Obama calls GOP criticism of Iran deal 'ridiculous' 'sad'

[Publicus]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

[sdanielmcev]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

[sdanielmcev]

No need for all this huffing and puffing anyway. The US just has to tell Iran that if a nuke that is traced to them is detonated anywhere in the world, they will be obliterated themselves.

However, it would take a stronger leader than Obama to convince them he was serious. Russia and China disregard Obama as a talking talking talking but do nothing president, which is why they are doing whatever they want in Ukraine and the south China sea..

If it isn't a bang-boom war going on somewhere the right doesn't know it exists.

Because of its aggression in Ukraine, Russia and Putin are hurting, which is putting the squeeze on the Brics and their stillborn New Development Bank and also Beijing's new Asia Investment and Infrastructure Development Bank. Putin has since sanctions on him gone largely quiet in Ukraine.

Tehran is looking apprehensively over its shoulder at Beijing's grandiose design of a new Silk Road to include through the northern half of Iran.

The CCP Dictators in Beijing suddenly announced their island expansion in the South China Sea is btw finishing, this just after US Naval and Air Force craft arrived to the relief of Asean.

The clamor and commotion over the nuclear agreement with Iran sounds eerily like the Cold War agreements and treaties by the USA and USSR.

The Cold Warriors of the right did back then the same as now, i.e., the US is stupid and we got suckered, taken to the woods by the clever Russians/Iranians/Fill In The Blank who are crafty, sly, so much smarter than us....that the US agreement with its adversary was nothing more than lambs going to the slaughter blah blah blurp blurp.

It is rather astounding how the right has always or consistently found a way to be wrongheaded and just plain wrong. Couldn't trust or believe 'em then, can't do it now either.

All fallacy. Russia ain't hurting. If they are it is because of oil. The rest is just plain nonsense. Iran and China are huge trading partners.

[JDGRUEN]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

Notice sdanielmcev that on this topic thread some believe volume of posting leftist talking points and propaganda to the point of wallpapering is a substitute for logic. Throw out pages and pages to defend. It doesn't matter who speaks out against this Iran Scam - Obama and Kerry's smoke and mirrors campaign - including prominent people who are not known to be Republicans or even Americans. Plus there are Congressional Democrats who oppose elements of 'The Iran Deal' ... The response by the rabid Obama defenders is to never ever concede a single point... You see to the devoted cult members Obama is omniscient and cannot be wrong - he is perfect without possibility of failure. But the more rational critics many of stature in the U.S. and around the world - do see the obvious flaws. But there cannot be any give and take discourse with cult members as it is blasphemy to speak against 'The One'... Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

[Boon Mee]

Stop with all the platitudes to whomever.

What we got is Appeasment In Our Time and if any of the brain-dead appoligists for I-Ran or Choomboy want to get their dander up, well, facts are facts, man...

Spoken like a true redneck. "I-ran"? "choomboy"?

What are you, 12?

This from a guy with curlers in his hair? This agreement is very similar to Chamberlains' agreement with Hitler.

[Boon Mee]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

[Steely Dan]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

In defense of Chamberlain the UK was heavily outgunned by Germany and needed to play for time to re-arm. Whereas sanctions had Iran over a barrel, so Obama cancels them for nothing in return whilst retreating against a new genocidal threat, which could easily defeated here and now.

Chamberlain was a genius compared to the post American president in the White House.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Publicus]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

The post is too precious.

Sort of like George Bush and his Dick Cheney from whose attitudes and policies this Agreement is a major recovery for the United States and most welcomed globally. The major opponents of the Agreement are the fierce and dogmatic Republican Guards in Tehran and the fierce and dogmatic Republican Right Wing Old Guards in the USA.

Confirmed: The Hawks Were Wrong on Iran

In 2003...Iran only had 164 centrifuges. It offered to negotiate with the United States, but the George Bush administration refused. “We don’t talk to evil,” Vice President Dick Cheney quipped in response to the negotiation offer. Instead, the Bush administration resorted to threats of war and sanctions.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/confirmed-the-hawks-were-wrong-iran-12538

Jon Stewart Rips Apart Dick Cheney For Aiding And Abetting The Iranians

After former vice president and war criminal Dick Cheney actually had the gall to go on right-wing hate talker Hugh Hewitt's show and accuse President Obama of being the "worst president ever" and wanting to "take America down" over these Iranian nuclear negotiations, The Daily Show host Jon Stewart let him have it for his rank hypocrisy.

[url=http://crooksandliars.com/2015/04/jon-stewart-rips-apart-dick-cheney-aiding]http:

[Steely Dan]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

That's because the defense of deities requires the painting of all opposition as blasphemy.

[Pinot]

The Republicans have had a terrible time lately, everything is going wrong and it's reflected in just how crazy the comments are here.

Only in the insulated, tin foil hat, nutter ocean (pond) the conservatives swim in, is this agreement a bad deal. A bizarro world where negotiations are impossible, denying citizens subsidized healthcare is a necessity and pretending voter fraud is really a thing.

And now with the Republican debates coming up, it's all about to get much worse. The ineptitude, the in-fighting and racism will all be laid bare for America and the world to see.

I feel sorry for them. ( just kidding)

Edited August 2, 2015 by Pinot

[arjunadawn]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

In defense of Chamberlain the UK was heavily outgunned by Germany and needed to play for time to re-arm. Whereas sanctions had Iran over a barrel, so Obama cancels them for nothing in return whilst retreating against a new genocidal threat, which could easily defeated here and now.

Chamberlain was a genius compared to the post American president in the White House.

I had not considered this from this perspective; you are correct. My previous comparison does not achieve my point. (I remain unashamed to assert Obama has intentionally pursued ends inimical to the United States).

[arjunadawn]

The Republicans have had a terrible time lately, everything is going wrong and it's reflected in just how crazy the comments are here.

Only in the insulated, tin foil hat, nutter ocean (pond) the conservatives swim in, is this agreement a bad deal. A bizarro world where negotiations are impossible, denying citizens subsidized healthcare is a necessity and pretending voter fraud is really a thing.

And now with the Republican debates coming up, it's all about to get much worse. The ineptitude, the in-fighting and racism will all be laid bare for America and the world to see.

I feel sorry for them. ( just kidding)

Your addition to this complex and engaging issue is to widely cast those who disagree with you into a black hole- madness, psychosis, halluciation="bizarro world."

Post-

Premise sentence 1

Deduction 2 ,3

Inference 4, 5

Conclusion 6

That anatomy of your post is simply to associate those who disagree with you as racist (clearly stated in sentence 1 your post refers to "here," TVF). No other interpretation exists- its explicit. This clear fact renders your comment most despicable, if not against forum rules.If this was your intention, you should be reported. Whether intention or not, it says volumes.

Edited August 2, 2015 by arjunadawn

[ggold]

I'm of the opinion that Congress can throw a spanner in the works. But as I've already said, it is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Because the P4+1 will go ahead with the agreement anyway.

So it's up to them if they want to take their congressional ball and go home, it's not going to stop anyone else playing.

Added: Unless they want to put sanctions on the P4+1 of course.....

That's the best answer you could come up with on my post? You shouldn't have bothered.

Of course it's a done deal as far as the UN is concerned.

Why else do you think Russia and China were even in the meetings? They were never going to approve anything that might have put a halt to anything Iran wanted to do.

This entire deal was a set-up and the vaudeville team named Obama & Kerry were led to the slaughter.

Hopefully Congress will put a stop to some of it and limit the damage.

Obama and Kerry were not lead to the slaughter! lol They were the leaders of this fiasco. It was the Iranians who made Obama and Kerry look like idiots, Russia and China, were happy to watch from the sidelines.

Interesting while this was going on Russia decides to move against the Ukraine, and China, in the South Seas! I am sure Obama's negotiating skills were noted and Russia and China could see they too could run rings around Obama too. That he was a "nothing" politician.

It probably is too late to save the sanctions, Because Obama was more concerned about having any deal, he did not want to walk away without one! So he went to the UN to validate it before the ink was dry and his own government could review the treaty.

So it has become more about internal politics than stopping Iran getting nukes. Obama was looking for a way to stop the GOP from vetoing his treaty. So He goes to the UN, so what ever the GOP does won't effect any outcome, it would just leave the US as the piggy in the middle having negotiated the deal but not being able to enjoy any benefits from it.

Obama has strengthened both Russia and China's view of America as not being a threat to their own ambitions. And Obama probably thinks he has saved the world. The guy is a complete and utter "£$%&*******

If this was an actual real deal, the GOP would support it openly. It is so typical of polies nowadays that rather than try and convince the GOP that the treaty is a good deal based on the content, Obama attempts to smear the opposition instead. Hasn't Obama in the past denigrated such behaviour himself?

Does he have anything to lose? He has another 15 months then he is out. He wants so much to be remembered in History, even if it is negative! He has behaved like a dictator over this issue, If he wasn't going to get his way he was going to set US foreign policy on it's head for future governments. Which will have some convincing to do with some of it's allies.

I also think if the democrats support this treaty as it is then they are committing political suicide Just to support Obama. So maybe he is also making sure HRC won't have a chance of winning.

IMO.

[Chicog]

That's my girlfriend as my avatar. Anything else you want to say?

You put up an avatar you think is humorous. Then can't handle the laughter. Sad.

I know this is off topic, but I hope the !odd leave it up long enough to see if he apologizes.

I don't give a stuff who it is, you started the discussion.

[Chicog]

Why?

Do you not trust the rest of the worlds nuclear experts?

No. They wouldn't have Americas' best interest at heart.

Surely every one of them has an interest in not letting yet another country get nukes?

And personally I think Iran is less likely to use them - or lose them - than Pakistan, but that's just me.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Chicog

[ggold]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

In defense of Chamberlain the UK was heavily outgunned by Germany and needed to play for time to re-arm. Whereas sanctions had Iran over a barrel, so Obama cancels them for nothing in return whilst retreating against a new genocidal threat, which could easily defeated here and now.

Chamberlain was a genius compared to the post American president in the White House.

I had not considered this from this perspective; you are correct. My previous comparison does not achieve my point. (I remain unashamed to assert Obama has intentionally pursued ends inimical to the United States).

I'm not so sure Chamberlain was a genius! Yes he may have been playing for time, But It was Hitler marching into Poland that actually forced Britain to declare war. Even then there was no action till about mid to late 1940. Hitler missed his chance to invade the UK if that was his intention.

Certainly Chamberlain was more genuine a person/politician than Obama. But then Obama was never a statesman. How is it America continually votes for People who shouldn't be allowed to be President. Obama's total political experience was as a senator for 4 years! How does that really qualify him for such a High position as President?

I thought it was just the republicans who voted for idiots, Reagan, Bush, McCain and Palin! I guess it was the Democrats turn with Obama! Imagine if McCain and Pailin had won?

Maybe it is just as well American influence is on the decline, Thanks to Obama?

[Steely Dan]

I'm of the opinion that Congress can throw a spanner in the works. But as I've already said, it is cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Because the P4+1 will go ahead with the agreement anyway.

So it's up to them if they want to take their congressional ball and go home, it's not going to stop anyone else playing.



Added: Unless they want to put sanctions on the P4+1 of course.....

That's the best answer you could come up with on my post? You shouldn't have bothered.

Of course it's a done deal as far as the UN is concerned.

Why else do you think Russia and China were even in the meetings? They were never going to approve anything that might have put a halt to anything Iran wanted to do.

This entire deal was a set-up and the vaudeville team named Obama & Kerry were led to the slaughter.

Hopefully Congress will put a stop to some of it and limit the damage.

Obama and Kerry were not lead to the slaughter! lol They were the leaders of this fiasco. It was the Iranians who made Obama and Kerry look like idiots, Russia and China, were happy to watch from the sidelines.

Interesting while this was going on Russia decides to move against the Ukraine, and China, in the South Seas! I am sure Obama's negotiating skills were noted and Russia and China could see they too could run rings around Obama too. That he was a "nothing" politician.

It probably is too late to save the sanctions, Because Obama was more concerned about having any deal, he did not want to walk away without one! So he went to the UN to validate it before the ink was dry and his own government could review the treaty.

So it has become more about internal politics than stopping Iran getting nukes. Obama was looking for a way to stop the GOP from vetoing his treaty. So He goes to the UN, so what ever the GOP does won't effect any outcome, it would just leave the US as the piggy in the middle having negotiated the deal but not being able to enjoy any benefits from it.

Obama has strengthened both Russia and China's view of America as not being a threat to their own ambitions. And Obama probably thinks he has saved the world. The guy is a complete and utter "£$%&*******

If this was an actual real deal, the GOP would support it openly. It is so typical of polies nowadays that rather than try and convince the GOP that the treaty is a good deal based on the content, Obama attempts to smear the opposition instead. Hasn't Obama in the past denigrated such behaviour himself?

Does he have anything to lose? He has another 15 months then he is out. He wants so much to be remembered in History, even if it is negative! He has behaved like a dictator over this issue, If he wasn't going to get his way he was going to set US foreign policy on it's head for future governments. Which will have some convincing to do with some of it's allies.

I also think if the democrats support this treaty as it is then they are committing political suicide Just to support Obama. So maybe he is also making sure HRC won't have a chance of winning.

IMO.

For a malignant narcissist being worshipped or hated are regarded as equally desirable situations, whereas to be ignored is their deepest primal fear. Pity the future of western civilization hinges with the obsessions of someone so unbalanced, who in turn has sub contracted that little hot potato to a religious maniac with an Armageddon fixation. Edited August 2, 2015 by Scott

[Linky]

Why?

Do you not trust the rest of the worlds nuclear experts?

No. They wouldn't have Americas' best interest at heart.

Surely every one of them has an interest in not letting yet another country get nukes?

And personally I think Iran is less likely to use them - or lose them - than Pakistan, but that's just me.

The rest of the world agrees. Most countries believe they are doing something great globally. Republicans dont give a rats, they just hate Obama and do anything they can to stop this agreement, simply because it is Obama, nevermind everyone eles thinks its a good deal.

Republicans are hypocritical isolationists and far too dangerous to have power. Good on the US people for voting for the Dems in the next elevtion whilst the GOP implodes.

[Publicus]

No need for all this huffing and puffing anyway. The US just has to tell Iran that if a nuke that is traced to them is detonated anywhere in the world, they will be obliterated themselves.

However, it would take a stronger leader than Obama to convince them he was serious. Russia and China disregard Obama as a talking talking talking but do nothing president, which is why they are doing whatever they want in Ukraine and the south China sea..

If it isn't a bang-boom war going on somewhere the right doesn't know it exists.

Because of its aggression in Ukraine, Russia and Putin are hurting, which is putting the squeeze on the Brics and their stillborn New Development Bank and also Beijing's new Asia Investment and Infrastructure Development Bank. Putin has since sanctions on him gone largely quiet in Ukraine.

Tehran is looking apprehensively over its shoulder at Beijing's grandiose design of a new Silk Road to include through the northern half of Iran.

The CCP Dictators in Beijing suddenly announced their island expansion in the South China Sea is btw finishing, this just after US Naval and Air Force craft arrived to the relief of Asean.

The clamor and commotion over the nuclear agreement with Iran sounds eerily like the Cold War agreements and treaties by the USA and USSR.

The Cold Warriors of the right did back then the same as now, i.e., the US is stupid and we got suckered, taken to the woods by the clever Russians/Iranians/Fill In The Blank who are crafty, sly, so much smarter than us....that the US agreement with its adversary was nothing more than lambs going to the slaughter blah blah blurp blurp.

It is rather astounding how the right has always or consistently found a way to be wrongheaded and just plain wrong. Couldn't trust or believe 'em then, can't do it now either.

All fallacy. Russia ain't hurting. If they are it is because of oil. The rest is just plain nonsense. Iran and China are huge trading partners.

All fallacy. Russia ain't hurting If they are

Best one-liners since Henny Youngman.

Punishment today for saying anything children is to go out and buy rubles.

[ggold]

No need for all this huffing and puffing anyway. The US just has to tell Iran that if a nuke that is traced to them is detonated anywhere in the world, they will be obliterated themselves.

However, it would take a stronger leader than Obama to convince them he was serious. Russia and China disregard Obama as a talking talking talking but do nothing president, which is why they are doing whatever they want in Ukraine and the south China sea..

If it isn't a bang-boom war going on somewhere the right doesn't know it exists.

Because of its aggression in Ukraine, Russia and Putin are hurting, which is putting the squeeze on the Brics and their stillborn New Development Bank and also Beijing's new Asia Investment and Infrastructure Development Bank. Putin has since sanctions on him gone largely quiet in Ukraine.

Tehran is looking apprehensively over its shoulder at Beijing's grandiose design of a new Silk Road to include through the northern half of Iran.

The CCP Dictators in Beijing suddenly announced their island expansion in the South China Sea is btw finishing, this just after US Naval and Air Force craft arrived to the relief of Asean.

The clamor and commotion over the nuclear agreement with Iran sounds eerily like the Cold War agreements and treaties by the USA and USSR.

The Cold Warriors of the right did back then the same as now, i.e., the US is stupid and we got suckered, taken to the woods by the clever Russians/Iranians/Fill In The Blank who are crafty, sly, so much smarter than us....that the US agreement with its adversary was nothing more than lambs going to the slaughter blah blah blurp blurp.

It is rather astounding how the right has always or consistently found a way to be wrongheaded and just plain wrong. Couldn't trust or believe 'em then, can't do it now either.

There really is a difference, How can you compare Iran with Russia and the cold war era? That just doesn't work. Iran is no way as big as Russia was then.

And maybe the cavalry has arrived too late, Is America going to dismantle the Chinese man made Islands, are they going to restore the status quo, No they are just going to sit there and look like they are doing something.

Obama has shown Russia and China his negotiating skills around the table with Iran. They could see he was no threat to their own ambitions. So they made their moves, and America looks less and less like it has any say in the world.

Just think if the EU ever get their act together and compete with America and Russia and China on Global issues, there will be some fun then, would the US pick a fight with the EU? maybe far fetched Maybe not!

Is this really about right and left or common sense? But if the right are wrong then you should be happy! America will become more inward looking and have less say in global matters, leave it to the Left. Maybe with less US influence, the world would be a better place?

[Publicus]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

Notice sdanielmcev that on this topic thread some believe volume of posting leftist talking points and propaganda to the point of wallpapering is a substitute for logic. Throw out pages and pages to defend. It doesn't matter who speaks out against this Iran Scam - Obama and Kerry's smoke and mirrors campaign - including prominent people who are not known to be Republicans or even Americans. Plus there are Congressional Democrats who oppose elements of 'The Iran Deal' ... The response by the rabid Obama defenders is to never ever concede a single point... You see to the devoted cult members Obama is omniscient and cannot be wrong - he is perfect without possibility of failure. But the more rational critics many of stature in the U.S. and around the world - do see the obvious flaws. But there cannot be any give and take discourse with cult members as it is blasphemy to speak against 'The One'... Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

Notice that the right sector talking about Neville Chamberlain makes the rightwingers believe only they know history and that only the far out extremist right have learned the lessons of history.

The fallacy of the right sector is to believe in the absolute that avoiding war or an armed conflict now inevitably and necessarily means war and conflict shall occur later. That was in fact Chamberlain's experience and all of us have learned from that.

The right is however wrong to believe the opposite, i.e., that it is better to initiate war or armed conflict now than to necessarily and inevitably postpone it to later (when presumably each side would be better armed).

This Agreement reveals that the right are as wrong in their own thinking, which is the opposite of Chamberlain's approach, as Chamberlain was in his own disastrous beliefs.

The right has blinders on to think the lesson of Chamberlain is their own and for them only.

[ggold]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

Notice sdanielmcev that on this topic thread some believe volume of posting leftist talking points and propaganda to the point of wallpapering is a substitute for logic. Throw out pages and pages to defend. It doesn't matter who speaks out against this Iran Scam - Obama and Kerry's smoke and mirrors campaign - including prominent people who are not known to be Republicans or even Americans. Plus there are Congressional Democrats who oppose elements of 'The Iran Deal' ... The response by the rabid Obama defenders is to never ever concede a single point... You see to the devoted cult members Obama is omniscient and cannot be wrong - he is perfect without possibility of failure. But the more rational critics many of stature in the U.S. and around the world - do see the obvious flaws. But there cannot be any give and take discourse with cult members as it is blasphemy to speak against 'The One'... Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

Notice that the right sector talking about Neville Chamberlain makes the rightwingers believe only they know history and that only the far out extremist right have learned the lessons of history.

The fallacy of the right sector is to believe in the absolute that avoiding war or an armed conflict now inevitably and necessarily means war and conflict shall occur later. That was in fact Chamberlain's experience and all of us have learned from that.

The right is however wrong to believe the opposite, i.e., that it is better to initiate war or armed conflict now than to necessarily and inevitably postpone it to later (when presumably each side would be better armed).

This Agreement reveals that the right are as wrong in their own thinking, which is the opposite of Chamberlain's approach, as Chamberlain was in his own disastrous beliefs.

The right has blinders on to think the lesson of Chamberlain is their own and for them only.

How you missed the point completely, The lesson was that Chamberlain was naive to think he could make peace with Hitler. Obama did not learn that lesson He repeated it with the Iranians! Is Obama on the Right or Left?

Put another way if Chamberlain was responsible for the second world war, then Obama will have achieved the same only he won't be President, Just like Chamberlain wasn't PM. But Chamberlain was a statesman, Obama is not.

And surely you attack your enemies when they are weak not when they are strong. This isn't about Left and Right. It should be about common sense.

Edited August 2, 2015 by ggold

[Publicus]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

It is offensive for the right to believe and assert that only it has learned from the lesson of Chamberlain in his time, place, circumstance.

The catastrophic consequences of appeasement at any time are on the historical record.

The nuclear Agreement with Iran is comprehensive so it does not remotely resemble Chamberlains' flapping piece of paper.

Putin meanwhile is lieing low in the Ukraine and the CCP in Beijing has been arrested in the South China Sea, neither of which developments have concluded yet, but neither has war broken out.

Iran and the United States have begun talking for the first time in 35 years so unfurl the main sail and stay the course. Don't trust and do verify.

[ggold]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

It is offensive for the right to believe and assert that only it has learned from the lesson of Chamberlain in his time, place, circumstance.

The catastrophic consequences of appeasement at any time are on the historical record.

The nuclear Agreement with Iran is comprehensive so it does not remotely resemble Chamberlains' flapping piece of paper.

Putin meanwhile is lieing low in the Ukraine and the CCP in Beijing has been arrested in the South China Sea, neither of which developments have concluded yet, but neither has war broken out.

Iran and the United States have begun talking for the first time in 35 years so unfurl the main sail and stay the course. Don't trust and do verify.

I wonder who has blinders on their eyes. Putin has achieved what he wanted he is not laying low. 55555 The CCP must be peeing their pants! 5555

The only one Standing without anything is Obama.

A comprehensive agreement, everyone is poking holes in. 54% of American against the deal. Guess they must be on the right!

So Russia Got the Ukraine

China got the southern seas

Iran got nukes and

Obama got nothing.

Oh wait Obama is on the left, Right!

Edited August 2, 2015 by ggold

[Publicus]

Notice sdanielmcev that on this topic thread some believe volume of posting leftist talking points and propaganda to the point of wallpapering is a substitute for logic. Throw out pages and pages to defend. It doesn't matter who speaks out against this Iran Scam - Obama and Kerry's smoke and mirrors campaign - including prominent people who are not known to be Republicans or even Americans. Plus there are Congressional Democrats who oppose elements of 'The Iran Deal' ... The response by the rabid Obama defenders is to never ever concede a single point... You see to the devoted cult members Obama is omniscient and cannot be wrong - he is perfect without possibility of failure. But the more rational critics many of stature in the U.S. and around the world - do see the obvious flaws. But there cannot be any give and take discourse with cult members as it is blasphemy to speak against 'The One'... Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

Notice that the right sector talking about Neville Chamberlain makes the rightwingers believe only they know history and that only the far out extremist right have learned the lessons of history.

The fallacy of the right sector is to believe in the absolute that avoiding war or an armed conflict now inevitably and necessarily means war and conflict shall occur later. That was in fact Chamberlain's experience and all of us have learned from that.

The right is however wrong to believe the opposite, i.e., that it is better to initiate war or armed conflict now than to necessarily and inevitably postpone it to later (when presumably each side would be better armed).

This Agreement reveals that the right are as wrong in their own thinking, which is the opposite of Chamberlain's approach, as Chamberlain was in his own disastrous beliefs.

The right has blinders on to think the lesson of Chamberlain is their own and for them only.

How you missed the point completely, The lesson was that Chamberlain was naive to think he could make peace with Hitler. Obama did not learn that lesson He repeated it with the Iranians! Is Obama on the Right or Left?

Put another way if Chamberlain was responsible for the second world war, then Obama will have achieved the same only he won't be President, Just like Chamberlain wasn't PM. But Chamberlain was a statesman, Obama is not.

And surely you attack your enemies when they are weak not when they are strong. This isn't about Left and Right. It should be about common sense.

The post exposes my point exactly and precisely, which is that the right believes only it knows or understands the historical lesson of Chamberlain and negotiation, appeasement, keeping the peace or the timing or circumstance of war.

[sdanielmcev]

Notice sdanielmcev that on this topic thread some believe volume of posting leftist talking points and propaganda to the point of wallpapering is a substitute for logic. Throw out pages and pages to defend. It doesn't matter who speaks out against this Iran Scam - Obama and Kerry's smoke and mirrors campaign - including prominent people who are not known to be Republicans or even Americans. Plus there are Congressional Democrats who oppose elements of 'The Iran Deal' ... The response by the rabid Obama defenders is to never ever concede a single point... You see to the devoted cult members Obama is omniscient and cannot be wrong - he is perfect without possibility of failure. But the more rational critics many of stature in the U.S. and around the world - do see the obvious flaws. But there cannot be any give and take discourse with cult members as it is blasphemy to speak against 'The One'... Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

Notice that the right sector talking about Neville Chamberlain makes the rightwingers believe only they know history and that only the far out extremist right have learned the lessons of history.

The fallacy of the right sector is to believe in the absolute that avoiding war or an armed conflict now inevitably and necessarily means war and conflict shall occur later. That was in fact Chamberlain's experience and all of us have learned from that.

The right is however wrong to believe the opposite, i.e., that it is better to initiate war or armed conflict now than to necessarily and inevitably postpone it to later (when presumably each side would be better armed).

This Agreement reveals that the right are as wrong in their own thinking, which is the opposite of Chamberlain's approach, as Chamberlain was in his own disastrous beliefs.

The right has blinders on to think the lesson of Chamberlain is their own and for them only.

How you missed the point completely, The lesson was that Chamberlain was naive to think he could make peace with Hitler. Obama did not learn that lesson He repeated it with the Iranians! Is Obama on the Right or Left?

Put another way if Chamberlain was responsible for the second world war, then Obama will have achieved the same only he won't be President, Just like Chamberlain wasn't PM. But Chamberlain was a statesman, Obama is not.

And surely you attack your enemies when they are weak not when they are strong. This isn't about Left and Right. It should be about common sense.

The post exposes my point exactly and precisely, which is that the right believes only it knows or understands the historical lesson of Chamberlain and negotiation, appeasement, keeping the peace or the timing or circumstance of war.

Incorrect. Republican presidents have to clean up the mess left by their Democratic predecessors. Domestically, internationally and financially.

[Chicog]

Incorrect. Republican presidents have to clean up the mess left by their Democratic predecessors. Domestically, internationally and financially.

I can only assume you are some kind of comedian.

Because that's pretty funny.

[Pinot]

Incorrect. Republican presidents have to clean up the mess left by their Democratic predecessors. Domestically, internationally and financially.

I can only assume you are some kind of comedian.

Because that's pretty funny.

Good one, huh? See, they do have a sense of humor.

I love piling on.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Pinot

[Steely Dan]

That comparison with Chamberlain is offensive to that English gentleman.

It is offensive for the right to believe and assert that only it has learned from the lesson of Chamberlain in his time, place, circumstance.

The catastrophic consequences of appeasement at any time are on the historical record.

The nuclear Agreement with Iran is comprehensive so it does not remotely resemble Chamberlains' flapping piece of paper.

Putin meanwhile is lieing low in the Ukraine and the CCP in Beijing has been arrested in the South China Sea, neither of which developments have concluded yet, but neither has war broken out.

Iran and the United States have begun talking for the first time in 35 years so unfurl the main sail and stay the course. Don't trust and do verify.

That's beyond funny and well into the surreal. The only thing comprehensive about the deal is the degree of capitulation and erasing of red lines, as for don't trust and do verify, that's after 24 days, no military sites and verification of soil samples from Parchin supplied by the Iranians. Can we expect some heavily flocked wallpaper to cover this up?

[sdanielmcev]

Anyone who claims no agreement now would mean a better one-sided Agreement later has no clue.

This is an Agreement worked out by seven governments that couldn't be any more different, supported by the UN General Assembly menagerie . Agreement is exactly that. It is mutual, not one sided either way.

The right wants surrender and anything less than surrender by Iran translates to the extremists on the right as surrender by the United States, which is absurd, self defeating; asinine.

Agreement means no absolutes and to attain a balance instead. Contrast that to the Bush-Cheney absolutism that, "We don't negotiate with evil." The side that seeks an unconditional surrender of the other side on nuclear issues is a dangerous side indeed.

Speaking of no clue:

The quote is, "We cannot and will not negotiate with terrorists." - Ferdinand Marcos. Long before Bush was president. Clinton followed it regularly. Agreements mean absolutes. Look it up. In your first paragraph. Absurd is dealing with any country from a position of weakness. Iran put nothing on the table first. Guess you never played poker. Asinine; allowing Iran nukes at any time. Now or in the future. This 'agreement' allows them future nukes. You fail again. As usual.

Notice sdanielmcev that on this topic thread some believe volume of posting leftist talking points and propaganda to the point of wallpapering is a substitute for logic. Throw out pages and pages to defend. It doesn't matter who speaks out against this Iran Scam - Obama and Kerry's smoke and mirrors campaign - including prominent people who are not known to be Republicans or even Americans. Plus there are Congressional Democrats who oppose elements of 'The Iran Deal' ... The response by the rabid Obama defenders is to never ever concede a single point... You see to the devoted cult members Obama is omniscient and cannot be wrong - he is perfect without possibility of failure. But the more rational critics many of stature in the U.S. and around the world - do see the obvious flaws. But there cannot be any give and take discourse with cult members as it is blasphemy to speak against 'The One'... Notice how inelastic and unyielding the argumentative style is for the Leftist who defend Obama actions. It is strikingly similar to the argumentative style of those who defend radical Islam.

And also how often they try to change the argument. And get refuted yet again.