Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 12:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 10:47:00 AM (view original):
BTW CCCP, if you don't trust media, where do you get your news? Your analysis? Anything you watch or read?

I read the WSJ. I will watch Fox and CNN here or there. But I take what they say with a grain of salt, sadly. I just think news has become very biased. I want the facts so that I may make my own decision. Often these channels have debates from opposing views. I enjoy watching that so that I may see both points of view and then make my own decision. There are a lot of disparate views on the Iran deal. It looks to me as if Europe was duped and Iran used monies to fund terror groups. But others are saying that is not so. My gut tells me it is but I don't have concrete proof and I certainly will not take the word of Fox news for it.

WSJ is pretty good. BTW when CNN or someone has a debate, they hire flunkies to state their 'opinions'. Most of that stuff is either scripted or intentionally headline-making. Jeffery Lord, if you have heard of him, was only hired by CNN to play that part. That's why I don't trust CNN. No money was exchanged as part of the Iran deal. That was completely separate.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 12:48:00 PM (view original):
I do see that. Kids with single parents are not as successful on average as those with two parents. The issue is that IDK if a propaganda campaign to raise awareness to it will actually lower rates of single parenthood.

Lowering rates of single parenthood is a good goal to have though.

Thank you.

Is it propaganda? I mean was "Just say No" a propaganda campaign?

Yes it was. Propaganda isn't necessarily bad, but yeah, that is a propaganda campaign.

Posted by The Taint on 5/9/2018 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 8:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 1:16:00 AM (view original):
Btw CCCP, I assume you like that the US pulled out of the Iran deal? If so, why? I want to hear your arguments because it makes zero sense to me.

I don't trust Iran. I also don't trust our media or any media. So it is tough for me to judge DJT or BHO. If someone could give me honest detail on the deal and monitoring I would opine better.

It sound as though I am dodging your question. I apologize. But I truly don't have enough details to opine fairly. Israel said it was a bad deal and I side with Israel 100x out of 100 so I will side with DJT on that one. To me, rightly or wrongly the Islamic countries are corrupt. They all treat women like 2nd class citizens at best, they hate dogs and they cannot separate church and state. Apostasy is punishable by death. If you are gay you are killed.

Tough for me to side with Islamic countries on anything.

The WWE was recently in KSA. Only the men were allowed to perform. In the audience, women were only allowed if accompanied by a man. I know KSA is not Iran but honestly, their backwards cultures annoy me.

"
US, UK, China etc would...

Lift all sanctions within 4 to 12 months of a final accord.

Develop a mechanism to restore old sanctions if Iran fails to comply as per IAEA reports and inspection.

The EU will remove energy and banking sanctions.

The United States will remove sanctions against domestic and foreign companies who do business with Iran.

All UN resolutions sanctioning Iran will be annulled.

All UN-related sanctions will be dismantled.

IRAN WOULD:

Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years.[21][22]

No enriched uranium above 3.67% purity (suitable for civil use and nuclear power generation only).

Reduce stockpile of enriched uranium from current 10,000 to not more than 300 kilograms 3.67 percent enrich uranium for 15 years.

Fordo uranium enrichment facility will operate not more than 1,000 centrifuges for research. 5,000 R-1 centrifuges will be running at Natanz. The remaining 13,000 centrifuges will be used as spare, as needed.

Arak facility will be modified so as to produce a minimal amount of plutonium but will remain a heavy-water reactor.

Allow inspection of all its nuclear facilities and its supply chains such as uranium mining sites ."

That's the deal. Basically, remove sanctions in return for no nukes. The exact deal we want to make with NK btw.

So if you dislike Iran, you should support this. Experts say that this deal benefits the US way more than Iran. Iranian people were rioting and protesting on the streets when the Iranian deal was made. The deal makes Iran not build nukes for 10 years. Trump complained that it only lasted 10 years, so he canceled the deal. But news flash: 10>0. Because he cancelled the deal, if the deal falls through, Iran can build nukes NOW.

OK and why doesn't DJT like it? What is his logic? Is he stating that Iran is not holding up its end of the bargain?

it's an Obama policy. That simple. well and he wants to push the price of oil up.

No no the Congress and Senate voted against it when BHO implemented it. There has to be more to it. If you are going to supply me facts then supply all the facts. I am sure DJT didn't say "I want to push the price of oil up".

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 8:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 1:16:00 AM (view original):
Btw CCCP, I assume you like that the US pulled out of the Iran deal? If so, why? I want to hear your arguments because it makes zero sense to me.

I don't trust Iran. I also don't trust our media or any media. So it is tough for me to judge DJT or BHO. If someone could give me honest detail on the deal and monitoring I would opine better.

It sound as though I am dodging your question. I apologize. But I truly don't have enough details to opine fairly. Israel said it was a bad deal and I side with Israel 100x out of 100 so I will side with DJT on that one. To me, rightly or wrongly the Islamic countries are corrupt. They all treat women like 2nd class citizens at best, they hate dogs and they cannot separate church and state. Apostasy is punishable by death. If you are gay you are killed.

Tough for me to side with Islamic countries on anything.

The WWE was recently in KSA. Only the men were allowed to perform. In the audience, women were only allowed if accompanied by a man. I know KSA is not Iran but honestly, their backwards cultures annoy me.

"
US, UK, China etc would...

Lift all sanctions within 4 to 12 months of a final accord.

Develop a mechanism to restore old sanctions if Iran fails to comply as per IAEA reports and inspection.

The EU will remove energy and banking sanctions.

The United States will remove sanctions against domestic and foreign companies who do business with Iran.

All UN resolutions sanctioning Iran will be annulled.

All UN-related sanctions will be dismantled.

IRAN WOULD:

Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years.[21][22]

No enriched uranium above 3.67% purity (suitable for civil use and nuclear power generation only).

Reduce stockpile of enriched uranium from current 10,000 to not more than 300 kilograms 3.67 percent enrich uranium for 15 years.

Fordo uranium enrichment facility will operate not more than 1,000 centrifuges for research. 5,000 R-1 centrifuges will be running at Natanz. The remaining 13,000 centrifuges will be used as spare, as needed.

Arak facility will be modified so as to produce a minimal amount of plutonium but will remain a heavy-water reactor.

Allow inspection of all its nuclear facilities and its supply chains such as uranium mining sites ."

That's the deal. Basically, remove sanctions in return for no nukes. The exact deal we want to make with NK btw.

So if you dislike Iran, you should support this. Experts say that this deal benefits the US way more than Iran. Iranian people were rioting and protesting on the streets when the Iranian deal was made. The deal makes Iran not build nukes for 10 years. Trump complained that it only lasted 10 years, so he canceled the deal. But news flash: 10>0. Because he cancelled the deal, if the deal falls through, Iran can build nukes NOW.

OK and why doesn't DJT like it? What is his logic? Is he stating that Iran is not holding up its end of the bargain?

His logic on the outside is this:

• There is speculation that Iran is building nukes behind the scenes
• The deal only lasts 10 years.

The issue with that, though, is

• If Iran was building nukes, we would have the right to inspect their facilities and we would have already known, which leads to the question of why he remained in it for so long. Also, if Iran was building nukes and we found out, that's against international law. So Iran would be punished big-time. Which means that if Iran had the goal of nuclear technology, they would have been better off just not agreeing to the deal rather than agree to it and then immediately violate it.
• 0 years is less than 10 years.

But Trump didn't pull out of it for either of those reasons. He pulled out of it because the deal was an OBAMA deal. He only wants to reverse what Obama did. Regardless if it was good or not. To SOME in his base, Obama is an uppity n***** who should not have had control in the first place.

Here is the counterpoint: Again not necessarily what I believe but as I told you I don't believe either side.

The deal amounted to bribing Iran to suspend its nuclear program, which is like feeding a wild animal scraps of meat to dissuade it from biting you. The deal lifted sanctions, threw the regime an economic lifeline and effectively recognized it as part of the international order. It moved toward the regularization of a pariah state.

The problem is that Iran’s regime is not regular. Look at what it’s been doing since the deal was signed. Even if uranium enrichment has been stopped, Tehran has continued, quite openly, to invest in its missile program. It has harassed foreign citizens.

It has also hugely expanded its power within the region, establishing a presence in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. Indeed, a country’s attitude toward the Iran deal depends in part on its proximity to Iran. Israel, for instance, cannot tolerate its neighbors being turned into military colonies of a hostile foreign power. It feels vulnerable to attack.

If the deal stands as it is, there is a risk that it actually enables the emergence of Iran as a hegemonic power on the brink of attaining the bomb. It would have the same effect as the SALT treaties of the 70s, which were meant to limit Soviet arms growth, but in fact provided cover for the Soviets expanding into Africa, Central America and Asia.

• Iran was already fine economically.
• Iran is a major country and part of the international order.
• If Iran actually built nuclear weapons, then they would be punished more than if they simply didn't join the deal.
• The expanding power point does not have anything to do with the deal. They were doing that regardless.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-18/obama-s-alternative-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 1:15:00 PM (view original):

• Iran was already fine economically.
• Iran is a major country and part of the international order.
• If Iran actually built nuclear weapons, then they would be punished more than if they simply didn't join the deal.
• The expanding power point does not have anything to do with the deal. They were doing that regardless.

Again I don't know enough about this to intelligently debate this. Obviously DJT had his reasons. It looks to me that DJT would rather be allied with Sunni KSA over Shiite Iran. Both are bad. I have no idea why he chose the KSA? $$$? I am going to see what Ben thinks about this. The freed monies that Iran received was used to fund terror groups such as Hezbollah, which is the mortal enemy of Israel.

As I said I don't know or trust the sources enough to opine on this. I do agree that Iran is a pariah and a revolution would be great.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 1:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by The Taint on 5/9/2018 12:59:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 12:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 10:43:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 8:38:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 5/9/2018 1:16:00 AM (view original):
Btw CCCP, I assume you like that the US pulled out of the Iran deal? If so, why? I want to hear your arguments because it makes zero sense to me.

I don't trust Iran. I also don't trust our media or any media. So it is tough for me to judge DJT or BHO. If someone could give me honest detail on the deal and monitoring I would opine better.

It sound as though I am dodging your question. I apologize. But I truly don't have enough details to opine fairly. Israel said it was a bad deal and I side with Israel 100x out of 100 so I will side with DJT on that one. To me, rightly or wrongly the Islamic countries are corrupt. They all treat women like 2nd class citizens at best, they hate dogs and they cannot separate church and state. Apostasy is punishable by death. If you are gay you are killed.

Tough for me to side with Islamic countries on anything.

The WWE was recently in KSA. Only the men were allowed to perform. In the audience, women were only allowed if accompanied by a man. I know KSA is not Iran but honestly, their backwards cultures annoy me.

"
US, UK, China etc would...

Lift all sanctions within 4 to 12 months of a final accord.

Develop a mechanism to restore old sanctions if Iran fails to comply as per IAEA reports and inspection.

The EU will remove energy and banking sanctions.

The United States will remove sanctions against domestic and foreign companies who do business with Iran.

All UN resolutions sanctioning Iran will be annulled.

All UN-related sanctions will be dismantled.

IRAN WOULD:

Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,104 and only 5,060 of these enriching uranium for 10 years.[21][22]

No enriched uranium above 3.67% purity (suitable for civil use and nuclear power generation only).

Reduce stockpile of enriched uranium from current 10,000 to not more than 300 kilograms 3.67 percent enrich uranium for 15 years.

Fordo uranium enrichment facility will operate not more than 1,000 centrifuges for research. 5,000 R-1 centrifuges will be running at Natanz. The remaining 13,000 centrifuges will be used as spare, as needed.

Arak facility will be modified so as to produce a minimal amount of plutonium but will remain a heavy-water reactor.

Allow inspection of all its nuclear facilities and its supply chains such as uranium mining sites ."

That's the deal. Basically, remove sanctions in return for no nukes. The exact deal we want to make with NK btw.

So if you dislike Iran, you should support this. Experts say that this deal benefits the US way more than Iran. Iranian people were rioting and protesting on the streets when the Iranian deal was made. The deal makes Iran not build nukes for 10 years. Trump complained that it only lasted 10 years, so he canceled the deal. But news flash: 10>0. Because he cancelled the deal, if the deal falls through, Iran can build nukes NOW.

OK and why doesn't DJT like it? What is his logic? Is he stating that Iran is not holding up its end of the bargain?

it's an Obama policy. That simple. well and he wants to push the price of oil up.

No no the Congress and Senate voted against it when BHO implemented it. There has to be more to it. If you are going to supply me facts then supply all the facts. I am sure DJT didn't say "I want to push the price of oil up".

Putin wants oil prices up. all of Russia does.

That I believe

From Ben Shapiro:

Team Obama lives in a world of fiction.

As President Trump announced to the world that he would finally put a stake through the heart of the Iran deal — the signal foreign policy "achievement" of the Obama administration — Obama's former staffers lamented, rending their sackcloth and smearing their ashes. "I will never forget the dark cloud that hung over the White House in the years Iran was advancing nuclear program & Obama was briefed on all the risks of using military force," former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power tweeted. "Trump has demolished America's credibility & paved the way for Iran to re-start its nuclear program. Trump has done the unthinkable: isolated the US & rallied the world around Iran."

Then there was amateur-fiction-writer-turned-professional-fiction-writer Ben Rhodes, a former Obama national security aide, who tweeted, "One tragicomic element of Trump's presidency is that the more he tries to tear down Obama's legacy, the bigger he makes Obama look." Meanwhile, former Secretary of State John Kerry, who had been traveling the world in an attempt to conduct his own personal foreign policy on behalf of the mullahs, stated, "Today's announcement weakens our security, breaks America's word, isolates us from our European allies, puts Israel at greater risk, empowers Iran's hardliners, and reduces our global leverage to address Tehran's misbehavior."

Obama himself stated, "Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America's closest allies."

In hearing all of these honeyed voices speak, one might think that Iran has been acting responsibly for the last three years, that it hasn't been pursuing a campaign of horrific terrorism in Yemen and Syria, that it hasn't been sponsoring the takeover of Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah, that it hasn't been funding the Palestinian terror group Hamas, that it hasn't been developing long-range ballistic missiles while leading chants saying "Death to America." One might think that Obama left the Middle East a bright a beautiful place, not a hellhole filled with human carnage bought with dollars spent by Iran but funneled through the United States.

None of that is true, of course. Obama left the Middle East a smoking wreckage heap — a situation so grim that even Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have been forced to ally with Israel to allay fears of an Iranian regional takeover. Obama and his staff lied repeatedly to the American people about the Iran deal — and they continue to lie. When Kerry says that the deal will "empower Iran's hardliners," he is repeating an outright fabrication: The hardliners are in charge of the government, and the deal strengthened them. When Power speaks as though Obama alleviated the possibility of Iran's nuclear program, she's lying, too: The deal explicitly paved the way for an Iranian nuclear program free and clear of consequences from the international order. When Obama speaks as though our Middle East allies were pleased by the deal, he's lying: They all opposed it, and they're all celebrating its end.

Barack Obama had a peculiar vision of the Middle East remade: Iran ascendant, the power of Israel checked, the Saudis chastened. He achieved that vision at the cost of tens of thousands of lives across the region. President Trump is undoing that legacy. Good riddance.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 1:19:00 PM (view original):
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-18/obama-s-alternative-facts-on-the-iran-nuclear-deal

Well, this is actually pretty shady. I don't know if it had direct correlation with the Iran deal though.

Posted by cccp1014 on 5/9/2018 2:42:00 PM (view original):
From Ben Shapiro:

Team Obama lives in a world of fiction.

As President Trump announced to the world that he would finally put a stake through the heart of the Iran deal — the signal foreign policy "achievement" of the Obama administration — Obama's former staffers lamented, rending their sackcloth and smearing their ashes. "I will never forget the dark cloud that hung over the White House in the years Iran was advancing nuclear program & Obama was briefed on all the risks of using military force," former United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power tweeted. "Trump has demolished America's credibility & paved the way for Iran to re-start its nuclear program. Trump has done the unthinkable: isolated the US & rallied the world around Iran."

Then there was amateur-fiction-writer-turned-professional-fiction-writer Ben Rhodes, a former Obama national security aide, who tweeted, "One tragicomic element of Trump's presidency is that the more he tries to tear down Obama's legacy, the bigger he makes Obama look." Meanwhile, former Secretary of State John Kerry, who had been traveling the world in an attempt to conduct his own personal foreign policy on behalf of the mullahs, stated, "Today's announcement weakens our security, breaks America's word, isolates us from our European allies, puts Israel at greater risk, empowers Iran's hardliners, and reduces our global leverage to address Tehran's misbehavior."

Obama himself stated, "Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America's closest allies."

In hearing all of these honeyed voices speak, one might think that Iran has been acting responsibly for the last three years, that it hasn't been pursuing a campaign of horrific terrorism in Yemen and Syria, that it hasn't been sponsoring the takeover of Lebanon by the terrorist group Hezbollah, that it hasn't been funding the Palestinian terror group Hamas, that it hasn't been developing long-range ballistic missiles while leading chants saying "Death to America." One might think that Obama left the Middle East a bright a beautiful place, not a hellhole filled with human carnage bought with dollars spent by Iran but funneled through the United States.

None of that is true, of course. Obama left the Middle East a smoking wreckage heap — a situation so grim that even Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan have been forced to ally with Israel to allay fears of an Iranian regional takeover. Obama and his staff lied repeatedly to the American people about the Iran deal — and they continue to lie. When Kerry says that the deal will "empower Iran's hardliners," he is repeating an outright fabrication: The hardliners are in charge of the government, and the deal strengthened them. When Power speaks as though Obama alleviated the possibility of Iran's nuclear program, she's lying, too: The deal explicitly paved the way for an Iranian nuclear program free and clear of consequences from the international order. When Obama speaks as though our Middle East allies were pleased by the deal, he's lying: They all opposed it, and they're all celebrating its end.

Barack Obama had a peculiar vision of the Middle East remade: Iran ascendant, the power of Israel checked, the Saudis chastened. He achieved that vision at the cost of tens of thousands of lives across the region. President Trump is undoing that legacy. Good riddance.

• The Iran-funded terrorism has nothing to do with the Iran deal.
• The middle east was already bad. Obama did not make it worse.
• Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan were already against Iran.
• No, the hardliners protested against the deal.
• No, pulling out of the deal does that. The deal did the exact opposite,
• Israel only opposed it because they profit from sanctioning Iran.
• Obama did not have that vision,

I know you want to listen to Shapiro over me, but he is incorrect on this. Blind support for the president. Complete misunderstanding of the middle east outside of the tinted Israeli perspective. Good riddance indeed.

He actually is NOT a Trump supporter. And yes I will listen to Ben over you all day. Sorry big guy.

To me he is slightly more educated and has slightly more credibility.

Oh, give me a break. Ben is a ******* Trumpist.

It isn't healthy to only listen to one person. Ben has an agenda. He wants an uberpowerful Israel. He wants to have Trump re-elected. Most of the stuff he said was predictable and uneducated.