What are your thoughts on this? Which party do you trust to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of nations that sponsor terrorism – Republicans or Democrats?
21 thoughts on “NRSC: Republican Senators working to prevent a nuclear Iran (Video)”
Comments are closed.
Your majority hasn’t a shred of credibility when making political predictions. NONE!!! Why would voters believe what you can’t back up with a viable track record? i.e. – When is Obama coming for my guns? Where are the death panels? When is Sharia law going to come after my daughter? When is gas going to $7.00 a gallon. Hmmmm? About those FEMA concentration camps … don’t see ’em, pilgrims. How about that predicted skyrocketing inflation and another 9/11 attack? Your Conservative (with a capital C for your credulity) say these things just to get you to send in the bucks. How many of the above predictions did Noem spew? The answer is ALL OF THEM … and what’s comical is that the slope-sided among you lapped it up like spills on the milk room floor.
You really can’t see the big picture can you, Port-air? How has our standing on the world stage improved under you the leadership of the dictator-in-chief, Obama? And just because he hasn’t gotten it accomplished yet doesn’t mean that Obama wouldn’t love to wipe out the 2nd Amendment with one stroke of his pen?
Your hatred of personal responsibility and freedom are very evident in the tripe you shovel out with each and every post you put on this site.
“How has our standing on the world stage improved under you the leadership of the dictator-in-chief, Obama?”– Why don’t YOU tell us? Explain the “dictator” part.
Perhaps the reference is referring to bypassing Congress. Many people believe some of his executive orders are illegal. The administration has also changed the rules of his signature piece of legislation. Some people would tell you THAT is also illegal. Making laws outside of Congress would be something a dictator could do. I am not trying to read the other person’s mind, but I am suggesting these actions could be where the idea of “dictator in chief” comes from.
“Many people believe some of his executive orders are illegal.”– Then why aren’t your clowns in the impeachment process? Claiming something is “illegal” means nothing why don’t you show evidence that it is illegal/ Because you can’t.. It is no different than he is a foreign born, muslim socialist…. It’ been the same kind of crap for 7 years.
Um, President Obama has already said one of his biggest disappointments is his inability to get gun control. Yes, he is coming after guns. Perhaps you missed that attempt to outlaw a popular type of bullet used by a popular gun? Perhaps you missed that recall in your own state of two legislators who backed gun control that President Obama wanted?
Conservatives said if Obamacare passed, costs would go up and choices would go down. This has happened.
President Obama has said the cost of energy needs to go up. Conservatives said if that happens, the economy would suffer. that has happened.
President Obama has tried to get the price of gas to go up to $7.00. Due to circumstances beyond his control, ND has pumped oil into the market and the price has not gone up. In fact, Sarah Palin said the price could go down to $2.00 and that DID happen. Liberals laughed at her.
While Sharia law has not come after YOUR daughter, it has come after some of the daughters of people living in America. You have not heard of honor killings???
Why don’t you explain what you mean by “gun control”? Tell us about those “popular type of bullet” and what they are designed for? Should their be no limits on legal weapons? Tell us ONE thing the Obama administration has done to restrict the ability of ammosexuals to stroke their barrels, even in public.
———–“President Obama has said the cost of energy needs to go up”–Give me his quote.
“President Obama has tried to get the price of gas to go up to $7.00.”– support that claim with facts .
“You have not heard of honor killings???”– Is it legal???
Perhaps you have been in a cave the last several years. On gun control, see USA Today. “President Obama says the biggest frustration of his tenure is the lack of new gun control laws.” On the bullets from CBS “A proposed federal ban on the manufacture and sale of popular ammunition for AR-15 semiautomatic rifles has prompted angry gun enthusiasts to stock up on the coveted bullets.” On the price of electricity from YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4 On gasoline from his secretary Chu ““Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” On honor killings are they legal? No, not yet, but the comment had to do with Sharia law. Just because something is not legal it does not mean that it is not practiced. And tell the victims that what was done to them was not legal. That should give them plenty of comfort.
All of the above are from easily found articles. I suggest you stay out of your cave and see what is going on around you.
“Why don’t you explain what you mean by “gun control”?
” “President Obama says the biggest frustration of his tenure is the lack of new gun control laws.”– So what, they are needed.?
“Tell us about those “popular type of bullet” and what they are designed for?”
“Tell us ONE thing the Obama administration has done to restrict the ability of ammosexuals to buy guns or display guns
“President Obama has said the cost of energy needs to go up”–Give me his quote.
“President Obama has tried to get the price of gas to go up to $7.00.”– support that claim with facts .
——————–
I am not going to play deflection games, can you support what you claimed or can you not?
————————
Honor killings—What the heck is your point? You make no sense in relating them to anything else.
For some reason you are unable to comprehend what I wrote. Sorry. As for specific, if you really give a rip, look it up. I have given you enough information to answer all of your questions. As for “gun control”, look up what the Democrat party wants to do to make inroads to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. The “honor killings” point has to do with Porter’s question about Sharia law. Read a little more carefully.
Who shipped ship loads of weapons to Iran? Every one of these people opposing the Iran deal supported the invasion of Iraq and called anyone that didn’t un-American. If this deal had happened under BusH (haaaaaaaaaaaaaa) You people would be calling anyone that opposed it “un-American”.
What is the alternative?
Whether you agree or disagree with shipping weapons to Iran, they were not nukes. I believe that is the point. Alternative? Keep sanctions going. If the people wanting to kill us (just listen to their rhetoric) don’t quit chanting death to America and death to Israel, quit shipping them gasoline. They are mostly landlocked. Negotiate from strength and don’t give in to all of their demands. Tell them this is how it is going to be. You don’t give nukes to a madman.
” I believe that is the point.”–No sir, that is NOT the point..What would “you people” say if it happened today?
“Whether you agree or disagree with shipping weapons to Iran,”–You agreed, because it was Reagan?. Answer the previous question.
“You don’t give nukes to a madman”–Who the hell is giving somebody nukes? What an ignorant statement
” Keep sanctions going.”–How long have they been in place? Have they stopped their nuclear program? Not according to your hero Nuttinwahoo> He claimed they would have a weapon any time?
More game playing by the GOP. Authorize the fast-track of the Iran Deal, but then grand stand when it will inevitably pass. I cannot believe that the GOP has become more dishonest than the democrats.
It is unfortunate that Republicans have chosen to have to appeal to Democrats to protect us from this “deal”. I have read some stories that have said the deal is in trouble as Democrats are revolting against it. One article said to watch what happens with Chuck Schumer.
The sky is falling save us John Thune, leave the camera home,
@Anonymouse 12:15: I like tripe. Menudo is a healthy and flavorful lunch.
@duggerSD: You have this obsession that the USA government is after your guns. That is a symptom of low self esteem and a manifestation of personal non-accomplishment. In fact, you’re very near the “personality profile” that is now monitored for “possible” future unsafe firearm behavior. You’re carrying a disturbing amount of rage with an underlying paranoia that often leads to the type of mass shootings we’ve seen recently from angry males like yourself. Hopefully someone who knows you is keeping tabs on your behavior and can alert authorities of any mood swings towards violence. The first step in recovery is admitting to yourself that your gun infatuation is NOT healthy, sir.
Porter, I hope you do not break your neck when you sit down. I have offered rational explanations. I am a rational person. I really do not need an armchair shrink to offer diagnosis that do not exist. Please do be careful so you do not break your neck.
@duggerSD: I don’t understand what that means but I do understand that you might be on this list. You sound like you have something in your past that would make a background check unpassable. BE VERY AFRAID …. the black helicopters are silent runners and you’ll never know we’re coming late at night.
What the NRA is calling a “gun-grab” is a policy to make sure that those who collect Social Security are of sound mind to manage their own affairs. If not, they shouldn’t have a gun.
The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.
A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease
.”NRA’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, called the plan “the largest gun grab in American history” and an “egregious case of bureaucratic over-reach.”
“The implications of this policy are too far reaching to fathom at present. Social Security is one of the more prolific and relied upon Federal programs in American history,” the group said in a statement. “That Obama’s directive could so easily be implemented within the SSA suggests that bureaucrats could effectively cloak such a program in any agency within the growing leviathan that is the federal government.”
Oh, now I understand. It’s like why you have a window in your stomach. So you can see where you’re going with your head up your ass. Good One, Douger.
” BE VERY AFRAID …”–They all should be the FEMA camps were built just for them…no tin-foil, on NRA , no Beck, just the sound of hip hop music blasting 23/7, the other hour is Obama on giant screens sitting on his throne laughing… Those camps are very real just as “they” have said..
Ahhh , they are hilarious.