Here's Why We Need Conservative Justices On The Court

[SavannahMann]

Now, what kind of Justices do we really need? Ones who are not going to find exceptions to every single civil right every chance they get.

It is widely accepted that the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights were limits on Government. It created the framework for a justice system that had a very high threshold to reach to violate the civil rights of the individual. On paper those rights are awesome. In practice, those rights are so watered down as to be meaningless.

We need Justices who are going to hold to the letter of the Amendments, instead of finding exception after exception. We are all familiar with the Miranda Warning. You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Ok. So at any time you have the right to shut the hell up and stop answering questions. Except that when someone did that, the Prosecutor said that the person did not invoke their Fifth Amendment, and their refusal to answer questions was used as proof of their guilt. The exact opposite of what was intended. Instead of putting the burden on the Government to prove guilt, thanks to the Supremes we have a system where you have to prove you are innocent.

The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You - The Atlantic

We need Justices who are not going to find fifty thousand exceptions to your right to be secure in person and papers. We need Justices who are not going to find exceptions to all of our rights. Exceptions should be rare, and extreme. Not common.

All the Conservatives decided your silence could be used against you. So do we need more Conservatives to erode our civil rights? Wouldn’t the “conservatives” and “Origianlists” be in favor of protecting the letter of the Civil Rights as well as the intent?

Conservatives found that ignorance of the law was a great excuse for the police to violate your civil rights. Why do you want more of that? Wouldn’t we want fewer situations where we’re going to rubber stamp excesses by the police? I mean, we are essentially making the police untouchable, and unaccountable which is the exact opposite of the intent of the framers for a limited Government.

While you are squalling about something the Supreme Court has NOTHING TO DO WITH the Iran Nuclear Agreenemnt, you are ignoring all the things that the Supremes do have say in. Things like Kelo which allows the Goverment to take your land, and give it to campaign contributors. Obviously NOT the intent of the Founders when they described Eminent Domain. But hey, we need more Conservatives who are going to give the Government even more authority over our lives and strip away even more of our rights because that was what the Founders fought against by declaring independence.

In other words, your entire asinine argument is so full of shit you must literally have it squirting out your years like a fountain.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[Lastman]

This query is momentous:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

nothing was ever guaranteed to anyone. Ah. Damn it feels good to say it.

 

[SavannahMann]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

 

[SavannahMann]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

And finally. Where did the Supreme Court come into play in this situation? No case about it has reached the court, and as far as I know, and Google knows, no case is working its way up there. So why are you using the Iran Nuclear Deal which has nothing to do with the court as justification for the need of a type of justice on the court while ignoring issues and cases which do have things to do with the court?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This query is momentous:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

nothing was ever guaranteed to anyone. Ah. Damn it feels good to say it.

Stop lying.

Of course it was guaranteed.


....contrary to all of his promises not to do so, and in contravention of the non-proliferation agreement that is our policy, Hussein Obama guaranteed nuclear weapons to Iran....and you can't see a problem with that.


Gads, you're an imbecile




1. NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.


2. There was never....NEVER....any reason to allow the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism to have nuclear weapons.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

And finally. Where did the Supreme Court come into play in this situation? No case about it has reached the court, and as far as I know, and Google knows, no case is working its way up there. So why are you using the Iran Nuclear Deal which has nothing to do with the court as justification for the need of a type of justice on the court while ignoring issues and cases which do have things to do with the court?

This is the question you're dodging:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?

Okay, you realize that if we start executing other country's citizens, they are going to start executing our citizens, right?

What a fucking retard , that's how you spin it?

 

[SavannahMann]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. In Medellin vs. Texas (2008), the International Court of Justice ruled that Texas could not execute a convicted murderer. The Supreme Court ruled that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law. The vote was 6 to 3 (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg). How long before the Supreme Court throws out the Constitution?



2. In May, 2009 Spanish judges are boldly declaring their authority to prosecute high-ranking government officials in the United States, but our government has not protested this nonsense, akin to piracy, and has, in fact, accepted an internationalist atmosphere which makes this sort of thing seem plausible.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.




3. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges,...American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.”
Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court, and Vice Versa




4. "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

b. ....to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris,... a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution.

c. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

d. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....

e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty






5. Yesterday:

“President Trump let the world know at the U.N. today that he’s sticking to his vision of America-first sovereignty, rather than cede power to U.N. multilateralists — to their great dismay. Too bad for them: Mr. Trump’s approach is working.

“America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he told world leaders at the UN General Assembly. This country “will not tell you how to live or work or worship.” But we “ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

…vowing to “never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy.” Globalists at U.N. Rage at Trump



No wonder the Left/Democrats/Liberals are fighting, tooth and nail, against Trump.....

We are opposed to Trumpism, which everyday and in every way mirrors fascism. Trump is a danger to us and the world. He is a megalomaniac, a narcissist and an Authoritarian.

He is not a conservative, not a liberal, and in my opinion, and the opinion of many others (liberal and conservative) nuts. More precisely he does not learn from experience and acts without due consideration for the consequence of his words and actions.

That he is your idea of what a President should be, is not surprising. You have much in common with him, i.e. Narcissism.

Bullshit, Trump is a liberal.



.

 

[SavannahMann]

So explain to me how the agreement to reduce the amount of Nuclear Material in Iran is giving them the Bomb? After all, the inspectors, you know the ones who are watching Iran first hand, say that Iran is in compliance with the deal.

Iran is complying with nuclear deal restrictions: IAEA report | Reuters

Now according to Trump the reason we pulled out is that Iran did not meet non existent obligations on issues never raised during negotiations. Just like Obama said that Syria was in violation of the Chemical Weapons Ban, that they never signed, Trump says that Iran is in violation of agreements never made.

In other words, Trump and Obama are just the same, holding people they don’t like to standards that were never agreed to in the first fucking place.

Now, with six hundred kilograms of Radioactive Material, refined low enough for reactor use, but not enriched enough for weapons, and with no plutonium being manufactured, where is the bomb material going to come from?

That’s the great part. You just stomp your foot and say they are in violation and the previous administration gave them the bomb. Ok. Where is the evidence. Because we fell for the mystery WMD argument once. Are we supposed to fall for it again?

You have ignored the results predicted and even wargamed out that show Iran really hurting us if we go to war. Why not ignore it. It doesn’t fit your narrative. So like all weak debaters and shallow morons, you run around screaming that everyone has to dance to your tune.

What violations were the Iranians involved in? The Israeli’s say that the violation is that Iran refused to admit that Israel has a right to exist. I think Israeli Nuclear Weapons have a lot more to say about that issue than the word of the Iranians. Want to cut off support for various Terrorist groups? Well first we have to be talking, and we aren’t doing much of that while we stamp our foot and say that now the nuclear deal is all dependent upon issues that were NEVER DISCUSSED when the deal was reached.

We may have been the best friend our allies ever had in 1961. But today, we are the worst friend anyone could have. It’s been that way since 9-11. We’ve become the bullies, and the rest of the world is getting sick of it.

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now...focus like a laser on the question:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

 

[SavannahMann]

There be the rub. It didn’t. It is impossible to manufacture nuclear weapons with reactor quality uranium. It just can not happen. It must be enriched to a much higher level. Impurities would guarantee that the bomb did not go boom.

So why are you worked up over nuclear reactors? Are you one of those no nukes environmentalists who thinks we can all get by on solar panels and wind turbines?

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Gads....you're as dumb as asphalt.

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

 

[SavannahMann]

OK. I’m going to keep this short and perhaps your limited attention span can get it.

What does it have to do with the Supreme Court? What does anything to do with Iran have to do with the Supreme Court and the advantage of Conservative Justices? You seem to be making a case for a Conservative pro war State Department while arguing about Supreme Court Justices. I’m not sure, but can you actually troll your own thread?

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is the question:
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

 

[SavannahMann]

No, The question is what does the Iran Deal have to do with the Supreme Court? That is the topic of this thread.

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.

I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.

You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I believe we've plumbed the depths of both your dishonesty and your stupidity.

You're dismissed.

I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.

You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.

Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?

No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....

....mission accomplished.

You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.

According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?

Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......

This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.

Really?

So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?


What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.

You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.

Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.

View attachment 218823

I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.

You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?

My argument is for sovereignty.


You've given up the argument by being unable to answer this question.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?



Not one of you Liberals has been able to defend guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.