Nancy Pelosi, the Felon..

[Racing Rice]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55067

I hope they hold this bitch accountable for what she's done.

[GT40FIED]

You know...I don't like that chick. She always seemed like kind of a bitch. That said, I don't see anything wrong with what she's doing as long as she genuinely thinks it's in the U.S.'s best interest. I mean...someone's got to start talking to countries we don't like instead of dropping bombs on them, and Bush sure as shit isn't going to be the first one. You can bet if Syria were pursuing a nuclear program we'd be having friendly talks with them like we are with Iran. And really...to hold someone accountable by a law put into effect in 1798? That's got political bullshit written all over it. Bush is just pissed people in government have stopped caring what he says. So yeah...I'm torn between my dislike of Pelosi and my knowledge that someone has to start talking to people we don't like rather than attacking them unprovoked. I know that'd be a shocking change of plans for America, but it'll have to happen eventually.

[Racing Rice]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

And really...to hold someone accountable by a law put into effect in 1798? That's got political bullshit written all over it.

That act was implemented for a reason. The constitution was put in effect in 1787, does that mean that we shouldn't follow that either just because it's old?

I see what you're saying, but I don't completely agree with it. These statements that she is making to the foreign officials are LIES.

She told the Syrian President that Israel has said they are ready for peace talks. Of which the Prime Minister of Israel has said they made no such claims.

I agree that there needs to be talks, but I think she went about it the wrong way. Not to mention the US had a "barrier" so to speak, with Syria because of his actions. Peloci's little incident went around that. Someone in such a position should be cognisant of these types of things.

[ChrisCantSkate]

i honestly think she should get the jail time she could. even if her intentions were pure, which i think they were, you cant be an elected official then not follow the rank and file when it comes to foreign policy. she acted in her best interest, not the nations, because if it was the nations, we would have sent her to have talks with them. it could have gone horribly wrong and much worse than a few lies about Israel wanting peace talks would have come out. if we dont hold these. we dont live in an anarchy where anyone can do what they want. she has to listen to the government and especially in this day and age foreign policy is not something to be taken lightly. this little incident could have sprug much worse events, and still might.

and i godda agree with jeremy on the law still being applicable. it was written that long ago, much like the constitution and bill of rights. they are still here and havnt been amended because they still hold true, and still are written and carried out the way our founding fathers intended. its like saying freedom of speech, no self incrimination, no double jeopardy, or any of the other 10 amendments arnt good anymore because there was too much time. some things change, some things dont, and theres reasons for it.

[GT40FIED]

Well I really can't speak to what an Israeli minister may or may not have saidm can I? Chances are he told her to go there and spread some goodwill. Chances are equally good he didn't. There's also a chance that he told her to do what she claims and only renigged the offer when it became some bullshit political hotbutton.

I'm not saying that old laws shouldn't be enforced...so long as they're applicable today. Laws against things like sodomy are being overturned left and right. There are laws stating ridiculous things like it's illegal to carry a duck across the road on the 3rd Monday of a month in some places. All I'm saying is that it's wrong to dig up some old ass law to try and hurt someone who's trying to do something good. And yes, talking things out with Syria before we go to war with them is a good thing.

And Chris...fuck foreign policy. What the hell has the current foreign policy gotten us? A war we can't win and a president who refuses to admit he was wrong while a huge amount of the world hates us and our men and women who continue to die for some asshole's misguided sense of the world. What's even more amusing (or shameful...I can't decide) is that there are people in this country who have never left this country that hold fast to the idea that it's the greatest country on earth. I'm not saying it isn't (I'll imply it, but I'm not saying it) but how the fuck can you know if you've never been anywhere else? And let's face one more fact...this country hates muslims. Plain and simple. If Pelosi had gone to Caracas and talked to Chavez, this wouldn't even be an issue even though he hates us as much as anyone. Face it, it's a political hotbutton that doesn't mean anything to anyone other than Bush who arguably has a smaller penis than Pelosi. This is a non-issue issue. Nobody's going to get hurt and nothing is being harmed. Go back to caring about things that actually matter rather than focusing your attention on some 18th century law that has virtually no application today.

[ChrisCantSkate]

you godda show some power, control and ability to keep your officials in line, otherwise who will trust anything of what anyone you send overseas says? im not saying we're doing a great job, but we have to do A job

[GT40FIED]

While I don't particularly disagree with that, I think we've kind of come to a crossroads. In any normal political climate I think what you're saying has a lot of truth to it. However, it has become increasingly clear in the last couple of years that the majority of Americans do not agree with what Bush is doing and has done so then the responsibility lies with private citizens and public officials to do something about it the current state of things. Nothing has been done when Bush has starred the American people in the eye and lied with a straight face or when he has undertaken actions that benefit his "base" and not the good of the country as a whole (seriously...what the fuck's a guy got to do to get impeached around here?), so why not go against his will? Several years ago Bush laid down an ultimatum...you're either with him, or with the terrorists. I think now more than ever we shouldn't be afraid to say that we're not with you OR the terrorists so there's no confusion once he is out of office that most of us didn't have his back. Otherwise we're looking at a very long war with people we don't really need to be at war with (muslims, not terrorists...and yes, there is a difference).

And maybe I'm missing something, but this act that's being referenced (The Logan Act) provides for criminal sentences for an American to try and influence a government who has "disputes or controversies with the United States". Since when did we have such a huge problem with the Syrian government? I mean I know the current administration kind of sees the world as the middle east and everywhere else, but there hasn't been a ton of shit-talking coming out of Damascus lately. America is like a college student who lives off of their parents for 4 years after they graduate...it needs to sort it's fucking life out.

[Racing Rice]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

And maybe I'm missing something, but this act that's being referenced (The Logan Act) provides for criminal sentences for an American to try and influence a government who has "disputes or controversies with the United States". Since when did we have such a huge problem with the Syrian government?

It's not directly the Syrian government that is the issue, its the fact that they are "supposedly" aid Terrorist organizations.. These organizations HAVE given us problems. Would you not call aiding terrorists (the same terrorists that have attacked us) a problem? The way I see it, if your not part of the solution you're part of the problem. I'd say aiding the terrorist that attack out country is pretty controversial.

Of course, who really knows the truth. I know that none of us reading these threads do, thats for sure.

[GT40FIED]

Well she's really not aiding anyone now, is she? I mean she can't make any agreements with them. All she can do is go there and say "look...we're not ALL assholes, so don't get the wrong idea". And if governments who aid terrorists are huge problems, we'd better stop talking to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, and Yemen as well. Then again, Syria doesn't give us money like Saudi Arabia does so they MUST be punished! Wait...that just sounds stupid. Nevermind.

[Racing Rice]

No one said she was trying to aid anyone.. but she WAS trying to influence a government that we have had controversy with. She WAS NOT just trying to create a general conversation. She was putting words in the mouths of Israeli officials. There is a difference.

But like you say.. What difference does it really make. The situation will be ignored and everyone will forget about it until she fucks up again. Then everyone will be pointing and saying I told you so.

[GT40FIED]

Whether or not she's putting words into the mouths of Israeli officials is up for debate. I doubt she was, but it's mostly "he said, she said" at this point. They could have very well told her "hey, when you go there, tell them this" until it became a bullshit political hotbutton that made them look bad and they decided "no...we never said that". And the term "influence" isn't necessarily a bad thing. If she was trying to influence the government to not hate US citizens because of the actions of one moron (our president), then how is what she's done a bad thing? There needs to come a point where everyone regardless of their political affiliations can all agree that we do not need to actively pursue another war. I know this is the age of sequels in Hollywood, but it doesn't need to be that way in foreign policy. I'd hate to see "Iraq II: Iran, the wreckoning" or "Iraq III: In Syria-s Trouble".