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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Politics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.What I want is people, treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan, I pointed out the reason cabbies in NY are mostly foreign born, so unless you disagree with that explanation, I suggest find a way to make being a cabby in NY something that is actual appealing to American born citizens.I don't disagree with you. I disagree with the OP stating it's a political issue, when it's an economical one. New York needs cabbies, they feel this is the way to provide them. Try to get the rent prices down (which implies government regulations) and then talk about this issue again.Foreigners or not, they should be the ones to adapt. It's liberals who are making sure they don't have to. It creates more and more confusion as people are unable to communicate.
So you want rent control in NY? Currently, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay. I don't think government should tell people what they can charge for something in demand. You'll end up with slumlords and crappy housing. Maintenance costs are high and if rent is low, there wouldn't be incentive for people to build or purchase apartment buildings and fix them up. I know people who do that. Just the cost of the building is high. The cost of remodeling is ridiculous. It's not all wealthy people who own rental property. Some rely on it for their living and there isn't always a lot left after the mortgage, building maintenance, insurance and property taxes. The maintenance alone can be crazy.
Tax money will come into play for rent controlled apartments. Otherwise, the maintenance would suffer greatly, as we've seen time and time again in some housing for the poor.
".....treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan,..."
Everything is partisan, you fool.
1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."
2. "The trouble with thinking that the personal is political, as late-1960s feminists taught American radicals to say, ... This fundamental tenet of identity politics, a shorthand way of saying that your personal unhappiness stems from larger political forces—anything from the suffocating nuclear family, the institutionalized oppression of women, or the supposedly ineradicable racism of American society—and that only vast political change can solve your individual problems."
Identity Politics Crashes at City Hall
You will never understand the world until you understand the above.
I've seen your posts.
You don't have the ability to understand them.
First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC NewsPolitics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.What I want is people, treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan, I pointed out the reason cabbies in NY are mostly foreign born, so unless you disagree with that explanation, I suggest find a way to make being a cabby in NY something that is actual appealing to American born citizens.I don't disagree with you. I disagree with the OP stating it's a political issue, when it's an economical one. New York needs cabbies, they feel this is the way to provide them. Try to get the rent prices down (which implies government regulations) and then talk about this issue again.
So you want rent control in NY? Currently, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay. I don't think government should tell people what they can charge for something in demand. You'll end up with slumlords and crappy housing. Maintenance costs are high and if rent is low, there wouldn't be incentive for people to build or purchase apartment buildings and fix them up. I know people who do that. Just the cost of the building is high. The cost of remodeling is ridiculous. It's not all wealthy people who own rental property. Some rely on it for their living and there isn't always a lot left after the mortgage, building maintenance, insurance and property taxes. The maintenance alone can be crazy.
Tax money will come into play for rent controlled apartments. Otherwise, the maintenance would suffer greatly, as we've seen time and time again in some housing for the poor.
".....treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan,..."
Everything is partisan, you fool.
1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."
2. "The trouble with thinking that the personal is political, as late-1960s feminists taught American radicals to say, ... This fundamental tenet of identity politics, a shorthand way of saying that your personal unhappiness stems from larger political forces—anything from the suffocating nuclear family, the institutionalized oppression of women, or the supposedly ineradicable racism of American society—and that only vast political change can solve your individual problems."
Identity Politics Crashes at City Hall
You will never understand the world until you understand the above.
I've seen your posts.
You don't have the ability to understand them.
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC NewsPolitics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.What I want is people, treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan, I pointed out the reason cabbies in NY are mostly foreign born, so unless you disagree with that explanation, I suggest find a way to make being a cabby in NY something that is actual appealing to American born citizens.So you want rent control in NY? Currently, something is worth whatever people are willing to pay. I don't think government should tell people what they can charge for something in demand. You'll end up with slumlords and crappy housing. Maintenance costs are high and if rent is low, there wouldn't be incentive for people to build or purchase apartment buildings and fix them up. I know people who do that. Just the cost of the building is high. The cost of remodeling is ridiculous. It's not all wealthy people who own rental property. Some rely on it for their living and there isn't always a lot left after the mortgage, building maintenance, insurance and property taxes. The maintenance alone can be crazy.
Tax money will come into play for rent controlled apartments. Otherwise, the maintenance would suffer greatly, as we've seen time and time again in some housing for the poor.
".....treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan,..."
Everything is partisan, you fool.
1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."
2. "The trouble with thinking that the personal is political, as late-1960s feminists taught American radicals to say, ... This fundamental tenet of identity politics, a shorthand way of saying that your personal unhappiness stems from larger political forces—anything from the suffocating nuclear family, the institutionalized oppression of women, or the supposedly ineradicable racism of American society—and that only vast political change can solve your individual problems."
Identity Politics Crashes at City Hall
You will never understand the world until you understand the above.
I've seen your posts.
You don't have the ability to understand them.
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC NewsPolitics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.What I want is people, treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan, I pointed out the reason cabbies in NY are mostly foreign born, so unless you disagree with that explanation, I suggest find a way to make being a cabby in NY something that is actual appealing to American born citizens.
".....treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan,..."
Everything is partisan, you fool.
1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."
2. "The trouble with thinking that the personal is political, as late-1960s feminists taught American radicals to say, ... This fundamental tenet of identity politics, a shorthand way of saying that your personal unhappiness stems from larger political forces—anything from the suffocating nuclear family, the institutionalized oppression of women, or the supposedly ineradicable racism of American society—and that only vast political change can solve your individual problems."
Identity Politics Crashes at City Hall
You will never understand the world until you understand the above.
I've seen your posts.
You don't have the ability to understand them.
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
1. "First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
Yea I did. But to use the example you just used, If Iran attacked Israel it is important that we would retaliate in kind. If only to show potential other Rogue nations, which Iran would be at that moment, that the US stands by it's allies. I said in the post you quoted from that MOST things aren't black and white,clearly implying that some things are. And btw as before you show a clear inability to hold a conversation without reverting to name calling, showing that way a certain lack of call it civility. I don't appreciate it and to me every time you do,you take away from whatever point your trying to make. In other words, it makes you look dumb.First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC NewsPolitics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.What I want is people, treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan, I pointed out the reason cabbies in NY are mostly foreign born, so unless you disagree with that explanation, I suggest find a way to make being a cabby in NY something that is actual appealing to American born citizens.
".....treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan,..."
Everything is partisan, you fool.
1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."
2. "The trouble with thinking that the personal is political, as late-1960s feminists taught American radicals to say, ... This fundamental tenet of identity politics, a shorthand way of saying that your personal unhappiness stems from larger political forces—anything from the suffocating nuclear family, the institutionalized oppression of women, or the supposedly ineradicable racism of American society—and that only vast political change can solve your individual problems."
Identity Politics Crashes at City Hall
You will never understand the world until you understand the above.
I've seen your posts.
You don't have the ability to understand them.
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
"First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC NewsPolitics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.".....treating complex issues like actual complex issues, instead of boiling it down to partisan bullshit. Politicalchic is in that sense one of the worst people on this forum, everything is treated as partisan,..."
Everything is partisan, you fool.
1. Antonio Gramsci, Italian Marxist theoretician and founding member and one-time leader of the Communist Party of Italy. Gramschi’s motto is that of liberals today: “that all life is "political."
2. "The trouble with thinking that the personal is political, as late-1960s feminists taught American radicals to say, ... This fundamental tenet of identity politics, a shorthand way of saying that your personal unhappiness stems from larger political forces—anything from the suffocating nuclear family, the institutionalized oppression of women, or the supposedly ineradicable racism of American society—and that only vast political change can solve your individual problems."
Identity Politics Crashes at City Hall
You will never understand the world until you understand the above.
I've seen your posts.
You don't have the ability to understand them.
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
1. "First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
2." Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program."
. I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
There was no deal, there was no comprimise...there was simply an anti-America, anti-Israel President insisting that Iran get the nuclear bomb.
After this:
In your drunken stupor, you probably haven't noticed the last six years.
Remedial coming right up:
Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:
June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
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,"
November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."
February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."
July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."
November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."
September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon
Clearly you are simply another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC NewsPolitics is about the ability to compromise, by condensing everything into a "us versus them" issue you make that ability that much harder. Not everything is black and white, in fact most things aren't. If you don't get that simple fact YOU will never understand the world.
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
1. "First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
2." Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program."
. I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
There was no deal, there was no comprimise...there was simply an anti-America, anti-Israel President insisting that Iran get the nuclear bomb.
After this:
In your drunken stupor, you probably haven't noticed the last six years.
Remedial coming right up:
Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:
June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
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,"
November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."
February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."
July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."
November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."
September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon
Clearly you are simply another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
Rhetoric is not an answer. How do you feel the US should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons??????You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC News"Politics is about the ability to compromise,"
On everything?
Hardly.
Possibly you've seen the cartoon of Kerry telling the Israelis, Iran wants to kill all of the Jews....can't you compromise and let them kill half?
Stop being such a dunce.
1. "First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
2." Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program."
. I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
There was no deal, there was no comprimise...there was simply an anti-America, anti-Israel President insisting that Iran get the nuclear bomb.
After this:
In your drunken stupor, you probably haven't noticed the last six years.
Remedial coming right up:
Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:
June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
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,"
November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."
February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."
July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."
November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."
September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon
Clearly you are simply another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
Do you understand the decades-old 'non-proliferation policy' of the civilized world????
Barack Obama has purposefully put the lives of every Israeli at risk.
Ask yourself why.
Of course a real American President could have stopped Iran from getting a nuclear bomb....and not by going to war.
His act, the "treaty" was purposeful and intentional.
Rhetoric is not an answer. How do you feel the US should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons??????You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything. Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program. A deal that took compromise. This is how politics works in the real world. Now I know that you are gonna react from your own partisan viewpoint and claim that the deal sucks. I'm fine with that but then be prepared to, first of say how your ideal deal would look like and how you hope to achieve it without compromising? I think that's a fair challenge considering you feel so much more in touch with the real world. Iran nuclear deal: Key details - BBC News
1. "First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
2." Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program."
. I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
There was no deal, there was no comprimise...there was simply an anti-America, anti-Israel President insisting that Iran get the nuclear bomb.
After this:
In your drunken stupor, you probably haven't noticed the last six years.
Remedial coming right up:
Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:
June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
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,"
November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."
February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."
July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."
November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."
September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon
Clearly you are simply another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
Do you understand the decades-old 'non-proliferation policy' of the civilized world????
Barack Obama has purposefully put the lives of every Israeli at risk.
Ask yourself why.
Of course a real American President could have stopped Iran from getting a nuclear bomb....and not by going to war.
His act, the "treaty" was purposeful and intentional.
No I suggest you educate yourself since the last sentence has been the policy of the entire international community. Severe sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the '90. So again how do you think you'll get Iran to stop trying to produce nuclear weapons when the one incentive you think you can use has been shown to be ineffective???????Rhetoric is not an answer. How do you feel the US should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons??????You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.1. "First I like how you put words into my mouth. I never claimed you have to compromise on everything."
Really, you dope???
Did your write this:
"Politics is about the ability to compromise,..."
Next case.
2." Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program."
. I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
There was no deal, there was no comprimise...there was simply an anti-America, anti-Israel President insisting that Iran get the nuclear bomb.
After this:
In your drunken stupor, you probably haven't noticed the last six years.
Remedial coming right up:
Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:
June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
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,"
November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."
February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."
July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."
November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."
September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon
Clearly you are simply another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
Do you understand the decades-old 'non-proliferation policy' of the civilized world????
Barack Obama has purposefully put the lives of every Israeli at risk.
Ask yourself why.
Of course a real American President could have stopped Iran from getting a nuclear bomb....and not by going to war.
His act, the "treaty" was purposeful and intentional.
"Since the United States and our international partners reached a nuclear agreement with Iran, President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and other Administration officials have made numerous statements in support of the deal that deserve close scrutiny. The biggest myth about the Iran Nuclear Agreement is that it will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In fact—by trading permanent concessions for temporary benefits—President Obama has assured that Iran will have an internationally recognized capability to quickly produce enough material for multiple nuclear weapons in 10 to 15 years. That is if Iran does not cheat. While reviewing the agreement, Members may wish to keep in mind the following myths and facts. Myth: Congress Has A Choice Between the President’s Deal or War. “There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war.” – President Obama The Facts The President offers a false choice between this agreement or war. Even a supporter of the deal testified in front of the Committee that “I wouldn't say that if you are opposed to this deal that somehow leads to war. I think that's false.” As the President has said himself throughout these negotiations, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This is a bad deal. Congress should reject it. But that doesn’t mean war. It means rolling-up our sleeves, turning-up the economic pressure on the regime and its supporters, and negotiating a better agreement that advances the national security interests of the United States, our allies and partners. Those opposed to this agreement aren’t opposed to diplomacy – we are against bad diplomacy."
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/04_HFAC - IRAN - Myths and Facts.pdf
Read on.
Educate yourself.
No I suggest you educate yourself since the last sentence has been the policy of the entire international community. Severe sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the '90. So again how do you think you'll get Iran to stop trying to produce nuclear weapons when the one incentive you think you can use has been shown to be ineffective???????Rhetoric is not an answer. How do you feel the US should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons??????You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.2." Secondly you do prove my point. Currently a deal has been reached with Iran which at least for the time being delays there nuclear program."
. I have to stop saying "How stupid can you be?"....seems you take it as a challenge.
There was no deal, there was no comprimise...there was simply an anti-America, anti-Israel President insisting that Iran get the nuclear bomb.
After this:
In your drunken stupor, you probably haven't noticed the last six years.
Remedial coming right up:
Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:
June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."
June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
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,"
November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."
February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."
January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."
July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."
May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."
November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."
December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."
December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."
January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."
March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."
March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."
March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.
March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."
September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
Obama's Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon
Clearly you are simply another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.
Do you understand the decades-old 'non-proliferation policy' of the civilized world????
Barack Obama has purposefully put the lives of every Israeli at risk.
Ask yourself why.
Of course a real American President could have stopped Iran from getting a nuclear bomb....and not by going to war.
His act, the "treaty" was purposeful and intentional.
"Since the United States and our international partners reached a nuclear agreement with Iran, President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and other Administration officials have made numerous statements in support of the deal that deserve close scrutiny. The biggest myth about the Iran Nuclear Agreement is that it will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In fact—by trading permanent concessions for temporary benefits—President Obama has assured that Iran will have an internationally recognized capability to quickly produce enough material for multiple nuclear weapons in 10 to 15 years. That is if Iran does not cheat. While reviewing the agreement, Members may wish to keep in mind the following myths and facts. Myth: Congress Has A Choice Between the President’s Deal or War. “There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war.” – President Obama The Facts The President offers a false choice between this agreement or war. Even a supporter of the deal testified in front of the Committee that “I wouldn't say that if you are opposed to this deal that somehow leads to war. I think that's false.” As the President has said himself throughout these negotiations, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This is a bad deal. Congress should reject it. But that doesn’t mean war. It means rolling-up our sleeves, turning-up the economic pressure on the regime and its supporters, and negotiating a better agreement that advances the national security interests of the United States, our allies and partners. Those opposed to this agreement aren’t opposed to diplomacy – we are against bad diplomacy."
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/04_HFAC - IRAN - Myths and Facts.pdf
Read on.
Educate yourself.
There you are with the name calling again. You can't help yourself can you? Again sanctions is what we had and it didn't do anything to deter them. Spouting rhetoric is not any type of answer, but I guess it's the only thing a person of your mental capacity has.No I suggest you educate yourself since the last sentence has been the policy of the entire international community. Severe sanctions have been imposed on Iran since the '90. So again how do you think you'll get Iran to stop trying to produce nuclear weapons when the one incentive you think you can use has been shown to be ineffective???????Rhetoric is not an answer. How do you feel the US should prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons??????You clearly haven't read any part of the link I supplied. Secondly again how does stopping Iran getting a nuclear weapon look like in your head? That was my question if you posed objections to the actual deal.
Do you understand the decades-old 'non-proliferation policy' of the civilized world????
Barack Obama has purposefully put the lives of every Israeli at risk.
Ask yourself why.
Of course a real American President could have stopped Iran from getting a nuclear bomb....and not by going to war.
His act, the "treaty" was purposeful and intentional.
"Since the United States and our international partners reached a nuclear agreement with Iran, President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and other Administration officials have made numerous statements in support of the deal that deserve close scrutiny. The biggest myth about the Iran Nuclear Agreement is that it will prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. In fact—by trading permanent concessions for temporary benefits—President Obama has assured that Iran will have an internationally recognized capability to quickly produce enough material for multiple nuclear weapons in 10 to 15 years. That is if Iran does not cheat. While reviewing the agreement, Members may wish to keep in mind the following myths and facts. Myth: Congress Has A Choice Between the President’s Deal or War. “There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war.” – President Obama The Facts The President offers a false choice between this agreement or war. Even a supporter of the deal testified in front of the Committee that “I wouldn't say that if you are opposed to this deal that somehow leads to war. I think that's false.” As the President has said himself throughout these negotiations, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” This is a bad deal. Congress should reject it. But that doesn’t mean war. It means rolling-up our sleeves, turning-up the economic pressure on the regime and its supporters, and negotiating a better agreement that advances the national security interests of the United States, our allies and partners. Those opposed to this agreement aren’t opposed to diplomacy – we are against bad diplomacy."
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/04_HFAC - IRAN - Myths and Facts.pdf
Read on.
Educate yourself.
You fool.
Giving them the bomb was the plan all along.
Sanctions would have stopped them.
Now...continue with 'is not, isssss noottttttt!!!!'
