In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On July 24 2015 02:44 Plansix wrote: Apparently the Iran hearings have started and opened with a Republican senator explaining EMP weapons to a nuclear physicist and why they are real. I am excited to hear further reports of Republicans trying to see how can be the most pro-war profiteering, I mean security.
I would love to hear how the existence of EMP weapons has anything to do with the Iran nuclear treaty Oo
You see, if you want to show that your pro security, you think about things like fictional, sci-fi weapons that even we can’t develop because the science is bunk. Then you ask a nuclear physicist if Iran can develop weapons we can’t and how the sanctions would allow them to create these sci-fi weapons.
Apparently is a real clown show. The main thing is the deal is bad, but reasons why the deal is bad are in short order because then people could argue against them. But it’s clearly bad and bad for America. Of course, not having a deal is apparently good, even though no one is willing to take military action again Iran.
And reading up on it, EMP weapons seem to be a favorite boogie man for a lot of Republicans. The terrorist could destroy our Iphones and we have no defense!. Please send R&D funding for anti-EMP weapons to my state.
Sigh, obstructionism at its finest. I honest don't expect it to get through congress. The Republicans are way to jealous of Obama to give him a success like this.
Doesn't really have to pass congress. Congress needs a 2/3 majority against the deal to crush it, which is not something the republicans have, unless they convince quite a lot of democrats to block Obama's deal. Otherwise Obama just vetos congress. It is basically a deal, signed and ratified by the US UNLESS the congress overthrows the deal. It is a formality and a political game to let congress vote on it.
On July 24 2015 02:44 Plansix wrote: Apparently the Iran hearings have started and opened with a Republican senator explaining EMP weapons to a nuclear physicist and why they are real. I am excited to hear further reports of Republicans trying to see how can be the most pro-war profiteering, I mean security.
I would love to hear how the existence of EMP weapons has anything to do with the Iran nuclear treaty Oo
You see, if you want to show that your pro security, you think about things like fictional, sci-fi weapons that even we can’t develop because the science is bunk. Then you ask a nuclear physicist if Iran can develop weapons we can’t and how the sanctions would allow them to create these sci-fi weapons.
Apparently is a real clown show. The main thing is the deal is bad, but reasons why the deal is bad are in short order because then people could argue against them. But it’s clearly bad and bad for America. Of course, not having a deal is apparently good, even though no one is willing to take military action again Iran.
And reading up on it, EMP weapons seem to be a favorite boogie man for a lot of Republicans. The terrorist could destroy our Iphones and we have no defense!. Please send R&D funding for anti-EMP weapons to my state.
Sigh, obstructionism at its finest. I honest don't expect it to get through congress. The Republicans are way to jealous of Obama to give him a success like this.
Doesn't really have to pass congress. Congress needs a 2/3 majority against the deal to crush it, which is not something the republicans have, unless they convince quite a lot of democrats to block Obama's deal. Otherwise Obama just vetos congress. It is basically a deal, signed and ratified by the US UNLESS the congress overthrows the deal. It is a formality and a political game to let congress vote on it.
Well that's good to hear at least. Tho it means the entire thing becomes a theater piece for Republicans to grand stand in.
It’s all going to depend on how much fallout they expect from blocking the deal. Right now there public support for giving the deal a try, with only like 35-40% opposed to it flat out. The problems for the Republicans is that we can back out of the deal if Iran doesn’t follow through. That and the deal has reasonable support from Republicans according to polling.
I think they can stomp their feet and make a lot of noise, but stopping it will just look spiteful and partisan really close to an election.
On July 24 2015 02:44 Plansix wrote: Apparently the Iran hearings have started and opened with a Republican senator explaining EMP weapons to a nuclear physicist and why they are real. I am excited to hear further reports of Republicans trying to see how can be the most pro-war profiteering, I mean security.
I would love to hear how the existence of EMP weapons has anything to do with the Iran nuclear treaty Oo
You see, if you want to show that your pro security, you think about things like fictional, sci-fi weapons that even we can’t develop because the science is bunk. Then you ask a nuclear physicist if Iran can develop weapons we can’t and how the sanctions would allow them to create these sci-fi weapons.
Apparently is a real clown show. The main thing is the deal is bad, but reasons why the deal is bad are in short order because then people could argue against them. But it’s clearly bad and bad for America. Of course, not having a deal is apparently good, even though no one is willing to take military action again Iran.
And reading up on it, EMP weapons seem to be a favorite boogie man for a lot of Republicans. The terrorist could destroy our Iphones and we have no defense!. Please send R&D funding for anti-EMP weapons to my state.
Sigh, obstructionism at its finest. I honest don't expect it to get through congress. The Republicans are way to jealous of Obama to give him a success like this.
Doesn't really have to pass congress. Congress needs a 2/3 majority against the deal to crush it, which is not something the republicans have, unless they convince quite a lot of democrats to block Obama's deal. Otherwise Obama just vetos congress. It is basically a deal, signed and ratified by the US UNLESS the congress overthrows the deal. It is a formality and a political game to let congress vote on it.
Well that's good to hear at least. Tho it means the entire thing becomes a theater piece for Republicans to grand stand in.
Its free TV time for them to get their objections on the record so if it goes wrong, they can say "I told you!"
On July 24 2015 02:44 Plansix wrote: Apparently the Iran hearings have started and opened with a Republican senator explaining EMP weapons to a nuclear physicist and why they are real. I am excited to hear further reports of Republicans trying to see how can be the most pro-war profiteering, I mean security.
I would love to hear how the existence of EMP weapons has anything to do with the Iran nuclear treaty Oo
You see, if you want to show that your pro security, you think about things like fictional, sci-fi weapons that even we can’t develop because the science is bunk. Then you ask a nuclear physicist if Iran can develop weapons we can’t and how the sanctions would allow them to create these sci-fi weapons.
Apparently is a real clown show. The main thing is the deal is bad, but reasons why the deal is bad are in short order because then people could argue against them. But it’s clearly bad and bad for America. Of course, not having a deal is apparently good, even though no one is willing to take military action again Iran.
And reading up on it, EMP weapons seem to be a favorite boogie man for a lot of Republicans. The terrorist could destroy our Iphones and we have no defense!. Please send R&D funding for anti-EMP weapons to my state.
Isn't shielding against EMP incredibly easy? Put it in a metal cage and connect that metal cage to the ground. Bam EMP shielded. If it is really sensitive, do that multiple times. Cage in a cage in a cage.
On July 24 2015 02:44 Plansix wrote: Apparently the Iran hearings have started and opened with a Republican senator explaining EMP weapons to a nuclear physicist and why they are real. I am excited to hear further reports of Republicans trying to see how can be the most pro-war profiteering, I mean security.
I would love to hear how the existence of EMP weapons has anything to do with the Iran nuclear treaty Oo
You see, if you want to show that your pro security, you think about things like fictional, sci-fi weapons that even we can’t develop because the science is bunk. Then you ask a nuclear physicist if Iran can develop weapons we can’t and how the sanctions would allow them to create these sci-fi weapons.
Apparently is a real clown show. The main thing is the deal is bad, but reasons why the deal is bad are in short order because then people could argue against them. But it’s clearly bad and bad for America. Of course, not having a deal is apparently good, even though no one is willing to take military action again Iran.
And reading up on it, EMP weapons seem to be a favorite boogie man for a lot of Republicans. The terrorist could destroy our Iphones and we have no defense!. Please send R&D funding for anti-EMP weapons to my state.
Sigh, obstructionism at its finest. I honest don't expect it to get through congress. The Republicans are way to jealous of Obama to give him a success like this.
Doesn't really have to pass congress. Congress needs a 2/3 majority against the deal to crush it, which is not something the republicans have, unless they convince quite a lot of democrats to block Obama's deal. Otherwise Obama just vetos congress. It is basically a deal, signed and ratified by the US UNLESS the congress overthrows the deal. It is a formality and a political game to let congress vote on it.
Its unclear, actually, whether this is true or not, and whether if it is true how many of the sanctions he can withdraw without a duly passed treaty or bill, and then how binding it is on parties within the United States, and future administrations.
WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Wednesday that we ought to phase out Medicare, the federal program that provides health insurance to Americans once they're 65.
"We need to make sure we fulfill the commitment to people that have already received the benefits, that are receiving the benefits," Bush said. "But we need to figure out a way to phase out this program for others and move to a new system that allows them to have something, because they're not going to have anything."
Bush praised Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for proposing to change Medicare to a system that gives seniors medical vouchers instead of paying their bills directly. He also lamented that "the left" reacted with an ad showing a Paul lookalike pushing an old lady's wheelchair off a cliff.
Since 2011, Ryan's name has been closely associated with his Medicare plan, which Democrats have said would "end Medicare as we know it." Nevertheless, the Mitt Romney campaign in 2012 didn't endorse the plan even after adding Ryan to the ticket as a vice presidential candidate.
"Many people are afraid to act because they’re fearful of just getting beat up politically," Bush said at an Americans for Prosperity event in Manchester, New Hampshire.
Arguments for major overhauls of Medicare hinge on the notion that the program must be significantly scaled back because of rising spending.
However, the latest report on the fiscal health of the program, which Medicare's trustees issued on Wednesday, didn’t communicate such a sense of urgency. The part of Medicare that pays for hospital care and related services will remain solvent until 2030, even as waves of retiring Baby Boomers sign on, the report projects. It also predicts that Medicare costs will rise more slowly than previously believed.
The Democratic National Committee eagerly put Bush's remarks about Medicare on YouTube. Bush's comments show he's out to get seniors, liberal groups said. The Bush campaign did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment.
You see, you creating this mythical voucher system that will have just as many problems as Medicare and likely cost more because of the lack of direct government oversight. Or the same amount because old people are not going any place. But then when asked, you get to say “free market” like 200 times and claim the free market will drive down costs. Then people who love the free market get to talk about how its good without understanding or reading up on it. Just like the Bible.
Because creating government voucher system that you then give to your insurance provider is so close to the free market. And it’s not like it wouldn’t be like Medicare where the government regulates what health coverage it provides and doesn’t. But it’s important to have an alternative plan to the Left, even if your plan is really similar and maybe has more flaws.
Nigeria's president warned Thursday that the U.S. refusal to sell his country weapons was “aiding and abetting” Boko Haram, comments that followed a spate of deadly bombings blamed on the group.
Explosions at two bus stations in the northeastern town of Gombe on Wednesday night killed 29 people, officials said. Nigeria's National Emergency Management Agency called for urgent blood donations to treat a further 105 people injured in the assaults.
The bombings represent the latest in a series of attacks by the insurgent group in Nigeria and across the country’s borders. In neighboring Cameroon on Wednesday, two suicide bombers killed at least 18 people at a marketplace near the border, officials said.
Nigerian authorities have come under increasing pressure to confront the threat of Boko Haram, a group that has waged a brutal campaign against civilians as it seeks to carve out a separate state in northern Nigeria.
More than 2,600 people have been killed by the group since January, according to the Council of Foreign Relation’s Nigeria security tracker.
Nigeria President Muhammadu Buhari returned to the capital, Abuja, on Thursday following a four-day visit to the United States. During his visit, he was warmly received by President Barack Obama but failed to get all he wanted.
“Buhari returns to Abuja, with no weapons sale from USA,” said a headline in Nigeria's The News.
Buhari told policymakers at the U.S. Institute for Peace on Wednesday that Nigeria's armed forces are “largely impotent” because they do not possess the appropriate weapons to fight Boko Haram.
He urged the U.S. president and Congress to find ways around the Leahy Law, which prohibits sales of certain weapons to countries whose military are accused of gross human rights violations.
Not a single Republican mayor attended a two-day climate change summit at the Vatican this week. While dozens of U.S. mayors of both parties were allegedly invited, only Democrats accepted, U.S. News has learned.
The one-sided turnout may partly be due to the hastily assembled guest list – Republican mayors James Brainard of Carmel, Indiana, and R. Rex Parris of Lancaster, California, who have spearheaded efforts to address global warming, say they were not invited. But the RSVPs also suggest how deep the political divide over global warming now goes, spurring even local GOP mayors to spurn a prestigious invitation from the papacy.
"Republican voters, the people out there, they've actually turned the corner in actually recognizing that climate disruption is caused by pollution. But the leadership, all the funding comes from the people who don't want people to believe that," says Parris, a self-described "right-wing conservative" who harnessed solar power to slash emissions in his desert city of 160,000.
Most GOP voters say they want politicians to address global warming, but conservative action groups – like those backed by coal, oil and natural gas groups, as well as the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch – have not only undermined climate science but made examples of the politicians who support acting on it. That presents a strong incentive for mayors with state or national designs to simply stay home.
"The fear is there in the people who want to go on to higher office," Parris says.
A spokesman for the Vatican summit declined to state which mayors refused the invitation, which were allegedly sent to larger cities by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a Vatican-funded research group. Of the cities that have Republican mayors – including Albuquerque, Indianapolis and San Diego – officials say they either were not invited, "had no record" or "have no knowledge" of having received an invitation.
I can stand a lot of rep's shenanigans, and on some they do have some points, but they fucking with climate change is really gonna fuck us in the arse.
On July 24 2015 05:38 Plansix wrote: You see, you creating this mythical voucher system that will have just as many problems as Medicare and likely cost more because of the lack of direct government oversight. Or the same amount because old people are not going any place. But then when asked, you get to say “free market” like 200 times and claim the free market will drive down costs. Then people who love the free market get to talk about how its good without understanding or reading up on it. Just like the Bible.
Because creating government voucher system that you then give to your insurance provider is so close to the free market. And it’s not like it wouldn’t be like Medicare where the government regulates what health coverage it provides and doesn’t. But it’s important to have an alternative plan to the Left, even if your plan is really similar and maybe has more flaws.
Is there some kind of disconnect happening in your argument? You decry people that think the market is the better choice for citizens picking health care. You say it takes faith, like the Bible. Your faith is perhaps even stronger. Your religious fervor is directed at the potent "government oversight" that will magically have the fewer problems between the two. I don't know what you claim as your holy book, but your devotion exceeds some normally called religious.
Devotion for government oversight should exceed religious, as it's actually a thing that happens That's like asking which do you put more faith in, a beater or Santa's reindeer. While a beater might breakdown at any moment, you ain't going anywhere waiting for the slate.
The Iran deal is a fantasy. The West can't simply come to terms with religious fanatics; there's an insurmountable barrier of social incongruity fueled by a monumental difference in culture and ideology. Khomeini and his minions aren't even trying to mask their true intentions and underlying motives; Khomeini himself denounced US imperialism, during breaks between "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants at his latest rally, while one of his most senior operatives announced Iran's intentions to continue supplying arms to support factions in Syria, Iraq and other battlefields across the fucked up catastrophe known as the Middle East.
Obama has lowered himself to the standing of a teenage beauty queen contestant, feigning ignorance to an unsavory global reality in the name of world peace. This deal will not accomplish peace in the Middle East, nor will it lead to nuclear nonproliferation. This deal gives Iran a free hand to develop the vital infrastructure and economic cohesion necessary to expand its influence, and to set a powder keg of nuclear material and knowledge that it need only spark once the deal is expired, if it hasn't already. Iran will not accept nuclear impotence when three nuclear powers are within striking distance of unsophisticated missiles, one of which is its arch-enemy whom it has vowed to destroy. It's a pipe-dream, a legacy-builder and a danger not only to a paranoid and overly-aggressive Israel, but to the world order at large as the current Iranian regime, regardless of the constituency it governs, is dominated by conservative hardliners, religious fanatics who we can barely understand, let alone trust.
It could be true, but same can be said of Cuban 20 years ago, and that is certainly progressing for the better. The problem is what would you do instead? Go to war with Iran now? Or when they have a nuclear weapon in 1 year? Hope everyone in Iran starve to death so the problem go away?
Also when UN imposed sanction for Iran's nuclear activity, they can't really then come back and say "Nope, we won't lift the sanction for you to stop developing nuclear weapons", because the legitimacy of the sanction would be lost and there really is nothing stopping Iran from developing a nuke without bombing them back to stone age.
On July 24 2015 09:14 ragz_gt wrote: Devotion for government oversight should exceed religious, as it's actually a thing that happens That's like asking which do you put more faith in, a beater or Santa's reindeer. While a beater might breakdown at any moment, you ain't going anywhere waiting for the slate.
Expecting the invisible hand of the free market to control healthcare costs when the consumer isn't even aware of what is being charged for the services is pure myth. Expecting the consumer to make informed decisions when they have almost zero information is why the free market argument for healthcare is hilarious.
Nothing beat the NPR story where they tried to get a quote for the cost of an MRI. Took them over a week to get a single price from one hospital. People in the ER asking "hey, how much do you charge for a blood transfusion here? I might want to be moved to a cheaper ER. Please get me quotes from all the local ERs on all my treatments for the next week. Thanks."
On July 24 2015 09:22 always_winter wrote: The Iran deal is a fantasy. The West can't simply come to terms with religious fanatics; there's an insurmountable barrier of social incongruity fueled by a monumental difference in culture and ideology. Khomeini and his minions aren't even trying to mask their true intentions and underlying motives; Khomeini himself denounced US imperialism, during breaks between "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" chants at his latest rally, while one of his most senior operatives announced Iran's intentions to continue supplying arms to support factions in Syria, Iraq and other battlefields across the fucked up catastrophe known as the Middle East.
Obama has lowered himself to the standing of a teenage beauty queen contestant, feigning ignorance to an unsavory global reality in the name of world peace. This deal will not accomplish peace in the Middle East, nor will it lead to nuclear nonproliferation. This deal gives Iran a free hand to develop the vital infrastructure and economic cohesion necessary to expand its influence, and to set a powder keg of nuclear material and knowledge that it need only spark once the deal is expired, if it hasn't already. Iran will not accept nuclear impotence when three nuclear powers are within striking distance of unsophisticated missiles, one of which is its arch-enemy whom it has vowed to destroy. It's a pipe-dream, a legacy-builder and a danger not only to a paranoid and overly-aggressive Israel, but to the world order at large as the current Iranian regime, regardless of the constituency it governs, is dominated by conservative hardliners, religious fanatics who we can barely understand, let alone trust.
Better just keep the sanctions going then. That way they'll... do whatever it is they want to do without any intervention from the West.
EPT
