Tonight's Presidential Candidate Debate...

@Finn dAbuzz,

You're another repulsive republican piece of garbage around here, see you after the elections, unless they implement the new poof be gone function!

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Are they at full panic yet, or will that come later?

2 Replies

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Are they at full panic yet, or will that come later?

It will come if you ever get your GED!

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Cyclo = The Amazing Kreskin

He knows what you are thinking!

It doesn't take psychic powers to know you dream of Lewinsky-ing Mr. Romney.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

Quote:

Cyclo is melting down right before our eyes and it's pretty damn funny

You think it's funny NOW?? (give it about another three weeks.....)

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Them Dems want to Lewinsky Romney Shocked

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Cyclo is melting down right before our eyes and it's pretty damn funny

You think it's funny NOW?? (give it about another three weeks.....)

Cyclo's reaction will be something like this
when all networks call the election for Romney

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

I say again... If we can win this one and it looks like we will, then on the day Mitt Romney's second term ends, Paul Ryan will be around 50 years old, at the very top of his game and ready to take over his half of 16 years during which no stinking Gaea-worshiping de-moKKKer-RAT ever gets close to the white house at all, even via the servants' entrance.

In a space of time that large, there's every possibility that we can find a way to drive some final nail into the coffin of the rat party and eliminate it altogether.

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Hold on to those delusions, Gunga.

0 Replies

@MMarciano,

You can't imagine how crushed I am that you hold me in low esteem.

However I think I can appreciate why you exclusively view the world through a lens of sexual orientation, somewhere along the line you've taken a paranoid fantasy and immersed yourself in it:

The secret Mormon directed agenda of Mitt Romeny is to exterminate homosexuals.

The ultimate Victim Profile.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

you're projecting again, finny...

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

Not yet.

They still have the Gloria Alred October surprise to unveil, the vaporization of a bunch of camel herders in the Libyan desert, and the announcement that unemployment has dropped to 5.2%

Not to mention today's report in the NY Times that the US and Iran have agreed to direct negotiations on Iran's nuclear weapons plans.

What is there to negotiate?

Obama has said they can't have them and they have to have them to advance their goals.

In any case, the Iranians won't engage in such talks until after the election, so all Obama has is a feeble talking point.

Imagine why he had to give or promise to get them to agree to these talks.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Same as negotiations with North Korea on the same subject. It buys them time for further enrichment and developement.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

You can't imagine how crushed I am that you hold me in low esteem.

I read MM's post, Finn. He expressed that he held you in high regard.

Quote:

However I think I can appreciate why you exclusively view the world through a lens of sexual orientation, somewhere along the line you've taken a paranoid fantasy and immersed yourself in it:

The secret Mormon directed agenda of Mitt Romeny is to exterminate homosexuals.

The ultimate Victim Profile.

A wee bit over the top, doncha think, Finn?

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

What is there to negotiate?

The fact that they are a sovereign nation which has had to suffer through more than half a century of US terrorism, US theft of their natural resources, US supporting wars against them, not to mention aiding the use of chemicial weapons against them.

And you say, what is there to negotiate. You're such a kidder, Finn.

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

Same as negotiations with North Korea on the same subject.
It buys them time for further enrichment and developement.

That 's exactly what it is.

0 Replies

@roger,

Indeed.

One would think that by now that our government is on to this tactic of rogue nations, but I suppose if a "breakthrough" is necessary prior to tonight's presidential debate on foreign policy, this sort of qualifies.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Actually there is a bit of a mix up with the NYT article concerning Iran and "one on one" talks.

Quote:

But National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor pushed back against the Times's story.

"It’s not true that the United States and Iran have agreed to one-on-one talks or any meeting after the American elections," he said in a statement.

"We continue to work with the P5+1 on a diplomatic solution and have said from the outset that we would be prepared to meet bilaterally. The president has made clear that he will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and we will do what we must to achieve that," Vietor added. "It has always been our goal for sanctions to pressure Iran to come in line with its obligations. The onus is on the Iranians to do so, otherwise they will continue to face crippling sanctions and increased pressure."

The Times report came barely more than 48 hours ahead of the third and final presidential debate, which will focus on foreign policy. Signs that Iran is willing to negotiate on its nuclear program could be helpful to Obama, who has long favored a diplomatic resolution to tensions with Iran and has implemented new sanctions aimed at forcing Tehran into negotiations.

UPDATE: The Times story has been updated to include Vietor's statement and to say that the United States and Iran have "agreed in principle" to talks.

source

1 Reply

@revelette,

What is the difference between agreeing in principle and simply agreeing?

The original NYT story didn't report that details had been agreed upon (ie time and place), and so an agreement to talk would seem to be essentially the same as a an agreement in principle to talk.

Either way, the source you quote indicates the development could be advantageous to Obama...which of course was the purpose of the original article and the original "leak" that gave rise to it.

I don't see it as providing much of an advantage at all. The Americans who pay any attention to international affairs know that talks are used by our enemies to buy time. I doubt they will think differently about talks with Iran.

Unless the Iranians have come begging, agreeing to talks is another sign of weakness.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

The Americans who pay any attention to international affairs know that talks are used by our enemies to buy time.

Yeah, that pisses Americans off no end. They like to get right to bombing the **** out of innocents, raping and torturing them, murdering little children.

Diplomacy and talking doesn't make the military industrial complex any money.

0 Replies

Tonight's Presidential Candidate Debate...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know