Isn't it funny?

When a Republican gets caught with drugs, it's all about how bad the scumbag is...

When a Democrat gets caught with drugs, it's all about how bad the War On Drugs is...

However, credit where credit is due.

You nailed the Hypocrisy Factor 10.0 10.0 10.0

:D

Michale

HHS is ditching Verizon as the host for the obamacare website..

Yea...

Changing Host Providers for a website 3 days before it's supposed to be "fixed" instills a LOT of confidence...

Looks like my recent track record of being dead on ballz accurate is going to continue... :D

Michale

Obama hits 34% approval rating in Ohio...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/11/27/obama_approval_hits_all-time_low_in_ohio_120797.html

Hay, David. Ain't that yer neck o the woods???

But take heart.. RCP has Obama's overall up a tad to 41%.. Maybe Obama won't hit the dreaded 39.9% anytime soon..

On the other hand, the website is supposed to be fixed this Saturday...

So far, there is absolutely NO indication that this is the case.....

Gonna be an exciting week next week... :D

Michale

The Left made it their mission to destroy Bush and called him and people in his administration all sort of vile names and accused him of all sorts of vile crimes..

NOW, ya'all are shocked & indignant because the Right does the same to Obama???

Where is the logic in that???

Michale

And yet, they support this deal which will set off an nuclear arms race in the Middle East...

But in "Michaleville" if your for the treaty; you're for nuclear proliferation. If you're against the treaty you're for nuclear proliferation. Nucking futz you say?

How do you figure??

If you support the treaty (it's actually you support Obama, but why quibble) then you support a nuclear arms race in the Middle East..

Because this treaty will cause Saudi to strive for nuclear weapons and a whole slew of other pissant countries in the region..

One has a reason to oppose any individual candidate. Opposing them for no other reason that they were nominated by the duly elected President of the United States is not a good reason.

Maybe not to you..

Maybe not even to me..

But to the person doing the opposing??

Maybe a perfectly good reason..

Just like Democrats and their reasons for opposing Bush all the time..

It's in the best interests of their political agenda...

Well, at least we're agreed on the last point.

So, you are saying that Iran is being honest with their claims..

Or, are you saying that a nuclear Iran won't be a problem in the Middle East..

Be specific... :D

Michale

Sorry for the add on.

#58

"Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has tried to hold up every one of President Obama's appointments.

Did it ever occur to ya that there might be a good REASON for Republicans to act the way they are acting."

One has a reason to oppose any individual candidate. Opposing them for no other reason that they were nominated by the duly elected President of the United States is not a good reason.

#61

"If you would have told me 20 years ago that the Left would end up being ALL FOR Nuclear Proliferation, I would have declared you nucking futz!!"

Agreed entirely & still true. The "Left" & all thinking people are opposed to nuclear proliferation.

But in "Michaleville" if your for the treaty; you're for nuclear proliferation. If you're against the treaty you're for nuclear proliferation. Nucking futz you say?

#63

"2. Iran's claim that it is developing nuclear capability to generate electricity is complete and utter bullshit.."

So accepting point #2 means that we accept the allegation that Iran is not looking for an "honorable" way out of the sanctions but is looking to somehow "game" the system.

"If these two points, these two FACTS, cannot be agreed upon, then there is no hope for a rational discussion..."

"If these two points, these two FACTS". (Disagree, assuming the fact to be determined) ARE "agreed upon, then there is no hope for a rational discussion..."

Well, at least we're agreed on the last point.

Towhit...

If we are going to discuss the subject of this new "deal" we have to establish some common ground..

1. A nuclear armed Iran is possibly the worst thing that could happen to the world, in terms of Iran's belligerence towards the US and Israel and the regional nuclear arms race it would set off in the Middle East...

2. Iran's claim that it is developing nuclear capability to generate electricity is complete and utter bullshit..

If these two points, these two FACTS, cannot be agreed upon, then there is no hope for a rational discussion...

Michale

Don't sweat it, though..

It's simply another example of ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome)...

I thought it peaked at accepting gross privacy violations and assassinating Americans w/o Due Process..

Apparently, it also extends to being 100% supportive of Nuclear Proliferation and Regional Nuclear Arms Races...

Who knew??? :D

Michale

Just let me say that, once again, the Left continues to astound me..

If you would have told me 20 years ago that the Left would end up being ALL FOR Nuclear Proliferation, I would have declared you nucking futz!!

Just shows ta go ya... :D

Michale

See comment 28, if you haven't already.

"not relevant to the discussion at hand"

How is already possessing the time tested deterrence of 2nd strike capability not relevant? This is how the US, UK, France Russia, and China solve their existential problem.

"Israel has never threatened to wipe another sovereign country off the map"

You don't have to send a note with the flowers to get your point across. Owning nuclear weapons is an implied threat to blow somebody off the map. To continue with the metaphor, Ahmadinejad sent his note before he had any flowers. Rude and crazy! But - some of the casual comments that come out of our own elected officials must seem pretty alarming in parts Middle East, even it's just the ranting of minor politicians with a megaphone and no real power to speak of.

Canada... Responsible... Ford. Everybody's got 'em.

Just because there's a treaty limiting Iranian nuclear weapons; that does not make them a US Ally.

I go with the facts before me.

The US has chosen the wants and needs of Iran over the wants and needs of Israel and Saudi Arabia..

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has tried to hold up every one of President Obama's appointments.

Did it ever occur to ya that there might be a good REASON for Republicans to act the way they are acting.

In the case of obamacare, the "vast majority" of Americans and the GOP are on the same page...

Other areas, maybe not so much.. But still.... When all the hoopla and all the partisanship is dispensed with, the simple fact is, Republicans played the game better than Democrats.

Rather than learn to do better, Democrats changed the rules to make it easier on Democrats..

Pretty immature, iffn ya ask me.. :D

Aside from not accepting anything published by Fox "News" at face value,

Yea, but HuffPo and DailyKos is gospel, right?? :D

you said just last week that Obamacare is just the web site healthcare.gov. They don't charge premiums.

They don't. obamacare is just a website after all. But it also DICTATES to Insurance Companies what they can and can't do..

And obamacare has dictated that smokers will be charged exorbitant premiums because they are smokers..

Now, personally, I don't have a problem with that. I'de be happy if tobacco was eliminate all across the country...

"Smoking is a bad habit. My species gave it up centuries ago when we finally got it into our heads it was killing us."
-Tom Paris, STAR TREK:VOYAGER

As with Obama's CT policies, I whole-heartedly support the policy..

I was just curious if ya'all did... :D

Michale

#50

"Do you HONESTLY believe that Iran will be a better ally to the US than Saudi??"

Michale, nuance is not your Uncle's trophy wives.

Just because there's a treaty limiting Iranian nuclear weapons; that does not make them a US Ally.

#50 & 51.

"If the point of the opposition is to oppose then, if the entire DEMOCRAT-run government comes crashing down, then I guess the opposition was successful, no?? :D"

You can collapse the Government in a Parliamentary system. The PM will resign & elections will be called. Doesn't work that way in the US. President Obama will be President until 2017. Under president Bush, Democrats supported some of his proposals & appointments & opposed others. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has tried to hold up every one of President Obama's appointments.

#54

"ObamaCare slams smokers with sky-high premium costs"

Aside from not accepting anything published by Fox "News" at face value, you said just last week that Obamacare is just the web site healthcare.gov. They don't charge premiums.

You weren't!!????? Holy crap... I didn't know that!!??? I was the tender age of 14 months, almost to the day....

My sentiments ... and admission, exactly!!! Yikes!

You weren't!!?????

Holy crap... I didn't know that!!???

I was the tender age of 14 months, almost to the day....

Michale

How do all you Lefties like your obamacare now???

Michale

Iran's response??

Additionally, Iran announced on Sunday that its nuclear work will continue despite the deal, which aimed to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.

“The [nuclear] program has been recognized and the Iranian people’s right to use the peaceful nuclear technology based on the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] and as an inalienable right has been recognized and countries are necessitated not to create any obstacle on its way,” Zarif told reporters over the weekend.

Yea, great move Obama....

If Israel doesn't turn Iran into a parking lot, Iran will have nuclear weapons by summer...

You heard it here first...

Michale

Now THAT'S funny!!! :D

Michale

The point of an Opposition is to oppose, not bring the entire government crashing down. They used to be called the "loyal opposition". Can't really see applying that to the Republicans.

Basically, what ya'all are saying it's perfectly acceptable to handicap ya'alls opponents simply because they are better at being the Opposition Party than Democrats are...

That sets a horrible precedent that will likely come back and bite Democrats on the arse...

Michale

Assad rules in Syria, not Iran.

And Assad is protected by.... Guess who??

The point of an Opposition is to oppose, not bring the entire government crashing down. They used to be called the "loyal opposition". Can't really see applying that to the Republicans.

You do realize that you are contradicting yourself.

If the point of the opposition is to oppose then, if the entire DEMOCRAT-run government comes crashing down, then I guess the opposition was successful, no?? :D

Q.E.D.

By not kowtowing to Saudi wishes?

No, by kowtowing to IRAN'S wishes...

But since when US foreign policy is written in Riyadh?

Since US foreign policy of Saudi and the US were in agreement..

Do you HONESTLY believe that Iran will be a better ally to the US than Saudi??

You DO know that they STILL yell DEATH TO AMERICA all across Iran, eh??

TS,

Missing from this dismal discussion (here and elsewhere) of Iran's nuclear program is Israel's mysterious, domestically engineered, nuclear weapons capability.

That's because it's not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Israel has never threatened to wipe another sovereign country off the map..

We don't care about Israel's nuclear capability the same way we don't care about Germany's or Canada's nuclear capability..

Their government's are RESPONSIBLE leaders..

Iran's leaders are anything but..

And THAT is the biggest danger of all of this.

President Obama just gift-wrapped a present to Iran.

Something Iran has always wanted.

Something Iran hasn't had in 34 years.

Something it can't get on it's own..

Respectability..

Michale

Generally acknowledged to be real and competent, with delivery by aircraft, ballistic missile and sub launched cruise missile.

Presumably built to deter something. Experience post 1945 indicates deterrence works with respect to the use, if not the building of, nuclear weapons.

#44.

Assad rules in Syria, not Iran.

#45.

The point of an Opposition is to oppose, not bring the entire government crashing down. They used to be called the "loyal opposition". Can't really see applying that to the Republicans.

#47.

"Obama bungles foreign policy once again"

By not kowtowing to Saudi wishes? If the Saudi's wish to attack Iran; that is their right as a sovereign state. But since when US foreign policy is written in Riyadh?

Kevin.

#27.

In my State the only thing you have to do to be a member of the Democratic Party is to check a box on the voter registration form. Thus I have a problem allowing anyone who isn't willing to admit he's a Democrat to have a say in who we Democrats should nominate for Public Office.

That said, I really like the idea of changing registrations in those gerrymandered districts.

Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own
Saudi Arabia claims they were kept in the dark by Western allies over Iran nuclear deal and says it will strike out on its own
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10472538/Iran-nuclear-deal-Saudi-Arabia-warns-it-will-strike-out-on-its-own.html

Obama bungles foreign policy once again...

Michale

Wasn't sure if it was in this commentary or a previous one, but I believe you called me to task for not giving Democrats credit for holding their own together.

While I am certain I have mentioned many times in recent history, allow me to re-iterate..

Yes... Democrats have learned the lesson well from Republicans..

Democrats are acting JUST like Republicans. :D

Michale

As I've said before the current Republican Office Holders are unique in the scope & depth to which they'll go to oppose, prevent, or obstruct absolutely everything President Obama tries to accomplish.

In other words, they performed the duties of the Minority Party outstandingly and impeccably..

Oh my gods, the CADS!!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!!!!

:D

Michale

It's a good thing for Obama so, as far as the Left is concerned, it's a good thing. Period..

But what the Left (and most Weigantians) don't see is how bad it's going to be for the region and for our allies in the region..

For one, it all but assures that Assad will remain in power.

It all but assures that Hamas and Hezbollah will be emboldened in the attacks on Israel.

It alienates our allies in the region by indicating to them that the US has a new "friend" in the region..

This is, simply put, another BAD decision by the Obama Administration in a presidency replete with bad decisions..

This one will likely be the worst of them all..

Michale

Hokay, I can sum it up for ya.. :D

A good interim deal would prevent Iran, THE world's sponsor of terrorism, from obtaining nuclear weapons which would ALSO have the added benefit of preventing Hamas and Hezbollah from acquiring nuclear devices (at worst) or being provided a nuclear umbrella from Iran (at best).

A nuclear Iran is the WORST possible Middle East scenario..

It's why we don't give M-16s to chimpanzees..

Part of our relationship with the Saudis was based on the same goal of preventing Iran to become a nuclear power.

The huge falling out we have had with The Kingdom is based on the fact that the Obama Administration now views a nuclear Iran as not any problem...

Michty,

I have often wondered how the situation came to be in the USA that a Federal election is run and controlled to completely different standards by each individual State. It makes no sense to me and opens your country up to a 'zip code lottery' of how easy/hard it will be to vote.

An' yet, the good ole US of A is the only remaining superpower on the planet. :D

Apparently, we're doing SOMETHING right.. :D

Michale

I wanted to know what you thought a good interim deal with Iran would entail.

I'm not interested in clicking on another link.

I agree with you completely. Thank goodness as a Canadian I've never had a problem in voting in federal and provincial elections for 42 years. And as a returning officer for 30 of them, don't get me started about voting machines and other atrocities I've heard read about. Our basic ballot box system is tamper proof, none of these "hanging chad" debacles.

I took a look at his page and read the first article I saw called 'Take Back Your Government: Part 1'. Whilst I don't agree with the reasoning, the ideas seem fine to me - end closed primaries, redistricting, campaign finance reform, term limitation. In fact I'd sum them all up in one phrase 'appoint an independent elections commission to set standards for and oversee all elections'. Like we have in the UK: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/our-work/roles-and-responsibilities.

I have often wondered how the situation came to be in the USA that a Federal election is run and controlled to completely different standards by each individual State. It makes no sense to me and opens your country up to a 'zip code lottery' of how easy/hard it will be to vote. Also it could lead to conflicts of interest, like a potential situation where you have a family member who is Governor of a State and can take measures to push that State's Federal vote to favour one Presidential candidate over another (cough cough cough cough).

1. A nuclear armed Iran is possibly the worst thing that could happen to the world, in terms of Iran's belligerence towards the US and Israel and the regional nuclear arms race it would set off in the Middle East...

2. Iran's claim that it is developing nuclear capability to generate electricity is complete and utter bullshit..

If these two points, these two FACTS, cannot be agreed upon, then there is no hope for a rational discussion...

Michale

I'm confused. What exactly is it about this interim deal with Iran that is not in Israel's best interests.

It allows Iran relief from sanctions AND allows Iran to maintain it's current infrastructure and nuclear weapons capability..

Basically Iran gives NOTHING up and the sanctions are all but eliminated...

What would a good interim deal with Iran entail?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/21/what-would-good-deal-with-iran-look-like-straight-talk-from-israeli-ambassador/?intcmp=latestnews

Michale

I'm confused. What exactly is it about this interim deal with Iran that is not in Israel's best interests.

What would a good interim deal with Iran entail?

What's your take on this deal?? You and I are probably the only two here that are on Israel's side in all this.

What's your take on the deal??

It leaves the Heavy Water Reactor at Arak intact.

It leaves Iran's centrifuge array intact..

Both of which are completely un-necessary for generating electricity but are vital to weapons development..

Am I wrong that this is a bad, a very bad deal??

Michale

Obama has made his choice..

Obama chose Iran over Israel...

Michale

I, for one, have been trying really hard to ignore the entire episode. That kind of thing holds no interest for me, whatsoever.

The international media coverage this story continues to receive does surprise me, though. But, it shouldn't as this is the kind of story the media thrives on to its great detriment.

One week to hand over the CWMD arsenal..

http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/09/09/kerry-gives-assad-a-week-to-turn-over-all-chemical-weapons-or-face-attack/

To date, note ONE SINGLE CWMD has left Syrian control..

NOT.... ONE..... SINGLE..... CWMD....

Michale

Bullshit...

All Obama got from Assad is a PROMISE to turn over his CWMDs..

Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't think I would trust the word of a guy who has gassed thousands and thousands of his own people to death..

I am silly that way...

But Michale doesn't like this win 'cause President Obama didn't look forceful enough?

No... Michale didn't like the win because it was a blatant and obvious LOSS for the US..

The US's credibility took a HUGE hit over Obama's faux "red line"...

On Iran, all I can think of is,

"Whatever Bibi wants. Bibi gets.
And little man, what Bibi wants is war."

And BiBi wants Israel to survive..

The US used to think the same way...

Once again, we are trusting the word of a regime that is THE world's sponsor of terrorism..

Why is it that the Left falls all over itself to appease the scum of the planet??

Is Obama's prestige THAT important??

Apparently so...

Michale

The goal in Syria was to separate Assad & his chemical weapons. President Obama has achieved this result. This is a win.

But Michale doesn't like this win 'cause President Obama didn't look forceful enough? He didn't kill enough Syrians getting to that win? How many Syrians have to die before President Obama looks forceful? How many dead would make you happy? But unless you engage in mission creep like Bush did in Iraq; you're not going to get any more of a win that you can have with no one killed.

I'll wager you like the movie, "Rebel Without a Cause".

On Iran, all I can think of is,

"Whatever Bibi wants. Bibi gets.
And little man, what Bibi wants is war."

(with apologies to Gwen Virdon & one of the great movies of all time.)

That the writer is American is incidental only underscores my admiration, I wish he was your President...and I like Obama.

I can't argue with ANYTHING the guy said...

He makes sense..

A LOT of sense...

Michale

He has just guaranteed one of two things happening.

Either Israel will attack Iran, igniting a region wide war..

Or Iran will be a nuclear power by summer..

Coupled with the train wreck that is obamacare, Obama is leaving quite a legacy... :^/

Michale

Regarding 14 and the likelihood of Israeli airstrikes within the next 3 to 6 months.

It's pretty clear that Israel has the capacity to strike key Iranian nuclear facilities, but given the ranges involved it would require them to commit pretty much all their tanker and deep strike aircraft (notably the F15I). It's a big risk of air capitol.

I think it fair to say their is a lot more uncertainty, both within Israel and the US about how long an Israeli air attack might delay Iran's nuclear ambitions....high end 3-5 years, low end a couple of months. Optimistic Israeli assessments tend to get more air play here in the US than the more pessimistic ones. Iran's response is also uncertain, but they have a credible capability to cause Israel considerable suffering, especially through proxies.

All in all, I rate the probability of an Israeli strike in your time frame to be low, say <10% to put a number on it.

Below are 3 URLs to independent, open source, analyses I consider credible.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/850/osirak_redux_assessing_israeli_capabilities_to_destroy_iranian_nuclear_facilities.html

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/IranReport_091112_FINAL.pdf

http://csis.org/files/publication/120906_Iran_US_Preventive_Strikes.pdf

I'd be happy to look over your stuff.

Ultimately, I think Iran will be content to have the ability to fabricate a nuclear weapon fairly quickly. Israel and pretty much everybody else won't be happy with this, but will live with it. The trick is for all parties to agree, however reluctantly, how quick is too quick.

Israel will ultimately have to rely on their own nuclear arsenal to deter the Iranian nuclear threat. That's the norm for nuclear powers.

http://www.stonekettle.com/

That the writer is American is incidental only underscores my admiration, I wish he was your President...and I like Obama.

More proper, but ugly as sin.

Really? THAT's the comma that was wrong?

That's the comma that's technically improper, but really right. That's why it's noteworthy.

Or I could go with an em-dash -- I love em-dashes!

The comma says it better, this time. Know the rules, so you can know when to break them.

I actually clicked on that link!!

I am gonna have NIGHTMARES for a week!!!!

http://tinyurl.com/ph7g4t2

Now THAT is more my speed.. :D

Michale

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/22/cat-heaven-island_n_4324867.html

Just a friendly reminder... holiday pledge drive cats are on the horizon!

:-)

We now return you to our regularly scheduled comments.

-CW

There's a phrase that comes to mind that fits this action perfectly..

It's called Poisoning The Well

And, based on past precedence...

It never ends well for the ones doing the poisoning...

Just ask the Hoff..... :D

Michale

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/21/what-would-good-deal-with-iran-look-like-straight-talk-from-israeli-ambassador/?intcmp=latestnews

That's what a GOOD deal with Iran would be...

Unfortunately, what Obama is proposing is worse then no deal..

It's a very VERY bad deal...

And I know that if everyone could disregard partisanship, then everyone would agree with me.

But the Left would rather see Obama get his way and have a nuclear-armed Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah rather than admit that The Exalted One, Barack The First is wrong as wrong could be...

Michale

When the GOP had the White House and Congress, everything in the world was the GOP's fault..

When Dems had the White House and Congress, everything was STILL the GOP's fault...

So, basically, why not just codify the Democratic Party Platform??

Regardless of ANYTHING, EVERYTHING is the GOP's fault..

It would save an awfully lot of arguing.. :D

Michale

Anything about "sour grapes" or "whiney senators"???

:D

Michale

The senate has a website! Who knew! Here is the URL

http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm

The site is pretty comprehensive. It has a FAQ (but they don't call it that)and an organization chart with color thumb nails of the senators. Too bad you can't blow them up to make posters! A McConnel as big as my old Farah Fawcett poster!

There is a manual for new senators, which I haven't had a chance to look at. But,if my experience with manuals holds, I'm betting the first few sentences of the introduction will read something like "Thank you for choosing the US senate! We know there are a lot competing legislative bodies in the world, and we're glad you picked us."

Anyway, back to the rules. If my roman numerology is still intact, there are 44 standing rules. This is clearly NOT the Out Back Steak House! They read like stereo instructions, but then, what manual doesn't? It's going to be a long slog.

There is a helpful glossary. Filibuster "Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions."

There is no warranty page, but if you go to the senators tab you can find contact information to complain about campaign promises ignored etc.

Given the traffic pattern, 11-15 some thought might be given to renaming the parent enterprise "The Michael Blog, With Chris Weigant.

hehehehehehehe :D

Hay, don't blame me.. It seems that people only like to comment around here when the Dems are up.

What kind of attack do you predict? Odds?

I think I did an entire attack scenario, complete with graphs, a few weeks back..

If current intel is accurate, that Israel and Saudi Arabia are joining forces, things just got about 80% easier for Israel..

If you like, I can update the possible scenarios, given SA's possible (likely probable) involvement...

Michale

Michael, regarding 14

What kind of attack do you predict? Odds?

Keep in mind that Israel attacks Iran frequently, usually by covert means. Assassination, sabotage, cyber attack. So I'd put those odds at roughly .999.

The silence from the Left is deafening....

Michale

But hay, I am a fair guy..

Give me an example of Democrats doing something (unrelated to partisan politics) that is bad for the country..

In other words, give me an example of putting country before Party...

Michale

And when that starts a regional war, Obama will be to blame...

Michale

I am sure you do believe that. Because you are the same way..

The evidence that supports this conclusion is overwhelmingly conclusive.

If you do not oppose Obama for his CT actions as adamantly as you opposed Bush, you are compromising your principles for the sake of Party ideology..

Ya'all HAD a *MORAL* argument when you opposed Bush's CT policies..

Now we come to find out that your argument then WASN'T based on morals or principles, but rather on political ideology..

In short, when YOUR guy does it, it's perfectly acceptable..

You've ignored my questions to what you suggest for Syria while condemning President Obama for getting them to destroy their chemical weapons without getting bombed.

Obama's first mistake was setting the red line in the first place.

Obama's second mistake was not reacting forcefully and with strength when the red line was crossed..

Do you HONESTLY believe Obama has ANY credibility when it comes to Syria??

Putin and Assad are laughing their asses off at Obama and the US...

On Iran, are you suggesting that the US attack Iran so that the Israeli's don't? So that a vote for the peace deal is a vote for war. A vote against the peace deal is a vote for war. Only in "Michaleville".

Not at all.

I am suggesting leaving the sanctions in place and even strengthening them as they are having the INTENDED and DESIRED effect..

Why do you think Iran is even AT the bargaining table??

But now, Obama proposes to LESSEN the sanctions and Iran doesn't have to give up a damn thing..

I know that, in areas other than political ideology, you are a logical person.

Why LESSEN the sanctions in exchange for NOTHING when the sanctions are obviously working??

If this deal goes thru, you can bet there will be an Israeli strike on Iran withing 90-180 days...

You can take that to the bank..

And I remind you that my track record in recent predictions has been pretty frakin' impressive..

If I do say so myself...

And I do... :D

Michale

I'll suggest you're seriously off base with he "party before country Paula" comment. The mote in her eye is not as large as you contend & you ignore the beam in your own eye. But CW #5 has done it better than I could.

You've ignored my questions to what you suggest for Syria while condemning President Obama for getting them to destroy their chemical weapons without getting bombed.

On Iran, are you suggesting that the US attack Iran so that the Israeli's don't? So that a vote for the peace deal is a vote for war. A vote against the peace deal is a vote for war. Only in "Michaleville".

So what do you suggest the US do?

Or to paraphrase the Beach Boys:

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Because we can. Bomb Iran.
We've got the weapons and the bombers, missiles, and the warheads, bomb Iran.

Carter wouldn't fight, Reagan traded guns, Saddam screwed the pooch, so we have to do it right, oh bomb Iran.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.

Okay guys, up to you for more

IRAN

Obamabots around the world are saying that a vote against this horrendous deal that all but guarantees a nuclear Iran will be a vote for war.

But the reality is this..

If this deal happens, Israel WILL attack Iran and do what the US doesn't have the 3 C's (clout, credibility or cajones) to do...

So a vote FOR this plan is a vote FOR war...

Michale

This wasn't about "making Washington work"...

It was about "making Washington work in favor of Democrats"

It's hilarious..

When Democrats are in the minority, they are ALL about "compromise"..

When Democrats are in the majority, compromise is a dirty word..

Like I said. The shoe will be on the other foot relatively soon..

We can revisit the issue then, eh? :D

Looking forward to it..

Michale

"Hypocrisy, thy name is politician."

Hay! That's my line!! :D

However, in THIS particular case, Democrats take the Hypocrisy Award.. :D

Be that as it may, I have to point out that we are in complete agreement.

There is no difference between Republicans and Democrats..

Don't tell Party Before Country Paula.. She would be PISSED!!! :D

Liz,

Biden was right. Again!

Was he right back then in supporting the filibuster??

Or is he right right now for eliminating the filibuster??

You can't have it both ways..

Michale

Hey there!

How are Canucks taking the whole "mayor of Toronto" thing? Just curious...

:-)

I have to say, I'm personally relieved that such political embarrassment is (for ONCE) not coming from the good ol' USA!

-CW

Really? THAT's the comma that was wrong? Man, I bet there's plenty of more wrong (wronger?) commas in the article...

With so many links (links take time), the text portion was kinda rushed today.

Let's take a look...

OK:

"We're busy meeting to discuss a blank sheet of paper; maybe we'll get to it later."

Better? Or I could go with an em-dash -- I love em-dashes!

:-)

So, to paraphrase, M...

"Hypocrisy, thy name is politician."

-CW

You really want to play this game?

Let's see if that works (and is big enough to read)...

-CW

Biden was right. Again!

"Neither the Constitution nore Senate rules nor Senate precedents nor American history provide any justification for selectively nullifying the use of the filibuster. Neither the Constitution nor the rules nor the precedents nor history provide any permissible means for a bare majority of the Senate to take that radical step without breaking or ignoring three kids of applicable rules and unquestioned precedents.”
-Senator Edward Kennedy, 2005

"In the short term, judges will be confirmed who should be confirmed. But when the precedent is set, the majority of this body can change the rules at will -- which is what the majority did today -- if it can be changed on judges or on other nominees, this precedent is going to be used, I fear, to change the rules on consideration of legislation. And down the road -- we don't know how far down the road; we never know that in a democracy -- but, down the road, the hard-won protections and benefits for our people's health and welfare will be lost."
-Senator Carl Levin, 2013

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat

Michale

I'm a fuddy-duddy about comma splices, so I would really be conflicted if I had been writing this. If you want to be non-fuddy-duddy and use punctuation that reflects the flow of speech, though, the comma splice is definitely appropriate.

As I've said before the current Republican Office Holders are unique in the scope & depth to which they'll go to oppose, prevent, or obstruct absolutely everything President Obama tries to accomplish.