Did Pelosi Committ a felony?

[typomaniac]

She didn't... what?

...didn't defer official proposals to the executive branch? Assuming, of course, that any such proposals were ever made.

[KarlMarx]

Doesn't pain me at all, Karl; in fact, I think it's very nice.

Of course, the Speaker wasn't making treaties, nor was she receiving anybody on her overseas junket. They were receiving her.

Your opinion. Which I won't even bother to address further unless you substantiate it with evidence.

The evidence is already plain enough.

1. Speaker Pelosi met with the Syrian President and with the head of Israel and attempted to barter a peace proposal.
2. The Constitution, as I already pointed out, and furthermore, showed you, clearly gives that authority to the Executive Branch and not the Speaker of the House.

I've heard libs going on ad infinitum about how Bush is shredding the Constitution whether it was over NSA wiretaps of foreign agents, treating enemy combatants as defendents in criminal cases or revealing the identity of that desk jockey, Valerie Plame.

Now, a member of your side goes off an does something that is clearly in violation of the US Constitution and what do you do? You defend her. Not only that, but you play word games to boot.

The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. Why don't you just admit that Nancy Pelosi broke the law and should face the consequences?

[typomaniac]

The evidence is already plain enough.

1. Speaker Pelosi met with the Syrian President and with the head of Israel and attempted to barter a peace proposal.

Your ideology breaks down right there, Mr. Marx.

All parties have indicated a willingness for peace talks (only the first step to a peace proposal, you understand) for years. Discussing options for such talks is not the same as "bartering a peace proposal." And it sure as sh!t isn't the same as making a treaty.

Now, a member of your side goes off an does something that is clearly in violation of the US Constitution and what do you do? You defend her. Not only that, but you play word games to boot.

What kind of "word games?"

The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. Why don't you just admit that Nancy Pelosi broke the law and should face the consequences?

Because I believe in the whole concept of innocence until proven guilty. No one has yet proved that Speaker Pelosi is actually guilty of anything, and it's unlikely that anyone will.

[KarlMarx]

Your ideology breaks down right there, Mr. Marx.

All parties have indicated a willingness for peace talks (only the first step to a peace proposal, you understand) for years. Discussing options for such talks is not the same as "bartering a peace proposal." And it sure as sh!t isn't the same as making a treaty.
What kind of "word games?"Because I believe in the whole concept of innocence until proven guilty. No one has yet proved that Speaker Pelosi is actually guilty of anything, and it's unlikely that anyone will.

typo--- it is hard to see the light when you have your head stuck so far up your ass.... try not to fart, you might blow out what little brains you have left.

[Yurt]

Karl said it well enough:

The evidence is already plain enough.

1. Speaker Pelosi met with the Syrian President and with the head of Israel and attempted to barter a peace proposal.
2. The Constitution, as I already pointed out, and furthermore, showed you, clearly gives that authority to the Executive Branch and not the Speaker of the House.

I've heard libs going on ad infinitum about how Bush is shredding the Constitution whether it was over NSA wiretaps of foreign agents, treating enemy combatants as defendents in criminal cases or revealing the identity of that desk jockey, Valerie Plame.

Now, a member of your side goes off an does something that is clearly in violation of the US Constitution and what do you do? You defend her. Not only that, but you play word games to boot.

The problem is that you're trying to defend the indefensible. Why don't you just admit that Nancy Pelosi broke the law and should face the consequences?

You however fail.

=typomaniac;35124]Your ideology breaks down right there, Mr. Marx.

All parties have indicated a willingness for peace talks (only the first step to a peace proposal, you understand) for years. Discussing options for such talks is not the same as "bartering a peace proposal." And it sure as sh!t isn't the same as making a treaty.

You miss the point so blatently it is laughable. She has NO authority.

What kind of "word games?"Because I believe in the whole concept of innocence until proven guilty. No one has yet proved that Speaker Pelosi is actually guilty of anything, and it's unlikely that anyone will.

The only games being played are by you. And, you are not very good at it. Congress does not set foreign policy. Do you agree?

Yes or no

[typomaniac]

Karl said it well enough:

You however fail.
You miss the point so blatently it is laughable. She has NO authority.

When have I ever said that she has authority to do anything overseas that a private American citizen can't do?

The only games being played are by you. And, you are not very good at it. Congress does not set foreign policy. Do you agree?

Yes or no

Of course I agree. The Speaker was not setting foreign policy on her trip, nor was she trying to.

Don't you think Mr. Assad has aides who know perfectly well what the limits of her authority are? (He does, in case you were wondering.)

[Yurt]

typomaniac;35153]When have I ever said that she has authority to do anything overseas that a private American citizen can't do?

You try to answer this with the next sentence, but it fails. She is NOT "private" citizen. But you knew that, right....

Of course I agree. The Speaker was not setting foreign policy on her trip, nor was she trying to.

Don't lie. Her objective was to open up TALKS between syria and the us. She admitted it. Nice try.

Don't you think Mr. Assad has aides who know perfectly well what the limits of her authority are? (He does, in case you were wondering.)

This is beyond comprehension. Are you well?

[typomaniac]

You try to answer this with the next sentence, but it fails. She is NOT "private" citizen. But you knew that, right....

Talk about missing the point. I said that when she's overseas she can't do anything that a private citizen overseas can't do.

Don't lie. Her objective was to open up TALKS between syria and the us. She admitted it. Nice try.

Why do you and your rah-rah buddies keep insisting that talking to foreigners is equivalent to setting foreign policy? For the third or fourth time now, it isn't.

This is beyond comprehension. Are you well?

I would ask "are you able to read English," but I have more class than that.

[Abbey Marie]

Talk about missing the point. I said that when she's overseas she can't do anything that a private citizen overseas can't do.Why do you and your rah-rah buddies keep insisting that talking to foreigners is equivalent to setting foreign policy? For the third or fourth time now, it isn't.I would ask "are you able to read English," but I have more class than that.

She is attempting to undermine the President's foreign policy, which is in itself an attempt to set policy. Why can't you admit it? She has.

[Roomy]

Hasn't everyone, without exception, committed a felony in the USA? Ignorance or not being caught is no defence.

[CockySOB]

Hasn't everyone, without exception, committed a felony in the USA? Ignorance or not being caught is no defence.

I doubt the first part of your statement, but damned if I don't agree with the second part (except for the mis-spelling, of course).

[typomaniac]

She is attempting to undermine the President's foreign policy, which is in itself an attempt to set policy. Why can't you admit it? She has.

She claimed to have been attempting to undermine foreign policy? Where?

[KarlMarx]

I doubt the first part of your statement, but damned if I don't agree with the second part (except for the mis-spelling, of course).

actually, the British spelling of the word "defense" differs from our own (as do the spellings of other words, e.g. "color/colour").

[Roomy]

I doubt the first part of your statement, but damned if I don't agree with the second part (except for the mis-spelling, of course).

Misspelling? I think real 'English' sticks in your craw, use the bastardised version if you must, and you must, I make exceptions for you.

[Roomy]

Thanks Mr Marx.I bet he feels like a fool now, or at least he should.