Kerry: US Will Sign UN Arms Treaty

[Ragnar]

If an unratified treaty falls in the middle of a message board, does it make a sound?

 

[Dutch]

US conservatives standing beside other nations who oppose the treaty: Iran and North Korea.

 

[Ragnar]

Has it been posted here already that the Senate already no?

Did I miss that?

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action

In the last batch of amendment votes to the budget, the Senate voted on several foreign policy proposals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment.

 

[g5000]

Has it been posted here already that the Senate already no?

Did I miss that?

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action

In the last batch of amendment votes to the budget, the Senate voted on several foreign policy proposals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment.

The Senator who sponsored that bill is in the pocket of the defense contractors who stand to lose big money from this treaty.

 

[Politico]

Yawn.

 

[g5000]

US conservatives standing beside other nations who oppose the treaty: Iran and North Korea.

Exactly.

 

[g5000]

A. (from your own link, btw): The treaty would require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers, but it will not explicitly control the domestic use of weapons in any country.

B. Treaties with foreign nations cannot override the constitution. It's in the constitution.

You better reread that section of the Constitution. Once ratified by the Senate, treaties are the law of the land.

Article VI: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Yes, a treaty becomes the law of the land. And? Your point? We've been ratifying treaties for centuries. Our Founders ratified treaties. So whatever point you think you are making is failing miserably.

No one has proven the ATT violates the Constitution or infringes on the Second Amendment.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right.
For example when the recent gun control bill was voted down against the will of the majority of citizens and the Senate.

Lmao. Joking right? Even Harry Reid voted no.

Moreover, it had a provision which stated that if a doctor diagnosed you with something as small as depression, they would put your name in a database of people who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Really now? I think they did the right thing to be honest.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Has it been posted here already that the Senate already no?

Did I miss that?

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action

In the last batch of amendment votes to the budget, the Senate voted on several foreign policy proposals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment.

The Senator who sponsored that bill is in the pocket of the defense contractors who stand to lose big money from this treaty.

Do you realize how dumb that sounded? And you kooks on the left call us "conspiracy nuts". Please just stop.

 

[Ragnar]

Has it been posted here already that the Senate already no?

Did I miss that?

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action

In the last batch of amendment votes to the budget, the Senate voted on several foreign policy proposals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment.

The Senator who sponsored that bill is in the pocket of the defense contractors who stand to lose big money from this treaty.

Even if true/relevant that does not explain the other 52 senators that voted against it, nor president Obama's stalling the issue when he could have technically already have signed.

53-46, btw is about as bipartisan as it gets during the last decade and a half. (unless you count Obama's laughable budget proposals)

This thing is going nowhere fast.

 

[g5000]

Has it been posted here already that the Senate already no?

Did I miss that?

Senate votes 53-46 to stop US from joining UN Arms Trade Treaty - The Hill's Floor Action

The Senator who sponsored that bill is in the pocket of the defense contractors who stand to lose big money from this treaty.

Do you realize how dumb that sounded? And you kooks on the left call us "conspiracy nuts". Please just stop.

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up. And I am a right winger. Unlike you idiots, I support the fight against terrorists and terror states this treaty is about.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

 

[idb]

Lets remember now, our Government has shown the capability to act outside the will of our representatives and their constituents. If this doesn't convince you, nothing will.

You're right.
For example when the recent gun control bill was voted down against the will of the majority of citizens and the Senate.

Lmao. Joking right? Even Harry Reid voted no.

Moreover, it had a provision which stated that if a doctor diagnosed you with something as small as depression, they would put your name in a database of people who shouldn't be allowed to have a gun. Really now? I think they did the right thing to be honest.

So what if Harry Reid voted against it?
I note that you disagree with democracy if it means a result that you don't agree with.

 

[Ragnar]

The Senator who sponsored that bill is in the pocket of the defense contractors who stand to lose big money from this treaty.

Do you realize how dumb that sounded? And you kooks on the left call us "conspiracy nuts". Please just stop.

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up. And I am a right winger. Unlike you idiots, I support the fight against terrorists and terror states this treaty is about.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

How naive are you?

Below, every bill ever:

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Senator X. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: Industry X, Foundation X, The Amalgamated Union of X, Billionaire X etc etc

 

[g5000]

Al Qaeda needs to be stopped. This treaty is one tool in the toolbox to make that happen.

There are people who are more interested in making money selling arms than stopping Al Qaeda and state sponsors of terrorism.

My oh my, how far these modern day alleged "conservatives" have strayed from the path!

 

[g5000]

Do you realize how dumb that sounded? And you kooks on the left call us "conspiracy nuts". Please just stop.

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up. And I am a right winger. Unlike you idiots, I support the fight against terrorists and terror states this treaty is about.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

How naive are you?

Below, every bill ever:

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Senator X. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: Industry X, Foundation X, The Amalgamated Union of X, Billionaire X etc etc

Sorry to make your ass hurt. Inhofe's top contributors are the very people who would be financially harmed by the treaty. And you are making a sad attempt to make this out to mean nothing.

Wow. You guys are willfully blinding yourselves. Why?

You can't even make the smallest effort to prove any of your claims. You have no room to talk. At all. You are just a pack of piss guzzling rubes, incapable of thinking for yourselves and proving the claims you are parroting. You are empty-headed useful idiots.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Senator who sponsored that bill is in the pocket of the defense contractors who stand to lose big money from this treaty.

Do you realize how dumb that sounded? And you kooks on the left call us "conspiracy nuts". Please just stop.

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

You call this backup?

Oh lord. Really are reaching, aren't you? I'd like to see this "negative impact" in empirical form. A donors list does not tell me that. Is this an argument or a smear campaign? I don't care about "who is number one." You make this big deal about Koch Industries, that doesn't amount to much when you have folks like GE and the SEIU donating money to your policy causes. You had Dianne Feinstein sponsoring ludicrous gun control bills on your side, so don't pull James Inhofe. Do I look stupid to you? Oh wait, dumb question.

First, come back when you can prove these defense contractors would have been negatively impacted by this treaty (you know, things like projections, numbers, economic data). Second, I didn't ask for a smear post on Senator Inhofe.

Debate my OP if you wouldn't mind. Stop trying to steer it off topic. Thank you!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up. And I am a right winger. Unlike you idiots, I support the fight against terrorists and terror states this treaty is about.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

How naive are you?

Below, every bill ever:

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Senator X. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: Industry X, Foundation X, The Amalgamated Union of X, Billionaire X etc etc

Sorry to make your ass hurt. Inhofe's top contributors are the very people who would be financially harmed by the treaty. And you are making a sad attempt to make this out to mean nothing.

Wow. You guys are willfully blinding yourselves. Why?

You can't even make the smallest effort to prove any of your claims. You have no room to talk. At all.

As they say, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. How exactly do you know they would be negatively impacted?

 

[g5000]

Do you realize how dumb that sounded? And you kooks on the left call us "conspiracy nuts". Please just stop.

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

You call this backup?

Oh lord. Really are reaching, aren't you? I'd like to see this "negative impact" in empirical form. A donors list does not tell me that. Is this an argument or a smear campaign? I don't care about "who is number one." You make this big deal about Koch Industries, that doesn't amount to much when you have folks like GE and the SEIU donating money to your policy causes. You had Dianne Feinstein sponsoring ludicrous gun control bills on your side, so don't pull James Inhofe. Do I look stupid to you? Oh wait, dumb question.

First, come back when you can prove these defense contractors would have been negatively impacted by this treaty (you know, things like projections, numbers, economic data) Second, I didn't ask for a smear post on Senator Inhofe.

Debate my OP if you wouldn't mind. Stop trying to steer it off topic. Thank you!

I showed unabiguously the man who sponsored the anti-ATT bill is backed by the companies who will be harmed by it. They are among the top donors to his campaign.

And you are an idiot. "My causes" are not left wing causes. So your SEIU fallacy falls flat on its face.

It is strange you don't experience the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance when you try to blow off the evidence I provided, saying donors don't mean shit, and then go on about left wing donors to left wing politicians!

You literally do not hear yourself. Do you realize what you sound like?

It is a simple fact the sponsor of the anti-ATT bill has the companies harmed by it as his top campaign backers.

Sorry to make your ass hurt.

So when are you rubes going to start backing your claims? When will you finally read the treaty and start quoting the parts that violate the Constitution?

I predict...never. I've been waiting for a year, every time this comes up. You all just splutter the manufactured bullshit you have been fed, but never quite get around to proving a single claim.

You support bogus claims about a treaty which would greatly hamper terrorists and terror states and then high five each other!!! What a bunch of fucking retards! Now you are going to have the blood of innocents on your hands.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Will they get the 60 Senate votes? Somehow I doubt it. I don't think they an even get 51.

They'll need to create another crisis like the one in Newton to pull it off.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Unlike you rubes, I don't make claims I can't back up.

The sponsor of the Senate bill was Jim Inhofe. I wonder who helped him write it...

Here are his top contributors: James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2012 | OpenSecrets

I have listed below his top 20 contributors.

Notice who is number one!

I highlighted those who are negatively affected by the treaty:

You call this backup?

Oh lord. Really are reaching, aren't you? I'd like to see this "negative impact" in empirical form. A donors list does not tell me that. Is this an argument or a smear campaign? I don't care about "who is number one." You make this big deal about Koch Industries, that doesn't amount to much when you have folks like GE and the SEIU donating money to your policy causes. You had Dianne Feinstein sponsoring ludicrous gun control bills on your side, so don't pull James Inhofe. Do I look stupid to you? Oh wait, dumb question.

First, come back when you can prove these defense contractors would have been negatively impacted by this treaty (you know, things like projections, numbers, economic data) Second, I didn't ask for a smear post on Senator Inhofe.

Debate my OP if you wouldn't mind. Stop trying to steer it off topic. Thank you!

I showed unabiguously the man who sponsored the anti-ATT bill is backed by the companies who will be harmed by it. They are among the top donors to his campaign.

And you are an idiot. "My causes" are not left wing causes. So your SEIU fallacy falls flat on its face.

It is strange you don't experience the slightest bit of cognitive dissonance when you try to blow off the evidence I provided, saying donors don't mean shit, and then go on about left wing donors to left wing politicians!

You literally do not hear yourself. Do you realize what you sound like?

It is a simple fact the sponsor of the anti-ATT bill has the companies harmed by it as his top campaign backers.

Sorry to make your ass hurt.

So when are you rubes going to start backing your claims? When will you finally read the treaty and start quoting the parts that violate the Constitution?

I predict...never. I've been waiting for a year, every time this comes up. You all just splutter the manufactured bullshit you have been fed, but never quite get around to proving a single claim.

You support bogus claims about a treaty which would greatly hamper terrorists and terror states and then high five each other!!! What a bunch of fucking retards! Now you are going to have the blood of innocents on your hands.

Now who's "butt-hurt"?

I didn't ask for a rant, I asked you for some data backing up this claim. I didn't ask you to make unbased accusations or insult conservatives. At any rate, you failed. And I don't need backup to dispense with you lack of an argument. You just can't follow instructions, can you? Typical. Terrorists, just like our criminals here don't adhere to treaties. You thick headed liberals believe that as soon as a law is enacted that every criminal will drop what they are doing and submit. Reality doesn't work that way, and as far as I can tell you aren't big on reality. Criminals and terrorists used the black market to get what they need. I quoted earlier to Mondo how signage of this treaty would violate the Treaty Clause of the Constitution. It isn't my fault you can't read.

Check Post #34.