Pelosi violated the Logan Act and committed a felony

[Feathers in Hair]

I know you think I was being silly, Comprehend, but I wasn't. If this law is enforced again, any of us voicing opinions contrary to the White House approach and voicing them in a public place (as in that newpaper the link you gave mentioned) could be convicted.

 

[Comprehend]

There are bound to be some lynching laws on the books. Should we enact them out of partisan politics? :sarcastic If Pelosi was a Republican she would have slipped beneath the radar.

no lynching laws could have effect even if they did persist in some lawbooks... we have the 14th amendment, remember?

 

[Comprehend]

I know you think I was being silly, Comprehend, but I wasn't. If this law is enforced again, any of us voicing opinions contrary to the White House approach and voicing them in a public place (as in that newpaper the link you gave mentioned) could be convicted.

not unless you were voicing your opinion along with this:

"with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States"

 

[Reverend Rick]

no lynching laws could have effect even if they did persist in some lawbooks... we have the 14th amendment, remember?

So we can't lynch Pelosi?

 

[Feathers in Hair]

not unless you were voicing your opinion along with this:

"with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States"

Precisely! That's what I'm worried about- it couldn't be proven that, when we were talking, we didn't have the 'intent to influence the measures or conduct'- it would be like attempting to prove the negative, which you mentioned earlier. If a farmer simply writing his opinion to an American newspaper could be found guilty or tried under this, why wouldn't those who had been filmed on television protesting, written letters to loved ones in the service which could potentially fall into foreign hands and happened to disagree with something the White House said, or written their opinion anywhere it was accessible by another be in violation of the Logan Act?

 

[lilithu]

well...... no.....

It is impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove Pelosi does not have authority.

Oh bull. One can't prove that God does not exist, but one can certainly prove whether or not someone has authority to do something.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I heard that Nancy was caught sitting in the big chair in the oval office when no one was looking. :run:

 

[McBell]

the impossibility of proving a negative is not a theory. It is a fact merely by it's logical construction.

What you do is prove something "positive" such as that you are a male and therefore infer that you are not pregnant. really, this is basic logic, I have no desire to teach it to you.

Good.
Because thus far you have shown you are not a very good teacher.
Interesting how you did not reply to my examples of how you can prove if she had the authority.
even more interesting is the arrogant manner in which you have ignored it.

Since it seems you are more interested in subtle insults than discussing the topic at hand, I shall allow you and your alleged superior intellect to continue without more inquiries from me.

 

[McBell]

Oh bull. One can't prove that God does not exist, but one can certainly prove whether or not someone has authority to do something.

I agree.
In fact, I know for a fact it can be done because I do it everyday.

 

[greatcalgarian]

By this law, isn't anyone who acts without authority interfering in the foreign relations of the U.S. guilty? Doesn't that include us on the forums who debate about foreign relations?

Those who are not in office, not in any position of power can do anything, and no body is going to bother about that. So you now know the RF members are just a bunch of insignificant human making some noise which may not evern arouse a ripple any where, so why bother about them.

 

[nutshell]

do you have a link to a news story or something that talks about what republicans went and what they did?

Fact finding = ok.
diplomatic talks = not ok.

It was a news report on the radio so I don't have any links on-hand. My understanding is they were meeting with Syrian political leaders. Seemed diplomatic to me.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Those who are not in office, not in any position of power can do anything, and no body is going to bother about that. So you now know the RF members are just a bunch of insignificant human making some noise which may not evern arouse a ripple any where, so why bother about them.

Referring again to the original link about the act, how was the farmer in any position of power or in office?

 

[Comprehend]

Oh bull. One can't prove that God does not exist, but one can certainly prove whether or not someone has authority to do something.

well, cry a river. I already showed who *does* have the authority, go back and read the post. It is the executive branch. :slap: you ought to know your constitution and not need to be told that.

like I said before, you can't prove a negative... you can prove a positive and infer a negative.

 

[Comprehend]

It was a news report on the radio so I don't have any links on-hand. My understanding is they were meeting with Syrian political leaders. Seemed diplomatic to me.

I actually read an article that mentioned a couple republicans were in syria at the same time as Pelosi since you said that. ridiculous. Syria is a registered state sponsor of terrorism and we have congresspeople visiting there like it is disneyland... I say ring them all up...

 

[Comprehend]

I agree.
In fact, I know for a fact it can be done because I do it everyday.

I will politely suggest you don't *know* what you think you do.

one can prove a positive and only infer a negative. One can never prove a negative. You might as well argue that 1+1 does not equal 2.

 

[Comprehend]

So we can't lynch Pelosi?

I hope you are joking.

 

[Comprehend]

Good.
Because thus far you have shown you are not a very good teacher.

or you are a poor student.

Interesting how you did not reply to my examples of how you can prove if she had the authority.

I actually did show who has the authority. maybe you should go back and re-read.

Since it seems you are more interested in subtle insults than discussing the topic at hand, I shall allow you and your alleged superior intellect to continue without more inquiries from me.

marvellous, then I won't have to continue explaining simple logic.

 

[lilithu]

well, crybaby, I already showed who *does* have the authority, go back and read the post. It is the executive branch. :slap: you ought to know your constitution and not need to be told that.

like I said before, you can't prove a negative... you can prove a positive and infer a negative.

crybaby?, lol. That's kinda what I thought when you started this thread.

Go back and reread your logic lessons, o smug one. What you are incorrectly referring to is the logical fallacy of concluding that something is true because there is no proof that it's not true (or conversely concluding that something is false because there is no proof that it is true). That's not what's going on here. You can certainly prove whether or not someone has authority for something.

 

[Comprehend]

crybaby?, lol. That's kinda what I thought when you started this thread.

yeah, I edited the crybaby but not fast enough I see.

However, that isn't why I started the thread, I just thought it would be an interesting discussion. I really couldn't care less about Pelosi specifically, I care about the principle.

Go back and reread your logic lessons, o smug one. What you are incorrectly referring to is the logical fallacy of concluding that something is true because there is no proof that it's not true (or conversely concluding that something is false because there is no proof that it is true). That's not what's going on here. You can certainly prove whether or not someone has authority for something.

I am not sure how you are applying the above to what I have argued. I did prove who has the authority, it is the executive branch and the President... did you miss that?

I don't think I have incorrectly referred to anything. ( I wasn't referring to the absense of proof being proof...)

 

[Comprehend]

Precisely! That's what I'm worried about- it couldn't be proven that, when we were talking, we didn't have the 'intent to influence the measures or conduct'- it would be like attempting to prove the negative, which you mentioned earlier.

yes, but in this country you are innocent until proven guilty so you wouldn't ever have to prove a negative. (luckily since it is impossible)

Anyway, I still think you are being silly on purpose, the 1st amendment covers the speech you are talking about. You don't really think it could be applied to ones personal views in a forum do you?