obama To Give iran $50 BILLION Signing Bonus?

[smitty]

Thoughts?

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/state-department-wont-rule-out-50-billion-signing-bonus-for-iran/

[77]

Crazy!

[BS Wildcats]

Absolutely asinine to give Iran that kind of money. I guess he is blind to the fact that they are a terrorist nation. Does he honestly think they are going to abide by his rules of the agreement. Just one Muslim helping a whole nation of Muslims.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

I want a cut of $50 billion, I never turn down free money :D

[mat]

I didn't read the whole article but would this require congressional approval?  

[bullets13]

Once again Smitty posts a link to an article that completely misrepresents the reality of what might happen in an effort to portray Obama in the most negative way possible.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

Once again Smitty posts a link to an article that completely misrepresents the reality of what might happen in an effort to portray Obama in the most negative way possible.

Cant stop the Smitster, free comedy. 

[stevenash]

Once again Smitty posts a link to an article that completely misrepresents the reality of what might happen in an effort to portray Obama in the most negative way possible.

Are you saying that the $50 billion will not or cannot happen?

[smitty]

Once again Smitty posts a link to an article that completely misrepresents the reality of what might happen in an effort to portray Obama in the most negative way possible.

Then educate us.  Tell us where the article strays...

[bullets13]

Then educate us.  Tell us where the article strays...

by giving the impression that the United States will be paying a $50B signing bonus to Iran? By wording their title and article in such a way to give the impression that the US will be using US funds to give Iran an insane amount of money, the author of this "news piece" has ensured that people of your ilk will be angered and pass it on, whether it's factual or not.

[baddog]

Obama is easing sanction monies which he should not do. He is bargaining with terrorist nations and it will bite him/us in the end. I see no problem with the wording.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

by giving the impression that the United States will be paying a $50B signing bonus to Iran? By wording their title and article in such a way to give the impression that the US will be using US funds to give Iran an insane amount of money, the author of this "news piece" has ensured that people of your ilk will be angered and pass it on, whether it's factual or not.

You got to admit the Smitster is funny, he's one of those guys that if Fairchief was to ever beat Neumann again he would kick up the dust around Bulldog Stadium, knock on doors, and lead a riot right to Neumann front door. 

[smitty]

You got to admit the Smitster is funny, he's one of those guys that if Fairchief was to ever beat Neumann again he would kick up the dust around Bulldog Stadium, knock on doors, and lead a riot right to Neumann front door. 

LOL!!

[bullets13]

Obama is easing sanction monies which he should not do. He is bargaining with terrorist nations and it will bite him/us in the end. I see no problem with the wording.

Whether or not you are correct in your opinion here, that does not change the fact that what may actually happen is nothing like what this article portrays, thus inciting low information voters to spread the hate propaganda.

[LumRaiderFan]

Whether or not you are correct in your opinion here, that does not change the fact that what may actually happen is nothing like what this article portrays, thus inciting low information voters to spread the hate propaganda.

 

The low information voters won't read this...they sail through life without a clue about what's going on around them...only way they can be incited is for the cable to go out.

[bullets13]

The low information voters won't read this...they sail through life without a clue about what's going on around them...only way they can be incited is for the cable to go out.

really? If someone on the left posted an article on here, and 3 or 4 people got on here and agreed with it without verifying, and then someone on the right did 10 seconds of research and discovered the article was made up or misrepresented the truth, what would you guys be saying? "Look at the low information voters, believing everything the read."

You and I both know that this works both ways.

[LumRaiderFan]

really? If someone on the left posted an article on here, and 3 or 4 people got on here and agreed with it without verifying, and then someone on the right did 10 seconds of research and discovered the article was made up or misrepresented the truth, what would you guys be saying? "Look at the low information voters, believing everything the read."

You and I both know that this works both ways.

 

We must define low information differently...when I say low information I mean just that, that someone makes their political decisions based on little or no information.

 

It doesn't mean they are dumb, just that they don't bother with looking into a policy or candidate to make a decision based on information...and they are on both sides...and many are very intelligent.

 

Back on topic.   :)

[bullets13]

We must define low information differently...when I say low information I mean just that, that someone makes their political decisions based on little or no information.
 
It doesn't mean they are dumb, just that they don't bother with looking into a policy or candidate to make a decision based on information...and they are on both sides...and many are very intelligent.
 
Back on topic.   :)

My definition of low information voter also includes your definition, but also references the quality of information. Simply having a lot of information does not make someone an educated voter. Reading hundreds of articles such as this one (there are lots of folks out there who troll the fake news sites all day trying to find the next big "scandal") will provide tons of information to a voter, but will do very little to increase their knowledge of what is actually going on. If the information you have is not accurate, you are still a low information voter in my book.

[5GallonBucket]

and aren't we in debt..... if your debt. you don't have the means to loan.

[smitty]

My definition of low information voter also includes your definition, but also references the quality of information. Simply having a lot of information does not make someone an educated voter. Reading hundreds of articles such as this one (there are lots of folks out there who troll the fake news sites all day trying to find the next big "scandal") will provide tons of information to a voter, but will do very little to increase their knowledge of what is actually going on. If the information you have is not accurate, you are still a low information voter in my book.

So, it's a fake site when one doesn't agree with it?  It must, because there hasn't been any proof given yet that the article is wrong.  Again -- educate us where the article strays...

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

So, it's a fake sight when one doesn't agree with it?  It must, because there hasn't been any proof given yet that the article is wrong.  Again -- educate us where the article strays...

Get this right (not rite) first. ;)

[smitty]

Get this right (not rite) first. ;)

LOL!!

[bullets13]

So, it's a fake site when one doesn't agree with it?  It must, because there hasn't been any proof given yet that the article is wrong.  Again -- educate us where the article strays...

Typical Smitty: posting an article without vetting it, and then demanding that others prove it wrong rather than taking the responsibility of posting truthful links. I'm not doing your work for you.

And it's a fake site when the majority of it's "news" articles grossly misrepresent or blatantly fabricate the truth. My agreeing with it or not agreeing with it has nothing to do with making it fake, no more than it fitting into your narrow belief system makes it real.

[smitty]

Typical Smitty: posting an article without vetting it, and then demanding that others prove it wrong rather than taking the responsibility of posting truthful links. I'm not doing your work for you.

And it's a fake site when the majority of it's "news" articles grossly misrepresent or blatantly fabricate the truth. My agreeing with it or not agreeing with it has nothing to do with making it fake, no more than it fitting into your narrow belief system makes it real.

Again -- if one disagrees with it then it's a fake site.  As for as I am concerned it's legit.  If you know it's not, then educate this forum with the truth.  On a previous post you complained about a fake site because it was something you didn't agree with.  But the video inside was a Fox News video.  We are all for the truth.  So, educate us when we post something that's not true.  Instead of just saying it's a fake site. 

[bullets13]

Again -- if one disagrees with it then it's a fake site. As for as I am concerned it's legit. If you know it's not, then educate this forum with the truth. On a previous post you complained about a fake site because it was something you didn't agree with. But the video inside was a Fox News video. We are all for the truth. So, educate us when we post something that's not true. Instead of just saying it's a fake site.

I said I could not access the site because my work's firewall had the site labelled as "hate speech." Again, you didn't quite get it right. That being said, seeing as 95% of your articles take a few facts and then twist them into blatantly false accusations or gross misrepresentations, even an embedded fox video means very little. But seeing that "as far as you're concerned, the site is legit", you know, just because, there's no point in trying to prove to you otherwise. You've shown us at least 500 times that you'll believe ANYTHING a radical right website tells you to believe, even when the article is proven false. So ironically enough, while you continue to throw accusations that the left calls any website that posts articles for the right "fake" on the sole basis of them not agreeing with them, you continue to regurgitate false "news stories" with total blind faith simply because you DO agree with them.