• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State Dept admits: $400M payment was contingent on release of prisoners

How is making the return of someone's belongings conditional or their actions a ransom? Seems to me that the USA held Iran's money to ransom till they paid up with American prisoners.
 
I posted evidence of Obama's lie...complete with video of him speaking and you haven't said a word about it.
Why would you post a lie I can so easily prove a lie?
Which one? The one where I badly schooled him on facts and he never responded, even though he was the one who first talked about honesty? Or is it the one where he posted a REALLY tiny picture which, when blown up to a decent size, in no way shows what you're claiming it shows?

If you're referring to the tiny picture, if you could please show me where this money A) went to Iran and B) was wired to Iran, I'd greatly appreciate it.

See, I did exactly what the website told me to do. But nothing on that page says anything about Iran. Nothing on that page says money was wired to Iran. And certainly nothing on that page says the money the USA gave Iran wasn't its own money, which kind of negates the idea of a ransom in the first place.

So if you can prove to me all of those things, I'll happily revisit the debate. So it's on you now.
D) I responded to your biased source and have put the onus on Mason, and now you, to show your source is accurate and not just another misdirection (like you tried last time).

Is this just what you do? Every time I expose your ridiculous partisanship, you just ignore facts and reality and post another lie? Are you familiar with the term "integrity"?
What more do you want?
I want you to acknowledge you reposted a lie earlier in this thread, a lie I exposed as a lie, a lie which you've not acknowledged. I want you to show a little integrity and honesty.

Why are you so unwilling to do that?
 
How is making the return of someone's belongings conditional or their actions a ransom? Seems to me that the USA held Iran's money to ransom till they paid up with American prisoners.
That's basically what happened. But extreme partisans rarely care about facts and they'll latch onto any lie which makes them feel better.
 
Why would you post a lie I can so easily prove a lie?

LOL!!

Are you saying the video is a lie? Or are you saying the Treasury records are a lie?

In any case, if you can prove Obama didn't lie so easily, then what's stopping you? I'm not.

sigh...

More word games from you. It's all you have.


you-are-dismissed-749788.jpg
 
I know! After I absolutely drubbed you on that Tribunal thing, I didn't figure you'd ever come back to the thread. But since you're here, where is your "honest response" to the Tribunal thing I proved you wrong on?

Which one? The one where I badly schooled him on facts and he never responded, even though he was the one who first talked about honesty? Or is it the one where he posted a REALLY tiny picture which, when blown up to a decent size, in no way shows what you're claiming it shows?

If you're referring to the tiny picture, if you could please show me where this money A) went to Iran and B) was wired to Iran, I'd greatly appreciate it.

See, I did exactly what the website told me to do. But nothing on that page says anything about Iran. Nothing on that page says money was wired to Iran. And certainly nothing on that page says the money the USA gave Iran wasn't its own money, which kind of negates the idea of a ransom in the first place.

So if you can prove to me all of those things, I'll happily revisit the debate. So it's on you now.

About what? The United States didn't do this in secret, which is what jonny5 claimed. How would ANYTHING Mycroft posted change that? Are you going to admit you have trouble following conversations?

Since you are so big on proof, please provide proof, other the the administrations word, that the 400M in cash was credited to the money owed as they said it was.
 
LOL!!

Are you saying the video is a lie? Or are you saying the Treasury records are a lie?
No, I'm saying your post which claims I haven't addressed your post is a lie. Is reading comprehension really this difficult for some people?

In any case, if you can prove Obama didn't lie so easily, then what's stopping you? I'm not.
Wonderful attempt at a fallacy. I addressed your comment, you're the one alleging a lie. It's on you to prove it. I already noted the flaw in your post, so now you have to prove your position. Which you won't do because you obviously don't care about facts or honesty.

And, once more, I see you have ignored how I made you look silly earlier in the thread. Perhaps one of these days integrity will be more highly valued.
Since you are so big on proof, please provide proof, other the the administrations word, that the 400M in cash was credited to the money owed as they said it was.
I already have, multiple times in this thread.
 
No, I'm saying your post which claims I haven't addressed your post is a lie. Is reading comprehension really this difficult for some people?

Wonderful attempt at a fallacy. I addressed your comment, you're the one alleging a lie. It's on you to prove it. I already noted the flaw in your post, so now you have to prove your position. Which you won't do because you obviously don't care about facts or honesty.

LOL!!

Sorry, but saying, "Nuh-uh!!" isn't proof of anything.
 
LOL!!

Sorry, but saying, "Nuh-uh!!" isn't proof of anything.
I didn't say "nuh-uh", I laid out very specific arguments. The fact you are, once again, trying to deflect from them show you have no desire for honest debate. I gave a very thorough smashing of your Tribunal argument (which you still have shown no honesty in acknowledging) and provided very credible arguments against your tiny picture which says nothing about Iran or wire transfer or ransom. You, on the other hand, simply continue to consistently ignore what I post in order to keep up your nakedly partisan objectives.

I guess earlier in the thread when you said you wanted my "honest opinion", you were not at all interested in holding yourself to the same standard.
 
Back
Top Bottom