Political Thread: Non-obscene version

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't perfect but it's the best option available and has good potential of slowing or preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Mothr Jones? You can't be serious.

Of course quotes from highly credible professionals that find merrit to the framework of the agreement won't be published in NewsMax, WorldNet or any of the other right wing publications that you get your information from. The bottom line is these are not the opoions of Mother Jones or David Corn, but rather those of the experts as indicated.

 

[KyFaninNC]

I think we should just butt out of the middle east, let them all kill each other. Let the strong survive then deal with them after all the radiation clears. Let those chicken shit Eurpeans deal with those ragheads,as they are closer to them. Those people have been at war with each other since the start of time. Only way there has been any resemblence of peace is when you have dictators running the countries, and Bush and Obama decided to take them out, and now what a cluster f@@k we have now. The Saudis will now seek Nukes from Pakistan and India, then Egypt will get some, then Iran, Israel already has them.

Deeefense reading Mother Jones,and that idiot, and I do mean a fully bloomed idiot, David Corn. Dee, you have give us your source for politics.. I highly recommend a new source.

 

[BernieSadori]

I'm not a policy expert by no means, but I don't believe if the US got such a great deal people would be dancing in the streets of Iran. Or their leaders saying they don't need any talking points because it's great for them.

I'm sure our lefties will say it was a mandatory parade which means nothing.

 

[BernieSadori]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't perfect but it's the best option available and has good potential of slowing or preventing Iran from going nuclear.

Mothr Jones? You can't be serious.

Of course quotes from highly credible professionals that find merrit to the framework of the agreement won't be published in NewsMax, WorldNet or any of the other right wing publications that you get your information from. The bottom line is these are not the opoions of Mother Jones or David Corn, but rather those of the experts as indicated.

But it's OK to discountFAUX NEWS!!!!!!!

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
The bottom line is these are not the opoions of Mother Jones or David Corn, but rather those of the experts as indicated.

No, the bottom line is David Corn is a pure hack that found people to fit his narrative, not unlike some folks around here. Mother Jones and David Corn should not be linked here ever unless you explicitly saying "hey here's a link to a hack that I agree with most, if not all, times".

Oh yeah he was just out searching for the truth in an impartial manner oh and here's who he found!!1 False.[/I]

David Corn doesn't fart without a narrative in mind.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by Rex Kwon Do:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
The bottom line is these are not the opoions of Mother Jones or David Corn, but rather those of the experts as indicated.

No, the bottom line is David Corn is a pure hack that found people to fit his narrative, not unlike some folks around here. Mother Jones and David Corn should not be linked here ever unless you explicitly saying "hey here's a link to a hack that I agree with most, if not all, times".

Oh yeah he was just out searching for the truth in an impartial manner oh and here's who he found!!1 False.[/I]

David Corn doesn't fart without a narrative in mind.

Except with that whole 47% story...he essentially sunk any chance Romney had of winning with that story. Might be a hack, but damn that story was golden.

Feel free to disagree...

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by BernieSadori:
But it's OK to discountFAUX NEWS!!!!!!!

Sure when the misreport the news - same for any other source. I actually watch Megyn Kelly most nights, and some of Bret Baier most nights.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by Rex Kwon Do:

Originally posted by Deeeefense:
The bottom line is these are not the opoions of Mother Jones or David Corn, but rather those of the experts as indicated.

No, the bottom line is David Corn is a pure hack that found people to fit his narrative, not unlike some folks around here. Mother Jones and David Corn should not be linked here ever unless you explicitly saying "hey here's a link to a hack that I agree with most, if not all, times".

Oh yeah he was just out searching for the truth in an impartial manner oh and here's who he found!!1 False.[/I]

David Corn doesn't fart without a narrative in mind.

Fair enough, then how about some opinions from other equally qualified experts that have a dissenting view? Honestly I have not heard them but if they exist please post as I want to hear all sides. And I'm talking about nuclear scientists and foreign policy experts not political hacks.

This post was edited on 4/6 11:34 AM by Deeeefense

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

So why didn't GWB give the green light if that is all that is needed? What was holding GWB back?

Isreal dodn't have the capabilities to kill the Iranian nuclear threat...they could attack tomorrow and Iran would have developed their Nuke bomb within months afterward and looking for revenge.

GWB was awful. And he has nothing to do with an agreement reached 7 years after his presidency. Good try at the usual "blame Bush" tactic though.

Israel could most likely wipe the entire ME off the map with very little resistance. They show restraint. That's a far cry from weakness.

Wheres the agreement? Once again, "transparency" fails to be so transparent. Theyre hiding the language. That's all you need to know, even if you did somehow believe the known language was a good deal.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

So why didn't GWB give the green light if that is all that is needed? What was holding GWB back?

Isreal dodn't have the capabilities to kill the Iranian nuclear threat...they could attack tomorrow and Iran would have developed their Nuke bomb within months afterward and looking for revenge.

GWB was awful. And he has nothing to do with an agreement reached 7 years after his presidency. Good try at the usual "blame Bush" tactic though.

Israel could most likely wipe the entire ME off the map with very little resistance. They show restraint. That's a far cry from weakness.

Wheres the agreement? Once again, "transparency" fails to be so transparent. Theyre hiding the language. That's all you need to know, even if you did somehow believe the known language was a good deal.

So which is it? Bibi cries all over the world to anyone who will listen that Israel is in grave danger... he's been doing it now for many, many years, yet Bibi is showing restraint when it comes to just solving the issue outright?

Maybe the issue is not as serious as Bibi would like to masses to believe?

Interesting how your logic seems to contridict itself.

Once again, we are not going to go to war with Iran and every single military expert says the same thing - Isreal doesn't have the military capability to destroy the Iranian's nuclear capability. Isreal can show all the military restraint it wants, but we aren't going to start a war on their behalf and I doubt we will significently help either - it is not in our interest to start another war in the middle east. We blew that load in Iraq.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

So why didn't GWB give the green light if that is all that is needed? What was holding GWB back?

Isreal dodn't have the capabilities to kill the Iranian nuclear threat...they could attack tomorrow and Iran would have developed their Nuke bomb within months afterward and looking for revenge.

GWB was awful. And he has nothing to do with an agreement reached 7 years after his presidency. Good try at the usual "blame Bush" tactic though.

Israel could most likely wipe the entire ME off the map with very little resistance. They show restraint. That's a far cry from weakness.

Wheres the agreement? Once again, "transparency" fails to be so transparent. Theyre hiding the language. That's all you need to know, even if you did somehow believe the known language was a good deal.

So which is it? Bibi cries all over the world to anyone who will listen that Israel is in grave danger... he's been doing it now for many, many years, yet Bibi is showing restraint when it comes to just solving the issue outright?

Maybe the issue is not as serious as Bibi would like to masses to believe?

Interesting how your logic seems to contridict itself.

Once again, we are not going to go to war with Iran and every single military expert says the same thing - Isreal doesn't have the military capability to destroy the Iranian's nuclear capability. Isreal can show all the military restraint it wants, but we aren't going to start a war on their behalf and I doubt we will significently help either - it is not in our interest to start another war in the middle east. We blew that load in Iraq.

You are wrong about us helping Israel. I know some on the left do not want to but, there are many that do and a lot of the right does too.

This post was edited on 4/6 6:32 PM by warrior-cat

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

So why didn't GWB give the green light if that is all that is needed? What was holding GWB back?

Isreal dodn't have the capabilities to kill the Iranian nuclear threat...they could attack tomorrow and Iran would have developed their Nuke bomb within months afterward and looking for revenge.

GWB was awful. And he has nothing to do with an agreement reached 7 years after his presidency. Good try at the usual "blame Bush" tactic though.

Israel could most likely wipe the entire ME off the map with very little resistance. They show restraint. That's a far cry from weakness.

Wheres the agreement? Once again, "transparency" fails to be so transparent. Theyre hiding the language. That's all you need to know, even if you did somehow believe the known language was a good deal.

So which is it? Bibi cries all over the world to anyone who will listen that Israel is in grave danger... he's been doing it now for many, many years, yet Bibi is showing restraint when it comes to just solving the issue outright?

Maybe the issue is not as serious as Bibi would like to masses to believe?

Interesting how your logic seems to contridict itself.

Once again, we are not going to go to war with Iran and every single military expert says the same thing - Isreal doesn't have the military capability to destroy the Iranian's nuclear capability. Isreal can show all the military restraint it wants, but we aren't going to start a war on their behalf and I doubt we will significently help either - it is not in our interest to start another war in the middle east. We blew that load in Iraq.

Do you ever actually debate? Or just throw tons of straw mans out there, hoping no one will notice. You said Israel couldn't do anything about Iran through force. I disagreed.

Then you argue about Bibi/diplomacy and claim im contradicting myself?

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by bigblueinsanity:
I agree we were never using force. Everyone knew that. And that's why we had no negotiating power.

Negotiations are about compromise. Meeting in the middle. Here one side got everything they want. All they had to do was promise to behave. Something they haven't done in decades, maybe centuries.

Again, this deal is laughable for anyone with the slightest amount of objectivity. Only the biggest Obama disciples think it's a good idea to give Iran nuclear missiles and hope they keep their word; all while alienating our main ally.

The solution didn't even require force or threat of force. All we had to be willing to do was stop holding back Israel from taking care of the problem. We're so obviously spineless, we couldn't even threaten that.

So why didn't GWB give the green light if that is all that is needed? What was holding GWB back?

Isreal dodn't have the capabilities to kill the Iranian nuclear threat...they could attack tomorrow and Iran would have developed their Nuke bomb within months afterward and looking for revenge.

GWB was awful. And he has nothing to do with an agreement reached 7 years after his presidency. Good try at the usual "blame Bush" tactic though.

Israel could most likely wipe the entire ME off the map with very little resistance. They show restraint. That's a far cry from weakness.

Wheres the agreement? Once again, "transparency" fails to be so transparent. Theyre hiding the language. That's all you need to know, even if you did somehow believe the known language was a good deal.

So which is it? Bibi cries all over the world to anyone who will listen that Israel is in grave danger... he's been doing it now for many, many years, yet Bibi is showing restraint when it comes to just solving the issue outright?

Maybe the issue is not as serious as Bibi would like to masses to believe?

Interesting how your logic seems to contridict itself.

Once again, we are not going to go to war with Iran and every single military expert says the same thing - Isreal doesn't have the military capability to destroy the Iranian's nuclear capability. Isreal can show all the military restraint it wants, but we aren't going to start a war on their behalf and I doubt we will significently help either - it is not in our interest to start another war in the middle east. We blew that load in Iraq.

Do you ever actually debate? Or just throw tons of straw mans out there, hoping no one will notice. You said Israel couldn't do anything about Iran through force. I disagreed.

Then you argue about Bibi/diplomacy and claim im contradicting myself?

Which is it then? You made the claim the Obama is preventing the Isrealis from attacking...I said, if that is all that is preventing the attack, then Bush would have surely green-lighted the Isrealis? Any response to that other than pointing out that GWB was the worst President of all time. But GWB was a friend of Bibi and a friend of the Evangelicals. Why didn't he give the green light if all that is needed as you claim?

You also claimed the Bibi is showing great restraint from attacking Iran...restraint from who? Obama? Are you kidding me? Is that what you are claiming? Obama must be so powerful to force Bibi's restraint...great argument on your end once again.

I don't think I have seen a single military analyst claim Isreali can permanently take out Iran capabilties...not US analysts or other analysts. But hey, you disagree because, well, I am not sure.

I'm even wiling to bet the Iranians have nukes already. Not much we really can do about that. Just like N. Korea or Pakistan or India, etc...

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

You are wrong about us helping Israel. I know some on the left do not want to but, there are many that do and a lot of the right does too.

This post was edited on 4/6 6:32 PM by warrior-cat

False...the vast majority of the US is not interested in fighting any wars, much less wars for another country. But hey, if you feel so strongly, by all means, leave the US, go become an Isreali and pick up a gun and fight.

But the last time I checked, Isreali is not looking to do the fighting...they are looking for someone else to fight their battles.

Seriosuly, feel free to leave and go fight over there.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

You are wrong about us helping Israel. I know some on the left do not want to but, there are many that do and a lot of the right does too.


This post was edited on 4/6 6:32 PM by warrior-cat

False...the vast majority of the US is not interested in fighting any wars, much less wars for another country. But hey, if you feel so strongly, by all means, leave the US, go become an Isreali and pick up a gun and fight.

But the last time I checked, Isreali is not looking to do the fighting...they are looking for someone else to fight their battles.

Seriosuly, feel free to leave and go fight over there.

You are dead wrong here. We are war weary I will agree but, we will support Israel in most everything they do. Obama? Probably not but, he will not be around much longer and if something did happen and he showed no interest in supporting Israel you would find that there would be a lot of people on the democrat side of the house that would put the pressure on him. There are a lot of powerful Jewish people in this country not to mention all of the Christians who support Israel. You are completely clueless in this fact about Americans. In your circle perhaps you think we would not but, like Obama, you live in a bubble that keeps out reality. This I assure you is the truth.

 

[Deeeefense]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:
You are dead wrong here. We are war weary I will agree but, we will support Israel in most everything they do.

I don't think supporting Israel and supporting Bibi are necessarily the same thing. The Sunni states feel just as threatened if not more so by Iran as Israel does, however today it was reported that the Saudis have come out in support of the framework.

Supporting Israel does not necessarily mean bombing Iran, it could well be that the agreement we might reach with Iran would be more to their interest than bombing. The potential agreement keeps Iran in check for at least 10 years. Bombing at best keeps them in check for 3 years and causes sever repercussions in the region.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

You are wrong about us helping Israel. I know some on the left do not want to but, there are many that do and a lot of the right does too.


This post was edited on 4/6 6:32 PM by warrior-cat

False...the vast majority of the US is not interested in fighting any wars, much less wars for another country. But hey, if you feel so strongly, by all means, leave the US, go become an Isreali and pick up a gun and fight.

But the last time I checked, Isreali is not looking to do the fighting...they are looking for someone else to fight their battles.

Seriosuly, feel free to leave and go fight over there.

You are dead wrong here. We are war weary I will agree but, we will support Israel in most everything they do. Obama? Probably not but, he will not be around much longer and if something did happen and he showed no interest in supporting Israel you would find that there would be a lot of people on the democrat side of the house that would put the pressure on him. There are a lot of powerful Jewish people in this country not to mention all of the Christians who support Israel. You are completely clueless in this fact about Americans. In your circle perhaps you think we would not but, like Obama, you live in a bubble that keeps out reality. This I assure you is the truth.

Sorry. but we are a bankrupt country. We cannot afford another war of convenience, especially one that is not in our best interest. Even the idiot GWB wasn't that stupid to start a war that will cause massive global issues.

It's been damn near 15 years that Isreal has been threatening strikes on Iran and their nuclear capabilities. We have been essentially saying the exact same thing...in those15 years, Iran has essentially developed the needed nuclear technology, are developing it all over the country all the while building the facilities in locations that will be very difficult to bomb.

Yet you are here telling me we are going to go to war with Iran and I am the one living in the bubble. I'll gladly take the last 15+ years of actual history over your simple opinions...

But like I said, go to Isreal and sign up to fight...quit being such a Sally.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Looks like Rand Paul will announce today that he will run for President.

 

[JHB4UK]

radical tea party right winger Chuck Schumer also trashing the Iran "deal" and pledging support for Senate legislation to provide Congressional oversight on negotiations

whoops, I mean extreme left wing liberal Schumer....my bad. just knee jerk reaction that only those kids of people oppose this wonderful deal that our brave courageous leader wrung out of the scared Iranians.

 

[Catfan in Tn.]

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
radical tea party right winger Chuck Schumer also trashing the Iran "deal" and pledging support for Senate legislation to provide Congressional oversight on negotiations

whoops, I mean extreme left wing liberal Schumer....my bad. just knee jerk reaction that only those kids of people oppose this wonderful deal that our brave courageous leader wrung out of the scared Iranians.

President Obama has already come out and threatened to veto any legislation for Congressional oversight on the Iran negotiations.

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by Rex Kwon Do:
David Corn doesn't fart without a narrative in mind.

Corn is a saint compared to David Brock at Media Matters....and Deeee loves MM, calls them simply a fact-checker organization.

But I am sure he sits down and watches Megyn Kelly most every night. God, what a psycho.

 

[wkycatfan]

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
radical tea party right winger Chuck Schumer also trashing the Iran "deal" and pledging support for Senate legislation to provide Congressional oversight on negotiations

whoops, I mean extreme left wing liberal Schumer....my bad. just knee jerk reaction that only those kids of people oppose this wonderful deal that our brave courageous leader wrung out of the scared Iranians.

President Obama has already come out and threatened to veto any legislation for Congressional oversight on the Iran negotiations.

Makes you wonder what his angle is. He really, really wants to be a dictator.

 

[jamo0001]

Rand officially in.

Cruz. Rand. **** this unjust world.

 

[wkycatfan]

jam, I may be misunderstanding, but I always figured you (and Willy) for liking Rand. Both of you seem to have some libertarian streaks that would line up with Rand.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by wkycatfan:
jam, I may be misunderstanding, but I always figured you (and Willy) for liking Rand. Both of you seem to have some libertarian streaks that would line up with Rand.

Not sure about ol' Jamo, but I'm 150% in on Rand.

Rand 2016 super president plus and guarder of American prestige. Will crush libs with a fork and watch them deflate into the air like a balloon going belly up.

 

[wkycatfan]

Rand is a little too libertarian for me, but I would certainly vote for him over Hillary or Elizabeth Warren, who are both socialists.

 

[warrior-cat]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by warrior-cat:

You are wrong about us helping Israel. I know some on the left do not want to but, there are many that do and a lot of the right does too.



This post was edited on 4/6 6:32 PM by warrior-cat

False...the vast majority of the US is not interested in fighting any wars, much less wars for another country. But hey, if you feel so strongly, by all means, leave the US, go become an Isreali and pick up a gun and fight.

But the last time I checked, Isreali is not looking to do the fighting...they are looking for someone else to fight their battles.

Seriosuly, feel free to leave and go fight over there.

You are dead wrong here. We are war weary I will agree but, we will support Israel in most everything they do. Obama? Probably not but, he will not be around much longer and if something did happen and he showed no interest in supporting Israel you would find that there would be a lot of people on the democrat side of the house that would put the pressure on him. There are a lot of powerful Jewish people in this country not to mention all of the Christians who support Israel. You are completely clueless in this fact about Americans. In your circle perhaps you think we would not but, like Obama, you live in a bubble that keeps out reality. This I assure you is the truth.

Sorry. but we are a bankrupt country. We cannot afford another war of convenience, especially one that is not in our best interest. Even the idiot GWB wasn't that stupid to start a war that will cause massive global issues.

It's been damn near 15 years that Isreal has been threatening strikes on Iran and their nuclear capabilities. We have been essentially saying the exact same thing...in those15 years, Iran has essentially developed the needed nuclear technology, are developing it all over the country all the while building the facilities in locations that will be very difficult to bomb.

Yet you are here telling me we are going to go to war with Iran and I am the one living in the bubble. I'll gladly take the last 15+ years of actual history over your simple opinions...

But like I said, go to Isreal and sign up to fight...quit being such a Sally.

You really don't get it do you? No one said we are going to war with Iran. I simply stated that we would support Israel if they needed it. Also, LOL at your bankrupt statement. We have been spending money on illegals, global warming, propping up other countries, and other frivolous endeavers and you site Bankruptcy. You sometimes seem so dense but, I really don't think you are it is just that you lock step to Obama and his lackies so much that you get lost in the shuffle.

 

[jamo0001]

No. Not a Rand guy at all. About the only issues I agree with him on are criminal justice and (maybe) marijuana.

I could not be further away from him on foreign policy. Couldn't possibly.

 

[TransyCat09]

Rand isn't even that libertarian. He, IMO, would be substantially better than anyone else that could/will run, but he would not be my first choice if I could choose someone that represents my principles. Like I said, he's close enough for me to actually vote for him (unlike Romney, where I voted LP) in a general election. I think that is true for lots of libertarians as well as centrists. If Rand runs a decent campaign and he will face who we all think he will, I think he wins

 

[qwesley]

Originally posted by jamo0001:
No. Not a Rand guy at all. About the only issues I agree with him on are criminal justice and (maybe) marijuana.

I could not be further away from him on foreign policy. Couldn't possibly.

Not really sure what his foreign policy is....fluid.

 

[jamo0001]

Originally posted by qwesley:

Originally posted by jamo0001:
No. Not a Rand guy at all. About the only issues I agree with him on are criminal justice and (maybe) marijuana.

I could not be further away from him on foreign policy. Couldn't possibly.

Not really sure what his foreign policy is....fluid.

And it'll continue to get more fluid if he wants a puncher's chance at the nomination.

 

[Chuckinden]

Wasn't Rand backed by the Tea Party in his Senate campaign?

 

[BernieSadori]

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Originally posted by wkycatfan:
jam, I may be misunderstanding, but I always figured you (and Willy) for liking Rand. Both of you seem to have some libertarian streaks that would line up with Rand.

Not sure about ol' Jamo, but I'm 150% in on Rand.

Rand 2016 super president plus and guarder of American prestige. Will crush libs with a fork and watch them deflate into the air like a balloon going belly up.

Same here.

I think he'll be a tough non-pussified candidate that won't try to get the media to like him. The anti-Romney.

 

[AlbanyWildCat]

Originally posted by wkycatfan:

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
radical tea party right winger Chuck Schumer also trashing the Iran "deal" and pledging support for Senate legislation to provide Congressional oversight on negotiations

whoops, I mean extreme left wing liberal Schumer....my bad. just knee jerk reaction that only those kids of people oppose this wonderful deal that our brave courageous leader wrung out of the scared Iranians.

President Obama has already come out and threatened to veto any legislation for Congressional oversight on the Iran negotiations.

Makes you wonder what his angle is. He really, really wants to be a dictator.

Another fine example of the black guy being called out doing the same thing as all the other white guys before him...

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Haha we know you're all out of dodges, deflections, strawmans, and blame Bushes when you dredge up the racism claim.

 

[Willy4UK]

Originally posted by BernieSadori:

Originally posted by Willy4UK:

Not sure about ol' Jamo, but I'm 150% in on Rand.

Rand 2016 super president plus and guarder of American prestige. Will crush libs with a fork and watch them deflate into the air like a balloon going belly up.

Same here.

I think he'll be a tough non-pussified candidate that won't try to get the media to like him. The anti-Romney.

That's all I'm asking for Bernie.

 

[wkycatfan]

Originally posted by AlbanyWildCat:

Originally posted by wkycatfan:

Originally posted by Catfan in Tn.:

Originally posted by JHB4UK:
radical tea party right winger Chuck Schumer also trashing the Iran "deal" and pledging support for Senate legislation to provide Congressional oversight on negotiations

whoops, I mean extreme left wing liberal Schumer....my bad. just knee jerk reaction that only those kids of people oppose this wonderful deal that our brave courageous leader wrung out of the scared Iranians.

President Obama has already come out and threatened to veto any legislation for Congressional oversight on the Iran negotiations.

Makes you wonder what his angle is. He really, really wants to be a dictator.

Another fine example of the black guy being called out doing the same thing as all the other white guys before him...

Race bait much?

 

[qwesley]

Coming soon, the next phase of talking points for the deeeefenders...via Politico:


President Barack Obama held a private meeting with reporters and liberal columnists at the White House on Monday to discuss the administration's Iran policy, sources with knowledge of the meeting told the On Media blog.
The meeting, one of many such off-the-record meetings the president has held with members of the media during his tenure, came just days after the United States and Iran struck a tentative deal to limit Tehran's nuclear program.
Present at the meeting: The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait, The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib, The New York Times' Carol Giacomo, The New Yorker's Dexter Filkins, The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky, The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and The Washington Post's David Ignatius, Eugene Robinson, Ruth Marcus and Greg Sargent.

 

[truth_seeker]

Lol no chance in hell rand even gets the nomination

 

[Willy4UK]

Truth seeker scared that Rand will cut him off the tit.