Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[Siete]

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.

I am well aware of your ignorance. My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.

I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.

Thank me.

post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.

You're welcome.

His response addressed a different point. Try to keep up. Here. I'll help.

What Antares CORRECTLY noted was that your Obamessiah has contended that HIS prospective executive agreement could not be undone. But, of course, it CAN be.

I don't much care what your alleged pointless was addressing, and I have nowhere discussed your silly little musings in that post. Don't cherry pick.

quit moving the goal posts. You've lost this one LuLu.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.

I am well aware of your ignorance. My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.

I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.

Thank me.

post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.

You're welcome.

His response addressed a different point. Try to keep up. Here. I'll help.

What Antares CORRECTLY noted was that your Obamessiah has contended that HIS prospective executive agreement could not be undone. But, of course, it CAN be.

I don't much care what your alleged pointless was addressing, and I have nowhere discussed your silly little musings in that post. Don't cherry pick.

quit moving the goal posts. You've lost this one LuLu.

I didn't lose anything. Your baseless self-declaration of victory remains baseless.

But I can keep trying to educate you.

Antares was eminently correct.

Thank me.

 

[nat4900]

Cotton doesn't take long to sidle up to def contractor buddies (crony capitalism)

Tom Cotton calls for defense spending boost - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO

Please help me, I'm a bit confused.....Between Cotton and the defense contractors, who is the "whore" and who is the "pimp"? Just wondering...

 

[nat4900]

There's only one way that right wingers on here can "win" an argument...They just keep hammering on the same stupid assertion over, and over, and over again, until it is obvious that you're dealing with delusional lunatics....and at that point, one gives up and the sickos "think" they've won....as any delusional bully would.

Bottom line: They're powerless and use this forum to vent their frustrations and delusions.

 

[Antares]

I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.

Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need antie to teach us such things

Lol. Good catch!

Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.

It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.

So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.

Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.

You're not eluding anyone there, Antie.......Yes, part of the Shia doctrine allows and even encourgaes to LIE whenever the situation warrants....But, so what? It isn't like we of the west, refrain from lying because of some strong religious belief. This "new" bent of yours borders on the moronic.

Yeah, yeah, you will never trust any Shia...and guess what? Most Shia wouldn't trust you either.....but I would hope that diplomacy is not as shallow and, beside, your hero Ronnie was correct for once...."trust AND verify."

LOL, you are getting your ass handed to you here kid....they can lie about anything and everything in order to hide from or further their Allah inspired aims.
you really do suck at this.

You have admitted that they lie and in the next breath you insinuate that we can "believe" them about Nukes.

Did you check your brain at the door kid?

I can go on making you look ridiculous all day son.

 

[Antares]

Treaties with foreign countries are negotiated and signed by the executive branch, but ratification only occurs after the Senate gives its approval in a two-thirds vote. But there’s another kind of agreement beyond treaties -- indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements."

The procedure for treaties is spelled out in the Constitution, but there’s little in the Constitution about executive agreements. Their authority comes instead from longstanding practice, as well as the support of such Supreme Court cases as United States vs. Belmont (1936), United States vs. Pink (1941), and Dames and Moore vs. Regan (1981).

...and Exec Agreements are not legally binding.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

There's only one way that right wingers on here can "win" an argument...They just keep hammering on the same stupid assertion over, and over, and over again, until it is obvious that you're dealing with delusional lunatics....and at that point, one gives up and the sickos "think" they've won....as any delusional bully would.

Bottom line: They're powerless and use this forum to vent their frustrations and delusions.

^ Said natwit as he mindlessly repeats his invalid contention for the umpteenth time, not noticing the irony.

 

[Antares]

Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.

Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.

Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?

"

• 
  
  
  • The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders

• 
  
  
  • It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994

• 
  
  
  • Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty

• 
  
  
  • Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country

• 
  
  
  • President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news

• 
  
  
  • The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]

Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.

The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.

I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.

IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?

Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.

 

[Siete]

There's only one way that right wingers on here can "win" an argument...They just keep hammering on the same stupid assertion over, and over, and over again, until it is obvious that you're dealing with delusional lunatics....and at that point, one gives up and the sickos "think" they've won....as any delusional bully would.

Bottom line: They're powerless and use this forum to vent their frustrations and delusions.

actually, theres three. 1.Your way 2. they keep calling people stupid 3. keep telling themselves they won.

 

[Antares]

Typically shallow of you. Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.

So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.

Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.

Actually, the problem is all yours. YOU refuse to concede that Obumbler claims that his NON treaty executive agreement cannot be undone. He nailed you.

I know you will still decline to admit reality, and that's casual. But I will continue to try to educate you all the same.

Thank me.

You remain terminally stupid as I never said anything about that. You're so senile, you've actually convinced yourself that ant nailed me on a subject I've never even discussed -- which you think he did while actually avoiding what I did discuss.

You're a fucking loon.

You are as clueless as anyone I've ever met kid.

 

[nat4900]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

IIar 10986130

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capacity. That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,

Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.

 

[Wry Catcher]

IIar 10986130

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capacity. That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,

Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.

Agree. It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.

 

[ChrisL]

The only fools here are the ones who would even contemplate supporting a nuclear Iran. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

so you are of the neocon hive mind (attack first & ask questions later). BTW- you ever serve? When, where?

Serving has nothing at all to do with anything, as I'm sure you know. I know enough about Iran and it's noncompliance with all treaties to know that this is a stupid idea.

You are the one of the hive mind, assuming that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a "neo con." Foolish. I'm a libertarian.

 

[ChrisL]

IIar 10986130

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capacity. That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,

Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.

And frees Iran up to obtain and use uranium.

Did you understand that? It LOOSENS sanctions on Iran. Duh.

 

[ChrisL]

At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics. What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran??? What is the benefit/risk ratio?

They CARE about the leading israel lobby backlash & defense contractor , campaign $$$ oh naive one. ChrisL

I don't think so. You are just a partisan hack who doesn't have the balls to go against your leader, even when he's being an idiot.

So tell me Dot, you agree with loosening sanctions on Iran and you believe they have no intentions of building a weapon?

Why don't you just admit that you would jump through hoops to protect Obama and to hell with common sense.

 

[nat4900]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?

 

[ChrisL]

IIar 10986130

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capacity. That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,

Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.

Agree. It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.

What's your opinion on Iran. You trust the Iranian mullahs? Do you know about their prophecies of the 12th Imam? Do you think they just make this shit up? Of course not, they are a religious theocracy who believes this crap.

 

[ChrisL]

See. Siete, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.

nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?

We could impose SANCTIONS on them. We give them ALL aid money. I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008. I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.