United We Stand - uwsboard.com

Yep. Is he trying to influence or undermine the Trump administrations policies in India? If so, we need a special prosecutor.

133743Hokie wrote:Yep. Is he trying to influence or undermine the Trump administrations policies in India? If so, we need a special prosecutor.

Jon Gruden is available.

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

Addressing your first point:

Addressing the second: *Reads Logan act* Nope, don't see the India exemption!

Clearly, you don't understand the legislation. Hopefully we can all find common ground there.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

I'm wondering where he's going with this myself. My money is on "Brown people couldn't possibly influence US policy".

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

USN_Hokie wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

I'm wondering where he's going with this myself. My money is on "Brown people couldn't possibly influence US policy".

It's Russia!

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

Addressing your first point:

Addressing the second: *Reads Logan act* Nope, don't see the India exemption!

Clearly, you don't understand the legislation. Hopefully we can all find common ground there.

You have a horrible memory, on subjects you want to ignore.

"I don't think he should be indicted on what he did"

http://www.uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 75#p208342

I also said this, "meaning that I don't think Flynn should have been charged with a violation."

Your smiley face is just your symbol for "I'm FOS".

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

Holy derptard Batman. 2001 called and wants it's India sanctions reinstated.

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

Holy derptard Batman. 2001 called and wants it's India sanctions reinstated.

All it takes is a "dispute", right Legal Beagle for Google University? And then 0 contact from any American.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:
You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

Holy derptard Batman. 2001 called and wants it's India sanctions reinstated.

All it takes is a "dispute", right Legal Beagle for Google University? And then 0 contact from any American.

You're babbling and should have just quit after you called me an idiot, and then brought up sanctions that ended 16 years ago as proof. The text of the Logan Act uses the term dispute. I don't know every disagreement that falls under that term, but sanctions certainly are. And no, it's not zero Americans (you made that up), it's Americans not authorized by the government to negotiate the "dispute ".

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:
You're a complete fool on this, no idea what you're talking about. Tell us Dipshit, what's the difference between Russia and India in regards to the Logan Act. And give us your laughable interpretation of it again, for laughs of course.

We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

Holy derptard Batman. 2001 called and wants it's India sanctions reinstated.

All it takes is a "dispute", right Legal Beagle for Google University? And then 0 contact from any American.

You're babbling and should have just quit after you called me an idiot, and then brought up sanctions that ended 16 years ago as proof. The text of the Logan Act uses the term dispute. I don't know every disagreement that falls under that term, but sanctions certainly are. And no, it's not zero Americans (you made that up), it's Americans not authorized by the government to negotiate the "dispute ".

LOL, I'm the only coherent one here in mocking your absurd legal opinion. Just admit that you're FOS, it's what you're saying without saying it.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
We went through this in a previous thread and you assured me you understood.

But, unlike USN, I can actually explain what I mean, because I'm not making it up.

Here is the pertinent text, "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

And the key word is dispute. The existence of sanctions on Russia is the difference. Your welcome.

LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

Holy derptard Batman. 2001 called and wants it's India sanctions reinstated.

All it takes is a "dispute", right Legal Beagle for Google University? And then 0 contact from any American.

You're babbling and should have just quit after you called me an idiot, and then brought up sanctions that ended 16 years ago as proof. The text of the Logan Act uses the term dispute. I don't know every disagreement that falls under that term, but sanctions certainly are. And no, it's not zero Americans (you made that up), it's Americans not authorized by the government to negotiate the "dispute ".

LOL, I'm the only coherent one here in mocking your absurd legal opinion. Just admit that you're FOS, it's what you're saying without saying it.

What legal opinion do you disagree with? And what is wrong with it?

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:LOL, you're a grade A idiot. Sanctions aren't a proxy for sanctions. We have sanctions against many nations anyway, including India for their nuclear tests. Make up another poorly thought out argument as this one is poorly thought out.

Holy derptard Batman. 2001 called and wants it's India sanctions reinstated.

All it takes is a "dispute", right Legal Beagle for Google University? And then 0 contact from any American.

You're babbling and should have just quit after you called me an idiot, and then brought up sanctions that ended 16 years ago as proof. The text of the Logan Act uses the term dispute. I don't know every disagreement that falls under that term, but sanctions certainly are. And no, it's not zero Americans (you made that up), it's Americans not authorized by the government to negotiate the "dispute ".

LOL, I'm the only coherent one here in mocking your absurd legal opinion. Just admit that you're FOS, it's what you're saying without saying it.

What legal opinion do you disagree with? And what is wrong with it?

That should be obvious.

Good grief, with the name-calling.

Worst violation of the Logan Act I can think of is John Kerry, the North Vietnamese, in Paris

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

Addressing your first point:

Addressing the second: *Reads Logan act* Nope, don't see the India exemption!

Clearly, you don't understand the legislation. Hopefully we can all find common ground there.

You have a horrible memory, on subjects you want to ignore.

"I don't think he should be indicted on what he did"

http://www.uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 75#p208342

I also said this, "meaning that I don't think Flynn should have been charged with a violation."

Your smiley face is just your symbol for "I'm FOS".

My memory is just fine, thanks. I'm making fun of your assertion that Flynn was in violation of the Logan Act - but then, you knew that.

RiverguyVT wrote:Worst violation of the Logan Act I can think of is John Kerry, the North Vietnamese, in Paris

That or Ted *huccup* Kennedy. DC doesn't get upset over those because his television doesn't tell him to.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

Addressing your first point:

Addressing the second: *Reads Logan act* Nope, don't see the India exemption!

Clearly, you don't understand the legislation. Hopefully we can all find common ground there.

You have a horrible memory, on subjects you want to ignore.

"I don't think he should be indicted on what he did"

http://www.uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 75#p208342

I also said this, "meaning that I don't think Flynn should have been charged with a violation."

Your smiley face is just your symbol for "I'm FOS".

My memory is just fine, thanks. I'm making fun of your assertion that Flynn was in violation of the Logan Act - but then, you knew that.

You used the word prosecution, I just assumed you meant what you wrote.

HokieFanDC wrote: You used the word prosecution, I just assumed you meant what you wrote.

Your logic would also require me to think you were a federal prosecutor.

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
You're babbling and should have just quit after you called me an idiot, and then brought up sanctions that ended 16 years ago as proof. The text of the Logan Act uses the term dispute. I don't know every disagreement that falls under that term, but sanctions certainly are. And no, it's not zero Americans (you made that up), it's Americans not authorized by the government to negotiate the "dispute ".

LOL, I'm the only coherent one here in mocking your absurd legal opinion. Just admit that you're FOS, it's what you're saying without saying it.

What legal opinion do you disagree with? And what is wrong with it?

That should be obvious.

And yet, you can't put it into words.
The only thing that's obvious is that in your last attempt to tell me what was wrong, your evidence was sanctions that were lifted 16 years ago. I'll remain skeptical until you can provide something even remotely relevant.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

Thanks for the shout out! And for the Cap'n Bullshirt 2 for 1. First, I said that I didn't think Flynn should be prosecuted under the Logan Act, multiple times.
Second, you put yourself firmly in the group of dimwits who can't understand the key distinction between Russia and India, with regard to the Logan Act.

Addressing your first point: [emoji38]

Addressing the second: *Reads Logan act* Nope, don't see the India exemption!

Clearly, you don't understand the legislation. Hopefully we can all find common ground there.

You have a horrible memory, on subjects you want to ignore.

"I don't think he should be indicted on what he did"

http://www.uwsboard.com/viewtopic.php?f ... 75#p208342

I also said this, "meaning that I don't think Flynn should have been charged with a violation."

Your smiley face is just your symbol for "I'm FOS".

My memory is just fine, thanks. I'm making fun of your assertion that Flynn was in violation of the Logan Act - but then, you knew that.

He started off claiming it's illegal for a US citizen to talk with a foreign government. Google searches keep morphing and shifting his misunderstanding of this.