Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

  • QuakerOats
    "The new rule takes this a step further and requires cities across the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and report the results every three to five years. Communities would also have to set and track goals to further reduce segregation."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/


    You will integrate, or else !!!

    Government gets bigger and bigger and more forceful and more forceful.

    Change we can believe in ...

  • like_that
    sleeper;1739593 wrote:
    This would be even better (sad) if it showed the percentage of people on welfare.
  • Spock
    QuakerOats;1739639 wrote:"The new rule takes this a step further and requires cities across the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and report the results every three to five years. Communities would also have to set and track goals to further reduce segregation."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/


    You will integrate, or else !!!

    Government gets bigger and bigger and more forceful and more forceful.

    Change we can believe in ...

    the harder they try.... the more segregated we will become.
  • QuakerOats
    HACKERS STOLE Social Security numbers from 21.5 million people — as well as fingerprint records and information from background checks — in the massive breach earlier this year of federal employee data from the Office of Personnel Management, the government admits.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/09/hackers-stole-social-security-numbers-from-215-million-govt-admits/


    Yawn ...................................... what did barack shoot on the back 9 today
  • QuakerOats
    So we now have capitulation to Iran by the Nobel Peace Prize winner ..... the legacy is complete.



    The Disaster Tour rolls on ...........


    Change we can believe in ...
  • Spock
    How in the hell did we make a deal with Iran while they have 4 americans in their jails?

    Those people should of been let out before we ever talked.
  • wkfan
    Spock;1740765 wrote:How in the hell did we make a deal with Iran while they have 4 americans in their jails?

    Those people should of been let out before we ever talked.
    This would require astute negotiation....not what went on here.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

    So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

    I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

    I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
    I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

    At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
    Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
    Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
    The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
    Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

    But, go on trash the deal.
  • like_that
    ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

    So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

    I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

    I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
    I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

    At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
    Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
    Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
    The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
    Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

    But, go on trash the deal.
    On the flip side, I already see people claiming this a HUGE victory for Obama. Let's get real on both sides.
  • majorspark
    No one in the West is willing to go to war with Iran over their nuclear program. Its a well known fact to everyone especially the Iranians. It is a deal. Crisis averted peace in our time. It is now tomorrows world leaders problem.

    10 yrs +-2 Iran conducts its first nuclear test. Saudis to follow.

    Maybe its a good thing nuclear armed nations tend not to get into all out war with each other.
  • superman
    ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

    So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

    I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

    I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
    I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

    At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
    Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
    Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
    The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
    Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

    But, go on trash the deal.
    I have not read through the deal yet so I make a judgement. However, the people that were chanting "death to America" last week are cheering the deal. That doesn't sound great.
  • HitsRus
    QuakerOats;1740762 wrote:So we now have capitulation to Iran by the Nobel Peace Prize winner ..... the legacy is complete.



    The Disaster Tour rolls on ...........


    Change we can believe in ...
    Trent Gowdyhad a great comment. (sic) 'Our president has a Nobel Peace prize...now he's going for one in fiction.'
  • HitsRus
    Crisis averted peace in our time.
    ..sounds a little like the pre-WWII Sudetenland deal. Weren't those the words they used to describe it?

    Like that, I think this is the height of naivete.
    “Well I think this is a beginning to start a different type of relationship with the West, and I hope that the United States can exhibit a type of behavior in the implementation of this agreement that can in fact help remove some of the compounded mistrust that has been building, mutually, between the two countries over the past many decades but particularly since the revolution,” Zarif said during an interview with NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell in Vienna on Tuesday

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/javad-zarif-iran-deal-reaction-120097.html#ixzz3fvLt0yoW
    Yeah, it's all our fault. I wonder how many times Kerry had to apologize to get them to take their agreement.
  • CenterBHSFan
    ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

    So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

    I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

    I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
    I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

    At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
    Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
    Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
    The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
    Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

    But, go on trash the deal.
    A few things.
    1.) I don't think you will manage to find too many people outside of DC who would be comfortable with this. Not everybody is as uneducated, thought-less or as trusting in the written word/spoken promises of Iran. It has nothing to do with the politics of a small message board. Most people with any sense are distrustful of this, as they very well should be. That doesn't have anything to do with political ideology.

    2.) I'd really be interested in knowing, without a doubt, that inspectors can pop in at any given time to verify on whatever production is happening. Since you seem to have read this agreement, Ptown, can you verify this or not?
    After all, "trust but verify" should be readily accepted by Iran also, yes?

    3.) What if Iran stops any sort of pretense of wanting to play by the rules? What are the plans for consequences?
  • like_that
    CenterBHSFan;1740842 wrote:A few things.
    1.) I don't think you will manage to find too many people outside of DC who would be comfortable with this. Not everybody is as uneducated, thought-less or as trusting in the written word/spoken promises of Iran. It has nothing to do with the politics of a small message board. Most people with any sense are distrustful of this, as they very well should be. That doesn't have anything to do with political ideology.

    2.) I'd really be interested in knowing, without a doubt, that inspectors can pop in at any given time to verify on whatever production is happening. Since you seem to have read this agreement, Ptown, can you verify this or not?
    After all, "trust but verify" should be readily accepted by Iran also, yes?

    3.) What if Iran stops any sort of pretense of wanting to play by the rules? What are the plans for consequences?
    It's a deal without any substance if we can't inspect whenever we want imo. We have dishonest politicians in our own country (including our former Secretary of State and current president), how do we expect Iran to be trustworthy? LOL.
  • fish82
    CenterBHSFan;1740842 wrote:A few things.
    1.) I don't think you will manage to find too many people outside of DC who would be comfortable with this. Not everybody is as uneducated, thought-less or as trusting in the written word/spoken promises of Iran. It has nothing to do with the politics of a small message board. Most people with any sense are distrustful of this, as they very well should be. That doesn't have anything to do with political ideology.

    2.) I'd really be interested in knowing, without a doubt, that inspectors can pop in at any given time to verify on whatever production is happening. Since you seem to have read this agreement, Ptown, can you verify this or not?
    After all, "trust but verify" should be readily accepted by Iran also, yes?

    3.) What if Iran stops any sort of pretense of wanting to play by the rules? What are the plans for consequences?
    As far as question #2 goes:

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-nuclear-deal-winners-losers/story?id=32437227
    Most observers are likely to interpret the inspection, as it applies specifically to military sites, as a victory for Iran. UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren’t immediate or even guaranteed. Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission composed of one member from each of the negotiating parties. The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days, which critics will claim is enough time for Iran to cover up any non-compliance.
    Color me unimpressed.
  • Spock
    remember when Iraq kept kicking UN inspectors out and at least 19 times they werent allowed in at all. When the congress voted to go to war, this was the proof they had WMD
  • SportsAndLady
    Spock;1740866 wrote:remember when Iraq kept kicking UN inspectors out and at least 19 times they werent allowed in at all. When the congress voted to go to war, this was the proof they had WMD
    God...no. Just no.
  • SportsAndLady
    fish82;1740860 wrote:As far as question #2 goes:

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-nuclear-deal-winners-losers/story?id=32437227



    Color me unimpressed.
    Same. That's not really a deal. That's Kerry and the US not wanting to walk away from this without a "deal" so your average American won't rip the Obama administration for not striking a deal. But this is no deal. This is nothing really. If the UN cannot walk into a nuclear facility whenever they want, we didn't "win" these negotiations.
  • cruiser_96
    Winning negotiations??? Is that what this is about!?!?!?!

    In my mind this is about preventing a man/group of people/nation from gaining nuclear weapons for one ALREADY STATED PURPOSE - to annihilate and exterminate another group of people. Why is this such a hard fact to grasp!?
  • sleeper
    No doubt we will eventually go into another pointless war with Iran.
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:
    At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
    Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
    Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
    The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
    Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

    But, go on trash the deal.


    LOL.


    "UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren’t immediate or even guaranteed."


    You can hear it now ----

    John Kerry: "I demand to have access to the facilities"

    Iran: "Fuck off"

    John Kerry: "ok"



    These jackasses make Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.

  • cruiser_96
    sleeper;1740876 wrote:No doubt we will eventually go into another pointless war with Iran.
    Given the "stability" of the people who now have a pathway for NUCLEAR ARMS, I'm not so sure it would be "pointless". I have a feeling when Iran makes a nuclear weapon and uses it once, there will be a new list of targets.

    But maybe that's just me.
  • sleeper
    cruiser_96;1740888 wrote:Given the "stability" of the people who now have a pathway for NUCLEAR ARMS, I'm not so sure it would be "pointless". I have a feeling when Iran makes a nuclear weapon and uses it once, there will be a new list of targets.

    But maybe that's just me.
    Nuclear arms with zero percent chance of hitting the USA.
  • cruiser_96
    sleeper;1740889 wrote:Nuclear arms with zero percent chance of hitting the USA.
    Hitting the U.S. from Iran? Agreed.