|
|
| Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton (1311330) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1311507) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Sep 1 20:44:38 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by SMAZ on Tue Sep 1 18:09:42 2015. But that's not what he did. |
|
|
| (1311516) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Tue Sep 1 21:02:17 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by bingbong on Tue Sep 1 15:52:09 2015. That's not what advice and consent means... |
|
|
| (1311520) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by Gamera on Tue Sep 1 21:06:13 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Sep 1 17:28:52 2015. ultracrepidarian describes her better |
|
|
| (1311522) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Sep 1 21:17:21 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Gamera on Tue Sep 1 21:06:13 2015. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (1311523) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Tue Sep 1 21:17:51 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Sep 1 19:22:58 2015. Truth! |
|
|
| (1311531) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Sep 1 22:03:49 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Sep 1 17:48:03 2015. When he's wholeheartedly supporting the best interests of a foreign country with barely a hint of how it's in the US' best interests, then it starts getting suspect, even if that country is an ally. It's already been shown that the interests of the US and Israel aren't always in sync. |
|
|
| (1311538) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Sep 1 22:56:43 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Tue Sep 1 22:03:49 2015. It's not suspect at all. If there's no pattern of him putting other countries' interests ahead of ours, to the detriment of us, then there's no basis for assuming that just because he's concerned for an ally of ours means he puts them ahead of us. It's ridiculous. I can't believe you're even seriously suggesting it. |
|
|
| (1311544) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Sep 1 23:57:12 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by SMAZ on Tue Sep 1 18:41:18 2015. So you won't discuss history with your parents. That's your issue, not mine. |
|
|
| (1311545) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Tue Sep 1 23:59:58 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Gamera on Tue Sep 1 20:27:42 2015. Then there are some who are totally.out of the closet. |
|
|
| (1311562) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 2 08:16:53 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Sep 1 19:22:58 2015. Nah, he ain't from Gallifrey. |
|
|
| (1311617) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 14:24:21 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by TerrApin Station on Tue Sep 1 22:56:43 2015. It's not ridiculous and it doesn't have to be pattern. With the Iran deal, an argument has been made that this is in the best interests of the US and not accepting it is detrimental to us. Netanyahu is opposed to it, clearly because he's putting the best interests of Israel first. Cotton has wholeheartedly backed Netanyahu with virtually no explanation as to why dropping the agreement benefits us more than accepting it. Ergo, he's supporting the best interests of a foreign country over those of the US. |
|
|
| (1311620) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Sep 2 14:42:43 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 14:24:21 2015. That is so much bullshit. Are you saying Iran having nuclear weapons won't affect the U.S. at all? Iran has already repeatedly said they will use them on Israel and the U.S. and they have the long range missils to do it.History shows that the world's countries didn't take hitler seriously while he was still weak and bluffing and we all know how that turned out.
|
|
|
| (1311621) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Sep 2 14:43:44 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 14:24:21 2015. With the Iran deal, an argument has been made that this is in the best interests of the US and not accepting it is detrimental to us.Yes, and an argument has also been made that the Iran deal is NOT in the best interests of the US and not accepting it would NOT be detrimental to us. There are two views of this deal! Tom obviously has the latter view. So what is the problem? Why are you assuming that since "an argument has been made (but not universally accepted) that this is in the best interests of the US", anyone who believes other arguments about the deal is committing sedition??? Netanyahu is opposed to it, clearly because he's putting the best interests of Israel first. Cotton has wholeheartedly backed Netanyahu with virtually no explanation as to why dropping the agreement benefits us more than accepting it. Ergo, he's supporting the best interests of a foreign country over those of the US.No, you can not draw that conclusion from that reasoning. The lack of information does not PROVE anything. All you have a right to do is ASK him why he thinks the deal is not in the best interests of the US. |
|
|
| (1311625) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Wed Sep 2 14:48:33 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Sep 2 14:43:44 2015. +1 |
|
|
| (1311633) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 2 15:28:50 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Sep 2 14:43:44 2015. If the rhetoric out of Iran since the "deal" was "finalized" isn't enough to convince some people of how bad it is, then those people are living in a dream world. |
|
|
| (1311634) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 2 15:30:43 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Sep 2 14:42:43 2015. Correct.What else does "Death to America" mean?? |
|
|
| (1311644) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by R2Chinatown on Wed Sep 2 16:08:54 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Sep 2 14:42:43 2015. You mean that you take that "Death to America" bullshit seriously. Any self respecting liberal will tell you that they really don't mean it. It's just the vast right wing media blowing things out of proportion. |
|
|
| (1311657) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 17:01:28 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Sep 2 14:42:43 2015. Are you saying Iran having nuclear weapons won't affect the U.S. at all?Of course it would be bad for the US. Then what's the better way of preventing these weapons from being developed? |
|
|
| (1311658) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Wed Sep 2 17:02:52 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 17:01:28 2015. Turning Iran into a glass bowl but that's not politically expedient. |
|
|
| (1311659) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 17:04:30 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Dave on Wed Sep 2 17:02:52 2015. Yes, among other things. |
|
|
| (1311660) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 2 17:05:21 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Dave on Wed Sep 2 17:02:52 2015. Not expedient for whom? |
|
|
| (1311676) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Wed Sep 2 18:47:40 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton?, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 2 17:05:21 2015. Our "leaders." |
|
|
| (1311691) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 19:57:51 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by terRAPIN station on Wed Sep 2 14:43:44 2015. Yes, and an argument has also been made that the Iran deal is NOT in the best interests of the US and not accepting it would NOT be detrimental to us. There are two views of this deal! Tom obviously has the latter view. So what is the problem? Why are you assuming that since "an argument has been made (but not universally accepted) that this is in the best interests of the US", anyone who believes other arguments about the deal is committing sedition???Because he's taken the position of a foreign leader who is most definitely not looking out for the best interests of the US and has pretty much framed it as such. Tell me, how is Netanyahu's position/policy/etc. going to help the US deal with Iran? No, you can not draw that conclusion from that reasoning. The lack of information does not PROVE anything. All you have a right to do is ASK him why he thinks the deal is not in the best interests of the US. Why ask him? He's had nearly two months to come up with something, and he sure as hell hasn't been silent in the media. |
|
|
| (1311694) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Sep 2 20:10:22 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton?, posted by Dave on Wed Sep 2 18:47:40 2015. Certainly not in terms of their holding on to power, I agree. But ultimately, it'll be their undoing. |
|
|
| (1311720) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Wed Sep 2 22:03:10 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by Jeff Rosen on Wed Sep 2 14:42:43 2015. Are you saying Iran having nuclear weapons won't affect the U.S. at all?Rejecting the deal assures just that. So why do want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons? |
|
|
| (1311738) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Wed Sep 2 23:40:23 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Wed Sep 2 19:57:51 2015. Because he's taken the position of a foreign leaderI really don't understand you. That foreign leader's position is the same position that many American's have. So? Why ask him?Because you have the question. |
|
|
| (1312100) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Sep 4 06:46:48 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by TerrapIN StatiON on Wed Sep 2 23:40:23 2015. I really don't understand you. That foreign leader's position is the same position that many American's have. So?That foreign leader is trying to directly influence a US govt function and undermine the President of the US for his own benefit, not for the benefit of the US. Why ask him? Because you have the question. If a media hound like him hasn't publicized a cogent solution yet, he doesn't have one. |
|
|
| (1312112) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Sep 4 07:24:31 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Fri Sep 4 06:46:48 2015. No law against a foreign leader influencing the U.S. And he's not trying to undermine anything, even if the Presifent deserves undermining. He's trying to save his country from war and our country from a whole lotta headache and probably war too.I'm sure he has one. Everyone has one. |
|
|
| (1312113) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Sep 4 07:39:26 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by TerrApin Station on Fri Sep 4 07:24:31 2015. No law against a foreign leader influencing the U.S. And he's not trying to undermine anything, even if the Presifent deserves undermining. He's trying to save his country from war and our country from a whole lotta headache and probably war too.But it's a bad practice when the other country is supposed to be your ally, as Obama learned. And yes, he was trying to undermine the President by trying to undo his efforts. He's trying to save his country from war and our country from a whole lotta headache and probably war too. Then he's gonna love Tom Cotton, who was virtually advocating just that. Hence when I said a "cogent solution". |
|
|
| (1312116) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Sep 4 08:08:05 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by 3-9 on Fri Sep 4 07:39:26 2015. But it's a bad practice when the other country is supposed to be your ally, as Obama learned.Huh? America is supposed to be Israel's ally but we aren't acting like it in this regard. And yes, he was trying to undermine the President by trying to undo his efforts.His efforts are dumb! Everyone should "undermine" them then! Then he's gonna love Tom Cotton, who was virtually advocating just that. Hence when I said a "cogent solution".No. Doing the agreement and allowing Iran all the benefits they will recieve could end up with Iran bombing Israel. Better we avoid that war and, if we have to go to war, do it now, on our terms. |
|
|
| (1312124) | |
Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri Sep 4 09:03:06 2015, in response to Re: More Sedition from Tom Cotton, posted by terRAPIN station on Fri Sep 4 08:08:05 2015. But it's a bad practice when the other country is supposed to be your ally, as Obama learned.Huh? America is supposed to be Israel's ally but we aren't acting like it in this regard. And yes, he was trying to undermine the President by trying to undo his efforts. His efforts are dumb! Everyone should "undermine" them then! OK, then what is the grand solution for preventing a nuclear Iran? All previous attempts at stopping them have failed. No. Doing the agreement and allowing Iran all the benefits they will recieve could end up with Iran bombing Israel. Better we avoid that war and, if we have to go to war, do it now, on our terms. So it's better to have the sanctions unravel and Iran still getting the economic benefits and also having nukes in a couple of years? Otherwise, good luck convincing Israel going to war with Iran. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||