@DCGoldPants Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I think it's pathetic that so many people in this country do not understand the concept of treason, nor what it entails. Empathize much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Is this treason? Absolutely not. Is this putting Party above country? Absolutely. (And it's amusing watching how many GOP Presidential candidates are on board with it, too. Step right up, boys!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 Love how the party who went nuts over the Dixie Chicks criticizing W Bush apparently think its hunky dory to actively undermine a sitting US President's ongoing treaty talks with a foreign nation to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. Absolutely no cognitive dissonance there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Is this treason? Absolutely not. Is this putting Party above country? Absolutely. (And it's amusing watching how many GOP Presidential candidates are on board with it, too. Step right up, boys!) Treason? No....Treachery? No Doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I was very pissed about this yesterday but I'm enjoying it now. The country is calling the majority of the GoP conference in the senate and some presidential hopefuls traitors and now their supporters are having to defend them in the court of public opinion against enraged accusations of treason. This was just horrendously bad politics on their part. Seriously, how stupid can they be? They managed to make ****ing Iran more reasonable and sympathetic! Is there seriously no one in the party to step up and try and stop this trainwreck before it leaves the station? All that said, it's not lost on me how bad it is for the country that one party in a two party system is such a debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I did see that the 47 also designed their own new flag. Looks familiar though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Is this putting Party above country? Absolutely. I think it's even worse than that. They're willing to trade a black eye for a mushroom cloud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I thought the Daily Show take on it was interesting. The Republicans are doing essentially the same thing that the Democrats did back in 2007. Both would rather play partisan politics and work with Iran than with each other. http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/ial564/under-miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Spin or reality? Is it 97% of actual climate scientists or NOT? Ya'll sound like friggin telemarketers It's a silly semantics game you're playing. There are multiple independent studies that point to the same conclusion. http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full But of course, University of Free Republic knows more than every major scientific organization in the US. So please continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 One Congresswoman privately meeting with a foreign dictator that the then President wanted to isolate is the same thing as 47 Senators signing a letter undermining the President's attempt to achieve additional global security? I like John S. but the equivalency really isn't the same to me. Maybe I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 One Congresswoman privately meeting with a foreign dictator that the then President wanted to isolate is the same thing as 47 Senators signing a letter undermining the President's attempt to achieve additional global security? I like John S. but the equivalency really isn't the same to me. Maybe I'm missing something. I can see it on the basis that it undermined the intent of the sitting President's foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I agree with TEG, the two aren't the same. Had a senator gone to Iran I wouldn't have cared. Had they invited Iran to speak to the senate, same thing, I wouldn't care. They argued and signed their names to a document saying that agreements reached with US presidents are essentially temporary and worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I can see it on the basis that it undermined the intent of the sitting President's foreign policy. Yes, I can see that. But was it a unified movement of the entire (or almost entire) D members in the House? Unknown, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Yes, I can see that. But was it a unified movement of the entire (or almost entire) D members in the House? Unknown, I guess. In the grander scheme of things, Pelosi's move was really quite irrelevant and that's where the equivalency falls short for me. This move, especially in light that Republicans themselves don't really have a plan for dealing with Iran, is partisan hackery at its best but also puts the country in a really bad diplomatic position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 It's a silly semantics game you're playing. I'll take that as Not. Someone else is playing word games, a rather expensive game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'll take that as Not. Someone else is playing word games, a rather expensive game. Explain it to every major scientific organization in the US, who are all apparently playing word games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Explain it to every major scientific organization in the US, who are all apparently playing word games. His views are on par with 911 conspiracy theorists. "Its all a giant government plot to control you and take away your freedumb" Freedumb = the right to be stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Explain it to every major scientific organization in the US, who are all apparently playing word games. they cannot be trusted if they take funds from ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 they cannot be trusted if they take funds from ....... Conspiracy theories are cute. Your skills are perhaps better suited on infowars.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 they cannot be trusted if they take funds from ....... If there is an agreement that once they take the funds the will only accept certain outcomes, you'd have a point. Science doesn't work like that and too many people believe that it does. Then there are the cynics that just don't want their industry impinged upon and don't care what it does, within certain limits, ecologically. Politicians take funds with the explicit understanding that they will back legislation and a particular outcome. Scientists don't. Not most of them anyway. And it's pretty easy to tell when they have. You see the difference right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 If there is an agreement that once they take the funds the will only accept certain outcomes, you'd have a point. Science doesn't work like that and too many people believe that it does. Then there are the cynics that just don't want their industry impinged upon and don't care what it does, within certain limits, ecologically. Politicians take funds with the explicit understanding that they will back legislation and a particular outcome. Scientists don't. Not most of them anyway. And it's pretty easy to tell when they have. You see the difference right? He does. It's just years of denial he will have to admit to being pointless. So now he's backed himself into calling it a worldwide scientific conspiracy. Alex Jones would be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Boy, what the Republicans did must be really indefensible. Once again, their defenders have managed to pivot the topic almost completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Boy, what the Republicans did must be really indefensible. Once again, their defenders have managed to pivot the topic almost completely. sure wasn't a defender that opened that door Politicians take funds with the explicit understanding that they will back legislation and a particular outcome. Scientists don't. Not most of them anyway. And it's pretty easy to tell when they have. You see the difference right? I certainly do, which is why I wish transparency. science does not determine policy though, tis politicians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Boy, what the Republicans did must be really indefensible. Once again, their defenders have managed to pivot the topic almost completely. Their defenders had lots of help. Starting with the thread creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Their defenders had lots of help. Starting with the thread creator. It was a reasonable parallel. Now, the topic is buried. Sure, the discipline lacks, but boy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.