NLBS #41: The 47 So-Called "Traitors," And Their Letter to Iran

a reply to: Indigo5

If one of those 47 representatives responded to Iran's latter yes I would be 100 % for prosecution under the Logan act.

I don't know why you guys feel I'm such an enemy? I am only explaining the letter of the law to you.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: theNLBS

Bloody good job as always Joe, although I have to ask, is the change in back drop going to be a weekly thing now? Or are you just waiting until your old "studio" space is available again?

With regard to the topic at hand, I have to say that when I heard that this letter had been sent, I was shocked. I was shocked, because I honestly could not conceive of a way in which a group of congress persons could show such utter contempt for the voters, and for the President they elected. Furthermore, your video bought to my attention, that the letter in question, not only suggested that the congresspersons involved in its sending, were basically explaining their intention to go back on promises made by Obama (which would represent a treaty violation and probably some international conduct issues as well), but that this in turn meant that the congresspersons had NO idea how serious their decision to send this message, actually was.

It seems to me that if a person cannot understand that undermining the President of the United States, not to mention baldly stating ones intention to break international treaty, in one document, is a poor idea, and bad for their nation, that they really ought to consider tendering their resignation, and taking up a station in life more suited to their intellect. Perhaps minding elastic bands, or organising pencils by length, from shortest to longest, or making the coffee for people with actual functioning neurons.

These morons certainly should not have a place in arguably the most powerful government on the planet.

Hear hear, and the same goes for a president who undermines his congress.... right?

originally posted by: Indigo5
Citing Briebart and obliviously retorting to imaginary posts...How typical of the Right Wing mindset...actually the mindset that leads Senators to wear that dumbfounded look when everybody asks them WTF they were thinking writing a letter to the Leader of Iran.

Now...maybe you can show me where I suggested they be prosecuted for that?

You complain that I cited Breibart, yet I note that you provide not a whit of refutation.

Are you just pretending at the ability to think?

I couldn't include more of my own words in that post. There is a character maximum for posts on this site.

So, let me clear this up for you.

All of the citations in my post were, according to you, "violations" of the Logan Act.

There were no prosecutions, and no call for any at the time (including from you.)

Yet today, when Senators merely state the extant facts (though awkwardly and stupidly,) they are suddenly subject to prosecution under Logan - again, according to you.

Reminds me of the selective prosecutions we've witnessed under the current Liberal regime.

Clear enough?

No "imaginary posts." Simply the facts of the matter.

You seem to have a problem with people stating facts as they are. This is likely because your philosophy cannot be maintained in the light of factual information such as I provided.

Harte

a reply to: Dfairlite

Of course!

As long, of course, as their behaviour is in line with the desires and needs of the people they allegedly serve, as opposed to being focused on serving corporate interests.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Indigo5
Citing Briebart and obliviously retorting to imaginary posts...How typical of the Right Wing mindset...actually the mindset that leads Senators to wear that dumbfounded look when everybody asks them WTF they were thinking writing a letter to the Leader of Iran.

Now...maybe you can show me where I suggested they be prosecuted for that?

Are you just pretending at the ability to think?

I couldn't include more of my own words in that post. There is a character maximum for posts on this site.

So, let me clear this up for you.

All of the citations in my post were, according to you, "violations" of the Logan Act.

There were no prosecutions, and no call for any at the time (including from you.)

Yet today, when Senators merely state the extant facts (though awkwardly and stupidly,) they are suddenly subject to prosecution under Logan - again, according to you.

This was literally my post that you responded to...

originally posted by: [post=19124897]Indigo5


Could or should these Senators be prosecuted under the Logan Act?

NO

Why?

Because the law has NEVER been enforced...for over two centuries...

There is in fact a failure to think...just not on my end.

a reply to: Indigo5
No, it's the failure to click the "quote" button on the correct post.

My apologies.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Indigo5
No, it's the failure to click the "quote" button on the correct post.

My apologies.

Harte

Apology accepted, but to be clear...this is what you needed to apologize for..

originally posted by: [post=19125459]Harte
Selective prosecution? How like the Liberal mindset.

Harte

Because I am Liberal, think what these Senators did was reprehensible, I think past interference in international negotiations by both Dems and GOP was unacceptable...though not on the scale of 47 Senators sending a public letter to a foreign leader declaring a sitting President's negotiation position invalid...AND I do not think they could or should be prosecuted under the Logan act.

You ...not unlike the 47 Senators...sent a message to the wrong person...and did so with ideologically partisan arrogance and insults...in a public forum.

There is irony here...though I know too much to expect anything will be learned from it.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: theNLBS

Bloody good job as always Joe, although I have to ask, is the change in back drop going to be a weekly thing now? Or are you just waiting until your old "studio" space is available again?

With regard to the topic at hand, I have to say that when I heard that this letter had been sent, I was shocked. I was shocked, because I honestly could not conceive of a way in which a group of congress persons could show such utter contempt for the voters, and for the President they elected. Furthermore, your video bought to my attention, that the letter in question, not only suggested that the congresspersons involved in its sending, were basically explaining their intention to go back on promises made by Obama (which would represent a treaty violation and probably some international conduct issues as well), but that this in turn meant that the congresspersons had NO idea how serious their decision to send this message, actually was.

It seems to me that if a person cannot understand that undermining the President of the United States, not to mention baldly stating ones intention to break international treaty, in one document, is a poor idea, and bad for their nation, that they really ought to consider tendering their resignation, and taking up a station in life more suited to their intellect. Perhaps minding elastic bands, or organising pencils by length, from shortest to longest, or making the coffee for people with actual functioning neurons.

These morons certainly should not have a place in arguably the most powerful government on the planet.

Hear hear, and the same goes for a president who undermines his congress.... right?

It is not congresses constitutional duty to negotiate international agreements?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Harte
a reply to: Indigo5
No, it's the failure to click the "quote" button on the correct post.

My apologies.

Harte

Apology accepted, but to be clear...this is what you needed to apologize for..

originally posted by: [post=19125459]Harte
Selective prosecution? How like the Liberal mindset.

Harte

Because I am Liberal, think what these Senators did was reprehensible, I think past interference in international negotiations by both Dems and GOP was unacceptable...though not on the scale of 47 Senators sending a public letter to a foreign leader declaring a sitting President's negotiation position invalid...AND I do not think they could or should be prosecuted under the Logan act.

You ...not unlike the 47 Senators...sent a message to the wrong person...and did so with ideologically partisan arrogance and insults...in a public forum.

There is irony here...though I know too much to expect anything will be learned from it.

How about this addendum:
"Indigo5 being an exception."

ETA: And yes, I appreciate the irony. It's even greater because I actually stated that they sent the letter to the wrong address.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Starred for grace.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: Harte

Starred for grace.

Thanks. And again, my apologies for my error.

Harte

Why is this still the top post with traitors written in big letters over it? You know, not everyone agrees with your opinion. Especially when it's forced down our throats. 36 flags and this article has been top linked for days now... ?

"On snap, if you do that you broke international law yo! Totally gotcha!"

Had to stop watching shortly after that. Should be the first and last episode for me. If I'm going to call someone stupid over their understanding of something, I'll usually make damn sure I understand the topic well enough to make that claim.

a reply to: AboveBoard

You fixed it... Good!

Thanks!

- AB