The list of guest speakers on Capitol Hill were " impressive"

The Donald. Ted Cruz. Glen Beck.Michelle Bachmann.Sarah Palin and... One of the Duck Dynasty Dudes.

And I missed it.


Maybe I'm wrong, so I stand to be corrected, but didn't the agreement pass? In fact it was tried to block again and failed?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the deal, why do some of these people keep beating that dead horse?


Trump had a great quip... We are going to do so much winning, you will get tired of winning. Hmmm..wonder if Khan would sell the team?

---

Blakes Life Matters

The list of guest speakers on Capitol Hill were " impressive"

The Donald. Ted Cruz. Glen Beck.Michelle Bachmann.Sarah Palin and... One of the Duck Dynasty Dudes.

And I missed it.


Maybe I'm wrong, so I stand to be corrected, but didn't the agreement pass? In fact it was tried to block again and failed?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the deal, why do some of these people keep beating that dead horse?


Trump had a great quip... We are going to do so much winning, you will get tired of winning. Hmmm..wonder if Khan would sell the team?

 

  It comes down to one's perspective.  If you believe that Iran having nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to the United States,   you shouldn't sit back.   Ted Cruz,  who I continue to support for President,  has said that he would “rip up and rescind this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal"  the first day he's President.   Donald Trump might have spoken at the rally but he's not willing to do what Cruz is.  

---

If you don't want Iran to get nuclear weapons, then Ted Cruz ripping up the deal is probably the worst way to go about that.  Iran sees that we aren't willing to negotiate, and decide they'll just build the bomb.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

  It comes down to one's perspective.  If you believe that Iran having nuclear weapons is the greatest threat to the United States,   you shouldn't sit back.   Ted Cruz,  who I continue to support for President,  has said that he would “rip up and rescind this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal"  the first day he's President.   Donald Trump might have spoken at the rally but he's not willing to do what Cruz is.  

And we're all lucky that Ted Cruz has as much chance of becoming President as I do. Tearing up the deal is a sure-fire way to give Iran a bomb, because there is absolutely no incentive for them to go back to the table for a deal that's worse for them. They'd just restart their nuclear weapons research and turn Israel into a glowing hole in the ground, so by all means, tear up the deal if that's what you want to happen. The blood of Israel will be on Cruz's hands.

---

 

And we're all lucky that Ted Cruz has as much chance of becoming President as I do. Tearing up the deal is a sure-fire way to give Iran a bomb, because there is absolutely no incentive for them to go back to the table for a deal that's worse for them. They'd just restart their nuclear weapons research and turn Israel into a glowing hole in the ground, so by all means, tear up the deal if that's what you want to happen. The blood of Israel will be on Cruz's hands.

 

  If you believe that Iran's primary intention is to get the nuclear bomb,  which is my opinion and appears to be Ted Cruz's opinion,  tearing up the deal is a far better alternative than Iran being on a clear path to get the nuclear bomb as a result of this deal.   The inspection process is a joke.   

---

  If you believe that Iran's primary intention is to get the nuclear bomb,  which is my opinion and appears to be Ted Cruz's opinion,  tearing up the deal is a far better alternative than Iran being on a clear path to get the nuclear bomb as a result of this deal.   The inspection process is a joke.   

Wow, I'm impressed.  I didn't realize that you were a Nuclear Expert.  Do you think you could explain to me why the inspection process is a joke (without using the terms "24 days" because as other Experts like yourself have pointed out, the radiation can be detected for far more than 24 days afterwards)

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

  If you believe that Iran's primary intention is to get the nuclear bomb,  which is my opinion and appears to be Ted Cruz's opinion,  tearing up the deal is a far better alternative than Iran being on a clear path to get the nuclear bomb as a result of this deal.   The inspection process is a joke.   

There is a deal in place that Iran agreed to. 24 days--which is the absolute maximum allowed, not the amount of time that will actually pass--is not enough time for them to remove all traces of nuclear bomb development from a facility, despite what your far-right blogosphere writers want you to think, and if Iran is found to be close to or in possession of a nuke, there would be an aggressive response from the US and EU (not to mention Israel, which might just attack independent of what the big boys do).

 

Meanwhile, what does tearing up that deal accomplish? Again, the US does not get to tear up the deal and hold a gun to Iran's head to force them back to the table. Iran has a deal now that they have agreed to with the west, one that actual nuclear scientists and proliferation experts--not Stephen A. Warhawk and the blog he runs from his basement--support. If the US tears up that deal with Iran, what makes you think they'd go back to the table? The restoration of sanctions? The rest of the world would never go along with that. The threat of military intervention? Sure, let's get ourselves into yet another Vietnam/Iraq situation that we can't win, then drop trillions of dollars and get tens of thousands of Americans killed in the process. Oh, and let's [BAD WORD REMOVED] off Russia, Europe and the OPEC nations at the same time.

 

You're living in a dream world if you think that deal would be torn up. Even Cruz isn't that stupid. He's just grandstanding so that wannabe "anti-establishment rebels" will keep his flailing campaign alive to the convention.

---

Wow, I'm impressed.  I didn't realize that you were a Nuclear Expert.  Do you think you could explain to me why the inspection process is a joke (without using the terms "24 hours" because as other Experts like yourself have pointed out, the radiation can be detected for far more than 24 hours afterwards)

 

 With a terrorist regime,  which has repeatedly said it wants to destroy the U.S, and Israel,   if the inspections aren't anytime,  any place,  by U.S. inspectors,  they are a joke.  This agreement is the antithesis of this.  

---

There is a deal in place that Iran agreed to. 24 days is not enough time for them to remove all traces of nuclear bomb development from a facility, despite what your far-right blogosphere writers want you to think, and if Iran is found to be close to or in possession of a nuke, there would be an aggressive response from the US and EU (not to mention Israel, which might just attack independent of what the big boys do).

 

Meanwhile, what does tearing up that deal accomplish? Again, the US does not get to tear up the deal and hold a gun to Iran's head to force them back to the table. Iran has a deal now that they have agreed to with the west, one that actual nuclear scientists and proliferation experts--not Stephen A. Warhawk and the blog he runs from his basement--support. If the US tears up that deal with Iran, what makes you think they'd go back to the table? The restoration of sanctions? The rest of the world would never go along with that. The threat of military intervention? Sure, let's get ourselves into yet another Vietnam/Iraq situation that we can't win, then drop trillions of dollars and get tens of thousands of Americans killed in the process. Oh, and let's [BAD WORD REMOVED] off Russia, Europe and the OPEC nations at the same time.

 

You're living in a dream world if you think that deal would be torn up. Even Cruz isn't that stupid. He's just grandstanding so that wannabe "anti-establishment rebels" will keep his flailing campaign alive to the convention.

After trying to talk about this with many conservatives here and listening to opponents in talk radio and blogs and what not state their concerns I have come to one conclusion. This is not about the deal or how the deal is bad or could have been better. This is about 2 things in particular. They did not want negotiations in the first place. They are very disingenuous in their opinion of the deal and in the specifics of the deal because they did not want the talks to take place at all. Also Obama is involved and since the knuckleheads think he is actually evil that makes everything he says or wants to do something they simply must disagree with.

---

 With a terrorist regime,  which has repeatedly said it wants to destroy the U.S, and Israel,   if the inspections aren't anytime,  any place,  by U.S. inspectors,  they are a joke.  This agreement is the antithesis of this.  

 

Other experts say otherwise.  So I'd like to see your rebuttal to that, preferably with some scientific explanations. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

 With a terrorist regime,  which has repeatedly said it wants to destroy the U.S, and Israel,   if the inspections aren't anytime,  any place,  by U.S. inspectors,  they are a joke.  This agreement is the antithesis of this.  

We have legislators and a large portion of citizens that have called for the same thing against Iran and that's ok because they started it? It's like kids throwing dirt at each other on the playground. 

---

Other experts say otherwise.  So I'd like to see your rebuttal to that, preferably with some scientific explanations. 

I will take this one. 

 

Experts are wrong, listen to the people that disagree with them because reasons.

---

Wow, I'm impressed.  I didn't realize that you were a Nuclear Expert.  Do you think you could explain to me why the inspection process is a joke (without using the terms "24 days" because as other Experts like yourself have pointed out, the radiation can be detected for far more than 24 days afterwards)

 

Left wing spin. Detection of residual radiation means nothing. The allowed uranium processing explains away the residual radiation.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

There is a deal in place that Iran agreed to. 24 days--which is the absolute maximum allowed, not the amount of time that will actually pass--is not enough time for them to remove all traces of nuclear bomb development from a facility, despite what your far-right blogosphere writers want you to think, and if Iran is found to be close to or in possession of a nuke, there would be an aggressive response from the US and EU (not to mention Israel, which might just attack independent of what the big boys do).

 

Meanwhile, what does tearing up that deal accomplish? Again, the US does not get to tear up the deal and hold a gun to Iran's head to force them back to the table. Iran has a deal now that they have agreed to with the west, one that actual nuclear scientists and proliferation experts--not Stephen A. Warhawk and the blog he runs from his basement--support. If the US tears up that deal with Iran, what makes you think they'd go back to the table? The restoration of sanctions? The rest of the world would never go along with that. The threat of military intervention? Sure, let's get ourselves into yet another Vietnam/Iraq situation that we can't win, then drop trillions of dollars and get tens of thousands of Americans killed in the process. Oh, and let's [BAD WORD REMOVED] off Russia, Europe and the OPEC nations at the same time.

 

You're living in a dream world if you think that deal would be torn up. Even Cruz isn't that stupid. He's just grandstanding so that wannabe "anti-establishment rebels" will keep his flailing campaign alive to the convention.

 

   If the U.S. itself put sanctions back on Iran,  that would severely damage the Iranian economy regardless of what the rest of the world does.  

 

   A ground war doesn't make sense.  Air strikes would be the best way to proceed.   I'm confident Ted Cruz would send the U.S. air force to do so,  if Iran continues to engage in international terrorism.

 

  Considering Iran is holding 4 Americans hostage,  that by itself makes air strikes an appropriate response.  

---

Left wing spin. Detection of residual radiation means nothing. The allowed uranium processing explains away the residual radiation.

 

So I take it that you are a Nuclear Expert.  Can you explain to me then why it explains away the residual radiation, and how inspectors wont' be able to tell the difference?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

   If the U.S. itself put sanctions back on Iran,  that would severely damage the Iranian economy regardless of what the rest of the world does.  

 

   A ground war doesn't make sense.  Air strikes would be the best way to proceed.   I'm confident Ted Cruz would send the U.S. air force to do so,  if Iran continues to engage in international terrorism.

 

  Considering Iran is holding 4 Americans hostage,  that by itself makes air strikes an appropriate response.  

See? You guys did not want a deal. You want war. The opposition to the deal is so blatantly disingenuous it's borderline comical. 

---

There is a deal in place that Iran agreed to. 24 days--which is the absolute maximum allowed, not the amount of time that will actually pass--is not enough time for them to remove all traces of nuclear bomb development from a facility, despite what your far-right blogosphere writers want you to think, and if Iran is found to be close to or in possession of a nuke, there would be an aggressive response from the US and EU (not to mention Israel, which might just attack independent of what the big boys do).

 

24 days is the maximum time if Iran does not appeal the request. Iran can drag it out a lot longer. And 24 days is plenty of time to ship out evidence of bomb making and replace it with a radiation source allowed under the pact. Iran has no need to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, their only purpose is to build a weapon.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Other experts say otherwise.  So I'd like to see your rebuttal to that, preferably with some scientific explanations. 

 

  Any information I provide will be countered that it's from ' right wing/ Conservative/ sources'.   That's what happened when this discussion took place in the past. 

---

  Any information I provide will be countered that it's from ' right wing/ Conservative/ sources'.   That's what happened when this discussion took place in the past. 

You mean like how your side counters that it's form "left wing/liberal/ sources'?

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

See? You guys did not want a deal. You want war. The opposition to the deal is so blatantly disingenuous it's borderline comical. 

 

  We already are at war because of Iran's actions.  

---