It was reported on MSNBC that the chairman of the IAEA, and the chief nuclear inspector will be going to Parchin before year end. The IAEA will report on their findings again before year end. If you trust the IAEA, you got to know that they do not trust Iran. Why would they lie about the inspection?

The timing of the leak is just to convenient. Someone, who can identify himself, gives an unsigned agreement to the press. It just so happens to cause a fire storm during the lead up time to the vote on the Iran deal. If that doesn't smell of politics to you, you are holding your nose.

Concerning the support of over 50% of Americans, since when the majority opinion have any say in today's politics. Between 85-90% approved of enhanced background checks for guns, that legislation went nowhere.

Concerning the ACA, it had over 50% approval in both houses. Reid had to get around McConnell's filibuster, which he did.

My eyes are wide open. Given the state of current politics, nothing will be done in the next year and half. Everything right now has a political twist. How anyone can be happy about this is beyond me. Who the hell wants to sit and argue about everything?

I wouldn't put too much stock in anything coming from MSNBC. Lowest rated network.

Concerning the ACA, yes it had 50% and should have taken 60% to get it approved. It did not have America's approval and it had ONLY Democrat votes. How often do you see something passed with ONLY one party represented?

Please don't mention Reid in a decent forum. He is the scum of the earth and will not be missed by anyone (probably even senate Dems). He is the reason that nothing got done in congress. He sat on so many House passed bills that his desk collapsed from the weight. Kidding on that part.

You mention "argue" as if it is a bad thing. Without arguing you don't reach compromise. There is no arguing with this administration. If Obama wants something and it's not legal or not supported, he does it anyway. He disregards what the Supremes order, unless it supports his agenda.

This country has gone through two terms of stress and disaster due to this administration's divisive rhetoric and uncompromising tyranny. The Republican minority can hardly be blamed for attempting to stem this administration's running amok.

Regarding the "side agreement" I think we should take it seriously. We have seen the consequences of "we'll have to pass it before we find out what's in it." Let's ALL be concerned about this agreement BEFORE we trust. This administration and Iran have given us no reason to have faith/trust in either of them.

IF MSNBC reported that, it flies in the face of what is on their website as it makes no reference whatsoever to IAEA visiting Parchin IN PERSON.

CNN says....

"The Obama administration has acknowledged that Iranians would likely be involved in inspections of the Parchin military site -- which the West has widely suspected of being the site of past illicit nuclear activity -- under a draft agreement between the Iranians and the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, which handles the inspections.

A senior administration official told CNN that while Iranians may be collecting the samples at Parchin, individuals from other countries would be involved in analyzing them.

It also seems likely that IAEA staff would either be present or watching via video camera and directing the Iranians when they take samples from the site.

The agreement governing the inspection of Parchin is separate from the wide-ranging inspections regime the IAEA will impose on other Iranian sites under the deal. Those inspections focus on ongoing nuclear work, whereas the investigation of Parchin is into past activities."


Iranian role in inspections fuels critics of deal - CNNPolitics.com

"David Albright, an analyst who participated in nuclear inspections in Iraq, said "it is not customary at all" for the IAEA to not collect its own samples, and said if the IAEA can't visit Parchin personally to look for nooks and crannies it may want to sample, it would need robust video connections to adequately monitor the process.

"It's really not normal, and you have to worry that this would set a bad precedent in the Iran context and in the context of other countries," said Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security. "I don't know why they accepted it. I think the IAEA is probably getting a little desperate to settle this."



Bottom line, you think it is a good deal, and I do not.

I might add that you should get other sources of news. Your "spin" on the ACA is totally incorrect.

NO PROBLEM, RIGHT.....

"DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran on Saturday unveiled a new surface-to-surface missile it said could strike targets with pin-point accuracy within a range of 500 km (310 miles) and it said military might was a precondition for peace and effective diplomacy.

The defense ministry's unveiling of the solid-fuel missile, named Fateh 313, came little more than a month after Iran and world powers reached a deal that requires Tehran to abide by new limits on its nuclear program in return for Western governments easing economic sanctions.

According to that deal, any transfer to Iran of ballistic missile technology during the next eight years will be subject to the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and the United States has promised to veto any such requests. An arms embargo on conventional weapons also stays, preventing their import and export for five years.

But Iran has said it will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restricts its military capabilities, a stance reaffirmed by President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday.

"We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that," he said in a speech at the unveiling ceremony broadcast live on state television.


Read more: Iran unveils new missile, says seeks peace through strength - Business Insider

AGAIN...PLEASE NOTE....

"According to that deal, any transfer to Iran of ballistic missile technology during the next eight years will be subject to the approval of the United Nations Security Council, and the United States has promised to veto any such requests. An arms embargo on conventional weapons also stays, preventing their import and export for five years.

But Iran has said it will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restricts its military capabilities, a stance reaffirmed by President Hassan Rouhani on Saturday.

"We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that," he said in a speech at the unveiling ceremony broadcast live on state television.


"THAT DEAL" as referenced above it the deal being discussed in Congress.

GOOD DEAL because if they dont want to, then they will not !!!

Did not take them long !

Ok, so now we know that Iran will do what they want relative to ballistic missles, here is a point OFTEN MENTIONED ON HERE AND IGNORED....

"WASHINGTON — As President Obama begins his three-week push to win approval of the Iran nuclear deal, he is confronting this political reality: His strongest argument in favor of passage has also become his greatest vulnerability.

Mr. Obama has been pressing the case that the sharp limits on how much nuclear fuel Iran can hold, how many centrifuges it can spin and what kind of technology it can acquire would make it extraordinarily difficult for Iran to race for the bomb over the next 15 years.

His problem is that most of the significant constraints on Tehran’s program lapse after 15 years — and, after that, Iran is free to produce uranium on an industrial scale.

“The chief reservation I have about the agreement is the fact that in 15 years they have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability,” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat who supports the accord. “And that is a bitter pill to swallow.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/wo...laws.html?_r=0

They bury Trump for how he talks........this is the President of the United States describing over 50% of the American people...

"LAS VEGAS — There are the people on his side on the Iran deal, President Barack Obama said Monday evening. Then there are “the crazies.”

Read more: Barack Obama calls opponents of Iran deal 'the crazies' - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO

Obama = poster child for if you are not with me then you are against me.

He is the role model for all the name calling, racial aggrivation, cry baby.

I wuld like to hear his personal words about the leadership of Iran yesterday stating they will buy whatever weapons they need and sell what ever weapons the want regardless of any agreements signed.

And Obama's puppet Josh stated yesterday there are no real dise agreements. He too is a lawyer and knows how far out on the thin ice of truth to skate.

I am tired of the legal community that thinks the rest of us are uninformed when they play their word game of .....we have done nothing illegal.....according to the used, abused or hidden behind letter of the law.
Right or wrong has no place in any discussion with lawyers or politicians and especially lawyers that are politicians!

Republicans = Whatever President Obama is for, we are against.

Name calling! Now, that is funny. He has been called a Kenyan, liar, racist, liar, socialist, liar, communist, Hitler, Muslim, dictator wannabe, terrorist, liar, and probably many more. His sole goal is the destruction of the US. The one thing he will never be called is President Obama.

He is the role model for all the name calling, racial aggravation, cry babies. Therefore, he is the role model for all good Republicans. So, the Republican name calling is just a show of love for one of their own.

Okay.....

1. Well more than half of all Americans also are against, the deal being discussed plus his negatives are also in that group. A bit more than Republicans ! !

2. When is the last time a President called the citizens names ?

3. And by the way, he does lie...want to discuss that ?

4. The other names you mention are pretty much on forums such as this and not used by the highest elected official we have to describe his fellow Americans.

So, I think your post, which was a bit whiney, falls on deaf ears.

Again, if you want to discuss lies and/or a President referring to the majority of Americans, let me know. I will be glad to begin the thread and supply the links to validate.

Poor attempt at dodging the issue and just parroting back what someone else said.

When one calls someone what they are it is not name calling.
Obama is clearly a racist....proven time and time and time again in the positions he takes as a black but should not be as POTUS. Hence he is black first and POTUS second (well the second may be a stretch!).

Rating his executive capability; he would not have made it to his second year in corporate America. He does not do what he promises to do. He has no follow up on commitments he makes. He is never measured against his promises. He is a blame the other guy refusing to accept the fact that what he gets day one is his.
Since he has been at playing chief executive for 5+ years longer than he should have been allowed, he has acomplished achieving incompetence. It is what happens when an unqualified person is put in too big of a job....no mystery here. He had an up hill challenge day one, which he failed year one!

The above is not name calling. Simply what you don't want to hear.

Who was it that said Republicans can sit at the back of the bus?
Who was it that told Hispanics that Republicans are their enemy?
Who compared Republicans to terrorists, too many times to count?
Who is it that said that maybe old folks don't need that hip replacement; Just give them a pill?
Who was it that said surgeons amputate legs or remove tonsils just so they can charge more?
How often have you heard Obama speak in an unprofessional or divisive manner?
No other president has ever spoken as amateurish as Obama. Clinton did when he first entered office, but then mellowed when he wanted to get some work accomplished.
Obama will go down in history as the worst president ever. What a disappointment.

Sad....such promise, and our President, instead of becoming a statesman, turned into the biggest verbal bully I have ever seen in the WH.

And his followers forget how this admin began, not with an extended hand from our leader, but terrible vicious remarks aimed specifically at those he was supposed to, and promised to work with.

They so like to point out a lack of cooperation, while totally ignoring what was the motivation.

The last three post are a perfect example are how Republicans think that they aren't part of the problem.

Who is leading the Republicans hopefuls for president, Donald Trump. The man, who says all illegal immigrants, should be deported, and wants to build 20 foot high, 2,000 mile wall, and he wants the Hispanics to pay for it. The Chinese built the Great Wall of China to keep the Mongolian hoards out. Why, because the Mongols were their enemy.
Trump wants to keep the Hispanic hoards out, but they Hispanic aren't our enemy. They are just murderers, drug dealers, and a few, he assumes, are good people.

What high rating person calls other high rating people names? Donald Trump! That is what his entire stick is based upon. How much money did he spend trying to prove President Obama is a Kenyan?

How many times has Trump talked in a unprofessional and divisive manner? Every time he opens his mouth. He is leading the pack, and no one is even close. That says everything that you have to know about today's Republican party. The next thing they do something constructive will be the first time they do something constructive.

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

This President Obama statement came from Fox News. You are trying to pass this off as a racial slur!

Whoa......

Now we got it. Typical stuff

RACIST and FOX in the same post, even though neither were ever mentioned.

Let me suggest that you start with his inaugural address where he lamented the Republican Party, go to his comments on ACA for days at a time, criticizing by name, telling everyone on national TV, instead o discussing..." Elections have consequences".

Do not give me Fox News.....he started on day one and has not stopped.

Ok....this thread is about the nuclear deal with Iran.

It is further about how are President has spoken down and mocked anyone who is opposed.

Those opposed are many democrats, the majority of Americans. He compared the Republican Party to the rabble rousers in Iran, but never mentioned his own party folks, NOR the majority of Americans.

This is not about Trump, who holds no office, is not nominated for any.

It is about the President of the United States and how he dismisses anyone who opposes him.

He has been, and is the single most POLITICAL, NON STATESMAN to ever hold that office.

When you read what Iran is ALREADY doing, and instead of being sensitive to the majority of Americans, he demeans them.

WHILE most on here do not seem to care much, the news keeps grinding out on the Iran deal......in addition to the new ICBMs they now have and their statements about what they WILL NOT DO even if in the deal....they keep on keeping on...

"Hussein Sheikholeslam, a foreign affairs adviser to parliament speaker Ali Larijani, told Iranian media that contrary to remarks by British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, “Our positions against the usurper Zionist regime have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated and this is our ultimate slogan.”

'Israel should be annihilated,' senior Iran aide says | The Times of Israel

I pasted the quotation and the context to avoid, hopefully, those who always feel it is out of context...

In addition, we all know, or should know that the single largest state sponsor of terrorism in the entire world is Iran. BY FAR....

"Just last week, David Brooks warned in his New York Times column that “Iran will use its $150 billion windfall to spread terror around the region,” echoing numerous U.S. legislators who were themselves echoing former CIA director Mike Hayden’s comment, “that an absolutely inevitable byproduct of the deal would be to strengthen the Iranians in doing all these other things that are causing us such great grief throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf.”

Is Iran About to Unleash a Wave of Terrorism Against the United States? | Foreign Policy

Even President Obama knows the reaction to this deal. He wrote a letter to a democrat, Congressman Nadler of NYC to convince him to vote for the deal and by the way Nadler will vote for the deal but in his letter....well you read and I also have attached a link to the NYTimes who published the letter in total...

"Step back: Obama’s letter clearly admits that the years following the deal will be increasingly violent ones for Israel and our Sunni Gulf allies — and he’s right.
There’s no need to boost security assistance unless you expect the threat to grow. And the deal, which unfreezes Iran’s terror slush funds, will amplify that threat.
Israelis need protection from what Obama will unleash, in other words — and Obama’s letter to Nadler shows he’s well aware of that fact.
The Iran deal is a textbook case of a politician choosing short-term gain over someone else’s long-term loss.
It gives the president his foreign-policy “legacy project” while avoiding the two things Obama wants to avoid while he’s in office: US war with Iran and an Iranian nuclear-weapons breakout.
Once he’s out of office, it’s all someone else’s problem."

The Iran deal ensures a Mideast arms race — nukes and all | New York Post

Link to the NYTIMES printing the entire letter which by the way is not the point...it was intended to get votes FOR the deal and it worked in this case
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...an-nadler.html

Who was it that said Republicans can sit at the back of the bus?

My response was printing the exact quote about the back of the bus. Fox New was mentioned, because that is the natural place you would go to, if you are looking for any remotely offensive statement made by this president.

Whoa......
Now we got it. Typical stuff
RACIST and FOX in the same post, even though neither were ever mentioned.
You have a serious case of reading into something that isn't there.

Why don't we let Mr. List Maker answer the initial question, was this the back of the bus comment he was referring to? Your diversion didn't work. Nice try though.

HERE IS WHY.....THIS THREAD IS ABOUT THE IRAN DEAL.

YOU and you alone seem to veer this off in all directions. The "list maker" as you refer to that poster was simply making the point that our President has made it a distinct habit of crushing people with words and calling people names if they do not agree with him.

YOU on the other hand simply dodge the Iran deal, which you made very clear you think is just wonderful. I asked you in post 40 to discuss some of the side items to this deal and you wait until you can, once again, use racism, etc.

I am tired of every disagreement with this President being called racism.....I am tired of him calling everybody who disagrees with him names.

This thread has a subject which you just run from and wait for some idle little sentence to have an excuse to go after Fox and call someone a racist. It is, and maybe it is me, difficult for me to understand that mentality. I think the racism and Fox card is such a bore....it has been used over and over and over and over to the point it is a joke and used by people who have no idea of the subject matter and fall back on those things.

The subject is the Iran deal......go to post 40 and discuss the items I asked you to discuss.

If you want to talk about racism and Fox news, start a thread and go for it.

:BigApplause:
:BigApplause:
:BigApplause:

I went back o post 40. This deal was about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. The questions you asked were items that might happen if this nuclear deal fails. The assumption is this deal is going to fall apart. It is an assumption.

The secret deals were between the IAEA and Iran. When I brought this up, I was changing the subject. However, the first post brought up the IAEA.

Concerning the racism and Fox news comment. How about showing me where I brought up racism. Wasn't it Mr. List Maker, and the person before or after him that mentioned racism. But when I bring this up, I am the racist.

Where did I say that the Iran deal is wonderful? Where!

The Democrats are looking in detail at the deal, and the alternatives. You will get a few to vote against the deal. They won't be prosecuted for it by their party. The Republicans were against it before it was even approved by the P5 plus 1. They hadn't even seen it yet. They spout the same nonsense over and over, "we need a better deal". There is no better deal out there, and they know it.

Listen, I do not want to be rude to you but I will not respond to you any longer (I say that now but some of your posts just tee me off).

You obviously have serious problems with comprehension if what you say is what you think you read. You obviously do not understand that the questions on post 40 were about the deal and what happens WHEN IT GETS APPROVED and it will by a Presidential veto. YET you read it just the opposite.

I would prefer to discuss this with someone who is not simply looking for some verbal squabble. If you cannot discuss it in a knowing and intelligent manner, then our conversations are over.

I am aware that you will come back and say whatever.....but you just do not seem to understand anything. So this will be my last post to you....hope you understand.

One more thing, popular opinion can change over time. Give the agreement some time before you call it a failure. One of the Democratic senators asked the top four countries that are holding Iran's funds, if they would continue to hold the funds, if the US backed out of the deal. The answer was no.

The deal is a done deal. There won't be enough votes to override a veto.The only thing left is the shouting.

A political response.

How do I know. You discuss not one of the issues involved in this deal, you have not one question about the deal and blindly support it.

Yes, you are correct, I do believe it will be taken care of with a veto override and that does not concern you in anyway, I am sure.

Same way we got ACA.....American public does not want it......no bipartisan support whatsoever and yet we got it.

This is a bad deal....we have left down a valuable ally.....we are allowing FOR SURE AND WITHOUT A DOUBT Iran to have nukes in 15 years. We will make their world wide terrorism and they are the biggest supporter of terrorism to grow with more money. We ignore them telling us now that they will do what they have to do despite any deal.....we allow them to dictate the inspections....but you and others feel good about it.

Well, despite what you guys say, there are alternatives despite war....President thinks i am one of the crazies and akin to the nut cases in Iran...his words not mine, but I feel strongly this is a bad deal and for the last few days have tried to post my feelings,

Maybe you are right because I have yet to see an intelligent post either for or against the thinks that Iran is doing NOW and saying NOW, so maybe it is me.

Would you please supply your source so we can read up on this ????

Same thing you liberals say about Obamacare. And yet, we were better off without it. And there were better deals out there, but the Dems want their socialized medicine and this was the first step toward it.

Go away troll. This thread is about the disastrous bad deal that was made with Iran. And yes, this is typical of this administration and you liberals that seem to think that a big pile of HS is better than having the actual horse. After all, if you can't have the horse, then that big pile is relative and good, right?
There was noting racist about that comment about sitting in the back. Although, anyone that heard him speak could argumentatively believe that is what he was insinuating. Who else says "you can sit in the back" or "if they don't agree with us than they can sit in the back."
And I noticed that you didnt' get all detail oriented on the statement about the Republicans being the enemy remark I made.
But, nice diversion as usual. What's next? Are you going to correct our spelling and grammar? That usually works.....for a little while. Although, you only show that you can't debate the subject.
This administration is the ONLY administration that has used divisive and hateful rhetoric. And rather than admit it when they are wrong, ie. this stupid and dangerous Iran deal, they shovel HS on it and claim there's a horse underneath.

This is Mr. List Maker direct quote, "Who was it that said Republicans can sit at the back of the bus?" I posted the actual quote from President Obama, and where it appeared. I also explained why I reference Fox News. I was called a racist. But you just referred to President Obama's actual statement, and said you could argue it was racist. Argue is one thing. A statement of fact is totally different. Your quote was a statement of fact. Holding a person to a direct statement isn't diversion.

Debate only works when you are talking to an audience that have open minds. The Republicans have been against this deal before they even saw it. How do you get any more closed minded than that?

In case you haven't looked, Karl Rove is the king of the negative ad. The only way he thinks you can win an election is by using divisive, and hateful rhetoric. Who brought him on the seen? "W". Take a good look at what they have call President Obama! When he responds, he is the problem!

Name calling! That is the sign of a true adult. Keep it up. It suits you well.

More diversion from the troll. Peevish and petulant, but still off base. Please go find some other venue for your whining. :blahblahblah::blahblahblah::cry::cry:

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

That is the subject of this thread. PLEASE start your own thread of just watch tv.

Why do you try and hijack every thread ?

NO...do not answer...another post off topic then. You want to praise Obama and talk about Fox, racists, etc.....START YOUR OWN THREAD

I would like to hear from these pseudo supporters of the Iran deal......why pseudo? Because I think they have no idea what is in the deal or not and are just puppeteering what the party is expressing....it is that simple. And the main tactic of the party is to never address the issue by changing the subject, going back in time to nothing that makes sense, blame somebosy else for something that is not even related and of course the name calling.

It is very simple.
The subject is the Iran deal. You know the one your leader says if you are not for it you are a crazy!!!!!
Why is the deal OK with you?
What benefits does America get from the agreement?
Very simple. Somebody must surely be capable of answering these two simple...SIMPLE.... questions.

And don't bother to state because all the other countries are for it so it must be OK. We all know the benefits they get from the agreement.....has nothing to do with nuclear capability one bit.

We wait with baited breath for the avalanche of responses.

Don't expect logic from those with an opposing view of this. You are spot on in this mess. No one wins in this. Even Iran loses because once they strike at Israel, Iran will be turned into a big sheet of glass after being nuked into vapor. Who wins? No one. They are already violating sanctions by jumping the gun and negotiating with Russia for missile purchases. They won't have to produce their own nukes when we give them back their money. They will just purchase them from Russia.

Iran Nuclear Deal! Iran Nuclear Deal! one more time. Iran Nuclear Deal!

Simple question. Simple answer. This agreement stops Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. What do we get out of it? Iran getting a nuclear weapon in a very short period of time. It is that simple.

The 15 years is also nonsense. It would take them another 10 years over the 15 years to build up to the nuclear levels they are currently at.

Simple question why is stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon in 25 years a problem? You can lay them to waste anytime before then. Breaking the deal goes both ways.

Look how many what ifs are in this thread. Logic applies to things that are real, and not "what ifs".

I can throw all the names and insults that you want at me. All I have to do is consider the source. People who refuse to accept anything, but their own beliefs. Nobody can deal with close minded individuals.

l[/QUOTE]

"Nobody can deal with close minded individuals"

Yeah, we all know from your lack of discussing the impact immediately and lack of information on the deal itself, and fear of terrorism in the ME and beginnings of a possible arms race, but then again....we are CRAZY !!!

Yeah, we all know from your lack of discussing the impact immediately and lack of information on the deal itself, and fear of terrorism in the ME and beginnings of a possible arms race, but then again....we are CRAZY !!!

The impact immediately is Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon in the very near future. That is something that you absolutely refuse to accept. I didn't say you were crazy. I said that you were closed minded. Everything you talked about is "what ifs". You can come up with "what ifs" forever.

Does the current roll back the inventory of items necessary to build a bomb? Answer yes
Does the deal trace all possible ways to rebuild the supplies necessary to rebuild a bomb? Answer yes
Are the countries that are holding the great amount of Iranian funds going to go along with the US with new sanctions. Answer No.

A better deal would be for Iran to shut down , and dismantle all the nuclear facilities. Why would they, when they have a current deal? The alternative that the Republicans want is not doable.

The reason some of us are against the deal is that it does nothing to hinder Iran from getting a nuke, and actually helps them. The side deal suggests that Iran will be able to use their own inspectors to inspect their military sites. Duhhhh!!!
This deal also releases them from sanctions
This deal also gives them back their money. They are already negotiating with Russia for weapons.

Is this enough to get you started? What did we get? Ahhh, does nothing sound fair? Not even a handshake and a nod. Sorry, but a bad deal is not better than no deal. Personally, it would be better for all of us if Israel just goes ahead and bombs their installations into dust.

And don't forget to include the words of their supreme leader that they will do whatever they want, produce what ever they want, buy from who ever they want and sell to whoevr they want regardless of ANY agreement.

As Clinton would profoundly state again (I am sure)...WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?:a040:

The reason some of us are against the deal is that it does nothing to hinder Iran from getting a nuke, and actually helps them. The side deal suggests that Iran will be able to use their own inspectors to inspect their military sites. Duhhhh!!!

I am sorry. If you don't think that this agreement hinders Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, then you are not looking. The IAEA will have access to all the sites, and they will inspect them all before the date the agreement takes effect. The IAEA will file a report with their finding before the starting date. Since everyone trusts the IAEA, what is the problem?

The supreme leader doesn't run the Iranian government. Do a lot of Iranian wing nuts follow his every word. Yes. It appears that the supreme leader would make a great Republican. If he was an American, he would have to compete with US supreme leader of loud mouth nonsense, Donald Trump.

And what affectionate name do you have for the Obama lemmings who epitomize the blind following premise to an incomparable level of obedience.
I would offer some but refuse to stoop to the level some revel in.

What goes around, comes around. I have never started any naming calling. People here make a habit of it. It seems that their entire goal of life is trying to make fun of someone else. When you respond in kind, you are the problem. It doesn't work that way.

Blind following. The Republicans are getting their talking points from their party leaders. They use the same phrases, and same key words for an issue. That is not a coincidence. They vote as a group on almost everything. Democrats are guilty of the same tactic, but not at the level Republicans are operating at.

The Democratic Senators are looking at the Iran agreement in great detail. When they say they are going to vote for it, they explain why, and what research they did to justify their vote.

Republicans are voting against before they even knew what was in it. How can that be acceptable to any reasonable person?