How is Obama doing? Fact check, not wall to wall PA O.T. "24/7/365" check

[hcap]

Some numbers, not con dream land.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/obamas-numbers-april-2015-update/

http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2015/04/ObamasNumbersApril2.png

[Clocker]

Some numbers, not con dream land.



Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

How many of those numbers are in spite of Obama, not because of Obama. What would oil production be without Obama trying to strangle it? What would job growth be without the crippling increases in regulation through agency actions, without the burden of ObamaCare on employers, without a business environment that heavily discourages investment?

And I see nothing there about Obama's total failure of foreign policy. We started as the world's only super power and now we are the Rodney Dangerfield of the world: we don't get no respect.

And there is lots of bad news hidden in those numbers. The economy is still struggling, unemployment is a lot worse than pictured, and Wall Street is a huge bubble ready to burst.

[PaceAdvantage]

Who cares? He's outta here in less than two years...

[rastajenk]

Is 50% fewer Gitmo prisoners supposed to be a good thing?

[Clocker]

Is 50% fewer Gitmo prisoners supposed to be a good thing?

Or a 252% increase in wind and solar power at the expense of big government subsidies, higher energy prices, and killing off the coal industry?

[hcap]

How many of those numbers are in spite of Obama, not because of Obama. Typical lame comeback along with the con frothing at the mouth "vast liberal news conspiracy, " :lol: :lol: and when you gents run of ammunition and are flailing madly, the question should be............

How come when the PA OT contingent and con-land in general blame Obama for the fall of western civilization and everything else imaginable,

"How many of those numbers are in spite of Obama, not because of Obama."? :eek:

[Clocker]

Typical lame comeback along with the con frothing at the mouth "vast liberal news conspiracy, " :lol: :lol: and when you gents run of ammunition and are flailing madly, the question should be............


I notice you ignored my explanation of why those numbers were in spite of Obama, and why they should have been better.

You also ignored the initial question: Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? In simpler words, that questions the assumption that just because something happened under Obama's regime, it happened because of Obama.

[maddog42]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

How many of those numbers are in spite of Obama, not because of Obama. What would oil production be without Obama trying to strangle it? What would job growth be without the crippling increases in regulation through agency actions, without the burden of ObamaCare on employers, without a business environment that heavily discourages investment?

And I see nothing there about Obama's total failure of foreign policy. We started as the world's only super power and now we are the Rodney Dangerfield of the world: we don't get no respect.

And there is lots of bad news hidden in those numbers. The economy is still struggling, unemployment is a lot worse than pictured, and Wall Street is a huge bubble ready to burst.


You didn't quote a single economic fact in your reply, only hyperbole and conjecture.

[Tom]

Is 50% fewer Gitmo prisoners supposed to be a good thing?

35% - those released that are back at war with us.
80% - of the 5 released to get the traitor deserter back who are already back at war with us or are actively trying to re-connect.

Fun with numbers.
H4C was banned so cappy is filling the bill with worthless generalized posters that say nothing.

Someone needs to run the kindergarten.

[Tom]

You didn't quote a single economic fact in your reply, only hyperbole and conjecture.

And you were fooled by the colors in cappy's post and think that there was actually factual content in it? :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

And there is lots of bad news hidden in those numbers. The economy is still struggling, unemployment is a lot worse than pictured, and Wall Street is a huge bubble ready to burst.

And whatever you do - stay inside, lock all doors and windows, and don't forget to close the shades! Because as any sane so-and-so knows, Obama's luck is gonna run out sooner or later!! (PA claims it's already later. ;) )

[LottaKash]

What about the "DEFICIT", as if that doesn't count anymore..?

What's the latest "Annenberg" report on that ...?

[Clocker]

You didn't quote a single economic fact in your reply, only hyperbole and conjecture.

Sorry, I assumed the facts were common knowledge.

From CNBC:

Spooked by March's crushingly weak jobs report, markets will be hyper-focused on any clues coming out of the Fed about whether a later rate hike is now more likely.

March's report of just 126,000 nonfarm payrolls—about 120,00 less than expected—signals the potential for a rocky start to trading Monday.

An increase of 126K jobs does not keep up with population growth.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102558422

Since February 2008, the size of the U.S. population has grown by 16.8 million people, but the number of full-time jobs has actually decreased by 140,000.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-09/nearly-full-employment-10-reasons-why-unemployment-numbers-are-massive-lie

The number of Americans participating in the labor force has been on a decline for the past few years. Nearly 33 percent of the Americans above age 16 are not part of the workforce, the highest number since 1978. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report issued recently has found 92,898,000 Americans above age 16 not a part of the labor force of the country as on February 2015.

When President Obama took over the office in January 2009, nearly 80,529,000 Americans were not a part of the labor force. The number has increase by nearly 12 million over the last few years. The unemployment number has come down after the 2008 recession but an increase in the number of non-working Americans could mean that the unemployment data isn’t showing the real picture.

Since March 1978, the percentage of Americans not participating in the work force has increase to its highest level in 2015. Last month, the U.S. economy added 295,000 jobs and unemployment rate declined to multi-year low of 5.5 percent. The aging baby-boomers have led to an increase in the number of Americans not participating in the workforce.

http://uncovermichigan.com/content/23351-americans-participating-labor-force-reduce-multi-year-lows

[NJ Stinks]

H4C was banned so cappy is filling the bill with worthless generalized posters that say nothing.



I hope Horses4courses wasn't banned down here.

[PaceAdvantage]

I hope Horses4courses wasn't banned down here.If by "down here" you mean off-topic, then that's exactly where he was banned (not horses).

When you post pictures of injured, mutilated US troops with some outrageous message that by doing so, you're educating the "right wingers, who do not know the ravages of war," then you will be banned.

Tired of the bullshit.

[Clocker]

Obama's luck is gonna run out sooner or later!! (PA claims it's already later. ;) )

Obama's luck is that he is going to retire on a fat pension before the yogurt really hits the fan, and he gets to leave his mess for someone else to clean up. That includes the economy and the middle east.

[maddog42]

Sorry, I assumed the facts were common knowledge.

From CNBC:



An increase of 126K jobs does not keep up with population growth.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102558422

Since February 2008, the size of the U.S. population has grown by 16.8 million people, but the number of full-time jobs has actually decreased by 140,000.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-09/nearly-full-employment-10-reasons-why-unemployment-numbers-are-massive-lie



http://uncovermichigan.com/content/23351-americans-participating-labor-force-reduce-multi-year-lows

Zerohedge??!! You accept as fact some anonymous site with most of its contributors using pseudonums? Tyler Durden? Undercovermichigan?!! I'll give you a score off 33% for the cnbc thread, but if I were to use that site you guys would cry propaganda.lol.

[Clocker]

Zerohedge??!! You accept as fact some anonymous site with most of its contributors using pseudonums? Tyler Durden? Undercovermichigan?!! I'll give you a score off 33% for the cnbc thread, but if I were to use that site you guys would cry propaganda.lol.


How about the Federal Reserve?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Employment-Population-Ratio-2015-425x282.png

[maddog42]

The Cnbc article was informative. I'll pass on the Federal Reserve thing since I am woe fully underinformed.

[Clocker]

A new Pew poll shows a large majority of people say that the government policies under Obama have done little or nothing to help working people or small businesses.

The public makes sharp distinctions about which groups have benefited – and which have not – from the economic policies the government has put in place since the start of the recession. Majorities say that large banks, large corporations and the wealthy have been helped a great deal or a fair amount by government policies.

By contrast, 72% say that, in general, the government’s policies since the recession have done little or nothing to help middle class people, and nearly as many say they have provided little or no help for small businesses (68%) and the poor (65%).

http://www.people-press.org/2015/03/04/most-say-government-policies-since-recession-have-done-little-to-help-middle-class-poor/

[RunForTheRoses]

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS14000006

Even GWB had better numbers.

[mostpost]

How about the Federal Reserve?

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Employment-Population-Ratio-2015-425x282.png
How about them? That chart shows the Employment-Population-Ratio declined from 2001 to 2007; plunged during the Bush recession, and has risen for the last five years.

[Tom]

How about them? That chart shows the Employment-Population-Ratio declined from 2001 to 2007; plunged during the Bush recession, and has risen for the last five years.

Do you know how to read a chart? :lol:

[tucker6]

Do you know how to read a chart? :lol:
His glaucoma is acting up again. That was the most charitable reading of a chart in a long, long time lol.

[mostpost]

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/LNS14000006

Even GWB had better numbers.
That's what you got out of that chart? Here is what I got. In January 2001, when Bush took office the unemployment rate among African Americans was 8.2%. January 2009, when he left office, the number stood at 12.7%. That is an increase of 55%.

In January 2009 when Obama took office, the rate was 12.7%. It is now 10.1%, a 20% drop. At one point early in the Obama presidency, the black unemployment rate-due to the Bush Great Recession was 16.8%. In the last five years the Black unemployment rate has dropped 6.7 points.
Who is doing more for black workers? The president under whom unemployment rose from 10.2% to 12.7% (eventually 16.8%) or the President under whose administration it fell from 16.8% to 10.1%?

[mostpost]

Do you know how to read a chart? :lol:
Please help me. How is my interpretation of the chart wrong?

[mostpost]

His glaucoma is acting up again. That was the most charitable reading of a chart in a long, long time lol.
Actually I have a cataract in my right eye, but thanks for your concern. Why don't you tell me how my interpretation of the chart is incorrect.

[Clocker]

Do you know how to read a chart? :lol:

You are going to nit pick about the obvious growth just because it hit new all-time lows in 2010, 2011, and 2013? :p

[acorn54]

mostpost , i asked you before without a response from you. there are 50 million people on food stamps which means they can't find enough money to feed themselves. how can you think things are better now than the pre-obama years?
who cares about the new jobs if they don't pay enough to feed a person.

[davew]

those are great numbers

too bad they do not have any time frames listed so we can compare - in the past they have shown how great he has cut the deficit (from his bloated 2 trillion/year to now less than that) :D

so those must be changes fro the worst he has had it in the last 6 years?

[Clocker]

those are great numbers

too bad they do not have any time frames listed so we can compare - in the past they have shown how great he has cut the deficit (from his bloated 2 trillion/year to now less than that) :D

The deficit was cut by the sequestration, a little game of chicken that both parties lost and the taxpayers won. Obama never saw a dollar that he didn't want to tax and spend.

[fast4522]

I think Mike is quite right, our focus has to be on the undesirables who are facing election next out.

[classhandicapper]

This is all cyclical nonsense. The policies sucked and we are all going to pay for them long term.

[mostpost]

mostpost , i asked you before without a response from you. there are 50 million people on food stamps which means they can't find enough money to feed themselves. how can you think things are better now than the pre-obama years?
who cares about the new jobs if they don't pay enough to feed a person.
The demise of the unions means that workers no longer have the power to negotiate for a decent wage. The Republican Party is at the forefront of the anti-union movement. Right to work laws mean that employers can pay lower wages and limit work hours. Tax laws enacted by Republicans reward moving operations overseas and punish keeping them here. Republicans encourage businesses to cut hours in order to keep from providing earned benefits. Republican failure to enforce regulations led to the banking crisis which led to the Great recession.

The rise in the number of people on food stamps is happening during the Obama administration, but it is being caused by Republicans.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The demise of the unions means that workers no longer have the power to negotiate for a decent wage. The Republican Party is at the forefront of the anti-union movement. Right to work laws mean that employers can pay lower wages and limit work hours. 1) Tax laws enacted by Republicans reward moving operations overseas and punish keeping them here. Republicans encourage businesses to cut hours in order to keep from providing earned benefits. Republican failure to enforce regulations led to the banking crisis which led to the Great recession.

2) The rise in the number of people on food stamps is happening during the Obama administration, but it is being caused by Republicans.

1) You have no idea what you're talking about. I'll happily talk to you about territorial taxation. But more simply, Reps want lower corporate taxes on businesses in the US. In general, Dems oppose lower corporate taxes. You believe higher taxes attract businesses?

2) That's your belief. Here's an alternative reality: By robbing poor and low-income kids of a good education (and encouraging single-parent households*), your party has helped create a permanent underclass. Oh wait, you're the guy who thinks real per capita spending on education hasn't skyrocketed over the past 40 yrs. Never mind.

*Daniel Patrick Moynihan understood this 45 years ago - you still don't get it?

[mostpost]

If by "down here" you mean off-topic, then that's exactly where he was banned (not horses).

When you post pictures of injured, mutilated US troops with some outrageous message that by doing so, you're educating the "right wingers, who do not know the ravages of war," then you will be banned.

Tired of the bullshit.
I didn't see the pictures you refer to, but I will take your word that they were inappropriate. Nevertheless, I am not sure the punishment fit the crime. Why not a warning before you take the drastic step of banning someone? When was the last time you banned a right winger?

Frankly, I think some of you need a lesson on the ravages of war. There are a lot of Chicken hawks on this forum. As well as a number of people who have served honorably and bravely. (Thinking of lsbets and CJ.) Funny thing is I never hear CJ singing. "Bomb, bomb, bomb: bomb, bomb Iran.

[Saratoga_Mike]

He banned a right-winger just a few weeks ago for disgusting racists posts.

I disagreed with H4C about 99% of the time, but I'm surprised he would post anything demeaning to American troops.

I have no use for chicken hawks (e.g., Dick Cheney), so I agree with you on that point.

[Clocker]

I didn't see the pictures you refer to, but I will take your word that they were inappropriate. Nevertheless, I am not sure the punishment fit the crime. Why not a warning before you take the drastic step of banning someone? When was the last time you banned a right winger?


As I remember, he was warned, and had a number of his "cartoons" of questionable taste deleted.

[mostpost]

He banned a right-winger just a few weeks ago for disgusting racists posts.

I disagreed with H4C about 99% of the time, but I'm surprised he would post anything demeaning to American troops.

I have no use for chicken hawks (e.g., Dick Cheney), so I agree with you on that point.
I vaguely recall that. Maybe I am just remembering what I want to remember.

[mostpost]

He banned a right-winger just a few weeks ago for disgusting racists posts.

I disagreed with H4C about 99% of the time, but I'm surprised he would post anything demeaning to American troops.

I have no use for chicken hawks (e.g., Dick Cheney), so I agree with you on that point.
I remember now (And I looked it up) Snickster was banned, but not as soon as he should have been. Before that?????

[horses4courses]

I disagreed with H4C about 99% of the time, but I'm surprised he would post anything demeaning to American troops.

I was not trying to demean US troops, but that's not how it came across.

It was a mistake, and I admit it. Definitely worthy of a ban.
I had not studied the photo closely enough and, when I did,
it was too late to fix my error.

My apology has been accepted by PA.
Time to move on.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I was not trying to demean US troops, but that's not how it came across.

It was a mistake, and I admit it. Definitely worthy of a ban.
I had not studied the photo closely enough and, when I did,
it was too late to fix my error.

My apology has been accepted by PA.
Time to move on.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

I didn't see it so couldn't even begin to have an opinion, but this is class here.

[JustRalph]

Frankly, I think some of you need a lesson on the ravages of war. There are a lot of Chicken hawks on this forum. As well as a number of people who have served honorably and bravely. (Thinking of lsbets and CJ.) Funny thing is I never hear CJ singing. "Bomb, bomb, bomb: bomb, bomb Iran.

Those are the only ones you could come up with huh? This is where you pull your word games, calling people Chickenhawks etc? There are lots of vets on this board. Funny, your definition of honorable service ? What might that be?

Hey Schwartz? Can I get an Amen? !

[NJ Stinks]

My apology has been accepted by PA.
Time to move on.

Great to see you back, Mr. Horses! :ThmbUp:


And you get one too, PA. :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

Those are the only ones you could come up with huh? This is where you pull your word games, calling people Chickenhawks etc? There are lots of vets on this board. Funny, your definition of honorable service ? What might that be?

Hey Schwartz? Can I get an Amen? !
I named two people that I knew had served. I know there are others, but those are two I know for sure. Did Dave Schwartz serve in the military? Fine, but even if he did not, he would not be one of the persons I would call a chickenhawk.

A Chickenhawk is anyone opposed to a negotiated settlement on Iran's nuclear program. Or anyone who advocates military intervention without seeking a peaceful solution. Anyone who says, "We can't trust the Iranians. The only solution is to bomb them back to the stone age." If that is your view, you are a hawk. If that is your view and you never served in the military, you are a chickenhawk. You all know who you are.

[LottaKash]

I named two people that I knew had served. I know there are others, but those are two I know for sure. Did Dave Schwartz serve in the military? Fine, but even if he did not, he would not be one of the persons I would call a chickenhawk.

A Chickenhawk is anyone opposed to a negotiated settlement on Iran's nuclear program. Or anyone who advocates military intervention without seeking a peaceful solution. Anyone who says, "We can't trust the Iranians. The only solution is to bomb them back to the stone age." If that is your view, you are a hawk. If that is your view and you never served in the military, you are a chickenhawk. You all know who you are.


Iran needs a bomb... Like it is an emergency or something...

No need to bomb them, but no immediate need to negotiate either....They are the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, and they hate us with a passion.....

They need a bomb ok....What the heck do think will happen when they get this so sorely needed bomb ?

Get real....

[Clocker]

Anyone who says, "We can't trust the Iranians. The only solution is to bomb them back to the stone age."

We can't trust the Iranians. Anyone that thinks we can is incredibly naive. Who here has advocated bombing them back to the stone age?

[davew]

The demise of the unions means that workers no longer have the power to negotiate for a decent wage. The Republican Party is at the forefront of the anti-union movement. Right to work laws mean that employers can pay lower wages and limit work hours. Tax laws enacted by Republicans reward moving operations overseas and punish keeping them here. Republicans encourage businesses to cut hours in order to keep from providing earned benefits. Republican failure to enforce regulations led to the banking crisis which led to the Great recession.

The rise in the number of people on food stamps is happening during the Obama administration, but it is being caused by Republicans.


That makes sense, if the numbers trends are good for the cause, they are because of Obama. If they show bad things, it is carry-over from Bush or cause by Republicans.

So when there is a nuclear war in the middle east, it will be caused by Bush and the Republican controlled Congress.

[mostpost]

Iran needs a bomb... Like it is an emergency or something...

No need to bomb them, but no immediate need to negotiate either....They are the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, and they hate us with a passion.....

They need a bomb ok....What the heck do think will happen when they get this so sorely needed bomb ?

Get real....
Who said Iran needs a bomb? Who ever said Iran should have a nuclear bomb. The question is what is the best, most efficient method of preventing them from getting one?

Option one; we bomb any facilities where we know they are working to advance their nuclear program. The problem with that is how do we know if those are the only facilities they have. Once we bomb, we can be sure that there will be no access for inspectors. There will be no incentive for the Iranians to cooperate in anyway.

Option two; we negotiate a slowdown and a re purposing of the Iranian nuclear program. We now have the ability to monitor the program and make sure that it stays within allowable paramenters. If we allow the Iranians to continue to develop a peaceful nuclear program we give them an incentive to comply with our requirements.

You said, "They hate us with a passion....." I wonder why that is? How about because we overthrew their democratically elected government and replaced it with our puppet, the Shah-a despot who killed or imprisoned tens of thousands. Maybe they hate us because of the thousands or hundreds of thousands who are suffering because of sanctions we have imposed.

[mostpost]

We can't trust the Iranians. Anyone that thinks we can is incredibly naive. Who here has advocated bombing them back to the stone age?
That is why the final agreement will have strong verification protocols. That's why there has to be extensive on sight inspections. The framework provides for those things but only after we see the final agreement will we know if the safeguards are sufficient.

You are so freakin' literal. Any number of posters here have spoken in support of Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. "Bombing them back to the stone age" was just a bit of hyperbole.

[Clocker]

The demise of the unions means that workers no longer have the power to negotiate for a decent wage.

And that's why so many workers drop out of unions when mandatory membership is ended?

Tax laws enacted by Republicans reward moving operations overseas and punish keeping them here.

The eternal liberal mantra here is that all Republicans want to do is to cut taxes on businesses. So cutting taxes on businesses drives them off shore? Wow, I learn something new everyday here. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

That makes sense, if the numbers trends are good for the cause, they are because of Obama. If they show bad things, it is carry-over from Bush or cause by Republicans.

So when there is a nuclear war in the middle east, it will be caused by Bush and the Republican controlled Congress.
Here is how it works. To whatever extent the numbers have improved, it is because of Obama and the Democrats. To the extent they have not improved more, it is because of the Republicans. We are in the situation we are in due to policies started by Ronald Reagan, continued by George HW Bush and reinforced by George W. Bush. Bill Clinton is not entirely blameless in this situation, but by far the majority of the blame lies with the Republicans.

[Clocker]

The framework provides for those things but only after we see the final agreement will we know if the safeguards are sufficient.



Oh yeah, we have to pass the bill to see what is in it. It's deja vu all over again. :p

A few days ago, this "framework" was the greatest thing since canned beer. Now the American, Iranian, and French "fact sheets" all differ on important issues, and we have to see the final agreement to know if is any good. Which is to say, after the deal is done. :rolleyes:

[Clocker]

The liberal Washington Post says that Obama's "framework" agreement with Iran "falls far short of his own goals."

THE “KEY parameters” for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be “reduced” but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that “the deal we’ll accept” with Iran “is that they end their nuclear program” and “abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.” Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-iran-deal-falls-well-short-of-his-own-goals/2015/04/02/7974413c-d95c-11e4-b3f2-607bd612aeac_story.html?postshare=4151428013724869

[mostpost]

Oh yeah, we have to pass the bill to see what is in it. It's deja vu all over again. :p

A few days ago, this "framework" was the greatest thing since canned beer. Now the American, Iranian, and French "fact sheets" all differ on important issues, and we have to see the final agreement to know if is any good. Which is to say, after the deal is done. :rolleyes:
I knew when I wrote that that someone would have this response. Not the same thing at all. We will know what is in the agreement before we give the final approval. Of course the "fact sheets" are different. A framework is just that; something to build on. Eventually (by June 30) we will agree on what the walls of the framework will look like and all the other details. If not there will be no agreement.

I don't drink beer, but isn't canned beer inferior to bottled beer or beer from the tap?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Those are the only ones you could come up with huh? This is where you pull your word games, calling people Chickenhawks etc? There are lots of vets on this board. Funny, your definition of honorable service ? What might that be?

Hey Schwartz? Can I get an Amen? !

I probably disagree with Most 98% of the time, but I think the Chickenhawk term is perfectly appropriate. It in NO way demeans anyway who serves(d). To the contrary, the term honors those who serve(d) like a CJ or the other gentleman who was referenced. I want a president to think long and hard before they send anyone's kids off to war. I view military service as very honorable, and I support vet organizations. I have very little use for someone like Dick Cheney ("more important things to do" when he could have served) who takes a cavalier approach to the decision of going to war.

[PaceAdvantage]

All those responsible for getting us into Vietnam and keeping us in Vietnam had military service on their resume, did they not?

I just killed your argument in one swift napalm-like blow...

[fast4522]

Who said Iran needs a bomb? Who ever said Iran should have a nuclear bomb. The question is what is the best, most efficient method of preventing them from getting one?

Option one; we bomb any facilities where we know they are working to advance their nuclear program. The problem with that is how do we know if those are the only facilities they have. Once we bomb, we can be sure that there will be no access for inspectors. There will be no incentive for the Iranians to cooperate in anyway.

Option two; we negotiate a slowdown and a re purposing of the Iranian nuclear program. We now have the ability to monitor the program and make sure that it stays within allowable paramenters. If we allow the Iranians to continue to develop a peaceful nuclear program we give them an incentive to comply with our requirements.

You said, "They hate us with a passion....." I wonder why that is? How about because we overthrew their democratically elected government and replaced it with our puppet, the Shah-a despot who killed or imprisoned tens of thousands. Maybe they hate us because of the thousands or hundreds of thousands who are suffering because of sanctions we have imposed.



Option Three: Let this bad deal go south and along with it take this administration.
Soon enough the younger people of Iran will want to change who they have in power. Not delivering from the west relief from sanctions will have enough upheaval to start a war inside Iran between its generations.

[Saratoga_Mike]

All those responsible for getting us into Vietnam and keeping us in Vietnam had military service on their resume, did they not?

I just killed your argument in one swift napalm-like blow...

No, I don't view military service as a prerequisite to making decisions on war. That wasn't my point at all. I just want those decisions to be made in a gravely serious manner. It's my perception (I'm suspect you think I'm wrong) that certain leaders (who enjoyed multiple deferments) are too cavalier about such decisions. Again, my perception. I don't think I'm alone. Obviously the vast majority of Dems would agree with me. I suspect the majority of independents would agree with me. And a small portion of Reps would agree with me. Of course that doesn't make me right, just pointing out that my thinking isn't way out there.

[Tom]

Going to war should never the first option, but when the time comes, it should be the last either.

Sitting on the sidelines can be more damaging than the war.

[Clocker]

Oops, Iran has drawn a red line on the "strong verification protocols" the White House assured us were agreed to in the "framework". I suspect that an Iran red line has a little more credibility and force than an Obama red line. Iran says that under the framework they agreed to, all military facilities are off limits for inspections.

If anyone has any doubt about our relations with Iran, note the language in the following. The Iran Minister of Defense refers to us as the enemy. Can't wait to hear the spin on this from the White House and the State Department.

Iranian Minister of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan has rejected reports on inspection of the country’s military facilities being included in the recent deal achieved by Iran and the world powers (P5+1) in Switzerland’s Lausanne on April 2, Fars news agency reported on April 8. According to Fars, commenting on “domestic media highlighting such baseless claims by foreign media about the Lausanne agreement,” Dehqan said, “Such actions do not serve national interests, but in fact set the ground for enemy’s excessive demands… The Supreme Leader’s, the government’s approach and the determination of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear negotiating team together do not allow the other party to impose anything on the Iranian nation.” Referring to “false claims by foreign media outlets such as the Guardian newspaper” on inspection of the country’s military facilities being a part of the Lausanne statement, Dehqan stressed: “There is no such agreement. Basically, inspection of military facilities is a red line and no inspection of any kind from such facilities would be accepted.”

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/08/iran-military-sites-off-limits-to-inspectors/

[Tom]

At this point, what difference does it make?
:rolleyes:

[Clocker]

At this point, what difference does it make?
:rolleyes:

None to our semi-retired president. Iran will not get nukes on his watch, for which he will be patting himself on the back whenever he takes time off from golf to give a speech for a 6 figure fee after January, 2017.