Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

Sycophant

Subscribe to Sycophant's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

#8 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
We had limits. [No, you didn't] We had inspectors. [No, you didn't] We had a coalition. [The *same* coalition -EU - that is still buying Iranian oil]
Now we have nothing. [You had a piece of paper with toothless suggestions]
#9 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT A
There were incentives not to.[Not really - except the pallets of cash, which Obama flew in personally like he was buying a yacht] There was a coalition in place in case they did. [Did the coalition evaporate? No, they're buying Iranian oil]
And the Hardliners in the Iran government had a lot less power because of what the country would lose if they violated the agreement. [LOL]
Now they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by enriching and going for nukes. And Trump is rattling his saber about invasion. [BOO!]
If I were Iran, I'd definitely go for the nuke now. I don't lose anything and it might be the only way to stop the US.
Good job making it an easy choice for the Iranian government. [Pom-poms for Trump failure - TDS]
#14 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

And here we go with the lies... Is anyone surprised?

1. Yes, the agreement had a number of limits.
2. Yes, the agreement had inspectors and cameras.
3. Yes, we had a coalition in the EU ready to enforce the agreement if Iran violated it...until we tore it up of course.
4. Yes, we had incentives in the way of trade and banking.
5. The pallets of cash was THEIR money that we froze in their accounts.
6. The coalition was buying oil because Iran hasn't breached the deal yet. We were the ones who broke the agreement.

You have no defensed for Trump. We had a solid agreement in place. Now we have nothing and we are hinting at invasion. Iran has NO CHOICE but to go for the nukes now.

And you can't argue otherwise with "Nopes" and "TDS".

Frankly, Trump has no plan in place to deal with this. He has offered no alternative to Iran. And idiots like you cheer him on.

If Liberals want guns off the streets they have to create a safer world. Instead what we get from Liberals is a more and more unsafe world, with less and less consequences for uncivil behavior.
People have a right to protect themselves. The more we allow criminal behavior to run rampant the more resistance Liberals will have in taking weapons away from people that perhaps even should not have them.
DocNJO makes it perfectly clear if you are paying attention.
Liberals don't seem to see the second order affects of their policies, and the responses normal people have. Even the WillieMCCoy episode, he had the gun for protection, why because the government can't protect him.
Fix that, and guns will be easier to grab.
#36 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

Why is it Conservatives are so fact averse?

FACT: The safest states are all Blue and have the strictest gun laws. The states with the highest per capita violent crime rates are all Red with the least strict gun laws.

FACT: Countries with stricter gun laws have less violent crime per capita than the US.

Here's the issue: Conservatives aren't smart enough to think outside of all or nothing gun policies. Yes, dummy, people have the right to protect themselves. Democrats aren't trying to take everyone's guns but sensible regulations would make sure the right people have them.

New laws like:
1. Background checks for criminal and court holds for all sales of guns.
2. Tougher sentencing for violations of gun laws.
3. Yearly Registration of all firearms.
4. Insurance for all owned firearms.
5. Mandatory training for gun owners with a license to own a gun that must be renewed every number of years.
6. Significant fines for owners of lost or stolen guns.

Conservatives talk about being personally responsible. But don't want any rules requiring gun owners to be responsible.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable