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.

 

It's Rediculous to Deny Billions of Dollars to U.S. Families Because Saudi Arabia Killed a Person.

page: 14
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Argue about what?
The fact that the imbicile makes factually incorrect statements?
Obama had the house and Senate for 2 years not 2 months.
Perhaps if the poster were more interested in facts than insulting the usa political system his posts would not be lies.

Or are you going to present evidence for him that BHO did not have a majority for his first 2 years?




posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I'm not suggesting this was anything short of an incredibly evil act, but it is not America's problem to fix.


If other countries problems is not ours to fix, then how come we have 150 bases around the world in other countries?
Should we not pull back to our borders and give them back the responsibility to defend themselves and fix their own problems?



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody


Clearly that was typo and he cleared that up on his next reply to you.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No it was not.
And no he did not.
He spouted bs about emergency economic crap.
THAT WAS WHEN OBAMA CARE WAS PUSHED THROUGH.
Thanks for defending his easily researched lies.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

If other countries problems is not ours to fix, then how come we have 150 bases around the world in other countries?
Should we not pull back to our borders and give them back the responsibility to defend themselves and fix their own problems?


Don't be naive, we have bases around the world for our OWN strategic interests. We partner with countries for our OWN strategic interests, Middle East is pretty much ALL bad, so take your pick...



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: jacobe001

If other countries problems is not ours to fix, then how come we have 150 bases around the world in other countries?
Should we not pull back to our borders and give them back the responsibility to defend themselves and fix their own problems?


Don't be naive, we have bases around the world for our OWN strategic interests. We partner with countries for our OWN strategic interests, Middle East is pretty much ALL bad, so take your pick...


So you agree it is not about spreading freedom, human rights and democracy but all about the money.



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

So you agree it is not about spreading freedom, human rights and democracy but all about the money.



None of above...



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: soberbacchus


He was a US Resident and worked as a Journalist for the Washington Post.
That makes it our "backyard".
By "our" I mean people that still give crap about what the USA stands for.



He was a Saudi citizen most likely given the death sentence by his own Government who was killed in Turkey by his own Government. So where do we fit into it all? Just like people screaming for the FBI to go there, they have no reason or authority too.

I'm not suggesting this was anything short of an incredibly evil act, but it is not America's problem to fix.


Who the hell is suggesting America "fix" it?

What we can do is stop SUPPORTING it.

Our relationship is no longer one of national dependence on Saudi oil, but one of economic advantage for a few American oil Barons.

The US has evolved where we no longer need to spend Trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives on the middle east. We only continue to do so on behalf of Billionaires to serve their vested financial interests.

Let Saudi's move on and diversify or sell sand.

Full exit. Full stop.


edit on 18-10-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Argue about what?
The fact that the imbicile makes factually incorrect statements?
Obama had the house and Senate for 2 years not 2 months.


The filibuster rule was still in effect.

60 Votes in the senate were needed to pass anything.

The Dems only had 57/58.

That's why they needed and got 3 GOP to pass Obamacare.

Obama did not have control of both houses.

www.ohio.com...
edit on 18-10-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2018 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Hey what's up butinski?
The poster in question stated the mocha messiah only had a MAJORITY for 2 months.
That was an easily disproved LIE.

As is yours

en.wikipedia.org...

On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster.[185] The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).[186]The bill was endorsed by the AMA and AARP.[187


ALL REPUBICANS AGAINST
Peddle your bs lies elsewhere

Bunch of dishonest fertilizer salesmen



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


However, you have political leaders in this country...the ones we elect to office, wanting to prevent Billions of Dollars from flowing to U.S. families, just because Saudi Arabia killed one person.


Oh no, keep the billions coming. But dont supply them with anything. They need to pay some of our American families much more than that little 100 billion dollar arms deal for 9/11. Perhaps some blood along with the billions.

In fact if there was a country we were justified in invading after 9/11 in the name of the war on terrorism, it would most certainly be Saudi Arabia.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody



Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.


Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.


www.ohio.com...

Revisionist history much?

GOP proudly bragged about how they were able to obstruct via the 60 vote rule during Pres. Obama's term when dems had technical majority in both houses, but needed 60 votes in the senate to pass anything.

If the GOP hadn't changed the rules, they would be in the same position now.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
October 16, 2018

This is the Trump Administration's position, if it is learned that Saudi Arabia is partly or fully responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.


Senior officials inside the State and Treasury departments are actively discussing plans to exact financial punishment on Saudi Arabia for its role in the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to three people involved in the discussions. The measures, which may include sanctions against the kingdom’s top leaders, could come down the pipeline as early as this week, officials told The Daily Beast.

Staffers and officials, including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have met continuously over the course of the last week in an attempt to detail the possible ways the U.S. could punish the kingdom without negatively impacting the U.S.’s $110 billion Saudi arms deal.

President Donald Trump has so far resisted calls by some lawmakers to halt U.S. military aid to Saudi Arabia in light of Khashoggi’s disappearance, arguing that nixing the arms deals would hurt American jobs.
Source: www.thedailybeast.com...

However, you have political leaders in this country...the ones we elect to office, wanting to prevent Billions of Dollars from flowing to U.S. families, just because Saudi Arabia killed one person.


“If we find that they murdered Khashoggi, there is no way we can do business as usual with the Saudi government. No way,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Daily Beast, pushing back on Trump’s comments.

“That would be a disaster,” added Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), also a member of the committee. “I don’t see how the United States can overlook a human-rights violation as gross as this.”

Lawmakers have started to push back legislatively. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been critical of the U.S.’s support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, introduced a bill on Thursday that would cut off U.S. military aid to Saudi Arabia “until the secretary of state determines that Jamal Khashoggi is alive and free.”
Source: www.thedailybeast.com...

Saudi Arabia has killed, is killing, and will continue to kill people. Why should the U.S. turn away Billions of dollars in Saudi $$$, allowing it to go to Russia, and other countries, simply because Saudi Arabia continues to be itself...for better or worse? As President Trump has said, America "isn't so innocent" on the world's stage either.

The politicians calling for cancelling billions of dollars worth of revenue/income for Americans, based on "principal", need to look in the mirror, and ask themselves WHY they haven't called for action against the Catholic Church in America? Hundreds of Thousands of children have been damaged for life by predator priests...right in their districts.

-CareWeMust






Isn't it MORE ridiculous that we have built our economy around the military industrial complex? And now we have no way out without destroying our economy? So now, forever war is the only way for our society to prosper?

Guess what, unlike libertarians, the "radical" left has an answer! You aren't going to like it though, because it goes against everything you stand for (helping people that need it). Let's talk universal basic income.

So instead of killing innocent civilian women and children to pay the bills, we can get off that murder teat and get back to making the world better.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
October 16, 2018

This is the Trump Administration's position, if it is learned that Saudi Arabia is partly or fully responsible for the murder of Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi.


Senior officials inside the State and Treasury departments are actively discussing plans to exact financial punishment on Saudi Arabia for its role in the alleged murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, according to three people involved in the discussions. The measures, which may include sanctions against the kingdom’s top leaders, could come down the pipeline as early as this week, officials told The Daily Beast.

Staffers and officials, including Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, have met continuously over the course of the last week in an attempt to detail the possible ways the U.S. could punish the kingdom without negatively impacting the U.S.’s $110 billion Saudi arms deal.

President Donald Trump has so far resisted calls by some lawmakers to halt U.S. military aid to Saudi Arabia in light of Khashoggi’s disappearance, arguing that nixing the arms deals would hurt American jobs.
Source: www.thedailybeast.com...

However, you have political leaders in this country...the ones we elect to office, wanting to prevent Billions of Dollars from flowing to U.S. families, just because Saudi Arabia killed one person.


“If we find that they murdered Khashoggi, there is no way we can do business as usual with the Saudi government. No way,” Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Daily Beast, pushing back on Trump’s comments.

“That would be a disaster,” added Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA), also a member of the committee. “I don’t see how the United States can overlook a human-rights violation as gross as this.”

Lawmakers have started to push back legislatively. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who has been critical of the U.S.’s support for the Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, introduced a bill on Thursday that would cut off U.S. military aid to Saudi Arabia “until the secretary of state determines that Jamal Khashoggi is alive and free.”
Source: www.thedailybeast.com...

Saudi Arabia has killed, is killing, and will continue to kill people. Why should the U.S. turn away Billions of dollars in Saudi $$$, allowing it to go to Russia, and other countries, simply because Saudi Arabia continues to be itself...for better or worse? As President Trump has said, America "isn't so innocent" on the world's stage either.

The politicians calling for cancelling billions of dollars worth of revenue/income for Americans, based on "principal", need to look in the mirror, and ask themselves WHY they haven't called for action against the Catholic Church in America? Hundreds of Thousands of children have been damaged for life by predator priests...right in their districts.

-CareWeMust






Isn't it MORE ridiculous that we have built our economy around the military industrial complex? And now we have no way out without destroying our economy? So now, forever war is the only way for our society to prosper?

Guess what, unlike libertarians, the "radical" left has an answer! You aren't going to like it though, because it goes against everything you stand for (helping people that need it). Let's talk universal basic income.

So instead of killing innocent civilian women and children to pay the bills, we can get off that murder teat and get back to making the world better.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: shooterbrody



Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.


Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.


www.ohio.com...

Revisionist history much?

GOP proudly bragged about how they were able to obstruct via the 60 vote rule during Pres. Obama's term when dems had technical majority in both houses, but needed 60 votes in the senate to pass anything.

If the GOP hadn't changed the rules, they would be in the same position now.



lol lies doubled down on with more lies
I previously posted the needed history to refute your first claim as no gop senator voted to pass obamacare

now as to the "gop changing the rules"...you can thank good ole harry reid for that action
www.usatoday.com...



WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed through a controversial change to Senate rules Thursday that will make it easier to approve President Obama's nominees but threatens to further divide an already polarized Congress.


you people and your lies become easier to see through by the day
it is as if you think no one can remember what actually happened or research your phony claims



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

You keep changing your BS.

Reid changed the filibuster on Nominees. Not laws.

And why would he have to that if the Dems had total control of both houses as you claimed?



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

www.senate.gov...

from the congressional record 60 D 39 R

go tell your easily debunked lies elsewhere to others who are more gullible



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Stop. And Rush is talking out his ass and trying to stir up #.
everyone was concerned. Do not say that liberals did not care because that's total bulls#.
Your beef is that they couldn't charge Hillary with anything and that eleven hearings failed to find fault with the state departments actions at the time. Thats Rush's problem too. Its so obvious so please spare us.



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

TiCk tOcK



posted on Oct, 19 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus
a reply to: shooterbrody

You keep changing your BS.

Reid changed the filibuster on Nominees. Not laws.

And why would he have to that if the Dems had total control of both houses as you claimed?



Yes he did to stop republicans from being able to stop nominations under Obama. Problem is when you change the rules its just a matter of time until the other side can do the same.

Im betting Reid wishes he hadn't done that since Republicans have been on a judicial tare. Trump has remade the courts and no one noticed until the supreme court nominations. Funny thing is the supreme court handles a small percentage of case law. Its the lower court judges that do the heavy lifting and he has remade those courts. Your already seeing a diffrence in court decisions.By the way i blame Obama for this his second term he just stopped appointing judges which allowed Trump to fill them.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

edit on 10/19/18 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
13
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join