the line.
Have a good weekend bug fuck insane.
:cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:
Get a grip, dude...
manu1959
04-13-2007, 09:31 PM
I have a cold and i don't feel sufficiently mean to ream Yurt the way he deserves.
Forgive me. But I promise he is on my list.
What's your problem?
ya.... you are one tough cyber bad ass....:fu:
Gunny
04-14-2007, 09:45 AM
Expressing concern IS NOT negotiating.
The very definition of negotiating says you are trying to reach an agreement like a deal or a price or a contract.
Merely sitting around and saying "i am concerned about the war in Iraq" is NOT a negotiation.
It isn't close.
If it was i could interpret Gunny's last post as an attempt to negotiate a price for my computer.
Never mind the fact that Gunny's last post meets none of the requirements of a negotiation. If Gunny's opinion and Bush's opinion see it that way it MUST be true.
That is gunny's case against Pelosi in a nutshell.
Fabricated hot air.
The ship's going down, stern-in bow up. Loosecannon tightens his grip on the anchor and looks around at all the sailors and Marines sitting in lifeboats, raises his fist in the air and exclaims:
"This ship is NOT sinking! You're all going to die and I'm going to live!"
Meanwhile, back at the lifeboat, the first bid goes up for loosecannon's MRE.
shattered
04-14-2007, 09:49 AM
The ship's going down, stern-in bow up. Loosecannon tightens his grip on the anchor and looks around at all the sailors and Marines sitting in lifeboats, raises his fist in the air and exclaims:
"This ship is NOT sinking! You're all going to die and I'm going to live!"
Meanwhile, back at the lifeboat, the first bid goes up for loosecannon's MRE.
:lol: :lol:
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 10:19 AM
The ship's going down, stern-in bow up. Loosecannon tightens his grip on the anchor and looks around at all the sailors and Marines sitting in lifeboats, raises his fist in the air and exclaims:
"This ship is NOT sinking! You're all going to die and I'm going to live!"
Meanwhile, back at the lifeboat, the first bid goes up for loosecannon's MRE.
Dream on Chum,(pun intended)
You may be too stupid to realize that you have not even presented an argument as to why Pelosi's trip was unethical.
That is your fault.
There is still no scandal here, just another bushbot crusade to invent something to bash dems over while you ignore the real scandals taking down the Bush ship of state.
There will always be blind partisans like you Gunny.
Gunny
04-14-2007, 10:27 AM
Dream on Chum,(pun intended)
You may be too stupid to realize that you have not even presented an argument as to why Pelosi's trip was unethical.
That is your fault.
There is still no scandal here, just another bushbot crusade to invent something to bash dems over while you ignore the real scandals taking down the Bush ship of state.
There will always be blind partisans like you Gunny.
Whatever dude. I'm just wondering if there's anyone left on the board that HASN'T handed you your ass.:laugh2:
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 11:15 AM
Whatever dude. I'm just wondering if there's anyone left on the board that HASN'T handed you your ass.:laugh2:
There aren't any Bushbots on this board who can reach my ass.
One of those Bushbots just neg repped me this comment:
it was unethical to disobey the president
Which happens to be the sum total of everything Gunny presented as well.
The president, and obviously his uneducated minions, believe that the speaker of the house is supposed to obey the president. Like he was their dad, or a king.
Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the damned house of representatives. Third in line to being the president. Leader of the branch of government that is co equal to the presidency.
It would be equally foolish to demand that Bush obey Nancy Pelosi.
Ya'll just don't get the fact that GWB is NO LONGER the DECIDER.
His rubber stamp congress is gone, his mandate is GONE, his support from the American people is GONE.
Bush now answers to congress as it is their constitutional responsibility to decide what money will be spent and how and to provide oversight and accountability over the presidency.
Ya'll Bushbots lost.
Get over it.
manu1959
04-14-2007, 11:26 AM
There aren't any Bushbots on this board who can reach my ass.
One of those Bushbots just neg repped me this comment:
Which happens to be the sum total of everything Gunny presented as well.
The president, and obviously his uneducated, minions believe that the speaker of the house is supposed to obey the president. Like he was their dad, or a king.
Nancy pelosi is the speaker of the damned house of representatives. Third in line to being the president. Leader of the branch of government that is co equal to the presidency.
It would be equally foolish to demand that Bush obey Nancy Pelosi.
Ya'll just don't get the fact that GWB is NO LONGER the DECIDER.
His rubber stamp congress is gone, his mandate is GONE, his support from the American people is GONE.
Bush now answers to congress as it is their constitutional responsibility to decide what money will be spent and how and to provide oversight and accountability over the presidency.
Ya'll Bushbots lost.
Get over it.
so it "is" ethical for the speaker of the house to disobey the president on matters of foriegn policy?....
in your world i would surmise that it would depend on what the definition of is....is......
oh and here is your ass back
shattered
04-14-2007, 11:26 AM
so it "is" ethical for the speaker of the house to disobey the president on matters of foriegn policy?....
in your world i would surmise that it would depend on what the definition of is....is......
oh and here is your ass back
It would be remiss of you not to pull the nails out of it before handing it back. Those can be reused again.
Gunny
04-14-2007, 11:28 AM
There aren't any Bushbots on this board who can reach my ass.
One of those Bushbots just neg repped me this comment:
Which happens to be the sum total of everything Gunny presented as well.
The president, and obviously his uneducated minions, believe that the speaker of the house is supposed to obey the president. Like he was their dad, or a king.
Nancy Pelosi is the speaker of the damned house of representatives. Third in line to being the president. Leader of the branch of government that is co equal to the presidency.
It would be equally foolish to demand that Bush obey Nancy Pelosi.
Ya'll just don't get the fact that GWB is NO LONGER the DECIDER.
His rubber stamp congress is gone, his mandate is GONE, his support from the American people is GONE.
Bush now answers to congress as it is their constitutional responsibility to decide what money will be spent and how and to provide oversight and accountability over the presidency.
Ya'll Bushbots lost.
Get over it.
Wasn't me. Handing you your ass out in public in my style. I feel no need to rub salt in the wound.
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 11:46 AM
so it "is" ethical for the speaker of the house to disobey the president on matters of foriegn policy?....
in your world i would surmise that it would depend on what the definition of is....is......
oh and here is your ass back
Manu, if you wanna reach my ass you gotta knock that rider off your back.
OF COURSE it is ethical for Pelosi to disobey the president on matters of foreign policy.
HE ISN"T HER BOSS. HE HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER HER.
Pelosi's responsibilities are to
1) her job
2) the law
3) her electors
that's it. If she does those 3 whatever Bush' thinks is irrelevant.
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 11:47 AM
Wasn't me. Handing you your ass out in public in my style. I feel no need to rub salt in the wound.
Gunny, you have been ground to hamburger in this thread and you aren't man enough to admit.
That's a fact Jack.
manu1959
04-14-2007, 11:50 AM
Manu, if you wanna reach my ass you gotta knock that rider off your back.
OF COURSE it is ethical for Pelosi to disobey the president on matters of foreign policy.
HE ISN"T HER BOSS. HE HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER HER.
Pelosi's responsibilities are to
1) her job
2) the law
3) her electors
that's it. If she does those 3 whatever Bush' thinks is irrelevant.
the law says matters of forigen policy are the presidents pervue....he asked her not to she went....etchics violation...oh and third in line is third....
logic by your extension.....pelosi is not his boss so when he runs the country the way he wants and ignors her you will be cool with that as it is his job...it is within presidential powers and it is waht he was elected to do...
ass....yours....backs...nails removed
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 12:28 PM
the law says matters of forigen policy are the presidents pervue
SO POST the law!!!
For 12 pages i have been trying to get you clowns to post whatever you imagine will support your empty assertions.
But you WON"T!
Post a case or you lose.
typomaniac
04-14-2007, 02:53 PM
That is why it is an "anology".
And no, CEO's are under the BOD, which are usually picked or voted on by the shareholders. If you want to get technical, then, no, I am not talking about closely held corporations. I am talking about a publicly held corp. Sure, it is not the same as the US Gov. It is though, an analogy. Read up on the rules about corporatte governance and you will understand why my analogy is actually quite perfect. Why is that? Because the US government set many of those rules.
Other than that, care to give me a perfect replica of the American Government so I can make a better example?
If not, would appeciate you stating so.
*waits*Still a lousy analogy. I see that I'm going to have to explain this to you and Manu a bit further...
In my professional capacity, I have met many corporate CEOs and quite a few Board members of corporations, public and private. So I know what I'm talking about when I say this. There is one and only one thing that any BoD cares about: whether the company makes as much money as they (and the Street, if appropriate) want the company to make. They don't give two rat turds about what kind of policy the CEO sets. The numbers look okay? Great, the CEO can do whatever the fuck he wants? The numbers look bad? He's on his ass.
Not at all like any government, which never has to worry about making a profit. And not at all like citizens or voters, who care about much more than just one issue.
You want a better analogy? You'll have to think of it yourself. Sorry.
manu1959
04-14-2007, 02:59 PM
Still a lousy analogy. I see that I'm going to have to explain this to you and Manu a bit further...
In my professional capacity, I have met many corporate CEOs and quite a few Board members of corporations, public and private. So I know what I'm talking about when I say this. There is one and only one thing that any BoD cares about: whether the company makes as much money as they (and the Street, if appropriate) want the company to make. They don't give two rat turds about what kind of policy the CEO sets. The numbers look okay? Great, the CEO can do whatever the fuck he wants? The numbers look bad? He's on his ass.
Not at all like any government, which never has to worry about making a profit. And not at all like citizens or voters, who care about much more than just one issue.
You want a better analogy? You'll have to think of it yourself. Sorry.
ah the " stated in a holiday in express last night" argument...
how about this one...
i am a corprate officer.....i report to a board of directors...share holders .... staff and the govt .... i have also been an elected offical reporting to my electorate and other elected officals .... the anology is sound.
typomaniac
04-14-2007, 03:00 PM
ah the " stated in a holiday in express last night" argument...
how about this one...
i am a corprate officer.....i report to a board of directors...share holders .... staff and the govt .... i have also been an elected offical reporting to my electorate and other elected officals .... the anology is sound.From the way you write? I seriously doubt all those claims. :lol:
Gaffer
04-14-2007, 03:03 PM
SO POST the law!!!
For 12 pages i have been trying to get you clowns to post whatever you imagine will support your empty assertions.
But you WON"T!
Post a case or you lose.
It's been posted. It's called the Logan Act. Just because it's not been used before doesn't mean it can't be. It was originally written for just such people as nanny.
typomaniac
04-14-2007, 03:06 PM
It's been posted. It's called the Logan Act. Just because it's not been used before doesn't mean it can't be. It was originally written for just such people as nanny.Riddle me this, Batman: why hasn't so much as one Republican Congressman talked about it in session?
manu1959
04-14-2007, 03:10 PM
From the way you write? I seriously doubt all those claims. :lol:
doubt all you like....you seem to have understood it just fine....obviously i know how to write to the level of the reader....would your prefer to be treated as condescendingly as you seem to prefer to treat people?
Gunny
04-14-2007, 03:11 PM
Gunny, you have been ground to hamburger in this thread and you aren't man enough to admit.
That's a fact Jack.
Nah, I got tired of trying to reason with a one-eyed, blind mule. You're just one of those types that figures if you wait until everyone gets tired of posting the same response to your reposting of the same assertions that got shot down the first time, that youo can claim a victory.
Claim what you want. As I said, people can read. You've been had, and reposting the same questions over and over doesn't change that fact at all.
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 03:16 PM
Nah, I got tired of trying to reason with a one-eyed, blind mule. You're just one of those types that figures if you wait until everyone gets tired of posting the same response to your reposting of the same assertions that got shot down the first time, that youo can claim a victory.
Claim what you want. As I said, people can read. You've been had, and reposting the same questions over and over doesn't change that fact at all.
Wrongo Buck Rogers.
This is a fabricated assertion, nothing here but smoke.
You can't present a valid case because there isn't one.
Ya'll are just pissed because Bush is headed to impeachment and is losing his whole grip on power.
That's understandable, but you are still wrong.
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 03:19 PM
It's been posted. It's called the Logan Act. Just because it's not been used before doesn't mean it can't be. It was originally written for just such people as nanny.
Apparently you are wrong again.
I will take any fair wager you want to risk that Pelosi is never charged with a violation of the Logan act.
Name your level of confidence and name your confidence in your own opinion.
Cuz if I was you, trusting myself would be scary.
You are wrong. A bigger man than you would admit it.
Gunny
04-14-2007, 03:25 PM
Wrongo Buck Rogers.
This is a fabricated assertion, nothing here but smoke.
You can't present a valid case because there isn't one.
Ya'll are just pissed because Bush is headed to impeachment and is losing his whole grip on power.
That's understandable, but you are still wrong.
You're a rock.:lmao:
manu1959
04-14-2007, 03:39 PM
Apparently you are wrong again.
I will take any fair wager you want to risk that Pelosi is never charged with a violation of the Logan act.
Name your level of confidence and name your confidence in your own opinion.
Cuz if I was you, trusting myself would be scary.
You are wrong. A bigger man than you would admit it.
she will not be charged....and for the same reason newt was not charged...
she did negotiate by her own admission on the 6 oclock news in san francisco....she flat stated that she was presenting the same posisition as the pres..
The Logan Act is a United States federal law that forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. It was passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
loosecannon
04-14-2007, 06:16 PM
....she flat stated that she was presenting the same posisition as the pres..
Now THAT is unethical
typomaniac
04-14-2007, 07:23 PM
doubt all you like....you seem to have understood it just fine....obviously i know how to write to the level of the reader....would your prefer to be treated as condescendingly as you seem to prefer to treat people?I made a case and you didn't. As gunny said earlier, "people can read."
By the way, there's a difference between "condescending" and "wrong." As we can see, I'm not wrong.
:dance:
Dilloduck
04-14-2007, 08:21 PM
Now THAT is unethical
I thought so---after she's trashed everything Bush has said or done. LOL
No1tovote4
05-06-2007, 12:39 AM
You mean that the law has never been enforced even once in 208 years.
If you are serious I will just have to laugh out loud.
Yes. Even if a law has not been enforced for that long of a period doesn't make it powerless.
goober
05-07-2007, 09:27 AM
Deal with the political reality, she is the Speaker of the House, and any attempt to charge her with a crime for doing what the majority of the American people want will have serious political consequences.
She assigns office space to representatives, any representative who wants to take up this cause could very well find themselves in a closet in the basement, working under a bare 40 watt bulb with no phone.
And that's just the beginning. The overwhelming political reality is that there is an election every two years, and if Nancy Pelosi is charged, that will only elevate her and the Democratic party in the eyes of the electorate to the point where Republicans will qualify for endangered species status in 2009.
The Federal penal code is the size of the Encyclopedia, almost anyone can be charged with a crime. As Lavrenty Beria once said "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime". But what worked for Stalin won't work here, because in 2008 the Republicans would get voted off the island.
This is a right wing day dream, if America consisted solely of the Rush Limbaugh audience it might have a chance of becoming reality, but that's not the case.
Abbey Marie
05-07-2007, 01:43 PM
...
The Federal penal code is the size of the Encyclopedia, almost anyone can be charged with a crime....
...
Even still, and with all their efforts to do so, the Bushphobics can't find a single one to charge him with. Heh.
Hagbard Celine
05-07-2007, 01:48 PM
Probably not.
typomaniac
05-07-2007, 01:54 PM
Even still, and with all their efforts to do so, the Bushphobics can't find a single one to charge him with. Heh.There are at least 70 things to charge him with, my dear. The only stumbling block is the votes. :(
manu1959
05-07-2007, 02:56 PM
There are at least 70 things to charge him with, my dear. The only stumbling block is the votes. :(
difficult to prove things that are false............
nevadamedic
05-13-2007, 01:20 PM
The difference between the Republican Congressmen who went there and Pelosi is Pelosi was told not to go there period, and she took things into her own hands and broke a law, she should be punished. She would have only been acting at her capacity as Speaker of the House is if she had White House Approval.
avatar4321
05-13-2007, 05:18 PM
I guess that depends on if violating the Constitution is a felony.
Abbey Marie
05-13-2007, 07:23 PM
There are at least 70 things to charge him with, my dear. The only stumbling block is the votes. :(
If there was proof, there would be charges. Where, oh where can they be?
The difference between the Republican Congressmen who went there and Pelosi is Pelosi was told not to go there period, and she took things into her own hands and broke a law, she should be punished. She would have only been acting at her capacity as Speaker of the House is if she had White House Approval.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902356.html
Sorry, you're wrong.
nevadamedic
05-13-2007, 08:09 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/19/AR2007041902356.html
Sorry, you're wrong.
What am I wrong about?
What am I wrong about?
That Pelosi was told not to go there, she took things into her own hands and broke the law, that is was ok for Republicans to go, but not here, that she should be punished........I'm not sure about her only acting in her capacity if she had White House approval.....so I'll give you that one.
Now, I've given you the link to show you were wrong.....but let's just go on common sense now. It's been over a month and not one word has been said about it, not by Bush, not by the Republicans that were having a fit over it, not by the Attorney General........nothing.....should tell you something.
Gaffer
05-13-2007, 08:44 PM
That Pelosi was told not to go there, she took things into her own hands and broke the law, that is was ok for Republicans to go, but not here, that she should be punished........I'm not sure about her only acting in her capacity if she had White House approval.....so I'll give you that one.
Now, I've given you the link to show you were wrong.....but let's just go on common sense now. It's been over a month and not one word has been said about it, not by Bush, not by the Republicans that were having a fit over it, not by the Attorney General........nothing.....should tell you something.
Tells me they made a deal. She'll stop the impeachment bullshit and the administration won't prosecute her. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
Tells me they made a deal. She'll stop the impeachment bullshit and the administration won't prosecute her. You scratch my back I'll scratch yours.
It's a nice theory, but unlike you I have facts. :laugh2:
Psychoblues
05-14-2007, 03:32 AM
Have you been to the Dennis Kucinich website, Abbey? I have posted it several times and by now I am so paranoid that you might ban me for spamming I will not link it again.
If there was proof, there would be charges. Where, oh where can they be?
The charges are there and waiting on sufficient support to make the congressional case. Hang in there, Abbey. You might learn something in the next 50 years or so.
stephanie
05-14-2007, 03:51 AM
Have you been to the Dennis Kucinich website, Abbey? I have posted it several times and by now I am so paranoid that you might ban me for spamming I will not link it again.
The charges are there and waiting on sufficient support to make the congressional case. Hang in there, Abbey. You might learn something in the next 50 years or so.
Sorry dears....who have your heart set on Impeachment..of President Bush...
If All These So Called Charges.........Were Real........
It is the DUTY OF YOUR DEMOCRATS, TO START IMPEACMENT ....NOW.
Not latter when it's convenient for them...
It's their duty.......NOW.
You all better start flooding them with emails and letters....reminding them of this..........:laugh2:
Psychoblues
05-14-2007, 04:03 AM
Timing is EVERYTHING in politics, dear indoctrinated one.
Sorry dears....who have your heart set on Impeachment..of President Bush...
If All These So Called Charges.........Were Real........
It is the DUTY OF YOUR DEMOCRATS, TO START IMPEACMENT ....NOW.
Not latter when it's convenient for them...
It's their duty.......NOW.
You all better start flooding them with emails and letters....reminding them of this..........:laugh2:
It will happen in good time and good intent. So far, neither of these fruits are ripe for picking.
stephanie
05-14-2007, 04:07 AM
Timing is EVERYTHING in politics, dear indoctrinated one.
It will happen in good time and good intent. So far, neither of these fruits are ripe for picking.
Pfeeesh.....You all are running out of time......
:coffee:
Psychoblues
05-14-2007, 04:13 AM
There is no statute of limitations on "murder".
Pfeeesh.....You all are running out of time......
:coffee:
OJ did it and where is he at? If only the reputation of gwb is forever tarnished as a result of his own crimes I will be satisfied.
stephanie
05-14-2007, 04:26 AM
There is no statute of limitations on "murder".
OJ did it and where is he at? If only the reputation of gwb is forever tarnished as a result of his own crimes I will be satisfied.
Reputations... ????
We'll see...Clinton impeached....ouch that hurt...
This President......
We'll see..
That's all.........:salute:
Psychoblues
05-14-2007, 05:18 AM
Didn't hurt me or Bill a damn bit.
Reputations... ????
We'll see...Clinton impeached....ouch that hurt...
This President......
We'll see..
That's all.........:salute:
Bill could still kick his chickenshit (the current CIC) ass in any contest.
No pain here.
Gaffer
05-14-2007, 07:23 AM
There is no statute of limitations on "murder".
OJ did it and where is he at? If only the reputation of gwb is forever tarnished as a result of his own crimes I will be satisfied.
As I have said many times before. It's all about Bush hatred. Play politics and tarnish his reputation, right or wrong as long as he's made to look bad.
glockmail
05-14-2007, 09:47 AM
As I have said many times before. It's all about Bush hatred. Play politics and tarnish his reputation, right or wrong as long as he's made to look bad.
Bingo. And the Country and Constitution be damned!
Birdzeye
05-14-2007, 11:12 AM
As I have said many times before. It's all about Bush hatred. Play politics and tarnish his reputation, right or wrong as long as he's made to look bad.
Kind of like what the right wing smear machine did to Clinton. Good grief, how many false allegations did they put out (Vince Foster "murder," racially mixed "love child") before they found real dirt on him?
Now the shoe's on the other foot, and those who dished out the abuse to Clinton are now whining about Bush not getting better treatment. :boohoo:
glockmail
05-14-2007, 01:21 PM
Kind of like what the right wing smear machine did to Clinton. Good grief, how many false allegations did they put out (Vince Foster "murder," racially mixed "love child") before they found real dirt on him?
Now the shoe's on the other foot, and those who dished out the abuse to Clinton are now whining about Bush not getting better treatment. :boohoo:
The difference is that the allegations against Clinton were all true.
nevadamedic
05-20-2007, 01:59 AM
As I have said many times before. It's all about Bush hatred. Play politics and tarnish his reputation, right or wrong as long as he's made to look bad.
:clap:
Doniston
05-20-2007, 01:52 PM
The difference is that the allegations against Clinton were all true. The difference??? Tell us please, which allegations about Bush are NOT True.????
glockmail
05-22-2007, 11:25 AM
The difference??? Tell us please, which allegations about Bush are NOT True.???? You first. Name one that is true.
:pee:
loosecannon
05-22-2007, 11:28 AM
You first. Name one that is true.
:pee:
all allegations against bush are true.:laugh2:
glockmail
05-22-2007, 11:48 AM
all allegations against bush are true.:laugh2:
I allege that he is completely honest and honorable.
Birdzeye
05-22-2007, 11:54 AM
I allege that he is completely honest and honorable.
http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/spit.gifhttp://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/spit.gifhttp://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/spit.gif
Could I interest you in some oceanfront property in Arizona?
Doniston
05-22-2007, 12:07 PM
You first. Name one that is true.
:pee: OK. JUST one :)
He misled the congress and the american people on the reasons to go to war.
After the congess agreed to allow him the choice to go or not. HE (his administration ) learned that some of the reasons were not factual. and he did not tell us.
Had he done so. the war would not have happened. His secrecy ammounts to a lie.
NOW YOU!
Doniston
05-22-2007, 12:11 PM
http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/spit.gifhttp://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/spit.gifhttp://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/cwm/spit.gif
Could I interest you in some oceanfront property in Arizona?
DON'T SAY THAT When California drops off. Arizona WILL be beachfront.(My property in the Majave Desert will be under water.)
You first. Name one that is true.
:pee:
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
This was taken out of previous speeches, but put back in the SOTU speech.
Hobbit
05-22-2007, 12:59 PM
This was taken out of previous speeches, but put back in the SOTU speech.
Uh, Saddam was trying to get uranium from Africa. As far as we know, he didn't succeed, but he was definitely trying. I mean, even Joe Wilson says he was setting up 'imports' with Niger, and the only thing they export in any kind of quantity is uranium.
loosecannon
05-22-2007, 01:02 PM
Uh, Saddam was trying to get uranium from Africa. As far as we know, he didn't succeed, but he was definitely trying. I mean, even Joe Wilson says he was setting up 'imports' with Niger, and the only thing they export in any kind of quantity is uranium.
No actually what Joe said is that they sent a small delegation once, who was rebuffed, and many years ago.
Trying is an active tense verb.
glockmail
05-22-2007, 03:29 PM
OK. JUST one :)
He misled the congress and the american people on the reasons to go to war.....
Bullshit. Your heros Clinton and Kerry said the exact same things.
glockmail
05-22-2007, 03:30 PM
This was taken out of previous speeches, but put back in the SOTU speech. What part of that was not true?
What part of that was not true?
The entire quote.
nevadamedic
05-22-2007, 10:18 PM
````````````````
Huh?
nevadamedic
05-22-2007, 10:19 PM
Bullshit. Your heros Clinton and Kerry said the exact same things.
Don't forget Carter as well!!!!!!!
glockmail
05-23-2007, 12:34 PM
The entire quote.
So you assert that: The British Government had not learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?
So you assert that: The British Government had not learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa?
Well sure.........if you want to consider the "information" was taken from a badly forged document.
glockmail
05-24-2007, 08:46 AM
Well sure.........if you want to consider the "information" was taken from a badly forged document.
:link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/
Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
From David Ensor
CNN Washington Bureau
Friday, March 14, 2003 Posted: 10:43 PM EST (0343 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments
said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been
dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors.
The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General
Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of
uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were "obvious" fakes.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in
his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush
administration's case against Iraq.
"I'm sure the FBI and CIA must be mortified by this because it is extremely
embarrassing to them," former CIA official Ray Close said.
Responding to questions about the documents from lawmakers, Powell said, "It
was provided in good faith to the inspectors and our agency received it in
good faith, not participating ... in any way in any falsification
activities."
"It was the information that we had. We provided it. If that information is
inaccurate, fine," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" last Sunday.
"We don't believe that all the issues surrounding nuclear weapons have been
resolved [in Iraq]," he said.
How were forgeries missed?
But the discovery raises questions such as why the apparent forgeries were
given to inspectors and why U.S. and British intelligence agents did not
recognize that they were not authentic.
Sources said that one of the documents was a letter discussing the uranium
deal supposedly signed by Niger President Tandja Mamadou. The sources
described the signature as "childlike" and said that it clearly was not
Mamadou's.
Another, written on paper from a 1980s military government in Niger, bears
the date of October 2000 and the signature of a man who by then had not been
foreign minister of Niger in 14 years, sources said.
"The IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts that these
documents -- which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium
transactions between Iraq and Niger -- are not in fact authentic," ElBaradei
said in his March 7 presentation to the U.N. Security Council.
Close said the CIA should have known better.
"They have tremendously sophisticated and experienced people in their
technical services division, who wouldn't allow a forgery like this to get
by," Close said. "I mean it's just mystifying to me. I can't understand it."
A U.S. intelligence official said that the documents were passed on to the
International Atomic Energy Agency within days of being received with the
comment, " 'We don't know the provenance of this information, but here it
is.' "
If a mistake was made, a U.S. official suggested, it was more likely due to
incompetence not malice.
"That's a convenient explanation, but it doesn't satisfy me," Close said.
"Incompetence I have not seen in those agencies. I've seen plenty of malice,
but I've never seen incompetence."
Who made the forgeries?
But the question remains -- who is responsible for the apparent forgeries?
Experts said the suspects include the intelligence services of Iraq's
neighbors, other pro-war nations, Iraqi opposition groups or simply con men.
Most rule out the United States, Great Britain or Israel because they said
those countries' intelligence services would have been able to make much
more convincing forgeries if they had chosen to do so.
President Bush even highlighted the documents in his State of the Union
address on January 28.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Bush said.
U.S. officials said that the assertion by the president and British
government was also based on additional evidence of Iraqi efforts to obtain
uranium from another African country. But officials would not say which
nation and a knowledgable U.S. official said that there was not much to that
evidence either.
glockmail
05-25-2007, 08:05 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/
Interesting....
You do realize the source of this article is the opinion of one person: Ray Close. Not to attack the messenger, but to simply understand what other opinions that he may have:
http://www.counterpunch.org/close08262006.html Ray Close was a top CIA analyst in the Near East Division. He is now a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He can be reached at close@counterpunch.org
http://www.atlanticblog.com/archives/000967.html VIPS does not seem to have a website, but its email is vips@counterpunch.org, and their open letter appears to have been published at CounterPunch (run by Alexander Cockburn, the Nation columnist), an outfit whose staple is stuff comparing Bush to Hitler. VIPS also published an open letter in opposition to the war at Common Dreams back in February. The spokesman for VIPS is Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA analyst. McGovern's email is also at CounterPunch. He is giving a briefing today with Rep. Dennis Kucinich. McGovern has compared the Iraq war to Vietnam, even saying that it could lead to nuclear war. He has charged that if WMDs are found in Iraq, they may well have been planted. He believes Tenet's job is safe because if Tenet were fired, he would reveal that the White House ignored intelligence warnings pre-9/11. McGovern has urged CIA analysts to illegally release classified documents to show what he believes to be true, specifically citing Daniel Ellsberg.
Another member of the VIPS steering committee is William Christison, who among other things believes that the Bush administration is attempting to colonize the Middle East, jointly with Israel. He believes that the war on terror is being used to turn the US into a military dictatorship. He is also a backer of the left-wing UrgentCall, along with people such as Noam Chomsky, Barbara Kingsolver, Julian Bond, and Jonathan Schell.
Interesting....
You do realize the source of this article is the opinion of one person: Ray Close. Not to attack the messenger, but to simply understand what other opinions that he may have:
Well actually it wasn't, but if you want to dismiss the IAEA and CNN on this, then I will be obliged to do the same when you post evidence from them.
glockmail
05-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Well actually it wasn't, but if you want to dismiss the IAEA and CNN on this, then I will be obliged to do the same when you post evidence from them.
Read the atrticle Lil, its classic sensationalism with little facts. CNN are reporters, not sources. The CNN article only names Ray Close as a source. The article refers to unnamed "sources", and the IAEA cites "outsde experts". Why are these other "sources" and "outside experts" unnnamed? Who are they? My guess is that each one of them is the same group.
These days you have to look at reporting very carefully. You may be right in your original assertion, I don't know, but this article doesn't come close to proving that.
Well glock.......I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I could post other links, but you'd dismiss them too.
glockmail
05-25-2007, 09:46 PM
Well glock.......I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I could post other links, but you'd dismiss them too. I didn't dismiss it. I pointed out that it was suspect. I would honestly like to see an article of substance.
I didn't dismiss it. I pointed out that it was suspect. I would honestly like to see an article of substance.
Ok, read these and let me know what you think.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999682,00.html
glockmail
05-25-2007, 11:59 PM
Ok, read these and let me know what you think.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999682,00.html
From the Times article: "A U.S. official said the Italians initially only described the documents to the CIA. Then the State Department obtained a set from a journalist and that led to an investigative trip to Niger by former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.
Mr. Wilson said Niger's government told him that the country would not sell uranium to Iraq, but also informed him that Iraqis were in the country discussing unspecified commercial transactions, which could have included uranium-ore purchases, the U.S. official said. "
Much better written, it explains how the mistake was made without the sensationalism.
nevadamedic
05-26-2007, 12:09 AM
Ok, read these and let me know what you think.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030719-120154-5384r.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,999682,00.html
Awesome!
waterrescuedude2000
07-13-2007, 01:41 AM
Well id like to see her feinstein boxer and reid out of office would b a damn good start
nevadamedic
07-13-2007, 01:43 AM
Well id like to see her feinstein boxer and reid out of office would b a damn good start
You left out Obama! :laugh2:
nevadamedic
07-13-2007, 01:44 AM
And Clinton................
DragonStryk72
08-30-2007, 02:33 AM
Honestly, the only thing here seems to be that Pelosi got caught doing it, which is the problem. Most of our government officials are taking "fact-finding" trips, even with the permission of the pres, for reasons other than those stated.
If Pelosi did it, she should be nailed for it, if republicans did, they should be nailed for it, if Independents did it, they should be nailed for it. Anyone who has campaigned against these kinds of abuses, and done, should be beaten publically. It's fallacy to believe any one party is playing these little bs games with us more than the other. so really, the debate goes nowhere, as do a 100 other debates of the same sort, because they do not emphasize one key point: Why the hell are we still employing these assholes?
typomaniac
08-30-2007, 11:32 AM
...so really, the debate goes nowhere, as do a 100 other debates of the same sort, because they do not emphasize one key point: Why the hell are we still employing these assholes?
Because they buy their elections by whoring themselves to corporate America. Duh.
nevadamedic
08-30-2007, 11:40 AM
And Clinton................
And Webb.............
actsnoblemartin
10-21-2007, 07:09 PM
defend pelosi
:lol:
are you kidding me ?
Interesting...Any libs care do defend this Pelosi Idiot??
Must be desperate to drag up a long dead thread.............get a life retard.
bullypulpit
10-21-2007, 09:51 PM
Interesting...Any libs care do defend this Pelosi Idiot??
This is such OLD news? Did you forget the REPUBLICANS traveling with her? DID you forget that Denny Hastert made a similar trip to Columbia during Goatboy Clinton's administration? Is this the best you can do?
manu1959
10-21-2007, 09:56 PM
This is such OLD news? Did you forget the REPUBLICANS traveling with her? DID you forget that Denny Hastert made a similar trip to Columbia during Goatboy Clinton's administration? Is this the best you can do?
so they are all guilty....
bullypulpit
10-22-2007, 06:40 AM
so they are all guilty....
If Pelosi committed a crime, why didn't Alberto Gonzalez file charges...Just more trumped up bullshit by the right-wing spin machine.
glockmail
10-22-2007, 07:41 AM
If Pelosi committed a crime, why didn't Alberto Gonzalez file charges...Just more trumped up bullshit by the right-wing spin machine.
Thats par for Democrat politics, not GOP.
bullypulpit
10-22-2007, 07:44 AM
Thats par for Democrat politics, not GOP.
Now THAT's funny! Your sense of irony is improving.
glockmail
10-22-2007, 08:06 AM
Now THAT's funny! Your sense of irony is improving. Funny but true.
retiredman
10-22-2007, 08:41 AM
interesting that the Logan Act has been around since 1799 and NOT ONCE has anyone been convicted of violating it. I wonder why.
typomaniac
10-22-2007, 12:37 PM
so they are all guilty....
Very nice new avatar. Almost as attractive as mine. :laugh2:
Austin.Texas
12-09-2007, 08:06 AM
I am trying to understand where this idea of Bush being in charge of foreign policy comes from.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say:
"Congress [must] be called [if there] is a justifiable cause of war; and as the Executive cannot decide the question of war on the affirmative side, neither ought it to do so on the negative side by preventing the competent body from deliberating on the question." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1793. (*) ME 9:33
"The question of war being placed by the Constitution with the Legislature alone, respect to that [makes] it [the Executive's] duty to restrain the operations of our militia to those merely defensive." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft for Presidential Message, 1792. (*)
"Considering that Congress alone is constitutionally invested with the power of changing our condition from peace to war, I have thought it my duty [as President] to await their authority for using force [against aggression] in any degree which could be avoided. I have barely instructed the officers stationed in the neighborhood of the aggressions to protect our citizens from violence, to patrol within the borders actually delivered to us, and not to go out of them but when necessary to repel an inroad or to rescue a citizen or his property." --Thomas Jefferson: Confidential Message on Spanish Spoilations, 1805. ME 3:400
"[I] opposed the right of the President to declare anything future on the question, Shall there or shall there not be war?" --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:404
"The power of declaring war being with the Legislature, the Executive should do nothing necessarily committing them to decide for war in preference of non-intercourse, which will be preferred by a great many." --Thomas Jefferson to George Clinton, 1807. ME 11:258
"The making reprisal on a nation is a very serious thing. Remonstrance and refusal of satisfaction ought to precede; and when reprisal follows, it is considered as an act of war, and never yet failed to produce it in the case of a nation able to make war; besides, if the case were important enough to require reprisal, and ripe for that step, Congress must be called on to take it; the right of reprisal being expressly lodged with them by the Constitution, and not with the Executive." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on the Capture of a British Vessel, 1793. ME 3:250
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1475.htm
glockmail
12-09-2007, 06:48 PM
interesting that the Logan Act has been around since 1799 and NOT ONCE has anyone been convicted of violating it. I wonder why.
Same with Presidential impeachments. Congress doesn't have the balls to go all the way.
Dilloduck
12-09-2007, 06:54 PM
Same with Presidential impeachments. Congress doesn't have the balls to go all the way.
Politicians may say shitty things about each other but they know full well which side of their bread has the butter on it. If they piss someone off by holding them accountable the exact thing could be coming right back at them.
glockmail
12-09-2007, 07:04 PM
Politicians may say shitty things about each other but they know full well which side of their bread has the butter on it. If they piss someone off by holding them accountable the exact thing could be coming right back at them. That's right- its all about power with them.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.