Why A Yes Vote For The Iran Nuclear Deal Is A No-Brainer

An argument has no sexual orientation. Dicksucker? That's the best you've got? Go home, you malignant cunt. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're truly getting desperate! When describing your arguments as "gay," it's plainly obvious that we are not talking about sexual orientation. Most people here, with critical thinking abilities, would see that as your arguments being weak. But, leave it to you to think about sexual orientation where none needs to be applied. Do keep proving what the others say about you with regards to where you work at and what you do.

Considering that you are described as working the glory hole station, you know as well as I do the applicability of that suggested username.

Your argument here is lame, you should be asking yourself if that is all you got. Go home so that your mother could use her Scat Boy. Then, perhaps, you can come back and spew more bullshit than what you spewed in that quote.

BWAAAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAAHAAAI Yup, that about sums it up.

WombRaider has demonstrated enough attitude, and behavior, to suggest that IF he were a freelance writer, there's a good chance that he's not one now.

He doesn't give a shit about the facts, and he keeps plowing on despite being wrong. Chances are that he got into more than one argument with his clients about his work. His client calls him up, or emails him, asking for clarification. Or, the client kicked his draft back with a crap load of comments. What does Scat Boy do? He argues with his client instead of making the corrections, and learning from the comments. Nope, Turd has a "better" idea of how their writing should go.

Usually, if they like your work, you understand their mission, "hit the nail on the head" with your writing, have good rapport, etc., they'd call you back. They'd refer you to others that could use your services. A travel brochure is just one of their products. They have other commercial freelance writing products that they'd use him for. At any rate, WombRaider would be busy right now, too busy to spend all day on ECCIE.

So, IF he made such a claim, he's either full of it, or he was one before. In the later situation, he shot himself in the foot with his attitude. Originally Posted by herfacechair

He's more interested in working his "startup" of his gloryhole franchises across Arkansas to be able to get out of his "corporate" job that he has at Talleywackers. Sure, Talleywackers was kind enough to take him in after he was run off by those mean, non-LGBT friendly owners and the police at the last truck stop he worked out of. . Something about him being a " lot lizard" and harassing the truck drivers ( he kept asking the drivers if they needed " air ", and when one would say yes, woomby would offer to blow him right there in the parking lot ! Or he'd ask the driver if he needed his "rim" cleaned, and if the answer was yes, woomby would reach into his Sponge Bob backpack, pull out his roll of toilet paper and then drop to his knees and stick out his tounge ! ) so the owner's business started hurting. But woomby is gonna show everyone his business acumen and his grasp of economics and start his own 'holes franchises all across Arkansas ! woomby claims to not to like "working for the man" like the tired ass, leeching 60's radicals used to say, so that's why he's trying to leave Talleywackers and "strike out on his own" with his own franchises. He wants to earn his titles of " The Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas " and " The Professor of Peter-Puffing " with a "hands on approach " to his dream ! And if you've seen any of his posts and arguments about economics on here, you can bet he'll be going back to the folks at Talleywackers for his old job out in back by their dumpsters real soon ! But, typical liberal, he'll find someone ELSE to blame for HIS failure !

Womby's arguments are gay. He should change his username to DickSucker in order for it to be consistent with his "Puss in the Boots in the Glory Hole Stall/Booth" description. His arguments are also deficient of facts.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

I suggested he change his username to Pete R. Puffer to more accurately reflect his "station" in life and down at the 'holes ! That way maybe he could show a little pride in himself and his chosen profession !

Go back and read the post in there. Nowhere in his post did he argue that Saddam Hussein was a leader in Iran. Think geopolitics on a regional multinational scale. Pay attention to what you read, FOCUS! Originally Posted by herfacechair

I know what he had written.

Geopolitics, had GWB thought about geopolitics , he would not have removed the counterweight to Iran.

You War Mongers do not understand that if you do not capture in spoils , more than you spend in capturing those spoils....than you war piggy bank dries up.

I suggested he change his username to Pete R. Puffer to more accurately reflect his "station" in life and down at the 'holes ! That way maybe he could show a little pride in himself and his chosen profession ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

You take pride in yourself and your gloryhole posts, do you?

You're truly getting desperate! When describing your arguments as "gay," it's plainly obvious that we are not talking about sexual orientation. Most people here, with critical thinking abilities, would see that as your arguments being weak. But, leave it to you to think about sexual orientation where none needs to be applied. Do keep proving what the others say about you with regards to where you work at and what you do.

Considering that you are described as working the glory hole station, you know as well as I do the applicability of that suggested username.

Your argument here is lame, you should be asking yourself if that is all you got. Go home so that your mother could use her Scat Boy. Then, perhaps, you can come back and spew more bullshit than what you spewed in that quote. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Because in your feeble mind, feeble means weak by the way, gay is synonymous with weak. Leave it to me to think about sexual orientation? You're the one who described the argument as gay, not me. You don't need an 'at' after work, but it's a common mistake. Almost every 'that' is superfluous as well. Read it without them and it reads just as well, better in fact. Even the last one is unnecessary. Instead you should use 'your', thereby ascribing the quote to me without having to resort to the use of 'that'.

I am a writer. Your belief is not required for something to be true.

You're not challenging me at all. All you're doing is spewing tinfoil hat propaganda and insisting that that is the truth. What I see as the truth are things supported by the facts. Your arguments are not supported by the fact. How could you insist that your opinions, not supported by fact, are the "truth"?

As far as my not "seeing" what you want me to see. I've never changed my position, in an online-argument, because of something said by the person that I was arguing with.

I'm not the one that refuses to see the truth. I see it, based on my research and observations. For example what you and ScattRaider insist the "military industrial complex" does is simply not realistic. The facts indicate that they would turn to the government in a bid to get contracts. This happens during peace or during war. They happen to be drastically outnumbered by other businesses and corporations that operate in the US free market economy.

It seems that you guys are confusing the military industrial complex that existed during World War II to the reality that exists today. I see that Scatt Boy ignored that argument, and, instead, went straight for my one of my many booby-traps to show me how desperate he is.

Again, corporate leadership from middle-management and up are overwhelmed with their job duties. They are so overwhelmed, that time-management courses are offered in course programs provided to these professionals. If they are overwhelmed with their normal corporate duties, what makes people think that they would turn around and try to exert control over the government, and to dictate policy? That simply doesn't make sense. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Why should I engage with you? You are the epitome of Mark Twain's statement, "Never argue with a stupid person. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience."


You've never changed your mind in an online argument? That PROVES you're an idiot. I have. When someone refutes me in a way that makes sense, I've admitted it, and changed my mind. I've been shown to be wrong on a rare occasion, and I've admitted it. I've done it here. I'm willing to learn. You're not. That's why you're boring, and not worth engaging. You don't want to argue, you want to bully. Fuck you. Use all the blue you want. It's still bullshit.

...

And like I said throughout this thread. The agreement is based on what the Iranians are willing to admit, and what they're been verified to have. It's not based on what the Iranians aren't willing to admit to having. Also, its success depends on the Iranians being 100% honest, as well as they're willingness to restrict themselves to what's in the agreement.

Outside of what they're willing to admit to having, and outside of what the inspectors know exists, the agreement is meaningless, and doesn't impact when the Iranians would ultimately detonate their first nuclear bombs.

... Originally Posted by herfacechair

The key points are Flighty trusts the Iranians to give an honest baseline, trusts that inspectors can inspect the sites the Iranians are actually doing nuke bomb work, trusts that the snap back sanctions are enforceable and trusts that the Iranians hold up their end of the agreement...all while the Supreme Leader shouts "Death To America!"

And if you don't align yourself with the agreement, you are a warmonger...because you didn't negotiate a better one!

And if you don't align yourself with the agreement, you are a warmonger...because you didn't negotiate a better one! Originally Posted by gnadfly

There is no better deal without war...and that IMHO is not a better deal.

The Iraq war gave the Iranians the upper hand in the ME....those of you that do not understand that fact , do not understand this deal.

Think of it like this, A car with no brakes is gaining speed going downhill. The Russians, Chinese and Europeans decided to jump out, you seem to think there is a better outcome by staying in the car. Many like myself think it better to jump out and deal with the inevitable.

Because in your feeble mind, feeble means weak by the way, gay is synonymous with weak. Leave it to me to think about sexual orientation? You're the one who described the argument as gay, not me. You don't need an 'at' after work, but it's a common mistake. Almost every 'that' is superfluous as well. Read it without them and it reads just as well, better in fact. Even the last one is unnecessary. Instead you should use 'your', thereby ascribing the quote to me without having to resort to the use of 'that'.

I am a writer. Your belief is not required for something to be true. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Scrawling your name and phone number on a men's room stall does NOT make you a writer woomby ! Just a desperate cum guzzling EUNUCH trying to get more "ropey loads" for his facials and more nalgas to rim while practicing your rusty trombone !!!

Scrawling your name and phone number on a men's room stall does NOT make you a writer woomby ! Just a desperate cum guzzling EUNUCH trying to get more "ropey loads" for his facials and more nalgas to rim while practicing your rusty trombone !!! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

You're an atrocious failure at life.

You're an atrocious failure at life. Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's what you lying liberals say to all of us conservative earners that have our tax dollars confiscated to support your lazy, swishy walking asses . Get busy practicing that trombone woomby ! Then you can call yourself a "musician" along with all the other job titles that you've given yourself !

There is no better deal without war...and that IMHO is not a better deal. Originally Posted by WTF

It's a truly pathetic sight when our POTUS views this as his signature foreign policy achievement yet can offer no higher defense than to prey on our fears of war.... a new low for any US Commander-in-Chief - but then Odumbo has always appealed to our worst instincts rather than our best traditions.... and this is what you libtards call "leadership"? And you parrot his false and specious talking points? Whatever you call it, it's failing miserably. Only 21% of Americans support the deal - that's barely one in five.


Cleaning Up After the Obama Team’s Iran Deal

Show Tehran the ways it may lose what it won at the gaming tables in Vienna.

By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
Sept. 13, 2015 6:25 p.m. ET

"We couldn’t have negotiated a better deal.” That is one of the two pillars of the Obama administration’s argument in favor of its nuclear arrangement with Iran, the other being, “there’s no alternative but war.” Those two propositions appear to have won the day—at least with enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a vote disapproving of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Iran deal remains deeply unpopular with the American public and with the Republican majority in Congress.

Over the past few months, the two propositions regarding the deal left opponents sputtering a catalog of its numerous defects. But it must be admitted that the first proposition—“we couldn’t have negotiated a better deal”—is plainly true.

Consider who the “we” are. President Obama, the deal’s principal proponent, has repeatedly refused to recognize the existence of Islamist radicalism and failed to enforce even his own red line against Bashar Assad’s use of poison gas in Syria.

The leader of the U.S. delegation, Secretary of State John Kerry, airily endorsed an inspections regimen agreed to between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency—an agreement whose wording he concedes the U.S. doesn’t have, although he thinks one member of the U.S. delegation may have seen it. Not providing the text of this side deal to Congress violates directly the statutory requirement that the administration supply “annexes, appendices, side agreements” and “any related agreements.”

Mr. Kerry also concedes that Iran will prevent access to what it calls defense sites. These include the Parchin facility, where Iran carries out weaponization experiments, and at which Iran will be permitted to take its own soil samples for presentation to the IAEA.

Finally, there is Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator. What was her response to the suggestion that Congress should have had a chance to review the deal—as the president promised and U.S. law requires—before it was submitted to the U.N. Security Council? “It would have been a little difficult when all of the members of the P5+1 wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement . . . for us to say, ‘Well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.' "

Given that team, “we” really could not have negotiated a better agreement and can’t now.

Which leaves the claim that the only alternative to the nuclear deal is war. That is a half-truth. It is true that unless the U.S. presents a credible threat that at some point force will be used if the deal is violated, no arrangement with Iran means anything. It is not true that the deal sets out the only alternatives to the immediate use of force against Iran’s nuclear program, or that the deal threatens the use of force at all.

The only downside for Iran in the deal is that after a lengthy process, the regime might be found to have cheated, and economic sanctions would “snap back” into place. Even if that actually happens, whatever contracts Iran negotiates before such a finding—whether for the sale of oil, for instance, or for the purchase of “dual use” materials suitable for nuclear applications—the contracts are given immunity from sanctions under the deal, and would help the regime continue its quest for a bomb.

What alternatives are available that might convince Iran that it may not be able to keep what it won at the gaming tables in Vienna, and that force is a possibility if it cheats? One is that a later U.S. president could repudiate the deal. Against this is set the bogus claim that if the U.S. were to do so, the world would lose confidence that this country will live up to its word.

The Iran deal is not a treaty and has no constitutional status. Congress should declare, and try to get a court to declare, that President Obama has no authority to lift sanctions in Iran because he failed to comply with the Iran Nuclear Review Act he signed earlier this year—specifically, the legal requirement that he show to Congress the entire agreement including “side agreements” like the one between Iran and the IAEA.

There are other steps to take. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, has suggested an immediate congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran violates the deal; beefing up U.S. defenses in a meaningful way; and perhaps providing Israel with the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This “bunker buster” could penetrate even the underground Iranian enrichment facility at Fordow, which is suitable principally for creating an atomic weapon.

Has the Tehran regime ever done anything to suggest that Iran will yield to that kind of pressure? The evidence is slim, but there is some. On Jan. 20, 1981, as the resolute Ronald Reagan was sworn in to succeed Jimmy Carter, the Iranians released the 52 U.S. hostages who had been seized in 1979 at the U.S. Embassy.

Another hint comes from 2003, after the U.S. started asking questions about an until-then secret nuclear facility at Natanz—and notably after the U.S. had invaded Iraq based in part on a belief that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. According to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, Iran in 2003 suspended its weaponization and weapons-design program, although not the enrichment going on at its declared facilities.

To be credible, the force that is contemplated must—at a minimum—be able to cripple Iran’s nuclear program for the long term. Some have suggested that Iran has sufficient know-how to quickly rebuild any damaged facilities. Yet as former Defense Department analyst Matthew Kroenig and others have noted, Iran doesn’t have the kind of robust industrial base necessary to produce from scratch the infrastructure embedded at its nuclear facilities. Rather, it bought and smuggled hardware from North Korea, from the Pakistani A.Q. Khan network and elsewhere, and took about 30 years to reach its current level. Following a strike, with intense surveillance and enforcement when necessary, Iran could be kept decades from a bomb.

However, before Iran can respond to a credible threat of force there must be a U.S. administration with enough steel to do more than talk about whether a vague military option is on or off a metaphoric table. That is assuredly not the current “we".
.

That's what you lying liberals say to all of us conservative earners that have our tax dollars confiscated to support your lazy, swishy walking asses . Get busy practicing that trombone woomby ! Then you can call yourself a "musician" along with all the other job titles that you've given yourself ! Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

You like having water that is safe to drink? You like eating food that's safe to eat? You like driving on roads? Your tax dollars aren't 'confiscated', you fucking idiot. I bet you're poor as a fucking church mouse and YET, you will continue to elect white millionaires who don't give two fucks about you, because they're on your team. You are the fucking morons they use as mortar to build their palaces. And you're too fucking stupid to know it. They keep you busy by telling you the brown and black man are your enemy and you eat that shit up, because, as I previously said, you're fucking stupid.

.
.
.
.

Cleaning Up After the Obama Team’s Iran Deal
Show Tehran the ways it may lose what it won at the gaming tables in Vienna.

By MICHAEL B. MUKASEY
Sept. 13, 2015 6:25 p.m. ET

‘We couldn’t have negotiated a better deal.” That is one of the two pillars of the Obama administration’s argument in favor of its nuclear arrangement with Iran, the other being, “there’s no alternative but war.” Those two propositions appear to have won the day—at least with enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a vote disapproving of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Iran deal remains deeply unpopular with the American public and with the Republican majority in Congress.

Over the past few months, the two propositions regarding the deal left opponents sputtering a catalog of its numerous defects. But it must be admitted that the first proposition—“we couldn’t have negotiated a better deal”—is plainly true.

Consider who the “we” are. President Obama, the deal’s principal proponent, has repeatedly refused to recognize the existence of Islamist radicalism and failed to enforce even his own red line against Bashar Assad’s use of poison gas in Syria.

The leader of the U.S. delegation, Secretary of State John Kerry, airily endorsed an inspections regimen agreed to between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency—an agreement whose wording he concedes the U.S. doesn’t have, although he thinks one member of the U.S. delegation may have seen it. Not providing the text of this side deal to Congress violates directly the statutory requirement that the administration supply “annexes, appendices, side agreements” and “any related agreements.”

Mr. Kerry also concedes that Iran will prevent access to what it calls defense sites. These include the Parchin facility, where Iran carries out weaponization experiments, and at which Iran will be permitted to take its own soil samples for presentation to the IAEA.

Finally, there is Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator. What was her response to the suggestion that Congress should have had a chance to review the deal—as the president promised and U.S. law requires—before it was submitted to the U.N. Security Council? “It would have been a little difficult when all of the members of the P5+1 wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement . . . for us to say, ‘Well excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.' "

Given that team, “we” really could not have negotiated a better agreement and can’t now.

Which leaves the claim that the only alternative to the nuclear deal is war. That is a half-truth. It is true that unless the U.S. presents a credible threat that at some point force will be used if the deal is violated, no arrangement with Iran means anything. It is not true that the deal sets out the only alternatives to the immediate use of force against Iran’s nuclear program, or that the deal threatens the use of force at all.

The only downside for Iran in the deal is that after a lengthy process, the regime might be found to have cheated, and economic sanctions would “snap back” into place. Even if that actually happens, whatever contracts Iran negotiates before such a finding—whether for the sale of oil, for instance, or for the purchase of “dual use” materials suitable for nuclear applications—the contracts are given immunity from sanctions under the deal, and would help the regime continue its quest for a bomb.

What alternatives are available that might convince Iran that it may not be able to keep what it won at the gaming tables in Vienna, and that force is a possibility if it cheats? One is that a later U.S. president could repudiate the deal. Against this is set the bogus claim that if the U.S. were to do so, the world would lose confidence that this country will live up to its word.

The Iran deal is not a treaty and has no constitutional status. Congress should declare, and try to get a court to declare, that President Obama has no authority to lift sanctions in Iran because he failed to comply with the Iran Nuclear Review Act he signed earlier this year—specifically, the legal requirement that he show to Congress the entire agreement including “side agreements” like the one between Iran and the IAEA.

There are other steps to take. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former CIA director, has suggested an immediate congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran violates the deal; beefing up U.S. defenses in a meaningful way; and perhaps providing Israel with the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This “bunker buster” could penetrate even the underground Iranian enrichment facility at Fordow, which is suitable principally for creating an atomic weapon.

Has the Tehran regime ever done anything to suggest that Iran will yield to that kind of pressure? The evidence is slim, but there is some. On Jan. 20, 1981, as the resolute Ronald Reagan was sworn in to succeed Jimmy Carter, the Iranians released the 52 U.S. hostages who had been seized in 1979 at the U.S. Embassy.

Another hint comes from 2003, after the U.S. started asking questions about an until-then secret nuclear facility at Natanz—and notably after the U.S. had invaded Iraq based in part on a belief that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. According to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, Iran in 2003 suspended its weaponization and weapons-design program, although not the enrichment going on at its declared facilities.

To be credible, the force that is contemplated must—at a minimum—be able to cripple Iran’s nuclear program for the long term. Some have suggested that Iran has sufficient know-how to quickly rebuild any damaged facilities. Yet as former Defense Department analyst Matthew Kroenig and others have noted, Iran doesn’t have the kind of robust industrial base necessary to produce from scratch the infrastructure embedded at its nuclear facilities. Rather, it bought and smuggled hardware from North Korea, from the Pakistani A.Q. Khan network and elsewhere, and took about 30 years to reach its current level. Following a strike, with intense surveillance and enforcement when necessary, Iran could be kept decades from a bomb.

However, before Iran can respond to a credible threat of force there must be a U.S. administration with enough steel to do more than talk about whether a vague military option is on or off a metaphoric table. That is assuredly not the current “ Originally Posted by lustylad

Wouldn't be a friday without a WSJ op piece copied and pasted by LustyTard. Of course it begins with a falsehood, highlighted for your viewing pleasure.

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/01/fo...radical-islam/