The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Illegal Diplomacy
Did Nancy Pelosi commit a felony when she went to Syria?

BY ROBERT F. TURNER
Friday, April 6, 2007 11:30 a.m. EDT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may well have committed a felony in traveling to Damascus this week, against the wishes of the president, to communicate on foreign-policy issues with Syrian President Bashar Assad.


The Logan Act makes it a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to three years for any American, "without authority of the United States," to communicate with a foreign government in an effort to influence that government's behavior on any "disputes or controversies with the United States."

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009908

I read it in a blog....it must be true.

She's a liar, a traitor, global warming is her fault, and she's ugly!

Yea, must be.

ATV, you believe in global warming huh...

Is there such a thing as a treasonist?

Interesting - Why weren't you upset when these three Republican Congressmen went to and met with Syria a few days ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... ref=slogin

I guess we're going to have to deport them too.

President Bush Offers Frank Ruminations on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Reckless Peacemongering in Syria

http://www.whitehouse.org/news/2007/04/ ... -syria.asp

ATV wrote:Interesting - Why weren't you upset when these three Republican Congressmen went to and met with Syria a few days ago?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/A ... ref=slogin

I guess we're going to have to deport them too.

Everyone knows that they went to foster good will.

But Pelosi.........She's up to something.

IMPEACH PELOSI!

jazzskins wrote:I read it in a blog....it must be true.

You read it in THE blog. OpinionJournal is the most educational blog out there if you actually want to understand issues and not just have your views reinforced Faux information political blogs like Crooks and Liars.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Is there such a thing as a treasonist?

Good post, I had the same reaction, treasonist? She is female, maybe that would that make her a treasonessist, treasonetteist, treasonenneist? She is speaker, we should at least call her Madam Treasonist.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Is there such a thing as a treasonist?

Treasonizer

She's a treasonista!

treasonifier

Transformer

OpinionJournal is the most educational blog out there if you actually want to understand issues and not just have your views reinforced Faux information political blogs

Yea, better to get your opinion from someone else's journal of opinions than getting them from facts. Facts suck.

I heard that Nancy Pelosi sucks....

....Plus she's the Terminator!

ATV wrote:

Kazoo wrote:OpinionJournal is the most educational blog out there if you actually want to understand issues and not just have your views reinforced by Faux information political blogs like the liars at Crooks and Liars

Yea, better to get your opinion from someone else's journal of opinions than getting them from facts. Facts suck.

I'm having trouble following the logic, I said they provide a lot of information, information refers to facts, data. I didn't say anything about their views. I agree with them sometimes, disagree others, but even when I don't I come away with a greater understanding of the issues.

The liars at Crooks and Liars ONLY present views. Worse then no facts they present lies, like the faux story on FoxNews I tore them apart for.

But the question, I keep asking this, is since I don't support anyone, who's views am I supposedly taking? Why would someone go to the trouble to brainwash me to support nothing? Don't brainwashers brainwash people to support them?

Wouldn't a hypothetical person who overwhelmingly supports one political group be a more likely candidate to have been brainwashed? Just curious.

I said they provide a lot of information, information refers to facts, data.

The liars at Crooks and Liars ONLY present views.

If this were true then why is it that you never reference actual facts, figures, data, polls, statistics, TV footage, etc.? Whenever I post links to web sites like C&L (not whitehouse.org, this is for humor) they ALWAYS reference actual facts, figures, data, polls, statistics, TV footage, etc.? It seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that you only express your views, or views of others, while I provide actual content or links to actual content. Maybe you're confused.

ATV wrote:

I said they provide a lot of information, information refers to facts, data.

The liars at Crooks and Liars ONLY present views.

If this were true then why is it that you never reference actual facts, figures, data, polls, statistics, TV footage, etc.? Whenever I post links to web sites like C&L (not whitehouse.org, this is for humor) they ALWAYS reference actual facts, figures, data, polls, statistics, TV footage, etc.? It seems to me that the exact opposite is true, that you only express your views, or views of others, while I provide actual content or links to actual content. Maybe you're confused.

"you never reference actual facts, figures, data, polls, statistics, TV footage, etc." Right, the problem is nothing except left political dogma from the desk of Howard Dean is accepted as fact and everything that is left political dogma from the desk of Howard Dean is assumed to be.

On the liars at Crooks and Liars, nothing new here, their attack on Fox I took them apart for is SOP for them. I will challenge you to pick a story by the liars of Crooks and Liars you consider particularly strong to analyze if you like. I enjoy doing that.

How am I supposed to debate with someone who refuses to stay on topic? It's like wack-a-mole.

I'll continue to illuminate the downfall of this administration and illustrate your lies, but the days of my attempting to rationalize with you are over.

ATV wrote:How am I supposed to debate with someone who refuses to stay on topic? It's like wack-a-mole.

I'll continue to illuminate the downfall of this administration and illustrate your lies, but the days of my attempting to rationalize with you are over.

What does "rationalize with you" mean?

I'm not sure I want to follow this thread, but it might be time to haul out a simple proposal:

- country first

- party last

ATV wrote: the days of my attempting to rationalize with you are over.

If only that were true!

jazzskins wrote:

ATV wrote: the days of my attempting to rationalize with you are over.

If only that were true!

I agree, I keep asking and offering to extend the same. Just has to be total, no indirect stuff.