Did Pelosi Committ a felony?

[Gunny]

So I was right 15 pages ago, your only reason for believing that Pelosi was "wrong" to take the trip, or that it was "unethical" was because the pres that America wants impeached doesn't like it.

Nobody wants him impeached but the loony left. I

Talk about a partisan crutch.

Nothing partisan about it. You're fishing. I apply the same standards to Republicans who do it, and I applied the same standard on th especific instance of Hastert doing it.

Your allegation of partisanship is belied by the facts.

Well as long as Pelosi was within the law it is simply none of dear leaders business. His opinion doesn't count unless Pelosi negotiates, or represents the whole USA.

Which she didn't.

Yes she did. You claiming she didn't is intellectually dishonest. She went over as Speaker of the House. Speaker of the House has no authority to do so.

You have no case, the burden of proof is unfullfilled, you have just your uninformed opinion, which quite frankly, won't buy a cup of joe.

Just because you and your dear leader don't like it does not make it unethical, unless of course one of you two is actually God.

You're grasping for straws. All you've done is double-talk, misrepresent the truth and completely ignore the facts, not to mention your false allegations above.

My burden of proof is MORE than filled. You have yet to refute it.

I will also point out that according to the Constitution, if the President doesn't like it and wants to make an issue of it, he CAN bring her before the house ethics committee. As if putting her in front of her fan club would do any good.

[loosecannon]

You're grasping for straws. All you've done is double-talk, misrepresent the truth and completely ignore the facts, not to mention your false allegations above.

My burden of proof is MORE than filled. You have yet to refute it.

I will also point out that according to the Constitution, if the President doesn't like it and wants to make an issue of it, he CAN bring her before the house ethics committee. As if putting her in front of her fan club would do any good.

You lose Gunny, she broke no law, she doesn't need authority to do something that breaks no law. You have zero except your uninformed opinion.

You may really believe that the case you presented amounts to something. In which case i apologize but it doesn't. You do not appear to be smart enough to grasp the concept of law, breaking it or not and ethics.

Your mere opinion doesn't make something wrong.

or unethical

or illegal.

There are standards of proof for each and you didn't even begin to meet them.

Your whole schtick is based on pure opinion. Nothing more.

You seem sincere enough, but you really do not appear to get it.

Pelosi did nothing wrong.

Unless you can prove she did, you lose.

[Gunny]

You lose Gunny, she broke no law, she doesn't need authority to do something that breaks no law. You have zero except your uninformed opinion.

You may really believe that the case you presented amounts to something. In which case i apologize but it doesn't. You do not appear to be smart enough to grasp the concept of law, breaking it or not and ethics.

Your mere opinion doesn't make something wrong.

or unethical

or illegal.

There are standards of proof for each and you didn't even begin to meet them.

Your whole schtick is based on pure opinion. Nothing more.

You seem sincere enough, but you really do not appear to get it.

Pelosi did nothing wrong.

Unless you can prove she did, you lose.

I already proved, by any standard of proof, so I'm afraid it is you who has lost. Pages ago. You just refuse to give it up.

[loosecannon]

I already proved, by any standard of proof, so I'm afraid it is you who has lost. Pages ago. You just refuse to give it up.

I am sorry Gunny, but you proved absolutely nothing.

You offered your opinion without an explanation even of how you thought that the anecdotes you listed amounted to anything.

You seem sincere, but without a clue.

It is not semantics, it is a sequence of reasoning that you entirely failed to present.

The mere fact that you and bush say you believe that Pelosi "represented" the US means nothing unless you can match her words/actions to the definition of the word "represented".

Lemme give you an example.

Manu accuses you of being unethical because you lied about him having sex with goats.

You say "I never said you had sex with goats, but you told me yourself that you did so it wouldn't have been a lie".

OK, Manu's accusation would be that you lied.

In order for this accusation to be true, not just his baseless opinion, he would have to prove that

A) he didn't have sex with goats

and

B) that you actually lied vs just being wrong when you said that he did have sex with goats.

The definition matters.

Suppose you misunderstood a comment he made and you assumed that it implied he was in fact banging goats.

that wouldn't be a lie, it would be a misunderstanding.

OK, so you haven't proven that Pelosi had sex with goats.

Or whatever your allegation is.

If you want to allege that pelosi did something wrong, define wrong.

If you want to prove she did something unethical, prove unethical beginning with a definition of unethical.

To prove a driver is drunk you need a definition of "drunk", then you have to prove he was a driver, as in driving while he was drunk.

can you do that?

What are your allegations against pelosi?

Can you prove she did what you say she did?

Can you prove by definitions that what you say is the same as what she did?

Because if you can't you are just making accusations that you can't prove.

Nothing but baseless opinions.

[Gunny]

I am sorry Gunny, but you proved absolutely nothing.

You offered your opinion without an explanation even of how you thought that the anecdotes you listed amounted to anything.

You seem sincere, but without a clue.

It is not semantics, it is a sequence of reasoning that you entirely failed to present.

The mere fact that you and bush say you believe that Pelosi "represented" the US means nothing unless you can match her words/actions to the definition of the word "represented".

Lemme give you an example.

Manu accuses you of being unethical because you lied about him having sex with goats.

You say "I never said you had sex with goats, but you told me yourself that you did so it wouldn't have been a lie".

OK, Manu's accusation would be that you lied.

In order for this accusation to be true, not just his baseless opinion, he would have to prove that

A) he didn't have sex with goats

and

B) that you actually lied vs just being wrong when you said that he did have sex with goats.

The definition matters.

Suppose you misunderstood a comment he made and you assumed that it implied he was in fact banging goats.

that wouldn't be a lie, it would be a misunderstanding.

OK, so you haven't proven that Pelosi had sex with goats.

Or whatever your allegation is.

If you want to allege that pelosi did something wrong, define wrong.

If you want to prove she did something unethical, prove unethical beginning with a definition of unethical.

To prove a driver is drunk you need a definition of "drunk", then you have to prove he was a driver, as in driving while he was drunk.

can you do that?

What are your allegations against pelosi?

Can you prove she did what you say she did?

Can you prove by definitions that what you say is the same as what she did?

Because if you can't you are just making accusations that you can't prove.

Nothing but baseless opinions.

Every question you ask here has already been answered, more than once. Feel free to scroll back and look. This isn't a you keep posting the same questions and I post the same answers and you'll somehow come out right on the 50th try thing.

It's done. I made my point. You have not made yours. I have better things to do. Perhaps next time I have bronchitis we cna spend a whole day doing it again sometime.

[gabosaurus]

Is this why we still have major corporations doing business with Iran?
I love all this Pelosi bashing. You just had that a woman has power.

[stephanie]

Is this why we still have major corporations doing business with Iran?
I love all this Pelosi bashing. You just had that a woman has power.

Where have you been Gabs....

Your own Bj Clinton had women in power..

And so does President Bush...

Catch up dear girl...your sounding a little dumb right now...

[glockmail]

Dude, don't be gay.

Typo neg rep's me for that?

[shattered]

Maybe he's gay, and found it offensive.

[Gunny]

Typo neg rep's me for that?

Was that for 1 point, or 2?

[loosecannon]

It's done. I made my point. You have not made yours. I have better things to do. Perhaps next time I have bronchitis we cna spend a whole day doing it again sometime.

Dear Gunny, the only points you have made are that Both you and Bush didn't want Pelosi to go to Syria.

When she did you two got mad and called her "unethical'.

That's it.

I have nothing to prove, you made the allegations, the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate happens.

You lose.

[manu1959]

Is this why we still have major corporations doing business with Iran?
I love all this Pelosi bashing. You just had that a woman has power.

nooooooooooo ... we "had" women that think they have power.....

[Gunny]

Dear Gunny, the only points you have made are that Both you and Bush didn't want Pelosi to go to Syria.

When she did you two got mad and called her "unethical'.

That's it.

I have nothing to prove, you made the allegations, the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate happens.

You lose.

Whatever dude. People can read.

[manu1959]

I have nothing to prove, you made the allegations, the burden of proof is on you. That's how debate happens.

wrong wrong wrong .... she admits negotiating....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/wo...a0cdef&ei=5070

At a televised press conference after their meeting, Ms. Pelosi said that during the talks with Mr. Assad she had “expressed concern about Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” and had “expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

[Birdzeye]

wrong wrong wrong .... she admits negotiating....

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/wo...a0cdef&ei=5070

At a televised press conference after their meeting, Ms. Pelosi said that during the talks with Mr. Assad she had “expressed concern about Syria’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas,” and had “expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria.”

I guess you have to read between the lines to find her "admission" of "negotiating."