Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this happened under a Republican president, all the liberals would be acting like the conservatives are, and the reverse would be as true as well. Call like it is people, one hand washed the other on this. The timing was to coincidental, for 2 major events like this to happen, as not to be connected.
You can believe anything you want, even Breitbart. I want facts, and when someone makes a claim, seemingly out of thin air, I want them to prove it. Even you say you simply assume a plane was carrying cash, when there is nothing to indicate what it carried.
Semantics here... prove it how? What would satisfy you? What do you consider factual?
Semantics here... prove it how? What would satisfy you? What do you consider factual?
Actual proof. Anything that would prove their claim. You do not require it, but I do. I don'l like to be played for a fool, where someone invents a claim and expects me to believe it without any proof.
Actual proof. Anything that would prove their claim. You do not require it, but I do. I don'l like to be played for a fool, where someone invents a claim and expects me to believe it without any proof.
What is actual proof? Does someone need to be on the plane with a smartphone taking a picture of the cash? Is it a news report? Is it multiple reports? Is it a blog post? Is it a firsthand account?
Define the terms instead of being vague. I am asking you to spell it out with details so we all know what you are looking for.
Usually people want info from a "reputable" news group. They want a firsthand account. They look at supporting evidence from others, or look for trends of behavior to come to a conclusion. What is it for you?
If this happened under a Republican president, all the liberals would be acting like the conservatives are, and the reverse would be as true as well. Call like it is people, one hand washed the other on this. The timing was to coincidental, for 2 major events like this to happen, as not to be connected.
No. We both know if this was a Republican president, instead of successfully negotiating a deal, we would be in another decade long war like Iraq.
I know you cons get a hard-on thinking of war, but at this time we can't afford another one.
So why give them any money? And during a prisoner exchange. Did Reagan give them money when our hostages were returned?
Josh Ernest, just a sack of lies doing his masters bidding for plausible deniabilty to his majesty
What is actual proof? Does someone need to be on the plane with a smartphone taking a picture of the cash? Is it a news report? Is it multiple reports? Is it a blog post? Is it a firsthand account?
Define the terms instead of being vague. I am asking you to spell it out with details so we all know what you are looking for.
Let's see what proof they have. In a court of law, the defense does not have to spell out what kind of proof they have, it is the prosecutions job to provide it and persuade the jury that it is enough. I do not know how they are going to prove it, and I don't know why they make claims they cannot prove. I guess it is politics as usual.
You are basically admitting they do not have anything but an assumption, and you are also admitting that is enough for you. I am sorry, but I need more than that. I don't need a picture of the cash, since we know the cash was there, it was even announced in January they were sending it there. I want them to prove it was for ransom. I am not asking YOU for anything, so I don't know why you take the "lets see what we can do" stance, as if you were a part of it. Whoever made the claim will now need to prove it.
As I noted on another thread, during her allotted time, a female reporter asked Josh Earnest if the hostages would have been released if the money had failed to be delivered. Earnest didn't answer the question. She asked the same question again. Again, Josh Earnest didn't answer the question. She asked the same question a third time, and again Josh Earnest didn't answer the question. Her time was up at that point.
Whatever Josh Earnest's shortcomings are, I'm sure understanding her simple question was within his wheelhouse. I'm also sure he is capable of uttering the word yes. But he did not.
This was broadcast on television. Given the time that I saw it (right after turning the TV on when I returned to my hotel at about 9pm), the original broadcast had occurred earlier in the day.
This was public information back in January. Some media covered it. Some members of Congress made clear, at the time, it looked like ransom.
Then suddenly, it's becomes " Breaking News" during the campaign.
Some media have created a perception this was US tax payer money instead of Iran's money that was seized in 1979.
So why give them any money? And during a prisoner exchange. Did Reagan give them money when our hostages were returned?
Josh Ernest, just a sack of lies doing his masters bidding for plausible deniabilty to his majesty
The Hague court had not settled the Iran money issues at Reagan's time, so he didn't send anything. The issue is settled now, so they are getting their money back. Actually the whole idea that someone would pay a ransom with the kidnappers own money is silly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
