Romney is done

[Listening]

 

[Synthaholic]

Nice photo of Ron Christie!

 

[JimH52]

Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive...Nuff Said!

 

[MarcATL]

Amazed simply does not have what it takes in this election. She is far too hysterical. Keep checking the averaging. Michigan, Ohio, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Those are the keys.

Romney needs 8 out of 10 swing states

Tough to do when you trail in 8 of 10

Yep....basically.

Amazed, I want Romney to win far more than you want Obama to lose, but, lady, the polls don't support you. Period. End of story.

The averaging is quite clear and a cherry-picked .7 don't mean squat.

Now I really AM laughing at you

I am an ex champion wrestler who at 55 still lifts 4 times a week and does cardio the other 3, I shit bigger than you and have 40 years of Political experience, we play the game for a reason and the polls don't support a Bammy victory at the moment...he may well win but your silly posturing simply makes you look stupid

Do you realize how stupid you sound? What swing states will Romney win? I didn't know playing the board game "Life" counted as political experience.

lol

Lets hope you don't choke on those words

He's not FIT to be President or CIC..

But a Junior Senator of less than TWO years in Congress was..

Yeah....BUT HE STILL GOT BIN LADEN DAMMIT!!!!

So... the kenyan is knocking off muslims by the hundreds including their supreme leader obama... errr... osama, and yet his administration can't bring themselves to say "terrorist?" Seems to me that if the muslims are so pissed off, they ought to be pissed off at obama for killing their main man and so many thousands of others.

This meme is so effing stupid it's not even funny.

Bush went around screaming "Terrorist" to anyone who would listen and didn't do one. damn. thing. about them in the 7 years he was able to.

Meanwhile Obama does NOT go around bloviating and he's CLEANING UP SHOP on the terrorists.

When will you people cut it with the Monkey Shines?

Ever heard of talk softly and carry a big stick?

 

[JimH52]

Most people have already made up their mind. Many states have already voted. The relevance of the debates is usually minor. One of the candidates will have to make a huge blunder, such as a 47% remark, before it will move the standings in swing states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Amazed, if he is who I think he claims to be is nothing more than a libertarian loon who has an eating disorder. Yup, as if being a champion wrestler (sure!) has anything to do with what we are discussing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So getting OBL was a bad idea to you now?

No..I was a great idea. And where did the OP state that it wasn't?
You fucking libs cannot make it through a day without creating your own reality.
BTW, Obama gets NONE of the credit. The guys that went in there and took out Bin Laden get the credit.
As a matter of fact some of your more radical liberals are whining because reports surfaced that bin Laden was unarmed at the time he was shot.
Newsflash for you bleeding hearts....There were 3,000 people in the WTC that weren't armed either.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Meanwhile our sovereign ground is being attacked by mobs with an embassy issuing an apology to the attackers. American dead in Libya.

The lack of response right now is deafening.

To protect our sovereign soil in our embassy it may be neccessary to operate military forces in Libya itself. But you're against interfering in Libya....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...re-you-for-or-agaainst-the-libya-assault.html

Remember?

That isn't how it works...
The guards patrol and secure the grounds which under the UN Charter are considered sovereign territory of the nation occupying the building.
Technically the soldiers would not be "in" Libya.
During transport, the aircraft and vehicles are also protected under diplomatic treaties and are considered US Territory.

 

[Sallow]

Meanwhile our sovereign ground is being attacked by mobs with an embassy issuing an apology to the attackers. American dead in Libya.

The lack of response right now is deafening.

To protect our sovereign soil in our embassy it may be neccessary to operate military forces in Libya itself. But you're against interfering in Libya....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...re-you-for-or-agaainst-the-libya-assault.html

Remember?

That isn't how it works...
The guards patrol and secure the grounds which under the UN Charter are considered sovereign territory of the nation occupying the building.
Technically the soldiers would not be "in" Libya.
During transport, the aircraft and vehicles are also protected under diplomatic treaties and are considered US Territory.

And that isn't how that works.

Embassies aren't bases. They aren't projections of power. They are places for diplomacy.

And turning them into bunkers defeats the purpose entirely.

 

[Katzndogz]

There are standards for embassies. They have to be reinforced, the buildings require a 100 foot setback from the exterior walls. They have to be able to withstand an attack for an hour before they are overrun to allow the embassy staff to destroy classified information.

Several U.S. Embassies Fail To Meet Security Standards - ABC News
Key security measures such as high perimeter walls and fences that are difficult to climb, anti-ram barriers and blast-resistant construction, including reinforced concrete and windows, are now required, according to the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The GAO acknowledged, however, that some of the efforts to meet the requirements, such as locating embassies at least 100 feet from uncontrolled areas, are hampered because of host nation limitations.

So yes, they are pretty much bunkers.

Of course none of this was done for the consulate office in Libya. Despite that it was in a war zone, there was no funding, and apparently no waivers of these requirements either. If there were waivers you can bet that whoever in the state department that signed those waivers would be unemployed today.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Meanwhile our sovereign ground is being attacked by mobs with an embassy issuing an apology to the attackers. American dead in Libya.

The lack of response right now is deafening.

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state

Diplomatic mission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Technically, whomever posted this on wiki is correct. However, that is mere technicality.
Read... this is truncated to provide the important legal language of the Geneva Conventions..
The link will appear below this text.
The confusion arises from Article 22 (1) of the Convention which provides that ‘The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.’ Article 22(3) further stipulates that ‘The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.’ Also, Article 29 provides that ‘The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.’ Furthermore, Article 30 grants the private residence of a diplomatic agent, her/his papers, correspondence, and his property (except it is of a private commercial nature) the same inviolability and protection as the premises of the mission.

Inviolability does not mean that embassies, consulates and other protected buildings have been granted extra-territoriality. Despite their inviolable status, they remain the territory of the receiving states. The law simply suspends certain rights normally associated with the control of territory. Embassies do not have police or courts on the premises. Thus, if a crime is committed within an embassy, that crime occurs on the soil of the receiving state, not that of the sending state. If embassy personnel apprehend a burglar on the premises, they have no right to try and impose sentence. Instead, they must hand the offender over to the authorities of the host state for prosecution.

In Fatemi v. United States (1963), the court stated ‘(1) that a foreign embassy is not to be considered the territory of the sending state; and (2) that local police [invited by the ambassador] have the authority and responsibility to enter a foreign embassy if the privilege of diplomatic inviolability is not invoked when an offense is committed there in violation of local law.’ Similarly, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (rehearing Persinger v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 1984) held that the U.S. embassy in Teheran was not U.S. territory under the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976.

Popular perceptions don’t negate the fact that because the embassy forms part of its territory, the receiving state, not the sending state, has primary responsibility for ensuring the security of legation premises from attack or damage. Article 22(2) couldn’t be clearer: ‘The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.’ Like it or not, the diplomatic system works, according to Emmerich de Vattel’s ‘Golden Rule of Sovereigns,’ because states have a fundamental interest to make it work. If you wish your diplomats to be treated with courtesy and respect, then you must treat diplomats stationed in your country with equal courtesy and respect.

Embassies are not

 

[Sallow]

There are standards for embassies. They have to be reinforced, the buildings require a 100 foot setback from the exterior walls. They have to be able to withstand an attack for an hour before they are overrun to allow the embassy staff to destroy classified information.

Several U.S. Embassies Fail To Meet Security Standards - ABC News
Key security measures such as high perimeter walls and fences that are difficult to climb, anti-ram barriers and blast-resistant construction, including reinforced concrete and windows, are now required, according to the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The GAO acknowledged, however, that some of the efforts to meet the requirements, such as locating embassies at least 100 feet from uncontrolled areas, are hampered because of host nation limitations.

So yes, they are pretty much bunkers.

Of course none of this was done for the consulate office in Libya. Despite that it was in a war zone, there was no funding, and apparently no waivers of these requirements either. If there were waivers you can bet that whoever in the state department that signed those waivers would be unemployed today.

Well..to people..here..yes they are..

The US, regularly violates the whole notion of what embassies are suppose to be by populating them with spooks..who get involved with overthrowing democratically elected governments.

That's what happened in Iran.

 

[uscitizen]

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting stuff, guys. Keep going.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Embassies from all countries homebase "spooks" under false cover.

There are standards for embassies. They have to be reinforced, the buildings require a 100 foot setback from the exterior walls. They have to be able to withstand an attack for an hour before they are overrun to allow the embassy staff to destroy classified information.

Several U.S. Embassies Fail To Meet Security Standards - ABC News
Key security measures such as high perimeter walls and fences that are difficult to climb, anti-ram barriers and blast-resistant construction, including reinforced concrete and windows, are now required, according to the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999. The GAO acknowledged, however, that some of the efforts to meet the requirements, such as locating embassies at least 100 feet from uncontrolled areas, are hampered because of host nation limitations.

So yes, they are pretty much bunkers.

Of course none of this was done for the consulate office in Libya. Despite that it was in a war zone, there was no funding, and apparently no waivers of these requirements either. If there were waivers you can bet that whoever in the state department that signed those waivers would be unemployed today.

Well..to people..here..yes they are..

The US, regularly violates the whole notion of what embassies are suppose to be by populating them with spooks..who get involved with overthrowing democratically elected governments.

That's what happened in Iran.

 

[thereisnospoon]

To protect our sovereign soil in our embassy it may be neccessary to operate military forces in Libya itself. But you're against interfering in Libya....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...re-you-for-or-agaainst-the-libya-assault.html

Remember?

That isn't how it works...
The guards patrol and secure the grounds which under the UN Charter are considered sovereign territory of the nation occupying the building.
Technically the soldiers would not be "in" Libya.
During transport, the aircraft and vehicles are also protected under diplomatic treaties and are considered US Territory.

And that isn't how that works.

Embassies aren't bases. They aren't projections of power. They are places for diplomacy.

And turning them into bunkers defeats the purpose entirely.

Yes, we must even in the face of physical threats of violence appear politically correct at all times.
Hey...Why don't you go down to 622 3rd Ave and try to walk into the Iranian Embassy...Do you think they will say "hey you can't come in here"?...My guess is they will use your head to open the door as their goons toss you right in front of the speeding yellow cab. And there isn't a thing you or anyone else can do about it.
Because there are bad people in the world, these places of diplomacy must be secured by people with guns.

 

[uscitizen]

That isn't how it works...
The guards patrol and secure the grounds which under the UN Charter are considered sovereign territory of the nation occupying the building.
Technically the soldiers would not be "in" Libya.
During transport, the aircraft and vehicles are also protected under diplomatic treaties and are considered US Territory.

And that isn't how that works.

Embassies aren't bases. They aren't projections of power. They are places for diplomacy.

And turning them into bunkers defeats the purpose entirely.

Yes, we must even in the face of physical threats of violence appear politically correct at all times.
Hey...Why don't you go down to 622 3rd Ave and try to walk into the Iranian Embassy...Do you think they will say "hey you can't come in here"?...My guess is they will use your head to open the door as their goons toss you right in front of the speeding yellow cab. And there isn't a thing you or anyone else can do about it.
Because there are bad people in the world, these places of diplomacy must be secured by people with guns.

Had Bush not put an embassy back in Libya....

 

[Katzndogz]

What happened in Iran is that Jimmy Carter thought that the Ayatollah was another George Washington and would govern as Ghandi.

As stupid as it sounds now, that's what Carter thought of the Ayatollah at the time.

 

[Katzndogz]

And that isn't how that works.

Embassies aren't bases. They aren't projections of power. They are places for diplomacy.

And turning them into bunkers defeats the purpose entirely.

Yes, we must even in the face of physical threats of violence appear politically correct at all times.
Hey...Why don't you go down to 622 3rd Ave and try to walk into the Iranian Embassy...Do you think they will say "hey you can't come in here"?...My guess is they will use your head to open the door as their goons toss you right in front of the speeding yellow cab. And there isn't a thing you or anyone else can do about it.
Because there are bad people in the world, these places of diplomacy must be secured by people with guns.

Had Bush not put an embassy back in Libya....

At the time Bush put an embassy there, Libya was a peaceful country. It didn't become violent until obama supported Al Quaeda rebels.

 

[Sallow]

That isn't how it works...
The guards patrol and secure the grounds which under the UN Charter are considered sovereign territory of the nation occupying the building.
Technically the soldiers would not be "in" Libya.
During transport, the aircraft and vehicles are also protected under diplomatic treaties and are considered US Territory.

And that isn't how that works.

Embassies aren't bases. They aren't projections of power. They are places for diplomacy.

And turning them into bunkers defeats the purpose entirely.

Yes, we must even in the face of physical threats of violence appear politically correct at all times.
Hey...Why don't you go down to 622 3rd Ave and try to walk into the Iranian Embassy...Do you think they will say "hey you can't come in here"?...My guess is they will use your head to open the door as their goons toss you right in front of the speeding yellow cab. And there isn't a thing you or anyone else can do about it.
Because there are bad people in the world, these places of diplomacy must be secured by people with guns.

And why would they do that? Unless I was being a jerk to them. Several friends of mine have visited Iran..and had no troubles.

I've been in the Chinese embassy many times by the way. Another supposed "enemy" of you guys unless of course you are shipping jobs to them. No trouble at all.