Does Obama hate America?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Ah yes.

Dodd-Frank.

Voted on and passed and signed by Obamacrats.

a reply to: introvert

www.forbes.com...

Here is the gun ones.

Do you see how many of those take the guns out of peoples hands?!?!

Man, I don't know how people still have them.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: kellyjay

so not agreeing with obama or his policys and thinking some of the policies he has made including his foriegn policy that some feel have made america weaker are just feeding off proaganda?

I didn't say that at all. I disagree with Obama on quite a bit.

It's the rhetoric and terms you used that leads me to believe that you are not looking at his policies and disagreeing because they are a true threat. You disagree because we have been told they are a threat.

You mentioned Jeremiah Wright, "fundamentally change the United States of America", the Iran situation and then you post a list of half-truth nonsense about all of the things he did wrong. Talking point after talking point. Rhetoric and bs.

Tell me, do you know the terms of the Iran deal? If so, what is bad in that deal?

If you don't, I rest my case.

Yes i know the terms of the iran deal and they are all short term deals

Well-intentioned advocates of the proposed Iranian nuclear deal, the deadline for which has been pushed back to July 7, will argue that it provides for intrusive inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, will remove a large portion of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, and, for a 10-year period, will prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon in less than 12 months. Yet other experts -- including leading American scientists -- have concluded that, under this agreement, Iran could break out military nuclear power in a far shorter period and could develop the wherewithal to create not just one bomb, but an atomic arsenal.

In the interim, the agreement will also bestow legitimacy on an Iran that is attempting to overthrow pro-American governments throughout the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and is propping up the Syrian dictator who has killed many tens of thousands of his own citizens. The regime seeks to extend its hegemony throughout the region and beyond.

Distance can be emotionally deceiving. The nuclear deal imperils the United States as much as Israel, just not as immediately. The Supreme Leader directs crowds in chanting "Death to America." The Iranian navy practices blowing up U.S. aircraft carriers, and its armed forces bear responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers who fought bravely in Iraq.

There has been a suggestion from those conducting the negotiations with Iran that the alternative to a deal is war. It's not true. The alternative is a better deal brought about by ratcheted-up sanctions, a deal that dismantles Iranian nuclear facilities and is linked to a fundamental change in Iran's behavior: It must cease trying to overthrow pro-American governments, it must cease sponsoring terror worldwide, and it must stop threatening to destroy America

You must keep in mind that that it wasn't strictly an Obama deal.

This was a process that included the European Union, UK, France, China and Russia I think a couple more countries? Can't remember off the top of my head.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ah yes, trying to stop the hemorrhage is such a bad thing.

He must hate america if he wants to see it with a some what functional economy...

a reply to: amazing

It was the P5+1
en.wikipedia.org...

Which is something that is just getting ignored by all those that seem to oppose this.
They act like it was Obama and Kerry just doing this alone against all our allies wishes.
When really the only one that was against it was Israel.

a reply to: Sremmos80

"Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions:"

Successful in the big city high crime precincts.

a reply to: amazing

yes i understand that, so i don;t place blame squarely on Obama's shoulders for that one, which is why i didn't go into a speech about it in OP

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: amazing

It was the P5+1
en.wikipedia.org...

Which is something that is just getting ignored by all those that seem to oppose this.
They act like it was Obama and Kerry just doing this alone against all our allies wishes.
When really the only one that was against it was Israel.

That's true and if I remember correctly, there is some support for this from inside Israel...mainly from the Military. I wish I could remember where I was reading that.

originally posted by: kellyjay
a reply to: amazing

yes i understand that, so i don;t place blame squarely on Obama's shoulders for that one, which is why i didn't go into a speech about it in OP

But why bring it up at all. It could be a really good deal for America and show true love for our country. It's not all cut and dry.

a reply to: kellyjay

The alternative is a better deal brought about by ratcheted-up sanctions, a deal that dismantles Iranian nuclear facilities and is linked to a fundamental change in Iran's behavior: It must cease trying to overthrow pro-American governments, it must cease sponsoring terror worldwide, and it must stop threatening to destroy America

Ah yes the 'better-deal'.

In the mean time while we try to get them to agree with something that will never happen we will just let their country crumble more and wonder why they turn to the avenues they turn to.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kellyjay

The alternative is a better deal brought about by ratcheted-up sanctions, a deal that dismantles Iranian nuclear facilities and is linked to a fundamental change in Iran's behavior: It must cease trying to overthrow pro-American governments, it must cease sponsoring terror worldwide, and it must stop threatening to destroy America

Ah yes the 'better-deal'.

In the mean time while we try to get them to agree with something that will never happen we will just let their country crumble more and wonder why they turn to the avenues they turn to.

No sanctions needed to be lifted..full stop.

a reply to: xuenchen

Well when they are so easy to get your hands on, legally or illegally, since there is something like 270+ million guns.
People are going to use them.

The point was that he hasn't taken the guns out of anyone's hands.

a reply to: kellyjay

Why? Sanctions don't work when you have russia and china to deal with.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kellyjay

Why? Sanctions don't work when you have russia and china to deal with.

sanctions work no matter who "you have to deal with"

a reply to: kellyjay

You copied and pasted that from the CNN website:

CNN

Well-intentioned advocates of the proposed Iranian nuclear deal, the deadline for which has been pushed back to July 7, will argue that it provides for intrusive inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, will remove a large portion of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, and, for a 10-year period, will prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon in less than 12 months. Yet other experts -- including leading American scientists -- have concluded that, under this agreement, Iran could break out military nuclear power in a far shorter period and could develop the wherewithal to create not just one bomb, but an atomic arsenal.

In the interim, the agreement will also bestow legitimacy on an Iran that is attempting to overthrow pro-American governments throughout the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and is propping up the Syrian dictator who has killed many tens of thousands of his own citizens. The regime seeks to extend its hegemony throughout the region and beyond.

Distance can be emotionally deceiving. The nuclear deal imperils the United States as much as Israel, just not as immediately. The Supreme Leader directs crowds in chanting "Death to America." The Iranian navy practices blowing up U.S. aircraft carriers, and its armed forces bear responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers who fought bravely in Iraq.

There has been a suggestion from those conducting the negotiations with Iran that the alternative to a deal is war. It's not true. The alternative is a better deal brought about by ratcheted-up sanctions, a deal that dismantles Iranian nuclear facilities and is linked to a fundamental change in Iran's behavior: It must cease trying to overthrow pro-American governments, it must cease sponsoring terror worldwide, and it must stop threatening to destroy America's cherished ally, Israel.

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kellyjay

Why? Sanctions don't work when you have russia and china to deal with.

sanctions work no matter who "you have to deal with"

I don;t think you understand. We have had sanctions on Iran and they barely work because they can just trade with China and Russia. The sanctions are pointless and sanctions are only a precursor to war.

Who the hell are we to decide what a sovereign nation can or cannot do?

a reply to: kellyjay

Then I think you have a misunderstanding of how they work.

How are our sanctions on russia working?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: kellyjay

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: kellyjay

Why? Sanctions don't work when you have russia and china to deal with.

sanctions work no matter who "you have to deal with"

I don;t think you understand. We have had sanctions on Iran and they barely work because they can just trade with China and Russia. The sanctions are pointless and sanctions are only a precursor to war.

Who the hell are we to decide what a sovereign nation can or cannot do?

Yeah, this is much better actually working with China, Russian and other countries. We might actually get something done. Nobody want's a giant world war or Israel being wiped off the face of the earth, there is too much money to be made right now.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: kellyjay

You copied and pasted that from the CNN website:

CNN

Well-intentioned advocates of the proposed Iranian nuclear deal, the deadline for which has been pushed back to July 7, will argue that it provides for intrusive inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, will remove a large portion of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, and, for a 10-year period, will prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon in less than 12 months. Yet other experts -- including leading American scientists -- have concluded that, under this agreement, Iran could break out military nuclear power in a far shorter period and could develop the wherewithal to create not just one bomb, but an atomic arsenal.

In the interim, the agreement will also bestow legitimacy on an Iran that is attempting to overthrow pro-American governments throughout the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and is propping up the Syrian dictator who has killed many tens of thousands of his own citizens. The regime seeks to extend its hegemony throughout the region and beyond.

Distance can be emotionally deceiving. The nuclear deal imperils the United States as much as Israel, just not as immediately. The Supreme Leader directs crowds in chanting "Death to America." The Iranian navy practices blowing up U.S. aircraft carriers, and its armed forces bear responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers who fought bravely in Iraq.

There has been a suggestion from those conducting the negotiations with Iran that the alternative to a deal is war. It's not true. The alternative is a better deal brought about by ratcheted-up sanctions, a deal that dismantles Iranian nuclear facilities and is linked to a fundamental change in Iran's behavior: It must cease trying to overthrow pro-American governments, it must cease sponsoring terror worldwide, and it must stop threatening to destroy America's cherished ally, Israel.

yes i did...what's your point? does it not outline the important parts of the deal?

I'm not getting what that has to do with anything ....