- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,130
- Reaction score
- 33,469
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What you meant to say was, nothing you say matters.
Not to anyone who mattered.
The democrats should not whine and complain, they did the same thing when they went to visit Assad in 2007 behind the back of President Bush.
And the republicans should stop complaining about executive agreements that Obama wants to close. Obama is not the first and not the only president to do this. According to John Stewart from the Daily Show Ronald Reagan also made deals with China and Iran using the executive agreement.
People should stop acting like this all is happening for the first time. Was it smart from the Republicans? No, it just makes the US look weaker to idiot countries like Iran, because now they have something in writing which shows the "duplicitous nature of Americans" (this is not my opinion, but this is something Iran could "invent/create" to give off a negative image to US politics).
They didn't commit treason, but they may have broken the law and certainly acted inappropriately on the world stage.
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
Are you kidding me? The Eagles traded NICK FOLES for SAM BRADFORD.
Everyone but you understood his post. This is your problem.
What you meant to say was, nothing you say matters.
Come back when have something.
Do you disagree that they may have broken the law?
Then he should have quoted what he wanted to quote instead of quoting something which did not say what he wanted to criticize.
That is his problem - not mine.
You're the only one who didn't understand it or saw it as any kind of a problem.
There is no such crime as “treason against Obama”. Treason is the only crime that is actually defined as such in the Constitution itself. Nothing about the Senators having signed this letter has anything whatsoever to do with the definition of treason.
Now, Obama, on the other hand, has use the power of his office to take the side of invading foreign criminals, against that of this country and its people. That does meet the definition of treason, and if this nation truly cared about the rule of law, he would be removed from office, tried, and either put in prison for a very, very, very long time, or else be put to death.
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
"treason against obama"?
how does that work again?
:roll::doh
An excellent question since you quoted a post THAT DID NOT HAVE THE PHRASE "TREASON AGAINST OBAMA" IN IT!!!!!
But why should that stop you?
here it is right from your post
Read the thread title, bro.
Did the GOP Senators commit a Treason act against Obama and the Country?
/facepalm
It doesn't need the exact phrase since it's part of a thread.
read your own post - bro - and the quote from a person who YOU ripped into who never said what you accused them of --- bro.
quoting somebody and then ridiculing them for something they did say is engaging in fraud and a falsehood.
Defending them is even worse.
But hey - this is politics here on the site so what else is to be expected from the usual suspects?
apparently you wish to make yourself look foolish in order to pick a fight with me.
I quoted the opening post, the thread starter who titled his thread. "did the gop senators commit a treason act against obama and the country?".
I believe I once told you that people who have a 20 point IQ difference often can't relate to each other. I've long suspected that to be our issue. You have a wonderful day.
Psssst, look at the thread title and the precise question being asked.
I see. So you think someone other than the OP titled this thread.
foolish is quoting a post which said nothing about treason against obama.
The person in question DID NOT quote the thread title in the post I was replying to. That is the point.
Rev was addressing the actual question asked (and it's upon that question which the poll and entire thread is based) and he quoted the guy who asked that question.
All you had to do was quote the part you intended to quote which was the thread title - but instead you reproduced a different quote which did not say what you wanted it to say. The fault was not mine in pointing out what you had done.
The person he quoted was the person who started this thread
This threads title, created by the person he quoted, is "did GOP senators commit a treason act against Obama and the Country?"
The poll on this thread, created by the person he quoted, is "Did the GOP commit a treason acted, against Obama and the country?"
The poster who's OP rev quoted also voted "yes" in his poll asking if the GOP committed a treasonous act against Obama and the country.
So yes, contrary to your claim that he "NEVER said" what Rev sugggested he claimed, the person he quoted absolutely did say it. They didn't say it in their POST, but they did say it via their thread title and poll that were attached to the OP he quoted.
Then he should have quoted that line in his post. He DID NOT do so and was thus left open for the justifiable criticism.
Then he should have quoted what he wanted to quote instead of quoting something which did not say what he wanted to criticize.
That is his problem - not mine.
You're the only one who didn't understand it or saw it as any kind of a problem.
DO NOT reproduce a quote from somebody and rip into them for saying something they DID NOT say in that quote but which was said elsewhere when you did not reproduce that in your post.
Pretty simple and pretty common sense.
Yes - this is a sore point for me because year after year I get increasingly angry that people claim I said certain things but they cannot produce the quote which says so. In this case , it would have been rather simple for the poster to produce the correct words they wanted to criticize - but they did not.
Yes - maybe I feel this issue more than most and am a stickler for it. Mea culpa.
Really? It's such a common practice to quote the OP in order to address something in particular about their thread, yet this is the first time I've seen you make an issue of it (despite repeated explanation). Is it really what was said that bothered you or who it was that said it?
It's not illegal, but the GOP just handed the Dems an unbelievable electoral cudgel. What a breathtakingly stupid maneuver.
You can put the word "may" on anything you want.
The letter to Iran is not without precedent.
Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan's presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua's contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush's invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him. - See more at: MSNBC Falsely Claims No 'Precedent' for Congress Defying President on Foreign Policy
Despite the networks’ eagerness to tout Democratic opposition to the GOP letter, on two separate occasions the “big three” completely ignored a letter penned by former Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) written to the Soviet Union in 1983 aimed at undermining President Ronald Reagan’s nuclear negotiations with the Communist regime. - See more at: Flashback: Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy.
So there you have it. Democrats in congress interjected themselves into foreign policy matters with foreign leaders in Nicaragua, Syria and Russia during nuclear arms negotiations. If Obama would put down the pen and phone and work with congress now that it's under republican control, extrodenary measures like the letter to Iran wouldn't be necessary but he'd rather cut a deal without congressional approval which is favorable to Iran and which fits into his pro Muslim world view.
Nice try, but I don't think the above quite measures up to what this group of 47 Republican Senators have done.
For starters, none of the negotiations referenced above had anything to do with a peaceful arms reduction deal between either former President Reagan or GW Bush. Furthermore, the letter Sen. Kennedy wrote to the Russian government while Reagan was in office had far more to do with undermining his re-election efforts than interfering with his nuclear weapons reductions negotiations. Jim Wright's meeting with opposition leaders in the lead up to what would become the Iran/Contra Affair had nothing to do with him attempting to thwart an arms deal. It was more along the lines of a "fact-finding mission" akin to what Republicans are currently doing with Hillary over Libya.
The correlations you've attempted to make aren't nearly the same.
Things are being done in the House and Senate that's never been done before now. Should the Senators that sent the letter to Iran, be punished for this acted against Obama, and the country?
I use words like may because it's the most accurate non-partisan word to use in this case. It's not definite or likely that a court would find essentially the entire majority party guilty of a crime. But it is not impossible nor unlikely that that they violated the law. By any honest reading, the GoP could be indited but conviction is questionable.
So how likely do you think it is that the GoP violated the law?
Were those agreement about nuclear programs?
I have but one question on this matter:
Yes, with China.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?