OCinBuffalo Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/democratic-sen-ben-cardin-says-he-will-vote-against-the-iran-deal/2015/09/04/53817e4e-5310-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html At least give Schumer some credit? He came out against this terrible idea before they had the votes. Or, he's an inside guy, and, he knew before this Maryland dude how this was going to go, so, he could afford to go against it ahead of time. Democrats: do you REALLY think this is about conscience? Or better, Obama can't get elected again: why the F are you STILL sacrificing your entire party on his alter? Either way: the Orthodox guys I know aren't fooled whatsoever. Some of them will be voting R for the first time in their, very long, lives. Joe Lieberman says hello. Once again, the Democratic Party busies itself with creating Neo-Cons...and then tries to stick those of us who have never had anything to do with them, with their monicker? Um, dudes, you are driving Jews away from your party. The PC term for "Jews who suddenly realize the D party are wussies" is Neo-Conservative. Hence, Ari Fleischer, GW Bush's press secretary. A nice Polish boy! As I've said since before I even got here: please don't confuse a Jewish Democrat, who thinks Democrats are weenises when it comes to Israel, with a Libertarian or a Conservative. Neo-Cons are your own creation: own them, and stop blaming everybody else for your failure. Edited September 5, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 Big monEy couldn't stop this deal. A lot of special interest money flooded into this issue and a big yawn was heard from the American public. This deal is not good for Isreal, but you know what? We are not Isreal, we are the United States. This deal was good for our interests and that's what we should care about
OCinBuffalo Posted September 5, 2015 Author Posted September 5, 2015 Big monEy couldn't stop this deal. A lot of special interest money flooded into this issue and a big yawn was heard from the American public. This deal is not good for Isreal, but you know what? We are not Isreal, we are the United States. This deal was good for our interests and that's what we should care about Give us one specific tenet of this deal, that represents the very best way to serve our interests. It can be anything.
Dante Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 Big monEy couldn't stop this deal. A lot of special interest money flooded into this issue and a big yawn was heard from the American public. This deal is not good for Isreal, but you know what? We are not Isreal, we are the United States. This deal was good for our interests and that's what we should care about Giving religious lunatics a nuke is good for anyone? Only good for those who are bent on disruption and chaos. Like guess who? Your boy Barry. What would "our interests" be exactly. The only possible upside of this is that these back word fsticks manage to blow themselves up before anyone else.
unbillievable Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 It's better to give them a nuke now and keep talking, then let them sneak a nuke later and stay silent...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 Give us one specific tenet of this deal, that represents the very best way to serve our interests. It can be anything. A valiant effort, but asking Gator to provide facts or concrete examples is like asking a mashed potato to talk. You can ask all you want, but you'll be waiting forever.
TH3 Posted September 5, 2015 Posted September 5, 2015 Giving religious lunatics a nuke is good for anyone? Only good for those who are bent on disruption and chaos. Like guess who? Your boy Barry. What would "our interests" be exactly. The only possible upside of this is that these back word fsticks manage to blow themselves up before anyone else. This is what I love - maybe giving no facts is better than giving complete falsehoods....
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Big monEy couldn't stop this deal. A lot of special interest money flooded into this issue and a big yawn was heard from the American public. This deal is not good for Isreal, but you know what? We are not Isreal, we are the United States. This deal was good for our interests and that's what we should care about With the full confidence that you will run away from answering this question, why is this deal not good for Israel?
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 A valiant effort, but asking Gator to provide facts or concrete examples is like asking a mashed potato to talk. You can ask all you want, but you'll be waiting forever. No, I don't provide you with facts, because you don't understand them, it's a waste of time. You remind me of a guy that keeps steeping on a rake and keeps getting smashed in the face with it. Give us one specific tenet of this deal, that represents the very best way to serve our interests. It can be anything.One thing? Sure, the deal provides inspectors with access to their scientists With the full confidence that you will run away from answering this question, why is this deal not good for Israel? Because Israel would rather see Iran crippled from sanctions and less able to supply money to the people resisting the drive for a Greater Israel.
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Because Israel would rather see Iran crippled from sanctions and less able to supply money to the people resisting the drive for a Greater Israel. Nothing about a pathway to nuclear weapons or supplying terrorists with their new found money? I think that's what 2/3 of the American public and the vast majority of the House and Senate have deep concerns about. Our lawless president has found a way to get a treaty confirmed with 34 votes. If one didn't know you as the partisan hack you are they would think that you might be concerned over this.
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Nothing about a pathway to nuclear weapons or supplying terrorists with their new found money? I think that's what 2/3 of the American public and the vast majority of the House and Senate have deep concerns about. Our lawless president has found a way to get a treaty confirmed with 34 votes. If one didn't know you as the partisan hack you are they would think that you might be concerned over this. That is an interesting angel, the senate thing. This is not a treaty from what I gather. And it's almost as though world opinion is more important than is American public opinion. In reality most Americans don't really understand the deal.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 No, I don't provide you with facts, because you don't understand them, it's a waste of time. You remind me of a guy that keeps steeping on a rake and keeps getting smashed in the face with it. I keep steeping on a rake? Is that the insult you want to go with today? Do I at least get some delicious tea after I steep on the rake?
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 I keep steeping on a rake? Is that the insult you want to go with today? Do I at least get some delicious tea after I steep on the rake? Good job typo man.
Deranged Rhino Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Good job typo man. It's just, I mean it's one thing to be bad at insults -- which you are. It's one thing to have no imagination or creativity with your barbs -- both of which you lack. But it's another thing to call someone out for being stupid with a post riddled with typos. It's called irony.
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 That is an interesting angel, the senate thing. This is not a treaty from what I gather. And it's almost as though world opinion is more important than is American public opinion. In reality most Americans don't really understand the deal. Keep religion out of it. They can call it whatever they want, but it's a treaty and should have been treated as such.
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Keep religion out of it. They can call it whatever they want, but it's a treaty and should have been treated as such. Why, so it would be easier to score a political triumph against the Democratic President? No, Obama has shown great leadership in getting the international community to pressure Iran into a deal. This in the face of partisan and Israeli obstructionism.
3rdnlng Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 Why, so it would be easier to score a political triumph against the Democratic President? No, Obama has shown great leadership in getting the international community to pressure Iran into a deal. This in the face of partisan and Israeli obstructionism. So, what do you think, should Obama be called King or Emperor?
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 So, what do you think, should Obama be called King or Emperor? Breath into the paper bag slowly, it will be ok. Mr President is just fine
TakeYouToTasker Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 That is an interesting angel, the senate thing. This is not a treaty from what I gather. And it's almost as though world opinion is more important than is American public opinion. In reality most Americans don't really understand the deal.It's not a treaty? What the !@#$ is it then? "Treaty (noun) A formal written agreement between two or more nations."
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Posted September 6, 2015 It's not a treaty? What the !@#$ is it then? "Treaty (noun) A formal written agreement between two or more nations." But there's legal definitions of "treaty," depending on context. The important and consistent difference is: if it's not a treaty, it's not binding, and either party can suspend it at will. So if it's not a treaty, it won't work. But if it IS a treaty...it's unconstitutional, and we're not bound by it, and it won't work. Great foreign policy.
Recommended Posts