Republican-led attempt to block Iran deal fails in Senate

[Iceweasel]

So we trained and supplied an Islamic jihadist but it doesn't matter because he was in an army that we supported, that's your final argument? Because he was in an army the fact that he was a jihadist is irrelevant

You can't read. LOL.

Retard!

 

[Nicholas_1982]

You can't defend the mujahideen without defending the people running it. Sorry man you can play both sides of the same argument that you are making.

I claim that for 40 years the u.S. has done business with evil states and terrorist actors. You claim that's not true. Again, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against you.

I almost forgot. We as a country traded with south Africa during aparthied. The U.S. loves dealing with murderers.

I don't need to defend anyone, you're throwing baseless shit out there because you have an ax to grind. Throwing even more assertions out don't help.

Again, wikipedia isn't a source. I am not using wikipedia as the source. The sources are the reference links at the bottom of the pages but it doesn't matter because you refuse to click the links. The argument isn't baseless you just refuse to read

 

[Iceweasel]

You can't defend the mujahideen without defending the people running it. Sorry man you can play both sides of the same argument that you are making.

I claim that for 40 years the u.S. has done business with evil states and terrorist actors. You claim that's not true. Again, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against you.

I almost forgot. We as a country traded with south Africa during aparthied. The U.S. loves dealing with murderers.

I don't need to defend anyone, you're throwing baseless shit out there because you have an ax to grind. Throwing even more assertions out don't help.

Again, wikipedia isn't a source. I am not using wikipedia as the source. The sources are the reference links at the bottom of the pages but it doesn't matter because you refuse to click the links. The argument isn't baseless you just refuse to read

You seriously are retarded. That's not a joke.

 

[Nicholas_1982]

You can't defend the mujahideen without defending the people running it. Sorry man you can play both sides of the same argument that you are making.

I claim that for 40 years the u.S. has done business with evil states and terrorist actors. You claim that's not true. Again, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against you.

I almost forgot. We as a country traded with south Africa during aparthied. The U.S. loves dealing with murderers.

I don't need to defend anyone, you're throwing baseless shit out there because you have an ax to grind. Throwing even more assertions out don't help.

Again, wikipedia isn't a source. I am not using wikipedia as the source. The sources are the reference links at the bottom of the pages but it doesn't matter because you refuse to click the links. The argument isn't baseless you just refuse to read

You seriously are retarded. That's not a joke.

You said that the mujahideen was an army fighting a war against the Soviets. That is a correct statement. One of the members of that army was a terrorist. He was a terrorist when he took a senior leadership position during the Afghan Soviet war. After the war he establishes al Qaeda and continues being a terrorist under a new flag. And you are telling me none of that matters. You mean to tell me the fact that the U.S. government took part in training and supplying the man who would later claim responsibility for the 9/11 attacks isn't relevant to how our foreign policy operates?

You can't defend the mujahideen without defending the people running it. Sorry man you can play both sides of the same argument that you are making.

I claim that for 40 years the u.S. has done business with evil states and terrorist actors. You claim that's not true. Again, the evidence is overwhelmingly stacked against you.

I almost forgot. We as a country traded with south Africa during aparthied. The U.S. loves dealing with murderers.

I don't need to defend anyone, you're throwing baseless shit out there because you have an ax to grind. Throwing even more assertions out don't help.

Again, wikipedia isn't a source. I am not using wikipedia as the source. The sources are the reference links at the bottom of the pages but it doesn't matter because you refuse to click the links. The argument isn't baseless you just refuse to read

You seriously are retarded. That's not a joke.

 

[Nicholas_1982]

Again I will go back to Iraq. Support and prop up Saddam Hussein to fight Iran in the late 70's and early 80's then we have to come back and declare war on him because he invades Kuwait AND uses chemical weapons on his own people AND he is trying to acquire nuclear/biological weapons

 

[Dragonlady]

No, bin Laden was a terrorist and in senior leadership in the mujahideen. So now you are going to claim that the U.S. was playing dumb, that our government was funding an army with a radical Muslim jihadist in a prominent leadership position and we didn't know or didn't care that we were training and supporting

I said what I meant. You want to smear shit on the US, we get it. Those weren't terrorists no matter how bad you want it.

Nobody is smearing shit on the U.S. because they armed terrorists. The U.S. has a long sad history of arming and training rebel groups and having those arms turned on them, including the Syrian Rebels who later became ISIS.

In the early 1980's, Iran was the evil Middle Eastern country, governed by the Mullahs. Iran and Iraq were in a major war. Iran was allied with the Soviets who supplied them with arms. Iraq was aligned with the U.S. and received weapons and training from the U.S.

If you're too stupid to google this fact, there really is no hope for you.

 

[Nicholas_1982]

No, bin Laden was a terrorist and in senior leadership in the mujahideen. So now you are going to claim that the U.S. was playing dumb, that our government was funding an army with a radical Muslim jihadist in a prominent leadership position and we didn't know or didn't care that we were training and supporting

I said what I meant. You want to smear shit on the US, we get it. Those weren't terrorists no matter how bad you want it.

Nobody is smearing shit on the U.S. because they armed terrorists. The U.S. has a long sad history of arming and training rebel groups and having those arms turned on them, including the Syrian Rebels who later became ISIS.

In the early 1980's, Iran was the evil Middle Eastern country, governed by the Mullahs. Iran and Iraq were in a major war. Iran was allied with the Soviets who supplied them with arms. Iraq was aligned with the U.S. and received weapons and training from the U.S.

If you're too stupid to google this fact, there really is no hope for you.

Beware, iceweasel is going to call you a liar

 

[Shrimpbox]

This is why Obama is so reviled by the right. He is a serial liar and a con artist that has no principles other than the concentration of power and no appreciation or love for his country. I had been looking for,this quote for a,while, why repubs can't find it I don't know.

(Begin videotaped interview.)

Well, first of all, thanks for being a man of your word.

SEN. OBAMA: You bet.

MR. O'REILLY: But I was worried there for a while.

SEN. OBAMA: (Laughs.)

MR. O'REILLY: It's been nine months since we last met in New Hampshire.

SEN. OBAMA: It took a little while. I've had a few things to do in between.

MR. O'REILLY: I understand.

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah. But I appreciate you having me on the show.

MR. O'REILLY: Okay. Let's start with national security. Do you believe we're in the middle of a war on terror?

SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely.

MR. O'REILLY: Who is the enemy?

SEN. OBAMA: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam. So we have to go after them.

MR. O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?

SEN. OBAMA: Iran is a major threat. Now, I don't think that there is the same -- they are not part of the same network. You know, you got Shi'a and you got Sunni. We gotta have the ability to distinguish between these groups because, for example, the war in Iraq is a good example where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with al Qaeda which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

MR. O'REILLY: All right. We'll get to that in a minute.

SEN. OBAMA: And as a consequence, we ended up, I think, misdirecting our resources. So they're all part of various terrorist networks that we have to shut down and we have to destroy. But they may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.

MR. O'REILLY: But I still don't understand -- and I'm asking this as an American as well as a journalist -- how threatening you feel Iran is. See, look, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, okay, to me, they're going to give it to Hezbollah if they can develop the technology. Why not? And so we don't have anything to do with it. So therefore, the next president of the United States is going to have to make a decision about Iran, whether to stop them militarily. Because I don't believe -- if diplomacy works, fine. But you've got to have a plan b. And a lot of people are saying, look, Barack Obama's not going to attack Iran.

SEN. OBAMA: Here's where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table.

MR. O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen --

MR. O'REILLY: Answer the question, Senator. Anybody can say options. Would you prepare for it?

SEN. OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody, who is one of two people who could be the president of the United States, to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States interests.

But where I disagree with you is the notion that we've exhausted every other resource. Because the fact of the matter is is that for six, seven years during this administration, we weren't working as closely as we needed to with the Europeans to create --

MR. O'REILLY: Diplomacy might work. You might be able to strangle them economically.

SEN. OBAMA: Sanctions, maybe.

MR. O'REILLY: Maybe. But that's just all hypothetical.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, everything is hypothetical. But the question is, are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them to change their --

MR. O'REILLY: Okay. We'll assume that you're going to ratchet everything you can ratchet.

The problem with the senate non vote is that republicans Who,control the senate surrendered again. This situation was about the will,of the people being voiced. It was time for the nuclear option, but McConnell is more worried about representing senate procedure than he is about representing people. It is not that the deal could have been stopped, but every senator would have had to vote up or down on it. 2016 election this will be a big issue but if they had voted it would be even bigger because Iran will have already violated much of the treaty. Republicans don't have the balls to shake things up and democrats don't have the balls to put country before party. That the American people who believe by 90 percent that Iran is likely to violate this treaty do not,have a chance to have a voice on this critical decision is a travesty that will resonate in the election.

 

[rightwinger]

This is why Obama is so reviled by the right. He is a serial liar and a con artist that has no principles other than the concentration of power and no appreciation or love for his country

This is why the right is not taken seriously. They have political views of a child looking for a fight on the playground. It appeals to those who have a black/white view of politics where your side is the only one who knows what is good and right and the other side is evil and is looking to destroy America

 

[Shrimpbox]

Alinsky gives you an A RW. Accuse the other side of exactly what you are doing. Obama,is,the child with his naive view of the world, but an adult,in his view,of corruption. I uncover a conversation leading up to the 2008 elections where Obama states unequivocally that "it is unacceptable for,Iran to,have a nuclear weapon" there is no misunderstanding that statement. He is a liar. Period. That it is inconvenient for your side to be exposed to the truth and the facts does not make,your,argument valid.

That you refuse to recognize,that Obama is jeopardizing world peace, dividing America, destroying the middle class, and bankrupting our country, and putting all Americans at risk exposes both a delusional and a closed mind. You seem only able to make personal attacks and not carry on a factual debate. I am sorry if you found out there is no Santa Claus .

 

[Iceweasel]

No, bin Laden was a terrorist and in senior leadership in the mujahideen. So now you are going to claim that the U.S. was playing dumb, that our government was funding an army with a radical Muslim jihadist in a prominent leadership position and we didn't know or didn't care that we were training and supporting

I said what I meant. You want to smear shit on the US, we get it. Those weren't terrorists no matter how bad you want it.

Nobody is smearing shit on the U.S. because they armed terrorists. The U.S. has a long sad history of arming and training rebel groups and having those arms turned on them, including the Syrian Rebels who later became ISIS.

In the early 1980's, Iran was the evil Middle Eastern country, governed by the Mullahs. Iran and Iraq were in a major war. Iran was allied with the Soviets who supplied them with arms. Iraq was aligned with the U.S. and received weapons and training from the U.S.

If you're too stupid to google this fact, there really is no hope for you.

Google my hairy ass. People like you love to smear shit, it's what you do. Come back with some evidence, and don't use wackilinks..

 

[Dragonlady]

Alinsky gives you an A RW. Accuse the other side of exactly what you are doing. Obama,is,the child with his naive view of the world, but an adult,in his view,of corruption. I uncover a conversation leading up to the 2008 elections where Obama states unequivocally that "it is unacceptable for,Iran to,have a nuclear weapon" there is no misunderstanding that statement. He is a liar. Period. That it is inconvenient for your side to be exposed to the truth and the facts does not make,your,argument valid.

That you refuse to recognize,that Obama is jeopardizing world peace, dividing America, destroying the middle class, and bankrupting our country, and putting all Americans at risk exposes both a delusional and a closed mind. You seem only able to make personal attacks and not carry on a factual debate. I am sorry if you found out there is no Santa Claus .

I would say that you're the one who is delusional. Obama's treaty is a huge success. Six countries were involved in negotiating this treaty, all of whom have a vested interest in preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. Only Americans are opposing it and they're against it solely because Obama negotiated the deal.

I see no indication of any lies in the transcript you posted. Obama said he opposed Iran getting a nuclear weapon. His deal will ensure it doesn't happen. You think otherwise. What makes you the expert.

As for your laundry list of American problems, I lay these at the feet of 35 years of Republican policies - the shrinking middle class started with Reagan's overhaul of the tax system. The fiscal policies which Reagan put in place have continued regardless of which party has been in power.

As for race relations, a large percentage of the black population were already hanging on by a thread when Obama was elected. Over policing of blacks has contributed to the problem, as does the militarization of the police force.

You only have to look at the sea of white faces at the last Republican National Convention to realize how divided the country still is. Obama hasn't divided the country over race, but he has become a flashpoint for bigots. Those who say "He's not my President" or "He's not one of us" are racists. To say otherwise is to be wilfully blind.

If you think the only way to deal with Iran is to nuke em, you're the one willing to put your country at risk of being destroyed.

 

[rightwinger]

Alinsky gives you an A RW. Accuse the other side of exactly what you are doing. Obama,is,the child with his naive view of the world, but an adult,in his view,of corruption. I uncover a conversation leading up to the 2008 elections where Obama states unequivocally that "it is unacceptable for,Iran to,have a nuclear weapon" there is no misunderstanding that statement. He is a liar. Period. That it is inconvenient for your side to be exposed to the truth and the facts does not make,your,argument valid.

That you refuse to recognize,that Obama is jeopardizing world peace, dividing America, destroying the middle class, and bankrupting our country, and putting all Americans at risk exposes both a delusional and a closed mind. You seem only able to make personal attacks and not carry on a factual debate. I am sorry if you found out there is no Santa Claus .

Our President has moved Iran ten years further from having a nuclear bomb

Republicans want them to make that bomb right now

 

[Iceweasel]

As for your laundry list of American problems, I lay these at the feet of 35 years of Republican policies - the shrinking middle class started with Reagan's overhaul of the tax system. The fiscal policies which Reagan put in place have continued regardless of which party has been in power.

We did great under Reagan. You have dementia.

 

[Shrimpbox]

I want war. I want to nuke em. Statements attributed to me that have never been made. Let me help you out dragon lady, breathing that fire has fried your brain, so let me direct quote one more time. "It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear bomb." He said it. It is a fact. But it is not what he believes, at least not if it gets in the way of his legacy.

Ok, the other countries. You mean like Russia and China, who are rushing in to sell weapons and buy oil. They love the way Obama is being had. The way America is being diminished and neutered. The way we can't even get four Americans released. Europe is only interested in financial gain because they expect the U.S. To do all the heavy lifting if times get tough. Obama has not gained one thing from this deal for the world. If RW thinks it will take ten years to get a bomb he is whistling past the graveyard.

And of course liberals who can't manage a coherent argument relapse into blame bush, although dragon lady's recall can only manage 35 years ago and blame Reagan. 35 years ago. What a reach and what a joke.

And while you dems desperately try to make up lies supporting your man, reality is biting you all in the ass. He has actively made race relations worse. He is,the divider in chief. It is especially glaring if time magazine even says so. I can post dozens of,other supporting articles. Why don't you post some articles on how much better race relations are under Obama. I welcome them.

http://time.com/3970970/americans-race-relations-poll/

If people like dragon lady and RW can not admit the epic foreign policy failures of this president, then there is no room for,objective debate. Partisans in sheeps clothing.

 

[Dragonlady]

As for your laundry list of American problems, I lay these at the feet of 35 years of Republican policies - the shrinking middle class started with Reagan's overhaul of the tax system. The fiscal policies which Reagan put in place have continued regardless of which party has been in power.

We did great under Reagan. You have dementia.

Only a fool would think you did great under Reagan. Fools think they did great under Reagan because he ran huge deficits and spent it all on the military. If your neighbour builds an addition on his house, gets new furniture and a new car, it looks like he's doing well but if it's all done on borrowed money, he's in trouble.

If you look at wage stagnation, the exploding national debt, the transfer of wealth to the top, the explosion of people on food stamps and other assistance, they all began under Reagan.

 

[rightwinger]

As for your laundry list of American problems, I lay these at the feet of 35 years of Republican policies - the shrinking middle class started with Reagan's overhaul of the tax system. The fiscal policies which Reagan put in place have continued regardless of which party has been in power.

We did great under Reagan. You have dementia.

Only a fool would think you did great under Reagan. Fools think they did great under Reagan because he ran huge deficits and spent it all on the military. If your neighbour builds an addition on his house, gets new furniture and a new car, it looks like he's doing well but if it's all done on borrowed money, he's in trouble.

If you look at wage stagnation, the exploding national debt, the transfer of wealth to the top, the explosion of people on food stamps and other assistance, they all began under Reagan.

Short term Reaganomics was great
Long term Reganomics was a disaster, unless you are in the 1%

 

[Iceweasel]

As for your laundry list of American problems, I lay these at the feet of 35 years of Republican policies - the shrinking middle class started with Reagan's overhaul of the tax system. The fiscal policies which Reagan put in place have continued regardless of which party has been in power.

We did great under Reagan. You have dementia.

Only a fool would think you did great under Reagan. Fools think they did great under Reagan because he ran huge deficits and spent it all on the military. If your neighbour builds an addition on his house, gets new furniture and a new car, it looks like he's doing well but if it's all done on borrowed money, he's in trouble.

If you look at wage stagnation, the exploding national debt, the transfer of wealth to the top, the explosion of people on food stamps and other assistance, they all began under Reagan.

I started my business during his years and laugh at retards that try to rewrite history. My business was serving other businesses and they were popping up left and right. My observation mirrors the facts and historians that say the same.

Nor is it true 'he spent it all on the military', presidents don't write the checks and he had to work with Democrats, who wanted the spending. Just not on the military. History proved them wrong too since it crippled the USSR's economy and broke up the empire. Which is why liberals hate Reagan so much. They've almost forgotten and Bush so they can get their Reagan hate back on.