It's personal: Obama says GOP hostility to him led to Trump

[boomerangutang]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

[KarenBravo]

Totally forgot about that Obama accomplishment, ending the nonsensical Cuban embargo.

The embargo just didn't make sense anymore, not when the US has normal diplomatic relations and trade with countries such as Vietnam and China.

In fact, I reckon if it had been done thirty years ago, we would now see a true Cuban democracy with communism abandoned.

[stillbornagain]

Obama was just one leader of many countries. But, of course it suits your agenda to blame just one man.

The leader of the free world. HE was in charge. YOU are the one that needs to do some reading or watch this video. That uranium can easily be converted to weapons grade. That is why the UN had sanctions against it.

Charles Krauthammer explained on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight why the nuclear agreement with Iran is the worst deal the U.S. has signed since the Munich Agreement in 1938.

Krauthammer said the deal means that Iran is no longer a pariah state. The country will be open to commerce and business and will be able to import weapons in just a couple years.the

Krauthammer added that Iran's economy is about to get a $150 billion injection and will be able to triple its oil output to more than $320 million per day. http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/07/20/charles-krauthammer-explains-why-iran-nuclear-deal-terrible-2-minutes

And do you think if the USA hadn't come to an agreement with Iran the rest of the world would have gone along with a continued embargo?. If say, Dick Cheney were negotiating this deal, who would believe that he sincerely wanted an agreement? The only reason the world waited and didn't resume trade with Iran was because the EU, China, Russian etc trusted that Obama was negotiating in good faith.

What's even better is that Marco Rubio promised to tear up the agreement the day he became president. Which would have relieved Iran of any obligation to abide by the agreement and allowed it to continue trading with the rest of the world. Clearly, he's a very intelligent fellow.

[willyumiii]

I agree with the President.

With their childish behaviour, racism and culture of hate, the GOP has made it's own bed.

Now they need to sleep in it with Trump.

This fascist campaign of Trump's may be the end of the party.

If he were to win the presidency,

It could be the end of the country..maybe civilization.

The planet will survive..

Especially if the GOP is gone.

Edited March 12, 2016 by willyumiii

[chuckd]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

Presumably you approve the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah. that's where some of the many billions will be going.

Personally I don't like to see organizations that promote terrorism and the murder of innocents be infused with funds, regardless of their source.

I guess your priorities are different from mine.

[KarenBravo]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

Presumably you approve the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah. that's where some of the many billions will be going.

Personally I don't like to see organizations that promote terrorism and the murder of innocents be infused with funds, regardless of their source.

I guess your priorities are different from mine.

Deary me. You need to check your facts first before putting finger to keyboard.

None of this money will be going to Hamas. Iran supports Assad in the Syrian civil war. Hamas supports the Sunni militias fighting Assad.

Iran is Shiite. Hamas is Sunni.

Sheesh.......I thought everyone knew that.

[stillbornagain]

So far, you really haven't managed to refute any of my arguments that it isn't Obama's fault as you claimed.

Actually I have and Krauthammer was brilliant . Just because you are too silly and partisan to realize it, does not make it so. It is obvious that you buy your own ideological BS, no matter how ridiculous. Who is the sheep?

So since you think he is so brilliant do point to the passage where he explains Iran have broken the agreement. You must have read the agreement please do point out the section where Iran have broken it or are we just getting these vague sweeping statements again.

The MISSLE TESTS!

I remember when I read the Hunting of the Snark, there was a line that goes to the effect, "I have said it three times so it is true." Apparently, you believe that capitalizing something makes it true. But it doesn't . What you are contending is false. Missile tests are not prohibited under the agreement. There was a separate resolution from the Security Council #2231, that calls on Iran to refrain from testing missiles that could carry nuclear weapons. But it's not part of the agreement. And Iran didn't sign on to that resolution. Or to put it in a way you might understand better, NO, IT'S NOT THE MISSILE TESTS!

Edited March 12, 2016 by stillbornagain

[boomerangutang]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

Presumably you approve the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah. that's where some of the many billions will be going.

Personally I don't like to see organizations that promote terrorism and the murder of innocents be infused with funds, regardless of their source.

I guess your priorities are different from mine.

Treaties are like people; none are perfect in all ways. If the world waits to make a deal with Iran until such time as they completely adhere to American values & dictates, then that will be a wait of, ummmm, maybe 1,650 years. In the meantime, Iran will be refining U and catching up with the arsenals of Pakistan and India.

When the Republican candidates are debating foreign policy, I can't help but shake my head with pity. Granted, they're preaching to the redneck crowd, but come on, it's just not possible for the US to get everything it wants with a treaty with Iran or Cuba or N.Korea or Russia, or whatever. Trump keeps saying what a great deal maker he is, but he's so full of kaka I can smell him from the other side of the world.

He's like a preacher standing at the pulpit on Sunday morning - building up his image, in front of adoring church-goers, of how chaste and moral he is, while not even changing his underwear he wore the night before when he went out whoring. Sorry if the imagery is offensive to Trump lovers, but I see America going down the tubes if Trump gains the White House.

[stillbornagain]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

So you want to boycott Saudi Arabia? It is their vicious and intolerant version of Islam that they were able to propagate throughout the world thanks to us. And what's really bizarre, is that the same people who declare Islam to be the enemy, are the most vociferous opponents of funding research to get the world off of fossil fuels.

Edited March 12, 2016 by stillbornagain

[chuckd]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

Presumably you approve the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah. that's where some of the many billions will be going.

Personally I don't like to see organizations that promote terrorism and the murder of innocents be infused with funds, regardless of their source.

I guess your priorities are different from mine.

Deary me. You need to check your facts first before putting finger to keyboard.

None of this money will be going to Hamas. Iran supports Assad in the Syrian civil war. Hamas supports the Sunni militias fighting Assad.

Iran is Shiite. Hamas is Sunni.

Sheesh.......I thought everyone knew that.

Deary me, indeed.

Open mouth, insert foot.

From Wikipedia simply because it is quick, easy and, in this case, reliable.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hamas[edit]

Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,^[17] an organization classified by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union, Egypt, Australia and Japan as a terrorist organization. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, has said "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran".^[18] From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 2001 through May 2008, Hamas launched more than 3,000 Qassam rockets and 2,500 mortar attacks into Israel.^[19]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism}

[NeverSure]

Now do remind us who invaded Iraq looking for WMD that they knew never existed.

Uh, that would be Tony Blair and the Brits who provided 1/3 of the troops.

[chuckd]

KB:

Just in case you don't believe Wikipedia, let's try another source which you can choose to believe or not. I frankly don't care.

I have known of the Iran/Hamas connection for years. Perhaps it is time you learned a little something yourself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran Uses Nuclear Deal Windfall to Strengthen Hamas and Hezbollah

by JOHN HAYWARD

21 Sep 2015

Iran is already spending the enormous cash windfall Barack Obama is giving them on a heavy investment in terrorism, according to a report in the Times of Israel.

“Since the deal was signed, Iran has significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas and Hezbollah,” writes the Times of Israel. “In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along with Iran’s economy. But Tehran’s belief that tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow to these terror organizations.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/21/iran-uses-nuclear-deal-windfall-strengthen-hamas-hezbollah/

And we haven't even mentioned the Shiites in Bahrain, the Shiites in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in Yemen.

Edited March 12, 2016 by chuckd

[chuckd]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

Presumably you approve the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah. that's where some of the many billions will be going.

Personally I don't like to see organizations that promote terrorism and the murder of innocents be infused with funds, regardless of their source.

I guess your priorities are different from mine.

Treaties are like people; none are perfect in all ways. If the world waits to make a deal with Iran until such time as they completely adhere to American values & dictates, then that will be a wait of, ummmm, maybe 1,650 years. In the meantime, Iran will be refining U and catching up with the arsenals of Pakistan and India.

When the Republican candidates are debating foreign policy, I can't help but shake my head with pity. Granted, they're preaching to the redneck crowd, but come on, it's just not possible for the US to get everything it wants with a treaty with Iran or Cuba or N.Korea or Russia, or whatever. Trump keeps saying what a great deal maker he is, but he's so full of kaka I can smell him from the other side of the world.

He's like a preacher standing at the pulpit on Sunday morning - building up his image, in front of adoring church-goers, of how chaste and moral he is, while not even changing his underwear he wore the night before when he went out whoring. Sorry if the imagery is offensive to Trump lovers, but I see America going down the tubes if Trump gains the White House.

The agreement with Iran is not a treaty.

Obama knew he would never get approval from the Senate to surrender to Iran so he drew up what is called an Executive Agreement. That skates around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval of a treaty.

Iran needed money and Obama needed a legacy. That makes for a nice neat marriage with the US looking like the fool left at the altar with nothing.

Edited March 12, 2016 by chuckd

[stillbornagain]

KB:

Just in case you don't believe Wikipedia, let's try another source which you can choose to believe or not. I frankly don't care.

I have known of the Iran/Hamas connection for years. Perhaps it is time you learned a little something yourself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran Uses Nuclear Deal Windfall to Strengthen Hamas and Hezbollah

by JOHN HAYWARD

21 Sep 2015

Iran is already spending the enormous cash windfall Barack Obama is giving them on a heavy investment in terrorism, according to a report in the Times of Israel.

“Since the deal was signed, Iran has significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas and Hezbollah,” writes the Times of Israel. “In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along with Iran’s economy. But Tehran’s belief that tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow to these terror organizations.”

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/21/iran-uses-nuclear-deal-windfall-strengthen-hamas-hezbollah/

And we haven't even mentioned the Shiites in Bahrain, the Shiites in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in Yemen.

Wow, equating Shiites who are born into their religion with Hamas or Hezbollah which are organizations you join. Really? Y Just read the entries about Saudi and Bahraini discriminatory treatment of Shiites. Or is Wikipedia only valid when you want it to be. It tells a consistent horror story about Bahrain. In Bahrain, the Shiites are actually in the majority but have been consistently suppressed by their brutal Sunni rulers

What makes this all truly bizarre, though, is the implicit assumption that Saudi Arabia is somehow the good guy or our ally. Saudi Arabia is the reason that there exists this insane version of Islam. There was recently an Arab writer who wrote that there are 2 versions of Isis: Black Isis, or Isis, and White Isis, or Saudi Arabia. There is really very little difference in their respective ideologies.

[Ulysses G.]

KB:

Just in case you don't believe Wikipedia, let's try another source which you can choose to believe or not. I frankly don't care.

I have known of the Iran/Hamas connection for years. Perhaps it is time you learned a little something yourself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran Uses Nuclear Deal Windfall to Strengthen Hamas and Hezbollah

by JOHN HAYWARD

21 Sep 2015

Iran is already spending the enormous cash windfall Barack Obama is giving them on a heavy investment in terrorism, according to a report in the Times of Israel.

Since the deal was signed, Iran has significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas and Hezbollah, writes the Times of Israel. In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along with Irans economy. But Tehrans belief that tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow to these terror organizations.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/09/21/iran-uses-nuclear-deal-windfall-strengthen-hamas-hezbollah/

And we haven't even mentioned the Shiites in Bahrain, the Shiites in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and the Houthis in Yemen.

Wow, equating Shiites who are born into their religion with Hamas or Hezbollah which are organizations you join.

Nice attempt at deflection. He did not "equate" anyone. He listed different groups that are funded by Iran. You are really getting your clock cleaned. You are going to have to do better than that.

[KarenBravo]

Yes, I was mistaken about the Iran / Hamas connection.

See what I did there UG? I admitted my mistake. Something I can do that you are unable to (even though you have made many, many errors on this thread alone)..

Yet, the original statement is still wrong. None of those billions will ever go to Hamas.

Hamas hasn't received funding from Iran since 2009. Yup, seven years ago.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4759977,00.html

Edited March 12, 2016 by KarenBravo

[seedy]

one Nonsense Post - and Quoted Replies - hidden

[Ulysses G.]

Yes, I was mistaken about the Iran / Hamas. See what I did there UG? I admitted my mistake. Something I can do that you are unable to

You don't understand the difference between opinions and facts. I have no mistakes to admit on this thread. Funny what a big deal you make about admitting something that is so well known by everyone else. Big Man.

[Ulysses G.]

Yet, the original statement is still wrong. None of those billions will ever go to Hamas.

Hamas hasn't received funding from Iran since 2009. Yup, seven years ago.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4759977,00.html

Yet ANOTHER of your unsupported opinions that you think is "proof". Iran has been broke for the last 7 years, but now, thanks to Barack Obama, they are rolling in money. You work it out.

By the way, your link says that there is a possible meeting planned to renew ties/support between Hamas and Iran. Did you even bother to read it?

[pitrevie]

Obama shouldn't have tried to reach an agreement with Iran he should have sold them arms instead. That way no danger of getting impeached just lionized. Alternatively he could have claimed Iran already had WMD and invaded, no subsequent inquiries, forget about the cost in lives lost, injured let along the astronomical financial cost something really important is bound to come along to make people forget about it like someone using a private email server. Such is the lopsided logic of the obstructionist party.

[up2u2]

Obama Administration

Employment - Tick

Affordable Health Care - Tick

Iran Agreement - Tick

Budget Surplus - Tick

Action on Climate Change - Tick

GDP Growth - Tick

But of course rusted on Republicans have to follow the mantra - "everything Obama does is to be opposed, that cooperation or compromise somehow is a betrayal"

I admire rational peoples attempt at defending the obvious but you really are wasting your time. For Republican ideologues Obama = Evil and no amount of evidence will convince them differently.

As Obama points out this culture has spawned Trump and even the establishment GOP know this and are desperately trying to get rid of him. Trumps popularity is only within the far Right Wing Republican Party not in the general electorate. In the general electorate polls show Trump is a loser with a capital 'L'. Trump is fast becoming the longest political Party suicide note ever written.

[boomerangutang]

KarenBravo, what pisses the Rep supporters most about the Iran deal, is it releases billions of $$'s which was tied up by the sanctions. Those Billions aren't gifts from western countries, instead it is money that Iran earned from exports. When Republicans see an 'enemy' country getting many billions of dollars, it irks them to no end.

Similarly, by opening relations with Cuba, there will likely be lots of money going to Cuba. That too irks Republicans, and Rubio mentioned that issue in the most recent debate.

Republicans' God is money. They want as much of the stuff as possible, and as little going to anyone else, particularly the antagonists of their fathers' and grandfathers' generation.

Presumably you approve the actions of both Hamas and Hezbollah. that's where some of the many billions will be going.

Personally I don't like to see organizations that promote terrorism and the murder of innocents be infused with funds, regardless of their source.

I guess your priorities are different from mine.

Treaties are like people; none are perfect in all ways. If the world waits to make a deal with Iran until such time as they completely adhere to American values & dictates, then that will be a wait of, ummmm, maybe 1,650 years. In the meantime, Iran will be refining U and catching up with the arsenals of Pakistan and India.

When the Republican candidates are debating foreign policy, I can't help but shake my head with pity. Granted, they're preaching to the redneck crowd, but come on, it's just not possible for the US to get everything it wants with a treaty with Iran or Cuba or N.Korea or Russia, or whatever. Trump keeps saying what a great deal maker he is, but he's so full of kaka I can smell him from the other side of the world.

He's like a preacher standing at the pulpit on Sunday morning - building up his image, in front of adoring church-goers, of how chaste and moral he is, while not even changing his underwear he wore the night before when he went out whoring. Sorry if the imagery is offensive to Trump lovers, but I see America going down the tubes if Trump gains the White House.

The agreement with Iran is not a treaty.

Obama knew he would never get approval from the Senate to surrender to Iran so he drew up what is called an Executive Agreement. That skates around the Constitutional requirement for Senate approval of a treaty.

Iran needed money and Obama needed a legacy. That makes for a nice neat marriage with the US looking like the fool left at the altar with nothing.

Semantics. A deal between Iran and the rest of the world to lessen Iran's march towards nuclear weapons was needed. Kerry led the US team to get as good a deal, along with other world leaders, as reasonably possible. Iranian leaders aren't dummies. They're not going to lie on their backs like submissive dogs with their legs spread, just because big strong Uncle Sam wants a deal. Iran didn't even need to come to the table. An ok deal is better than no deal at all. If Republicans had been leading the negotiations for the US, there would have been no deal whatsoever. Republicans preclude deals with threats. Indeed, Trump, at the most recent debate, threatened China with 45% tariff for all imports. Who, but a blustering imbecile thinks that would produce anything other than anger and animosity from China.

Negotiations on an international level is different than buying decrepit hotels in NYC. Trump heading international negotiations, would be disastrous for the US. Who would he appoint Sec of State? Some redneck bodybuilder with tattoos all over, who is always looking to punch people in the face who don't agree 100%? Or a small town mafia Don? Trump is to delicate international negotiations what a dog is to an overflowing restaurant trash can.

[boomerangutang]

added musings about Trump's silly attitudes;

US consumers want to have the option to buy many items. Some of those items come from China. Main reason: they're cheap. If Trump slaps his suggested 45% tariff on Chinese imports, it will do two basic things: A. Lessen availability of those items in the US marketplace, and/or B. run prices up. If that works on cowing China, why stop there? Trump could easily apply 45% tariff on any of dozens of other countries (Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Switzerland, Nigeria, on and on). Protectionism has its drawbacks.

Rich people like Trump and his buddies don't mind if prices rise dramatically. But the peons struggling to make end meet, do mind.

Also, all this talk about keeping and/or creating jobs in the US: It sounds good for Americans, but it's not all silver linings. Part of the reason so many jobs (and so much manufacturing) have gone overseas is because wages are comparatively high in the US. Add to that, the high cost of manufacturing in the US. ....and unions are strong. It's tricky to try and keep wages high, while trying to keep US manufacturers from moving their production overseas. Trump's stump speeches make it sound easy, but it's not. Trump himself hires foreign workers for many of his domestic projects.

'

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed. Continued trolling will earn suspensions.

[pitrevie]

As I mentioned earlier perhaps Obama should have sold them arms instead.

Small arms are NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. What a moronic comparison. As to Charles Krauthammer; you betray your ignorance. He is known as one of the greatest thinkers alive, but I would not expect someone like you to realize that.

Charles Krauthammer, MD (/ˈkraʊt.hæmər/; born March 13, 1950) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column is syndicated to more than 400 newspapers worldwide.[1] He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and a nightly panelist on Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier. He was a weekly panelist on PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

UG:

The major sources of information for the low information liberals are comedians. Jon Stewart retired so now they are down to posting some liberal Brit who, like nearly all the Euros on this forum, pontificates on everything American. They're big on sarcastic humor.

Krauthammer goes over most of their heads.

Yep for once I agree with you, "Krauthammer goes over most of their heads."

Saddam survived, rearmed, defeated the inspections regime and is now back in the business of building weapons of mass destruction.

...Time is running short. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. He is working on nuclear weapons. And he has every incentive to pass them on to terrorists who will use them against us.

Charles Krauthammer 4/19/02:

Would you like more quotes from him he is defintely an expert on WMD

[slipperylobster]

You don't know what you are talking about as usual. I understand the OP. I just don't buy Obama's spin.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt

The end of the Republican party is coming in November. It will be Obama's crowning achievement, his coup de grace on an incredible Presidency. He'll be remembered as one of America's greatest Presidents.

I had to Google coup de grace to check the spelling and YES! Coup de grace is exactly what's going to happen to the Republican party, it will be put out of it's terrible ugly misery.

A coup de grâce (/ˌkuː də ˈɡrɑːs/; French [ku də ɡʁɑs] for "blow of mercy") is a death blow to end the suffering of a severely wounded person or animal. It may be a mercy killing of civilians or soldiers, friends or enemies, with or without the sufferer's consent.

Wow Pinot you are still pushing the line for America to be a one party state with unbridled power and no checks and balances. Doesn't matter huh? It's Democrat so it will be fine? Once an inter generational Democrat always a Democrat come what may....

sounds too much like a nazi state..one party....boooooooooooo

[Ulysses G.]

As I mentioned earlier perhaps Obama should have sold them arms instead.

Small arms are NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. What a moronic comparison. As to Charles Krauthammer; you betray your ignorance. He is known as one of the greatest thinkers alive, but I would not expect someone like you to realize that.

Charles Krauthammer, MD (/ˈkraʊt.hæmər/; born March 13, 1950) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column is syndicated to more than 400 newspapers worldwide.[1] He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and a nightly panelist on Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier. He was a weekly panelist on PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

I don't recall this tired old Fox News hack saying much about that.

That is because you had never heard of him before 10 minutes ago. He had plenty to say. He appears on the editorial page in newspapers are all over the world. He does not appear with the cartoons.

Edited March 13, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[pitrevie]

As I mentioned earlier perhaps Obama should have sold them arms instead.

Small arms are NOT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. What a moronic comparison. As to Charles Krauthammer; you betray your ignorance. He is known as one of the greatest thinkers alive, but I would not expect someone like you to realize that.

Charles Krauthammer, MD (/ˈkraʊt.hæmər/; born March 13, 1950) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist, author, political commentator, and physician. His weekly column is syndicated to more than 400 newspapers worldwide.[1] He is a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard and a nightly panelist on Fox News's Special Report with Bret Baier. He was a weekly panelist on PBS news program Inside Washington from 1990 until it ceased production in December 2013.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

I don't recall this tired old Fox News hack saying much about that.

That is because you had never heard of him before 10 minutes ago. He had plenty to say. He appears on the editorial page in newspapers are all over the world. You can't find him looking at the cartoons.

I have often seen him on Fox News but see my quote above re his expertise, there are loads more like that just the sort of person we should consult when talking about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[chuckd]

Yes, I was mistaken about the Iran / Hamas connection.

See what I did there UG? I admitted my mistake. Something I can do that you are unable to (even though you have made many, many errors on this thread alone)..

Yet, the original statement is still wrong. None of those billions will ever go to Hamas.

Hamas hasn't received funding from Iran since 2009. Yup, seven years ago.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4759977,00.html

"Hamas hasn't received funding from Iran since 2009."

Hamas sources refused to verify the allegations.

How about weapons? Has Hamas received weapons or weapons systems from Iran since 2009?

Just a hint, here are a few links.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-gaza-hamas-iran-20140804-story.html

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-iran-steps-up-arms-shipments-to-hezbollah-hamas/

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/26/iran-finding-ways-to-supply-more-weapons-to-hamas/

Open the links and check the publication dates. It really isn't very complicated.

I try and get my facts straight BEFORE i claim them as facts. I don't always succeed but I try.

You might want to make a stab at that in the future.

[wwest5829]

While not limited, as a problem, to the US, having 1% of the population controlling 90% of the nation's wealth must be addressed. This is the single most critical issue for the American middle, working class continuation of representative democracy. It has severely torn the social fabric. We can no longer believe that, through our work, slowly but surely we will be better off in the future when our income is stagnant or shrinking and the wealth gathers even more to the 1%.

Perhaps that is bad, but the Democrats' way of fixing it with redistribution is flat out wrong. Instead, if you want more people to "share in the wealth" how about making it easier for people to start a business? In some European countries the citizens can establish a company in 5 minutes online. There are many entrepreneurs who are under 20 years old.

d

I certainly would promote being open to many ideas. As to redistribution, well, in the light of full disclosure, I am now under Social Security and Medicare (taking from today's workers and redistributing to those retired). I did not have an issue with paying out of my paycheck in order that my parents generation would have this financial safety net.