# It Ain't A Joke



## PoliticalChic

Remember that joke some comedian would tell...

"I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."


There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."

etc., etc.....




Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.

*"An 8-Year-Old Bride*

After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.


The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.


According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.


Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."  
An 8-Year-Old Bride


----------



## Tax Man

Kinda like the Amish.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tax Man said:


> Kinda like the Amish.





Is this another lie from a Liberal, or simply one more post out of your hat?


"Dating among the Amish typically begins around age *16* with most Amish couples marrying between the ages of *20* and 22. To find a prospective date, the young adults socialize at functions such as frolics, church, or home visits.May 18, 2018"
*Amish Wedding Traditions and Dating Customs | The Amish Village*

https://www.amishvillage.com/blog/amish-wedding-traditions-and-dating-customs/


----------



## Tax Man

PoliticalChic said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like the Amish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this another lie from a Liberal, or simply one more post out of your hat?
> 
> 
> "Dating among the Amish typically begins around age *16* with most Amish couples marrying between the ages of *20* and 22. To find a prospective date, the young adults socialize at functions such as frolics, church, or home visits.May 18, 2018"
> *Amish Wedding Traditions and Dating Customs | The Amish Village*
> 
> Amish Wedding Traditions and Dating Customs | The Amish Village
Click to expand...

I kinda take it you do not understand kinda like?


----------



## rightwinger

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride


Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump


----------



## Hugo Furst

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
Click to expand...


sounds like you have your head up your ass.


(nothing new)


----------



## karpenter

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride


Mohammed Married His Adopted Son's Wife
She Wasn't A Widow


----------



## saveliberty

Tax Man said:


> I kinda take it you do not understand kinda like?



No, you just don't understand what similar means.


----------



## Sunni Man

karpenter said:


> Mohammed Married His Adopted Son's Wife
> She Wasn't A Widow


And??  ...


----------



## rightwinger

WillHaftawaite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
Click to expand...

Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters


----------



## saveliberty

rightwinger said:


> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters




Best sweeping generalization of 2018.


----------



## rightwinger

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best sweeping generalization of 2018.
Click to expand...



Tell it to Creepy Roy Moore


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
Click to expand...

I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.


----------



## beagle9

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.
Click to expand...

The hypocrisy and lies never end on the left.

How can they attempt to take the high road when their Demon-crat brethren are laying all over the roadway blocking the way ??


----------



## PoliticalChic

Tax Man said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like the Amish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this another lie from a Liberal, or simply one more post out of your hat?
> 
> 
> "Dating among the Amish typically begins around age *16* with most Amish couples marrying between the ages of *20* and 22. To find a prospective date, the young adults socialize at functions such as frolics, church, or home visits.May 18, 2018"
> *Amish Wedding Traditions and Dating Customs | The Amish Village*
> 
> Amish Wedding Traditions and Dating Customs | The Amish Village
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I kinda take it you do not understand kinda like?
Click to expand...



It seems apparent that, as a government school grad, you've been taught that any answer, correct or absurd, earns a pat on the head.


But this is the real world.


----------



## Hugo Furst

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden whispering in a girls ear is nothing close to Creepy Donnie molesting young sweet Ivanka
Click to expand...


This isn't the Flame Zone, or Conspiracy Theories.

lay off the dickhead posts


----------



## rightwinger

WillHaftawaite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden whispering in a girls ear is nothing close to Creepy Donnie molesting young sweet Ivanka
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the Flame Zone, or Conspiracy Theories.
> 
> lay off the dickhead posts
Click to expand...

I beg to differ

Do I need post photos of Trumps behavior?

I notice you let it slide when Biden was accused


----------



## beagle9

rightwinger said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden whispering in a girls ear is nothing close to Creepy Donnie molesting young sweet Ivanka
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the Flame Zone, or Conspiracy Theories.
> 
> lay off the dickhead posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ
> 
> Do I need post photos of Trumps behavior?
> 
> I notice you let it slide when Biden was accused
Click to expand...

You mean the photos that your demented mind see's things that aren't there ??? Yes post those photos, and then tell us again what they mean.... Making yourself look like a nut job is on you.


----------



## Hugo Furst

rightwinger said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like you have your head up your ass.
> 
> 
> (nothing new)
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden whispering in a girls ear is nothing close to Creepy Donnie molesting young sweet Ivanka
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the Flame Zone, or Conspiracy Theories.
> 
> lay off the dickhead posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ
> 
> Do I need post photos of Trumps behavior?
> 
> I notice you let it slide when Biden was accused
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> Do I need post photos of Trumps behavior?



You've got pictures of Trump fucking Ivana?

Biden is overly touchy feely with girls/women he barely knows.

and not all of them like it.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride


Old cultural habits are hard to stop.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride



You can tell a lot about a culture, their values and their religion by they way they treat women, the elderly, and children. Iran- not so good!


----------



## BuckToothMoron

rightwinger said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best sweeping generalization of 2018.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell it to Creepy Roy Moore
Click to expand...


You sometimes seem intelligent, but most of the time you are just a liberal partisan hack. You Dems have your share of pedopervs.

Weiner jailed for sexting underage girl


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride


It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.


----------



## PoliticalChic

WillHaftawaite said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know of any Republican who ever voted for Joe Biden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biden whispering in a girls ear is nothing close to Creepy Donnie molesting young sweet Ivanka
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the Flame Zone, or Conspiracy Theories.
> 
> lay off the dickhead posts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I beg to differ
> 
> Do I need post photos of Trumps behavior?
> 
> I notice you let it slide when Biden was accused
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need post photos of Trumps behavior?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got pictures of Trump fucking Ivana?
> 
> Biden is overly touchy feely with girls/women he barely knows.
> 
> and not all of them like it.
Click to expand...



Please don't encourage that bottom-dwelling mouth-breather to post.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
Click to expand...




I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*


Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.


Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.

We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.


----------



## Moonglow

In the USA before the women's suffrage movement and the ability for females to vote, the legal age for marriage in many US states was ten years old for females...


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
Click to expand...




Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.











Waiting.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
Click to expand...


Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.

Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.

Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.

In a nutshell.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pu"lling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
Click to expand...



Nothing in your post is true.....but is exactly what the Hussein Obama cult wanted you to believe.


Here, a documented refutation of your post.


1. "Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program."
On the contrary, it was a guarantee to the Iranians that they could have nuclear weapons without interference.


NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:

"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.




2."I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran..."

Of course, that's the DNC line, and totally false.

a. Sanctions were killing them. Luckily, Trump re-instituted same.

b. . The greatest President in the last 100 years used economic pressure to bring the only other superpower to its knees.
_....Obama could have done what Reagan did, had he actually intended to end Iran's support for terror and Islamofascism and its desire for nuclear weapons:_

_"...the president [Reagan] signed National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 32, which....*called for aid to Solidarity, counter-propaganda in Poland, tightening of sanctions on the Soviet Union, and covert activities to achieve these objectives.*
Reagan sent out 328 such 'Top Secret' directives to the diplomatic, military, and intelligence agencies during his presidency."
The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World," p. , p.185_



Reagan .... thought the aim of American foreign policy should be not to get along with the Communist powers but *to hasten their end. *


*Obama's aim was always to nuclear arm the worst of western civilization's enemies.
And he did.*




3. "Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. "

That's false.
It was the lie that Ben Rhodes had the press swallow....and you did.



From the NYTimes:
"....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru



"In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program."
Ibid.

There never was any such 'moderation' from the savages.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
Click to expand...




Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
> Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
> Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
Click to expand...

You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.
Click to expand...




Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.

No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.


These are the facts:

*Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


 Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.

The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this:  *According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.*
> 
> 
> Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
> 
> 
> Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
> 
> We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.
Click to expand...





*“Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar”  Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar*


*“British Airways and Air France Suspend Flights to Tehran” 
British Airways and Air France suspend flights to Tehran*

*“European airlines are scrapping flights to Iran… Some of Europe's biggest airlines are scrapping flights to Iran just two years after relaunching their services when international sanctions were eased.*
British Airways (ICAGY) said it will operate its last flight from Tehran on September 23. Dutch carrier KLM, part of the Air France KLM (AFLYY) group, will stop flying there on September ..” European airlines are scrapping flights to Iran


*“German banks pull plug on trade with Iran*

*Despite Berlin's pledge to keep the Iranian nuclear deal alive, German banks are so scared of breaching US sanctions that they are refusing to process payments from “*

https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/...ml?ticket=ST-1629205-qANMiD0IC0f6yfyaa5ml-ap3




They understand what you don't.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
> 
> No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
> 
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
Click to expand...


Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.

About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.

You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
> 
> No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
> 
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
> 
> About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
> 
> You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
Click to expand...




Perhaps you should clean off your specs, and note that I quoted NPR and the NYTimes.

Here is our exchange again:

You:
"Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.


Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pu"lling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.


Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.


In a nutshell.[/QUOTE]


Me:
Nothing in your post is true.....but is exactly what the Hussein Obama cult wanted you to believe.



Here, a documented refutation of your post.



1. "Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program."

On the contrary, it was a guarantee to the Iranians that they could have nuclear weapons without interference.



NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years, at which point Iran can and will have nuclear weapons.:
"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.

In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal


And that was written three years ago.



2."I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran..."

Of course, that's the DNC line, and totally false.

a. Sanctions were killing them. Luckily, Trump re-instituted same.

b. . The greatest President in the last 100 years used economic pressure to bring the only other superpower to its knees.
_....Obama could have done what Reagan did, had he actually intended to end Iran's support for terror and Islamofascism and its desire for nuclear weapons:_

_"...the president [Reagan] signed National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 32, which....*called for aid to Solidarity, counter-propaganda in Poland, tightening of sanctions on the Soviet Union, and covert activities to achieve these objectives.*_
_Reagan sent out 328 such 'Top Secret' directives to the diplomatic, military, and intelligence agencies during his presidency."
The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World," p. , p.185_



Reagan .... thought the aim of American foreign policy should be not to get along with the Communist powers but *to hasten their end. *


*Obama's aim was always to nuclear arm the worst of western civilization's enemies.
And he did.*




3. "Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. "

That's false.
It was the lie that Ben Rhodes/Obama had the press swallow....and you did.



From the NYTimes:

"....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru



"In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program."
Ibid.


There never was any such 'moderation' from the savages.



You position is akin to buying barbed wire so the Nazis can be sure to keep Jews penned in for slaughter.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
> 
> No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
> 
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
> 
> About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
> 
> You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
Click to expand...




 "Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires."

Any intelligent person can state exactly what the situation will be: a nuclear Iran, ruled by a 7th century barbarian mentality.


----------



## ESay

About liberalisation.

I have the slightest idea what Ben Rhodes said about that. I have my opinion based on what I have heard and read. Loosening the dress code, increasing of marriageable age, allowing non-Iranian husband and children of Iranian women to become citizens of Iran (previously, this right had only males for their wife and children), electing a Zoroastrian to represent in the parliament mostly Muslim community. All that shows that the rules are softening. Of course, it is too early to say that a major shift has happened. But I hope that small steps will lead to a great movement.

The major point is that Iran is on the bottom-line of Muslim rule. And it can stay there or move only up. So, the support is needed for those who endorse the second option. And the JCPOA is such endorsing.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
> 
> Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
> 
> Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are welcome. But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
> 
> No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
> 
> 
> These are the facts:
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
> 
> About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
> 
> You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
Click to expand...





" It imposes strict restrictions on Iran"

Of course it doesn't.

There is no way for anyone to tell whether, and how much, Iran is cheating on the agreement.

Watch me prove this via the LATimes, a Liberal organ:


1.      "The deal's provisions for inspections of military facilities, or "undeclared sites," involve a complex process with plenty of opportunities for Iran to stall. Tehran can propose alternatives to on-site inspections, or reject the request, which would trigger* a 24-day process for the Joint Commission countries to override the rejection.*

That could drag on for months. And under ambiguities built into the deal, it's unclear whether Iran must allow IAEA inspectors into military sites, or whether the Iranians can take their own environmental samples and send them to the IAEA for testing, as was allowed under a 2015 side agreement that let Iran use its own experts to inspect the Parchin military site."
U.S. seeks to test Iran deal with more inspections



2. The starting point is the fact that no Liberal/Democrat has been able to answer this question successfully:
*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*


3.Contrary to the flaccid argument that Iran is in compliance with the agreement….and no matter who says it…..*there is no way to know*. The 7th century savages have a built-in dodge: Iran has 14 day to say whether to allow inspections asked for, and actually has the ability to delay any inspections up to 24 days.
_There is no way of ascertaining whether or not Iran is adhering to the terms._

What sort of moron would on our side would sign that sort of deal???



There are no inspections and when requested, the savages can stall for 24 days.


Hence, the deal is a fraud to give the Iranians nuclear weapons.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> About liberalisation.
> 
> I have the slightest idea what Ben Rhodes said about that. I have my opinion based on what I have heard and read. Loosening the dress code, increasing of marriageable age, allowing non-Iranian husband and children of Iranian women to become citizens of Iran (previously, this right had only males for their wife and children), electing a Zoroastrian to represent in the parliament mostly Muslim community. All that shows that the rules are softening. Of course, it is too early to say that a major shift has happened. But I hope that small steps will lead to a great movement.
> 
> The major point is that Iran is on the bottom-line of Muslim rule. And it can stay there or move only up. So, the support is needed for those who endorse the second option. And the JCPOA is such endorsing.




" I have my opinion based on what I have heard and read."

As I have shown, with documentation, your opinion is wrong, and a danger to America and the world.

You support making Iran into the sort of problem that North Korea is.


The NYTimes article on Ben Rhodes lying to a malleable press is here:
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru


----------



## PoliticalChic

The question that no Obama supporter can answer:


*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*


----------



## ESay

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?





Didn't you know that Iran has paid 20-30% of North Korea's GDP for years, to be their nuclear lab?????


Did you know that the 'agreement' that guarantees nukes to Iran has no clause preventing them developing intercontinental ballistic missiles?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?



"What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?"

The obvious one that has been proven to work:




The greatest President in the last 100 years used economic pressure to bring the only other superpower to its knees.
_....Obama could have done what Reagan did, had he actually intended to end Iran's support for terror and Islamofascism and its desire for nuclear weapons:_

_"...the president [Reagan] signed National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 32, which....*called for aid to Solidarity, counter-propaganda in Poland, tightening of sanctions on the Soviet Union, and covert activities to achieve these objectives.*
Reagan sent out 328 such 'Top Secret' directives to the diplomatic, military, and intelligence agencies during his presidency."
The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World," p. , p.185_



Reagan .... thought the aim of American foreign policy should be not to get along with the Communist powers but *to hasten their end. *


*Obama's aim was always to nuclear arm the worst of western civilization's enemies.
And he did.*




 Sanctons:

"*The Soviets could no longer meet US economic and strategic competition.* They therefore had to meet Reagan's terms. Gorbachev announced his acceptance of the 'zero-zero option' on INF missiles [ the withdrawal of all Soviet and United Statesintermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe. This term was subsequently expanded to describe the vision of eliminating all nuclear weapons everywhere] on July 22, 1987."
John O’Sullivan, _The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, p. 289



Sanctions work.....that's why Obama dropped them._


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?





*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?





"The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."

You can't be this dense......


If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????


----------



## PoliticalChic

And, thanks again for this exchange......it proves the transparency of the Obama drive to give nuclear weapons to the savages, and how easily the argument would have been destroyed if we had a free and independent press.


The only intelligent conclusion is that Obama, either out of stupidity, or a desire to make a Muslim superpower, always wanted to make certain that the mullahs had nuclear weapons.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."
> 
> You can't be this dense......
> 
> 
> If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????
Click to expand...

The mullahs wanted economic benefits. Also, at that time the upper hand in Iran had so-called reformators.

How often do you read news from Iran? Answer this question please so I can understand whether it is pointful to continue our discussion.

About the breakway time, this was written in various sources. Use Google to find it out. Moreover, it was said that Iran was already capable to produce so-called dirty bomb at the time.

And dude, if you want to use epithets then start a discussion with somebody else. I also dont have much regard for your way of thinking but I keep myself in hand.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
Click to expand...

I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."
> 
> You can't be this dense......
> 
> 
> If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mullahs wanted economic benefits. Also, at that time the upper hand in Iran had so-called reformators.
> 
> How often do you read news from Iran? Answer this question please so I can understand whether it is pointful to continue our discussion.
> 
> About the breakway time, this was written in various sources. Use Google to find it out. Moreover, it was said that Iran was already capable to produce so-called dirty bomb at the time.
> 
> And dude, if you want to use epithets then start a discussion with somebody else. I also dont have much regard for your way of thinking but I keep myself in hand.
Click to expand...



"....at that time the upper hand in Iran had so-called reformators (sic)."

Nonsense.

 A theocracy ruled by a fundamentalist mullah.


And, I'm no 'dude.' I'm a scholar, and I'm never wrong.

Cut to the chase:

*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.
Click to expand...



"I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'."

Astounding how consistently wrong you are.


*"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'*
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'




Now....answer the question:
_*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*_


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'."
> 
> Astounding how consistently wrong you are.
> 
> 
> *"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'*
> Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
> US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....answer the question:
> _*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*_
Click to expand...

I am not going to answer you question until you answer mine.
Considering that the breakway time was three month in that time, what option was viable to stop Iranian program except of signing the deal?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'."
> 
> Astounding how consistently wrong you are.
> 
> 
> *"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'*
> Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
> US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now....answer the question:
> _*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not going to answer you question until you answer mine.
> Considering that the breakway time was three month in that time, what option was viable to stop Iranian program except of signing the deal?
Click to expand...




"I am not going to answer you question until you answer mine."



1.  I answered it previously:
"The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."

You can't be this dense......


If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????
There was no such route for Iran....not without Obama, their greatest funder.



2. The truth is, you can't answer this:

*What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There is no benefit.....only a threat to civilization.

*
It is the simple reason that Hussein Obama is the most destructive man Democrats have foisted on the nation and the world.


----------



## ESay

I see. What I can add is that you having such a country as Saudi Arabia as an ally have no moral right of accusing someone in terrorism. But it seems that hipocrisy has become the cornerstone of the US.

Good luck.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> I see. What I can add is that you having such a country as Saudi Arabia as an ally have no moral right of accusing someone in terrorism. But it seems that hipocrisy has become the cornerstone of the US.
> 
> Good luck.




Funny how the tern 'hypocrisy' (that's how to spell it) doesn't stick in your throat.

You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.


In another thread, I wrote

Should I prove what I've said about Democrats/Liberals/government school grads being unable to explain or defend policies they vote to support?
Now, see if the following isn’t a valid description of the ‘reliable Democrat voter,’ who is unable to explain, or defend, the doctrines they vote for….e.g.:

_What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?_


I didn't go far enough in revealing what passes for thinking among Democrats/Liberals....the ability look at facts that refute their worldview,...*and go right on supporting the errors, *was on display in a thread where an Obama supporter tried to support the Iran deal...


When his post was eviscerated, point by point, my quoting NPR and even the NYTimes to prove how wrong he is.....our Obamunist wrote:

"But *I still stand with my points and think they are true. *And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran."
It Ain't A Joke
_


Truly astounding ability to ignore truth and facts, and skip merrily along.
Defeating The Impulse…




You've verified what I posted about the intellectually dishonest Obama supporter._


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.


Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?

Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
Click to expand...



This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.

If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.

Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.


----------



## Death Angel

Tax Man said:


> I kinda take it you do not understand kinda like?


We kinda take it you lied


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
Click to expand...

Your claim is based on what? You have some link? Do you know to what level some uranium was enriched?


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim is based on what? You have some link? Do you know to what level some uranium was enriched?
Click to expand...



Everything you believe is a  lie.....as I showed.

If the savages could have accomplished weapon-nuclearization without Obama's help.....they would have.


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

Then, he guaranteed them nuclear weapons on his way out the door.


The only possible conclusion is, either, you are lying about believing the Obama stories.....or you are simply gullible, a necessity for Democrat voters.


----------



## hadit

Tax Man said:


> Kinda like the Amish.



No, it's not.


----------



## hadit

rightwinger said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like Creepy Roy Moore and child molester Donald Trump
Click to expand...


Boy, I'm glad we don't have those around. They sound scary.


----------



## hadit

saveliberty said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans vote for candidates who are Child Molesters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best sweeping generalization of 2018.
Click to expand...


It's the only kind he knows.


----------



## anynameyouwish

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride




*Child marriage in the United States*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Sex trafficking in the United States, Age of marriage in the United States, and Age of consent in the United States
*Child marriage in the United States* refers to a marriage in the United States where at least one party is under the age of 18.[1]

Between 2000 and 2015, over 200,000 minors were legally married in the United States.[2] The vast majority of child marriages were between a child and an adult.[3][2] The majority of married children were girls.[2]

As of October 2018, 48 out of 50 U.S. states have exceptions in their laws which allow children to marry (In 2018, Delaware[4] and New Jersey[5] became the first two states to completely ban child marriage). Of the 48 states which allow child marriage, 18 have no minimum age for minors to marry, under certain conditions[6][7], while 32 have a minimum age (ranging from 14 to 17). In addition, the District of Columbia and several US territories (such as Puerto Rico) allow children to marry.[8]

Since 2016, several states have raised their minimum age for minors to marry, or added a minimum age when they previously did not have one.[9]

In many cases, minors in the US are married when they are under the age of sexual consent in their area (which ranges from 16 to 18).[10] In some areas minors cannot legally divorce, leave their spouse, or enter a shelter to escape abuse.[11][12] In 2010 in Tennessee, three 10-year-old girls were married to men aged 24-31.[3] Meanwhile in Alabama, a 74-year-old man married a 14-year-old girl.[2] Both states have since set minimum ages, of 17[13] and 16 respectively.[14]


Child Bride Bill Blocked By Conservatives In Kentucky


FRANKFORT, KY — A bill that would outlaw child marriage in Kentucky has stalled after opposition from conservatives who say it strips parents of their authority to decide what's best for their children. The "child bride" bill would raise to 18 the legal age for marriage in Kentucky, where children as young as 13 have been allowed to marry under longstanding laws.


Is it bad when muslims do it but GOOD for conservative christians to do it?


----------



## PoliticalChic

anynameyouwish said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember that joke some comedian would tell...
> 
> "I married my high school sweetheart....well, she'll be in high school next year...."
> 
> 
> There's a whole bunch of those laughers...."I got her a card... she put it in the spokes of her bicycle to make that engine noise....."
> 
> etc., etc.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in Iran, it isn't a joke, it's a fact.
> 
> *"An 8-Year-Old Bride*
> 
> After the mullahs' party imposed Sharia law in Iran and made it the official unquestionable law of the land, the authorities immediately changed the age of legal marriage to 9 for girls and 13 for boys. After 40 years, the Sharia-based law has not changed.
> 
> 
> The prevalence child marriage "still remains far too high. In a set of 25 countries for which detailed analysis was conducted, at least one in three women marry before the age of 18, and one in five women have their first child before the age of 18." — World Bank.
> 
> 
> According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year. In addition, in 2013 in Iran, a law was passed that allows men to marry their adopted daughters.
> 
> 
> Facebook acted as an auction block for a child bride in South Sudan as recently as last month."
> An 8-Year-Old Bride
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Child marriage in the United States*
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> See also: Sex trafficking in the United States, Age of marriage in the United States, and Age of consent in the United States
> *Child marriage in the United States* refers to a marriage in the United States where at least one party is under the age of 18.[1]
> 
> Between 2000 and 2015, over 200,000 minors were legally married in the United States.[2] The vast majority of child marriages were between a child and an adult.[3][2] The majority of married children were girls.[2]
> 
> As of October 2018, 48 out of 50 U.S. states have exceptions in their laws which allow children to marry (In 2018, Delaware[4] and New Jersey[5] became the first two states to completely ban child marriage). Of the 48 states which allow child marriage, 18 have no minimum age for minors to marry, under certain conditions[6][7], while 32 have a minimum age (ranging from 14 to 17). In addition, the District of Columbia and several US territories (such as Puerto Rico) allow children to marry.[8]
> 
> Since 2016, several states have raised their minimum age for minors to marry, or added a minimum age when they previously did not have one.[9]
> 
> In many cases, minors in the US are married when they are under the age of sexual consent in their area (which ranges from 16 to 18).[10] In some areas minors cannot legally divorce, leave their spouse, or enter a shelter to escape abuse.[11][12] In 2010 in Tennessee, three 10-year-old girls were married to men aged 24-31.[3] Meanwhile in Alabama, a 74-year-old man married a 14-year-old girl.[2] Both states have since set minimum ages, of 17[13] and 16 respectively.[14]
> 
> 
> Child Bride Bill Blocked By Conservatives In Kentucky
> 
> 
> FRANKFORT, KY — A bill that would outlaw child marriage in Kentucky has stalled after opposition from conservatives who say it strips parents of their authority to decide what's best for their children. The "child bride" bill would raise to 18 the legal age for marriage in Kentucky, where children as young as 13 have been allowed to marry under longstanding laws.
> 
> 
> Is it bad when muslims do it but GOOD for conservative christians to do it?
Click to expand...




You're really a vile creature....but you must hear that pretty regularly.


Based on the effort you've gone to.....a failed effort, as the age of eight doesn't appear in your link.....I'll assume you're making the case for child marriages involving eight year olds.

Please don't post again, as your post engenders a feeling that I need a course of penicillin as a result.


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
Click to expand...

Your stance is either illogical or dishonest. If you post some links and claim that you prove somthing by that, then be ready to accept all that is written there. You cant just pick passages which suit you and ignore others. Or accept all or find another source to support your claims.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stance is either illogical or dishonest. If you post some links and claim that you prove somthing by that, then be ready to accept all that is written there. You cant just pick passages which suit you and ignore others. Or accept all or find another source to support your claims.
Click to expand...




Everything I wrote was documented, linked and sourced.


And the sources were Liberal organs.


Here's what you refuse to acknowledge: you've been hoodwinked because you're so gullible.




*My Muslim Faith*




*Obama Saying 'Islam has been Woven into the Fabric of our Country Since its Founding'*



*"Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
*The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities."*
*Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*



*Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*

Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.


Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism

He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.


 Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.


The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.



The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.




*Now....What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stance is either illogical or dishonest. If you post some links and claim that you prove somthing by that, then be ready to accept all that is written there. You cant just pick passages which suit you and ignore others. Or accept all or find another source to support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> 
> And the sources were Liberal organs.
> 
> 
> Here's what you refuse to acknowledge: you've been hoodwinked because you're so gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My Muslim Faith*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Saying 'Islam has been Woven into the Fabric of our Country Since its Founding'*
> 
> 
> 
> *"Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> *The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities."*
> *Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> 
> 
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Now....What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
Click to expand...

As I told you before, I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'. You must have confused it with your ally Saudi Arabia. 

If you mean Iranian nuclear program, then without the deal Iran would already have nuclear weapon. You can deny that but that doesn't change the things.

What will be after ten years period no one can say for sure. It may well be that Iran decides to resume its nuclear program entirely. But in any case, if choosing between Iran getting nuclear weapon virtually now or Iran maybe getting the weapon after 10 years, I prefer the second option. 

Frankly, I dont see the sense of further argument. Your claims are based on false pretext about the breakway time. Without admitting the reality you won't get to the point.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stance is either illogical or dishonest. If you post some links and claim that you prove somthing by that, then be ready to accept all that is written there. You cant just pick passages which suit you and ignore others. Or accept all or find another source to support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> 
> And the sources were Liberal organs.
> 
> 
> Here's what you refuse to acknowledge: you've been hoodwinked because you're so gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My Muslim Faith*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Saying 'Islam has been Woven into the Fabric of our Country Since its Founding'*
> 
> 
> 
> *"Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> *The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities."*
> *Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> 
> 
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Now....What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told you before, I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'. You must have confused it with your ally Saudi Arabia.
> 
> If you mean Iranian nuclear program, then without the deal Iran would already have nuclear weapon. You can deny that but that doesn't change the things.
> 
> What will be after ten years period no one can say for sure. It may well be that Iran decides to resume its nuclear program entirely. But in any case, if choosing between Iran gettiWnuclear weapon virtually now or Iran maybe getting the weapon after 10 years, I prefer the second option.
> 
> Frankly, I dont see the sense of further argument. Your claims are based on false pretext about the breakway time. Without admitting the reality you won't get to the point.
Click to expand...




There is no 'argument'....simply you denying the truth.

Let's review:

1. The United States State Department has named Iran the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, so your denial otherwise counts for less than nothing.

2. Iran could not have produced a nuclear weapon for years....if ever....without Obama's 'deal.'

3. Without Trump's efforts, and sanctions, Iran would have been guaranteed a nuclear weapon, in what amounts to less than seven years from now.

4. Please don't continue to post your fealty to Obama, it's nauseating... don't bother posting again until you are prepared to answer the this simple question:

 What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?


----------



## ESay

PoliticalChic said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?
> 
> Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your stance is either illogical or dishonest. If you post some links and claim that you prove somthing by that, then be ready to accept all that is written there. You cant just pick passages which suit you and ignore others. Or accept all or find another source to support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> 
> And the sources were Liberal organs.
> 
> 
> Here's what you refuse to acknowledge: you've been hoodwinked because you're so gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My Muslim Faith*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Saying 'Islam has been Woven into the Fabric of our Country Since its Founding'*
> 
> 
> 
> *"Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> *The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities."*
> *Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> 
> 
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Now....What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told you before, I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'. You must have confused it with your ally Saudi Arabia.
> 
> If you mean Iranian nuclear program, then without the deal Iran would already have nuclear weapon. You can deny that but that doesn't change the things.
> 
> What will be after ten years period no one can say for sure. It may well be that Iran decides to resume its nuclear program entirely. But in any case, if choosing between Iran gettiWnuclear weapon virtually now or Iran maybe getting the weapon after 10 years, I prefer the second option.
> 
> Frankly, I dont see the sense of further argument. Your claims are based on false pretext about the breakway time. Without admitting the reality you won't get to the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'argument'....simply you denying the truth.
> 
> Let's review:
> 
> 1. The United States State Department has named Iran the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, so your denial otherwise counts for less than nothing.
> 
> 2. Iran could not have produced a nuclear weapon for years....if ever....without Obama's 'deal.'
> 
> 3. Without Trump's efforts, and sanctions, Iran would have been guaranteed a nuclear weapon, in what amounts to less than seven years from now.
> 
> 4. Please don't continue to post your fealty to Obama, it's nauseating... don't bother posting again until you are prepared to answer the this simple question:
> 
> What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
Click to expand...

Actually, I gave my answer above. Try to re-read it if you didnt get something the first time.

And I understand that it is pointless to discuss such issue with a Republican, because words 'Obama signed it' mean everything. And it is okay with me. I am glad that other countries which signed the deal didnt buy the narrative of your administration and vowed to go on with the deal. And I hope that they succeed with that though it will be utterly difficult task.

I dont care what your State Department name. Once, it named Iraq as a country which has WMD.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ESay said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.
> 
> If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.
> 
> Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Your stance is either illogical or dishonest. If you post some links and claim that you prove somthing by that, then be ready to accept all that is written there. You cant just pick passages which suit you and ignore others. Or accept all or find another source to support your claims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I wrote was documented, linked and sourced.
> 
> 
> And the sources were Liberal organs.
> 
> 
> Here's what you refuse to acknowledge: you've been hoodwinked because you're so gullible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My Muslim Faith*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Obama Saying 'Islam has been Woven into the Fabric of our Country Since its Founding'*
> 
> 
> 
> *"Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> *The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities."*
> *Barack Obama: Nasa must try to make Muslims 'feel good'*
> 
> 
> 
> *Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.*
> 
> Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
> 
> 
> Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
> 
> He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
> 
> 
> Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
> 
> 
> The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Now....What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told you before, I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'. You must have confused it with your ally Saudi Arabia.
> 
> If you mean Iranian nuclear program, then without the deal Iran would already have nuclear weapon. You can deny that but that doesn't change the things.
> 
> What will be after ten years period no one can say for sure. It may well be that Iran decides to resume its nuclear program entirely. But in any case, if choosing between Iran gettiWnuclear weapon virtually now or Iran maybe getting the weapon after 10 years, I prefer the second option.
> 
> Frankly, I dont see the sense of further argument. Your claims are based on false pretext about the breakway time. Without admitting the reality you won't get to the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no 'argument'....simply you denying the truth.
> 
> Let's review:
> 
> 1. The United States State Department has named Iran the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism, so your denial otherwise counts for less than nothing.
> 
> 2. Iran could not have produced a nuclear weapon for years....if ever....without Obama's 'deal.'
> 
> 3. Without Trump's efforts, and sanctions, Iran would have been guaranteed a nuclear weapon, in what amounts to less than seven years from now.
> 
> 4. Please don't continue to post your fealty to Obama, it's nauseating... don't bother posting again until you are prepared to answer the this simple question:
> 
> What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I gave my answer above. Try to re-read it if you didnt get something the first time.
> 
> And I understand that it is pointless to discuss such issue with a Republican, because words 'Obama signed it' mean everything. And it is okay with me. I am glad that other countries which signed the deal didnt buy the narrative of your administration and vowed to go on with the deal. And I hope that they succeed with that though it will be utterly difficult task.
> 
> I dont care what your State Department name. Once, it named Iraq as a country which has WMD.
Click to expand...




*Let’s review:*

I demolished every lie you’ve been led to accept, using the quotations of Liberal outlets themselves, NPR, the NYTimes, the LATimes….yet you claim to still believe those lies.

Obama instituted a plan which, you have inadvertently agreed, you cannot explain or defend.

Your behavior is hardly different from the North Korean automatons who call Kim ‘Dear Leader.’

Thinking seems not to be part of your regimen.




BTW….
_What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?_


----------

