47 acts of treason?

[theiacowtipper]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by joelbc1:

Originally posted by llhcatsports:
What amazes me is how the Congress has not impeached and convicted Barack Hussein Obama when he has gone against the Constitution more times than I can count. I agree with aflachawk. And yet they impeached Bill Clinton so quickly for just a sexual act with Monica Lewinsky which was just a small thing compared to the acts/inactions by Barack Hussein Obama. This guy BHO has done more to send this country down the proverbial toilet than any President in our history as far as I am concerned. Any deal with Iran is not worth the paper upon which it is written. You cannot trust Iran at all. I guess some of you will be surprised when the next attack on our soil by these extremist jihadist terrorists based in Iran, however, I will not be the least bit surprised when this happens. People here seem to think the US is now safer than ever (according to the libs), but with all of the terrorists just pouring into this country from both the north and south borders, it is inevitable that we will see more attacks like 9/11/2001 or Pear Harbor. Go ahead and hate on me and aflachawk all you want, I do not care.

Probably a good reason to continue to finance Home Land Security. I hope my con / Repubber friends here read this post, too.




I cannot quite discern if the pubs want to withdraw from the world and put a fence around the USA or if they want to blow it up and kill anyone who disagrees with them. I am leaning towards the latter Neanderthal Con thinking.

I think the Cons have finally lost it and we are seeing how they will conduct our government, for our own good you understand.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lindsey-graham-as-president-i-would-deploy-the-military-against-congress/ar-AA9F1fS

This post was edited on 3/12 2:01 AM by wildcatdad

This link shouldn't be overlooked. Graham may have been talking out of his ass, but it is dangerous talk. Let's just say that Obama was quoted by Fox News as saying, "I'm going to deploy the military to force the Republican Congress to vote to restore domestic spending that was cut during sequester." The right on this board would have gone nuts. But since it's a Republican saying it, we can just ignore it, correct?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
Holy shit, natural, you are really struggling here. Nobody ever said this was an unusual situation. To the contrary, the letter points out how it works. Presidents have policies, including international policies, that are considered to be the position of the nation. THAT IS WHY THE LOGAN ACT WAS WRITTEN. TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NOT EVERY AMERICAN HAS THE POWER TO MAKE THESE POLICIES.

Sorry for the shouting, but simply citing rational, logical facts hasn't gotten through to you in this thread.

The president's policies remain in effect until he, or a subsequent president, changes them. Does Gitmo ring a bell? Blanket amnesty for immigrants? Declaration of Be Kind To HROT Posters Day?

I didn't dispute any of this, but you had and the letter did. Thanks for finally admitting the executive agreement doesn't end with the administration. We are now on the same page.

Amazing. Simply amazing. And with the comments readily available for review. You clearly have lost it on this topic.

Yes, please do review. My position didn't change (except to get scolded for calling it law rather than policy). Your position did change to match my own however. You started out carrying water for the letter by characterizing the Iran negotiations as just an Obama agreement that would disappear the moment he left office. I pointed out its more than that and you came around to match that idea in your last post. Those boobs have you distracted.

 

[22*43*51]

Tom - Could you please move the thread to the "LC vs. Natural Unnecessarily Lengthy Treason Discussion Board".

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by aflachawk:
Up till now BHO has shown that he will go around Congress when it suits his purpose. Had that not been the case , Republicans, unlike Dems in the past, might have shown deference to the POTUS while negotiating. With any kind of time frame included, this deal should never be made. BHO, WWJD and others who say it's a deal or war are either ignorant or lying. Crippling sanctions would be fine. Iran is a country who been at war with us for 30 years and whose ultimate aim is to destroy us. Yet libs are perfectly willing to believe them. That's what amazing to me.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

How do you think crippling sanctions will prevent them from getting the bomb? They have the uranium. They have the centrifuges. All they need is time to enrich enough of it and the will to build it. Crippling sanctions ensure they will have both. If you don't have a good answer to that, you may want to be a bit more careful about who you call ignorant liars especially given how often you like to call others out for being uncivil.

Firstly I never wrote ignorant liars. I did put the word OR in the middle. I just think those two choices are appropriate when BHO and others are spreading the lie that its either this agreement or war when sanctions are clearly an alternative. I never said that sanctions would stop them from getting the bomb. I do believe sanctions will slow them spreading their influence around the entire middle east and make it harder for the Mullahs to stay in power. I also believe its a better route to take than sign an agreement with a government who has pledged our and Israel's destruction. With their pernicious ideology, them getting the bomb and a long range ballistic missile is a problem for the world. Tell me give me your logic for signing an agreement(and trusting they will live up to their side) How will that benefit us in the long run

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by aflachawk:
Up till now BHO has shown that he will go around Congress when it suits his purpose. Had that not been the case , Republicans, unlike Dems in the past, might have shown deference to the POTUS while negotiating. With any kind of time frame included, this deal should never be made. BHO, WWJD and others who say it's a deal or war are either ignorant or lying. Crippling sanctions would be fine. Iran is a country who been at war with us for 30 years and whose ultimate aim is to destroy us. Yet libs are perfectly willing to believe them. That's what amazing to me.

Posted from Rivals Mobile

How do you think crippling sanctions will prevent them from getting the bomb? They have the uranium. They have the centrifuges. All they need is time to enrich enough of it and the will to build it. Crippling sanctions ensure they will have both. If you don't have a good answer to that, you may want to be a bit more careful about who you call ignorant liars especially given how often you like to call others out for being uncivil.

Firstly I never wrote ignorant liars. I did put the word OR in the middle. I just think those two choices are appropriate when BHO and others are spreading the lie that its either this agreement or war when sanctions are clearly an alternative. I never said that sanctions would stop them from getting the bomb. I do believe sanctions will slow them spreading their influence around the entire middle east and make it harder for the Mullahs to stay in power. I also believe its a better route to take than sign an agreement with a government who has pledged our and Israel's destruction. With their pernicious ideology, them getting the bomb and a long range ballistic missile is a problem for the world. Tell me give me your logic for signing an agreement(and trusting they will live up to their side) How will that benefit us in the long run

It sounds like we both agree that sanctions won't prevent them from getting the nuke. So it can't be correct to call it ignorant or a lie to point out that sanctions are not a path to stop them from getting the Nuke. Don't you agree that we then have just two options? We either get them to willing stop making the bomb through some agreement or we force then to stop by blowing them up, which in all likelihood means war. Do you see that logic and agree with it?

Add to that Bibi's claim that Iran is very close, correct? Like within a year or so to having what they need to make the Nuke. So that means we can't wait around for regime change. We need to either lock them down in an agreement or lock them in our crosshairs, right?

Then it's logical to ask how would an agreement lock them down. The answer is of course that you pull a Reagan and you verify. No trust is required. You put a guy in the room watching the centrifuges being dismantled and mothballed. You put a guy watching the current stock of enriched uranium and making sure it isn't going off to the bomb shop. If they break the agreement, there are ways in our power to know that. At that moment we still have the options of war or sanctions but we have now bought ourselves some time. Maybe some time for that regime change you allude to to take place.

Finally, remember this isn't a Obama vs Khamenei deal as the R's in the Senate believe. Its not even just a US vs Iran thing. There are 6 other nations negotiating this deal all with their own interests. Indefinite crippling sanctions are not something you can just assume are on the table. The US can't make that happen alone.

 

[sijoint]

This just in.....
Iran takes the side of Obama/Democrats to knock the letter written to them by Republicans.
Surprised?

Iran Slams Republicans

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by sijoint:
This just in.....
Iran takes the side of Obama/Democrats to knock the letter written to them by Republicans.
Surprised?

What did you think about Rs taking the side of the Iranian hawks when they wrote the letter?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]