Does Romney Know Where Iran and Syria Are?

name one meatsack,
I already named a lie from your party and you REFUSE to address it

Sorry desh, but if you are not going to address the lies of Obama, then you are nothing but a partisan hack. you can pretend the Reps are 'my party' all you want, but it won't change the fact I am voting for Johnson.
 
He just raised eight nursing home fees once. LOLers.

Awww... the little parrot chirps away.

He raised one fee on nursing home beds. The state has 7 tiers. It was the same increase along each of the 7 tiers.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ad-says-romney-raised-nursing-home-fees-eigh/

The Romney campaign acknowledged the fee increases on nursing home licenses but took issue with the "eight times" characterization. We agree: The fees were not raised eight times -- they were raised once, on seven different levels of nursing homes in mid-2003, which was also when the user fee was implemented.

rated as mostly false... why do you continue to distort and lie Dung? Desh will surely call you out for it.
 
What's really funny is that all the times that Romney has said that Syria is Iran's "route to the sea" he never mentions the pipeline. The debate wasn't a one off.

Odd. You'd think by now he'd actually mention the pipeline if that's what he meant given it's a practiced statement and it's really stupid the way he says it.
 
What's really funny is that all the times that Romney has said that Syria is Iran's "route to the sea" he never mentions the pipeline. The debate wasn't a one off.

Odd. You'd think by now he'd actually mention the pipeline if that's what he meant given it's a practiced statement and it's really stupid the way he says it.

Odd... you'd think you would provide text that he doesn't know where Iran and Syria are if you adhere to your rule that he must say it directly.

Tell us genius... what do you think he meant by route to the sea? Speculate away... do you think he meant a pilgrimage? a highway?

Or are you going to continue pretending he just doesn't know his geography?

Also... please highlight 'all the times' he has mentioned the route to the sea.
 
try reading your own links. It is not an either or for the two pipelines. Both will likely be built. The situation in the Middle east actually enhances the desire for Iran to build their pipeline via Iraq and Syria. It does not detract from it. Qatar is the competition. No way Iran ships their nat gas via Qatars pipeline... and both want to gain easier access to the EU.

Yes and I am saying that there is no way that Iran will be able to ship gas to the EU for the foreseeable future unless Iran changes its nuclear policy. It makes far more sense to get gas from Qatar and Israel.
 
What's really funny is that all the times that Romney has said that Syria is Iran's "route to the sea" he never mentions the pipeline. The debate wasn't a one off.

Odd. You'd think by now he'd actually mention the pipeline if that's what he meant given it's a practiced statement and it's really stupid the way he says it.

He was not talking about a pipeline as that wouldn't be ready till 2016 at least and maybe never. I imagine that he meant that Syria is the easiest way to access the Mediterranean as most other countries are distinctly hostile. Although why couldn't just say that is beyond me.
 
Yes and I am saying that there is no way that Iran will be able to ship gas to the EU for the foreseeable future unless Iran changes its nuclear policy. It makes far more sense to get gas from Qatar and Israel.

which will not stop the construction of the pipeline. Even if the EU holds the sanctions for a decade, this pipeline will not be done for at least 3-5 years and if the sanctions are still in place, Iran will be able to sell the nat gas elsewhere. It is not obligated to ship it to the EU simply because of this pipeline. But this opens the door to the West Coasts of Europe, Africa and the Eastern coasts of North and South America.
 
which will not stop the construction of the pipeline. Even if the EU holds the sanctions for a decade, this pipeline will not be done for at least 3-5 years and if the sanctions are still in place, Iran will be able to sell the nat gas elsewhere. It is not obligated to ship it to the EU simply because of this pipeline. But this opens the door to the West Coasts of Europe, Africa and the Eastern coasts of North and South America.

That assumes that the present Alawite regime remains in Syria, it is much more likely that it will fall and a Sunni regime take over. If that happens forget any Iran-Syria pipeline.
 
He was not talking about a pipeline as that wouldn't be ready till 2016 at least and maybe never. I imagine that he meant that Syria is the easiest way to access the Mediterranean as most other countries are distinctly hostile. Although why couldn't just say that is beyond me.

LMAO... that would seem to be his point. That if Assad falls, Iran potentially loses its access to the Med Sea, for which it does have plans for the pipeline. You have no clue if he was referring to that or not. Any more than I do that he was. But my answer is far more plausible of the the speculations that have been presented.

1) Tom- he wasn't talking about the pipeline, but I have no alternative as to what he was referring to
2) SF - he was referring to the pipeline deal between Iran/Iraq/Syria and the effects of a Syrian regime change on that deal
3) Dung - Romney don't know where Iran and Syria are at
 
That assumes that the present Alawite regime remains in Syria, it is much more likely that it will fall and a Sunni regime take over. If that happens forget any Iran-Syria pipeline.

Which goes back to why it is likely Romney was talking about the pipeline. The potential fall of Assad would likley damage Iran's distribution plans, which could add pressure to it on the nuclear issue.
 
LMAO... that would seem to be his point. That if Assad falls, Iran potentially loses its access to the Med Sea, for which it does have plans for the pipeline. You have no clue if he was referring to that or not. Any more than I do that he was. But my answer is far more plausible of the the speculations that have been presented.

1) Tom- he wasn't talking about the pipeline, but I have no alternative as to what he was referring to
2) SF - he was referring to the pipeline deal between Iran/Iraq/Syria and the effects of a Syrian regime change on that deal
3) Dung - Romney don't know where Iran and Syria are at

So would it have killed him to have said Mediterranean?
 
Which goes back to why it is likely Romney was talking about the pipeline. The potential fall of Assad would likley damage Iran's distribution plans, which could add pressure to it on the nuclear issue.

But the pipeline doesn't go to the Mediterranean. It goes to Damascus. That's not on the Mediterranean. And the pipeline doesn't exist at the moment, so it's doubly weird to use the present tense to talk about a pipeline that doesn't presently exist.

Your spin isn't even plausible.
 
But the pipeline doesn't go to the Mediterranean. It goes to Damascus. That's not on the Mediterranean. And the pipeline doesn't exist at the moment, so it's doubly weird to use the present tense to talk about a pipeline that doesn't presently exist.

You truly are a partisan hack. You acknowledged already that the pipeline is to continue on through Lebanon to the Med sea. Again, the attempt was to link Syria to Iran.

Your spin isn't even plausible.

LMAO... I provide a plausible explanation, you provide 'he don't know where Iran and Syria are at'... yeah... good call chuckles. You are desperately trying to play semantics so that you can denounce what I have stated. But again... my explanation is far and away more plausible than yours.
 
Back
Top