# Iran deal-pro or con, and why?



## NYC Composer (Jul 31, 2015)

From what we know of it, anyway, supposedly:

1. Either 24 or 27 day notice for IAEA inspections.
2. End of sanctions.
3. Snapback option-in other words, sanctions reactivate if agreed to by a vote of parties to the agreement.
4. Agreement not to enrich to weapons grade for (10? 15?) years.
5. Monetary payoff to Iran of approx. $50 billion. The number changes depending who you talk to.

Feel free to correct my suppositions.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jul 31, 2015)

1. Stupid - they should be instantaneous.
2. Some - not all.
3. You have that wrong. If deal is violated by Iran, U.N. sanctions automatically snap back for 10 yrs, possibly 15 (not sure of the terms there). USA/EU sanctions snap back in place as well.
4. No nuclear material at its Fordow facility for 15 years. Is that what you were referring to?
5. There is no monetary payoff. Why do people think that we/the EU is giving money to Iran? Nobody is giving money to Iran. We are unfreezing assests - ie - we are allowing them access to their own money. There is no payoff.

All in all, the deal is irrelevant. If Iran wants a nuke, they are going to get a nuke with the deal in place, or with no deal in place. If they get a nuke, that renders this deal irrelevant. If they really don't want a nuke, and their intentions all along were only to enrich Uranium for electricity and other peaceful purposes (as they claim), this deal irrelevant. If they do not cheat, this deal irrelevant. If they do, this deal irrelevant.

Either way, it was a complete and total waste of time and resources. Iran is either on the path to getting a nuke, or they are not. If they are/have been on that path, they are going to get one, and *no* deal is going to stop that.

Cheers.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jul 31, 2015)

Part of my lack of clarity comes from editorials like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-payoff-for-iran/2015/06/28/6c8d58ac-1c26-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html

Nowhere in that piece does it mention unfreezing assets, but you're probably right.

What's your source for "automatically", please?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2015)

You guys are following the pointed fingers.
Multinationals are going to make bank arming all sides. 
Google the F35 package for 2015.


----------



## RiffWraith (Aug 1, 2015)

Not sure what a US fighter jet has to do with the Iran deal, but...

Larry - one place you can look is here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal

Scroll all the way to the bottom. Understandably, that is the WH page, but unlike the W.Post's article, what you see there is not _an opinion_.

Cheers.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2015)

Easy to see actually.
Investors always make sure they win in these negotians.
Oil exports and Arms deals are flowing again.
Bahrain is protected by US due to the huge Naval base. 
We simply arm all others.
Negotiations also guaranteed US Armed forces protect Iranian Nuclear sites from attack.
I am concerned more about us keeping up our end of the deal more so than Iran.
Now its back to the business of regulated war.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 1, 2015)

Pro because it stops them from getting nukes for ten years. I disagree that they're going to get them either way. It's not as easy to hide as you might think.

The other reason is that crippling any country's economy never has and never will be a path to peace. On the contrary.

And oh by the way because sanctions hurt the Iranian people most of all, while their government is mischievous with or with them.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 1, 2015)

RiffWraith said:


> Not sure what a US fighter jet has to do with the Iran deal, but...
> 
> Larry - one place you can look is here:
> 
> ...



Thank you. My problem is-what constitutes "automatically"? Let's say the IAEA reports to the U.N. that there have been violations. That's it, the sanctions go back into place from all member nations? I just don't think so-I suspect that regardless of the language, "automatically" is far from being that simple. The.gov site gives no details.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 1, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> You guys are following the pointed fingers.
> Multinationals are going to make bank arming all sides.
> Google the F35 package for 2015.



I agree that one reason to do this deal is that everyone wants to profit, so the coalition of nations favoring sanctions is breaking down anyway.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 1, 2015)

And Obama realizes the bulk of Irans people are young.
Better they hate thier leaders instead of hating us.
I also think Clinton and Obama failed to speak out and support the people when they needed us.
Sanctions work only when you also use programs to topple the current leadership.
Otherwise these half measures are bad for business.
Multinationals have caused all legislation since 2014.
More proof Librtals and Conservatives will never represent the middle class.
The American middle class was the most powerful group of citizens in the world for decades.
Sad to it disappear from multinational bribery.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2015)

FWIW Iran is as bad as we were back in the 50s.
But back then cold wars were changing the world.
Iran is still stuck in that mind set but are so over stretched they cant retreat and cant move forward. Nukes were the only way for us to negotiate as we will arm others while pulling out of the area.
Oil purchasing still requires the US Dollar. When that changes we then pull out of Bahrain.
Its up to others to form alliances.
Also the money they recieve is just enough to restart thier Oil industry.
Add US Oil and NatGas to this equation and can keep Putin and the Middle East in check.
Multinationals and Banks finance energy and war.
When you follow them you understand the domestic 2 party scam.
Domestically they recieve permission on certain policy but globally simply march to the beat of the true powers that run western economies.
Be glad the EU and USA are where most of us live.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 2, 2015)

I think it's inevitable that Iran will go nuclear. The Russian situation being as loose as it's been, they could probably buy one. 

I don't think the military option has ever or will ever be off the table. Much as we may posture to the contrary, i think we would support Israel acting as our surrogate if push came to shove.

Chim, I agree with your point about the youth in Iran being very different than the leadership, but if we had supported them in a very public way, there would likely have been a massive massacre. The Ayatollahs and the IRG aren't going to go quietly.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 2, 2015)

Agreed.
But millions of Europeans and Americans died to escape tyranny.
If you want western style freedoms you must become fearless and westernzed.
Or stay alive as a slave.
If I lived in Iran I would be dead.
I think Persian women are georgeous.
Therefore the freaks in robes and towels would have me beheaded or stoned.


----------



## Madrigal (Aug 2, 2015)

I was in Iran last autumn. My partner and I were supposed to stay there 1 month but decided to renew our visa. We ended up staying two months, it's that amazing. Absolutely beautiful country, mountains, deserts, lush forests and fascinating architecture but its true wealth is the people: kind, generous, very educated, passionate and more hospitable than any other culture I've encountered. They don't deserve the treatment that the west is making them suffer through the embargo. 

It's a complicated issue that deserves more than a few paragraphs in a discussion forum, but while everyone is talking about nuclear deals and how the governments will profit or use it as an opportunity, the only thing I can think of is the impact it will have on the lives of the friends I've made over there. Maybe I'm biased, but let's just say I was truly relieved when I heard about the deal. Maybe we should not see it as a chance for Iran gov. to get nuclear weapons (which is as others mentioned, an irrelevant discussion as Iran could get wmds through other channels), but as a chance for the Iranian people and culture to finally be given an opportunity to flourish and open themselves up to the world.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 3, 2015)

If long-term embargoes worked, Fidel would have lost his job some decades ago. After some point, they become stale. They become the new normal.

I support the deal. It opens up the relationship. And as they say, "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Better to see what their up to rather than kid ourselves into thinking that we can choke off their cash supply.

So why is Netanyahu against it? His whole brand is as a security guy. He gets elected when the populace fears attack. Reduce the external threat and Israel will start electing people who promise jobs, better education, better roads and such.

So why is Saudi Arabia against it? Iran will be able to restart their oil industry. Nuff said.

So why are the Republicans against it? See the Netanyahu paragraph and add a heaping tablespoon of opposition to Obama. Looking back to the '80s, even Reagan did a nuclear (trust but verify) treaty. And he didn't seem to mind selling arms to Iran (in order to fund the Contras.)

So I'm with Madrigal. Let's stop choking off funds to the people of Iran. They aren't the cartoon characters that the media likes to present.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 3, 2015)

Madrigal said:


> I was in Iran last autumn. My partner and I were supposed to stay there 1 month but decided to renew our visa. We ended up staying two months, it's that amazing. Absolutely beautiful country, mountains, deserts, lush forests and fascinating architecture but its true wealth is the people: kind, generous, very educated, passionate and more hospitable than any other culture I've encountered. They don't deserve the treatment that the west is making them suffer through the embargo.
> 
> It's a complicated issue that deserves more than a few paragraphs in a discussion forum, but while everyone is talking about nuclear deals and how the governments will profit or use it as an opportunity, the only thing I can think of is the impact it will have on the lives of the friends I've made over there. Maybe I'm biased, but let's just say I was truly relieved when I heard about the deal. Maybe we should not see it as a chance for Iran gov. to get nuclear weapons (which is as others mentioned, an irrelevant discussion as Iran could get wmds through other channels), but as a chance for the Iranian people and culture to finally be given an opportunity to flourish and open themselves up to the world.



And i am sure that lots of the women you talked to told you that they are enrolled at a university, studying for a career of their choosing alongside Christian and Jewish friends (or even Sunni) dressing as they please, arguing with their husbands when they disagree with them, etc.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2015)

Jay, that comment is a violation of the parole terms of your HUA conviction.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2015)

(Head Up Ass)


----------



## Madrigal (Aug 3, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> And i am sure that lots of the women you talked to told you that they are enrolled at a university, studying for a career of their choosing alongside Christian and Jewish friends (or even Sunni) dressing as they please, arguing with their husbands when they disagree with them, etc.



I didn't want to get into a debate, but your comment shows how little the general population knows about what life is in Iran.

There's a very very long way to go in terms of socials rights and equality but you'd be surprised of how much freedom people have in their own homes. The fact that I was traveling with my gf allowed us to meet a lot of women & couples. In the major cities, most of the women we met had a university degree, often a masters if not a PhD. They were working 6 days a week as architects, engineers, accountants and had very caring husbands that listened to their concerns. Is there equality at work or in every relationship? Of course not, the country is still being dragged by a government and a part of the population that are still very rooted in conservative religious values. However, there's a large part of the population that's ready to move forward and these people are much more educated, cultured and open minded than a lot of Americans.

There are Christians (mostly Armenians) and Jews in Iran. The Kurds are generally Sunni, they don't get along with their government but the people get along fine with each other. We've met sunni Kurd married to shia Persian. Of course there's racism, xenophobia, cultural clashes etc , but not necessarily more than in plenty of other countries that we don't judge as severely as Iran.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 3, 2015)

OK, then as far as women's education, thank you for correcting me, I did not know that was as common as you say it is now. Good to know. As for the rest, I am sure the Iranian people are as you describe them, except for the uber-religious ones, but they are indeed under a very repressive government and I am not as confident that it will change as you seem to be. I hope you are right.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 3, 2015)

Madrigal said:


> the only thing I can think of is the impact it will have on the lives of the friends I've made over there...



It's nice that you are concerned about your friends in Iran, but you better be concerned about your own friends and family in the country in which you live as well. The Ayatollah is not to be trusted. This is the same guy that has repeatedly made fun of and led chants of "Death To America", even while the deal was being hammered out. And yet King Obama sees nothing wrong with his deal. There are even secret side deals that Obama won't disclose to Congress or the American people. 



Madrigal said:


> a chance for the Iranian people and culture to finally be given an opportunity to flourish and open themselves up to the world.



Do you really think that it is the embargo that prevents the Iranian people from flourishing? It's that insane regime that is keeping them down.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

Goverments are always the worst representatives for thier
people.
I havent travelled much since the Halliburton invasion.
But even then I travelled for 8 years in a row and found
out just how useless politicians and corporate media are.

Also felt embarrassed that everyone speaks English.
Thrn realized our schools are day care centers.
Thankfully my parents demanded I learn Espanol.

You really live in a bubble unless you research places of
Interest or travel there.

On the other hand a nation that has a leader that speaks
to God and wears robes and towels says he is Supreme.....
I think I'll wait till more sensible people are on highway billboards
And buildings.

But by all means allow those beautiful Persian women
over here.
They can speak Farsi and no need for English.
I speak the univetsal language..... 

I send them a selfie of us since we are all cackling hens here


----------



## Madrigal (Aug 3, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> It's nice that you are concerned about your friends in Iran, but you better be concerned about your own friends and family in the country in which you live as well. The Ayatollah is not to be trusted. This is the same guy that has repeatedly made fun of and led chants of "Death To America", even while the deal was being hammered out. And yet King Obama sees nothing wrong with his deal. There are even secret side deals that Obama won't disclose to Congress or the American people.
> 
> Do you really think that it is the embargo that prevents the Iranian people from flourishing? It's that insane regime that is keeping them down.



We'll that's exactly what the media feeds us and that's quite unfortunate. I'm not saying it's not true but the Iranian gov and even the Ayatollah have way more important priorities than destroying America right now. What the media often omits to say is that the desire for control of the US was responsible for the 1979 islamic revolution and more recently for the rise of Al Qaeda and Daesh (isis). For once, the West has the possibility of opening up a communication channel that might do better good than USA's constantly backfiring interventionism. 

The deal doesn't make Iran more likely to get their hands on nuclear, it's the other way around. As others have mentioned, there was nothing really precluding Iran from getting nuclear weapons before, now they're being watched closely. Maybe this deal won't do anything, no one knows for now. But doing nothing and leaving Iran struggling surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons (Turkey, Pakistan, Russia and Israel) was not a great idea either.

You're right, the regime is keeping them down, but when a country slowly opens itself up you never know what can happen.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2015)

You may typify it as bellicose rhetoric, but "death to America" and "death to Israel" are pretty bellicose, and hawk that he is, Bibi most definitely sees Iran's state sponsored terrorism as an existential threat to Israel.

@Jon Fairhurst-we largely agree, but i don't think we typify the people Iran in a negative way- just their leadership. I would very much like the people of Iran to have a better chance of joining the international community.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 3, 2015)

NYC, I agree that it's largely the leadership that is portrayed negatively, but I think the stereotypes shown in the media can rub off on the population at large. Just ask any Middle-Eastern actor in the US what roles (terrorist) they are typically offered. While many of us can distinguish the leadership and the people, there are also far too many with the "just nuke 'em" mindset. I guess that's the US equivalent of the bellicose "Death to [fill in the blank]" rhetoric.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

Nobody is going to ever use Nuclear Weapons.
IMHO we have nations with said capability but does anyone actually believe 80,000 Nuclear Missiles will ever be launched.
Tactical Nukes are also a fantasy as they cannot control the Atoms as they multiply as we are led to believe.
Then what about those weak lame ass pictures of guys wearing WalMart faceshields pouring Steel into a bucket as guys in towels and robes watch...?
You'd be dead being around that kind of molten fissure material.

My family came from the Steel Mills and Structural Ironworkers (shovel ready guys) and when Pops would give me a tour Steelworkers back then they had better protection.

We can't do much about the liars that run our governments around the world.
They have their games I suppose.

But to see the Sheep tremble in fear of something that probably doesn't exist
just shows you more of the "Mass Weapons In Iraq" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep him period" as well as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

I fear there are more Sheep in the world than I ever imagined....


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2015)

Jimmy- the non sheep, anti-government types who agree with some of your closely held beleifs are arming themselves with huge arsenals of high powered weapons. Many have military training, and they're forming militias. I say bah.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> NYC, I agree that it's largely the leadership that is portrayed negatively, but I think the stereotypes shown in the media can rub off on the population at large. Just ask any Middle-Eastern actor in the US what roles (terrorist) they are typically offered. While many of us can distinguish the leadership and the people, there are also far too many with the "just nuke 'em" mindset. I guess that's the US equivalent of the bellicose "Death to [fill in the blank]" rhetoric.



Jon- if our supreme leader advocated a "death to Iran and Muslims" stanc, that would would worry me more than a low information populace.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2015)

Why do conservatives reflexively oppose everything Obama wants?

To me this is the height of stupidity. It's *so* simple: several countries negotiated a deal to get Iran not to produce nukes. Where are the two sides to the argument? Removing sanctions is going to stop them from supporting terrorism?!

Trump voters.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

They oppose Obama because that is how the 2 Crime Families operate.
You guys don't honestly think that information on Benghazzi cannot be attained, or an IRS/Union workers' emails cannot be found...?

To appease our adversaries and fellow Sheep, these phony ass hearings are held, and it takes months to get to the 2nd hearing where follow up questions are asked.
Nobody goes to jail, they get a full Pension years ahead of time, they all laugh afterwards as they toast each other "do you think they bought it"???

Yuze guys are missing out on the real action where Liberals and Conservative (arch enemies) become lobbyists and are so happy they no longer have to read those scripts and pretend they are outraged on CSPAN.

Hell just google Tom Delay, or Dodd or Frank working in the big Banks now as a "consultant" or old Mr. Anti China Union Man Dick Gebhardt. He is actually the lobbyist for the Chinese Government and military contracts.

Once you see these shows CSPAN becomes quite clear, and all of the fake outrage and anger, and hissy pissy fights are truly pathetic.
Especially watching robed spinach chinned guys standing around a 5 yard cement bucket with hot molten steel...OMG they actually think us poor working stiffs are that stupid...?

The reason Trump cannot be allowed to win is because he's been buying these Liberals and Conservatives for years.
He is going to do much more than show people a beggar from the Senate's phone number.

On Twitter he is hilarious.
Recently said "I want to wish all of my fellow Republicans good luck as they beg for money at Dana Point."
And it shows him and that hair in a little avatar.

I can't wait. This should be on pay per view.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 3, 2015)

Yes, yes, we're all sheep except Chim, who realizes there's nothing good in the world and both liberals and conservatives are on opposite sides of the same gold coin.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Jimmy- the non sheep, anti-government types who agree with some of your closely held beleifs are arming themselves with huge arsenals of high powered weapons. Many have military training, and they're forming militias. I say bah.



Larry those folks have had weapons for decades, even have their own spinach chinned supreme leaders.
Hell Liberal Muslims have incredible arms caches too, seems like Nostramdamus and the Bible was right. Earth will die.
I'm just relieved I send Faith healers money as I will rise up into the clouds during the Rapture...

Larry just think back if you are 50+ years of age, I am. I remember Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, missile drills in kindergarten as we were told big rockets were going to come and kill us all, so we (like the Sheep) were taught to cover our heads under those tiny desks as if some piece of shit wooden desk will save our life...?

I only believe what I see and hear, or is written in stone like the Epic of Gilgamesh.
All other books that were "edited" over the centuries are fun, the Gods of Greece, love that stuff.
But I have been lied to since birth.

After 5 decades of fear mongering and all of the other fake wars Liberals and Conservatives have started, I no longer allow them to cause a loss of sleep.
They are lying sons of bitches, as is the multinational corporate media, and all Governments around the world.

I have keyboards to play, children to raise, women to love.
I need nothing else.
At this point a swift death would be merciful...


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yes, yes, we're all sheep except Chim, who realizes there's nothing good in the world and both liberals and conservatives are on opposite sides of the same gold coin.



I glad you're coming around. Especially after the last 7 years of the real rulers getting exactly what they paid for.
Just think about it.
Donor....this means you give for a cause expecting nothing in return.
Investor.....This means you purchased favorable legislation.
In any other society this is an offense, people go to jail.
In this society this is business as usual as they who write the laws ensure their self enrichment..

Meanwhile Back At The Ranch......

Remember the last time B actors in DC couldn't fool the Sheep, they turned to the Hollywood Movie Stars.
Don't know who the one actor was as I am not up to date with who divorded who, or who screwed who's Nanny, etc.
But the guy who looks Hispanic was talking about how we will all die if this legislation isn't passed.

For Pete's Sake, do they think we forgot the last time wealthy Hollywood Liberals made us eat their shit and told us it was Caviar....??


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 3, 2015)

Jimmy-they have more guns. Way more guns. They're way better organized, and the amount of organizations has risen to astronomic proportions since....wait for it....2008.

I wonder why?

P.S.-women, keyboards etc are not all you have-you have some wicked fast computer stuff.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

Obviously Liberals made investments in arms manufacturers.
Just look at Solyndra.
Fake outrage on every news channel.........we must pass more gun laws.
Historical sales follow...ammunition sky rockets from DHS buying 2 billion USD worth of ammo.
Smart investment IMHO.
Sure glad they care about the little people......


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 3, 2015)

And yes the NVMe devices are sick.
Each device is like 4 x SSDs in a RAID 0 array.


----------



## H.R. (Aug 4, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> And i am sure that lots of the women you talked to told you that they are enrolled at a university, studying for a career of their choosing alongside Christian and Jewish friends (or even Sunni) dressing as they please, arguing with their husbands when they disagree with them, etc.



I live in Iran and that's not true.
I've just finished my studies in university and in our classes, most of the students were women, sometimes like 15 to 1 (the one is me  ) I never felt and seen any inequality between genders, If there is injustice we all face it, if it is freedom, we all enjoy it.

Honestly I've never seen a community more opened arms to different religions than our people (Completely opposite of our government) I'm an atheist and I have Muslim, Christian and Jewish friends and we all get along well. We respect each others' believes.

And seriously, you have no idea how respectful, husbands are towards their wives.

I'm not very much happy with our government and its injustice and lack of pure freedom, but I really respect our people and love them and I believe this is one of the reasons that we never turn against each other and kept this nation together.



Madrigal said:


> I didn't want to get into a debate, but your comment shows how little the general population knows about what life is in Iran.
> 
> There's a very very long way to go in terms of socials rights and equality but you'd be surprised of how much freedom people have in their own homes. The fact that I was traveling with my gf allowed us to meet a lot of women & couples. In the major cities, most of the women we met had a university degree, often a masters if not a PhD. They were working 6 days a week as architects, engineers, accountants and had very caring husbands that listened to their concerns. Is there equality at work or in every relationship? Of course not, the country is still being dragged by a government and a part of the population that are still very rooted in conservative religious values. However, there's a large part of the population that's ready to move forward and these people are much more educated, cultured and open minded than a lot of Americans.
> 
> There are Christians (mostly Armenians) and Jews in Iran. The Kurds are generally Sunni, they don't get along with their government but the people get along fine with each other. We've met sunni Kurd married to shia Persian. Of course there's racism, xenophobia, cultural clashes etc , but not necessarily more than in plenty of other countries that we don't judge as severely as Iran.



Very great to see you had a good time in Iran. Next time you come, give me a heads up, maybe we can jam together.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 4, 2015)

15 to 1 ratio of women to men....
As Charlton Heston said in Exodus "Let My People Go."


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 4, 2015)

How can anyone be okay with this:

From http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-banned-from-knowing-details-of-iran-nuke-agreement/
_
"Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the nuclear inspection organization is barred from revealing to the United States any details of deals it has inked with Tehran to inspect its contested nuclear program going forward, according to regional reports.

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a *series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review* _by the United States"


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 4, 2015)

H.R. said:


> I live in Iran and that's not true.
> I've just finished my studies in university and in our classes, most of the students were women, sometimes like 15 to 1 (the one is me  ) I never felt and seen any inequality between genders, If there is injustice we all face it, if it is freedom, we all enjoy it.
> 
> Honestly I've never seen a community more opened arms to different religions than our people (Completely opposite of our government) I'm an atheist and I have Muslim, Christian and Jewish friends and we all get along well. We respect each others' believes.
> ...




HR, I have _always_ assumed that a fair number of Iranians, especially younger ones, were not as driven by rigid interpretations of Islam as their government, but still when I see the "death to America" chanters I see lots of young people there and when I see a female newscasters, she always has to wear a head covering. And let me be clear: any requirement that applies to "women only" is an "inequality between genders."

Do you think it is realistic to think that in perhaps 20 years Iran will be governed less by theocrats?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2015)

Michael Bain, I vomit at the mention of Rich Lowry's toilet site.

Sorry I even had to post his name to make the point. He's a POS who makes a living by catering to the Asshole-American community, of which he's a card-carrying member.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 4, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Michael Bain, I vomit at the mention of Rich Lowry's toilet site.
> 
> Sorry I even had to post his name to make the point. He's a POS who makes a living by catering to the Asshole-American community, of which he's a card-carrying member.


Put aside your hatred of the site. They are not the only ones reporting this. Are you saying it's not true? Are you saying there are no secret side deals? John Kerry admitted it in a hearing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/secret-part-of-the-iran-agreement-2015-7
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/28/kerry-denies-seeing-iran-nuclear-deals-side-agreements


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2015)

I can't put aside my hatred of that site, and I'm getting increasingly pissed off at all the people who say they're opposed to a multi-nation nuclear arms treaty. The reasons now seem even stupider than they did at first.

"Bad deal, bla bla bla."

I'm sick of Republicans. All they want to do is ruin the world.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 4, 2015)

It isn't _just_ Republicans who have some doubts. Chuck Schumer is not a Republican or a Conservative. My representative, Brad Sherman, is not a Republican. Bill Nelson is not a Republican. Kathleen Rice is not a Republican. Representatives Grace Meng, Juan Vargas, and Albio Sires are not Republicans.


----------



## Madrigal (Aug 4, 2015)

H.R. said:


> I live in Iran and that's not true.
> I've just finished my studies in university and in our classes, most of the students were women, sometimes like 15 to 1 (the one is me  ) I never felt and seen any inequality between genders, If there is injustice we all face it, if it is freedom, we all enjoy it.
> 
> Honestly I've never seen a community more opened arms to different religions than our people (Completely opposite of our government) I'm an atheist and I have Muslim, Christian and Jewish friends and we all get along well. We respect each others' believes.
> ...



Hatman, will do! I'd go back soon if it wasn't for the visa hassle.

Az Iran kheyli khosham miyad baraye in ke Irani kheyli lotf kardan! To ye baharestan santur kharidam, musig e Meshkatian kheyli doust daram. Bebakhshin, Farsi yaad migiram ama khoub ballad nistam  

I really wish the best for you and your country, hopefully the embargo lift will be a step in the right direction.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 4, 2015)

Jay, then they're all honorary assholes.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2015)

The reason they are holding back is they found out the Supreme leader gave Hillary 5 million USD.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 5, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I can't put aside my hatred of that site, and I'm getting increasingly pissed off at all the people who say they're opposed to a multi-nation nuclear arms treaty. The reasons now seem even stupider than they did at first.
> 
> "Bad deal, bla bla bla."
> 
> I'm sick of Republicans. All they want to do is ruin the world.



The good news is you get an A+ In Theatrics 401!

The bad news is you get an F in Substantive Discourse 101.

Again I ask; are you saying there are no secret side deals? John Kerry admitted it in a hearing. Are you okay with secret side deals with the #1 state sponsor of terrorism?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 5, 2015)

Folks just don't get it still.........

The IAE "Secret" Deals are a way out for the bad cops.
You see here at home in the dividing of Sheep into various flocks, the illusion of a 2 party system must be upheld at all costs.
Now that folks are catching on to these scams the Liberals and Conservatives had to drag in an outside player.

When Trillions of dollars disappear into an economy during a period where the Senate has no "budget" which is by law, illegal in itself, it should be obvious to even the poor indoctrinated souls, these guys are on the same team.
Even the Supreme leader plays along by offering to sponsor "peace" talks between the good cops and bad cops in Congress.

We'll need more than a bunch of guys in sheets watching molten steel poured into buckets, and snapshots of a row of hot water heaters to convince anyone that these guys have Nuclear capabilities.

Let's see the video they have of their supposed "NORAD" style underground facility.
All I've seen are clips of guys in some residential basement.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 5, 2015)

Chim, love ya, babe, but the constant barrage of "there are all bought and paid for and conspiring" posts is really getting tiresome. We are all aware of how you see this by now.

Just saying


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2015)

Michael, I'm out of energy for substantive discourse, simply because there's no substance behind your side of the discourse. And you're mistaking frustration with reckless idiots for theatrics.

The context is these bastard asshole POS sending a letter to the Ayatollah undermining the treaty in advance. Then they invited that C U Next Tuesday Netanyahu to speak and undermine Obama. They care *nothing* about our country or the people they work for; they just want to be in power, and if they can score points by opposing anything good they do - repeatedly.

Theatrics? More like appropriate outrage.

I don't give a flying hoot about side deals or anything else right wing perverts (joined by knee-jerk pro-Israel perverts) go on about. The basic arguments for not scuttling a hard-won nuclear proliferation deal are so obvious that only Jay or a total douchebrain could pretend there are two reasonable sides. And even he's faltering.

Did you hear Obama's speech?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 5, 2015)

Still didn't address my point about the prominent Democrats who are still unsure about this. I know ,all tools of the Israeli lobby, right?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2015)

I did address it. They're all assholes. You always argue to authority, and it doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2015)

And yes, I wouldn't want to rule out "the Israeli lobby" - especially Charles Schumer, the Senator from Wall Street.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 5, 2015)

What a well reasoned, nuanced response. 

Believe it or not folks, buried under the purple rhetoric, there is actually a serviceable if unspectacular intellect in this guy, too bad he is choosing not to use it


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2015)

That's all you got?!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 5, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> That's all you got?!




What, I should answer with some over-heated, insulting vitriol scatter shot at anyone who reaches a different conclusion than me, like you do?

I don't think so.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2015)

When it's appropriate, Mr. False Equivalence, absolutely.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 5, 2015)

And that is where we differ sir. I think that behavior is almost never necessary where you sprinkle it like mustard on a hot dog


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 5, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Did you hear Obama's speech?



I don't need to hear his speech. 

These are the only things I need to know to be against the Iranian deal.

(1) The fore-mentioned secret deals. Not even Kerry has seen them. Why anyone would accept a deal in which they don't even know all the terms is beyond me.
(2) America has no part in the inspections.
(3) The Ayatollah continues to chant "Death To America" while the deal talks are going on.
(4) Iran's government has shown they are bat-shit insane and can't be trusted.
(5) Obama didn't even attempt to get the 4 hostages released as part of the deal.

Obama is selling the US down the river and your hatred of the right has blinded you to it.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 5, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> What, I should answer with some over-heated, insulting vitriol scatter shot at anyone who reaches a different conclusion than me, like you do?


And while you're at it, don't forget to make no point whatsoever.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 5, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> I don't need to hear his speech.
> 
> These are the only things I need to know to be against the Iranian deal.
> 
> ...



Michael- do you think Iran's leadership is literally suicidal? If they drop a nuclear bomb on Israel or in the U.S., we would most certainly turn Iran into a post-nuclear parking lot. We have lots more and bigger bombs. LOTS more. Not to mention the fact that Israel will never go quietly.

Also, how does NOT doing this deal get us any closer to keeping them from getting a bomb?


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 5, 2015)

Obama is selling the U.S. down the river? Someone has been reading the National Review and watching Fox News. Someone needs to read the New York Times. Every day, cover to cover.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 5, 2015)

Actually it's your hatred of Obama that causes you to say he's selling the US down the river. My hatred of the right isn't blind at all, I have my eyes wide open.

Anyway:

1. The secret deals...what does that really mean? Anti-Israel bombs delivered by UPS? Sexual favors?
2. Who the frick cares.
3. And he'll continue to chant that either way.
4. That's why we have inspections, and by the way maybe this will start to reintroduce them to the civilized world. Keeping them isolated isn't going to help.
5. You and I weren't there negotiating with them. We don't know what was possible and what wasn't.

But it's the arguments against disapproving this deal that are the strongest. Sanctions won't hold, Iran goes full-bore developing their bomb, most likely war (Israel will bomb them), suffering Iranian people, propaganda victory for the Ayatollah, we break from the UN Security Council members...not good at all.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 6, 2015)

QUOTE="Nick Batzdorf, post: 3887409, member: 40"]Actually it's your hatred of Obama that causes you to say he's selling the US down the river. My hatred of the right isn't blind at all, I have my eyes wide open.

Anyway:

1. The secret deals...what does that really mean? Anti-Israel bombs delivered by UPS? Sexual favors?
2. Who the frick cares.[/QUOTE]
We don't know what it means. It's "secret". And that's why it's so dangerous. Would you buy a car without knowing the terms? It's even more foolish to enter into a nuclear agreement without knowing the terms. Good grief, Nick, wake up.





Nick Batzdorf said:


> 3. And he'll continue to chant that either way.



Because he hates America. And if he obtains the power, he will make it happen.
It's foolish to give concessions to someone who openly boasts that his regime will destroy you.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> 4. That's why we have inspections,



"We", as in the USA, don't get to take part in these inspections. That's part of this insane deal.




Nick Batzdorf said:


> You and I weren't there negotiating with them. We don't know what was possible and what wasn't.



We know he didn't even make it part of the deal. He didn't even try. He didn't even mention the 4 hostages.

But no, he'll illegally trade 5 terrorist masterminds for one deserter.





Nick Batzdorf said:


> Sanctions won't hold. Iran goes full-bore developing their bomb, most likely war (Israel will bomb them), suffering Iranian people, propaganda victory for the Ayatollah, we break from the UN Security Council members...not good at all.



Sanctions will hold...if they are enforced. And the US can enforce them. And as far as Israel bombing them, Israel is much more likely to bomb them if the deal does go through. They are against this deal. They know how dangerous it is.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

Those are Fox News talking points, almost verbatim. If you're listening to right wing propaganda, things are going to seem dire, always. That is what they do, scare the living crap out of


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2015)

Jay, Michael's last post is a perfect example of what makes me not suffer fools gladly. There are legitimate opinions worth considering even if they're different from mine, and then there's just total inanity.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 6, 2015)

Yes, the NYTimes was only kidding when they said WMDs Are In Iraq. Gosh they're anti right so they must be left...?
You can't blame them, when a President or corporation like Haliburton tells them what to do, they ask how much, then accept the deal and steer their Sheep to the proper pastures using phony polls..

We are just a bunch of names on a forum, we don't know jack shit.
Obama knows more than anyone since he made the deal.
I trust the man even though he lies about everything, when it comes to American involvement in the Middle East his strategy has bad guys killing each other and doing it over there. Fine by me.

I actually will be glad Obama used Executive action for everything as he is setting up the next guy in the Oval Office to just cast these 550+ representatives aside.
This is what we should be thankful for.

With any luck Sanders or Trump will win and either one means Americans here at home will have a better life.
Somebody attacks us, I am sure the military now having a coiled snake position will be rather effective since we are not spread around the globe working for Chinese mining rights, Afghan voters rights or Haliburton.

For example if Trump won is there any doubt him and the Israeli's wouldn't start removing targets everyday, a couple here a couple there. human shields are now set up around the targets to deter missile and SForces strikes, not a problem for a guy who isn't worried about re election or likability...

I think the future is bright with this deal, for Iranian people, and everybody else that wants money spent here at home instead of another MultiNational Corporation that buys newspapers and politicians....

Imagine a pipeline of fresh water able to serve any area in the nation during a drought...
In Tokyo they save and store flood water underground.
I see trillions of gallons flow by everyday as I cross the Missouri, Mississippi and Ohio in my quest to entertain drunks...
Decisions balls and brains....which means executive action thanks to Obama we will get it too....


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 6, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Those are Fox News talking points, almost verbatim. If you're listening to right wing propaganda, things are going to seem dire, always. That is what they do, scare the living crap out of


What points are untrue?
Did Obama even try to obtain the release of the hostages. No.
Are there secret deals? Yes.
I would never agree to anything for which I don't know all the terms, especially something as important as a nuclear deal with the Iranian Regime. If you would, then I don't know what to say except "That's crazy".
I've told you before - or someone - I don't even have Fox News. I make up my own mind. The fact is


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 6, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Jay, Michael's last post is a perfect example of what makes me not suffer fools gladly. There are legitimate opinions worth considering even if they're different from mine, and then there's just total inanity.


You say these things but provide no basis. What did I say about the deal that's untrue, Nick? None of it!
If you would agree to a nuclear deal with Iran without knowing all the terms, you are foolish, just like your King Obama wants you to be.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

Michael, nothing you say makes any sense — if you don't watch Fox News, then I'd love to know where you get your news, because your argument is the same as the one their propagandists are pushing. Delicate negotiations like this are always at least in part kept secret. The idea that Obama has wrested power and acts like a king is a paranoid, uninformed rant of the insane far right. No one who reads a real newspaper every day or watches the PBS evening news thinks that is true. The Sean Hannitys and Roger Ailes of the world will do anything, create complete fabrications, in order to further their corporate agenda. The members of the public who fall for it hook line and sinker, which you apparently do, are their willing suckers. These are the same people who impeached Bill Clinton for a blow job. They hate Obama because he is black. When a black man was elected the right wing lost what little was left of its mind, and has been creating fiction after fiction ever since to convince themselves that it's his fault that they hate him. When the real reason is racist hatred. It's abhorrent and disgusting.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

Frankly, "King Obama" loses me as it enters the name calling, far right news talking points land. There are also liberals who like to use derogatory name calling as a device to vent their anger. They lose me as well.

Michael, from every reasonable report I've read (I could post numerous links if you like) the will to keep international sanctions is crumbling. That and the idea that no deal is better than a bad deal that provides some monitoring in an attempt to slow Iran's nuclear ambitions are the major flaws in your argument.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2015)

Anyone who can read this crap without getting angry has numb nuts. Or breasts if you're a woman.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

Great locker room stuff. Intemperance is so valuable in forum discussions.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2015)

Intemperance? I haven't been drinking.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

"a propensity for extremes in one's actions, beliefs, or habits "there's awearisome _intemperance_ in his verbal attacks against any and all who dare to disagree with him"

But to your point- maybe a dry drunk?


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 6, 2015)

Yeah, according to the right wing, Obama acts like a king and a dictator. He's a super-Hitler power monger who will swoop down from the sky with his confiscating gun magnet.

Except, of course, on the days when they tar him as weak. On those days he's a wimpy, ineffective, sub-Neville Chamberlain without a spine.

Doesn't he know that he's supposed to be a belligerent, chest pounding ass with everybody else, but who will bend over and grab his ankles when the Koch brothers waltz into the room? He apparently has his bully/wimp act backwards.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> Yeah, according to the right wing, Obama acts like a king and a dictator. He's a super-Hitler power monger who will swoop down from the sky with his confiscating gun magnet.
> 
> Except, of course, on the days when they tar him as weak. On those days he's a wimpy, ineffective, sub-Neville Chamberlain without a spine.
> 
> Doesn't he know that he's supposed to be a belligerent, chest pounding ass with everybody else, but who will bend over and grab his ankles when the Koch brothers waltz into the room? He apparently has his bully/wimp act backwards.



It's a rhetorical weapon in the blood sport of politics. Dog whistle stuff.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 6, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Frankly, "King Obama" loses me as it enters the name calling, far right news talking points land. There are also liberals who like to use derogatory name calling as a device to vent their anger. They lose me as well.



+1.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 6, 2015)

+1. We hate those Birkenstock-wearing, tree-shagging libtards who are lazy and run away as soon as they're confronted by FACTS.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

Interesting. An example of this might be...?

Frankly, "King Obama" loses me as it enters the name calling, far right news talking points land. There are also liberals who like to use derogatory name calling as a device to vent their anger. They lose me as well.


EastWest Lurker said:


> +1.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

Does "bastard asshole POS" count?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 6, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Frankly, "King Obama" loses me as it enters the name calling, far right news talking points land. There are also liberals who like to use derogatory name calling as a device to vent their anger. They lose me as well.



It's not just derogatory name calling. Obama sees himself as King. It's obvious from the way he constantly flips the bird at law and order. He does what he wants to, regardless of law, and he just doesn't care. 

To an extent, I knew he would be this way from the first month he was in office. He campaigned on bringing bi-partisanship to the WH, but in that first month, he told the Republican Congress to sit down in the back and that "we're (the dems) taking names".

You have no room for talking about name-calling. You have a history of being uncivil to me.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

Excuse me?? When and where is my history of being uncivil to you??


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

It's really spectacular how someone can see the world through such a twisted lens. Obama bent over backwards to try and create consensus and the republicans, driven by entirely debunked fundamentalist ideologies (see trickle down theory, voodoo economics, states rights used as an argument for rolli back the clock on civil rights, voting rights, et al) and racist hatred, fought him at every turn. The way they were able to keep their political footing with their base, the uninformed, fear-fed far right, was to paint Obama as a power monger. Saying it doesn't hold water doesn't do justice to the degree of Orwellian newspeak and lies that are necessary to hold such a fantastical narrative together. 

I have plenty of discussions with Republicans of varying stripes, but I have never met any well informed people who feel that way about Obama. Ever. Only someone who drinks the Fox News Kool aid can suffer from such a delusion. I know I'm wasting my time here...




Michael K. Bain said:


> It's not just derogatory name calling. Obama sees himself as King. It's obvious from the way he constantly flips the bird at law and order. He does what he wants to, regardless of law, and he just doesn't care.
> 
> To an extent, I knew he would be this way from the first month he was in office. He campaigned on bringing bi-partisanship to the WH, but in that first month, he told the Republican Congress to sit down in the back and that "we're (the dems) taking names".
> 
> You have no room for talking about name-calling. You have a history of being uncivil to me.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

Who's talking about name calling? Calling Obama a King isn't name calling, it's falling for a trumped up narrative created by propagandists. 



Michael K. Bain said:


> It's not just derogatory name calling. Obama sees himself as King. It's obvious from the way he constantly flips the bird at law and order. He does what he wants to, regardless of law, and he just doesn't care.
> 
> To an extent, I knew he would be this way from the first month he was in office. He campaigned on bringing bi-partisanship to the WH, but in that first month, he told the Republican Congress to sit down in the back and that "we're (the dems) taking names".
> 
> You have no room for talking about name-calling. You have a history of being uncivil to me.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

P.S. Name calling doesn't get a hyphen. Just for future reference.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

Now that's name calling! Unless that person was talking about Dick Cheney or Geroge W Bush, in which case it's enitrely accurate, though flowery, language.



NYC Composer said:


> Does "bastard asshole POS" count?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 6, 2015)

So if you met George W. Bush in person, you'd call him that?

God, I so love the InterWeb.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 6, 2015)

Um, what's your point there? If it's an argument, it conflates several different thoughts into one pointless question, punctuated with a decade old jibe-looking object. Not easy to do. Well done! Is your point that I'm a coward because I wouldn't say that to his face? I thought you were on another schoolmarmish jag about name calling? 

George W Bush was the worst thing to happen to this country since, well, since Ronald Reagan, if only because he was weak and stupid enough to serve as front man for Dick Cheney to wage a nightmarish, completely unecessary, distrastrous war. In light of all that, the string of epithets in question seems at most not nearly strong enough for the job. I would add war criminal at minimum.




NYC Composer said:


> So if you met George W. Bush in person, you'd call him that?
> 
> God, I so love the InterWeb.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 7, 2015)

Eh, screw it.

Meanwhile, back on topic (remember, there was one?) I wonder if this damn thing will pass. Epic struggle coming up on the Hill. Thundering from various pulpits, grandstanding for political position. American politics-the greatest show on earth. Too bad it tends to be for all the marbles.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 7, 2015)

The multi national corporations and banks live for business and debt.
I believe they already won.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 7, 2015)

We'll see, won't we. I just emailed my Senator to ask him to change his mind. I don't think I donated enough. Zero isn't enough, is it?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 7, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Excuse me?? When and where is my history of being uncivil to you??


You are right. I owe you a HUGE apology. You have been VERY civil to me. I thought I was replying to Soundhound. I thought he had written that bit about name-calling. I am very sorry.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 7, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> It's really spectacular how someone can see the world through such a twisted lens. Obama bent over backwards to try and create consensus


I feel like I'm in a comic book, one with alternate earths. You know, he one in which the Joker is the good guy and Batman is a vampire.



Soundhound said:


> I have plenty of discussions with Republicans of varying stripes, but I have never met any well informed people who feel that way about Obama. Ever.



Then you've been talking to Lindsey Graham supporters. You've not been talking to Conservatives.



Soundhound said:


> Only someone who drinks the Fox News Kool aid can suffer from such a delusion. I know I'm wasting my time here...



You are wasting your time with me, that's right. I prefer to have discussions with people who are at least somewhat based in reality. You are blindly devoted to Obama.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 7, 2015)

Exactly how I feel. Modern conservatives don't rate a capital c. William F Buckley might have, but only because he was articulate and hilarious. The people you listen to and read aren't conservatives, they are fundamentalists, which is the enemy of intelligent thought. 



Michael K. Bain said:


> I feel like I'm in a comic book, one with alternate earths. You know, he one in which the Joker is the good guy and Batman is a vampire.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 7, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> You are right. I owe you a HUGE apology. You have been VERY civil to me. I thought I was replying to Soundhound. I thought he had written that bit about name-calling. I am very sorry.



Thank you Michael. Now we can get back to debating. 

So, "King Obama" really does sound like a Fox/talk radio moniker, for the precise reason that so many conservatives use it. Y'all couldn't have thought it up individually, right, like, 25 million people woke up one day and thought "why, Obama's acting like an imperious King! I'm gonna call him KING Obama from now on!" It's got a soundbite feel to it.

As to "reaching across the aisle", it's hard to do when a Mitch McConnell states at the beginning of his tenure that his primary goal was to defeat every one of Obama's initiatives no matter what they were. Still, I agree with you to an extent- I don't think finding consensus is Obama's strength, nor is he gregarious as, say, a Bill Clinton was, so it doesn't come naturally to him.

Re executive decisions- this has been re-hashed endlessly. He's still (I believe) behind both Reagan and Bush in his number of them. Criticism of him on that issue simply seems to be partisan grumbling.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 7, 2015)

The nerve of King Obama for trying to combat climate change by setting emissions standards for power plants to 33% below their 2005 level!

And what an outrage, allocating law enforcement resources to undocumented immigrants who commit crimes rather than breaking up families.

This guy clearly hates America.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 7, 2015)

Terrible how he is treated.
I maintain he is by far the best black President we ever had.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 7, 2015)

He'll go down as the best President we've had since Roosevelt. Johnson should get more for the important progressive legislation he was able to negotiate, but Vietnam screwed his legacy. He knew it too.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 7, 2015)

Classy. And persuasive!



NYC Composer said:


> Eh, screw it.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 7, 2015)

Regarding "King Obama", I think I know where that name came from.

Years ago in CART auto racing, Emerson Fittipaldi was among the fastest drivers. Hiro Matsushita was one of the slowest and would get lapped, often slowing down the fast guys.

Hiro got the nickname "King Hero" because every time Fittipaldi would lap him, that's what Fittipaldi would say over the radio to the pits.

Then the team realized that Emerson had a habit of keying his mic "on" a half second too late. He had been clipping off the first syllable...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2015)

Well I have been on the fence on this but after reading the p.o.v.s of Chuck Schumer and Brad Sherman, I think I am not in favor of it, not that they are asking my opinion.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 7, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> Classy. And persuasive!



Well, you're half right. It's classy.

I wrote you a three paragraph response countering what you had to say, posted it, then deleted it. So, not persuasive, but yeah, classy.

Gosh, I wouldn't want you to stifle yourself, however. Please feel free to add more epithets and descriptive phrases about me here on the Internet. They rock my world for about ten minutes.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 7, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Well I have been on the fence on this but after reading the p.o.v.s of Chuck Schumer and Brad Sherman, I think I am not in favor of it, not that they are asking my opinion.



I read Chuck's press release...I found it unpersuasive. Which part moved you?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 7, 2015)

I like the part where Schumer's staffer (real author of the press release) wrote how well the President has done containing Iran..... 
Guess he was hired on after the fall of Yemen.

Not only unconvincing but sounds like it was written a month or so ago.
He wants to make the deals and cash like Harry made for so long.
Probably saw his Chinese billionaire friends homes and Solar Arrays in Nevada and wants some buddies like that.

The only good thing about this deal is the people of Iran saw the western nations with cooler heads so maybe the lies their leaders tell aren't being bought.
This way our people in the USA and Iran have something in common.
We all know our leaders are liars.

Would love to sit down with some Iranian guys my age that play music and soccer.
We could kick around balls with beards glued on them, and break out some with Holder/Sharptons faces too. Have a blast and laugh at these jergovs...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2015)

So tiresome.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 7, 2015)

The classy was irony. See, irony is when... to take a page from your debating manual: ...oh never mind.  If you're not sure the logic was holding up in your three paragraphs, IM it, I won't tell anybody. 



NYC Composer said:


> Well, you're half right. It's classy.
> 
> I wrote you a three paragraph response countering what you had to say, posted it, then deleted it. So, not persuasive, but yeah, classy.
> 
> Gosh, I wouldn't want you to stifle yourself, however. Please feel free to add more epithets and descriptive phrases about me here on the Internet. They rock my world for about ten minutes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 7, 2015)

I hate it when politicians vote against the interest of our country just because they want the Jewish vote, or because they think they have to vote as Jews instead of being rational.

This is an incorrect vote. Sorry, it's just not the right position.

Brad Sherman isn't my kinda guy anyway. He didn't have to unseat Howard Berman, a very competent Congressman and a stand-up guy. I've seen both of them speak locally at nearby schools, and Sherman just has a sleazy aroma. It's not worth going into details, but I didn't trust him.

Schumer...well, he really has earned the "Senator from Wall St." title. His stuff about how Obama shouldn't have focused on the ACA pissed me off.

They're both Democrats, so it's not like they're awful, but I wouldn't like to have to vote for either one.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 7, 2015)

Ice


Soundhound said:


> The classy was irony. See, irony is when... to take a page from your debating manual: ...oh never mind.  If you're not sure the logic was holding up in your three paragraphs, IM it, I won't tell anybody.




Life under the dark umbrella of your disregard is painful, but I'll find a way to go on. I must.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 7, 2015)

The 'I imagine myself to be an adult' reading of 'I know you are but what am I'. Back to your Solomon-like (Solomonial?) discourse, good sir knight, I'll not darken your beacon of truth and beauty any further.




NYC Composer said:


> Ice
> 
> Life under the dark umbrella of your disregard is painful, but I'll find a way to go on. I must.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2015)

Soundhound said:


> The 'I imagine myself to be an adult' reading of 'I know you are but what am I'. Back to your Solomon-like (Solomonial?) discourse, good sir knight, I'll not darken your beacon of truth and beauty any further.



Mere words cannot express my deep relief.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2015)

Anyway....Chuck has responded to me. Sadly, due to his volume of mail, he's unable to answer each one immediately, but he'll get back to me as time permits. There's a bit of time left before the vote...my wife has already called his office. Do they still do telegrams in the modern era?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm sure one of his investors kids will answer a letter with a fake signature.
Years ago our representatives were accountable to the tax payers. Its us who pay thier salaries as well the salaries of the public Unions they take membership dues from to bribe a wider range of lawyers/politicians.

So it's understandable when they ignore thier constituents. Investors have thier Cell Phone.

Great that you still try though Larry.....


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 8, 2015)

The cross you bear is for the good of the many. Schoolmarms throughout the land take note. 



NYC Composer said:


> Mere words cannot express my deep relief.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2015)

Hey, schoolmarms need lurve too!


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Hey, schoolmarms need lurve too!



(Oh and- we don't bear crosses- those are those other dudes.)


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 8, 2015)

Oh, but they do they do! They remember posts from months ago, simmering, festering under their tight victorian collars by all accounts. Keeping the halls free of dust mites, cigarette butts, truants and the unwashed must be thirsty work. But we do lurve our schoolmarms of course. If not for them, we can but rail against the darkness. 



NYC Composer said:


> (Oh and- we don't bear crosses- those are those other dudes.)


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2015)

Trust me on this- Jewish schoolmarms don't bear any crosses- nor wear 'em! 

Wait- aren't you darkening my beacon again or whatever? Why don't you pm me your future clever jibes so I can REALLY take them to heart.


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 8, 2015)

Ah I thought an armistice had been reached. My mistake.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 8, 2015)

I'm a man of peace. Anytime you like, we can call in the League of, er, the U.N...

(it's not easy being a centenarian)


----------



## Soundhound (Aug 9, 2015)

U. N., New World Order, anything that'll give the right wing hives, I'm in. Humbly accepted and appreciated!


----------



## vinny (Aug 9, 2015)

Lets not forget that the superpower of arms was the ONLY country to use it on innocent people in August 6-9 1945.

 

Winners(?) are never accountable for their actions....Only the losers!


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 9, 2015)

vinny said:


> Lets not forget that the superpower of arms was the ONLY country to use it on innocent people in August 6-9 1945.
> 
> 
> 
> Winners(?) are never accountable for their actions....Only the losers!



The use of atomic bomb was horrible, as is all war.

Most historians estimate that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved hundreds of thousands or even millions of American and Japanese lives, because if the Americans had invaded Japan (the only other alternative), Japanese were going to fight until every Japanese was dead.

It could have stopped with Hiroshima. But the Japanese Prime Minister refused to surrender.

A good article from the Atlantic includes this quote:
_
"About a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."

"Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you."

"What would have happened then?" we asked.

He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender."_

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-operation-downfall/ (Here's a good article about the decision making process)


----------



## vinny (Aug 9, 2015)

Thats nice, but would you sacrifice your child for the sake of millions...If not then shut the F up


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 9, 2015)

vinny said:


> Thats nice, but would you sacrifice your child for the sake of millions...If not then shut the F up


Man, that was really rude. And for what purpose? I have no idea what you mean.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2015)

vinny said:


> Thats nice, but would you sacrifice your child for the sake of millions...If not then shut the F up



I wrote a similar line in a song about Iraq-

"If you go into a country and kill somebody's baby
And you think you liberated them, you must be crazy"

So I know where you're coming from.

On the other hand, war is a horrible business filled with disgusting and complex moral choices. You're right, we should mark the day with sorrow, but feel lucky that you'll never called upon to decide the fate of millions, never being able to tell in advance how many will die.

No one needs to shut the fck up. The situation this thread is supposed to be about is a difficult and fraught moral choice. No one knows the outcome of any of it.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 9, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> I wrote a similar line in a song about Iraq-
> 
> "If you go into a country and kill somebody's baby
> And you think you liberated them, you must be crazy"




Sloppy lyric writing with that "bastard rhyme" Larry  Hal, David told me that was one of his pet peeves.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2015)

It's really not a difficult moral choice (the Iran deal).

Did you see what Obama said today on Fareed Zacharia? It's hard to imagine a rational person watching that interview and continuing to believe there are two equal sides to this. Yeah it's not a perfect deal, but so what!

You have to feel bad for the man. He's way too bright for most people, obviously including some people in this thread. You could see him struggling to keep it simple, not explaining it in too much detail. But he did a great job.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2015)

By the way, I read Chuck Schumer on why he's opposing the deal. He sounds like he's really given it a lot of thought and he's being totally reasonable.

But if you read his arguments, they're just ridiculous! They totally belie his calm, collected tone.

Yes, it's the Jewish vote and the Israeli lobby - who are going to spend $40 million running propaganda ads.

It's a mockery of democracy.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 9, 2015)

Also, Obama brought up an important point: Iran has held to the interim agreement they signed!

There's a very good reason I call dickheads dickheads: they're dickheads.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Sloppy lyric writing with that "bastard rhyme" Larry  Hal, David told me that was one of his pet peeves.



True enough. Didn't say it was one of my best, but it was illustrative of my point of view on the topic, as I'm sure your reply was 

Oh, btw, did you and Hal, David pal around a lot back in the glory days?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 9, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> True enough. Didn't say it was one of my best, but it was illustrative of my point of view on the topic, as I'm sure your reply was
> 
> Oh, btw, did you and Hal, David pal around a lot back in the glory days?



No but I was friends with his son Jim, who ran his publishing, so I met him.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2015)

Israel believes the leadership of Iran to be an existential threat. Iran's leadership SAYS it's an existential threat to Israel. They fund Hezbollah among many other terror initiatives and do a lot of "death to Israel" speeches.

When I visited Israel in the 70's it was startling to see how small it was and how close to its neighbors- the proximity of the Golan Heights to Syria, across the Gulf of Aquaba to Jordan, Egypt, the proximity to Saudi Arabia. Traveling across it, I definitely got the idea- tiny place totally surrounded.

I deplore some of Israel's policies, but I don't live there and experience a feeling of being existentially threatened every day, so I'm not quick to dictate, nor are the Israeli people particularly interested in my opinion. We are not so far removed in time from the Holocaust. The struggle for Israel's existence continues and anti- Semitism is on the rise in Europe. Again. The Israelis aren't going to pack up and move to Canada. I hope for a two state solution in my lifetime, but I'm weary from waiting. The tribalism and fierceness of the hatred from all parties seems never ending.

I do believe this is a difficult choice for the U.S. in the face of a great deal of contempt from Iran's leaders towards us, and I DO come down on the side of doing it, but as to being totally assured about the rectitude of the decision, hardly. Time will tell, if we get there.

Neville Chamberlain was a hero in my book until he was proven wrong. At that point, he became a guy with the right instincts but just dead solid wrong. Funny how things can turn on a dime.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 9, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> No but I was friends with his son Jim, who ran his publishing, so I met him.



Cool. Maybe one day we could have a namedropping fest! I'll bring the marshmallows.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 10, 2015)

The best parts about these negotiations often overlooked are the alliances created that have now relieved the US from its tradional role of middle east policing.
Israel Jordan Turkey and Saudi Arabia have each launched strikes against various Iranian targets.
Each is an act of war in any other era prior to recent events.
We even forget how we are flying in and out of Syria unopposed.
I could care less if people want to concentrate on some agreement but relieved that the gloves are off now and we get to sit back and provide intel instead of our soldiers.
Israel killed one of the most capable Iranian generals in Lebanon. As soon as he crossed over from Syria.
I believe Iran is experiencing thier own Vietnam where they cant advance or retreat.
They have also committed to fighting ISIS.
Obama has achieved incredible results by leaving Iraq.
He has diminished AIPACs power at home.
They can now help Israel or Jordan fight instead of purchasing our troops.
His decisions should should prove over time to be the best made since the Haliburton invasion.
ISIS is actually being used by us as a buffer that Saddam once was.
I dont know whats in the agreement and dont care but the fact we can put on or take off the gloves when we choose.
Also Buffets purchase shows me how supplying parts and arms is similar to Henry Ford and FDRs way of arming our allies which also sidestepped Congress.
Obamas foreign policy is brilliant.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> I do believe this is a difficult choice for the U.S. in the face of a great deal of contempt from Iran's leaders towards us, and I DO come down on the side of doing it, but as to being totally assured about the rectitude of the decision, hardly. Time will tell, if we get there.



What do you think about the secret side deals, and the fact that only the IAEA and Iran know the contents of these deals? I asked Nick and Soundhound and they only answered with "I don't care", which I found mind-boggling. Would you enter into any deal of this importance without knowing the details?
Also, what do you think of the fact that America will not be involved in any of the inspections?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 10, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Israel believes the leadership of Iran to be an existential threat. Iran's leadership SAYS it's an existential threat to Israel. They fund Hezbollah among many other terror initiatives and do a lot of "death to Israel" speeches.
> 
> When I visited Israel in the 70's it was startling to see how small it was and how close to its neighbors- the proximity of the Golan Heights to Syria, across the Gulf of Aquaba to Jordan, Egypt, the proximity to Saudi Arabia. Traveling across it, I definitely got the idea- tiny place totally surrounded.
> 
> ...



I agree with all of this except after reading what Brad Sherman and Chuck Schumer have written I have come down on the side of _not_ doing it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

What's mind-boggling, Michael, is that you - seemingly intelligent - actually believe that there are "secret deals" in place that undermine the agreement! That may be the stupidest of all the knee-jerk opposition talking points.

Of course there are classified details everywhere you turn when you're dealing with nuclear nonproliferation! Edward Snowden didn't even release all the ones that existed before this. It's highly sensitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-IAEA_side_deals


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick, I think Michael is referring to the secret deals between Iran and the IATEA that have been reported.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> What's mind-boggling, Michael, is that you - seemingly intelligent - actually believe that there are "secret deals" in place that undermine the agreement! That may be the stupidest of all the knee-jerk opposition talking points.



There _*are*_ secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran attached to this nuclear agreement. It has been reported by congress and the administration. There is no doubt about that. These are "secret" because Iran and the IAEA are the only two entities that know the contents thereof, not the USA or any other country.

I can't believe that ANYONE would be okay with agreeing to this deal without knowing every single detail. Do you agree to buying a car without knowing every detail of the contract? Surely not, and surely this is more important than a car purchase!

I know that you blindly trust Obama, but this is not about that. Do you trust the IAEA? Do you trust Iran?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

Complete with the obligatory inappropriate car analogy and knowing that I "blindly trust" Obama.

Jay, please let me insult him now? PLEASE?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Complete with the obligatory inappropriate car analogy and knowing that I "blindly trust" Obama.
> 
> Jay, please let me insult him now? PLEASE?



OK, go ahead


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

THANKS!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

Okay, Michael:

Thou appeareth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. I think thou wast created for men to breath themselves upon thee. Be put in a cauldron of lead and usurer's grease, amongst a whole million of cutpurses, and there boil like a gammon of bacon that will never be enough. Furthermore, thou lumpish doghearted moldwarp, thou art so leaky that we must leave thee to thy sinking


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Okay, Michael:
> 
> Thou appeareth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. I think thou wast created for men to breath themselves upon thee. Be put in a cauldron of lead and usurer's grease, amongst a whole million of cutpurses, and there boil like a gammon of bacon that will never be enough. Furthermore, thou lumpish doghearted moldwarp, thou art so leaky that we must leave thee to thy sinking



Another A+. This time you excelled at Creative Writing 401
I give you an A in Point Deflection 401. I would have given you an A+, but you're so darned predictable.
But you still have not improved upon that F in Substantive Discourse.



Nick Batzdorf said:


> Complete with the obligatory inappropriate car analogy and knowing that I "blindly trust" Obama.
> 
> Jay, please let me insult him now? PLEASE?


You are truly a piece of work, Nick. You, the most insulting & demeaning poster on this forum, feigning offense that I said you "blindly follow Obama", which just happens to be 100% True. Oh boo hoo.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 10, 2015)

I can't believe that ANYONE would be okay with agreeing to this deal without knowing every single detail. Do you agree to buying a car _licensing iTunes_ without knowing every detail of the contract? Surely not, and surely this is more important than a car purchase _software license_!

I know that you blindly trust Obama _Tim Cook_, but this is not about that. Do you trust the IAEA _Apple_? Do you trust Iran _Silicon Valley_?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> There _*are*_ secret side deals between the IAEA and Iran attached to this nuclear agreement. It has been reported by congress and the administration. There is no doubt about that. These are "secret" because Iran and the IAEA are the only two entities that know the contents thereof, not the USA or any other country.
> 
> I can't believe that ANYONE would be okay with agreeing to this deal without knowing every single detail. Do you agree to buying a car without knowing every detail of the contract? Surely not, and surely this is more important than a car purchase!
> 
> I know that you blindly trust Obama, but this is not about that. Do you trust the IAEA? Do you trust Iran?



Speaking for myself, Michael, I don't blindly trust my MOM. The implied insult re trust in Obama is unnecessary.

Digging into it some, yes, I find the non-transparency of the IAEA deals troubling. I'm going to look into it more deeply. If indeed the verification process is hidden to us, including the methodology of inspections and the allowed sites, it's a problem. At that point it comes down to an awful lot of faith in the IAEA. If I was a Congressperson without complete information, I'd find it hard to vote yes if that's the whole story.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 10, 2015)

There's nothing to read, you simply have to trust the folks who brought us the ACA.
Like the Genie in the bottle you should be careful what you wish for.
This "agreement" therefore really means there will be war in the Middle East....get it?
So where does that leave us...?
In the rear with the gear.

Besides our troops seem to be prepping for urban warfare in an American city.
Nice place they have set up there in Virginia.
Even have USPS trucks (should have been FedX/UPS) parked where boobie traps and IEDs are set up.
It's also not reported in the news but easily researched.

Things seem to be getting out of control in large Great Society neighborhoods.
Cops are standing down as folks kill each other in record numbers.
Record numbers of dead bad guys over in the middle east too.

Seems the foreign/domestic policies are a huge success.
Even B. DiBlah-Z-O is a big hit in NYC.
Just let these guys do what's best for the little people, they're always right.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Speaking for myself, Michael, I don't blindly trust my MOM. The implied insult re trust in Obama is unnecessary.



It would have been unnecessary had I said it to you, because you have never shown evidence of blindly trusting anyone. But I didn't. I didn't accuse you of blindly following Obama. I accused Nick. It is true about Nick.



NYC Composer said:


> Digging into it some, yes, I find the non-transparency of the IAEA deals troubling. I'm going to look into it more deeply. If indeed the verification process is hidden to us, including the methodology of inspections and the allowed sites, it's a problem. At that point it comes down to an awful lot of faith in the IAEA. If I was a Congressperson without complete information, I'd find it hard to vote yes if that's the whole story.



Thank you for answering the question. I knew you would answer in such a common sensible way.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> I can't believe that ANYONE would be okay with agreeing to this deal without knowing every single detail. Do you agree to buying a car _licensing iTunes_ without knowing every detail of the contract? Surely not, and surely this is more important than a car purchase _software license_!
> 
> I know that you blindly trust Obama _Tim Cook_, but this is not about that. Do you trust the IAEA _Apple_? Do you trust Iran _Silicon Valley_?








And you make a good point about iTunes. What would you say if I told you I read every single word of every privacy policy and contract?
I don't.
But I should. 
And if I were Obama, it would be infinitely more important for me to make sure I knew every single detail of something as import as the Iranian deal.
And back to your analogy: if Apple told me "There are some secret arrangements relating to your account that we are with-holding from you", you can bet every cent you own that I would withdraw from business with them.


----------



## robh (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Okay, Michael:
> 
> Thou appeareth nothing to me but a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. I think thou wast created for men to breath themselves upon thee. Be put in a cauldron of lead and usurer's grease, amongst a whole million of cutpurses, and there boil like a gammon of bacon that will never be enough. Furthermore, thou lumpish doghearted moldwarp, thou art so leaky that we must leave thee to thy sinking


Ummm. Now I'm confused. Seems uncharacteristic of you, Nick. Isn't that what a Republican would say?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

robh said:


> Ummm. Now I'm confused. Seems uncharacteristic of you, Nick. Isn't that what a Republican would say?


In what way is that something a Republican would say? And in what way is it uncharacteristic of Nick?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

No, a Republican would quote Chuck Schumer as if he were saying anything remotely worthwhile:



> I find the non-transparency of the IAEA deals troubling



Those are Chuck Schumer's exact Jewish-vote-pandering yak semen words.

How can anyone believe they negotiated a deal that would allow Iran to build nukes. Secret side-deals my ass.

This is not complicated. Just because people speak in reasonable tones doesn't mean what they're saying is reasonable.

All of a sudden everyone's a nuclear proliferation expert. "I'm deeply troubled by 24 days anus itch secret deals sold us down the river Iran terrorism Israel existential threat sanction!"


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/


Nick, you shouldn't have let me in on your secret. I honestly thought you made up that insult yourself. I meant it sincerely when I gave you the A+ in creative writing.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2015)

How about some substantive stuff, Nick, instead of all of this bloviation? Are we involved in the inspections? Is IAEA denied access to anything Iran deems as a military site? I'm interested in your argument- the one that tells me something that helps make your case, rather than your rants. Links, quotes, Congressional statements, Obama statements, you know- info.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

Post just one substantive argument against the deal and I'd be happy to oblige.

It's not as complicated as you're making it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> No, a Republican would quote Chuck Schumer as if he were saying anything remotely worthwhile:



I didn't realize I was quoting Chuckie, but if so, on further examination I agree with him on that point. Sorry, I'm not a Republican, but I'm not a Democrat either, and if Bernie ran as an Independent, I'd probably sacrifice my vote and vote for him.

The comments section of CNN online and many other "news" sites are filled with people insulting each other. Reasoned discussion is apparently dead-here in Off Topics as well.

I want Michael Bain to post here whether I deeply disagree with him or not!! Or even Richard Ames, if he wouldn't make his pronoubcements and stalk out. Chim brings up some good points even though he's dead set on this sheep thing. I don't want to discuss thing only with fellow liberals. That's not debate or discussion, that's self congratulatory validation.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Post just one substantive argument against the deal and I'd be happy to oblige.
> 
> 
> It's not as complicated as you're making it.



It is WAY complicated. Ok, this troubles me:

http://www.newsweek.com/iran-proclaims-ban-american-nuclear-inspectors-358526

I doubt it that you'll be able to find a lot of substance. That's the point- we're suffused with opinion (from both sides) and short on facts. I read the whitehouse.gov's release on the deal. It was positive and cogent about the whys and quite short on the hows.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't care if Michael Bain and Richard Ames post, but it's not true that you're only congratulating yourself unless you include conservative opinions. On the contrary, they're completely useless, and they sidetrack discussions with the same inane crap over and over. It's like you never had a conversation before - they just repeat the same shallow nonsense over and over and hold back the discussion.

There's plenty of useful wonk to get into, usually with multiple angles, without getting bogged down by idiots.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2015)

....but it is true that if you only discuss things with people who agree with you, you live in a bubble of correctitude.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 10, 2015)

BTW since when are "secret deals" such an annoyance?
Didn't bother anyone here when Insurance CEOs and Jonathan Gruber explained how
the middle class would bear the brunt of the costs and have skyrocketing premiums.
They better hurry up damn it. My exemption ends in 2018, just in time to bring Liberals back after buying another extension with our membership dues.

I wonder how much Schumer shook down from the Synagogues for his "stance" on the deal.
To give up the position of Senate leader had to pay HUGE amounts.
Pelosi and Reid are multi millionaires 10 times over.
Pretty sweet for a low 6 figure salary job...
Hell thanks to big union corruption that led to citizens united, and the Clinton foundation, foreign governments can be shook down for millions, all nice and legal too....

In my next life I wish to come back as a Liberal legislator.
Those cats gets all the big bucks.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 10, 2015)

Okay, a couple of points...

1) Why would the US participants and supporters of this deal _want_ a bad deal that makes Iran a nuclear power? There's no motivation. There's no profit. The only motivation is that they truly believe that this makes the world safer. One might agree or disagree, but one can't credibly question their motives.

On the other hand, the military industrial complex profits greatly from conflict and war. The Neocons used every trick in the book to start a war with Iraq. The US didn't win. Haliburton, The Carlisle Group, and Blackwater did. Ironically, politicians who base their brands on "security" get elected when there is conflict and war and they get funded by the war profiteers. Their worst nightmare is one where peace breaks out.

Heck, did you hear the recent debate? One minute, the Republicans are saying that we need to cut government spending and that government doesn't create a single job. The next minute, they're one upping each other with plans for fleets of battleships and tens of thousands more troops. (My decoder ring says they're making pledges to their donors.) What are they thinking anyway? Battleships are so WWII.

So big surprise. Those who would profit on war with Iran are against the deal. Yeah, motivation. Follow the money. And don't trust those who prostitute themselves for it.

2) North Korea is dead broke. And with no money and sanctions in place, they still did nuclear tests and launched missiles over Japan. Sanctions didn't exactly bring down Castro either.

Stale sanctions don't work. And Iran isn't as economically isolated as people would like to believe. (You think there isn't a big backdoor to Russia and China?)

Back on point #1. The Neo Cons could shift their focus from Iran to North Korea, but China won't allow it without consequences. The Middle East is the only "safe" playground. And Iran is the biggest target that would bring the most profit.

Maybe they can dupe Colin Powell into telling us about the imminent threat of Iran. And then Condoleezza Rice can paint us some pretty pictures of mushroom clouds.

Every industry has its own approach to marketing.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 10, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Post just one substantive argument against the deal and I'd be happy to oblige.
> 
> It's not as complicated as you're making it.



Here are some Nick that I found persuasive, coming from a Democrat.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...crat-iran-deal-is-terrorism-without-impunity/


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 10, 2015)

Only a few of us see that Jon.
Most have fallen into the predictable "left" "right" positions awaiting further instructions
from those they worship.
I back Obama all the way.
We're going to sell lots of 2nd hand stuff like F35's (no match for Raptors) and used armored
personal carriers our kids died testing out for Haliburton.

As we pivot to Asia, we can only hope we don't go to war with them.
We'd have to borrow money from them just to fight them....
That's as insane as having thousands of Nukes knowing you'll user them...


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 10, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> BTW since when are "secret deals" such an annoyance?
> Didn't bother anyone here when Insurance CEOs and Jonathan Gruber explained how
> the middle class would bear the brunt of the costs and have skyrocketing premiums.
> They better hurry up damn it. My exemption ends in 2018, just in time to bring Liberals back after buying another extension with our membership dues.
> ...



Do you also think that Republican legislators are regularly shaking down Christian churches, especially evangelical, for their stances on deals?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 10, 2015)

I didn't find him persuasive at all, Jay.

He says three things. First, that they could buy nukes from North Korea. Yup, that's a nightmare scenario, but can you stop that with a deal? Second, that they're building ICBMs. Well, good luck with that. Neither we nor Israel would tolerate that, deal or not.

And third:



> Sherman told Breitbart News that he favors economic sanctions against the Iranian regime “until they change their non-nuclear behavior,” including their rampant human rights abuses and their explicit support for the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. “And those are just the terrorist groups beginning with ‘h’. Plus, their support of the brutal murderer Bashar al- Assad of Syria, who is killing 5,000 people a month.”



And I want a harem. Economic sanctions haven't stopped that so far and won't in the future.

Plus it's Breitbart. That's hard to stomach.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 11, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Do you also think that Republican legislators are regularly shaking down Christian churches, especially evangelical, for their stances on deals?


Does a bear shit in the woods...?
Once you understand politicians, their quest for cash, and how they fear losing such a lucrative lifelong career of "serving" the little people, it's easy to understand why they drive home this left/right stuff.
I moved into a dry county. Since I don't drink much I never noticed until one day I wanted a bottle of wine and found out the law said I had to drive 50 miles to the next county to buy it.
Then found out the same good folks who kept that law here for so many years owned a chain of Liquor stores next county over.
Needless to say the law since passed where folks can sell wine in their Bistro's, even got a whole isle of Beer now, not sure which parishioner sells the Liquor now or where it's at.
Gore Vidal once wrote "Tax free status created the Bible Belt."
I tend to agree.

But churches in Texas must have some serious coin.
The most sought after audiologist works at the VA here in Nashville and also does IEMs since she has such a great reputation.
She flew to Texas to fit 65 people at a Church with IEMs not long ago and that's a nice chunk of change Ted Kruz would have loved to get his hands on.

I find that these 2 gangs in DC have more in common with each other than anything.
Once you understand the value they place on cash, all on the nonsense they babble can easily be dismissed if you understand their real intentions and lust for power and cash.
Mans purest emotion is greed. All of this other complex stuff is smoke and mirrors.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 11, 2015)

I don't agree, as far as the human race is concerned. I think man's basic motivations are protection of family, food, shelter, water, enough. Greed is a subset. I wonder if anyone in our little group here would list greed as their prime motivation.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 11, 2015)

Greed is a luxury that is reserved for the rich. For the rest of us, we are seeking economic security. It's not greedy to want a place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear, education for our kids, etc.

I've always felt that there is a threshold income where a normal person has more than enough when it comes to consumption. After that, all additional money is for power. ("You're fired!" "Your not my boss. You can't fire me." "After I walk upstairs and buy the company I can!")

Was it Huckabee who wanted to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax so we can tax pimps and prostitutes? He's got it backwards. We need to tax luxury and power heavily and basic needs lightly.

I don't fret about people who want a bit of cash. It's people who seek power who concern me.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 11, 2015)

Makes me wonder what the Supreme Spinach Chin really wants.


----------



## impressions (Aug 18, 2015)

don't know if you care about unobjective opinion such as myself, but at least watch this-
it shows a "somewhat" naive posture by the prime negotiaors about the whole thing, besides being uninformed, which is probably why everyone else is worried.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 18, 2015)

Get outta here. There is nothing naive about them.

"Side agreements." Move along. This is just crap.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 18, 2015)

By the way, Tom Cotton. Need one say more?


----------



## impressions (Aug 18, 2015)

oh ok. lets ignore that.
so how exactly do you explain iran's several weeks of preparation before inspection on their nuclear sites?
that is not naive deal? to trust a country who supports terror so bluntly?
on the realistic side, i dont think obama could get a better deal because of the other superpowers pressures.
but its baffling how people support this deal so righteously. like its an achievement(it is, for iran's fanatic government) what a nice peace treaty for calming the middle east. really? the truth is it will totally change the balance of power and countries like turkey already want to copy that.

i just saw a clip with jack black and some other hollywood hotshots saying that withdrawing from the deal will lead to another US war in the middle east, this time with iran.
i would say this is crap. iran is not the third world country like afganistan or iraq. that is a country with many people who are liberals and hold to western values, who hate the itollas regime. helping to overthrow them by these guys is not like with the other primitives in Libya. why should that lead to war with the US? let them deal with their irresponsible behaviour, why should US start dealing arms again and sending troops. the sanctions are diminishing the fanatics power, and instead of letting that momentum sink in, its being converted to give power to the same people US and the rest of the world is afraid of, the deal's almost done.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

I think all the arguments are in this thread. This isn't a peace treaty, it's a nuclear nonproliferation agreement. Without it, Iran will continue developing a nuclear bomb; with it, they probably won't.

The only legitimate argument anyone has made is that without sanctions, they'll have more money to make trouble. But they're going to get more money when the sanctions don't hold anyway, and they're going to continue making trouble anyway.

It's not even a serious debate. People make arguments with a thoughtful tone, but the ones against this are totally ludicrous. It is really not complicated.


----------



## impressions (Aug 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I think all the arguments are in this thread. This isn't a peace treaty, it's a nuclear nonproliferation agreement. Without it, Iran will continue developing a nuclear bomb; with it, they probably won't.


You really believe they probably won't?
They have plenty of time to fool everyone. Especially when sanctions are off and no one can check on them after that period of time I've mentioned. Funny you disqualify and ignore it completely. 
Sorry if you've already argued about it, but 9 pages is off my schedule so ill chat with you if its ok. 


> The only legitimate argument anyone has made is that without sanctions, they'll have more money to make trouble. But they're going to get more money when the sanctions don't hold anyway, and they're going to continue making trouble anyway.


You are right about one thing. They will always look for ways to make trouble. And they will always find the means. Such is such regime. Which coukfnt care less for its people. Only to make itself a bigger threat to the west. 
So again, you actually admitted that the best way is sanctions. The fact that the other superpowers, like Russia and china, really don't care. Unless the media was abit more supportive toward a better deal. It seemed as if the us either didn't care or it ran out of time. 



> It's not even a serious debate. People make arguments with a thoughtful tone, but the ones against this are totally ludicrous. It is really not complicated.



So you dismiss it as another job or gig for the us governmwent? Or are you suggesting i don't really care about the subject?
Do you even see a nuclear Iran a threat? 
Or you honestly believe they won't be nuclear after this deal? Just to know on what points we are contradicted.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

impressions said:


> don't know if you care about unobjective opinion such as myself, but at least watch this-
> it shows a "somewhat" naive posture by the prime negotiaors about the whole thing, besides being uninformed, which is probably why everyone else is worried.


Might as well give up on this point. Amazingly, Nick and Soundhound don't give a flip that there are secret side deals. Nor do they care that USA will not be allowed to participate in the inspections. It's astonishing to me that they can so blindly trust the IAEA and Iran that way.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 19, 2015)

This comes down to one issue: Money vs. inspections.

The sanctions don't stop all incoming money. You think China and Russia don't circumvent the sanctions every day?

And inspections can't stop all activity. But they provide helpful intelligence. Unless Iran locks all of the scientists under a mountain, radioactive traces would emerge. And if they get caught cheating, there would be severe repercussions. It's not whether one trusts Iran but whether one feels that the consequences outweigh the risks for Iran.

So why would one support it, aside from a true belief that it would work? Maybe you have a company that can do business with Iran. That's about it.

So why would one oppose it, aside from a true belief that it won't work? Maybe your political career is funded by oil, military, or Israel. Gee, I wonder which party that is? Follow the money.

Next thing you know, they'll claim that the deal will lead to gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration, race riots and other dog whistle topics.


----------



## impressions (Aug 19, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> This comes down to one issue: Money vs. inspections.
> 
> The sanctions don't stop all incoming money. You think China and Russia don't circumvent the sanctions every day?
> 
> ...



so, what are you saying, bottom line? that everyone is evil? there is no good and bad? you sounds totally rhetorical and cynical about the whole thing. again, like you wouldn't care less if the deal is good or bad. if you don't, why bother posting?

you really believe in the strength of that deal? which provides iran 24 days before inspection. oh why should that matter? but wait, they could even extend that to 3 months.
yes that's great for everyone, US, Europe, arab states, you have a known terror country which could have enough time to become nuclear now. but ignore it again. this precedence will create effect which already started in turkey. that will only lead to good, of course. 

if they'll become nuclear under the noses of the inspectors, they will simply kiss the deal goodbye, and will continue business as usual with the other low moral superpowers. only now they are nuclear. but yes, there is no good or bad.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

The details one of the side deals has been discovered. Iran will be allowed to use _*its own experts *_to inspect a site thought to be developing nuclear weapons. Yeah, Nick, nothing to worry about those side deals. 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

Michael, "side deals" is a load of crap. You still haven't answered what you think is in them. I have: NOTHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT! They're almost small, classified details about the inspections, or maybe business deals, not the hyperbole you're going on and on about.



> Just to know on what points we are contradicted.



Every point! It's all total bullshit, fed by Republicans who oppose everything Obama does and by asswipe Democrats who either want to be ranking Senators or they want to pander to the Adelson Netanyahu zombie Jewish vote.

Why on earth do you guys just assume they're going to continue developing a nuclear bomb? As Jon says, it's very difficult to hide! Who cares whether the US is in on the inspections.

People think they're making thoughtful objections, but they and you truly aren't. You're just repeating CRAP.

Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff said the same thing on Bill Maher last Friday: there's simply no rational reason to oppose this.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

By the way, most US Jews aren't in that category. As a group we have a history of being very liberal, not at all dicky.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Michael, "side deals" is a load of crap. You still haven't answered what you think is in them. I have: NOTHING WORTH TALKING ABOUT! They're almost small, classified details about the inspections, or maybe business deals, not the hyperbole you're going on and on about.


Before I posted my last post, I had no idea what was in the "secret deals". Neither did the Obama admin or Congress. That's one reason it is frightening. The fact that they are secrets and that the leaders of your country don't know the details should make every person who doesn't blindly trust Iran very wary.


Nick Batzdorf said:


> They're almost small, classified details about the inspections, or maybe business deals, not the hyperbole you're going on and on about.


I just posted the following. Did you not see it? How can you say it' "nothing worth talking about"?

The details of one of the side deals has been discovered. Iran will be allowed to use _*its own experts *_to inspect a site thought to be developing nuclear weapons. 
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

Not worth talking about. No way does this mean we're trusting Iran to conduct their own inspections and leaving it at that.

No way.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Not worth talking about. No way does this mean we're trusting Iran to conduct their own inspections and leaving it at that.
> 
> No way.



Keep hiding your head in the sand, Nick.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

You're right, Michael. Iran gets to self-inspect their nuclear plants, and this will allow them to build nukes.

Those negotiators sure are stupid! Too bad they didn't just ask you.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> You're right, Michael. Iran gets to self-inspect their nuclear plants, and this will allow them to build nukes.
> 
> Those negotiators sure are stupid! Too bad they didn't just ask you.


Nick, the article was there for you to see in black and white. I cannot even imagine how the IAEA could be so stupid as to allow that secret deal. But they did. And you saying it didn't happen won't change the fact.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

Take a look at NYTimes.com, bbc.com, washingtonpost.com, latimes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, associatedpress.com, wn.com...any news source.

Why is the revelation that Iran gets to phone in its own nuclear inspections not dominating the headlines?

Answer: because this is still a big load of crap.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 19, 2015)

Actually they are paid rather well for their "investigative journalism."
Besides it seems Bill Clinton and Obama negotiated a strategy on Trumps Golf Course last weekend where she would take heat on her server for a while to help distract the Sheep from the Iran Trade agreements.
In return, a favorable "investigation" would be released on her behalf.

Besides...how could a Commandress in Chief be effective if they lose their security clearance from something as simple as a mistameanor (Passing on Top Secret documents willingly/unwillingly).

Having said that, I think we're going to make a ton of cash arming both sides in the Gulf as we sneak over to the Pacific so we can kill folks over there.
It's been 50 years since MultiNationals made millions on war there, most are dead and have forgotten.
This time we'll arm our allies and use robots and drones for surgical strikes, etc.

Meanwhile ISIS, Kurds, Turks, Jews, Sunnis, Shia, Wohabists will be killing each other while the guys who buy our politicians make a fortune.
With that influx of cash maybe Liberals can keep a promise this time on free stuff.
They suckered us last time with the unaffordable care act/insurance consolidation nonsense.
What did we get.....free food for 7 years...?

Free school, and free weed for voting for Hillary is what we'll hear this time, or free everything like Bernie says is pretty cool.
I think I am going to slow down gigging and take in some free stuff for once.

Then when I retire move to Mexico so Iranian or Saudi ICBMs won't destroy me as I sip Margaritas on the beach with Senoritas......

BTW, what do they call a gay Mexican..........?

A *Señor* eater..................Ankyu.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Take a look at NYTimes.com, bbc.com, washingtonpost.com, latimes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, associatedpress.com, wn.com...any news source.
> 
> Why is the revelation that Iran gets to phone in its own nuclear inspections not dominating the headlines?
> 
> Answer: because this is still a big load of crap.


Dude, the article I quoted IS Associated Press. As for the other sources you mentioned, they are known for propping up the left, especially - well especially all of them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

People are really annoying. We'd be a lot better off without them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

Okay, just some of them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 19, 2015)

Well, just one.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 19, 2015)

Which one would that be?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 19, 2015)

Michael- I read the article. Certainly didn't sound good, however, a few quotes:







"The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn't differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to discuss the issue in public." (I wonder if this leaker will be accused of treason, like Edward Snowden)

And :

"While the document says the IAEA "will ensure the technical authenticity" of Iran's inspection, it does not say how."

Further:

"The draft is unsigned "

Now I fully admit these quotes are cherrypicked, however they indicate that somebody saw something, a draft, someone who isn't "authorized to speak", an un-named source. So someone who certainly might be an official with a political motivation saw an unsigned draft agreement and showed it to AP.. Mmm. The article suggest the IEAE does have a verification process. We don't know what that is but I suspect we will. All in all, I find the article large on supposition and short on verifiable final intel, at least at the moment.

The question I continue to ask my conservative friends is this: even assuming a weak deal, what do you suggest as an alternative? I see two possibilities- keep the sanctions in a crumbling coalition when our allies may very well drop theirs, or bomb Iran. Is there one of those you prefer, or do you have another?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Which one would that be?


Nick Batzdorf, of course!


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 19, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> The question I continue to ask my conservative friends is this: even assuming a weak deal, what do you suggest as an alternative? I see two possibilities- keep the sanctions in a crumbling coalition when our allies may very well drop theirs, or bomb Iran. Is there one of those you prefer, or do you have another?


Stick with the sanctions, even if every other ally in the world drops them. Israel will not drop its sanctions, that's for sure. If America takes a stand, other countries will follow.
And really, if I thought this was just a "weak" deal, I wouldn't be as terrified of it as I am. I think it's downright dangerous to trust Iran and the IAEA.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 19, 2015)

So we stick with the sanctions, others buy their oil, and we have 0 input into affecting their nuclear ambitions instead of "possibly some.". How is that better? It might be more virtuous seeming but I don't see how its practical.


----------



## impressions (Aug 20, 2015)

NYC, how is that better? simple, it will make their life harder. US, israel and the rest of the higher moral fiber countries will (try to)monitor any shady deals with iran after the sanctions, and hopefully that pressure will drop the itolla's regime, and move iran's government to a more advanced evolution in human behaviour. the itolla's, which are the cause for all troubles in the middle east, are now having their power increased after this deal. and the other fanatics countries will start a race for nuclear power. already started with turkey. how is that any good?

the obama team simply didn't care for any of this but their political gain. i fail to see how this deal helped anyone but the medievals.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 20, 2015)

3 great Liberals, Obama Kerry and Clinton.
Even on deals where lies and disinformation highlight legislation. Thier Sheep
will dig in thier heels and support those they worship.
Same with the Green folks that try and justify Gore Styers and Buffet investing in Oil
to save the Planet.
Soros finally added Coal to his Oil portfolio and still folks will support such nonsense.
This deal will pass since the investments will see an ROI that sucks up the frozen assetts 
immediately.
People just need to follow the money not the parroted talking points.


----------



## impressions (Aug 20, 2015)

so you guys what? believe that in the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95BNlWr1do4 (tom cotton interview), Kerry was telling the truth? he has no idea what the deal was? in both cases its bad. if he was lying then it means he is hiding the awfulness of it.
what is the supporters of the deal say so far is that they don't buy the propaganda and that everyone has its interest, if that is so-why support that other interest? what's so moral about their choice? that they don't listen to "nonsense"?
that's not even a case.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 20, 2015)

impressions said:


> the obama team simply didn't care for any of this but their political gain. i fail to see how this deal helped anyone but the medievals.


Exactly.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2015)

Because he hates America, Michael?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 20, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> Because he hates America, Michael?


He hates parts of America, yes. He is a socialist through and through. His hero is the late Saul Alinsky. His state senate run was launched by his pal Bill Ayres. He promised to "fundamentally change America" and he has.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2015)

Michael,

You had made it a more blanket statement either earlier in this thread or in another, when you answered a question about him "because he hates America." I made note of it at the time. One might argue that in wanting to "fundamentally change America", one is doing the most American of American things, through protest or using the political process to try to change America for the better. The fact that you believe he is trying changing it for the worse and I believe he's tried to change it for the better notwithstanding, the "Obama hates America"-speak is, in my opinion, the absolute worst of rhetorical hyperbole. I could not be more disgusted with what George Bush and Richard Cheney led us into, but not once during those years or since did I believe they "hated America.", nor do I believe that you hate America, Michael, regardless of whether I think you're fundamentally and deeply wrong about things. Cycles of politics and politicians come and go. Belief systems change over time. Going around assigning radical or evil status to everyone you disagree with is just too simplistic a device in a discussion or debate between smart people. I suppose if you want yell or shoot at each other across the aisle, well, then it works well.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 20, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> . Going around assigning radical or evil status to everyone you disagree with is just too simplistic a device in a discussion or debate between smart people. I suppose if you want yell or shoot at each other across the aisle, well, then it works well.


That is an unfair assessment of me. I do think Obama is a radical and I do think he's evil. But I do not assign those terms to everyone with whom I disagree. Not once have I said that you were evil or radical. I have never called Nick or Soundhound evil, either.
I do not think that everyone who disagrees with me is evil. But I do think that there are evil people out there, so why shouldn't I say it?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2015)

It's not an assessment, fair or unfair, of you personally. I don't think it's that unfair an assessment of your statements. Words like "evil" and "hates" are totally hyperbolic regardless of your belief system.
You equate Obama with _Satan _?? Because of his thoughts about American capitalism? He HATES America because he's a deep believer in social justice? I have plenty of things I'm disappointed about regarding Obama, but again I say I think George Bush did monstrous things but never thought he was Satanic or hated America. I just thought he was flat out, dead wrong and it ended up in death, destruction and millions of wandering refugees.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Aug 20, 2015)

It's all but impossible to avoid confirmation bias while believing that the proponent is "evil".


----------



## gbar (Aug 20, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> It's all but impossible to avoid confirmation bias while believing that the proponent is "evil".



Ya think?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 20, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> It's not an assessment, fair or unfair, of you personally. I don't think it's that unfair an assessment of your statements. Words like "evil" and "hates" are totally hyperbolic regardless of your belief system.



It *IS* an unfair assessment of me and my statements. You said _"Going around assigning radical or evil status to everyone you disagree with..."_, and I don't do that. You know I don't.

"Evil" is only a hyperbolic term if you believe that good and evil are relative. Do you think good and evil are relative? If not, don't we have the right to name evil when we see it?



NYC Composer said:


> You equate Obama with _Satan _??



When did I equate Obama with Satan? No one's as evil as Satan. It just ain't possible.



NYC Composer said:


> He HATES America because he's a deep believer in social justice?



I said he hates parts of America. And I didn't say that believing in social justice is bad. You are putting words in my mouth. That disappoints me because you always claim to be so even-handed, and you usually are.



NYC Composer said:


> I have plenty of things I'm disappointed about regarding Obama, but again I say I think George Bush did monstrous things but never thought he was Satanic or hated America. I just thought he was flat out, dead wrong and it ended up in death, destruction and millions of wandering refugees.



I don't care if you think George Bush was evil or not. It makes no impact on whether I think Obama is evil.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 20, 2015)

JonFairhurst said:


> It's all but impossible to avoid confirmation bias while believing that the proponent is "evil".





gbar said:


> Ya think?


So, are we to all go along, skipping merrily, saying that everybody is a good and decent person? It just ain't true.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2015)

No- we try not to demonize them, though.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2015)

When we assign 'evil', as in biblical evil, to person we politically disagree with, when we assign them "hatred" of a country they have done public service for, I believe we are in rhetorical and or hyperbolic territory.

Michael, are you saying that you didn't make a statement "obama hates America" or "he hates America" in this or another thread? Because I'm pretty sure you did, and I'll try a search if you're saying categorically that you never said it.

And ok, you don't assign radicality or 'evil' to _anyone_ you disagree with, but you do assign them to Obama.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 20, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> When we assign 'evil', as in biblical evil, to person we politically disagree with, when we assign them "hatred" of a country they have done public service for, I believe we are in rhetorical and or hyperbolic territory.



I don't assign him the term "evil" because of political disagreement. I assign him the term "evil" because he consistently does things I consider evil. And I think he has done no service for this country whatsoever. He is the most self-serving president I have seen during my lifetime.



NYC Composer said:


> Michael, are you saying that you didn't make a statement "obama hates America" or "he hates America" in this or another thread? Because I'm pretty sure you did, and I'll try a search if you're saying categorically that you never said it.
> 
> And ok, you don't assign radicality or 'evil' to _anyone_ you disagree with, but you do assign them to Obama.



And I never denied saying it about Obama. I said it in this thread, even.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 20, 2015)

I probably wasn't clear. On this page, you qualified it by saying he hates parts of America. I believe previously you had said it without qualification, as in simply "he hates America."

I think, among numerous other things, that the fact that a child with leukemia can no longer be denied health coverage due to a pre- existing condition is not only a service to the country, it's a service to humanity, and I'm incredulous that anyone who loves Jesus, even in the minimal way that I understand his statements, could see it any other way.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 20, 2015)

Who cares how genteel someone is or isn't if he's saying Obama is radical, Socialist, evil, and hates America. You may not be an idiot, but your opinion is indistinguishable from an idiot's opinion.

And it makes the point: who cares what someone imitating an idiot thinks about nuclear nonproliferation deals.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 21, 2015)

If you don't care, why are you posting?


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 21, 2015)

NYC Composer said:


> I probably wasn't clear. On this page, you qualified it by saying he hates parts of America. I believe previously you had said it without qualification, as in simply "he hates America."



Yes, I have said that, and I must now admit that was too broad a statement. Yet, it wasn't hyperbolic. I truly believe that what he does hate about America, he really hates, and tries to destroy. My thoughts of elaboration on this are long, so I won't post them today. Please give me a week to gather all my thoughts together and put them in one concise post. If I haven't posted them by next Friday, feel free to remind me.



NYC Composer said:


> I think, among numerous other things, that the fact that a child with leukemia can no longer be denied health coverage due to a pre- existing condition is not only a service to the country, it's a service to humanity, and I'm incredulous that anyone who loves Jesus, even in the minimal way that I understand his statements, could see it any other way.



Yes, that part of Obamacare is good, of course. But there are disastrous parts to the law that I can't support it, especially because of the mandate. I think a better and more efficient method of providing healthcare is by issuing vouchers to those who can't afford healthcare. These vouchers could only be used for healthcare, and would be funded by cutting federal government waste and by raising taxes if necessary. If I know that poor children were getting good healthcare, I would be happy that I could contribute.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 21, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> And it makes the point: who cares what someone imitating an idiot thinks about nuclear nonproliferation deals.


Nick, Nick, Nick. Need I remind you of your last three statements on the secret side deal that the AP discovered? Not exactly the bastion of intelligent discussion.

(1) _"People are really annoying. We'd be a lot better off without them."_

(2) _"Okay, just some of them."_

(3) _"Well, just one."_


----------



## gbar (Aug 21, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> Nick, Nick, Nick. Need I remind you of your last three statements on the secret side deal that the AP discovered? Not exactly the bastion of intelligent discussion.
> 
> (1) _"People are really annoying. We'd be a lot better off without them."_
> 
> ...



Would that be the AP piece they very quietly redacted with an explanation that makes no sense?

We live in an era when getting the story first sometimes over-rides getting the story right, sadly.

And it's not as if we do not know that there are folks leaking fictions.


----------



## Michael K. Bain (Aug 21, 2015)

gbar said:


> Would that be the AP piece they very quietly redacted with an explanation that makes no sense?
> 
> We live in an era when getting the story first sometimes over-rides getting the story right, sadly.
> 
> And it's not as if we do not know that there are folks leaking fictions.



What redaction? They are still reporting it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a9f4e40803924a8ab4c61cb65b2b2bb3/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-work-site

And here is the draft of the document, which sources say is not substantially different from the final:

_
Separate arrangement II agreed by the Islamic State of Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency on 11 July 2015, regarding the Road-map, Paragraph 5


Iran and the Agency agreed on the following sequential arrangement with regard to the Parchin issue:


1. Iran will provide to the Agency photos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.


1. Iran will provide to the Agency videos of the locations, including those identified in paragraph 3 below, which would be mutually agreed between Iran and the Agency, taking into account military concerns.


1. Iran will provide to the Agency 7 environmental samples taken from points inside one building already identified by the Agency and agreed by Iran, and 2 points outside of the Parchin complex which would be agreed between Iran and the Agency.


1. The Agency will ensure the technical authenticity of the activities referred to in paragraphs 1-3 above. Activities will be carried out using Iran's authenticated equipment, consistent with technical specifications provided by the Agency, and the Agency's containers and seals.


1. The above mentioned measures would be followed, as a courtesy by Iran, by a public visit of the Director General, as a dignitary guest of the Government of Iran, accompanied by his deputy for safeguards.


6. Iran and the Agency will organize a one-day technical roundtable on issues relevant to Parchin._


----------



## gbar (Aug 21, 2015)

Michael K. Bain said:


> What redaction? They are still reporting it._n._[/QUO



Parts have been redacted, and what remains is misleading.

Discussion:

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/20/9182185/ap-iran-inspections-parchin

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

A lot of people on the left and right noted the edits (redactions).

Why did they do that?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 21, 2015)

It's crap. NY Times:

"But that issue involved a longstanding effort by the I.A.E.A. to complete a report on past Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, an important part of the international effort to pressure Iran. It has little to do with verification of the nuclear accord between Iran and the United States, Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China. That verification regime is laid out in the actual nuclear accord and does not rely on Iran’s self-monitoring."


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 21, 2015)

You forgot about the un-indoctrinated silent majority who saw the redactions and laughed.....


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 21, 2015)

I would use the word "change" instead of "destroy", but certainly he came in with an agenda, just as, say, Ronald Reagan did.

I agree that the ACA has some deep flaws, but as you say, what's good about it is good and important.

I will be interested to read your elaboration, and I'm sure that will be an opportunity for strong debate.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 21, 2015)

As to the AP article, actually I did laugh some when I saw the redactions, as earlier in the thread I had opined that the entire article was pretty fuzzy. I guess I'm not as sheepish as some might believe, like, for example...well, you know who you are


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 21, 2015)

I can relate. 
When world reknown scientists asked thier names be redacted from the Global Warming list for a Nobel Prize and the IPCC got hacked and discredited I immediately laughed and imagined Al Gores thoughts as he looked out over his 10 million dollar property on the Beach that was underwater in his Academy Award winning movie.
I can imagine Gore doing this Iranian deal where we guarenteed no bombs dropped on facilities with Solar Panels or assasination attempts on clerics driving Teslas.....


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 21, 2015)

Yes, btw, out of the 98% or so of global scientists who believe global climate change is an existential threat, what percentage have revised their views?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 21, 2015)

Vouchers. This is what I mean about conservative opinions being a waste of time, because you just get the same shite over and over as if the conversations never happened.

How many times can you explain that the law has three legs: universal coverage, mandate (including healthy people), subsidies for people who can't afford to pay in?

There's no way to provide universal coverage without everyone paying in. That's with any system. 

Vouchers are just a way of providing no coverage for lots of people. 

And the law is here to stay anyway.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 21, 2015)

But I have lots of respect for all opinions. All sides are equal. It's just mean to think every last thing every conservative has ever said is bullshit from top to bottom. Liberals are supposed to be tolerant, yet they won't tolerate vouchers bad deal Socialist side deal and other stuff.

Who wants to have discussions with people who agree with you when there's so much to learn from people with opposing ideas?


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 21, 2015)

if I said that statements like yours would indicate that someone like you is a close minded idiot (not you of course) you'd be fine with that as substantive debate, right? Because name calling and sideways name calling are the best indicator that you're absolutely right, right? Personally, I just think it makes you feel good, though I'm fucked if I can figure out why. That Sword of Personal Rectitude must get heavy sometimes.

Since I actually DO want to talk to and debate conservatives as well as liberals, why do you come into threads I start and piss in them? Are you a cat?? Do you have to mark your territory? 

This is a free forum and you can say what you like, but I thought we had a detente, and here we go again.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 21, 2015)

ACA was just a temporary way to move forward until those who really rule the country figure out a way to feed their Sheep.
Best parts like pre existing coverage (and exemptions for being Union.) and 1+ million put up by the consolidation process of evil CEOs made this workable, but incomplete.
The multi billion dollar website might even work by 2016......
But the stop gap coverage is over this year.

Just like tax payers covered the Liberal Banking bail outs, we are on the hook for risk pools this year. Thank God it didn't occur during the removal of so many Liberals in the last elections or we'd be stuck with all Conservatives pretending they want to repeal it, and naturally failing even though they would have had 100% of both houses. Funny how that works.

Just like an evil CEO white racist Republican was first to bring universal health care to a State, the GOP will again be the guys getting the credit for a much better program.
Obama will be remembered for trying, and also thanked for creating ISIS and a Nuclear Iran.
Whoever invested in him got their moneys worth.

I know Soros made bank on the moratorium/BP Spill.
Then waited for Coal to hit rock bottom ( the results of the "war on coal") before investing big time.
We sell so much Coal to Europe and China now we have traffic jams in the Gulf where tankers are backed up, and the Ohio and Mississippi banks are lined for miles with Barges waiting clearance.

This is why Climate Change will never destroy us. We have regulators of the Earths temperature investing in evil Co2 and Coal. They know what's best for the little people..


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 21, 2015)

The multimillion dollar website now works. If the GOP wants to improve ACA by cutting down on the blowjob given to insurance companies and allowing competition to cross state lines, bully for them and I'll be on the sidelines cheering.

Obama wll be remembered for achieving healthcare for millions, MILLIONS, who didn't have it and starting, not trying, the inevitable rolling ball towards closing the gaps and having an actual money saving national healthcare sysrtem, just as he presided over the beginning of the inevitable emancipation of gay people in this country. There's plenty I fault him for, but he has started important things.

As to ISIS, yes, I guess we could have stayed 'til infinity as Cheney wanted. If you think that wouldn't have coalesced zealotry, well, I think about 10,000 IEDs might prove you wrong there. Going in and installing Paul Bremer as a viceroy, de- Ba'athification, disbanding the army and the police, ya, Obama shouldn't have done all that. Oh wait- he didn't.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 21, 2015)

Hey we agree then....They are all equally worthless.

Controlled by special interests, and it's our fault for not having the balls to march on the capital like the racist whites did back in the 60's.
Now they can suffer with Medicare cut backs and broken promises.

But wait,....I hear cheering in the background.
Pre season NFL games must be on.............wrong again.
It's a man who is destroying the status quo called Conservatives, better go see why so many white, black, Hispanic, Indian and Asian racists are excited about.

I forgot, Obama did destroy the wealthy white Liberal party, so he has another great legacy we can thank him for.
Maybe Bernie will finish off the rest of the wealthy whites while Trump and his multi racial racists take out the GOP.

Cheers Brotha Man....

Might be an assassination attempt.
Going against the worlds multinational corporations is dangerous.
Look what happened to the Kennedys, they had magic bullets then too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 22, 2015)

I don't care if you call me a closed-minded idiot, Larry, because I'm not. Does it make you feel like a cat pissing to respect stupid opinions?

I hate this constant stream of shit. That's why I post. There's an elephant in the room: half the country is a bunch of morons!


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 22, 2015)

The political makeup of the posters in this subforum is 95% liberal. At least. I guess you're preaching to the converted and calling the rest names. Pretty safe.

Do you know any conservatives? Any in your family? Crazy old Uncle Morty, a sister in law, a brother in law? Do you call them morons in conversation?


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 22, 2015)

The Conservative and Liberal party leadership is fighting for its life these days and losing.
If social media is truly a reflection of the people the 2 guys drawing 30-40,000 people over a year before an election are driving the issues.
Would love to see Trump and Sanders like Sparta had 2 Kings.
Sanders handle the Socialist/domestic issues with Trump doing Trade and Internatonal security.
After all socialism never works unless it can be sustained by innovation and competition of those evil capitalists.
The American Unity party.....I like it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 22, 2015)

Crazy Uncle Morty is a moron. I call him that in conversations and it's true that he is.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 22, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> The Conservative and Liberal party leadership is fighting for its life these days and losing.
> If social media is truly a reflection of the people the 2 guys drawing 30-40,000 people over a year before an election are driving the issues.
> Would love to see Trump and Sanders like Sparta had 2 Kings.
> Sanders handle the Socialist/domestic issues with Trump doing Trade and Internatonal security.
> ...



That would be sort of like Nick and Michael Bain hugging. Don't hold your breath.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 22, 2015)

False equivalence. I wish Obama were socialist, Michael thinks he's Socialist with a capital S.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 22, 2015)

Anything is possible.
Clinton was the Liberals little darling but even though Federal pollsters continue to poll only her supporters Bernie fills stadiums
Nobody goes to her phony staged events as she insults women by acting like they are all in need of free. Birth control or free abortions.
I dont know any women like this.
But then again I dont go to Liberal ghettos looking for trim.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Aug 22, 2015)

Hey, liberal ghettos are better than Ashley Madison!


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 22, 2015)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Hey, liberal ghettos are better than Ashley Madison!



Seems to be a hang out for Conservatives.
Some reality TV evangelist type had a son that molested his sisters or some nonsense, now we know that his dad is a perv too. Saw him apologizing like a politician, when he should have said, OK, my wife's a slob and I was horny, get over it.

I guess when you see folks wanting to adopt a dozen kids they have a loose screw somewhere.
On the other hand I heard about adoptions for Central American refugees. Pays good money.
I was thinking about a 15 year old Honduran girl I saw........


----------



## gbar (Aug 22, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Seems to be a hang out for Conservatives.
> Some reality TV evangelist type had a son that molested his sisters or some nonsense, now we know that his dad is a perv too. Saw him apologizing like a politician, when he should have said, OK, my wife's a slob and I was horny, get over it.
> 
> I guess when you see folks wanting to adopt a dozen kids they have a loose screw somewhere.
> ...



Pretty sure they are both Josh Duggar. They tracked his AM email to a fake Facebook account he used to chat up strippers and lingerie models now too.


----------



## NYC Composer (Aug 22, 2015)

chimuelo said:


> Seems to be a hang out for Conservatives.
> when he should have said, OK, my wife's a slob and I was horny, get over it.



That really doesn't work for tv evangelists. What DOES work is sobbing, admitting your sin and getting re-accepted and forgiven because of the sincerity of your repentance. Ya gotta go with the tried and true.


----------



## chimuelo (Aug 22, 2015)

I am so glad I came from a family of Yidds and Whops.
Getting to learn 2 religions at the same time nullified things for me.
No guilt what so ever being a dirtbag.......


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 9, 2015)

Interesting development in regards to the Iranian Treaty.

I noticed a few weeks back how Bill and the President were playing Golf together and couldn't help but laugh about how segregation is alive and well still in the USA, as each elite had separate Golf Carts..

I knew then this was a negotiation, probably about how "I can make this investigation go away...if.." as both men were several yards apart, almost as if the game was a forced match.

Fast forward to today where Hillary totally flipped and somehow even did a speech on negotiations, she had nothing to do with. She wasn't even invited to China by Vallery/Michelle to discuss State business while she was serving as the head of the State Department....
To top that off, she never speaks unless it's for 300,000 USD, like we saw at UNLV as students struggle to pay the gangsters their money for education programs.
But here she is today as if she had done the negotiations herself but doing a 100% reversal on her previous "beliefs" and then even spoke of "When I become President"...yadda, yadda.

So as the federal/multinational corporate media points a finger over there for the Sheep to follow, I look the opposite direction, which is why I noticed the absurd "Golf Match" video and concluded it was a negotiation.

Anyone taking any bets on why this sudden flip-flop speech.....

South Africa (still must like us) transferred 13 metric tons of Gold to Iran recently.
Any guess why our truth seeking media makes no mention of this...?

Thank God we have the finest liars in the world representing us..


----------



## NYC Composer (Sep 11, 2015)

Not sure I see the correlation between not reporting selective news items, which by the way I do find troubling, and lying.

I could not find mention of the unfreezing of the South African gold in the NY Times or the Washington Post, which surprised me as I found it in other places. Interesting. 

Meanwhile, what control do we wield over what South Africa does?

Back on topic...

It looks like the die is cast for the Iran deal. I uneasily favored it as the best alternative out of any number of bad ones, but still, having the ol' Ayatollah ruminating about the end of Israel within 25 years is obviously just another way of poking the bear. I hope he enjoys his reindeer games, because if this deal doesn't work out and Neo-Cons take the Presidency, a lot of boom boom is gonna happen.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 11, 2015)

Larry if you read AP and Reuters bulletins you can catch what is being told by real investigate journalists before Billionaire's "editors" filter it out.
Let's face it, the NYTimes is owned by a Mexican Billionaire....why? They lose money all of the time, not a very good investment on paper. Therefore they must be getting an ROI from influence pedaling.
The most successful elites buy and sell legislation, and owning the "news" really helps when bidding begins.
Krugman is the chief economist over there. His bosses are billionaires, even his wife is a billionaire. He must feel out of place at board meetings and family dinners after they read how he wants the Government to tax them @ 90%.....


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 12, 2015)

Speaking of looking the other direction.
Leaked AP photos were posted and now deleted of Russian and Iranian operators working new missile batteries in Syria. Guess ISIS fighters have already learned to fly F16s. Maybe Iraqi pilots saw the fierce fighters landed their planes nearby and ran. Like the 2300 HumVees they left at the site of ISIS fighters approaching.
One would think when cowering from a fight, going 60mph in the opposite direction in an armored vehicle would be better than running on foot...?

From what I have been reading I predict Saudi troops will infiltrate into Yemen while the Sheep follow corporate medias finger pointing at Syria. Within a week the Prez's success story in Yemen will be in a State of war.

I am still baffled why we will defend Iran from Israel while Gold and 100's of billions dollars flow into Iran.....?

What's the use trying decipher all of the deceptions.
This is just a pre cursor for Russia and the US making billions in arms sales.
It's always about the money even when they say it isn't.


----------

