Keyser Söze wrote:
"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 4:05 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:44:05 -0500, Califbill
wrote:

What does Hillary offer?

Tits, saggy ones at that.



I was going to say "balls" but I'll keep my mouth shut.

I'm hoping for a crazy GOP pair in 2016...racist tea baggers.


Hell, I am hoping for competence from either side. Preferably from both
sides. Dem's have not shown a competent candidate yet.

On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.




Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State
Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from
the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in
the meeting with President Assad.

Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's
team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush.

Other than that, of course, the two incidents were the same.

Everything is the same, right, Gregg?



Proud to be a Liberal.

On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.





I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan
Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the
times people have been accused of possibly violating it.

There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never
prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well.

Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just
did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings
and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP
senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be
a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot
again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter..
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.




Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State
Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from
the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in
the meeting with President Assad.

Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's
team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush.

Except for this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell.

On 3/12/2015 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.




Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State
Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from
the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in
the meeting with President Assad.

Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's
team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush.

Except for this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell.



As much as I dislike Pelosi, there's still no comparison. She and
Waxman didn't try to change policies or try to influence Assad *not* to
negotiate with Bush.

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 3/12/2015 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.




Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State
Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from
the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in
the meeting with President Assad.

Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's
team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush.

Except for this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush
administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The
New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues,
including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace
talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry
Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J.
Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau
chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change
is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not
quite the "story" you tell.



As much as I dislike Pelosi, there's still no comparison. She and Waxman
didn't try to change policies or try to influence Assad *not* to
negotiate with Bush.

Indeed. Pelosi urged Assad to negotiate a solution.

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:25:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.





I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan
Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the
times people have been accused of possibly violating it.

There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never
prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well.

Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just
did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings
and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP
senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be
a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot
again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act


Interesting read. I found this interesting in the 1975 case
"Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict
members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign
officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the
Constitution."

This was interesting too
"Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from
negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941
Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former
President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of
his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[5]"

Can anyone say "Clinton Global Initiative" ? ;-)

I think the bottom line is, nobody has ever been convicted of this law
and it isn't going to happen now.
I doubt they really want to kick this tar baby because who knows who
might get stuck.


Hard to convict a Congressman as they are to advise and consent on foreign
treaties. So they are advising and not consenting.

On 3/13/2015 3:21 AM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:25:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.





I am sure those interested in this have done some reading on the Logan
Act. If not, it's worthwhile to understand where it came from and the
times people have been accused of possibly violating it.

There have been several accusations but only one stuck. Most are never
prosecuted. The Supreme Court has weighed in on a couple as well.

Of all the accusations over the years none compare to what the 47 just
did. It's important to read the Act, read the Supreme Court's rulings
and then what the letter sent to Iran said, signed by the 47 GOP
senators. Then decide. I suspect nothing will be done but it will be
a major campaign issue in 2016, I'll bet. GOP shoots itself in the foot
again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act


Interesting read. I found this interesting in the 1975 case
"Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict
members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign
officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the
Constitution."

This was interesting too
"Washington has threatened to use the Act to stop Americans from
negotiating with foreign governments. For example, in February 1941
Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles told the press that former
President Herbert Hoover might be a target for prosecution because of
his negotiations with European nations over sending food relief.[5]"

Can anyone say "Clinton Global Initiative" ? ;-)

I think the bottom line is, nobody has ever been convicted of this law
and it isn't going to happen now.
I doubt they really want to kick this tar baby because who knows who
might get stuck.


Hard to convict a Congressman as they are to advise and consent on foreign
treaties. So they are advising and not consenting.


Problem with the 47 is that they were advising the wrong side.

On 3/13/15 3:10 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:31:15 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.




Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State
Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from
the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in
the meeting with President Assad.

Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's
team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush.

Except for this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell.



Does Harry ever get it right? I trust Jon Stewart more than Harry


D'oh. You really need to find a way to get over your "everything is the
same" response to everything. Pelosi was trying to convince Assad to get
over his evil ways, come to the negotiations table, agree to what the
United States wanted, et cetera. That's not the same as telling Assad
that Bush would be out of office soon and that whatever he might have
been pushing for would be abrogated by Congress as soon as he left office.

There's no question you read a lot on the web; the question arises as to
whether you understand much of it.

--
Proud to be a Liberal.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 20:53:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 3/12/2015 8:31 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 8:14:31 PM UTC-4, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/12/15 8:07 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:39:43 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 12:18:46 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 3/12/2015 12:03 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:28:12 -0500, Boating All Out wrote:

In article ,
says...


It appeared her computer knowledge came from watching CSI on TV where
the police geek can recover everything ever typed on the bad guy's PC.

Apparently "they" want HRC's personal emails now.
"They" being the GOP, Hillary-haters, and muckrakers.
She will tell them to pound sand.
And pound sand they will.

Another moronic left-wing opinion.

Into which category do the Democrats fall?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...illary-clinton



I think any chance the GOP had of defeating Hillary (or any other
Democratic nominee) in 2016 was just blown to hell by the 37 year old,
newly hatched Senator Cotton and the other 46 imbeciles who signed the
letter to Iran that he drafted.

18 months is a long time in politics. If this Iran thing blows up
after a "deal" is struck, they might be seen as forward looking.

Of course if the "deal" doesn't work, it'll be the fault of the letter.
Signed by the "47 traitors," according to one newspaper.
I wonder if Eric Holder is looking at prosecuting them as a parting
gift?


John Stewart pointed out that Nancy Pelosi did a similar thing under
Bush's watch.




Except, of course, Pelosi's visit was organized by the Bush State
Department, executed by the Bush Defense Department, and officials from
the Bush Administration's Embassy at the time in Damascus even sat in
the meeting with President Assad.

Pelosi went to Syria to urge Assad to negotiate with President Bush's
team, not to tell Assad that Congress disageed with Bush.

Except for this:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In April 2007, as the Bush administration pursued pressure against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to visit him. There, according to The New York Times, the two "discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel." Pelosi was accompanied by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY), Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV), and Keith Ellison (D-MN). Zaid Haider, Damascus bureau chief for Al Safir, reportedly said, 'There is a feeling now that change is going on in American policy - even if it's being led by the opposition."

Seems she told them that they were undercutting President Bush, eh? Not quite the "story" you tell.



As much as I dislike Pelosi, there's still no comparison. She and
Waxman didn't try to change policies or try to influence Assad *not* to
negotiate with Bush.

She did attempt to influence Assad though. The dummy Republicans did attempt to
influence the Iranians. Are you saying the support of the President is what makes one
instance a violation and the other not?
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.