Lying About The Nuclear Deal

[PoliticalChic]

that would be a topic of a real negotiation.

Yeah, you folks were really backing Obama with the Bergdahl swap, weren't you?

That was no negotiation.
That was Obama's way of giving five enemy elites their freedom to attack us.

And, "cost the lives of six American soldiers. ..."
We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night - The Daily Beast

 

[nat4900]

3. So the great obama deal just "postpones" an inevitible war? Wow, how wonderful. If its inevitible, why not do it now before they get nukes?

Moronic response....Does Iran have a nuke TODAY???basically, "lets have a war now, why wait for the fun to start?"

Iran, like N. Korea and Pakistan, will eventually have a nuke...Our best bet is for an Iranian nuke to be in safer hands. Israel has opened the Pandora's Box by having an estimated 300-400 nukes since the late 1950s.

 

[nat4900]

1. the sanctions have worked, thats why they even came to the table for this stupid deal, to get them lifted

2. War is more likely with the deal. Israel and Saudi Arabia will not tolerate an Iran with nukes.

The MAIN reason why Iran is willing to come to the table (remember they did not have to in order to complete their nuclear aspirations) is to openly sell their surplus oil.....which is also the main reason why the highly corrupt Saudi Arabia regime does not want to lower the cost of THEIR oil.

 

[nat4900]

No, because he made a terrible deal. 4 terrorists for a deserter and colaborator? Thats not a swap, thats taking it up the ass.

Somehow, your response....verbatim...was expected; right wingers are very, very predictable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, because he made a terrible deal. 4 terrorists for a deserter and colaborator? Thats not a swap, thats taking it up the ass.

Somehow, your response....verbatim...was expected; right wingers are very, very predictable.

Not to mention their obsession with anal intercourse.

 

[nat4900]

Thats not a swap, thats taking it up the ass.

Another right winger practicing (with poor results) his skills at Shakespearean sonnet writing.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.

(The choice is blatantly false.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.

...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.

A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.



The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.



...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.

In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.

The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.



The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal

 

[nat4900]

A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.

The above is when you HAVE to expect to be called a moron....

How is a deal making it EASIER for Iran to finalize a nuke?

I realize you're looking for the rhetoric to be met with "cheers" from your fellow right wingers........but rhetoric cannot be a substitute for logic, sanity and facts.

 

[nat4900]

...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.

Let's say the deal fails IN THE U.S..........We would indeed be "standing alone" since China and Russia....and probably Germany... won't give a flying crap about the AIPAC-bought congress in the U.S.

 

[nat4900]

The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime

China (and Germany and France) desperately NEED Iranian oil. Sanctions on Iran will NOT increase by these countries and they would readily cheat on the existing ones.....and Iran well knows this.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

1. “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.

(The choice is blatantly false.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.

...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.

A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.



The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.



...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.

In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.

The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.



The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal

Not a single thought of your own in your post, you bloody PLAGURIST! Citing the source at the bottom of the page without proper and customary attribution to each discrete portion OR Notice Cover of Attribution and of Emphasis is despicable, goes far beyond the Fair Use Doctrine and just a form of lying through your teeth.

PC = Failed Character / Flawed Person

 

[PoliticalChic]

“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
―Yogi Berra




My confession about a prediction: I was sure Romney would win.


I was so certain that the American public would not re-elect this loser....but it turned out that there were enough losers to give this loser the victory. And, sadly for us all, OBAMA went on to double down on failure and ineptitude..




But I'm ready to make another prediction: when it comes to a vote on the Iran nuclear deal in the Senate, Chuck Schumer will prove that neither his religion nor his patriotism take precedent to his party.

One more lock-step Liberal selling out the nation and the world.

Today:

"Washington (CNN)New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, an influential Jewish Democrat who's poised to assume leadership of his party in the Senate, will oppose President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, he announced on Thursday evening.

"After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval," Schumer wrote in a 1,600-word post on the website Medium.

"I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy," he added later. "It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power."
Chuck Schumer to vote against Iran deal - CNNPolitics.com



First.....I'll believe it when I see it.


Second....I hope I was as wrong about Schumer as I was about Romney winning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.

(The choice is blatantly false.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.

...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.

A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.



The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.



...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.

In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.

The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.



The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal

Not a single thought of your own in your post, you bloody PLAGURIST! Citing the source at the bottom of the page without proper and customary attribution to each discrete portion OR Notice Cover of Attribution and of Emphasis is despicable, goes far beyond the Fair Use Doctrine and just a form of lying through your teeth.

PC = Failed Character / Flawed Person

Obviously you are either lying or you don't understand what plagiarism is.

As you admit...I "cite the source."

Your own words identify you as a lying blowhard.



The fact is, liars from your side of the aisle will do anything and say anything to attempt to deny the facts that show you to be low-life fascists.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

1. “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.

(The choice is blatantly false.

Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.

...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.

A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.



The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.



...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.

In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.

The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.



The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal

Not a single thought of your own in your post, you bloody PLAGURIST! Citing the source at the bottom of the page without proper and customary attribution to each discrete portion OR Notice Cover of Attribution and of Emphasis is despicable, goes far beyond the Fair Use Doctrine and just a form of lying through your teeth.

PC = Failed Character / Flawed Person

Obviously you are either lying or you don't understand what plagiarism is.

As you admit...I "cite the source."

Your own words identify you as a lying blowhard.



The fact is, liars from your side of the aisle will do anything and say anything to attempt to deny the facts that show you to be low-life fascists.

Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?

None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.

That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!

Q.E.D.

 

[Redfish]

3. So the great obama deal just "postpones" an inevitible war? Wow, how wonderful. If its inevitible, why not do it now before they get nukes?

Moronic response....Does Iran have a nuke TODAY???basically, "lets have a war now, why wait for the fun to start?"

Iran, like N. Korea and Pakistan, will eventually have a nuke...Our best bet is for an Iranian nuke to be in safer hands. Israel has opened the Pandora's Box by having an estimated 300-400 nukes since the late 1950s.

no, idiot. the idea is to keep them from ever getting one. this so-called deal will ensure that they will get nukes.

 

[Redfish]

Thats not a swap, thats taking it up the ass.

Another right winger practicing (with poor results) his skills at Shakespearean sonnet writing.

the truth really presents a problem for you doesn't it?

 

[nat4900]

no, idiot. the idea is to keep them from ever getting one. this so-called deal will ensure that they will get nukes.

So, WITHOUT the deal they wouldn't get a nuke, deadfish?

See....you're just too much of an imbecile to debate.

 

[Redfish]

no, idiot. the idea is to keep them from ever getting one. this so-called deal will ensure that they will get nukes.

So, WITHOUT the deal they wouldn't get a nuke, deadfish?

See....you're just too much of an imbecile to debate.

They get nukes either way. The difference is that with the deal they also get sanctions lifted and billions of dollars. And we get--------------------------------------------nothing. and 4 american hostages remain in iranian prisons.

At least with sanctions on them it makes it harder for them to make a nuclear bomb.

But rest easy, if they get close to having a bomb, either Israel or saudi arabia will take the bomb factory off the map.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

no, idiot. the idea is to keep them from ever getting one. this so-called deal will ensure that they will get nukes.

So, WITHOUT the deal they wouldn't get a nuke, deadfish?

See....you're just too much of an imbecile to debate.

They get nukes either way. The difference is that with the deal they also get sanctions lifted and billions of dollars. And we get--------------------------------------------nothing. and 4 american hostages remain in iranian prisons.

At least with sanctions on them it makes it harder for them to make a nuclear bomb.

But rest easy, if they get close to having a bomb, either Israel or saudi arabia will take the bomb factory off the map.

We have no hostages there, we have criminals.

 

[nat4900]

We have no hostages there, we have criminals.

What the deadfish nitwit doesn't know, is that we also hold in our prisons 12 Iranians, whom we suspect of violating sanctions against their country.
Of course, to right wingers the U.S. having our spies in other countries is a whole very surprising revelation.