Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 18, 2017, 03:17:50 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal  (Read 11799 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2015, 03:17:13 PM »

Your post states Generals and Admirals, not Retired Generals and Admirals.  If you are going to post facts, at least be accurate. That's like inviting me to a party you say is going to be full of women and when I get there it's Caitlin Jenner and his "girl" friends. Grin

Exactly. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2015, 09:53:58 AM »

Schumer May Save the Democratic Party
By PATRICK H. CADDELL and DOUGLAS E. SCHOEN
August 23, 2015


The Iran deal has potential, both because of public opinion and the way the administration is positioning itself, to hurt Democrats in much the same way that the Iranian hostage crisis did in 1980 and 1981. Should New York Senator Chuck Schumer succeed in killing the deal, he will be saving the Democrats from what appears to be a grave political mistake.

President Obama has branded opponents of the deal as either ideological extremists or ignorant. In his speech at American University, he compared the agreement’s opponents with Iranian extremists chanting “death to America.” He pointed out that most of those opposed to the Iran deal supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003, thus implying that they were warmongers—conveniently overlooking that his vice president and both of his secretaries of state voted for the war in Iraq.

Listening to the president you would never know that a plurality of Americans, including key parts of the Democratic party’s coalition, are opposed to the nuclear agreement. The Secure America Now (SAN) poll found 45 percent of Americans opposed the deal in July—up eight points from June—and that figure rises to 65 percent after respondents hear more details about the agreement. A more recent Fox poll shows that initial opposition has grown to 58 percent.
In both polls, barely 50 percent of Democrats support the agreement and well over one-third oppose. A critical group of Democratic voters—African Americans—is split on the issue, while Hispanics are overwhelmingly opposed. Making matters worse, a solid majority of women and younger voters oppose the agreement too.­

Rubbing salt in these public opinion wounds, President Obama’s popularity is upside down with 52 percent of Americans rating him unfavorably. By contrast, the public views Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who opposes the nuclear deal, as favorable by a two-to-one margin.
 
Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other members of the administration have been berating the nuclear deal’s opponents. Kerry has been almost disdainful to members of Congress who have the temerity to suggest that the deal should be voted down and renegotiated. He claims that it’s too late to revise the agreement—the UN has already approved the deal, he says, the P5+1 partners won’t be willing to reopen negotiations and the Iranians have no interest in making revisions. Kerry seems to have become a defender of Iran’s rights rather than an advocate of the United States’ best interests.

Obama once said that a bad deal was worse than no deal. Now he and Secretary Kerry want us to believe that the choice is between a bad deal or war. At a news conference on July 15, the president made this false choice explicit: “Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it’s resolved through force, through war. Those are—those are the options.”

According to an op-ed by former Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman, “the administration has used these same arguments before to try to stop Congress from imposing economic sanctions on Iran...but...when the sanctions were adopted, the doomsday forecasts were proven wrong.” Apocalyptic warnings are always the starting position of the Obama administration, and time after time they have been disproved.

For all his rhetoric, though, Obama has a problem: The SAN poll reveals that 62 percent believe that the deal doesn’t make America safer and more secure. Over 60 percent feel that the deal doesn’t prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon—the stated goal of the negotiations. And over 80 percent of respondents don’t believe that Iran should be given up to $100 billion in economic sanctions relief without Congressional approval, including 74 percent of Democrats.   

Indeed, the administration’s problems are certain to become even more complicated by the revelation that the Iranians will be submitting their own data to the UN monitoring agency and doing their own inspections. This flies in the face of public opinion: the SAN poll finds that more than 60 percent believe the agreement should be voted down if the inspections are completed by an independent agency and the details of any and all side deals are made public to Congress.

Not only is there growing skepticism from the public, but Obama’s worst political nightmare has been realized: two prominent Democratic senators have decided to oppose the Iran agreement on principle—Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez.

It had been widely assumed that Obama would hold enough Democrats in Congress to ensure that, if Congress rejects the Iran deal, the president’s veto will prevail, and the deal will go forward. But that was before Senator Schumer announced his opposition to the current deal, urging that a better agreement be negotiated.

Schumer, who has until now been a faithful Obama supporter, has been the target of attacks that rival what the Obama administration hurls at Republicans. Administration supporters have warned that Schumer may be endangering his future leadership position, while rabid left-wing groups like Moveon.org allege that he is “voting for war.” Clearly, the administration and its allies believe that there is no such thing as legitimate opposition to the Iran agreement.

Schumer’s decision and his thoughtful and articulate statement explaining it reflect a man putting conscience before politics. Had Schumer—who is normally known as a hyper-partisan actor—been acting politically, he would have delayed his announcement as long as possible.

For all the abuse he’s taking, Schumer may actually be protecting the Democratic Party from the real political danger inherent in Obama’s actions. The contempt that the president and John Kerry showed by taking this agreement to the UN before submitting it to Congress and the American people was reckless. They are not only thumbing their noses at the American people and Congress, but they are showing contempt for the primacy of our system of checks and balances and they could be setting up the Democratic party for years of attacks of “you caused this!” every time Iran behaves in a threatening manner.

Should Obama veto a bill blocking the Iran deal and defy the will of Congress, he would once again find himself on the wrong side of public opinion: 61 percent of voters would want a veto overridden. If a veto is sustained solely by Democrats two-thirds of respondents, including a plurality of Democrats say they would blame the Democratic party if Iran got a nuclear weapon or used the money from sanction relief to support terrorist attacks on Israel.

By contrast, Schumer’s principled stand enjoys broad support: In another part of the SAN poll, Democratic voters were asked what their senators and representatives should do when faced with difficult choices—support the president or follow their conscience if they oppose him—35 percent said that they should “trust the President and his negotiators and support their party’s leader,” while 59 percent wanted their representatives and senators to set aside party loyalties and follow their conscience on the issue at hand.

As President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Sometimes party loyalty asks too much.”

Congress is in recess, but the coming weeks will tell whether Democrats have the courage to stand up for what they believe and what the American people want, or whether they will be cowered by their president and risk damaging the party for years to come.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/chuck-schumer-iran-deal-121605.html#ixzz3jqmybnvH
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2015, 10:00:53 AM »

The fact of the matter is that at least the Democrats are independent thinkers who ACTUALLY have opinions......they can vote yes or no....the Republicans vote in lockstep like Nazis and have no ideas of their own...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN can be against the deal???..just as EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN was against Obamacare......it is not possible in the real world to get that many people in a room and they ALL agree on the same thing.....

I'm proud that the Democratic party has independent thinkers who can make decisions for themselves and are not locked into one way of thinking just because their Party leaders tell them to vote a certain way
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2015, 10:14:55 AM »

The fact of the matter is that at least the Democrats are independent thinkers who ACTUALLY have opinions......they can vote yes or no....the Republicans vote in lockstep like Nazis and have no ideas of their own...how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN can be against the deal???..just as EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN was against Obamacare......it is not possible in the real world to get that many people in a room and they ALL agree on the same thing.....

I'm proud that the Democratic party has independent thinkers who can make decisions for themselves and are not locked into one way of thinking just because their Party leaders tell them to vote a certain way

LOL!
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2015, 10:35:56 AM »

LOL!

you LOL but can't dispute the basic premise of my post
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2015, 12:52:02 PM »

you LOL but can't dispute the basic premise of my post

No, Democrats are not independent thinkers.  Liberals in particular are incredibly intolerant of opposing viewpoints. 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2015, 02:07:24 PM »

No, Democrats are not independent thinkers.  Liberals in particular are incredibly intolerant of opposing viewpoints. 

WOW..you have absolutely destroyed yourself with that statement.....Liberals are tolerant of others and also have ideas that are new and progressive......Conserv atives want everything to stay the same and not progress...they have turned their back on science...are intolerant of those who are different and have different opinions....and you know this...no way in hell can every single republican vote the same way (usually in the negative) EVERY SINGLE TIME

Get a grip

you are definitely becoming the troll you accuse 240 of being
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2015, 02:33:11 PM »

WOW..you have absolutely destroyed yourself with that statement.....Liberals are tolerant of others and also have ideas that are new and progressive......Conserv atives want everything to stay the same and not progress...they have turned their back on science...are intolerant of those who are different and have different opinions....and you know this...no way in hell can every single republican vote the same way (usually in the negative) EVERY SINGLE TIME

Get a grip

you are definitely becoming the troll you accuse 240 of being

Now this made me laugh out loud too.   Smiley  Many liberals are hypocrites.  (And I actually know how to properly use that word.)  They don't practice what they preach.  They claim to be tolerant, but silence dissent.  They claim to have a big tent, but will attack and ostracize people who happen to think or act differently.  I have at least two or three fairly long threads on the board showing exactly how intolerant some liberals can be.  Here is one, with a plethora of examples.  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=296022.0 

Not exactly a secret.  Unless you are a true believer, in which case the facts don't matter. 
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2015, 03:19:28 PM »

No, Democrats are not independent thinkers.  Liberals in particular are incredibly intolerant of opposing viewpoints. 

I'm pretty sure a whole lot of trump supporters also fall into this category. 
Report to moderator   Logged

240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2015, 03:22:31 PM »

you are definitely becoming the troll you accuse 240 of being

what i've learned from getbig...

when 50 people tell you that you're fat.. you are.
when 50 people call a person a dumbass, they are one.

and when most of the getbiggers on the political board say dos equis is becoming a troll... it's because he is. 

He wasn't always like this - he used to debate.  These days, he can't debate, because he doesn't like any of the steaming piles of crap on the GOP buffet... he used to be able to defend powell, cheney... but really, he's smart enough to know palin was an idiot, trump is obnoxious/immature, rand and friends are flipflopping messes with no sets of beliefs.

Beach is trolling cause he can't defend the bags of shit running.  Hilary, despite her jailbird crimes, is ten times more prepared, eloquent, and the statesman as the GOP frontrunner, trump.
Report to moderator   Logged

Skeeter
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1644


Born to raise hell


« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2015, 03:53:33 AM »

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Tuesday it received substantive amounts of information from Iran aimed at quelling concerns its nuclear past had military elements, although it was too early to say whether any of it is new."

"Iran had for years been stonewalling an investigation by the U.N. nuclear watchdog into the possible military dimensions of its atomic program, but delivered on its latest promise to send further data to the IAEA by mid-August.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told reporters the agency received a "substantive volume" of information from Iran on Aug. 15."




http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QU0W120150825
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2015, 07:29:26 AM »

"The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Tuesday it received substantive amounts of information from Iran aimed at quelling concerns its nuclear past had military elements, although it was too early to say whether any of it is new."

"Iran had for years been stonewalling an investigation by the U.N. nuclear watchdog into the possible military dimensions of its atomic program, but delivered on its latest promise to send further data to the IAEA by mid-August.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano told reporters the agency received a "substantive volume" of information from Iran on Aug. 15."




http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/25/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSKCN0QU0W120150825

Good news...lets see where all of this goes.....if it goes well and keeps us out of another war, then great!
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2015, 07:30:23 AM »

what i've learned from getbig...

when 50 people tell you that you're fat.. you are.
when 50 people call a person a dumbass, they are one.

and when most of the getbiggers on the political board say dos equis is becoming a troll... it's because he is. 

He wasn't always like this - he used to debate.  These days, he can't debate, because he doesn't like any of the steaming piles of crap on the GOP buffet... he used to be able to defend powell, cheney... but really, he's smart enough to know palin was an idiot, trump is obnoxious/immature, rand and friends are flipflopping messes with no sets of beliefs.

Beach is trolling cause he can't defend the bags of shit running.  Hilary, despite her jailbird crimes, is ten times more prepared, eloquent, and the statesman as the GOP frontrunner, trump.

agreed
Report to moderator   Logged
catracho
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 970


I don't want to be "that guy"!


« Reply #38 on: August 27, 2015, 12:43:34 AM »

35 US military generals and admirals support it.
Various Israeli generals, admirals, and military experts support it.
Numerous nuclear scientists support it.

"Good analysis".

I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! Grin

"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #39 on: August 27, 2015, 05:49:10 AM »

I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! Grin

"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html

The article basicaly doesn't expalin anything other than to say they are opposed...it really doesn't spell out the why
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2015, 01:01:32 PM »

I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! Grin

"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html

You don't say?   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16311

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2015, 05:50:10 PM »

You were being sarcastic?  Sure.  Right.   Smiley

No.  I was addressing the comment someone (caratcho) else made to my post.

The sarcasm backfire response is due to your comment to andrewhatever while clearly either not seeing (doubtful) or not understanding (most likely) the conversation taking place between myself and caratcho that was referenced.    "  Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16311

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2015, 05:53:17 PM »

I see your 35 Retired generals and Admirals and raise to 200! Grin

"A group of nearly 200 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html

Really?  Wonder why?

--snip--

One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.

It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.

--snip--

Those stellar qualities certainly distinguish themselves as non-biased intellectuals it seems.
Report to moderator   Logged
catracho
Getbig III
***
Gender: Male
Posts: 970


I don't want to be "that guy"!


« Reply #43 on: August 27, 2015, 06:14:06 PM »

Really?  Wonder why?

--snip--

One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.

It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.

--snip--




Those stellar qualities certainly distinguish themselves as non-biased intellectuals it seems.


And the other 197? Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #44 on: August 28, 2015, 05:47:03 AM »

Really really really ODD that all those guys who illegally tried to deal with Iran back in the Reagan administration are all against the Iran deal.....amazing irony Shocked

the hypocrisy of the Republicans is so amazing and shameful its a wonder how they show their face in public
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #45 on: August 28, 2015, 11:35:59 AM »

No.  I was addressing the comment someone (caratcho) else made to my post.

The sarcasm backfire response is due to your comment to andrewhatever while clearly either not seeing (doubtful) or not understanding (most likely) the conversation taking place between myself and caratcho that was referenced.    "  Smiley

I see.  So now you've established you don't understand the definitions of hypocrite/hypocrisy and sarcasm.  It all makes sense.  That's why you repeatedly get suckered by satire.  lol . . . .
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #46 on: August 28, 2015, 11:37:30 AM »


And the other 197? Grin

They must all be Republican hacks.  

Hey I wonder if Obama fired them too?  Z inger of the weekend right there.  lol   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52244

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #47 on: August 28, 2015, 11:41:49 AM »

30 Senators Now Support Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama Needs 4 More

Image: 30 Senators Now Support Iran Nuclear Deal, Obama Needs 4 More (AP)
Friday, 28 Aug 2015

Another U.S. Democratic senator said on Friday he would support the U.S.-led nuclear agreement with Iran, moving President Barack Obama a step closer to having sufficient backing to ensure the deal stands.

Tom Carper backed the deal negotiated by the United States and other world powers that would put new limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for eased economic sanctions.

Obama is trying to muster 34 votes in the Senate to ensure lawmakers cannot kill the deal. Thirty senators, all Democrats and independents who vote with Democrats, have now said they will support it.

When Congress returns on Sept. 8 from its August recess, debate will begin on a Republican-sponsored "resolution of disapproval" against the deal
In the Senate, Republicans must gather 60 votes to move the resolution forward under Senate procedural rules. If they can, they will then need a simple majority of 51 votes in the chamber to approve the resolution. It would pass, because Republicans control a majority of Senate seats and most have already come out against the agreement.

There is no similar procedural barrier in the House. The resolution is expected to easily win approval there. Republicans hold 246 seats in the 435-seat House.
If both chambers approve the resolution, it would go to Obama's desk for review. He has vowed to veto it.

If he does so, opponents would then try to override the veto. This would take a two-thirds majority vote in each chamber. The Senate has 100 members; the House, 434, plus one vacant seat.

Democrats could block an override in the Senate with 34 votes. So far, 30 senators have committed to voting in favor of the deal; 31 have said they will oppose it.

In the House, if Republicans voted unanimously against the deal, they would need to get at least 44 Democrats to vote with them to override a veto.

The Iran deal is not a treaty, so it does not need the two-thirds vote in the Senate to be ratified. The "resolution of disapproval" mechanism was included in a law Obama signed in May giving Congress the right to weigh in on the nuclear deal with Iran.

If Congress were to pass a resolution of disapproval and override a veto, Obama would be barred from waiving most of the U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran over its nuclear program. Proponents of the agreement say this would kill the deal.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/senators-support-iran-deal/2015/08/28/id/672402/#ixzz3k8lQ9Tq0
Report to moderator   Logged
LurkerNoMore
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16311

Tossing sand in your Va-Jay-Jay


« Reply #48 on: August 28, 2015, 12:10:02 PM »

They must all be Republican hacks.  

Hey I wonder if Obama fired them too? &guy of the weekend right there.  lol   Smiley

No, Obama only fires retired ones.
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com


WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 28, 2015, 11:06:08 PM »

Really really really ODD that all those guys who illegally tried to deal with Iran back in the Reagan administration are all against the Iran deal.....amazing irony Shocked

the hypocrisy of the Republicans is so amazing and shameful its a wonder how they show their face in public

LOL this.   Reagan didn't go to congress, he just did those felonies quietly.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!