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.
Barack Obama has enough votes to get the Iran deal through the House of Representatives, despite Republican efforts to block the historic nuclear accord, the minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, has said.
With a Senate vote looking increasingly secure for the president, Pelosi’s comments suggest it is now extremely unlikely that Congress will halt the deal.
Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press that she was confident House Democrats would have the votes if necessary to see the Iran deal through.
Her comments coincide with growing momentum among Democrats in favor of the agreement, struck by Iran and six world powers in July, despite a couple of high-profile defections.
On Wednesday, Joe Donnelly became the 24th Democrat in the Senate to publicly back the deal – a key gain for the Obama administration, given the Indiana senator ranks among the chamber’s most conservative Democrats and faces a tough re-election battle in 2016.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
Every time I see "Republican" and "snowball" in the same sentence, I can't help but think about Jim Inhofe "disproving" climate change.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
Every time I see "Republican" and "snowball" in the same sentence, I can't help but think about Jim Inhofe "disproving" climate change.
Still one of the greatest moments in the US congress to point at and wonder why we haven’t just burned it all down. Or the guy who asked why the icecaps melting was bad because it happened in his drink all the time.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
I think there is some legitimacy behind the argument that the deal could be a destabilizing force between the Sunni/Shia factions/nations in the Middle East.
Most of the arguments on the deal that I've seen seem to be taking certain assumptions as fact: the proponents of the deal take the assumptions of the deal (that Iran is a rational actor, that Iranian "moderates" have a desire for better relations with the West, that Iran will not continue to pursue the nuke, that sanctions are "ineffective", etc.) and the opponents work under the assumption that Iran is not rational, does not have interests that align with ours, and that they will not see this as a conciliatory move, but a declaration of weakness.
Personally, I don't know enough to make any single determination, but I think both have made good points worth considering.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
Every time I see "Republican" and "snowball" in the same sentence, I can't help but think about Jim Inhofe "disproving" climate change.
Still one of the greatest moments in the US congress to point at and wonder why we haven’t just burned it all down. Or the guy who asked why the icecaps melting was bad because it happened in his drink all the time.
When I hear about Jim Inhofe, I think to myself "y'know, despite his many flaws Trump is kinda an okay dude relatively speaking. I mean, he's had the cards stacked in his favor, but he's managed to do okay for himself and is probably deep down not a complete idiot."
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
I think there is some legitimacy behind the argument that the deal could be a destabilizing force between the Sunni/Shia factions/nations in the Middle East.
Most of the arguments on the deal that I've seen seem to be taking certain assumptions as fact: the proponents of the deal take the assumptions of the deal (that Iran is a rational actor, that Iranian "moderates" have a desire for better relations with the West, that Iran will not continue to pursue the nuke, that sanctions are "ineffective", etc.) and the opponents work under the assumption that Iran is not rational, does not have interests that align with ours, and that they will not see this as a conciliatory move, but a declaration of weakness.
Personally, I don't know enough to make any single determination, but I think both have made good points worth considering.
To the Sunni Shia point, I think that a partnership with Iran would provide a much needed counterweight to Saudi Arabia. Let's face it, Saudi Arabia (some nice guys there aside) is sketchy as fuck and we overlook that because they're the closest thing we have to a reliable partner in the Middle East.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
You linked your own (unsourced) post as evidence? I remember reading it before and it was unpersuasive then.
The deal has no stipulations about funding of terror groups and militia missions which should be the #1 priority because a nuke without those is a non-issue.
Edit: Even their own propaganda website says nothing of the sort.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
This simple fact hasn’t bothered the party up till this point, why start now? Just keep working on driving away every single minority group until their party is filled with exactly the type of people you would expect.
But the people running this stuff were the folks really thought Mitt was going to win and were shocked when he didn’t. I remover watching those news broadcasts. The reality distortion field was strong.
5:57 Here you go liberals, take pride in your work and what you stand for, murdering unborn babies in the name of "women's rights." In this video, Planned Parenthood apparently cut through the face of an aborted live baby to extract its brain for medical research.
It's pretty obvious Donald Trump is unstoppable at this point, Americans are taking back their country.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
This simple fact hasn’t bothered the party up till this point, why start now? Just keep working on driving away every single minority group until their party is filled with exactly the type of people you would expect.
But the people running this stuff were the folks really thought Mitt was going to win and were shocked when he didn’t. I remover watching those news broadcasts. The reality distortion field was strong.
Well, the party isn't a monolith that moves and thinks in uniform - many, many Republicans are horrified at what's happening to the party. The Republican party has become rotten - my hope is that this cycle can finally collapse it and initiate the reforms that party needs. But then, people have been saying stuff like that since 2008, and it's gotten worse, not better.
While I'm more Democratic-leaning anyways, not having 2 viable political parties nationally is not a good thing for the US. Democrats have major messups and bad policies, and there's needs to be a counterweight to stress test ideas and policy.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
This simple fact hasn’t bothered the party up till this point, why start now? Just keep working on driving away every single minority group until their party is filled with exactly the type of people you would expect.
But the people running this stuff were the folks really thought Mitt was going to win and were shocked when he didn’t. I remover watching those news broadcasts. The reality distortion field was strong.
Well, the party isn't a monolith that moves and thinks in uniform - many, many Republicans are horrified at what's happening to the party. The Republican party has become rotten - my hope is that this cycle can finally collapse it and initiate the reforms that party needs. But then, people have been saying stuff like that since 2008, and it's gotten worse, not better.
While I'm more Democratic-leaning anyways, not having 2 viable political parties nationally is not a good thing for the US. Democrats have major messups and bad policies, and there's needs to be a counterweight to stress test ideas and policy.
Agreed. My grandfather and father were both party members and can't stand it now a days. Its sad. But when I talk about it not bothering the party, I mean the leadership and the folks pushing it in the direction it is headed.
On August 21 2015 04:55 Plansix wrote: All right folks, this is the Truther, not the Nazi apologist. And American's already own this country, you included. Sorry to disappoint.
You can't debate facts, typical liberal response you always hear on these forums. Americans don't run the US, American politicians don't work for the American people, but for the corporations that bought them.
On August 21 2015 04:55 Plansix wrote: All right folks, this is the Truther, not the Nazi apologist. And American's already own this country, you included. Sorry to disappoint.
You can't debate facts, typical liberal response you always hear on these forums.
My grandfather taught me to never argue with a drunk or a fool. I’m just honoring his memory.
On August 21 2015 04:55 Plansix wrote: All right folks, this is the Truther, not the Nazi apologist. And American's already own this country, you included. Sorry to disappoint.
You can't debate facts, typical liberal response you always hear on these forums.
My grandfather taught me to never argue with a drunk or a fool. I’m just honoring his memory.
Another typical liberal response, you people are a disease. Bunch of self-loathing immoral, soulless know-it-all idiots. Nothing more.
On August 21 2015 03:07 Plansix wrote: Did he talk about Trump the entire time like a real smarty?
If only, keep in mind this is supposed to be the smart brother.
Jeb Bush on Thursday said he doesn’t think the term “anchor babies” is offensive, wading further into the controversial debate over birthright citizenship that was sparked by Donald Trump.
“Give me another word” than “anchor babies,” he challenged while speaking at a press conference in Keene, New Hampshire Thursday.
On Wednesday, Bush used the term himself as he called for greater enforcement on people who he said were abusing birthright citizenship.
“If there’s abuse, if people are bringing — pregnant women are coming in to have babies simply because they can do it, then there ought to be greater enforcement,” Bush said on Bill Bennett’s conservative radio show, “Morning in America” Wednesday. “That’s [the] legitimate side of this. Better enforcement so that you don’t have these, you know, ‘anchor babies’, as they’re described, coming into the country.”
I just saw that. These politicians don't seem to understand they don't get to decide what is offensive or isn't. It's not something that is done through a vote or decision making process by Hispanics or any other minority. If the group that they are courting votes from finds the word offensive, then its offensive. I don't understand why there is this section of the population who can't figure out how language works and that you don't get to pick how people react to what you say.
Its ok though, I am sure they can win without taking California.
To be fair, the chances of the Republicans taking California was about equal to the chance of a snowball in a California wildfire.
It's not about taking California - it's about losing Florida. And that's only one state - if Republicans can't win minority voters they will not win the Presidency unless they make off with a vast majority of white voters. The electoral map is already stacked against them - primary seasons like this aren't going to help them
This simple fact hasn’t bothered the party up till this point, why start now? Just keep working on driving away every single minority group until their party is filled with exactly the type of people you would expect.
But the people running this stuff were the folks really thought Mitt was going to win and were shocked when he didn’t. I remover watching those news broadcasts. The reality distortion field was strong.
Well, the party isn't a monolith that moves and thinks in uniform - many, many Republicans are horrified at what's happening to the party. The Republican party has become rotten - my hope is that this cycle can finally collapse it and initiate the reforms that party needs. But then, people have been saying stuff like that since 2008, and it's gotten worse, not better.
While I'm more Democratic-leaning anyways, not having 2 viable political parties nationally is not a good thing for the US. Democrats have major messups and bad policies, and there's needs to be a counterweight to stress test ideas and policy.
My alternate opinion: it might be better if the Republican party just collapsed (doubtful, there's so much money and influence propping it up) and it became the Democratic party v. a bunch of other things. The the Democrats would have their own chance to prove if they're any good, or collapse and reform like the Republicans. I know the Democratic party has its own share of problems which are sufficiently hidden because the Republican dysfunction is so much more visible.
On August 21 2015 03:01 ticklishmusic wrote: The deal is a good thing. Anyone with understanding of the situation and without some sort of ideological stake in it agrees.
Spoken like a true ideologue, well done. Brookings to boot.
The deal's always been controversial, not least of which out of concern for our ally Israel.
My issue with your statement: 1. Brookings is pretty mainstream, they're cited about equally by the left and right.
2. The guy who wrote the article is as close as you can get to being an expert on the issue. So, maybe worth reading rather than dismissing outright?
3. To put this in a slightly less lazy way: It's fine to raise objections and debate specific aspects of the deal, and I know that there are some points of concern. However, looking at the deal in the context of what it set out to achieve and what can be done in the Middle East, the logical conclusion is that it's a good deal. I have more respect for the educated people in this thread who have actually made some study of the issue over the politicians who try to play gotcha with people who probably know more about nuclear technology than most people know about their own toilets.
Anyways, I make lazy statements now and then because it seems to be the way to go in politics. Simplicity is strength right?
Secondly, the deal is good if you are obsessed with nonproliferation, however, I think that should be only our third or fourth priority when dealing with Iran. So its a bad deal on a macro level because we traded our primary leverage for a secondary or tertiary goal.
Actually, that is just not true. It's also a good deal when it comes to encouraging the development of a more moderate Iran and of a more stable Middle East, especially on the long term.
You linked your own (unsourced) post as evidence? I remember reading it before and it was unpersuasive then.
The deal has no stipulations about funding of terror groups and militia missions which should be the #1 priority because a nuke without those is a non-issue.
Edit: Even their own propaganda website says nothing of the sort.
How do you think Israel would react if an Iranian nuke appears imminent?
On August 21 2015 04:55 Plansix wrote: All right folks, this is the Truther, not the Nazi apologist. And American's already own this country, you included. Sorry to disappoint.
You can't debate facts, typical liberal response you always hear on these forums.
My grandfather taught me to never argue with a drunk or a fool. I’m just honoring his memory.
Another typical liberal response, you people are a disease. Bunch of self-loathing immoral, soulless know-it-all idiots. Nothing more.
Seriously? You're painting all liberals with a common brush because of a few liberal responses from one person?
You can't debate facts, typical liberal response
That's my favorite comment you made. We just finished talking about Jim Inhofe...
On August 21 2015 04:55 Plansix wrote: All right folks, this is the Truther, not the Nazi apologist. And American's already own this country, you included. Sorry to disappoint.
You can't debate facts, typical liberal response you always hear on these forums.
My grandfather taught me to never argue with a drunk or a fool. I’m just honoring his memory.
Another typical liberal response, you people are a disease. Bunch of self-loathing immoral, soulless know-it-all idiots. Nothing more.
Seriously? You're painting all liberals with a common brush because of a few liberal responses from one person?
EPT
