Tom Cotton Just Kicked Bob Schieffer's Butt

[joelbc1]

Given the latitude of Cotton's answer, yes. And, BTW, I did watch it, twice...live and on replay.
Senator Cotton needs to understand that he isn't in the House of Representatives any long. There are different rules of behavior and decorum once one becomes a US Senator. And I do realize that in the recent dummying down of America, rules of etiquette and behavior are becoming secondary to the new libertarianism of "Me first!" However, that doesn't make the "new" correct.
Cotton is just a bumpkin from Arkansas.

 

[downtown hawk redux]

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Cotton should be in Gitmo. We are locking up the wrong people. He is a man without a country.

I always know when you have lost an argument when you ask about meds. Maybe you should try another approach.

He doesn't have another approach.

 

[NoleandDawg]

Tom Cotton is a bad ass. Harvard undergrad and law school. He was also a platoon leader for the 82nd Airborne (after law school), Combat Infantry Badge, and Ranger School grad. He's done multiple combat tour in the thick of the fighting. The guy is an American hero.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by What W...us Do?:

Originally posted by dandh:
No..never have and never would defend a traitor. But I'm happy to bring attention to fine young patriots like Senator Cotton.

This guy is advocating war with Iran. There's really no other way to read it. Are you in favor of war with Iran, dandh? If not, why are you in love with Cotton?

That's another big lie on you part. You and BHO continually say it it's either his plan or war. If the world put sanctions on Iran like we put on South Africa it's would much preferable to a bad agreement. Then to add one mistake to another, we are talking to Iran about the UN dropping its sanctions. BHO's idea of negotiating is to give the other side it wants. Excepting for the Republican congress. There is willing to go to the mat
Posted from Rivals Mobile

You need to stop referring to this as a lie when you have consistently failed to articulate an alternative. We already have what you call for. Its not working. It wont work. You admitted that much in a prior thread. You aren't connecting your own logic points. I suppose by your definition, that makes you a liar.



This post was edited on 3/15 6:33 PM by naturalmwa

Could an alternative to the current deal and/or war be a better deal or a tougher regime of sanctions?

I assume there are more sanctions that could be placed on Iran, correct?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by What W...us Do?:

Originally posted by dandh:
No..never have and never would defend a traitor. But I'm happy to bring attention to fine young patriots like Senator Cotton.

This guy is advocating war with Iran. There's really no other way to read it. Are you in favor of war with Iran, dandh? If not, why are you in love with Cotton?

That's another big lie on you part. You and BHO continually say it it's either his plan or war. If the world put sanctions on Iran like we put on South Africa it's would much preferable to a bad agreement. Then to add one mistake to another, we are talking to Iran about the UN dropping its sanctions. BHO's idea of negotiating is to give the other side it wants. Excepting for the Republican congress. There is willing to go to the mat
Posted from Rivals Mobile

You need to stop referring to this as a lie when you have consistently failed to articulate an alternative. We already have what you call for. Its not working. It wont work. You admitted that much in a prior thread. You aren't connecting your own logic points. I suppose by your definition, that makes you a liar.



This post was edited on 3/15 6:33 PM by naturalmwa

Could an alternative to the current deal and/or war be a better deal or a tougher regime of sanctions?

I assume there are more sanctions that could be placed on Iran, correct?

IMO no amount of sanctions would prevent them from getting the bomb now, they are too close. You could build a dome over the nation and they would still get the bomb because they already know how to make it and they have the raw materials. All they need is time to enrich the uranium they already possess with the equipment they already possess. More sanctions is a guarantee they get the bomb. The alternative to that is either we bomb them to remove the uranium and centrifuges they already possess or we get a deal where we can control those things.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
IMO no amount of sanctions would prevent them from getting the bomb now, they are too close. You could build a dome over the nation and they would still get the bomb because they already know how to make it and they have the raw materials. All they need is time to enrich the uranium they already possess with the equipment they already possess. More sanctions is a guarantee they get the bomb. The alternative to that is either we bomb them to remove the uranium and centrifuges they already possess or we get a deal where we can control those things.

Do you really believe if Iran was that close they'd actually give away their ability to complete the enrichment?

 

[aflachawk]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Arbitr8:

Originally posted by wildcatdad:

Originally posted by dandh:
Watching Face The Nation...ol' Bob tried and tried to nail him...as hard as I've ever seen him go after someone...and Cotton made him look like an angry old fool. Very impressive.

Do we hang traitors or shoot them.   I hope its televised whatever they do.  This guy is an embarrassment to Arkansas. 

Anyone in Arkansas will tell you Clinton was the biggest embarrassment of all time.

Thats a state that really seems to punch above its weight class in national politics. 

Because of the caucus so does Iowa(fortunately)
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
IMO no amount of sanctions would prevent them from getting the bomb now, they are too close. You could build a dome over the nation and they would still get the bomb because they already know how to make it and they have the raw materials. All they need is time to enrich the uranium they already possess with the equipment they already possess. More sanctions is a guarantee they get the bomb. The alternative to that is either we bomb them to remove the uranium and centrifuges they already possess or we get a deal where we can control those things.

Do you really believe if Iran was that close they'd actually give away their ability to complete the enrichment?

I think Iran is motivated by rational self preservation. It appeared for a time they thought the best path towards that end was to acquire the bomb. It appears that the new regime is open to the line of logic that says the safer path towards that end is in foregoing the bomb. However now that the Rs have told Iran they plan to ignore any agreement, that calculus may be up in the air.

But what Iran plans to do isn't really that important. Keeping our options open and the international community on our side is what counts, remember sanctions can't work if Russia or China etc. are against them. If they sign the agreement, we will know immediately if they are giving us access to their uranium and if they are mothballing their centrifuges. If they don't follow the agreement, we then gain international support for whatever our next move is. This would be the time for either more sanctions or bombing runs. If Iran follows the agreement, then we win. If they sign the agreement, but fail to follow it we still win. Either way, the agreement is the best option.

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by naturalnwa:

. It appears that the new regime is open to the line of logic that says the safer path towards that end is in foregoing the bomb.

Who is this new regime of which you speak?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by naturalnwa:

. It appears that the new regime is open to the line of logic that says the safer path towards that end is in foregoing the bomb.

Who is this new regime of which you speak?

The current power as opposed to the dinner jacket guy.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Anyone know Tehran Tom's top 3 political contributors?

 

[Metuo Accipiter]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by Metuo Accipiter:

Originally posted by naturalnwa:

. It appears that the new regime is open to the line of logic that says the safer path towards that end is in foregoing the bomb.

Who is this new regime of which you speak?

The current power as opposed to the dinner jacket guy.

The president? You think he is the one who will decide for Iran?