Democratic Moral Fortitude

[3rdnlng]

But there's legal definitions of "treaty," depending on context.

 

The important and consistent difference is: if it's not a treaty, it's not binding, and either party can suspend it at will.

 

So if it's not a treaty, it won't work. But if it IS a treaty...it's unconstitutional, and we're not bound by it, and it won't work.

 

Great foreign policy.

Yes, and if we suspend the non-treaty then what choices will we have presuming they failed to live up to their end of the bargain? Sanctions aren't coming back. Maybe this guy could look into the future, eh?

 

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mccain+bomb+iran+song&FORM=VIRE5#view=detail&mid=9F88AD269B1505B35D9B9F88AD269B1505B35D9B

 

In all seriousness, what other options will we have?

Edited September 6, 2015 by 3rdnlng

[DC Tom]

Yes, and if we suspend the non-treaty then what choices will we have presuming they failed to live up to their end of the bargain? Sanctions aren't coming back. Maybe this guy could look into the future, eh?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srkInall seriousness, what other options will we have?

None. Russia and China were lifting sanctions no matter what. This deal is nothing more than Obama making a political virtue out of yet another foreign policy !@#$up.

[Ralonzo]

The PC term for "Jews who suddenly realize the D party are wussies" is Neo-Conservative. Hence, Ari Fleischer, GW Bush's press secretary. A nice Polish boy!

 

Yep, and the PC term for "Liberals who've been mugged" is Conservative. Hence, Chuck Bronson. A nice Polish Lithuanian boy!

Edited September 7, 2015 by Ralonzo

[Tiberius]

None. Russia and China were lifting sanctions no matter what. This deal is nothing more than Obama making a political virtue out of yet another foreign policy !@#$up.

Ummm....ok, let's assume you are right and forget about the benefits of the deal. Then all the Conservative and Israeli howling over this deal is nothing but partisan and anti-Obama clap trap

[Chef Jim]

Ummm....ok, let's assume you are right and forget about the benefits of the deal. Then all the Conservative and Israeli howling over this deal is nothing but partisan and anti-Obama clap trap

So Chuck Schumer is against the deal because of anti-Obama clap trap?

Edited September 7, 2015 by Chef Jim

[Tiberius]

So Chuck Shumer is against the deal because of anti-Obama clap trap?

That would be a fund raising decision

[Chef Jim]

That would be a fund raising decision

And you're basing this on what information?

[Tiberius]

And you're basing this on what information?

I understand politics. You have an alternate theory? Let's hear it, you said you were going to evolve into trying to debate instead of just asking question after mindless question

[Chef Jim]

I understand politics. You have an alternate theory? Let's hear it, you said you were going to evolve into trying to debate instead of just asking question after mindless question

When did ever say I was going to stop asking questions? Now answer my question of where you get this is a fund raising move. That was not a mindless question. It was a question asking to back up your claim. That is a debate tactic. Now answer the question and I'll give you my theory.

[Tiberius]

When did ever say I was going to stop asking questions? Now answer my question of where you get this is a fund raising move. That was not a mindless question. It was a question asking to back up your claim. That is a debate tactic. Now answer the question and I'll give you my theory.

Ha ha, I didn't think so! Asking mindless question after question is not debating.

[/dev/null]

I understand politics.

Edited September 7, 2015 by /dev/null

[Tiberius]

You had to edit that? Lol!

[Chef Jim]

Ha ha, I didn't think so! Asking mindless question after question is not debating.

No answering questions to get someone to clarify their position is absolutely debating. So seeing you refuse to debate (not sure why) I'll do it here with a sock puppet playing you.

 

Chef Jim: So why do you think this was a fund raising move by Schumer?

 

Sock Puppet: Because he realizes many Jews are against the deal so by opposing the deal he can continue to fundraise with the Jews

 

Chef Jim: Hmmm that's a very interesting point. But does a Democrat really need to oppose this to continue to get money from the Jewish community? And don't you think that it's bad form for a politician to vote for something for the sole purpose of raising money? Here's why I think he's opposed to it. It's because he's Jewish and realizes it's a bad deal for Isreal which is the very same reason many on the right don't like the deal. Being ant-Obama has nothing to do with it.

 

See gator. Even a sock puppet is better at this than you are.

Edited September 7, 2015 by Chef Jim

[Tiberius]

No answering questions to get someone to clarify their position is absolutely debating. So seeing you refuse to debate (not sure why) I'll do it here with a sock puppet playing you.

Chef Jim: So why do you think this was a fund raising move by Schumer?

Sock Puppet: Because he realizes many Jews are against the deal so by opposing the deal he can continue to fundraise with the Jews

Chef Jim: Hmmm that's a very interesting point. But does a Democrat really need to oppose this to continue to get money from the Jewish community? And don't you think that it's bad form for a politician to vote for something for the sole purpose of raising money? Here's why I think he's opposed to it. It's because he's Jewish and realizes it's a bad deal for Isreal which is the very same reason many on the right don't like the deal. Being ant-Obama has nothing to do with it.

See gator. Even a sock puppet is better at this than you are.

Hey! I'm proud of you! That was great! Ummmm....Schumer knew the deal was going to pass so why should he take flack and lose money over something he need not worry about. There's a thing about not creating unnecessary problems for yourself in life, most people follow. I don't blame him at all.

 

And hey, if people want to oppose a deal that's good for the USA but bad for some other country, I guess I'd have to question their priorities. Perhaps they are following the money, also. You really see Republicans as guided by true and altruistic motives in opposing this deal? That's pretty naive of you, in my opinion. You have said in the past you don't trust any politicians,

[IDBillzFan]

Give us one specific tenet of this deal, that represents the very best way to serve our interests. It can be anything.

 

Gatorman's top 10 reasons the deal with Iran serves the best interest of the US:

 

10: With 24 days to start inspections, people can plan better, and planning better is a good way to save money. Just like buying furniture from Ikea.

9: With Iran conducting their own inspections, it's providing jobs to Iranians who would otherwise come to America through Mexico and kill tourists in San Francisco.

8: With more Iranians employed, there will be less strife in the ME, thus reversing all the terrorism caused by global warming cooling climate change.

7: The complete destruction of Israel means the US would better be able to afford the billions of dollars it's giving to Iran to fund terrorists.

6: It would give Barry another important legacy, second only to renaming Mt. McKinley.

5: Making friends with Iran means Democrats no longer have to pretend they like Jews.

4: Kitten videos are pretty awesome.

3:

2:

1:

 

You guys can fill the rest.

Edited September 7, 2015 by LABillzFan

[Chef Jim]

Hey! I'm proud of you! That was great! Ummmm....Schumer knew the deal was going to pass so why should he take flack and lose money over something he need not worry about. There's a thing about not creating unnecessary problems for yourself in life, most people follow. I don't blame him at all.

 

And hey, if people want to oppose a deal that's good for the USA but bad for some other country, I guess I'd have to question their priorities. Perhaps they are following the money, also. You really see Republicans as guided by true and altruistic motives in opposing this deal? That's pretty naive of you, in my opinion. You have said in the past you don't trust any politicians,

So you're going to question someone's priorities who is against something that could potentially be very harmful to an ally but not question their priorities when doing something for money?

 

And once again do you really think Schumer has to stick his neck out to her money from the Jewish community? Netanyahu already called him Isreal's best friend in DC

Edited September 7, 2015 by Chef Jim

[/dev/null]

You had to edit that? Lol!

I had your entire quote in there originally. I edited it for just your first sentence

[Tiberius]

1)

 

So you're going to question someone's priorities who is against something that could potentially be very harmful to an ally but not question their priorities when doing something for money?

 

2) And once again do you really think Schumer has to stick his neck out to her money from the Jewish community? Netanyahu already called him Isreal's best friend in DC

1) I think the priorities of our country are more important. Go live in left wing Israel if you love it so much. Enjoy their universal health care.

 

2) well, he won't be Israels best friend for long if he supports Obams foreign policy. Obama seems to care more for the United States than for Israel

I had your entire quote in there originally. I edited it for just your first sentence

Ok, no penalty then

[Tiberius]

“I’ll be casting my vote to support the deal and if necessary sustain the president’s veto,” she told CNN’s State of the Union, calling the process through which she arrived at her decision “gut-wrenching [and] thought-provoking.”

Wasserman Schultz choked up during the interview, describing how difficult her decision was as a “Jewish mother” and as the first Jewish Democrat elected to the House of Representatives from Florida.

“There’s nothing more important to me as a Jew than to ensure that Israel’s existence is there throughout our generations,” she said, adding the agreement would “put Iran years away from being a threshold nuclear state.”

In an op-ed for the Miami Herald, Wasserman Schultz added that the deal is the “best chance to ensure America’s, Israel’s and our allies’ security.” But, she said:

This is the most difficult decision I have had to make in the nearly 23 years I have served in elected office, and this vote will be the most consequential.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/more-support-for-the-iran-deal/404062/

[Who is Yuri?]