That obama is desperate ...so very desperate for his legacy.
obama does not care about anything else at this point.
If there is no deal he points the finger and blames everyone else and if there is a deal (regardless of how bad it is) he pins a hero medal on himself.
I really do not want to send the B2's over there so the "excruciating sanctions" should be put in place. I think it would take more than a month for them to feel it. That and other actions that obama is sissy scared to do should have been done a long time ago and could have avoided the situation we are now in
... because people are so focused on the Arabic Red Herring (the so-called "Palestinians" and their "struggle") they fail to see whats really happening in the region.
I have said many many times the West in its Hubris and Arrogance has no clue whatsoever as to the mindset of the Islamic world.
Obama, refusing to learn from History, is channeling Neville Chamberlain in his naive dealings with the New Persian Hedgemony. He's already cost us as much as Bush ever did, and in the process given the terrorists reason to believe that America no longer has the backbone to stand up to their bullying and naturally bellicose behavior.
George W Bush might have been an idiotic buffoon and puppet to the real powers, but when the world laughed, they laughed at HIM and his stupidity. Obama's flaccid foreign policy has made the USA a laughing stock.
Meanwhile all the NIMBY cowards think we don't need to pay attention to the rest of the world because they have forgotten what happened on September 11, 2001.
ISIS is real, they are here, and they will wreak havoc regardless of what the Jingoists have to say. But IRAN is the Head of the Snake when it comes to world terrorism. And we are treating them like they own us.
But hey!!! That Totalitarian Netanyahu is building apartment buildings for the residents of Judea and Samaria, AND RETALIATING when attacked by terrorists who's stated goal is the destruction of Israel. We MUST STOP THESE ZIONISTS AT ALL COST!!! (Allah u Ahkbar and Heil Hitler while we're at it)
Whan are you people here, and in the rest of the world going to set aside your visceral hatred of Jews long enough to realize the real enemies are not the ones wearing the kippah, but the keffiyeh?
Posted By: JackDunphy
Seriously, what is the point? A totalaritarian state, evil as the day is long, biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world and Hamas's and Hezbollah's big brother, and here we are, kissing their ass and asking them permission to take a leak.
The time for talk has come and gone.
Let's move on to plan B, which is to get our allies to put excruciating sanctions in place and give them a deadline a month later for more serious action if they don't dismantle their nuke program.
Other steps could/should be taken before bombing them, but we are running short on time, and we cannot let that regime build a bomb.
Thoughts?
-- Modified on 7/12/2015 6:35:39 AM
If no agreement, Iran’s “breakout time” – the time needed to actually produce a nuclear bomb – was three months as of last April. The “detection time” – the time it would take us to figure out if they had produced a bomb – is 2 months if they conceal it as they have.
So your “solution” of “no agreement -snap back sanctions” is no solution at all. They will already have a bomb if that is there intent.
For all your failed efforts to claim Mr. Obama is a “liar” because of his inaccurate predictions about how Obamacare would actually work in the market, you have missed the one instance where I think he personally lied – he told us in 2013 that the “break out” time was one year when our own intelligence reports said far less. Unless he is going to tell us he disbelieved our own reports, I don’t see how you can give him a pass for this one.
Benji was right all along
Even the best possible deal to come out of these current talks are not going to fly with either Congress or the American people as it's going to be a VERY bad deal, I don't think anyone argues that point. Are you suggesting we should just accept any deal, no matter how bad?
and our efforts to prove Obama a liar about ObamaCare were hardly "failed" remember those words "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan" Many of us called him out for being a liar the moment those words came out of his mouth, yet some of you are still trying to excuse him even in the face of millions of people losing their plans.
I will concede however, that this is one of the very few times you have admitted that Obama has lied, baby steps I suppose.
Non-partisan, Pulitzer winning publications have called out Obama's lies on Ocare so it seems with regard to that matter, it is you that have failed in your propaganda on the topic.
"Keeping your doctor" was known to be a lie by every right wing and centrist honest broker long before it hit " the market" and it was only the suck up, brain dead Left who kept repeating Obama's dishonest bullshit.
And with regards to the answers to my OP issue, note I said I would give the toughest sanctions one month to do its job, so your statement that that was my "solution" was disingenuous.
I have thought for some time this is a military issue, not a diplomatic one.
Before the bombs start falling, I would give some non lethal tactics a chance e.g. a naval blockade of the Persian Gulf, an attack on their main refinery, etc. but all that needs to be done post haste.
But I will count your post as reason to add to my ever growing list of Barry's lies. Thanks for educating me on this topic. LOL
Or any other prediction for that matter.
We know you are not talking about Politfact, which branded the promise the “lie of of the year” in 2013, bc Angie Holan, the author of that article, explained that she meant only that it was inaccurate and an oversimplification –she expressly disclaimed any suggestion that he intended to deceive the public:
“When I called Angie Holan, who wrote both the 2008 and the 2013 reviews of President Obama’s promise she was candid: “When Politifact rates something “Lie of the Year,” she explained, that doesn’t mean it is the biggest whopper of the year: “It’s not the most inaccurate statement. It’s the one that has the biggest influence.”
Holan also pointed out that in her 2013 review she did not suggest that the president set out to deceive the public. Rather, she wrote that “boiling down the complicated health care law to a sound bite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.” This is true.”
Candidate Obama’s “keep your doctor” promise originally addressed people whose employers kept existing health care plans; he usually properly qualified the promise by saying that for these people nothing in the ACA would force a doctor change.
Later, he began to repeat the soundbite without the qualifications- “you can keep your doctor period.” That is when he got into trouble.
So kindly give us the list of these ““Pulitzer prize winning organizations” who concluded that he “lied” as opposed to just got it wrong, or oversimplified. Too much trouble? Just give us one
Here is a much better article on the subject
Its only in about 24 point type and at the TOP of the page.
I hope he never changes
An intelligent man like Obama "oversimplified" or "just got it wrong" on 27 occasions? LOL
If what you are saying is even remotely true, he would have joined with the Republicans to pass the "Keep Your Doctor" bill to show he wasn't lying. I'll get back to you when Bams comments. LOL
Let's review...I have Obama's words, actions and inactions, along with a Pulitzer Prize winning organization and the majority of the American public all saying say he lied.
And you have "Maggie the health beat blogger" saying he didn't. 
Game. Set. Match. Year....Mr Dunphy. LOL
So now you are changing “Pulitzer winning publications” to the singular. Now its “a Pulitzer Prize winning organization.” Beep, beep, beep. But you have not named any such Pulitzer Prize winning organization. Beep, beep, beep.
The only one I know of is Politico, and the author of those articles expressly said she did not actually mean that Mr. Obama intended to “deceive the public” but simply that he was inaccurate and oversimplified.
Beep, beep, beep.
Don’t feel too bad though – I’m sure Followme agrees with you. LOL.
Beep
...Yet you didn't even provide ONE Pulitzer Prize winner. When marikod called you on it you said: "Read GaG's link." That means your post was a lie - you had no link. BTW, I scrolled through Gag's link and I saw no reference to "Pulitzer Prize winners." To paraphrase Barry Scheck in the O.J. trial: "Where is it Mr. Dunphy?"
Righties have absolutely no shame. They throw around the word "dishonest" all the time but if they looked in the mirror they'd see the definition of the word.
Mari asked for ONE, just one.
He got the one and he is now quiet. LOL
And look at the top of GaG's link. It says Pulitzer prize winner. Sorry you missed it. IT was in a hidden spot. At the TOP! LOL
Are you having a senior moment?
That is the “Lie of the Year” article written by Angie Holan, that I identified in my very first post, that Ms. Holan expressly stated DID NOT suggest that the president set out to deceive the public but that he oversimplified and as a result made an inaccurate statement:
“When I called Angie Holan, who wrote both the 2008 and the 2013 reviews of President Obama’s promise she was candid: “When Politifact rates something “Lie of the Year,” she explained, that doesn’t mean it is the biggest whopper of the year: “It’s not the most inaccurate statement. It’s the one that has the biggest influence.”
Holan also pointed out that in her 2013 review she did not suggest that the president set out to deceive the public. Rather, she wrote that “boiling down the complicated health care law to a sound bite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.” This is true.”
Now you are wasting my time, and everyone else’s time. We are done here
You googled and found some lefty, Obamacare sycophant blogger as your "proof." LOL
Then, the quotes you provided do NOT show Obama didn't lie. She NEVER says Obama did not lie in her answers.
She says he didn't "set out to deceive the public." It doesn't matter what someone "sets out to do" it only matters what they finally "did".
And what he did was lie, even per the article if you bothered to read it. He claimed something that was "impossible" (their words, not mine.)
If you promise somebody the impossible, you are a liar.
You are WAY off your game son.
Jack 102
Mari 0
and when called on it, he moves the goal posts, accuses the person of not being able to follow the tread, or what ever thing he's already guilty of. He proposed a plan B for dealing with the Iranians, but when challenged on how he would implement it, he folded like a deck of cards, but couldn't man up to it! 
We have become a country scared of everything and anything so every solution is bombing someone. Here is the practical problem, IRAN is a pretty large country with some very good friends in its neighborhood. If you ever bomb Iran, get ready for a world war.
When you seriously think about it, US blindly supporting the Shah for decades when he was ruthlessly persecuting Iranians, is the root of the problem. The so called human rights giant was completely silent when dictators of or choice persecuted their population and you expect them to love us? People got tired of the persecution and overthrew Shah and took hostages. We had lot to do with creating the current mess. US population is known for their short memory but others remember what happened for thousands of years and they learn from history and try not commit the same mistakes. We on the other hand, keeps doing the same stupid things over and over again.
We also have lot do with creating terrorism. Reagan and company created the Taliban to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan and when Soviets left, we left. If that is not enough, we went in created a colossal mess in Iraq and created ISIS in the process.
If anyone believes, we can create peace by killing, they need to get their fucking heads examined.
Negotiating and reaching a political solution is the only answer.
Of course, the global warming detail crowd who believes God created heaven, earth and everything in it in seven days is not going to admit one iota of reality.
creator needed a rest break. Who knows, maybe he ducked out for a cigarette.
(2) Agree with everything else but one more factor: The negotiators know that if we launch a major assault on Iran they will unleash their client terrorist groups in world-wide terrorist attacks designed to cause maximum pain, panic, and political consequences. Yes of course Iran's proxies launch terror attacks even know, but there is an implicit agreement to restrain the temperature in an uneasy quid pro quo.
I'm not smart enough to figure out what Israel would do if Iran raced to nuclear weapons. But I've been around long enough to be pretty sure that any nuclear deal that might be entered this week will contain vague or ambiguous terms used to get the deal done and that later on Iran will interpret those terms to do what it wants. Enforcement of course would have been kicked down the road to a future American administration and I don't even want to think what our 'partners' would do.
Really, even for you, that statement is amazing.
Did you read my post at all????
"Let's move on to plan B, which is to get our allies to put excruciating sanctions in place..."
How do you know that wasn't plan A? Which of these allies do you expect to readily go along with your plan? Which ones will be problematic? And, of these later allies, which carrot or stick do you propose to use, for each individual one, to get them in line with your plan?
Do you really have even the slightest hope that all this negotiations are going to end up with a deal that will be even close to a deal that the western world can accept?
Let me put it this way, would you put the chances of an acceptable deal being worked out to be:
a) 50-50
b) 1 in 5
c) 1 in 10
d) 1 in 100
e) 1 in 1,000,000,000
I think you already know that you can count me in the camp of answer "e" but I am curious as to your take on the odds
that from the beginning getting a deal was a done deal.
and that Congress, or maybe even the American people will put their foot down and not let Obama ram a deal down our throats.
It would not surprise me if he were to announce an eleventh hour deal that has to be approved NOW and try to slide it through without anybody reading it. The GOP did it with the Patriot Act, Obama has already done the same with ObamaCare, why should we expect less. I only hope this time, "somebody" has the brains and the guts to say NO.
Oh fuck, I just read my own words, and never mind, we're doomed
It's called nuclear proliferation. The western world has been trying to limit it, and much of the same warnings we hear about Iran having nuclear capabilities were voice regarding India, Pakistan, China, North Korea, etc, etc. Each country who gets these capabilities makes the world a less safe to live in. What can we do to prevent Iran from getting them. Nothing. Nothing worked with any of the other countries I've mentioned. If Iran really wants them, they'll get them. All we can do is punish them severely if they misuse them. Given the reliability of the intel we were told to be true regarding most issues in the Mideast in the last 20 years, I do not believe bombing Iran will keep them from advancing their program, nor do I believe the Russians, Chinese, Japanese and others will agree to increased sanctions. They don't have the stomach for it, and it's not 'experience near' enough for them to feel all that threatened if Iran does advance their programs. Hell, Russia loves selling their nuclear technology to Iran.
Just in case you have forgotten already, I asked you what you thought the chances of these negotiations yielding a deal even close to worth considering. If you don't want to answer, a simple "I have no answer" will suffice.
Then had the audacity to then claim I dodged him. lol
Keep your eye on the ball Jack. The ball is your plan B, which you quickly abandoned when you couldn't answer the questions I asked, which would be needed to be answered to to know if one could indeed implement plan B. You said something on the lines, if I remember correctly, that no one knows the answer to those questions. Wrong! You don't know the answer to those questions. There are people in the State Department who do know the answers to those questions. That may indeed be why they are not going with plan B, or they tried to go with plan B, but could make it work!
why would I feel any compunction to address your question?
But, I have no opinion either way. You and Jack act as though you both know the details of the deal, and whether or not all parties will abide by the agreements, and whether our congress or their government will approve of the deal. I have no inside info on the terms of the agreement, nor any answers to the point I previously mentioned. So, I have no opinion as to if a deal will be even reached let alone approved, and honored. So, how can I possibly given that, how can I possibly answer you question? All I know is that if Iran wants to advance their nuclear program, they will with or without this deal. All I could hope for is that the incentives, in the deal, would weaken their determination to do so, though I am not predicting it would do so.
My question to you is; can you define what a deal worth considering would be, and how likely would it be that Iran would approve of your deal
Same old, same old. Doesn't read the threads, moves the goal posts, wont answer our questions, claims we dodged his and then claims we have nothing. LOL
He is all yours!
Or we don't have the will?
You might want to run your theory by Barry who has said that "all options are on the table, including military."
So you think Obama is wrong, correct
of our friends and allies. If I had full confidence that our intelligence community could assure us of victory with a bombing campaign, I'd have no trouble supporting that. But, given it's history and record, I don't!
What we are doing isn't working and clearly from what the Iranians are saying publicly, it CANT work.
Move on to C then if you don't like B. Or D or E.
But plan A can't work. That's obvious.
Translation: 'These question are too difficult for me to answer.'
My response: 'If you can't answer these questions, then plan B is a no go!' 
This is very simple Matt. If we can't get the allies on board, you move off plan B and to plan C.
How is that a dodge?
You wanna stick with Obama's nonsense, be my guest.
Or do you have an idea to end this? I have layed mine out.
What say you?
as Mari is found of saying, Jack is backing up.
"Let's move on to plan B, which is to get our allies to put excruciating sanctions in place and give them a deadline a month later for more serious action if they don't dismantle their nuke program."
How can you even propose plan B if you can't answer those questions?
"Other steps could/should be taken before bombing them, but we are running short on time, and we cannot let that regime build a bomb."
What would your "other steps" be that "could/should be taken
..."?
Sorry Jack; you haven't really "layed" out anything. You've just criticized what you think is being done, while having not really offered any other alternatives.
I have already listed my plan in another post in this thread. If you didn't read the other posts matt don't complain to me.
And with regards to your questions, maybe you can speak for our allies responses? Maybe you have that power, I dont.
I see you dodged my "what would you do?" So I am assuming you would do nothing. That always works. LOL
Well, I didn't see it in anything I responded to, or in anything you responded to me with.
Keep you eye on the ball. You proposed a plan B. You couldn't answer the questions I posed to you, that you would need answers to to implement plan B. Then you talked of other steps, plans, etc., but without anything concrete. So, to dodge and deflect you pose your own question to me. That's not backing up your plan B, C or anything else. Just admit it Jack. You got nothin!
