Obama wants to make sure Iran has nukes before he leaves office. This will insure a nuclear counterbalance against Israel, and will insure they're no longer the sole nuclear power in the region.
Interesting, I just heard that exact sentiment almost word for word on limbaugh's show.
I guess I know for sure where you get your brilliant ideas.
No way. I doubt Rush would ever say that. I'm listening to jazz on youtube.
Are you pulling a joe bell and calling me a liar???
Obama wants to make sure Iran has nukes before he leaves office. This will insure a nuclear counterbalance against Israel, and will insure they're no longer the sole nuclear power in the region.
Interesting, I just heard that exact sentiment almost word for word on limbaugh's show.
I guess I know for sure where you get your brilliant ideas.
No way. I doubt Rush would ever say that. I'm listening to jazz on youtube.
Are you pulling a joe bell and calling me a liar???
_____________________________________________________________
"Are calling me a liar???"
Wouldn't be this first time.
Are targeted strikes like that considered an invasion? I honestly don't know. Not the military buff others here are.
Suppose Iran targeted your house. Would that be considered an invasion? An act of war?
Again, I'm gobsmacked by your line of thinking here Alloak.
quote:
What evidence do you have that Obama wants world wide nuclear proliferation?He wants a counterbalance to Israel. If he didn't he would be stopping Iran from nuke development.
That isn't evidence alloak. What evidence do you have that Obama wants Iraq to have nuclear weapons? How would any other country having nuclear weapons benefit United States foreign policy?
Do you think Obama wants to give Israel more American tax payer money for an even stronger Israeli military to "counterbalance" the nuclear weapons he so generously wants Iran to develop?
Cmon dude. Help me understand your thinking.
Are you advocating for the United States to begin a World War? Do you think we can just bomb Iran without consequence?
Obama wants to make sure Iran has nukes before he leaves office. This will insure a nuclear counterbalance against Israel, and will insure they're no longer the sole nuclear power in the region.
Interesting, I just heard that exact sentiment almost word for word on limbaugh's show.
I guess I know for sure where you get your brilliant ideas.
No way. I doubt Rush would ever say that. I'm listening to jazz on youtube.
Are you pulling a joe bell and calling me a liar???
_____________________________________________________________
"Are calling me a liar???"
Wouldn't be this first time.
Really???
Put your facts where your big mouth is.
Show me where anyone other than the one mentioned has done that.
You also left out a word, making you look as foolish as your other posts do.
Interesting. What else did Rush say today?
Part of this Obama negotiation is that if Iran doesn't agree there are much harsher sanctions ahead......which is what Bibi and GOP want, for now. its all theater.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/03/politics/iran-nuclear-talks-deal-explainer/index.html
What's in the Iran nuclear deal
By Jim Sciutto and Jamie Crawford, CNN
Updated 5:29 PM ET, Tue March 3, 2015
What would a nuclear deal with Iran actually look like?
Montreux, Switzerland (CNN)With a crucial deadline in the negotiations over Iran's disputed nuclear program less than a month away, negotiators are hard at work in this picturesque town trying to hammer out a framework agreement for a deal.
It's a complicated process many years in the making that, as with many international negotiations, brings with it varying expectations from each side.
Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Switzerland for the second time in recent weeks for a series of meetings with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif as the clock ticks down.
While Kerry and other U.S. officials have long maintained that no deal is preferable to one that can be easily broken, Kerry laid out a broad vision of what an acceptable deal to him would look like.
"Any deal that we would possibly agree to would make the international community, and especially Israel, safer than it is today. That's our standard," Kerry said Monday as his meetings with Zarif began.
What does the U.S. want?
For its part, the United States is looking for the elimination of any ability on the part of Iran to make a nuclear weapon in the future.
At the very least, the United States and its partners in these negotiations, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, the so-called P5+1, want to extend the time needed for Iran to assemble a weapon, the so-called breakout time, to be extended to a year in order to provide enough of a gap to react to such a decision.
In an interview with Reuters on Monday, President Barack Obama said Iran should commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years in its nuclear activity as part of any final agreement.
"If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their program where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist ... if we've got that, and we've got a way of verifying that, there's no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don't have a nuclear weapon," Obama said.
What does Iran want?
Iran would like complete relief from the international sanctions that are crippling its economy, particularly in the wake of falling global oil prices. For Iran, anything less is a non-starter.
"Our negotiating partners, particularly the western countries and particularly the United States, must once and for all, come to the political understanding that sanctions and agreement don't go together," Zarif said Monday. "If they want an agreement, sanctions must go."
Getting the balance right on any potential deal, particularly the sanctions question, will be tricky as the United States and its allies are pushing for an incremental lifting of sanctions in order to maintain leverage to ensure Iran is abiding by the agreement.
How do the sides get to a deal?
While both sides say the gaps between the two sides are narrowing, the big remaining question is how you get to a deal that all sides can agree on.
"There are gaps. There's certainly gaps and we're starting to move forward but it's a lot of work," Zarif told CNN on Tuesday. When asked how many times the sides plan to meet Tuesday, he replied, "As many times as necessary."
They are keeping that promise -- having met late into the night Monday and starting early again in the morning -- in talks that have developed a steady rhythm: meet for an hour, head back to confer with staff, then meet again. This round of talks will continue into Wednesday.
Sticking points
In order to increase that breakout time, the P5+1 negotiators say there needs to be a drastic reduction in the number of Iranian centrifuges, the devices used to enrich uranium to the higher level of purity needed for a nuclear bomb.
Iran currently has approximately 20,000 centrifuges, but it has many times balked at reducing that number to the few thousand centrifuges that international negotiators are pushing for in any agreement.
There is also the question of what you do with the growing stockpile of enriched uranium currently inside Iran.
While the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency has not seen evidence that Iran has enriched its uranium stockpile to levels approaching 20% in recent months (nuclear weapons typically require enrichment to 90%), Iran views questions over its nuclear abilities as an affront to its sovereignty.
In the past, negotiators have raised the prospect of shipping Iran's uranium supply to a third country -- Russia is often mentioned as a candidate -- in order to convert that fuel down to very low levels that would only be suitable for civilian power plants.
And there is also the sticking point of increasing the level of monitoring at Iran's nuclear facilities so Iran doesn't not have the capability to cheat on any deal reached.
The IAEA currently has the ability to monitor a variety of nuclear sites, but the government has refused access to a sensitive site that many feel has been used in the past to test various explosive devices that could be part of a potential military dimension to Iran's nuclear program.
"We have asked questions and the questions are clear, so (Iran) can answer," IAEA chief Yukiya Amano said Monday.
Looming deadlines
Added to all this complexity are the two separate deadlines the entire enterprise is up against.
Negotiators are working toward a deadline at the end of March to reach a political framework that would spell out the elements that both sides agree would form the basis of a deal. That would then pave the way for a complete and final agreement with all the technical details addressed to be reached by the end of June.
There is of course the possibility of reaching a framework agreement only to have it fall apart as the two sides work to finalize the details for the complete deal.
Despite the repeated rhetoric from both sides that the gaps between the two have been diminishing for a number of weeks, the bridging of those final gaps are likely to prove to be the most difficult ones as the negotiating window closes.
Interesting. What else did Rush say today?
Don't know, only had el porko on for 20 minutes while in the car.
The bb speech was all he talked about while I listened.
His little summation ended a segment and I left the car.
Obama wants to make sure Iran has nukes before he leaves office. This will insure a nuclear counterbalance against Israel, and will insure they're no longer the sole nuclear power in the region.
Interesting, I just heard that exact sentiment almost word for word on limbaugh's show.
I guess I know for sure where you get your brilliant ideas.
No way. I doubt Rush would ever say that. I'm listening to jazz on youtube.
Are you pulling a joe bell and calling me a liar???
Here you go, right from el porko's web site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/03/obama_wants_a_nuclear_iran_to_balance_israel
Obama Wants a Nuclear Iran to Balance Israel
March 03, 2015
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Well, Obama's now addressed the Netanyahu speech, said there was nothing new there, nothing new in the Netanyahu speech, and there weren't any viable alternatives. And we need to wait until there's actually a deal on the table that Iran's agreed to before we start making comments on it, so forth. And of course we know what's in the deal because John Kerry has told us.
We know what's in the deal because John Kerry has told us, and one of the things Netanyahu was trying to do was put the brakes on it by publicizing it, because it's absurd. John Kerry has told us what the Iranian deal is. The Iranian deal is they agree to not finalize the production of a weapon for 10 years. We make it possible that they can get there. We do not stand in their way. And then in ten years they can fulfill the desire to get a nuclear weapon. Kerry has said so.
Our policy is going to be rooted in the acknowledgement that if they want one, they can have one. We're not the ones to tell 'em they can't. What we're gonna do is use persuasion on them, and we are gonna persuade them not to use the nuclear weapon that we have permitted them to build. Remember, 75% of the centrifuges that Iran needs to complete the project have been built during the Obama administration, on the Obama watch with Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, secretary of state.
By the way, I should point out, Obama looks really mad. I know this guy. I know you people don't think I do. You think I don't, but I know this guy. He's holding back. He's having trouble holding back, too. He wants to launch. He wants to launch, but he knows he's got to hold back. In private, whoever this poor secretary that he talks to next, or Josh Earnest, he's gonna unload if he hasn't already. He is going to unload on Netanyahu, probably already has. For this exercise he's got to appear collegial and professorial, you know, the way they are in the faculty lounge. He has to appear reasonable, while explaining that Netanyahu has no idea what he's talking about.
The question I have is this: Why is giving Iran the nuclear bomb so important to Obama? You realize that's what we're talking about here. The former position of this country, until Obama was elected, was Iran does not get the nuke. That was the official position, be it stated at the United Nations, be it stated by presidents at State of the Union, doesn't matter. The official position of the US was never Iran gets the nuclear weapon.
Now, why does giving Iran the bomb mean so much to Obama? That's my question. And why has the official position of the United States changed on that? Why does the official position of the US now seem ambiguous? It used to be obvious. The position the United States had was unalterable and it was rock solid. We were firmly opposed to the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. Now we're not. It's just that simple. Why is Obama so concerned with giving Iran the nuclear bomb?
What is it that makes Obama think they are warranted in having one? What is it that makes Obama think it's okay for them to have one? What is it that makes Obama think we've got no business stopping them, really? Now, on this nuke deal, something else that John Kerry has made clear about it is, Iran can get out of this deal at any time. And Obama claims that'll still give us a one-year lead time to stop them. So we've got a deal on the table, Kerry has told us what it is, that's why we know what it is, and Obama's running around, "I don't know what Netanyahu's doing. He shouldn't be talking about this 'til there's a deal on the table. There isn't a deal on the table."
Well, Kerry's told us what it is. In addition to paving the way for Iran to get a nuke in ten years, and then in ten years they can do it but we're gonna try to stop 'em from using it. That's gonna be our official -- folks, don't laugh at that. I know it sounds ridiculous. That's the policy. The policy is to not stand in their way of getting a bomb, other than to force it to take 10 years. But after ten years goes by, they can get the bomb. And our policy is going to be trying to persuade them never to use it.
We're gonna treat them as adults. "Okay, you want a nuclear bomb? Fine, here's your nuclear bomb." A 16 year old, "Okay, you want your Corvette? Here's your Corvette, but please don't drive it until you're 21." That's not the best analogy I can come up with, but it's off the top of my head. Then we find out that Iran can get out of the deal any time they want. In other words, there's no point in having one. Even if they sign it they can get out of it any time they want. Obama's answer to that is, well, even if they get out, it will still give us a year lead time to be able to stop them.
Now, Obama's angry, I understand his anger. There has just been a profound contrast in leadership on display in Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu has illustrated what Barack Obama is not. And it is what it is. Obama's understandably piqued. He's mad about it. He's ticked off. He views it as insolence, disrespectful and so forth. So he's gonna double down on this deal, but he's out there saying Netanyahu didn't say anything we haven't heard. There's no alternative, no viable alternative proposed here. This is no big deal.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Dave in Gurnee, Illinois. Dave, I'm glad you waited. I really appreciate that. How are you doing, sir?
CALLER: Good Rush. You know, these certainly are troubling times, especially for us that pay attention and us that remember the duck-and-cover days.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: I mean, very troubling. But there are pinnacle moments when the Democrat Party is revealed and unveiled. Today is one, but let's remember, less than three years ago in 2012 at the Democrat Party convention, I know you mentioned it slightly last hour, where the introduction of God into platform and then also recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and how that got booed three times. And actually, it didn't pass, but they allowed it to pass. But that was another time when we get to see what's going on in that party.
RUSH: It's exactly right. I mean, people may have forgotten that their convention was in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jerusalem got booed. God was booed for being included in the party platform. I think what people who don't yet understand the modern left, you can call it the Democrat Party, liberals, or whatever, clearly they've taken over the Democrat Party. It's now full pledged radical left. There are no moderate Democrats left.
The thing that -- and I think I proved this, I mean, to myself. I satisfied myself this is true by watching House of Cards. It's not the first observance. This just confirmed. I think really at the root of all of their anger, and everything is a derivative from this, or descended from this, is their abject hatred and fear of Christianity. And everything else, everything they oppose or fear descends from that singular fear and hatred that they have. I'm convinced of it now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: David in Hartford, Connecticut, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. What a privilege to talk to you.
RUSH: I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Muledouche can apologize for calling me a liar.
I'm sure that will happen right after joe apologizes for the same thing.
[Edited on 3/3/2015 by PhotoRon286]
Obama wants to make sure Iran has nukes before he leaves office. This will insure a nuclear counterbalance against Israel, and will insure they're no longer the sole nuclear power in the region.
Interesting, I just heard that exact sentiment almost word for word on limbaugh's show.
I guess I know for sure where you get your brilliant ideas.
No way. I doubt Rush would ever say that. I'm listening to jazz on youtube.
Are you pulling a joe bell and calling me a liar???
Here you go, right from el porko's web site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/03/obama_wants_a_nuclear_iran_to_balance_israel
Obama Wants a Nuclear Iran to Balance Israel
March 03, 2015BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Well, Obama's now addressed the Netanyahu speech, said there was nothing new there, nothing new in the Netanyahu speech, and there weren't any viable alternatives. And we need to wait until there's actually a deal on the table that Iran's agreed to before we start making comments on it, so forth. And of course we know what's in the deal because John Kerry has told us.
We know what's in the deal because John Kerry has told us, and one of the things Netanyahu was trying to do was put the brakes on it by publicizing it, because it's absurd. John Kerry has told us what the Iranian deal is. The Iranian deal is they agree to not finalize the production of a weapon for 10 years. We make it possible that they can get there. We do not stand in their way. And then in ten years they can fulfill the desire to get a nuclear weapon. Kerry has said so.
Our policy is going to be rooted in the acknowledgement that if they want one, they can have one. We're not the ones to tell 'em they can't. What we're gonna do is use persuasion on them, and we are gonna persuade them not to use the nuclear weapon that we have permitted them to build. Remember, 75% of the centrifuges that Iran needs to complete the project have been built during the Obama administration, on the Obama watch with Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, secretary of state.
By the way, I should point out, Obama looks really mad. I know this guy. I know you people don't think I do. You think I don't, but I know this guy. He's holding back. He's having trouble holding back, too. He wants to launch. He wants to launch, but he knows he's got to hold back. In private, whoever this poor secretary that he talks to next, or Josh Earnest, he's gonna unload if he hasn't already. He is going to unload on Netanyahu, probably already has. For this exercise he's got to appear collegial and professorial, you know, the way they are in the faculty lounge. He has to appear reasonable, while explaining that Netanyahu has no idea what he's talking about.
The question I have is this: Why is giving Iran the nuclear bomb so important to Obama? You realize that's what we're talking about here. The former position of this country, until Obama was elected, was Iran does not get the nuke. That was the official position, be it stated at the United Nations, be it stated by presidents at State of the Union, doesn't matter. The official position of the US was never Iran gets the nuclear weapon.
Now, why does giving Iran the bomb mean so much to Obama? That's my question. And why has the official position of the United States changed on that? Why does the official position of the US now seem ambiguous? It used to be obvious. The position the United States had was unalterable and it was rock solid. We were firmly opposed to the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. Now we're not. It's just that simple. Why is Obama so concerned with giving Iran the nuclear bomb?
What is it that makes Obama think they are warranted in having one? What is it that makes Obama think it's okay for them to have one? What is it that makes Obama think we've got no business stopping them, really? Now, on this nuke deal, something else that John Kerry has made clear about it is, Iran can get out of this deal at any time. And Obama claims that'll still give us a one-year lead time to stop them. So we've got a deal on the table, Kerry has told us what it is, that's why we know what it is, and Obama's running around, "I don't know what Netanyahu's doing. He shouldn't be talking about this 'til there's a deal on the table. There isn't a deal on the table."
Well, Kerry's told us what it is. In addition to paving the way for Iran to get a nuke in ten years, and then in ten years they can do it but we're gonna try to stop 'em from using it. That's gonna be our official -- folks, don't laugh at that. I know it sounds ridiculous. That's the policy. The policy is to not stand in their way of getting a bomb, other than to force it to take 10 years. But after ten years goes by, they can get the bomb. And our policy is going to be trying to persuade them never to use it.
We're gonna treat them as adults. "Okay, you want a nuclear bomb? Fine, here's your nuclear bomb." A 16 year old, "Okay, you want your Corvette? Here's your Corvette, but please don't drive it until you're 21." That's not the best analogy I can come up with, but it's off the top of my head. Then we find out that Iran can get out of the deal any time they want. In other words, there's no point in having one. Even if they sign it they can get out of it any time they want. Obama's answer to that is, well, even if they get out, it will still give us a year lead time to be able to stop them.
Now, Obama's angry, I understand his anger. There has just been a profound contrast in leadership on display in Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu has illustrated what Barack Obama is not. And it is what it is. Obama's understandably piqued. He's mad about it. He's ticked off. He views it as insolence, disrespectful and so forth. So he's gonna double down on this deal, but he's out there saying Netanyahu didn't say anything we haven't heard. There's no alternative, no viable alternative proposed here. This is no big deal.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Dave in Gurnee, Illinois. Dave, I'm glad you waited. I really appreciate that. How are you doing, sir?
CALLER: Good Rush. You know, these certainly are troubling times, especially for us that pay attention and us that remember the duck-and-cover days.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: I mean, very troubling. But there are pinnacle moments when the Democrat Party is revealed and unveiled. Today is one, but let's remember, less than three years ago in 2012 at the Democrat Party convention, I know you mentioned it slightly last hour, where the introduction of God into platform and then also recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and how that got booed three times. And actually, it didn't pass, but they allowed it to pass. But that was another time when we get to see what's going on in that party.
RUSH: It's exactly right. I mean, people may have forgotten that their convention was in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jerusalem got booed. God was booed for being included in the party platform. I think what people who don't yet understand the modern left, you can call it the Democrat Party, liberals, or whatever, clearly they've taken over the Democrat Party. It's now full pledged radical left. There are no moderate Democrats left.
The thing that -- and I think I proved this, I mean, to myself. I satisfied myself this is true by watching House of Cards. It's not the first observance. This just confirmed. I think really at the root of all of their anger, and everything is a derivative from this, or descended from this, is their abject hatred and fear of Christianity. And everything else, everything they oppose or fear descends from that singular fear and hatred that they have. I'm convinced of it now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: David in Hartford, Connecticut, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. What a privilege to talk to you.
RUSH: I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Muledouche can apologize for calling me a liar.
I'm sure that will happen right after joe apologizes for the same thing.
[Edited on 3/3/2015 by PhotoRon286]
___________________________________________________________
Nobody needs to call you a liar.
It is well known already.
Anything short of attacking Iran is failure to lead, and I know this to be true because I read the paper a lot.
Obama wants to make sure Iran has nukes before he leaves office. This will insure a nuclear counterbalance against Israel, and will insure they're no longer the sole nuclear power in the region.
Interesting, I just heard that exact sentiment almost word for word on limbaugh's show.
I guess I know for sure where you get your brilliant ideas.
No way. I doubt Rush would ever say that. I'm listening to jazz on youtube.
Are you pulling a joe bell and calling me a liar???
Here you go, right from el porko's web site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/03/03/obama_wants_a_nuclear_iran_to_balance_israel
Obama Wants a Nuclear Iran to Balance Israel
March 03, 2015BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Well, Obama's now addressed the Netanyahu speech, said there was nothing new there, nothing new in the Netanyahu speech, and there weren't any viable alternatives. And we need to wait until there's actually a deal on the table that Iran's agreed to before we start making comments on it, so forth. And of course we know what's in the deal because John Kerry has told us.
We know what's in the deal because John Kerry has told us, and one of the things Netanyahu was trying to do was put the brakes on it by publicizing it, because it's absurd. John Kerry has told us what the Iranian deal is. The Iranian deal is they agree to not finalize the production of a weapon for 10 years. We make it possible that they can get there. We do not stand in their way. And then in ten years they can fulfill the desire to get a nuclear weapon. Kerry has said so.
Our policy is going to be rooted in the acknowledgement that if they want one, they can have one. We're not the ones to tell 'em they can't. What we're gonna do is use persuasion on them, and we are gonna persuade them not to use the nuclear weapon that we have permitted them to build. Remember, 75% of the centrifuges that Iran needs to complete the project have been built during the Obama administration, on the Obama watch with Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, secretary of state.
By the way, I should point out, Obama looks really mad. I know this guy. I know you people don't think I do. You think I don't, but I know this guy. He's holding back. He's having trouble holding back, too. He wants to launch. He wants to launch, but he knows he's got to hold back. In private, whoever this poor secretary that he talks to next, or Josh Earnest, he's gonna unload if he hasn't already. He is going to unload on Netanyahu, probably already has. For this exercise he's got to appear collegial and professorial, you know, the way they are in the faculty lounge. He has to appear reasonable, while explaining that Netanyahu has no idea what he's talking about.
The question I have is this: Why is giving Iran the nuclear bomb so important to Obama? You realize that's what we're talking about here. The former position of this country, until Obama was elected, was Iran does not get the nuke. That was the official position, be it stated at the United Nations, be it stated by presidents at State of the Union, doesn't matter. The official position of the US was never Iran gets the nuclear weapon.
Now, why does giving Iran the bomb mean so much to Obama? That's my question. And why has the official position of the United States changed on that? Why does the official position of the US now seem ambiguous? It used to be obvious. The position the United States had was unalterable and it was rock solid. We were firmly opposed to the Iranians getting a nuclear weapon. Now we're not. It's just that simple. Why is Obama so concerned with giving Iran the nuclear bomb?
What is it that makes Obama think they are warranted in having one? What is it that makes Obama think it's okay for them to have one? What is it that makes Obama think we've got no business stopping them, really? Now, on this nuke deal, something else that John Kerry has made clear about it is, Iran can get out of this deal at any time. And Obama claims that'll still give us a one-year lead time to stop them. So we've got a deal on the table, Kerry has told us what it is, that's why we know what it is, and Obama's running around, "I don't know what Netanyahu's doing. He shouldn't be talking about this 'til there's a deal on the table. There isn't a deal on the table."
Well, Kerry's told us what it is. In addition to paving the way for Iran to get a nuke in ten years, and then in ten years they can do it but we're gonna try to stop 'em from using it. That's gonna be our official -- folks, don't laugh at that. I know it sounds ridiculous. That's the policy. The policy is to not stand in their way of getting a bomb, other than to force it to take 10 years. But after ten years goes by, they can get the bomb. And our policy is going to be trying to persuade them never to use it.
We're gonna treat them as adults. "Okay, you want a nuclear bomb? Fine, here's your nuclear bomb." A 16 year old, "Okay, you want your Corvette? Here's your Corvette, but please don't drive it until you're 21." That's not the best analogy I can come up with, but it's off the top of my head. Then we find out that Iran can get out of the deal any time they want. In other words, there's no point in having one. Even if they sign it they can get out of it any time they want. Obama's answer to that is, well, even if they get out, it will still give us a year lead time to be able to stop them.
Now, Obama's angry, I understand his anger. There has just been a profound contrast in leadership on display in Washington. Benjamin Netanyahu has illustrated what Barack Obama is not. And it is what it is. Obama's understandably piqued. He's mad about it. He's ticked off. He views it as insolence, disrespectful and so forth. So he's gonna double down on this deal, but he's out there saying Netanyahu didn't say anything we haven't heard. There's no alternative, no viable alternative proposed here. This is no big deal.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Here is Dave in Gurnee, Illinois. Dave, I'm glad you waited. I really appreciate that. How are you doing, sir?
CALLER: Good Rush. You know, these certainly are troubling times, especially for us that pay attention and us that remember the duck-and-cover days.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: I mean, very troubling. But there are pinnacle moments when the Democrat Party is revealed and unveiled. Today is one, but let's remember, less than three years ago in 2012 at the Democrat Party convention, I know you mentioned it slightly last hour, where the introduction of God into platform and then also recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and how that got booed three times. And actually, it didn't pass, but they allowed it to pass. But that was another time when we get to see what's going on in that party.
RUSH: It's exactly right. I mean, people may have forgotten that their convention was in Charlotte, North Carolina. Jerusalem got booed. God was booed for being included in the party platform. I think what people who don't yet understand the modern left, you can call it the Democrat Party, liberals, or whatever, clearly they've taken over the Democrat Party. It's now full pledged radical left. There are no moderate Democrats left.
The thing that -- and I think I proved this, I mean, to myself. I satisfied myself this is true by watching House of Cards. It's not the first observance. This just confirmed. I think really at the root of all of their anger, and everything is a derivative from this, or descended from this, is their abject hatred and fear of Christianity. And everything else, everything they oppose or fear descends from that singular fear and hatred that they have. I'm convinced of it now.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: David in Hartford, Connecticut, great to have you on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.
CALLER: Hey, Rush. Thanks for taking my call. What a privilege to talk to you.
RUSH: I appreciate that. Thank you, sir.
Muledouche can apologize for calling me a liar.
I'm sure that will happen right after joe apologizes for the same thing.
[Edited on 3/3/2015 by PhotoRon286]
___________________________________________________________
Nobody needs to call you a liar.
It is well known already.
Doubling down on showing what a classless ass you really are???
The danger with Iran having nuclear weapons is, it can and probably will lead to a sectarian Shia vs. Sunni War. Isis are Sunnis, Iran is largely Shias. As Prime Minister Netanyahu pointed out, the Houthis took over Lebanon and they are Shiites.
If the Sunnis and Shiites go to war against each other, they will kill each other off, and then what? The US gets ALL the oil when we get dragged into it and kill off whoever is still standing to help put stable govts. in their war torn countries.
The bigger problem is the nukes. Who gets targeted and where do they land and how many die? I put it up a loooong time ago, but the great minds in DC who do war strategies did a what if scenario with Israel being attacked, and part of the what if casualties was in ONE day 26 Million people in Iran would be killed by nukes launched on them by the US and it's allies. The targets were mapped out, losses predicted. We're not talking a regional war. This would be a BIG war, double digit millions of people killed.
I hate to tell you this, but Islam has a prophecy on nuclear wind that klls many Muslims, 1300 years ago they did not call it that, they said red wind.
I will address Netanyahu's remarks (the points I noted later) but I did like his speech.
Any reasonable person watching this canunderstand why Obama desparately didn't want this speech given and has spent the last weeks futilely attempting to either stop it or undermine it.
Funny, I think any reasonable person can agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, after that there is understandable disagreement on how to try and stop that from happening.
How did Obama try and stop the speech?
Is that last question serious? Really?
But he is also a statesman who speaks easily and with simple clarity about what is at stake and makes the pygmies of the Obama administration look like the nothings that they are.
Pygmies? Really?
I say no money to the war mongering Israel! Bibi has let it known how little he thinks of the American People before. What do we give them? 20 - 40 billion a year? Then he drums up support for another war so Israel can take more of our money and arms so they can steal more land.
Doug your support for Israel at the cost of the United States is disgusting. Pygmies? How vile. Maybe you should consider homesteading in Israel.
What you just said is disgusting and slanderous and you can go to hell. IIt's always the last resort to accuse of dual loyalty. I have said a billion times that I loathe the Obama administration and think its doing horrific damage to this country and the world. It has nothing to do with my support for Israel. Nothing. They are worse than pygmies. They are mites with no gravitas whatsoever. I am allowed to say that and think that without being accused of disloyalty. So either an apology or we are done talking.
Any reasonable person watching this canunderstand why Obama desparately didn't want this speech given and has spent the last weeks futilely attempting to either stop it or undermine it.
Funny, I think any reasonable person can agree that Iran shouldn't have a nuclear weapon, after that there is understandable disagreement on how to try and stop that from happening.
How did Obama try and stop the speech?
Is that last question serious? Really?
Yes. I've been extremely busy lately and haven't followed the DC details as closely as I usually do. Were there specific steps taken?
Gosh this all sounds so familiar. 1992 anyone.
1992: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres tells French TV that Iran was set to have nuclear warheads by 1999. "Iran is the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East," Peres warned, "because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militanCY."
A timeline of wantings since 1979.
What you just said is disgusting and slanderous and you can go to hell. IIt's always the last resort to accuse of dual loyalty. I have said a billion times that I loathe the Obama administration and think its doing horrific damage to this country and the world. It has nothing to do with my support for Israel. Nothing. They are worse than pygmies. They are mites with no gravitas whatsoever. I am allowed to say that and think that without being accused of disloyalty. So either an apology or we are done talking.
I interpreted your vitriol, bordering on racist vitriol, (pygmies? really), as disgusting and clearly showing more loyalty to the leader of Israel than to the President of the United States.
I don't see how my interpretation of your words is slander. It is a reasonable conclusion based on your own horrific, vile, language.
How do you expect that demeaning language to be interpreted?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But he is also a statesman who speaks easily and with simple clarity about what is at stake and makes the pygmies of the Obama administration look like the nothings that they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pygmies? Really?
I say no money to the war mongering Israel! Bibi has let it known how little he thinks of the American People before. What do we give them? 20 - 40 billion a year? Then he drums up support for another war so Israel can take more of our money and arms so they can steal more land.
Doug your support for Israel at the cost of the United States is disgusting. Pygmies? How vile. Maybe you should consider homesteading in Israel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------What you just said is disgusting and slanderous and you can go to hell. IIt's always the last resort to accuse of dual loyalty. I have said a billion times that I loathe the Obama administration and think its doing horrific damage to this country and the world. It has nothing to do with my support for Israel. Nothing. They are worse than pygmies. They are mites with no gravitas whatsoever. I am allowed to say that and think that without being accused of disloyalty. So either an apology or we are done talking.
Holy cow. This is beyond absurd. It's hard to take your seriousely anymore. Politics can't create "loathe"....it's already in you bro. "Doing horrific damage to this country and the world", "worse than pygmies", "they are mites with no gravitas"......this is pure delusion and melodrama. Our country was, is, and will be a great place to live, and no sitting US President can single-handedly damage it, and most certainly not the entire world. It's very low-class of you to accuse someone of causing horrific damage to the entire world......not matter how you slice and dice it, it's a sleazy thing to say. I'm surprised you've sunk to a category of people to mock.
But he is also a statesman who speaks easily and with simple clarity about what is at stake and makes the pygmies of the Obama administration look like the nothings that they are.
Pygmies? Really?
I say no money to the war mongering Israel! Bibi has let it known how little he thinks of the American People before. What do we give them? 20 - 40 billion a year? Then he drums up support for another war so Israel can take more of our money and arms so they can steal more land.
Doug your support for Israel at the cost of the United States is disgusting. Pygmies? How vile. Maybe you should consider homesteading in Israel.
What you just said is disgusting and slanderous and you can go to hell. IIt's always the last resort to accuse of dual loyalty. I have said a billion times that I loathe the Obama administration and think its doing horrific damage to this country and the world. It has nothing to do with my support for Israel. Nothing. They are worse than pygmies. They are mites with no gravitas whatsoever. I am allowed to say that and think that without being accused of disloyalty. So either an apology or we are done talking.
You are allowed to say that, it is your opinion. Others are free to do the same. You state your opinion freely and with little regard for how others may interpret or react to what you are posting, and they cry foul when it blows back your way. You have always been very pointed and even offensive at times in your posts, and you come off as being divisive and polarizing, more so than many of the other regular contributors on this board, IMO. You've accused other on this board of being anti-semitic when they clearly are not, IMO. Seems like you want to throw stones at will without any risk to your own glass house, and that is generally not how it works. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate and expose yourself to the rebuttals.
well said
I'm still trying to understand how the word pygmy entered the discussion and why is that derogatory ?
I'm still trying to understand how the word pygmy entered the discussion and why is that derogatory ?
It was used to denigrate people who work for or support Obama. It sure as hell wasn't meant to be complimentary.
I think the issue is whether Doug used the word Pygmy to refer to people of little significance or to midget black tribesmen. I believe the former but readily see how it was interpreted as the latter. Perhaps we need to substitute munchkins but that has no political overtones
. pl. Pyg·mies also Pig·mies
1. Greek Mythology A member of a race of dwarfs.
2. also pygmy A member of any of various peoples, especially of equatorial Africa and parts of Southeast Asia, having an average height less than 5 feet (1.5 meters).
3. pygmy
a. An individual of unusually small size.
b. An individual considered to be of little or no importance: political pygmies.
And I still see not how feeling Netanyahu had the right to speak makes you disloyal. It obviously is not illegal; he obviously disagrees with Obama and it is obvious that they hate each others guts. And as for Israel being the 50th state I will again point out that there is obviously some reason the US feels Israel is strategically important as they are the only stable non dictatorship in the Mid East. I do feel if it was up to Obama that support would be less. He is no fan of Israel
I don't follow politics as heavy duty as most of you, I do pay attention to local and state stuff here in RI and I listen to the BBC every night and most days. I have a decent grasp of world events and I've got to say that Netanyahu has more balls in his pinky finger than Obama could ever dream of having.
just a humble opinion.
He's a leader. Also a good example of a foreigner coming to the USA to do a job an American won't do --- acting like a President.
You mean like that last President we had????? The one who drummed us into an unwarranted, unnecessary, and stupid war with Iraq that has cost us immensely and has caused the huge cluster f_ck in that region now. I don't need any foreign leader ally or not coming here to drum up the war drums. If and when we decide to take military action it will be and should be when it is best for us first. Any preemptive attack will have a lot of ramifications in a region that is already unstable. It is gonna have to be pick your poison for the hawks as well. If we join in preemptively attacking Iran with Israel then we can't involve any of our troops in fighting ISIS with so many different factions fighting one another from every different direction. No American troops should ever be involved where you can't tell one enemy from the other and can't decipher who the good guys and bad guys are when you have Kurds fighting ISIS, ISIS fighting Assadd, rebels fighting both Assadd and ISIS, Iranian led Iraqi forces fighting ISIS. It is friggin crazy over there and unless we are gonna nuke the entire area we are gonna have to pick our fights and not put our troops in such a crazy position.
Make no mistake though, what Netanyahu meant when he said if we don't stand with Israel Israel will stand alone is that if we don't take military action with them they will do it alone. Anyone who believes he wants a better deal isn't paying attention because he has said that Iran will never be able to be trusted to live up to any deal. Their will never be a deal to satisfy Netanyahu and Netanyahu knows damn well that Iran isn't going to comply with any deal that Israel will accept. So basically he is saying that preemptive war is the only option and if we don't attack with them they will do it alone. It may well come down to us having to take military action in the end but we don't need any foreign leader coming here to tell us what we already know and what he has already said before. There were other ways they could have handled this with Netanyahu meeting with Congressmen privately either in groups or separately. Netanyahu couldn't resist the free campaign advertising offered by the orange cry baby's spectacle.
It was a good theatrical speech well presented but there was nothing new, no new substance and no description of what kind of deal would be acceptable and what alternative there is if and when the sanctions don't work??? A great political advertisement for Netanyahu at the optimum time for him but nothing new from a man who told us 25 years ago that Iran was a couple of years away from having nukes. I love Israel but I don't like the pompous and condescending Netanyahu and I thought what went on in Congress the other day was utterly disgusting. It was all theater, nothing new and it was meant to undermine and embarrass a sitting American president on his home turf and drum up the war hawks. Shame on the orange Boner for doing what he did. He is a total buffoon leading a bunch of buffoons with approval rating of less than 10%. Bravo. I hope Netanyahu loses the election.
[Edited on 3/5/2015 by sixty8]
I think the issue is whether Doug used the word Pygmy to refer to people of little significance or to midget black tribesmen. I believe the former but readily see how it was interpreted as the latter. Perhaps we need to substitute munchkins but that has no political overtones
. pl. Pyg·mies also Pig·mies
1. Greek Mythology A member of a race of dwarfs.2. also pygmy A member of any of various peoples, especially of equatorial Africa and parts of Southeast Asia, having an average height less than 5 feet (1.5 meters).
3. pygmy
a. An individual of unusually small size.b. An individual considered to be of little or no importance: political pygmies.
And I still see not how feeling Netanyahu had the right to speak makes you disloyal. It obviously is not illegal; he obviously disagrees with Obama and it is obvious that they hate each others guts. And as for Israel being the 50th state I will again point out that there is obviously some reason the US feels Israel is strategically important as they are the only stable non dictatorship in the Mid East. I do feel if it was up to Obama that support would be less. He is no fan of Israel
Is pygmy offensive? I wasn't even sure what one was. Now I know, so thank you.
Is pygmy offensive? I wasn't even sure what one was. Now I know, so thank you.
Do you think Doug meant it as a compliment?
Is pygmy offensive? I wasn't even sure what one was. Now I know, so thank you.
Do you think Doug meant it as a compliment?
Is a failure to compliment necessarily offensive?
Is pygmy offensive? I wasn't even sure what one was. Now I know, so thank you.
Do you think Doug meant it as a compliment?
Is a failure to compliment necessarily offensive?
Perhaps not. But an intent to insult often is.
Is pygmy offensive? I wasn't even sure what one was. Now I know, so thank you.
Do you think Doug meant it as a compliment?
Is a failure to compliment necessarily offensive?
After you read the meaning of the word, you have questions? If Doug used a word in a foreign language about Obama it would be a safe bet to assume it was an insult.
Is a failure to compliment necessarily offensive?
Dude. It wasn't a failure to compliment. He was obviously using a derogatory term to offend.
A failure to compliment?
Sheesh.
