Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So they might reveal they're kidding.How do you figure that one? IRan rejected the central tenet of the deal. That should mean the deal is dead. How do you figure it's not? Is Iran lying that they're rejecting the deal?OK so you agree the part about the deal being rejected is not a lie. I didnt make the statement about sanctions so ask someone who did.Nothing false about it.
I suppose Obama could agree to Iran's demand that there be no inspections. But that would sort of defeat the purpose, no? Can you imagine Congress going along with it?
Ok. So what sanctions have been lifted then?
No. At this point it's a lie.
It could be rhetoric. At this point - Iran has not rejected formally the deal or ended talks. It doesn't mean anything yet.
How do you figure that one? IRan rejected the central tenet of the deal. That should mean the deal is dead. How do you figure it's not? Is Iran lying that they're rejecting the deal?OK so you agree the part about the deal being rejected is not a lie. I didnt make the statement about sanctions so ask someone who did.
No. At this point it's a lie.
It could be rhetoric. At this point - Iran has not rejected formally the deal or ended talks. It doesn't mean anything yet.
No Iran is going to go back to the talks and reject this provision. So either Obama will stand firm and end the talks or he will cave and give them what they want. Since the far left has not proven Obama will stand firm, the latter will most likely happen..
Unless you plan on finally posting proof that Obama has stood firm with Iran..
Again, you are asking the "far left" to prove a "speculation" and since the details of the negotiations are not public, you can't prove Obama has stood firm or failed to stand firm.
Obama could have embarrassed Netanyahu by succeeding, but he failed proving Netanyahu's was correct on Iran.
Where is your evidence that the negotiations have failed?
LOL well Iran doing precisely what Netanyahu and other warned they would do at the 11th hour, yeah I'm calling it FAIL!
With just one day left before the deadline on a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, the foreign minister of one of the six countries attempting to negotiate an agreement planned on leaving the talks Monday. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will only come back to the negotiating table ahead of Tuesday’s deadline day if it looks as if a deal will be reached, a spokeswoman told Agence France-Presse. "Probably, if there is a realistic chance of a deal tomorrow, he will come back," Maria Zakharova, a Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, told reporters in Lausanne, Switzerland, where the talks are being held, according to AFP.
Meanwhile, Iran has backed away from a key provision in the deal. Tehran said it would not ship much of its nuclear fuel to Russia, which had been one of the elements of a potential deal since that enriched uranium could not be used by Iran to build a nuclear weapon if it was kept in another country. “The export of stocks of enriched uranium is not in our program, and we do not intend on sending them abroad,” Abbas Araghchi, an Iranian official, told AFP. “There is no question of sending the stocks abroad
so you really want Iran to give Russia enriched uranium?
you're an idiot.
See how these irony impaired far left drones will do all they can to protect their messiah!
How about you far left drones provide proof where he has stood firm with Iran..
Mark my words Dem's and the liberal media will spin this as all the Republicans fault in short order.
Well um no, I read the article and I quoted that line from it.
Well um no, I read the article and I quoted that line from it.
Yeah, but you will trust anything Iran says. "On the other hand Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and may not be covered by the statement made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
People like you are immensely gullible. "Iran says it, therefore it must be so." Classic case of an amphibolic fallacy. Of course, of course, liberals like you rely on inane ambiguity to interpret statements like that one. The statement you quoted is easily an attempt at misdirection, and you my friend, have been misdirected.
There is a preliminary agreed-upon framework and a deadline by which a final agreement must be reached. That deadline has not yet passed.
Iran has rejected the deal
Iran has rejected the deal
Not what the article says.
Actually, Iran wants it to fail. Did that ever occur to you either?
Iran has rejected the deal
Not what the article says.
Yes it is, they reject the deal, even if in part. Which means either Obama will stand firm and the deal is done or Obama will cave and give Iran what they want. The money pool is on the latter..
Unless the far left drones can prove Obama will and has stood firm with Iran..
Iran has rejected the deal
Not what the article says.
Yes it is, they reject the deal, even if in part. Which means either Obama will stand firm and the deal is done or Obama will cave and give Iran what they want. The money pool is on the latter..
Unless the far left drones can prove Obama will and has stood firm with Iran..
Not in that article.
Actually, Iran wants it to fail. Did that ever occur to you either?
I was intentionally ambiguous as to which country the kooks reside because in reality, it's both.
Iran has rejected the deal
Not what the article says.
Actually, Iran wants it to fail. Did that ever occur to you either?
I was intentionally ambiguous as to which country the kooks reside because in reality, it's both.
Well um no, I read the article and I quoted that line from it.
Yeah, but you will trust anything Iran says. "On the other hand Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and may not be covered by the statement made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
People like you are immensely gullible. "Iran says it, therefore it must be so." Classic case of an amphibolic fallacy. Of course, of course, liberals like you rely on inane ambiguity to interpret statements like that one. The statement you quoted is easily an attempt at misdirection, and you my friend, have been misdirected.
Iran has rejected the deal
Not what the article says.
Yes it is, they reject the deal, even if in part. Which means either Obama will stand firm and the deal is done or Obama will cave and give Iran what they want. The money pool is on the latter..
Unless the far left drones can prove Obama will and has stood firm with Iran..
Not in that article.
Says the far left drone!
Well um no, I read the article and I quoted that line from it.
Yeah, but you will trust anything Iran says. "On the other hand Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and may not be covered by the statement made by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."
People like you are immensely gullible. "Iran says it, therefore it must be so." Classic case of an amphibolic fallacy. Of course, of course, liberals like you rely on inane ambiguity to interpret statements like that one. The statement you quoted is easily an attempt at misdirection, and you my friend, have been misdirected.
Point of fact, the quote was written by a CNN reporter, not Iran.
"We won't allow you to inspect our military nuclear facilities"
The leader of Iran won't go along with the agreement, you say?...and just like so many said here, and were berated by Obama followers for saying so - Iran's Ayahtolla states he will not support any deal that includes UN inspections of nuke sites....which means of course he will support no deal at all.
Shocked, shocked I say!!!
Iran s leader says no to military inspections - CNN.com
Iran s leader rejects foreign access to military sites scientists Fox News
