Va Primary: Gingrich, Perry fail to get on ballot.

[Toro]

Please tell me under what theory we can tell a soveriegn nation that they can't have a nuclear weapon when their adversaries all have them?

Are you really this dense?

Just asking the question, what's the legal theory?

Why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't?

Not "well, they're just a bunch of crazy Muslims", what the legal theory under which one can have them and the other can't?

I mean, if you are willing to send other people off to war, I hope you have a legal theory.

We kind of had a legal theory in Iraq that Saddam had signed a treaty at the end of Gulf War 1.

What's our legal theory with Iran?

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States. And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Are you really this dense?

Just asking the question, what's the legal theory?

Why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't?

Not "well, they're just a bunch of crazy Muslims", what the legal theory under which one can have them and the other can't?

I mean, if you are willing to send other people off to war, I hope you have a legal theory.

We kind of had a legal theory in Iraq that Saddam had signed a treaty at the end of Gulf War 1.

What's our legal theory with Iran?

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States. And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

All you've done is repeat the problem. The US is a party to the NPT, but we possess nuclear weapons. Israel is a party to the NPT, but they possess nuclear weapons. What makes Iran different?

 

[JoeB131]

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States. And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

So you're signing up tomorrow, right?

Didn't think so.

Sorry, can't see how that really constitutes a threat to the United States when

1) We have missile defense systems.
2) Their missiles only have a range of about 3-4 thousand miles
3) We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world a few times.

So it isn't a threat to the US we are talking about it's a threat to (drumroll please) ISRAEL.

Want to argue the Zionists aren't running our foriegn policy again? Still waiting for you to make that claim, guy.

 

[Synthaholic]

NPT: No India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea.

 

[Toro]

All you've done is repeat the problem. The US is a party to the NPT, but we possess nuclear weapons. Israel is a party to the NPT, but they possess nuclear weapons. What makes Iran different?

The NPT does not say that a nation cannot possess nuclear weapons. It exists to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. If it attempts to get nuclear weapons - as it is now, and has been sanctioned for doing so - it is in violation of the treaty.

Israel is not a party to the treaty.

 

[Toro]

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States. And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

So you're signing up tomorrow, right?

Didn't think so.

Sorry, can't see how that really constitutes a threat to the United States when

1) We have missile defense systems.
2) Their missiles only have a range of about 3-4 thousand miles
3) We have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world a few times.

So it isn't a threat to the US we are talking about it's a threat to (drumroll please) ISRAEL.

Want to argue the Zionists aren't running our foriegn policy again? Still waiting for you to make that claim, guy.

Are you kidding über-RINO? You don't think Iran is a threat to the United States? The country that calls us The Great Satan? The country that is funding Shi'ite fighters in Iraq who are killing Americans? God, you're worse than the worst namby-pamby liberal.

Once again, your argument so totally misses the point. You stop them NOW so they won't have a weapon that can do real damage 20 years from now. You stop them NOW so they can't share the technology with the people who are willing to smuggle that technology into this country to detonate a weapon in a suburban mall.

And so what if we have nuclear weapons, über-RINO? You think this is supposed to be a fair fight? You think we're playing a game of tee-ball here? You think we should be on equal footing with Iran? You think we should give up our military and strategic advantage, for what again? It DOES NOT MATTER that we have nuclear weapons.

Your "Zionists control the government" is so unbelievably lame. Do they control the media and banks too? Yes or no?

 

[jillian]

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that JoeB is far, far to the right of me, and, yes, I look like Ronald Reagan compared to him, but that is only in comparison and contrast. Our Joe is a RINO indeed, a poser who is a libertarian fo the dullest sort.

Iran has no legal right to pursue weapons for which it has no legitimate security need. Hitler was also barred by international treaty from militarizing the Rhineland. People like JoeB defended Hitler's right back then to do so.

Let the butthurt flow, JoeB, embrace the pain, because you are looking more stupid with each post on this thread.

 

[Chris]

Republicans want to make it harder for people to vote, in order to keep blacks from voting.

How ironic is it that they were stumped by rules making it harder to get on the ballot?

 

[Synthaholic]

I agree that JoeB is far, far to the right of me, and, yes, I look like Ronald Reagan compared to him, but that is only in comparison and contrast. Our Joe is a RINO indeed, a poser who is a libertarian fo the dullest sort.

Iran has no legal right to pursue weapons for which it has no legitimate security need. Hitler was also barred by international treaty from militarizing the Rhineland. People like JoeB defended Hitler's right back then to do so.

Let the butthurt flow, JoeB, embrace the pain, because you are looking more stupid with each post on this thread.

Who is "The Decider" about what Iran believes is in their national security interest?

 

[oreo]

Looks like Romney will win Virginia's Primary, so he can focus on other Super Tuesday states. It is beginning to look like Romney will be the main man for Republicans because of his steady base of support.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to qualify for Virginia's March 6 Republican primary, a development that adds to the challenges faced by the recent frontrunner in the GOP presidential race.
"After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary," the Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday on its Twitter website.
Perry also fell short of the 10,000 signatures of registered voters required for a candidate's name to be on the primary ballot, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul will be on the ballot.

My Way News - GOP: Gingrich, Perry will not be on Va. Ballot

People tend to forget that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. IOW--they hit the ground running with former support and staff--whereas all other candidates had to start from scratch in this election cycle. All new candidates---Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorim and Huntsman did not qualify for Virginia's primary ballot.

Virginia--for the last 8 years or the last two presidential election cycles-did NOT ENFORCE their 2004 primary ballot requirements. In October of 2011--they got sued for not enforcing their written law and have now been forced into to enforcing them.


This is the FAULT of the GOP in the state of Virginia for

1. Making it too difficult--too expensive--too time consuming--for GOP candidates to qualify.
2. Being STUPID enough not to enforce their own primary election laws until after they got sued into doing it- or (8 years later.)
3. Not changing their primary ballot requirements within the last 8 years to actually MATCH what they were doing over the last 8 years.

» VA GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month - Big Government

This is why the GOP in the State of Virginia deserves the "butterfly ballot award." Because of their incompetence and negligence--they have eliminated by proxy--5 out of 7 GOP candidates off of their primary ballot.

 

[Chris]

Looks like Romney will win Virginia's Primary, so he can focus on other Super Tuesday states. It is beginning to look like Romney will be the main man for Republicans because of his steady base of support.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to qualify for Virginia's March 6 Republican primary, a development that adds to the challenges faced by the recent frontrunner in the GOP presidential race.
"After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10k signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary," the Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday on its Twitter website.
Perry also fell short of the 10,000 signatures of registered voters required for a candidate's name to be on the primary ballot, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul will be on the ballot.

My Way News - GOP: Gingrich, Perry will not be on Va. Ballot

People tend to forget that Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. IOW--they hit the ground running with former support and staff--whereas all other candidates had to start from scratch in this election cycle. All new candidates---Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Santorim and Huntsman did not qualify for Virginia's primary ballot.

Virginia--for the last 8 years or the last two presidential election cycles-did NOT ENFORCE their 2004 primary ballot requirements. In October of 2011--they got sued for not enforcing their written law and have now been forced into to enforcing them.


This is the FAULT of the GOP in the state of Virginia for

1. Making it too difficult--too expensive--too time consuming--for GOP candidates to qualify.
2. Being STUPID enough not to enforce their own primary election laws until after they got sued into doing it- or (8 years later.)
3. Not changing their primary ballot requirements within the last 8 years to actually MATCH what they were doing over the last 8 years.

» VA GOP Changed Ballot Access Rules Last Month - Big Government

This is why the GOP in the State of Virginia deserves the "butterfly ballot award." Because of their incompetence and negligence--they have eliminated by proxy--5 out of 7 GOP candidates.

The Republicans want to make it harder for people to vote.

How ironic is it that they are having a hard time qualifying to run?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States.

That’s not a ‘legal theory,’ that’s a rationalization.

And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

The US alone? And if so, why?

By what authority is the US empowered to prevent Iran from acquiring the technology?

This has more to do with keeping fear alive, the rightist Orwellian mantra that war is peace and peace is un-American.

9/11 is ten years’ past, the war in Iraq over, and a new enemy is needed.

 

[Chris]

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States.

That’s not a ‘legal theory,’ that’s a rationalization.

And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

The US alone? And if so, why?

By what authority is the US empowered to prevent Iran from acquiring the technology?

This has more to do with keeping fear alive, the rightist Orwellian mantra that war is peace and peace is un-American.

9/11 is ten years’ past, the war in Iraq over, and a new enemy is needed.

The war machine inc. needs to create a new threat to justify the ridiculous level of military spending we maintain.

 

[Article 15]

Are you really this dense?

Just asking the question, what's the legal theory?

Why can Israel have nukes and Iran can't?

Not "well, they're just a bunch of crazy Muslims", what the legal theory under which one can have them and the other can't?

I mean, if you are willing to send other people off to war, I hope you have a legal theory.

We kind of had a legal theory in Iraq that Saddam had signed a treaty at the end of Gulf War 1.

What's our legal theory with Iran?

The legal theory, apart from violating the NPT, is that Iran's possession of nuclear weaponry possesses a security threat to the United States. And thus it is incumbent upon the US government to ensure that the Iranian government does not acquire the technology.

Even if we have to bomb the shit out of them to stop it, right?

It's a bit ironic, dontcha think?

 

[Toro]

I agree that JoeB is far, far to the right of me, and, yes, I look like Ronald Reagan compared to him, but that is only in comparison and contrast. Our Joe is a RINO indeed, a poser who is a libertarian fo the dullest sort.

Iran has no legal right to pursue weapons for which it has no legitimate security need. Hitler was also barred by international treaty from militarizing the Rhineland. People like JoeB defended Hitler's right back then to do so.

Let the butthurt flow, JoeB, embrace the pain, because you are looking more stupid with each post on this thread.

Who is "The Decider" about what Iran believes is in their national security interest?

It's perfectly rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. You just have to look at a map to understand why. To the north, Russia has nuclear weapons. To the west, Israel has nuclear weapons. And to the east, China, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons. So it's perfectly logical for Iran in their national security interest to want nuclear weapons too.

But it is also perfectly rational for the United States and the West in our national security interest to stop them.

 

[JoeB131]

All you've done is repeat the problem. The US is a party to the NPT, but we possess nuclear weapons. Israel is a party to the NPT, but they possess nuclear weapons. What makes Iran different?

The NPT does not say that a nation cannot possess nuclear weapons. It exists to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. If it attempts to get nuclear weapons - as it is now, and has been sanctioned for doing so - it is in violation of the treaty.

Israel is not a party to the treaty.

So if you don't sign the treaty you can have them, but if you do, you can't, even if your enemies do.

So why can't Iran decide it is no longer party to the Treaty?

 

[JoeB131]

I agree that JoeB is far, far to the right of me, and, yes, I look like Ronald Reagan compared to him, but that is only in comparison and contrast. Our Joe is a RINO indeed, a poser who is a libertarian fo the dullest sort.

Iran has no legal right to pursue weapons for which it has no legitimate security need. Hitler was also barred by international treaty from militarizing the Rhineland. People like JoeB defended Hitler's right back then to do so.

Let the butthurt flow, JoeB, embrace the pain, because you are looking more stupid with each post on this thread.

Germany had lost a war, and not remilitarizing the Rhineland was a stipulation of the armistice tht ended the war.

And when Hitler remilitirized the Rhineland, no one really said boo about it because it was their country. Kind of ridiculous for Germany not have troops on their own border when the French were building this monstrosity called the Maginot line.

There was never a war with Iran where Iran agreed not to have nuclear weapons. They did sign the NPT, but they can walk away from that any time they want. And you look at a map, where Israel, India and Pakistan all have nukes and aren't signatories to the NPT, it looks to me like they have a legitimate need.

Frankly, I could care less what happens between Israel and Iran. That's NOT MY PROBLEM. And I'm frankly sick of sending kids off on these fools errands for Israel and the Oil Companies. So are most Americans.

And when you get your boy Mitt Romney, who had better things to do when John McCain was in a bamboo cage at the Hanoi Hilton, and says his sons working on his campaign is as much 'serving their country' as the young men fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, it kind of sickens me when he tries to drum up votes by beating the war drum against Iraq, a country that isn't really our enemy.

Final point. It seems to me that we need to get the vindictiveness the fuck out of our foreign policy. We are still punishing Iran for stuff that happened 30 years ago. We need to get over it. We need to get over what our grudge with Cuba is, too. We tried to bully smaller countries, and they punched us in the nose. That's an occupational hazard for a bully.

 

[JoeB131]

It's perfectly rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. You just have to look at a map to understand why. To the north, Russia has nuclear weapons. To the west, Israel has nuclear weapons. And to the east, China, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons. So it's perfectly logical for Iran in their national security interest to want nuclear weapons too.

But it is also perfectly rational for the United States and the West in our national security interest to stop them.

And, yup, you'll send those working class kids off to war to prevent that from happening, won't you?

It wasn't like you were going to sign up yourself.

Frankly, I don't see how it is America's interest one way or the other. True, the Iranians have some greivences against us, like that psychopath we put into power and backed for 30 years. But Iran has never attacked its neighbors, so these silly comparisons to Nazi Germany are just a lot of propaganda.

In short-

Not really our problem, no matter what the Zionist puppetmasters try to claim.

 

[Toro]

It's perfectly rational for Iran to want nuclear weapons. You just have to look at a map to understand why. To the north, Russia has nuclear weapons. To the west, Israel has nuclear weapons. And to the east, China, India and Pakistan all have nuclear weapons. So it's perfectly logical for Iran in their national security interest to want nuclear weapons too.

But it is also perfectly rational for the United States and the West in our national security interest to stop them.

And, yup, you'll send those working class kids off to war to prevent that from happening, won't you?

It wasn't like you were going to sign up yourself.

You're projecting, über-RINO. I can do the same.

"Why do you support the enemies of America? If you think Iran is so great, maybe you should move there."

Frankly, I don't see how it is America's interest one way or the other. True, the Iranians have some greivences against us, like that psychopath we put into power and backed for 30 years. But Iran has never attacked its neighbors, so these silly comparisons to Nazi Germany are just a lot of propaganda.

In short-

Not really our problem, no matter what the Zionist puppetmasters try to claim.

When someone actually analogizes Iran to Nazi Germany, I'll agree with you. Otherwise, it's just a silly deflection on your part.

Maybe the better Nazi analogy is to those who say the Zionists control the US government.