Dee, Iran is gonna build a nuclear bomb, this nuclear power plant stuff is nothing but cover. I just don't see how it's gonna benefit our national security any. all it does is destabilize the region even more.
Political Thread: Global Warming Edition
- Thread starter kybobcat_rivals185207
- Start date
- Status
The government of Iran which is sort of a quasi-theorcracy has not shown any evidence of being suicidal. There are groups such as Hezbullah that they support which does do crazy shat at times, but even they are now organized more along the lines of a conventional military. I do not believe Iran would be stupid enough to hand over a nuke to groups like that. I think Iran would like to have the nuke for the same reason N. Korea developed one. To keep the west from messing with them.
It's in no ones interest outside of Iran for them to join the nuclear club and hopefully they will not, but to me Pakistan which already has nukes is just about as scary.
Dee, Then why is Obama negotiating this? What's the end game? It's absurd that we're selling out a long term major ally for Iran? They fund and arm a terrorist organization. Wtf are we doing?
Iran probably already has nukes...Not sure what the big deal is about.
Pakistan is way more unstable as a country, yet they have nukes and no issues for the last 20-30 years.
Pakistan is way more unstable as a country, yet they have nukes and no issues for the last 20-30 years.
Of course Iran has no intention on keeping any promises. That's why these negotiations are so ridiculous. We're negotiating against ourselves.
No I don't, no one does which is why I don't understand what the hell they're even doing this. I think as the poster above wrote it's all about their legacy. But when Iran gets a nuke won't that tarnish their legacy? Or is it just amateur hour in the White House?
No, I don't! And if you think he cares then you are not watching what this guys does. Do you think he cares that Russia is invading another country? All these things are a distraction for him, he just ignores it as much as he can. He has one big thing since he was elected, and that is ACA,and it is hated by most Americans, so this is his last chance for a legacy.
Nope. They care more about legacy and what eggheaded historians say about them 10 years from now. So that in 10 years the Deeeee Jr. of the internet can point to the Iran "agreement" as the capstone of a brilliant presidency....as Deeee Sr does Peanut Carter's Camp David accords.
So what if Iran gets a bunch of nuke bombs 5 years from now, 10 years from now? Ain't Obama's problem. Ain't a stain on his record, his worshipers will say he held Iran off, it is the next President who screwed up.
Attached is a long, LONG article on this administrations complete capitulation to the islamic terrorists who control Iran - and how it was the plan to make a deal, ANY DEAL with the Mullah's from day 1 of him getting into office
Surrendering to Iran was goal #1 of Obama
The big deal you moron is that if Iran gets the bomb the Saudis will see that as a surrender by the US and realize they need to get bombs themselves. Maybe all the other gulf oil states will want to get in on the fun as well, UAE, Qatar, etc.
The most unstable dangerous area on the planet all racing to see who can get the most destructive weapons ever invented by man. Bah, no big deal! Where's my hillary fleshlight?
Looks like Ben Carson fell perfectly into the liberal trap of discussing irrelevant social issues. Told CNN interviewer being gay is absolutely a choice. Conservative candidates never learn.
So you're volunteering to go over there and risk your life to stop them from acquiring the bomb? I mean, your argument falls flat when Pakistan has had nukes for about 30 years and nothing has happened. NOTHING. And their government is crap and their country has a ton of terrorists.
So let me know when you enlist...because if Iran wants to have the bomb (which I firmly believe they already do), who's going to really stop them? We can bomb them, but our own intelligence says they will just go further underground and hasten their paste to build it.
So unless we are ready to invade the country, lose tens of thousands of soldiers and possibly bankrupt our country in the process, I really don't see what you are whining about.
I mean, how much different was this than what Bush was doing before Obama...oh yeah, the black guy is in office, we have to **** on everything this guy does...24/7/365
I agree that conservatives discussing social issues with liberal-leaning reporters whose sole intent is to capture a 'gotcha' moment is foolish....conservatives never seem to learn. That said, Carson's answer was absolutely on-point. There is no reliable scientific information that suggests being gay is genetic. If it's not genetic, then it's a choice. The closest science has come to 'proving' that nature is the cause of being gay are some possible gene structures that may (or may not) result in a proclivity to be gay if those tendancies are acted upon, but does not actually cause someone to be gay, similar to alcoholism, etc.
If your answer is anything other than, "I really don't give a **** why anyone is gay. Why don't we just get the federal government out of peoples' bedrooms and stop discriminating based on marital status and not give a **** who marries who," then you aren't getting my vote.
I don't care if you're for gays getting married, or your against gays getting married, if you feel the federal government needs to meddle in marriage one way or the other, please don't run for office espescially with an R next to your name. TIA.
I don't care if you're for gays getting married, or your against gays getting married, if you feel the federal government needs to meddle in marriage one way or the other, please don't run for office espescially with an R next to your name. TIA.
I agree the Science is not there yet. Had one therapist that told me being gay is based on the size your ring finger. haha
Regardless, this is a set-up comment Blue Too. I hate to do it to you, because your a great poster. But I gotta ask.
At what age did you decide not to be gay?
^^^ Willy....thanks for compliment...I appreciate your posts (and humor) as well, and you ask a fair question. I guess I will say what you'd expect me to say: "I've always been that way"' which seems to support the 'nature' argument. However, traditional heterosexual relationships are all I ever knew and experienced during my formative years, which is a probable explanation for my being heterosexual. I know that gay people also come from heterosexual backgrounds, and vica versa, so this explanation is not all-encompassing, but it seems to explain my individual experience.
Noted gay columnist Sally Kohn recently published an article in the Washington Post that all but admitted that she thinks homosexuality is a choice if you read between the lines. The article is titled something like, "I Hope My Child is Gay", and she basically explains how she is creating an environment for her child that encourages her child to adopt a gay lifestyle, including children's books, etc. After I read the article, I asked myself the logical question: If a devoted and outspoken lesbian like Kohn advocates creating an environment for her child that prods him/her to be gay, then isn't she likewise admitting that she believes that the 'nurture' component is the the most important factor in determining someone's sexuality rather than 'nature'?
I would have linked the article, but the link was extremely long and my tablet will not allow me to copy-and-paste --- and I'm too lazy to write it down and then type it
Should be easy enough to find using Google, though.
This post was edited on 3/4 3:00 PM by BlueManToo
Noted gay columnist Sally Kohn recently published an article in the Washington Post that all but admitted that she thinks homosexuality is a choice if you read between the lines. The article is titled something like, "I Hope My Child is Gay", and she basically explains how she is creating an environment for her child that encourages her child to adopt a gay lifestyle, including children's books, etc. After I read the article, I asked myself the logical question: If a devoted and outspoken lesbian like Kohn advocates creating an environment for her child that prods him/her to be gay, then isn't she likewise admitting that she believes that the 'nurture' component is the the most important factor in determining someone's sexuality rather than 'nature'?
I would have linked the article, but the link was extremely long and my tablet will not allow me to copy-and-paste --- and I'm too lazy to write it down and then type it
Should be easy enough to find using Google, though.This post was edited on 3/4 3:00 PM by BlueManToo
If you read the entire transcript of the interview (on this subject), Carson basically said exactly what you said, but of course, that's not what the leftist MSM will focus on. His complete answer was pretty solid.
Exactly. By answering at all he failed. Shouldve responded: "It really doesn't matter. What matters is they're treated equally". Profit.
Yet we'll see candidate after candidate fall into these traps. Why are people gay? Do you believe in abortion? Do you make decisions based on the bible? It's all irrelevant and nothing more than a pitfall For any conservative candidate.
Interesting points. What if Mrs. Kohn is actually bi-sexual? And from her perspective it could seem like a choice. I don't think the science has come along, but it will. There are millions of species who have gay non-human sex. Such as gay animals, gay insects etc. Some may even do both. I'd bet my glass bowl that there are monkeys who will jam one in a girl monkey and then go get reared by his best friend. Science just hasn't gotten us there yet.Originally posted by BlueManToo:
I would have linked the article, but the link was extremely long and my tablet will not allow me to copy-and-paste --- and I'm too lazy to write it down and then type it
This post was edited on 3/4 3:00 PM by BlueManToo
Exactly. However, do they answer the way they do because they're that dumb or because they feel like they have to go the extra step? Or is it something else?
I honestly don't know. Maybe they feel the need to appeal to the base for the primary. Maybe they're just naive and think they'll convince people they're correct.
I guess we'll never learn that Netanyahu is a liar. Or did we just forget that in 2002 he said that Iraq was actively working on nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. How'd that end up?
Here we are again with history repeating itself. According to leaked documents more than 200 security officers from Israel disagree with him as well as our own intelligence agencies. He's nothing more than a shill for the military industrial complex.
All of the instability in the region can be traced back to our ill advised invasion of Iraq JHB4UK. That's a fact. Everything that has happened since is a direct result of our actions there. And you are slurping up the same ******** that Netanyahu fed us back then which caused the instability.
I'm pretty sure that the surrounding arab countries have not liked Israel being an official country since 1948. It's been unstable in the middle east ever since.
I just wish the American left would fight as hard for nuclear power in America as they fight for nuclear power in Iran.
OMGZ...India has nukes??? Next you'll tell me that North Korea has nukes as well.
Thank you for looking out for me. You're the bestest.
I'm sure if we can put all nuke plants in the middle of America, I could be swayed...it's not like anything important happens there...should be an easy sell.
you are either (1)incredibly young, or (2)incredibly uneducated about basic 20th century history, or (3)most likely both (1) & (2)
crack open a history book once in a while kid, cram something other than BUSH IZ HITLER!!1! liberal progressive talking points into your empty brain
nice dodge. Fact is the ME was relatively stable before Bush needed his revenge. Regardless of prior history, his invasion of Iraq led to further destabilization of the entire region. Had we stuck to Afghanistan the region would be in better shape. How many terrorists did we make with our invasion? Thousands. How many lives were lost because of his invasion? How many trillions of dollar spent?
"All of the instability in the region can be traced back to our ill advised invasion of Iraq" This is beyond a doubt the most idiotic statement I have ever had the misfortune of reading. Carry on
CatDaddy...The Middle East was basically stable after the invasion while troops remained in Iraq as well. The powder keg of instability we see today in the ME didn't begin in full bloom until the current administration tried to walk back everything the Bush administration had put in place in Iraq, while also tacitly supporting numerous regime changes in other nations as well. Bush had his share of blunders, and if you call the Iraq invasion itself a blunder, then that's your prerogative --- you'll find many who will agree. Nonetheless, Obama inherited the aftermath, and as president, he had an obligation to make the best of a bad situation and ensure that US interests were not compromised. Yet, against the advice of countless military leaders, Obama pulled out of Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement and the vacuum was filled by ISIS.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: EVERY policy decision the current administration has made thus far in the Middle East has been exactly wrong for both ME stability and US long-term interests. I've had some personally attack me and/or my take, but not a single retort of actual evidence or substance to argue against my stated premise with regard to Obama's ineptitude in his ME 'plan' (or lack thereof)....got a feeling that I'll be waiting for quite a while.
This post was edited on 3/5 1:15 PM by BlueManToo
I've said it before and I'll say it again: EVERY policy decision the current administration has made thus far in the Middle East has been exactly wrong for both ME stability and US long-term interests. I've had some personally attack me and/or my take, but not a single retort of actual evidence or substance to argue against my stated premise with regard to Obama's ineptitude in his ME 'plan' (or lack thereof)....got a feeling that I'll be waiting for quite a while.
This post was edited on 3/5 1:15 PM by BlueManToo
- Status