Now do John Wayne and Charlton Heston. Or don't those work with your dog whistles?
Lev Parnas Testimony 🔥
- Thread starter Phenomenally Frantastic
- Start date
You subtract. You bigoted fool.
Because the prosecutor was on the dole for Russian oligarchs, and any "loans" would be wasted on corruption with a prosecutor who would not enforce laws.
So simple, a 5th grader could understand this...
The reaction by Richard Haas and the guy sitting to Joe’s right in the video is priceless. You can just see them get more uncomfortable by the second - hoping and praying he’d just shut tf up.
you (or I) have no idea why jon stewart changed his name 40+ years ago
and what does that have to do with anything anyone was talking about? you just thought that was an important, relevant comment to throw in to a ukraine discussion?
Sure probably shouldn’t have. Should have just mentioned him. I don’t like him clearly.
And I plan to keep it that way as I set you to ignore. Idiot.
He's talked about it quite a bit.
"He began using the stage name Jon Stewart by dropping his last name and changing the spelling of his middle name, Stuart, to Stewart. He often jokes that it was because people had trouble pronouncing Leibowitz, or it "sounded too Hollywood" (a reference to Lenny Bruce's joke on the same theme)."
No, I’m referencing the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances… signed at the OSCE conference in Budapest, Hungary, on 5 December 1994, to provide security assurances by its signatories relating to the accession of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.[1]
On 23 May 1992, Russia, the U.S., Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol to the START I treaty, ahead of ratifying the treaty later.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,856
- 204,066
- 113
John Stewart talks about being Jewish CONSTANTLY.
Even the moron’s troll attempts are getting sadder 🙂
It's amazing so many right wingers in the trump administration have been found guilty, some imprisoned, trump has multiple felony charges against him, paid Carroll $91 million, now owes NY $464 million, the cultists defend him and the suckers and losers keep sending him their hard earned dollars. And all Comer and Gym Jordan and others is try and manufacture crimes, and yet they have found none because there is none. Pathetic.
This stuff is proof that Trump knows he can’t win straight up on policy. He has to cheat and he knows it’s the only way he can win. He has no policy.
That's how he won in 2016. Thanks Putin.
Now that you’re hopefully a little clearer on the distinction between the START and the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, can you take a crack at the question I posed yesterday:
How does one square ‘official State Dept policy’ with telling Ukraine to fire an official or else they won’t receive loan guarantees with a prohibition against “economic coercion”?
Irrespective of how justified one may view the demand, I don’t see how it isn’t viewed as blatant internal interference.
One.. the Budapest Memorandum is a precursor to admission to NPT. Nonetheless, the memorandum's reference to economic coercion relates to sanctions, blockades, and potentially tariffs (but that is somewhat up for debate). It would not include canceling loan guarantees or withdrawing aide. There has never been an argument that the US can't withdraw its money or guarantee---it's is, in fact, our money. Where your populist hero, Trump, ran afoul, is conditioning the aide on digging up dirt against a political opponent.
They were ‘security assurances’, related to those countries ascension to NPT, but not all who signed the NPT get ‘security assurances’.
As I pointed out, the Lisbon Protocol was signed by the parties in 1991, before the ‘precursor’ Budapest Memorandum was signed in 1994.
But you can condition the aid on firing someone in that ostensibly sovereign government without it being coercive?
Coercion is defined as ‘the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.’
"I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money."
Reads to me like a threat.
a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done.
It was a threat. It was a legal threat in furtherance of the US policy. Again, the US can do what it wants with its money. Trump would not have run afoul had he stated we wont' send the aide if you don't stop prosecuting homosexuals (I clearly made up that policy), but where the guy you voted for breached his obligations when he conditioned the aid on benefitting his re-election campaign.
And as we've established, coercion is defined as ‘the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.’
The 'furtherance of the US policy' is actually trampling the sovereignty of Ukraine, which we had agreed to respect in the Memorandum:
"...the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the Principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty"
Neat....you quoted Wiki of nothing related to the subject. I understand that most of your day is spent telling government employees to unplug and plug their computer back in...but none of this is relevant.
The missing element in the Ukraine fiasco that libs don’t want to discuss is the role the CIA, Biden, Obama, McCain, Nuland and their ilk played in overthrowing a legitimately elected government.
Left alone, Putin and Yanukovych would have had no major turmoil and the Ukrainian’s would have peace.
Biden, Obama and Nuland, for starters, should be prosecuted for their roles.
I’ve quoted from the Budapest Memorandum (that you confused with START, and earned likes from fellow ignoramuses - that was funny).
LOL
What do you think the Wiki page is quoting?
Will Havard work as a source for you, or do you want me to find you the UN URL?
https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu...22_ukraine-the_budapest_memo.pdf?m=1645824948
Bottom of page 1, top of page 2:
The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
So...you did quote Wiki and lied.
I did not state that the substance was false or questionable. But admitting to your lack of truthfulness is a good thing.
Telling everyone you lost the argument without telling them you lost the argument.
Weak.
LOL
WTF are you talking about?
You’ve made several false statements.
My first post was a quote from wiki (including their source links, it’s very clear it’s from wiki just by that), and it’s the Wiki article on the Budapest Memorandum.
Your response to that was, “You are referencing a treaty reducing nuclear weapons. START 1”
Which is false. I don’t think you’re lying when you wrote that falsehood, I just think you‘re ignorant.
So I again quoted the Wiki article on the Budapest Memorandum, as well as information regarding the signing of START I by Ukraine (and others) in Lisbon (Lisbon Protocol - which I even linked!), years prior to the memoranda signed in Budapest.
Your response to that was to assert another falsehood, that somehow the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994 was a precursor to the Lisbon Protocol signed in 1992.
“the Budapest Memorandum is a precursor to admission to NPT”
No it isn’t.
What I’m quoting is verbatim in the Budapest Memorandum.
It’s a two page document. I would have thought after humiliating yourself by thinking it was text from START you’d have checked the thing yourself, but you’re sticking with the hard ignorance angle.
Whatever works for you.
