hillery can't stop - Page 21

Iran has been a designated state sponsor of terrorism since 1984. That makes it a crime to give money to them. Including committing treason. The us was not obligated to give iran the 400 million, in fact it was prohibited.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2339B

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2015/09/obama-congress-guilty-of-treason-2741984.html

Yes, If you investigate the banking situation in Iran, John Kerry admits there aren't any USA restrictions. But Europe balks, still! They won't engage... Because the Iranian military has this funny way of grabbing funds they find in Iranian banks,

Please, do your due diligence! And then we can revisit this!

@Joan, was Reagan a criminal?

@beetree, one way or another the money could end up with the military. We could say it has to go to infrastructure and they can cut their infrastructure budget by 400 million and increase the military budget 400 million.

We buy Saudi oil. They sponsor terrorism and spread Wahhabism throughout the globe.

"What difference, at this point, does it make?! "

Is Reagan guilty of 'fundamentally changing America' ?

Is Reagan guilty of treason?

@Joan, do you even read the links you post? I hope not because if you do then you might have a learning disability. You post that Iran is designated a state sponsor of terror then link to the law which you claim Obama violated. That law applies to terrorist ORGANIZATIONS not nations.

The other link that claims Obama is guilty of treason is wrong. That's a legal conclusion that a court decides so it is only the writer's opinion. A writer who believes we have martial law and Armageddon is coming. Where is this martial law? It also claims we are giving Iran almost 12 billion dollars.

The bio for one of the writers is great. It says he lives in Maryland with his comics. His writing is so bad he couldn't get the job he really wants: writing comics. But he still manages to write fiction.

@Noitsyou. The line item argument might work to deflect others, but that is exactly why I keep propelling you to the front of the class.

Joan said, ""What difference, at this point, does it make?! "

Is Reagan guilty of 'fundamentally changing America' ?

Is Reagan guilty of treason?"

Usually a question is answered with...an answer.

I'll answer yours, since I'm not as scared as you.

There is a difference to you, based on your tribalism and hypocrisy. The difference is that Reagan broke the law and Obama didn't. You see it the opposite.

Yes, Reagan is guilty of fundamentally changing America, in a negative way. Our prison population is one example.

Yes, if the argument for Obama being a traitor is applied to him. He escaped punishment because he couldn't remember and others were willing to take the fall. He repeated that phrase or some variant 124 times when testifying. Given what we know about his Alzheimer's he may have been telling the truth, for once. Whether he technically committed treason is debatable but if we use the actual definition and interpretation of said definition by your article then he is. He did beak the law regardless.

@beetree, what do you want me to say? If I condemn Obama on this then I have to condemn Reagan. But even if I believe that Obama did something wrong I won't since others refuse to even give an opinion on what Reagan did. I'm the only one who has to be 100% honest and have integrity? I don't argue that way. If someone wants me to put everything on the table they need to do the same. If they are going to be evasive, or worse and lie, then I won't take it further.

What this means is, I can't have an honest discussion on what Obama did unless people are willing to explain why they give Reagan a pass (or don't give him a pass). Why? Because it isn't an honest discussion on a particular type of action, in this case giving Iran money or weapons or anything of benefit, but rather a discussion of why Obama is wrong. In other words Joan, for example, can cry about Obama being a traitor because of what he did but it isn't really about what he did since she won't say the same about Reagan. What's the point of that argument? She has a deep bias against Obama so there is no way to have an honest argument. I'll be focusing on the action and she'll be focusing on Obama. In fact, who did it shouldn't matter since we are talking about WHAT he did. If Joan or anyone else admits that what Reagan did was wrong then we discuss how what Obama did was similar, or different. I prefer rational and as much as possible bias free arguments over being rational and arguing with someone who isn't.

True Americans are not alone in their outrage over b Hussein's 'questionable' actions...

http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2016/08/06/sunni-social-media-fumes-report-us-paid-iran-400-million-cash/