¹Damascus Nancy¹ And Unlawful Diplomacy

"Bob in CT" wrote in message
news

It is. It's much easier to blame the other party for the evils of the
world than it is to work together.

What does this mean? Can't you make yourself more clear?

In article k.net,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article ink.net,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

You'd almost think that there never was such a thing as The Logan Act.

If you think it applies here, Tommy, then you have no excuse for not
ripping on Gingrich and Hastert for their stellar work back in the '90s, right?
This is as much of a NONtroversy as the last one that gave you a stiffy, the
airplane b.s.

You're about as dumb as they come aren't you? Of course I guess I should
expect anything of value in any of your postings.

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

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom. Here's a few of the problems with
trying to apply that to this situation: Pelosi talked with Bush the day before
their *bi-partisan* delegation left, and mentioned that they would be stopping in
Syria and meeting with the Syrian leadership. He raised no objections. Furthmore,
there were State Department officials in *every* meeting they had. They raised no
objections. The group that Pelosi was in delivered the same message to Syria that
Bush has been mumbling about - to engage with Israel. The Baker-Hamilton Report
said to engage the Syrians but your hero unCurious George just can't bring himself
to do it.

Richard Holbrooke: "I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by
a deliberate ambush plan by the opposition ‹ in this case the Republicans ‹ and,
frankly, exploited by journalists who are just looking for a controversy. There is
no issue here. Congressman Wolf, a major Republican, was in the region a few days
earlier. Republicans were on her trip. There is no issue. None."

As I mentioned, you didn't object to Gingrich and Hastert actively engaging in
foreign policy adventures back when Clinton was President, did you?

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...42fe5c73abe?hl

This is a non-issue, designed to whip people like you into a frenzy.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom.

I'm surprised that you can spell it.

In article et,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom.

I'm surprised that you can spell it.

Not having an answer to the substance, so Tommy attempts an insult. I'm
surprised that you show your face around here, considering how frequently you're
wrong about things. Which is just about every time you hit "post".

In '75, the State Department said:

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized
persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign
governments. 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."

The Logan Act is a non-issue here. Still.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom.

I'm surprised that you can spell it.

Not having an answer to the substance, so Tommy attempts an insult. I'm
surprised that you show your face around here, considering how frequently
you're
wrong about things. Which is just about every time you hit "post".

In '75, the State Department said:

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit
unauthorized
persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign
governments. 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."

The Logan Act is a non-issue here. Still.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain to us what the duty of the House Majority
Leader is persuant to legislative duties concerning Syria?

Or maybe you've missed the fact that the Democrats have been complaining
that the USA has only accepted some 500 Iraqi refugees instead of the 3.5
million that fled to Syria which the Democrats believe we should be
accepting as immigrants here?

On Apr 11, 12:03 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Howard Kveck" wrote in message

...



In article et,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom.
I'm surprised that you can spell it.

Not having an answer to the substance, so Tommy attempts an insult. I'm
surprised that you show your face around here, considering how frequently
you're
wrong about things. Which is just about every time you hit "post".

In '75, the State Department said:

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit
unauthorized
persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign
governments. 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."

The Logan Act is a non-issue here. Still.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain to us what the duty of the House Majority
Leader is persuant to legislative duties concerning Syria?

Or maybe you've missed the fact that the Democrats have been complaining
that the USA has only accepted some 500 Iraqi refugees instead of the 3.5
million that fled to Syria which the Democrats believe we should be
accepting as immigrants here?

An amusing factoid: Kunich has used the phrase "then perhaps" 39 times
on rbr for 25% of the total occurrences of the phrase.

http://tinyurl.com/2jsngs

He's at his best when using this phrase. Some samples:

"then perhaps you are one of those people with the 8 lb head"
"then perhaps you'll actually know something beyond the mindless
chatter you've
been portraying"
"then perhaps you ought to just let others do the talking"
"then perhaps it's lucky you never worked on the flu vacine projects"
"then perhaps you ought to go to someplace like Zambia"
"Then perhaps you ought to read the latest UN report on WMD if you
really believe that"
"then perhaps you ought to visit the local shrink about it"
"then perhaps you ought to follow their advice and buy a commercial
product
that will, in the end, do nothing at all"
"then perhaps you could stop telling Americans what is racist and what
isn't"

Bret

In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom.

I'm surprised that you can spell it.

Not having an answer to the substance, so Tommy attempts an insult. I'm
surprised that you show your face around here, considering how frequently
you're
wrong about things. Which is just about every time you hit "post".

In '75, the State Department said:

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit
unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States
and foreign governments. 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."

The Logan Act is a non-issue here. Still.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain to us what the duty of the House Majority
Leader is persuant to legislative duties concerning Syria?

It's quite apparent that you have no comprehension of what the job of
Representative entails, so why are you bothering to bloviate about the Logan Act?
Which is funny, considering you called me "dumb". You're simply being contentious
for the sake of being contentious. Either you really don't understand the issue and
can't bring yourself to ask or you just want to waste time.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article om,
"Bret" wrote:

An amusing factoid: Kunich has used the phrase "then perhaps" 39 times
on rbr for 25% of the total occurrences of the phrase.

http://tinyurl.com/2jsngs

He's at his best when using this phrase. Some samples:

"then perhaps you are one of those people with the 8 lb head"
"then perhaps you'll actually know something beyond the mindless
chatter you've been portraying"
"then perhaps you ought to just let others do the talking"
"then perhaps it's lucky you never worked on the flu vacine projects"
"then perhaps you ought to go to someplace like Zambia"
"Then perhaps you ought to read the latest UN report on WMD if you
really believe that"
"then perhaps you ought to visit the local shrink about it"
"then perhaps you ought to follow their advice and buy a commercial
product that will, in the end, do nothing at all"
"then perhaps you could stop telling Americans what is racist and what
isn't"

It would take a bit more work, but I'd bet that he has 100% of the postings that
include the phrase (or a variation thereof) "remove that penis from your mouth".
Klassy Kunich.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Then perhaps you'd like to explain to us what the duty of the House
Majority
Leader is persuant to legislative duties concerning Syria?

It's quite apparent that you have no comprehension of what the job of
Representative entails

HAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAAAAA!

Kveck, I just HAVE to get a picture of you and post it here.

In article ,
Howard Kveck wrote:

In article . net,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...
In article et,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Howard Kveck" wrote in message
...

I'm aware of what the Logan Act is, Tom.

I'm surprised that you can spell it.

Not having an answer to the substance, so Tommy attempts an insult. I'm
surprised that you show your face around here, considering how frequently
you're
wrong about things. Which is just about every time you hit "post".

In '75, the State Department said:

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit
unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United
States
and foreign governments. 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."

The Logan Act is a non-issue here. Still.

Then perhaps you'd like to explain to us what the duty of the House
Majority
Leader is persuant to legislative duties concerning Syria?

It's quite apparent that you have no comprehension of what the job of
Representative entails, so why are you bothering to bloviate about the Logan
Act?
Which is funny, considering you called me "dumb". You're simply being
contentious
for the sake of being contentious. Either you really don't understand the
issue and
can't bring yourself to ask or you just want to waste time.

....which is what happens when one gets his news primarily from Fox "News"

K