Jim Hoft:
Never forget.
Senate Democrats today voted to lift sanctions on the world’s greatest state sponsor of terrorism – On the eve of the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks.
https://twitter.com/Reaganista/status/642073186683736065
Democrats blocked a GOP resolution of disapproval of the Iran nuclear deal from going to a final vote.
Only one-in-five Americans support Obama’s outlandish nuclear deal with Iran.
Barack Obama cheered the vote.
Via Twitchy:
This is not the party of JFK anymore. It’s some sort of lunatic mafia.
So, the rational option prevails and the alternative fails.
Maybe it would have helped if someone on the republican side had explained in detail what their alternative was. They never bothered.
It might also be worth noting that the deal could be sustained with only 1/3 plus 1 of all votes in either chamber of Congress because a republican-sponsored bill set things up that way. The Corker bill on the Iran deal passed in the Senate 98-1.
@Greg: Why didn’t Obama provide all the elements of the deal he expected them to vote for? He didn’t do that, as required. Also, the vote to have an up or down vote on the deal (after Congress got to examine all parts of the deals, which has YET to happen) was 98-1, so how do these Democrats explain this vote?
Once again, Obama and his Democrats lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie some more. Yet Republicans and the public are expected to trust them and take them at their word. You can’t trust proven liars.
@Greg: Do I have to point out the numerous logical fallacies in your post, jackass?
If Obama said he was suddenly pro-life, pro-guns, and anti-Iran, you’d have some drawn out bunch of bullshit as to why you agree…and it’s the “rational option”.
Tell us how the campaign is going. Any more demagogues hiding until later in the election cycle? How much do you get paid?
Looks like another hard hit to the conservatives, they just don’t seem to be winning many do they?
And SADZ WalMart has agreed to stop selling modern sporting arms i.e. guns that look like military weapons
@Nathan Blue, #4:
I’ve been goading people to think through and explain in detail the real world alternatives to the nuclear deal with Iran for weeks, but all I’ve gotten in response are attitude and personal insults. It wears thin.
Iran may presently be only months away from being able to assemble a nuclear weapon. We presently have no direct inspection abilities. Without an agreement that benefits them in some significant way, they have no reason not to rush their program to completion. If the agreement were to fall through, they would have every reason to proceed with all haste.
They’ve agreed to mothball over 13,000 of their 19,000 gas centrifuges, leaving only an earlier and less efficient generation of enrichment equipment in operation; to reduce their current inventory of 10,000 kilos of low-enriched uranium to only 300 kilos; and to remove and destroy the core of the Arak nuclear reactor, replacing it with a core that’s incapable of producing plutonium. Fordow would be converted into a research center. These things would be verifiable.
The right rejects that, essentially saying “Yeah, they won’t really do any of that, and we’re not smart enough to monitor whether they really do or not, so there’s no point agreeing to anything.” Then when you ask them what their detailed alternative is, they either look around like they’re trying to remember where they put their car keys, or pound their chests like angry gorillas and start yapping about Obama.
So yeah, feel free to expound on the logical flaws of my position and explain what should be done differently in the greatest detail possible. Perhaps you’ll also explain how war with Iran might be a good thing for the United States, and how we might handle a war with Iran and ISIL simultaneously, while still maintaining a credible ability to stand up against Russia, China, and North Korea. There’s also the small matter of where the money to fight another war would come from, since the right no doubt hopes to sell America on another go-round of tax cuts.
@Greg: The rational option is sanctions, which have been violated by most of the countries supporting this deal.
Supporters of this insane deal keep saying “It’s this or war, so I guess you’re for war.” It’s dishonest. I’ll be clearer: You and your pals who care more for Obama getting a win are liars.
Repeating the bumper sticker crap is typical of Obamoid glibness, that’s all about the “Gotcha!” The only reason to support this deal is to give Obama a politcal win. Those who support it are of the ‘Well, AMERICA has nukes, so who are we to stop anyone else from getting them?” mindset. There is no other possible explanation.
Remember when the Democrats were about nuclear non-proliferation? Now they seem to have completely swallowed the mindset they called evil: Let everyone have a nuke so we’re all pointing missiles at each other, and then there’ll be peace. If you were at all honest about how wrong you were to be against that, maybe we could have a discussion. But you won’t be honest, because then you’d be giving up your most precious resource, your hatred for The Evil Right.
Breaking News: Iran just found a whole bunch of uranium just SITTING there! They’re renaming it the Kerry/Obama Peace Mine.
“….; to reduce their current inventory of 10,000 kilos of low-enriched uranium to only 300 kilos”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/12/us-iran-nuclear-uranium-idUSKCN0RC0A020150912
We don’t know how much uranium they’ve got, but we’ll make sure they’ve only got 300 kilos. Because they’ll, like, tell us as they find more stuff and then they won’t enrich it, because they’ve said they’ll honor the agreement.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/20/middleeast/iran-military-inspections/
This article is about the military installations being inspected, but:
“…the country’s nuclear facilities might not be covered by the statement by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader.”
MIGHT NOT be covered by his saying there’ll be no inspections.
If this is so awesome, why did the president not make it a treaty? Because Congress might not approve? That’s how our system works. Just because you and Obama don’t like Republicans you think it’s right to just go around Congress on something so important. I’ll remember that the next time one of you bitches about the Iraq invasion, which Bush did against the Dems’ approval-oh, wait…
@JSW, #7:
Deciding whether the nuclear deal with Iran is the best option or not shouldn’t be a function of one’s opinion about Barack Obama. If it is, then a person isn’t really thinking clearly about the options.
You seem to think Obama supporters are as obsessed with the person of Barack Obama as those obsessively hate him. This is not the case. I support Obama because I support a majority of his policies. I could support a number of people who would bring a similar outlook to the White House. I tend to reject republicans because I reject their positions, or, in some cases, because I can’t even figure out what the hell their real positions are.
The latter-day GOP is so fixated on domestic political maneuvering that they aren’t even willing to allow a floor debate on authorizing the use of military force against ISIL, which is blowing people’s heads off a dozen at a time with explosive cord and putting the videos up on social media as recruiting propaganda. So yeah, you either drive around their roadblocks, or you concede that nothing whatsoever will get done. They have ceased to be useful participants in the governance of the nation.
@Greg:
OK… tell us what Obama has done… where he has succeeded… they makes YOU have blind confidence (blind because he is still keeping parts of the agreement away from Congress and us) that he has succeeded here in stopping Iran’s nuclear program?
Really? Are you sure it’s not “racism”? After all, that is the one and only reason allowed by the left for opposition to Obama’s policies.
Let’s review… when Reid was leader, he would not bring any bills to a vote for fear of losing. Even Obama’s “pass this now” stimulus bill he kept shelved because he feared it would not pass and would be an embarrassing loss for Obama. BUT, it was not Republican opposition he worried about… it was the lack of support from his fellow Democrats!!
In order to quell concerns about this deal Obama and Kerry were working on, he agreed to allowing an up or down vote on it in Congress. 98 to 1 voted for it to come to a vote. Now, we see Obama whipping up enough support to make sure this does not happen, once again proving the absolute worthlessness of his and the 54 Democrats who reneged on their agreement word. Talk about political manuvering…. these guys just lie to get what they want, then when it comes time for them to keep their end of the deal, they just say, “F**k you.”
There can be no cooperation in our government under those circumstances and who, in that atmosphere, would trust Obama with the safety of the world?