MESSAGE
| DATE | 2016-11-15 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] I'm sure it's a coincidence, part n+1
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (mrbrklyn-at-panix.com):
> No, but your still wrong There is no way to prove it despite the BILL
> and the VOTE for the ACT, which is what the A is for. So you wouldn't
> take any proof anyway.
I would be glad to accept proof, but claiming that a treaty cannot be an
Article II treaty just because its name ends in the word Act is
(obviously) not even remotely a relevant argument. Anyway, I guess
we'll be dropping that as of now.
Anyway, that aside, I'll call attention once again to the fundamental
insanity of blaming on the First Lady a bill negotiated by the US Trade
Representative, then signed by the President, then ratified by a
_unanimous vote of the Senate_. Your reasoning for this bizarre
conclusion of yours was (paraphrased) 'she approved of it'.
Riggghht! Perhaps it's the White House Chef's fault? Did you
investigate to see whether the Chef approved of it?
One hundred Senators and the President voted for the bill, but your
takeway is that the _First Lady_ did it? Really?
On another matter, you've just attempted to claim I've committed an
assault on the Jewish people by casting a California vote for electors
pledge to Clinton/Kaine -- an action that I've cheerfully explained
several times has exactly zero pragmatic effect, as California's 55
electors are a foregone conclusion, same as New York's 29 electors -- on
the basis of some extremely bizarre and tortuous theory of Clinton being
an anti-Semite (including a lot of ranting blather about the Iran
treaty) -- while utterly ignoring the _actual_ anti-Semites about to
move into the White House as at least one key member of the Trump
Administration, i.e., Mr. Bannon the alt-right shithead.
So, that's pretty batshit crazy. But let's talk about the Iran Treaty
for the moment. It's Secretary Clinton's fault, you say, and that's a
big part of why (you say) she's trying to kill Jews.
If so, neat trick. Are you saying she has a time machine? Because if
she doesn't, I'm unclear on how Secretary of State Clinton, who served
from 2009 to 2013, was responsible for a treaty negotiated under her
successor John Kerry in mid-2015.
In mid-2015, her position in the Administration was... er...
nonexistent.
So, which is it, Ruben? Time machine, or Ruben making another huge
blunder like relocating Dubrovnik to Colorado? Please do clarify. I'm
curious. If she really _does_ have a time machine, I have a small
errand I'd like to do in 1968.
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
