It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Responds To GOP Letter: They Don’t Even Understand Their Own Constitution

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Aliensun

The Iranians pointed out, embarrassingly, that they know more about the US Constitution than about half the US Senate.

What a bone headed ploy on the part of these Senators!

What stupid attempted governmental overreach if not technically treason! (And it is treason under the Logan Act.)

And somehow, this national travesty demonstrates that "Democrats support tyranny."

Amazing!


You aren't against treason by our leaders, so why all the fuss?

Obama has committed treason 14 times or so, (who's counting), and no outrage for that by you?

Or when people do commit treason in the USA, do you just see if they are on your list of politicians that you support. and if they are, then you just ignore it? You need not answer that question, because you already answered it by ignoring these things done by our leaders when you support them in the past.

If you don't support them, then it is ugly, criminal, and should be punished!

Interesting philosophy.




posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: CranialSponge



I had no idea that a handful of US senators controlled world affairs.

Jon Stewart explained it quite well.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010



We need a law that says no politician is allowed to receive gifts, vacations or any other kind of monetary enrichment from a foreign nation.


Sorry, but you can't be trying to pass laws to take away favours when you've got states like North Carolina adding to the list of gifts they can receive:

North Carolina Legalizes Call Girls For Politicians

Yes folks, the world just keeps getting nuttier and nuttier by the minute.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
You know your party has derailed the crazy train when you got Iran schooling you on the constitution, lol.


Wow just amazing that people still fall for the illusion of choice. As long as youre voting you actually also support the opposing party by showing you agree with the democratic system thats corrupted to its core. How can you still be that ignorant that you dont see all the sytem does is divide a nation, which only the top 1% and your disfunctional government benefits from. Sad to see how delusional many people on ATS still are.
edit on 306pm3143up86 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

stop the partision bull#. This is the reason they get away with whatever the # they want, because idiots like you take arbitrary sides and defend evil like a good little slave.



posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   


State Dept Describes Iran Deal as 'Nonbinding'


State Dept Describes Iran Deal as 'Nonbinding' (March 10, 2014)




posted on Mar, 11 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: netbound

Suppose Iran signs the deal.

Either one of two things will happen:

a) they abide by it
b) they don't

Let's say there's a 50% chance of each.

If they don't abide by the deal, in what way is the USA disadvantaged with signing versus not signing?? The USA already has nuclear weapons. What downside is to USA there from signing the deal, and Iran cheats, versus not signing the deal?

I see no downside. The deal would never allow Iran to import more centrifuges anyway (quite the opposite in fact), so what's the downside to USA?

If Iran does abide by the deal, everybody other than nuclear warmongers win.

If USA signs, and Iran clearly goes back on the deal, then the international position of the USA to act against Iran is substantially increased. Again, upside for signing the deal.

I don't understand why even Netanyahu would be against it, except for his own selfish domestic political reasons.
edit on 11-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-3-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I'm glad they wrote that letter, guess what, Iran wants us dead, we will eventually have a war with them regardless of this treaty, I say if anyone in the usa wants to tell Iran that they are not fooling all of us, then tell them blatantly. Congressman or not. And I looovvee seeing other countries cringe and try to act like we have a government that runs the people lol sorry, if we the people think Iran is a threat then Americans will make the government go after them, our leadera have to listen to the citizens here, sorry world



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Funny it was a Clinton scandal which previously hid the knowledge that the US , and CIA were caught supplying arms and ordnance and selling crack into america to fund the contra wars from the US public.

Bill was getting his duck sicked and everyone turned a blind eye to the biggest US scandal in recent times



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Elton

This simply demonstrates the AIPAC tools at work.

These Senators did not do this on behalf of their party, the Constitution, or America. They did it for money. They did it because someone pulls their strings.

*Not arguing with OP. Good post.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
It's exactly crap like this that is why so many people have no idea what the constitution really says. The right has spewed their own bs for so long they believe it themselves. They just sink lower and lower with only their political power in mind with no concern for the US or its people (except for 1%).



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The ignorance is amazing. The bit that since there is no treaty, Congress has no business getting involved is a laugh. The "UN is negotiating with Iran, so Congress has no business being involved" is even funnier. No wonder Civics isn't being taught in schools anymore. Anybody who ever took a decent Civics class could see through this BS in a second. All the letter said was that anything that Obama promised you has to be approved by the Senate. That's it plain and simple. THIS INCLUDES ANYTHING THAT THE UN DOES TOO. The only thing right that I see here is that the MSM is playing this up to take the heat off of Hiliary.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 09:20 AM
link   

I see here is that the MSM is playing this up to take the heat off of Hiliary.


DING DING DING... Winner, winner, chicken dinner !

There was no violation of the Logan Act, no matter how bad some of you want there to be... Mean While, an an Ex-SoS DID violate federal law, but no no no.. Don't talk about that, no no, no corruption there... Lets not even talk about how the current mess in the middle east is directly traceable to the Admin's and the State departments destruction and toppling of the LIbyian Government. Then supplying weapons, money and training to the LIFG, I mean "moderates" who are anything but... Just so they can turn around and join Alqeada In Iraq, oh sorry the media is calling them ISIS now..

Anyways, yes lets just forget about everything... So we can focus our Liberal-Rage over a letter... And give Hillary time to get her story straight...


Also, those of you calling for people to be indicted, tried, and even persecuted because of a petition reaching soo many signatures ; Need to get a dictionary and rethink what 'Justice' actually means, and it's true application.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: largo

Except Obama is bombing like crazy in the Middle East.



And conservatives are calling it "doing nothing".

We have done thousands of airstrikes, and make up 80% of the worlds total strikes, but conservatives are claiming we haven''t done anything.




posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Iran is just upset because they can string Ob.along longer in negotiations.Repubs aren't buy it.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: kevinp2300

You do understand that foreign minister is harping about "international law" which actually is not going to be binding Congress if they decide to upset Obama's apple cart in this game. And you can't claim he would be ignorant of such tactics given what Iran has done along several lines of actions over the years contrary to "international law." So his words are mere propaganda also. And why not? They all are politicians with their own purposes.


You're right international law won't be binding to congress in this but there is an American law called the Logan act that will. Hopefully the White House will pay attention to the petition that people have signed and charge those 47 traitors accordingly.


I always find it rich when Democrats pretend to care about laws! Especially when Obama selectively chooses what laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.


I find it rich when people allow themselves to over look someone breaking laws, in hopes of scoring some points off pointing fingers at the other side.

We wonder why nothing ever get's fixed.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: mahatche

An airstrike is "nothing" in the sense that it achieves no real, strategic objective in and of itself. It kills people as collateral damage and destroys infrastructure that's more or less already destroyed.

An airstrike is only part of a successful overall strategy.

You might say that endless airstrikes are the military equivalent of throwing endless money at a problem. Neither one actually solves the problem because neither one is a solution or an end. They are only part of the means to an end.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: mahatche

originally posted by: jjkenobi

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: kevinp2300

You do understand that foreign minister is harping about "international law" which actually is not going to be binding Congress if they decide to upset Obama's apple cart in this game. And you can't claim he would be ignorant of such tactics given what Iran has done along several lines of actions over the years contrary to "international law." So his words are mere propaganda also. And why not? They all are politicians with their own purposes.


You're right international law won't be binding to congress in this but there is an American law called the Logan act that will. Hopefully the White House will pay attention to the petition that people have signed and charge those 47 traitors accordingly.


I always find it rich when Democrats pretend to care about laws! Especially when Obama selectively chooses what laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.


I find it rich when people allow themselves to over look someone breaking laws, in hopes of scoring some points off pointing fingers at the other side.

We wonder why nothing ever get's fixed.


I don't know. Ask Ted Kennedy.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elton
An understandable response, the USA doesn't usually break all their treaties when an administration changes.


Not to nitpick, but some promises and a handshake between the president and a foreign leader is not a treaty.



posted on Mar, 12 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: mahatche

An airstrike is "nothing" in the sense that it achieves no real, strategic objective in and of itself. It kills people as collateral damage and destroys infrastructure that's more or less already destroyed.

An airstrike is only part of a successful overall strategy.

You might say that endless airstrikes are the military equivalent of throwing endless money at a problem. Neither one actually solves the problem because neither one is a solution or an end. They are only part of the means to an end.



The problem with that, is they make the comments after countries like Jordan and Egypt launch airstrikes. So "doing nothing" isn't meant to say airstrikes are ineffective, it's saying "Look other countries are bombing, while we do nothing". Conservatives are itching to get in, and they are filling their information bubble with the idea of us doing nothing.

I'd personally prefer it if America took a back seat on this one. I want moderate Middle eastern countries to take the lead and get the credit, with us helping from a distance as much as possible. I think these extremist ideologies can only be beaten with symbolic victories. The symbolism of modern Muslims kicking the # out of extremists, and restoring order to the region, would take some steam out of the movement. If we lead the way into a dick measuring contest, it's only fuel for the fire. I don't doubt our ability to place a physical toll on their population, but I don't think it's the right end game for a lasting victory. I don't view ISIS as a Hitler level threat, they need to be stopped, but they aren't as powerful as their media attention suggests. I think the middle east can restore the middle east.

I think the power of American attacks has a way of making people feel desperate, and desperate people have a way of turning to god for solutions, and I'd like to avoid playing into that propaganda as much as possible.




top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join