Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 12, 2017, 08:05:04 PM *
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 11717 times)
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #50 on: August 29, 2015, 08:46:28 AM »

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

 Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2015, 09:35:50 AM »

Colin Powell Backs Obama's Iran Deal
A symbolic victory for Obama.
Zach Carter
Senior Political Economy Reporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/06/2015


Former Secretary of State Colin Powell on Sunday threw his support behind President Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it "a good deal" that will move Iran off its current "superhighway" toward acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that critics of the agreement were ignoring the rapid development of Iran's nuclear program dating back to the Bush years.

"They have been on a superhighway for the last 10 years to create a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program, with no speed limit. And in the last 10 years they have gone from 136 centrifuges up to something like 19,000 centrifuges. This agreement will bring them down to 5,000 centrifuges, all of them under [International Atomic Energy Agency] supervision. And I think this is a good outcome."

The Obama administration doesn't need Powell's support to help secure the political survival of the nonproliferation pact, as Senate Democrats already have enough votes to prevent Republican critics from overriding it. But Powell's endorsement carries deep symbolic significance.

Powell served as secretary of state for former President George W. Bush during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Former Vice President Dick Cheney and other neoconservatives have blasted Obama's Iran deal and blamed the Obama administration for the current violence in the Middle East. Powell, by contrast, argues that the current president is making good progress after being dealt a rough hand by his predecessors.

“The fact of the matter is, we did it right in the first Gulf War. We had to listen to arguments for years afterwards about, 'Why didn't you go to Baghdad?' And the 2003 war came along, and you saw why you didn't want to go to Baghdad,” Powell said. "Once you pull out the top of a government, unless there's a structure under it to give security and structure to the society, you can expect a mess."

"Meet The Press" host Chuck Todd also played a clip of Dick Cheney in 1994 arguing that toppling Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War would have been irresponsible.

"If you take down the central government in Iraq, you can see pieces of Iraq flying off," Cheney said at the time, describing a situation that would destabilize Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Cheney now blames Obama for problems in the region, saying the current administration abandoned a successful military project.

Critics of the Iran deal say it will allow a regime that is hostile to the United States to acquire a nuclear weapon in 10 to 15 years. They also say that Iran cannot be trusted to abide by its terms. Powell acknowledged that the pact would require stringent oversight and robust "verification" to work as agreed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colin-powell-backs-obamas-iran-deal_55ec5acae4b002d5c0764339
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2015, 09:41:12 AM »

Its good to see cooler, more intelligent heads prevail.....looks like the entire Republican party will vote no and be isolated ONCE AGAIN
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #53 on: September 09, 2015, 09:06:04 AM »

Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25 years
Taking to Twitter, Iranian leader says Zionists won’t find serenity until destruction, calls US ‘Great Satan’ and rejects any talks with Washington beyond nuke deal
BY TIMES OF ISRAEL STAFF
September 9, 2015
 

In this picture released by official website of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015, he is seen speaking in a meeting with members of Iran's Experts Assembly in Tehran, Iran. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)In this picture released by official website of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's office on Thursday, Sept. 3, 2015, he is seen speaking in a meeting with members of Iran's Experts Assembly in Tehran, Iran. (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)NEWSROOM

Israel will not survive the next 25 years, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday, making a series of threatening remarks published online.

In a quote posted to Twitter by Khamenei’s official account, Khamenei addresses Israel, saying, “You will not see next 25 years,” and adds that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed.

The quote comes against a backdrop of a photograph apparently showing the Iranian leader walking on an Israeli flag painted on a sidewalk.

“After negotiations, in Zionist regime they said they had no more concern about Iran for next 25 years; I’d say: Firstly, you will not see next 25 years; God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years. Secondly, until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists,” the quote from Iran’s top leader reads in broken English.

The quote was apparently taken from a speech given earlier in the day.

The remarks came as US lawmakers began to debate supporting a recent nuclear agreement between Tehran and six world powers. Critics of the deal have pointed to fiery anti-US and anti-Zionist rhetoric as proof that the regime should not be trusted.

The White House and other deal boosters argue that the pact, meant to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, is based on verification, not trust.

Khamenei’s statements also reaffirmed his view that the US is a “Great Satan” and that there would be no detente with Washington beyond the nuclear talks.

“We approved talks with the United States about [the] nuclear issue specifically. We have not allowed talks with the US in other fields and we [do] not negotiate with them,” Khamenei said in statements published on his website.

Khamenei is quoted as saying any other talks would be “a tool for penetration and imposing their demands.”

On Twitter, Khamenei said talks with the US were a “means of infiltration and imposition of their wills.”

Quoting the founder of the Islamic Republic and his predecessor as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei tweeted: “@IRKhomeini stated “US is the Great Satan,” some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”

The Twitter handle @IRKhomeini is an Iranian government account dedicated to Khomeini’s statements.

Some have pointed to the nuclear deal as an opening for Iran to repair long-frayed ties with the West.

Several senior European officials have traveled to Iran since the nuclear deal was reached to boost economic and diplomatic ties, including Austrian President Heinz Fischer, who on Monday became the first European leader to visit Tehran in over a decade.

On Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signaled that Iran is ready to hold talks with world powers on ways to resolve Syria’s civil war — provided such negotiations could secure peace and democracy in the conflict-torn country, he said.

Iran, together with Russia, backs the embattled regime of Bashar Assad, who is opposed by much of the West.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-israel-wont-survive-next-25-years/
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2015, 01:47:30 PM »

we already know Israel will be here forever...the only way Israel will not be here is if they destroy themselves...which they are doing now
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #55 on: September 09, 2015, 03:08:08 PM »

Or Iran drops a bomb on them. 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #56 on: September 10, 2015, 05:33:53 AM »

Or Iran drops a bomb on them. 

Not going to happen.....all of that is rhetoric...Iran would be wiped from the face of the earth by both Israel and the U.S....they know that....they are more rational than they lead people to believe..they want to survive
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #57 on: September 10, 2015, 09:28:00 AM »

Not going to happen.....all of that is rhetoric...Iran would be wiped from the face of the earth by both Israel and the U.S....they know that....they are more rational than they lead people to believe..they want to survive

Good thing you have so much trust and faith in those folks. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #58 on: September 10, 2015, 09:28:54 AM »

Retired General: Iran Deal Encourages Allies to Align With Russia, China
Gen. Chuck Wald, former deputy commander of United States European Command, warns Congress of deal’s implications
BY: Morgan Chalfant 
September 9, 2015

The chair of a council of prominent military leaders argued in testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday that the Iranian nuclear deal could encourage U.S. allies in the Middle East to align themselves with other world powers such as Russia or China.

Retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, who co-chairs the Iran Strategy Council at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the implications of the nuclear agreement being pushed by the Obama administration.

Wald, who served as deputy commander of United States European Command, explained that the agreement “undermines U.S. credibility” from the perspective of both allies and enemies in the Middle East by making U.S. commitment to alliances appear “weakened.”

This in turn, Wald said, could prompt allies to “seek protection elsewhere” and enemies to “feel emboldened” against the United States.

“Some U.S. allies have made clear they believe this deal will not prevent a nuclear Iran and, that by proceeding with the [agreement], the United States is disrupting the regional balance of power and endangering them,” Wald said. “Other regional partners have noted that the deal empowers Iran to redouble its destabilizing regional activities, making the Middle East a more dangerous place. ”

“There is anger—even a sense of betrayal—among U.S. allies in the region,” the retired general added, pointing to expressions of concern about the deal from Israel and other allies.

Wald said that giving the impression that the United States was faltering in its commitment was “dangerous,” suggesting that it could encourage America’s allies to act alone against Iran or to seek help from Russia or China.

“This could mean taking matters into their own hands, as Israel previously has done or Saudi Arabia decided to do earlier this year by unilaterally launching an air campaign against Iranian-backed rebels in Yemen. Such actions, if not backed by the overwhelming force of the U.S. military, could spark reprisals that spiral into wider regional conflict,” Wald told House lawmakers.

“Alternatively, our regional allies might seek other guarantors of their security,” he continued. “Whether this means accepting Iranian hegemony or allying with other powers—such as Russia or China—the result would be detrimental to U.S. influence and interests in the region.”

Wald said that allies could decide to terminate cooperation with the United States, making it impossible for the United States to “project power in the Middle East.”

“Basing and overflight rights are critical to maintaining and deploying a deterrent force,” Wald said. “The perception that we are no longer committed to our allies’ security could risk the revocation of those rights and spark a vicious cycle of destabilization.”

Wald also suggested that U.S. credibility has already been undermined by defense cuts under the Obama administration over the last several years. The U.S. Army plans to cut 40,000 more troops over the next two years, losses that would become even more dramatic under sequestration.

Wald testified alongside another member of the Iran Strategy Council, retired Adm. John Bird, both of them spotlighting a recent report from the council indicating that the nuclear deal would make war more likely.

In contrast, the Obama administration has insisted that the nuclear deal is an alternative to military conflict with Iran.

The retired military officials’ testimony comes as congressional lawmakers make their final decisions regarding the nuclear agreement. Congress is expected to vote on the JCPOA sometime before Sept. 17.

While multiple Democrats have voiced opposition to the deal, President Obama on Tuesday managed to recruit enough support to avoid having to veto a resolution rejecting the agreement.

The deal remains unpopular with the public. Only 21 percent of Americans support it, according to Pew Research Center data released Tuesday.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/retired-air-force-general-iran-nuclear-deal-could-encourage-allies-to-align-with-russia-china/
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #59 on: September 10, 2015, 10:40:42 AM »

Good thing you have so much trust and faith in those folks. 

Israel has many many nuclear weapons....Iran has none at this time...I think the Ayatollahs can count
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #60 on: September 10, 2015, 10:42:35 AM »

Israel has many many nuclear weapons....Iran has none at this time...I think the Ayatollahs can count

Well I guess that settles that. 

That's why Iraq didn't drop bombs on Israel and Hezbollah has't been firing rockets into their cities . . . .
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #61 on: September 16, 2015, 09:51:56 AM »

FNC’s Krauthammer Unloads on Senate Dems for Iran Deal Support, Senate GOP for Bad Tactics
By Curtis Houc
September 15, 2015

During the first “All-Star Panel” segment on Tuesday’s Special Report, Fox News Channel (FNC) contributor Charles Krauthammer offered blistering criticisms of Senate Democrats for their support of the Iran deal along with Senate Republicans for not invoking the nuclear option by introducing a resolution disapproving of the deal.

Leaving no stone unturned, Krauthammer first tore into the Democrats for filibustering the resolution of disapproval that could have future implications if passed: “[T]he whole idea of any of this is to get on the record for the future what the vote is on this treaty, which will live for a very long time, so that any future president will have an easier time getting out of it to delegitimize it.”

Krauthammer then switched over to hitting the Republicans and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell for tactics that he ruled have not been “the wisest move” in simply pushing for Democrats to go “on the record for something involving Israel” when he should instead:

Introduce an amendment that says what the House bill does that the treaty was never submitted as required because it didn’t have all the documents, meaning the secret IAEA deals, which allow Iran to inspect itself. In the absence of that, it was never transmitted an thus there’s no clock running out on this.

Continuing to unload on the Senate GOP, the syndicated columnist wondered why McConnell won’t employ the same Senate procedural moves that Harry Reid once used:

The other thing I would say is why allow the Democrats to filibuster at all? Apply the nuclear option. Harry Reid applied it so he could three – two or three judicial appointment through the Second Circuit, then why not do it over the most important treaty of our time. There are a lot of options here. They will only expose the Democrats.

Fellow panelist Mara Liasson of National Public Radio followed by toting the Democratic line that they don’t view the Iran deal as “a voting issue” despite the reality that a large majority of Americans oppose the deal. In addition, she touted the claim that the Obama admistration has submitted the proper documents pertaining to the deal and the so-called side deals “are not theirs to disclose.”

On that second point, Krauthammer interjected with pure disgust, quipping that such a claim is “ridiculous” because the United States “sit[s ] under the committee of the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)” and “[ e]very country has a right to ban document itself and we have not done that.”

A few moments later, Krauthammer went on another tear against Democrats engaging in “the definition of playing politics” with filibustering the Iran deal resolution for what he argued is “the most important agreement of our generation [ and] it will be with us for decades.”

When Liasson and host Bret Baier tried to get a word in, Krauthammer cut them off and continued his stinging critique of deal supporters:

How can you read an agreement and come out as a true believer where Iran inspects itself in Parcin, where you have a one-month delay in inspections, where you giving them $100 billion in advance after having said, we're not going to lift the sanctions immediately have to be shown.

The relevant portions of the transcript from FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on September 15 can be found below.

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, the whole idea of any of this is to get on the record for the future what the vote is on this treaty, which will live for a very long time, so that any future president will have an easier time getting out of it to delegitimize it. The Democrats want to hide that by noting having a vote. That’s why they are filibustering. McConnell wants to put them on the record for something involving Israel. I don’t think that’s the wisest move. You want to put them on the record? Introduce an amendment that says what the House bill does that the treaty was never submitted as required because it didn’t have all the documents, meaning the secret IAEA deals, which allow Iran to inspect itself. In the absence of that, it was never transmitted an thus there’s no clock running out on this. The other thing I would say is why allow the Democrats to filibuster at all? Apply the nuclear option. Harry Reid applied it so he could three – two or three judicial appointment through the Second Circuit, then why not do it over the most important treaty of our time. There are a lot of options here. They will only expose the Democrats. They would only delegitimize the deal, but that’s going to be important after Obama is gone.

BAIER: Senator Murphy says it’s not right to play politics here, but there’s politics in all of this, Mara. If you look at polls, it’s upside on this Iran deal.

MARA LIASSON: It’s upside on this deal. Yet, the Democrats were firm and they kept the number they needed to filibuster this. Not just to uphold a veto, that was the first bar, but they went even further and a lot of Democrats I talked to say this might be unpopular in polls, but it's not a voting issue. In other words, it's not going to motivate people to vote against you. Trade, on the other hand, is for Democrats. So, they feel pretty safe on this. The interesting is this isn't a traety. If it was, it would have taken 67 votes in the Senate. It's not technically a treaty and I don't know what the Democrats are going to do to counter this. Maybe say Saudi Arabia should recognize Israel, but I do know that the White House they say they have submitted everything. The documents from the IAEA are not theirs to disclose.

KRAUTHAMMER: Oh, that's ridiculous.

LIASSON: That's what they say.

KRAUTHAMMER: We sit under the executive committee of the IAEA. Every country has a right to ban document itself and we have not done that.

(....)

KRAUTHAMMER: One point. You said earlier that Democrats aren’t worried about this because it’s not a voting issue. That’s the definition of playing politics. Here’s the most important agreement of our generation, it will be with us for decades and you’re telling me that the Democrats are calculating it's okay to support it even though it's going to be a catastrophe for the country because it's not --

LIASSON: No, they’re not believing it’s going to be a catastrophe for our country.

BAIER: True believers,

KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, true believers, all of them? How can you read an agreement and come out as a true believer where Iran inspects itself in Parcin, where you have a one-month delay in inspections, where you giving them $100 billion in advance after having said, we're not going to lift the sanctions immediately have to be shown. We’ll bring what North Korea is doing to its deal, which we did, Wendy Sherman and others wanted to negotiate the Iran deal and negotiated in the 90s, throwing it out, trashing it, 20 years later, recurring now. No, I'll believe that some of them do who are diluted, but I agree with you. For a majority of them, the calculation is it won't cost me my seat. I go with the President. That's a political vote.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2015/09/15/fncs-krauthammer-unloads-senate-dems-iran-deal-support-senate-gop#sthash.5mPqgAJG.dpuf
Report to moderator   Logged
240 is Back
Getbig V
*****
Posts: I am a geek!!


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


WWW
« Reply #62 on: September 16, 2015, 10:30:23 AM »

FNC’s Krauthammer Unloads on Senate Dems for Iran Deal Support, Senate GOP for Bad Tactics

According to GOP frontrunner Trump, Krauthammer is a loser and a jerk.

Either the GOP frontrunner is full of shit, or this article is.   Which is it?
Report to moderator   Logged

andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2015, 12:52:47 PM »

According to GOP frontrunner Trump, Krauthammer is a loser and a jerk.

Either the GOP frontrunner is full of shit, or this article is.   Which is it?

Krauthammer has become an anti-Obama shill........I even wrote him an e-mail telling him so.......he has the nerve to talk about true-believers?HuhHuh?.....how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted against Obamacare?HuhHuh??..how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN came out against the Iran deal?Huh?..it is impossible for any group of people to have the SAME OPINION like the Republicans have shown?HuhHuh?....and they still ALWAYS LOSE regardless......

It makes no sense to subject the deal for a vote when the Republicans will just all vote in lockstep and LOSE ANYWAY.......its a waste of time....many Repubs just want to deny Obama a victory as they always try to do and LOSE ANYWAY
Obama destroys the Repubs just the way Reagan used to destroy the democrats

Also the IEAI came out and stated that in all of the treaties that involve nuclear deals, all countries inspect themselves and that the IEAI has a way to detect cheating even when countries inspect themselves which is why they allow it...plus they follow up

lets cut out all this nonsense...END OF THREAD
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2015, 12:54:36 PM »

Krauthammer has become an anti-Obama shill........I even wrote him an e-mail telling him so.......he has the nerve to talk about true-believers?HuhHuh?.....how is it that EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN voted against Obamacare?HuhHuh??

Because it was a crappy bill? 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2015, 12:57:05 PM »

Because it was a crappy bill? 

Doesn't matter...when you get a bunch of supposedly smart egotistical people together they are all bound not to agree ALL THE TIME....YET...they all seem to.....and always in the negative......its IMPOSSIBLE.....unless its premeditated, which it is....even Democrats have voted against the treaty and Obamcare...

come on..you are a shill too
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2015, 12:57:55 PM »

Doesn't matter...when you get a bunch of supposedly smart egotistical people together they are all bound not to agree ALL THE TIME....YET...they all seem to.....and always in the negative......its IMPOSSIBLE.....unless its premeditated, which it is....even Democrats have voted against the treaty and Obamcare...

come on..you are a shill too

Doesn't matter if it was a crappy bill?  Figures.   Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2015, 01:00:56 PM »

Doesn't matter if it was a crappy bill?  Figures.   Undecided

again..you are trying your best be negative against Obama..the fact is you KNOW I absolutely have a point.....the Republican voting patterns would be the same as ALL GETBIGGERS agreeing ALL THE TIME and there being n o arguments in threads.....is that possible?Huh?

I think Soul Crusher has hacked your account..you can't be THAT idiotic

Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2015, 01:08:34 PM »

again..you are trying your best be negative against Obama..the fact is you KNOW I absolutely have a point.....the Republican voting patterns would be the same as ALL GETBIGGERS agreeing ALL THE TIME and there being n o arguments in threads.....is that possible?Huh?

I think Soul Crusher has hacked your account..you can't be THAT idiotic



I disagree with your point.  Yes it matters whether the bill is a crappy piece of legislation.  Nothing wrong at all with legislators, whether they are in the same party or not, agreeing to vote against a bad bill.  Obama had trouble convincing members of his own party to vote for the bill and had to lie to them to get it done. 

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



« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2015, 02:07:11 PM »

I disagree with your point.  Yes it matters whether the bill is a crappy piece of legislation.  Nothing wrong at all with legislators, whether they are in the same party or not, agreeing to vote against a bad bill.  Obama had trouble convincing members of his own party to vote for the bill and had to lie to them to get it done. 



you've absolutely gone mad....but no matter..the treaty will pass...no matter what those idiots vote or don't vote for......Obama wins AGAIN Cool Cool Cool
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2015, 02:13:28 PM »

you've absolutely gone mad....but no matter..the treaty will pass...no matter what those idiots vote or don't vote for......Obama wins AGAIN Cool Cool Cool

I was talking about Obamacare. 

We have different definitions of a "win." 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #71 on: September 16, 2015, 03:07:10 PM »

I was talking about Obamacare. 

We have different definitions of a "win." 

of course we do.....my definition is really a win...your definition is "I wish Obama would have lost"
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2015, 03:30:28 PM »

of course we do.....my definition is really a win...your definition is "I wish Obama would have lost"

Nah.  My definition is, in large part, "something that benefits the country." 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #73 on: September 16, 2015, 05:16:45 PM »

Nah.  My definition is, in large part, "something that benefits the country." 

Obamacare......14 million more people on insurance,......insurance companies can no longer deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions....makes hospitals much more efficient.....

come on
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

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


« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2015, 01:00:12 PM »

Obamacare......14 million more people on insurance,......insurance companies can no longer deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions....makes hospitals much more efficient.....

come on

Many of those are on Medicare.  The preexisting conditions part is good, but overall the law is terrible.  Premiums have gone up for many.  Many people lost their doctor.  Many people have to buy insurance or be subject to a tax.  Many businesses hate it.  I have yet to speak with a single business owner who actually has employees who thinks it's a good law.  
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!