Keith Koffler just about sums it up.
This is approximately like catching a murderer murdering, leaving him out free, and allowing him to keep his gun, with the stipulation that he not have access to his ammunition for ten years. Assuming he doesn’t cheat, which he always has.
Rewarding those that kill homosexuals….that is the Obama position.
Awful. Just awful.
Where is your outrage about the US being allies with countries that do the same?
Pat,
I’ll bite,
Such as?
Demand conservatives call out allies that do the same as Iran, rather than looking the other way.
…or at the very least the stop the rabid so called faux outrage lectures for liberals that conservatives serve up.
Conservatives DON’T want a sham deal with Iran!
Liberals do!
I know a ton of conservatives that oppose executing someone for simply being homosexual. I oppose that human rights violation!
What I don’t see is: liberals outraged about it on the level of outrage they take out on the poor pizza place in Southern Indiana and the pizza place in Green Bay liberals are verbally raping on Facebook due to mistaken identity.
…but yet nothing toward the awful president, making a deal with this evil.
One of the bad things about social media is that it allows people to do and say things that they probably wouldn’t. It’s easy to be a bully when it appears to be anonymous. Both conservatives and liberals are equally guilty of bullying in that manner.
As for me, I agree with what Penn Jillette said, “I believe that people have the right to be stupid and run their businesses in a stupid way. And then the big old invisible hand gets visible and the stupid businesses go out of business. It doesn’t always work, but it often does.” People who disagree with a stance a person takes shouldn’t take to the internet to verbally rape them. If they don’t like what a business says or does, don’t patronize the business. There’s one specific businesses I don’t patronize because I don’t like what comes out of that owners mouth.
But, this is America. Land of the free and home of the brave. A country where everyone has the right to be wrong. But not the right to commit a wrong against someone else.
Pat
Penn is not in charge. I happen to agree with him on that topic. (disagree with him on just about every religious topic though.)
Under the liberal lexicon, businesses do have to run in a stupid way…like forcing Christians to take pictures at a wedding they may not want to take pictures at, tolerating the gay teenagers “making out” in their place of business, or demanding obscene cake designs.
…but yet liberals tolerate this deal with Iran and getting in bed with a government that executes homosexuals with barely a peep?
Where do I protest that liberal lack of caring for one’s neighbor and ignoring the golden rule?
The deal is not done. I don’t have a problem with negotiating with our enemies. Nixon did it with China, and Reagan did it with the USSR.
I have bigger concerns in regards to things going on that affect the US. One thing (off topic but should be a major “on” topic) The Trans-Pacific Partnership deal that is being kept secret.
Pat,
Obama is negotiating?
Wow.
I think the word you were looking for was: surrendering.
Reagan could at least call evil, evil.
Obama can’t even bring himself to do that… Which means Obama must be just dandy with Iranian policy on homosexuality.
Say it Pat. “Iran is evil.” I can do it.
I believe it’s the P5 +1 that is negotiating with Iran. The US isn’t going it alone.
And if Obama would call them evil, what would that do for you, or anyone else for that fact?
Pat,
Might bring the human rights record disgust of Iran, and it’s treatment of homosexuals to forefront. But liberals are more concerned true Christians be forced to take pictures and bake cakes for gay couples in Indiana.
…but you would never force a Muslim to do same thing…
Funny, I didn’t think that Iran’s human rights record and it’s treatment of homosexuals was a deep secret. You make it sound like saying the word evil is the magic wand that will make everything right in the world.
No, but it’s a basic start.
What we have now is president unwilling to even say its wrong. …and liberals saying that is OK.
You make it sound so simplistic. I know the situation in the middle east is far more complicated than talk radio makes out. The first step in starting to resolve issues would be to remove politics. But neither the Republicans or the Democrats are capabile of doing that, and sorry to say, most likely never will.
Hey Kev, Yesterday in an interview Obama used the word vile in describing Iran’s words and actions.
The dictionary includes in it’s definition of vile as, “morally bad; wicked”, and used in a sentence, “as vile a rogue as ever lived”
The word evil in the dictionary includes in it’s definition, “immoral, vile, and wicked”.
Hopefully Obama using the word vile fulfills your requirement.
Pat,
That is good.
However, it needs to be followed with actions. To simply say something is vile is not enough.
If Obama says something or someone is vile (because of their actions) and then tries to cozy up to that thing, or person, without that person renouncing/repenting of their vile ways, what does that say about Obama?
It says he embraces the vile.
I bet liberals were in a collective “tolerance” gasp when Obama used the word “vile” to describe someone.
Kevin,
What specific actions would you like to see in regards to Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
Can you negotiate with the vile, on any level, if they wish to remain vile?
Even if one came to a deal, can the overtly, and openly, “vile” be trusted?
I would supply Israel, and let them loose, to protect themselves against Iran’s nuclear ambitions…but that option may be out since Obama treats our friends like enemies these days…which I consider vile.
If your reasoning is that we may not be able to trust them, we negotiated with China and Russia. I think I heard they were/are evil.
With the history the United States has in Iran, going back to 1953 where we participated in the coup d’etat of democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh. Do you think that Iran feels they can trust us? We know the effect our intervention back in 1953 had overall when we look back at 1979.
Like I said earlier, things in the middle east are more complicated than you evidently know.
China and Russia showed signs of turning from their evil ways. Its possible China and Russia were lying.
In that case, I can see benefit of doubt with caution.
Iran is not intent on changing anything. They openly hope to remain vile.
So equating Iran with China or Russia is an insult to China and Russia.
Of course the Middle East is complicated. You don’t make things better by labeling evil as good or doing business with the unreprentant evil.
I’m just impressed Obama is able to recognize evil in this case, (liberals, generally, tolerate evil rather than label it.) but he still seems to want to embrace the evil of Iran.
Do you think Iran can trust us?
In relation to what?
If Iran wants to shed its vile, evil ways and become a member of the community of nations, then yes, they can trust us. We are not looking to conquer the U.K., Germany, or Canada by comparison.
If Iran continues to be vile evil in the world, then does it matter if the vile evil trusts the good? (In this case, the hope and human rights America represents for the oppressed around the world.)
With the given history of the US helping to put in place and support evil dictators, especially during the cold war, I can reasonably understand the mistrust some in the middle east have for us.
I’d like to believe that we are a trust worthy country. But can see where a lot of our past actions could leave others, especially in the middle east to question our motivations.
But, I think that there is nothing wrong with having an open dialog, and negotiating with our enemies. Evidently most of our European allies agree.
Pat,
During the Cold War, godless communism represented a much greater evil.
I don’t approve of everyrthing the U.S. did combating that evil, but when you are faced with liberal Marxist butchers like Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Mugabe, Hugo Chavez, that is a much bigger deal.
Its a good thing we won the Cold War. We defeated the idea, with possible exception of so called intellectual modern American liberals, that worshiping the all-powerful state and granting god-like power to government is a fool’s journey, expecially when it comes to human rights.
So did U.S. do evil in defeating that? Sure, but no one fighting on the side of good is perfect.
“So did U.S. do evil in defeating that? Sure, but no one fighting on the side of good is perfect.”
And in the process of defeating that, made us enemies of those that we helped suppress, who otherwise would probably not have made us their enemies.
Supporting evil begat’s evil. And what goes around, comes around. History always proves that. That’s why the willingness for open dialog and negotiating is so important.
Ignoring monstrous evil also has consequences, like liberal Marxism.
100 million dead at hands of liberal Marxists last century alone.
I would agree some of the consequential damage of defeating liberal Marxism produces some of foreign policy problems today.
“I would agree some of the consequential damage of defeating liberal Marxism produces some of foreign policy problems today.”
It created most all of the foreign policy problems of today.
And, you need to really study the difference between Liberalism and Marxism.
“It created most all of the foreign policy problems of today.”
I should have included, specifically in the middle east.
Liberalism and Marxism….there is a difference?
If a liberal does not constantly argue ceding all control of income, resources, the control of the internet, and all human capital to an all powerful central government, they are not really a principled liberal.
If the “liberal” argues against central authority outside of defense and police, that makes one a conservative, or a libertarian.
Liberals want to shed their Marxist advocation label because of the brutality Marxism caused in practice the last 100 years. I suggest you read “Radical Son” by David Horowitz and realize how the “intellectual” U.S. liberals of 50s and 60s saw the USSR as their ideal in pratice.
I’m sorry, but your wrong.
How so?
Name 5 issues, outside of defense and police, where liberals demand less government control of time, money, and resources vs. more Marxist control?
Are up up to the challenge?
I’m not going to play patty cake with you on this. You’re entitled to your opinion but not the facts. There is a difference between Liberalism and Marxism. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.
If there is a “real” difference, then you should have no problem articulating the difference for me.
It does have to do with topic at hand, because the combating of the evil of liberal Marxism in practice has led to many of the foreign policy problems that exist today.
I understand that yoou may want to pick up your ball and go home, because you realaize there is no real differences in positions between “liberal” and “Marxist” today.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like unto him.
Instead of Proverbs 26.
How about Proverns 9:9:
“Instruct the wise and they will be wiser still; teach the righteous and they will add to their learning.”
I was thirsting for your “wise” distinction between “liberal” and “Marxist”.
I know what you’re thirsting for, and I’m not going to get into playing your game. I stand by what I’ve said and that’s the end of that part of the conversation for me.
I guess now I’ll have to invoke Proverbs 26.