Democrat Senator Charles Schumer of New York has announced he will "strongly" back legislation sponsored by Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

That is the legislation that will require that Congress vote on any Iran deal.

If Reid Heir-Apparent is backing the legislation, it's all be certain that the legislation will have a VETO-proof bi-partisan seal when it goes to Obama for signature...

Obama has really stepped in the doo-doo this time... :D

Michale

So......

My fellow Weigantians...

Deal or No Deal???

What say you??

Michale

So much for Obama's "deal", eh???

Even Iran is telling Obama he is full of carp....

Michale

Yea, me too...

Something along the lines of "Iran's interference in Yemen will constitute a RED LINE that the US will respond forcefully too!!"

:D

Michale

Not sure how you got there from here..

For me, "Gun Control" means being able to hit your target....

So, yea.. I am WAY in favor of gun control...

Michale

"For the same reason it would be a bad idea to give a bunch of chimpanzees full-auto M16s...."

So, in other words Michale, unlike the NRA, you would be in favor of the very liberal position of gun control? Nice to know!

But, heck, Secretary Kerry was tired. He should have had some proper rest before being interviewed by the geniuses at PBS. Ahem.

Heh

John Kerry got jokes...

Who knew that Kerry could be such a funny guy.... :D

Michale

http://www.charlesduelfer.com/blog/

Talk to the guy who led the verification teams in Iraq...

Michale

Iran is insisting that ALL sanctions be lifted immediately upon signing of the "deal"...

Do ya'all agree with that??

That ALL sanctions should be lifted solely and completely based on Iran's word that they will adhere to the deal??

Michale

Most pyscho-paths are also "shrewd manipulators"...

I dunno if I would label them "rational"...

Maybe that's just the cop/military man in me... :^/

Michale

Hmmmmmm

Why would it be a bad idea to have a nuclear arms race in a region of the planet where "civilization" is regressed a couple thousand years.... Where people are executed for their lifestyle choices or just because of who their great great great great great grandfather was. Where women are subjugated and treated worse than a Western family treats their dog...

Hmmmmmm

I am going to go with the above answer..

For the same reason it would be a bad idea to give a bunch of chimpanzees full-auto M16s....

Michale

So, how is that any different from nations armed with nuclear weapons, except being the same situation writ larger? If every single nation has a nuclear weapon, doesn't that by the same logic make all nations safer?

If every single nation was a Switzerland or Israel, then you would be right...

But not every nation is like Switzerland or Israel...

Some are like Nazi Germany or Iran...

We keep nuclear weapons away from countries like Iran for the same reason we keep M-16s away from chimpanzees...

The USA could be accused of terrorism too.

An accusation does not a fact make...

Iran's leaders so far have proven themselves to be very rational.

So executing gay people for their lifestyle and promoting terrorism world wide are the marks of a "very rational" government???

Errr....

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.... :^/

Michale

"So, to calm down Hitler, the US and it's allies should have just given him nukes...
Interesting world strategy ya got there.. :D
Again, your position postulates that Iran's leaders are rational..
There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.."

I never said we should have given Hitler nuclear weapons. But I might point out that Hitler did have weapons of mass destruction. He had chemical weapons. He could have put them on V2 rockets and fired them at London, but he never did. That was because of Hitler's experience in the trenches during WWI.

Iran's leaders so far have proven themselves to be very rational. Your claim that they support terrorism proves they are irrational does no such thing. In fact, in proves just the opposite. That they are very shrewd manipulators of unconventional means of power. How else could they manipulate situations with very little cost to themselves directly? No direct use of their own military power, and plausible deniability.

The USA could be accused of terrorism too. Nicaragua would call the Contras who we supported terrorists. The Russians would could the Mujahideen who we supported terrorists. Does that therefore make the leadership of the USA irrational?

"Does it make sense to INSURE that nuclear weapons proliferate in the region??"

To play devils advocate here, why not? Why wouldn't that be a good idea?

The gun rights lobby contention is that everyone is safer if everyone is armed with a firearm, a gun. Crime goes down, so wouldn't conventional warfare between nations also go down? Even more so if someone who is crazy has a gun. Then another rational person with a gun can stop that crazy person with a gun before they do too much damage.

So, how is that any different from nations armed with nuclear weapons, except being the same situation writ larger? If every single nation has a nuclear weapon, doesn't that by the same logic make all nations safer?

How can you be for or against gun control, and then take exactly the opposite position on nuclear weapons?

That's one interpretation. Ironically enough, an interpretation that serves a partisan agenda..

ANOTHER interpretation is that the Indiana and Arkansas laws serves to protect individuals who want to discriminate against other individuals..

For example, the New Mexico hairdresser that discriminated against Governor Martinez..

Or the Colorado baker that discriminated against a christian..

As I said, INTENT is a good argument to make.. It's not accurate, but it's a LOT better of an argument than to claim that the laws are not identical..

Because the facts CLEARLY show that the laws are identical..

But because "intent" is such a gray area and only open to opinions, it's a much better argument to make..

Michale

Barely half are from me.. :D

Michale

145 posts!!!!!!

For the record, that's a little on the low side of normal for an FTP commentary.. :D

Michale

Yer welcome.. :D

Michale

145 posts!!!!!!

Granted, most of them are Michael's, but clear evidence that this column can practically write itself, even when it shouldn't.

Welcome back CW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

yet, the simple fact that the drove Iran to the negotiating table PROVES that sanctions were having the desired effect..

There's a first time for everything, Michale. You should know that!

And yer willing to risk a nuclear holocaust in the Middle East that this time, Iran really WILL follow thru on it's agreements??

And what of a nuclear arms race in the most unstable and volatile region on the planet??

That's another by-product of this "wonderful" deal...

Does it make sense to INSURE that nuclear weapons proliferate in the region??

Michale

Sanctions are NOT the panacea you make them out to be. If that's what you're relying on to prevent war with Iran, better start running for the hills now.

Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints. It only places them under temporary restriction and safeguard—amounting in many cases to a seal at the door of a depot or periodic visits by inspectors to declared sites.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582

Dr Kissinger says it much better than I...

The one burning question that must be answered is the one I posed at the end of the previous comment..

Iran has never lived up to, never followed, never adhered to a SINGLE agreement it has made regarding it's nuclear program..

Why does anyone think this agreement will be any different??

Michale

Yep, you DO understand where I am coming from.. :D

I mean, do you think that more sanctions will do the trick. There is no basis in history that more sanctions would do what this deal, if finalized, will do, at least for the next 25 years.

The simple fact that sanctions drove Iran to negotiate PROVE that sanctions would have worked.

If we had increased the sanctions, coupled with the huge drop in oil prices, then Iran would have either destroyed their nuclear program or there would have been a regime change in Iran..

Probably both...

ou see where I'm going with this ... the only way to prevent Iran from breaking out and developing a nuclear weapon in two to three months would be war by the end of August 2015.

There is another option to war.

Increase the sanctions..

They WERE working.

They would have accomplished the goal..

Finally, can you explain to me why you think that a deal like this is impossible to verify?

Because of the inspection regime.

There will be no NO NOTICE inspections. Iran will have final say over what facilities are to be inspected.. And the BIGGEST nuclear facility, Iran's most secret and valuable nuclear facility will be OFF LIMITS to UN inspectors..

Plus, we already know how well UN Inspectors perform because we saw it happen in Iraq..

There is an excellent piece written by the head of the Iraq UN Inspector team that details all the problems there is going to be with Iran... It lays out quite clearly the problems that are going to come up..

Finally, the agreement does not require Iran to account at all for it's previous violations of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and thereby will codify those violations in the current agreement..

Iran has NEVER lived up to ANY agreement it has made regarding it's nuclear program..

NOT... ONE.... SINGLE.... AGREEMENT....

What makes anyone think THIS agreement will be the one that Iran lives up to??

Michale

I'm trying to understand where you're coming from vis-à-vis the Iran negotiations.

You don't like the deal as it currently stands, with the details still to be agreed upon, or not.

I'm guessing you wouldn't like any deal that doesn't completely shut down Iran's nuclear program and destroys all of its current infrastructure.

And, yet, a deal that would do that is not possible.

So, where does that leaving your thinking on the matter?

I mean, do you think that more sanctions will do the trick. There is no basis in history that more sanctions would do what this deal, if finalized, will do, at least for the next 25 years.

You don't seem to be taking into account that it's not just the US negotiating with and putting sanctions on Iran - it's the p4+1 and others in the international community who believe this deal, if finalized, is a good one. If the US is the only one reneging on the deal, how quick do you think the rest of the international community will lift sanctions on Iran? The international sanctions are the strongest sanctions against Iran.

How is it that you think a failure of these negotiations will be good for Israel and the rest of the civilized world when Iran will have no restrictions on its nuclear program?

You see where I'm going with this ... the only way to prevent Iran from breaking out and developing a nuclear weapon in two to three months would be war by the end of August 2015. You can't possibly view this as a better option than putting substantial restrictions and a camera on Iran's nuclear program while phasing in the suspension of some nuclear-related sanctions if Iran lives up to its end of the bargain with the lifting of those sanctions eventually if Iran does not violate any part of the agreement.

Also, a nuclear agreement with Iran doesn't preclude other agreements with Iran on the other issues that it needs to address. In fact, a nuclear agreement may lead to progress on other issues. War with Iran would not.

Finally, can you explain to me why you think that a deal like this is impossible to verify?

How the U.S. thinks Russians hacked the White House
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/how-russians-hacked-the-wh/index.html

Ya just HAVE ta know that Putin is laughing his ass off at America and it's leader... :^/

Michale

His Munich-style deal with Iran simply "delays the inevitable" of Iran obtaining a nuclear arsenal..

After months and months and months of saying that Iran WILL NOT obtain nuclear weapons, Obama just admitted that he was lying the whole time..

There you have it..

Michale

That's an opinion...

But if you are right than anyone born an alcoholic is doomed to become an alcoholic..

Anyone born as sex addict is doomed to become a sex addict..

It's a choice.. Pure and simple..

How MUCH of a choice?? OK, that is opened to debate..

But the evidence clearly shows that it IS a choice..

Again, pure supposition on your part. No Proof.

Ex-squeeze me!?? Baking powder!!??

No proof??

THEY EXECUTE GAY PEOPLE!!!

THEY SPONSOR TERRORISM WORLD-WIDE!!!

If that is not proof of insane and irrational behavior, then NOTHING is...

That since acquiring nuclear weapons, no nuclear armed power has gone to war directly against another, even in a convention manner, and that includes both India and Pakistan.

So, to calm down Hitler, the US and it's allies should have just given him nukes...

Interesting world strategy ya got there.. :D

Again, your position postulates that Iran's leaders are rational..

There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim..

Michale

"Maybe these "gay" couples that are getting married aren't really gay either...

That proves MY point..."

No it doesn't. How many examples can you point to of two straight men who got married to each other?

It is NOT a choice, pure and simple.

I also know of more straight couples than gay couples who are divorced and miserable. So what was your point?

"It only works if the leaders are rational and sane...

Iran's leaders are not..."

Again, pure supposition on your part. No Proof.

"Would a nuclear armed Nazi Germany have been acceptable??"

Not relevant, since Germany was embarked on both genocide within its own borders and territorial expansion outside them, while Iran is engaged in neither.

"And you think that a nuclear armed Iran is going to calm things down??

What do you base that on??"

That since acquiring nuclear weapons, no nuclear armed power has gone to war directly against another, even in a convention manner, and that includes both India and Pakistan.

"And adding nukes to the equation is BETTER than the status quo??

HOW???"

See my statement above.

But she SAID she was gay... Isn't that enough??

Maybe these "gay" couples that are getting married aren't really gay either...

That proves MY point...

It's a choice. Pure and simple..

By the way, I know of gay couples who are very happy, are married now, and have been for years.

And I know of gay "couples" who are no divorced and miserable....

What's the point??

How is a nuclear armed Iran different from a nuclear armed Soviet Union, or China, or North Korea, or Pakistan? Mutual assured destruction still works.

It only works if the leaders are rational and sane...

Iran's leaders are not...

The simple short answer to that is, YES.

Let me put it another way..

Would a nuclear armed Nazi Germany have been acceptable??

The longer answer is that a nuclear armed Iran is preferable to a middle east in even more chaos than it already is,

And you think that a nuclear armed Iran is going to calm things down??

What do you base that on??

an endless cycle of war with direct American involvement like Iraq and Afghanistan, and a even more terrorism in response to American military action than we have now.

And adding nukes to the equation is BETTER than the status quo??

HOW???

Michale

"Did sanctions lead to regime change in Iraq?

War did..."

Exactly My point entirely Michale.

"Have years of sanctions led to regime change in Iran yet?

They would have if they had continued and were increased..."

Total supposition on your part, with no proof. Again, see my reference to 50 years of sanctions against Cuba.

"It was the punishing sanctions that FORCED Iran to the negotiating table..."

Ok, so then what Michale? If the point was to force Iran to negotiate, then how can you be against a negotiated settlement? By the way, total capitulation by Iran to your point of view is not negotiation, it's surrender.

If your goal is surrender or regime change, then why not just say so and go for the proven method, a ground invasion of Iran?

"In your opinion, is a nuclear armed Iran acceptable??"

The simple short answer to that is, YES.

How is a nuclear armed Iran different from a nuclear armed Soviet Union, or China, or North Korea, or Pakistan? Mutual assured destruction still works.

The longer answer is that a nuclear armed Iran is preferable to a middle east in even more chaos than it already is, an endless cycle of war with direct American involvement like Iraq and Afghanistan, and a even more terrorism in response to American military action than we have now.

"I have family members that are gay... I have very VERY close friends whose daughter was gay, then she wasn't, then she was and now she's not..."

Then it proves my point. It sounds like your friend's daughter is bisexual, not gay.

Also, you yourself did not choose not to be gay, or to be straight instead. You have always been straight and had no choice in it. Otherwise your one try at male male sex would have floated your boat, if you were gay or bisexual. It in fact proves that you didn't have a choice in the matter, not that you made a choice.

"But then reality sets in and the consequences of our CHOICES rear their ugly heads..."

By the way, I know of gay couples who are very happy, are married now, and have been for years.

War did...

Have years of sanctions led to regime change in Iran yet?

They would have if they had continued and were increased...

Also, isn't is much more likely that a military attack on Iran, rather than leading to regime change, going to have the opposite effect on patriotic Iranians just like it would among Americans, and lead to more support for their current government? A rally around the flag effect?

Possibly.. But unlikely.. Considering how bad the Iranian people are suffering under the current regime..

That Iran absolutely needs a nuclear weapon as fast as possible, no matter the cost, in order to deter more American attacks? Would you be prepared to bomb Iran every couple of years, as far into the future as you can see, no matter the cost?

Wouldn't need to since sanctions would have done the trick..

It was the punishing sanctions that FORCED Iran to the negotiating table...

Let me ask you...

In your opinion, is a nuclear armed Iran acceptable??

Michale

Now, you claim that the INTENT of the law is different than the previous laws and the federal law..

How do you know!??

We know because the case that started it all was about Native Americans smoking peyote in a traditional religious rite and then flunking drug tests for a job. The originating issue was about whether the government, as embodied in various laws, should discriminate in a tangible way on the basis of a religious act. I'm paraphrasing and over-simplifying. Another example was Muslim women being allowed to wear their burkas. The concern was protecting individuals from the government -- it was not to allow individuals to discriminate against other individuals (or corporations against individuals).

The intent of laws is generally spelled out -- doesn't mean there won't be unintended consequences or nuances, but the goals have been discussed and debated.

Unless you're a repub who surrounds himself with anti-gay activists and passes a law that opens the door to anti-gay discrimination while pretending you had no anti-gay intent at all. And five minutes later people are announcing they can refuse service to gay people. And then all sorts of repubs run around, as you did, and try to defend the law based on something Dems passed 20 years previously, in a different context, for a different purpose. Its disingenuous and dishonest.

"Sanctions or military attacks will likely result in a regime change.."

This is one of the statements you have made that I am prepared to take issue with. What, without any evidence whatsoever, makes you think that?

Did sanctions lead to regime change in Iraq? Did over 50 years of sanctions lead to regime change in Cuba? Have years of sanctions led to regime change in Iran yet? If they were going tow work, wouldn't they have done so by now?

Also, isn't is much more likely that a military attack on Iran, rather than leading to regime change, going to have the opposite effect on patriotic Iranians just like it would among Americans, and lead to more support for their current government? A rally around the flag effect?

The author makes the exact same point I am making..

Even if this so-called "deal" is everything that Obama says it is, it will not prevent Iran from creating a nuclear arsenal...

This is a simple fact that is utterly undeniable and it's what makes this "deal" completely and utterly useless..

It's actually WORSE than useless because not only is Iran's nuclear infrastructure completely and unequivocally intact, it will also give Iran a grand infusion of cash and capital that will accelerate Iran's nuclear program...

It will also, as I pointed out before, guarantee a nuclear arms race in THE most volatile and unstable region on the planet...

But this "deal" *DOES* give Obama a "win".. An "accomplishment" of sorts...

And THAT is the sole reason, the ONLY reason, this "deal" is being trumpeted...

It all comes back to Obama's ego...

Israel... A Nuclear Arms Race.... All of that takes a back seat to Obama's ego...

Michale

Bigger chance that they kill each other off?? :D

Michale

It doesn't matter whether Iran or the Obama Administration think it's a good deal or not..

The ONLY opinion that matters is the opinions of those countries in the region..

And THEIR opinions are clear..

They think the Luasanne Deal is a paved path for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons..

And they will follow suit because the ONLY proven defense against a nuclear strategy is the MAD defense...

So, it matters not one whit whether ya'all think this is a deal made in heaven...

It only matters what the people in the region think..

And their opinions are crystal clear by their statements..

There WILL be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East..

All thanks to Obama's ego...

Michale

Yer absolutely right...

BUT.....

Sanctions or military attacks will likely result in a regime change..

And THAT will eliminate the nuclear threat..

And, to address your obsession with trust ... no one who is negotiating with Iran over the restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program trusts Iran. In other words, the P5+1 negotiators DO NOT TRUST IRAN. Which is why verification is so important and not the impossibility some experts say it is.

We already know for an absolute fact that verification is impossible..

Because Iran has already been reneging on all the deals that they have made to date...

Finally, if you think that reducing the break-out time for Iran to make a nuclear bomb is the only thing this deal accomplishes, then your understanding of what is being negotiated is extremely limited, at best and purposefully destructive, at worst.

I KNOW that it's the only thing the deal has accomplished..

Do you know how I know?

Because Obama himself stated so...

The entire idea behind the deal, the reason that the Obama Administration gave the American people to even START the diplomatic process, the ENTIRE goal was to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons..

NOW that process is near it's end game, NOW what the Obama Administration is saying is that it pushes the breakout time further out..

So NOW the goal is not to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.. NOW the goal is to just to make it take longer..

Obama lied. AGAIN...

Finally, on the trust issue.... It's not so much a verification issue as it is a morality issue..

How can one say that they are pro-jewish and are wholly concerned with the welfare of the jewish people and then turn around and advocate and support a deal with Hitler's Germany after the death camps were exposed??

It seems to me that, logically and rationally speaking, each position is mutually exclusive..

You can't be the former while doing the latter...

Michale

I've got news for you, Michale ... even if Iran's nuclear facilities were magically eliminated through sanctions or destroyed through military attacks by Israel and/or the US, Iran would still retain the capability to make a bomb, though it would take a few years to regain the capacity to do so.

But, then you would have to deal with the dangerous fallout of economic disaster in Iran or of yet another all out war in the Middle East, especially considering current conditions in the region.

And, to address your obsession with trust ... no one who is negotiating with Iran over the restrictions and monitoring of its nuclear program trusts Iran. In other words, the P5+1 negotiators DO NOT TRUST IRAN. Which is why verification is so important and not the impossibility some experts say it is.

If the Israeli government and US Congress, not to mention AIPAC, want to be constructive here, they could ensure that the IAEA has all of the resources it needs to carry out this new inspections regime, a regime which is unprecedented in its intrusiveness and will need to be well resourced.

Finally, if you think that reducing the break-out time for Iran to make a nuclear bomb is the only thing this deal accomplishes, then your understanding of what is being negotiated is extremely limited, at best and purposefully destructive, at worst.

The critics of this deal have only dangerously flawed arguments. Which makes me wonder what they really want.

I noticed that you, nor anyone else, has addressed the TRUST issue..

My mistake. You DID address the "trust" issue...

By saying it's not an issue, despite ALL the evidence to the contrary...

Michale

The Senate has advice-and-consent authority on treaties, but the Iran deal is not a treaty. Rather, it is an arrangement between Iran and the six countries to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the deal with Iran is a bad deal..

Obama has said over and over that he would NOT let Iran get a nuclear bomb..

Yet, this deal does absolutely NOTHING to prevent it..

The *ONLY* thing this deal does is make it so it takes LONGER for Iran to build a bomb..

From the 2-3 months it is now to a year..

Even if the deal is adhered to TO THE LETTER by Iran it means Iran STILL CAN MAKE A NUCLEAR BOMB...

This is a fact that Obama himself has stated over and over again...

The *ONLY* thing this deal does, even if it is EVERYTHING that Lefties say it is, the ONLY thing the deal will accomplish is to increase Iran's breakout time...

That's it...

And THAT is why it's a bad deal..

I noticed that you, nor anyone else, has addressed the TRUST issue..

THAT is am even bigger issue than all the others...

Michale

Michale: one of the many discussions about the difference between the 1993 law and the Pence/Repub debacle:

Difference #1 and #4 are pretty much the same. And that's the ONLY difference between the laws. And it's a difference that I have already acknowledged..

And who the law applies to makes no difference to the basics of the law itself...

"A difference which makes no difference IS no difference."

As to "difference" #2 and #3....

2. IN SOME OTHER STATES, NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS TRUMP ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’ LAWS

This isn't a difference in the RFRA law, it's simply a difference between Indiana and the other states that have an RFRA law and it's also a difference between the State Of Indiana and the Federal Government vis a vis the RFRA law..

It's no difference in the law itself..

3. THE POLITICAL CONTEXT IS DIFFERENT, AND SO ARE THE POLICY AIMS

Now THAT is a good point to argue..

INTENT..

Well, at least it's a better point to argue than the law is different then all the others.

As I have pointed out, with the exception of that one point, who the law applies to, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the RFRA laws that already exist..

Now, you claim that the INTENT of the law is different than the previous laws and the federal law..

How do you know!??

You can't POSSIBLY know the intent unless you can warp back in time to when the past laws were written and enter the minds of those writing the laws and voting for the laws and then warp forward in time back to the future and enter the minds of those writing the current laws and voting for the current laws..

That is the ONLY way that you can divine INTENT...

Otherwise, your ONLY claim must be, "In MY OPINION, the intent of the laws are different"...

I respect your opinion.

I simply disagree with it...

Michale

http://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2015_04/Focus/A-Historic-Nonproliferation-Opportunity

Here is just a small sampling from the piece ...

The Senate has advice-and-consent authority on treaties, but the Iran deal is not a treaty. Rather, it is an arrangement between Iran and the six countries to bring Iran into compliance with its obligations.

The emerging agreement with Iran would be a major boost for U.S. and international security, for Israel and other U.S. friends in the region, and for global efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Congress should strengthen, not undermine, this vital diplomatic effort.

http://www.armscontrol.org/Issue-Briefs/2015-03-03/Netanyahu-On-the-Iran-Nuclear-Issue-A-Reality-Check

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/Parameters-for-a-Joint-Comprehensive-Plan-of-Action-regarding-the-Islamic-Republic-of-Irans-Nuclear-Program-2015-04-02.pdf

Here is the framework of the hoped for agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, released by the P5+1 and Iran. This is a great starting point for any serious discussion on the matter.

First off, a warm welcome to matthewrule, whose comment is now #57 on the above list, or just click:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2015/04/03/ftp340/#comment-58417

Sorry your comment was held so long for moderation, I'm usually quicker than this. And thanks for the kind words.

Your first comment was held automatically for moderation, but from now on you should be able to post comments and have them appear instantaneously. Just don't post more than one link per comment, as these get held for moderation.

Again, welcome to the site!

I'm getting ready to post today's article, will try to get back here later to answer some comments.

-CW

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano issued the following statement today regarding the announcement by E3+3 and Iran in Lausanne:

"The IAEA welcomes the announcement by E3+3 and Iran on the key parameters for a joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. With the endorsement of the IAEA's Board of Governors, the Agency will be ready to fulfill its role in verifying the implementation of nuclear related measures, once the agreement is finalized."

The lack of written documents on this issue by the others in the article you cite leads me to believe their assertions about verification are not very reliable.

So, I'll be sticking to the experts at the institutions I know have a proven track record for reliability - Ploughshares Fund, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Brookings, International Crisis Group.

Not that I expect you to read it or admit it.

I gave you the link...

Comment #84...

Despite promises by President Obama that Iranian cheating on a new treaty will be detected, verifying Tehran’s compliance with a future nuclear accord will be very difficult if not impossible, arms experts say.

By not requiring Iran to correct past violations of the NPT, the new agreement will in effect codify its current cheating. “The negotiations started as an attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, but now they have legitimized it,” Sullivan said.

There's yer names....

Michale

I REALLY feel bad for those gay couples who won't be able to have their wedding, their VERY special day, catered by a small town pizzeria....

They must be DEVASTATED...

I join with everyone here in feeling the pain and suffering of those poor POOR gay couples...

(as an aside, my lovely wife just called.. We're having Little Caesar's Pizza tonight!!! WOOT!!!! )

Anyways, I feel the pain of those poor hypothetical gay couples who can't have their Pizza Wedding...

We all are ONE on that point..

BUT......

I *ALSO* feel the pain of those gay people in Iran who have been executed...

**KILLED**.....

I feel the pain of the families in Iran who have lost loved ones because of the fanatical and tyrannical regime in Iran who thinks it is perfectly OK to execute people of a certain lifestyle...

Apparently, with all the euphoria of an Obama "WIN", I am alone in those feelings.... :^/

Michale

Well, just give me the names of those experts whom you believe to be reliable ... I can wait, for a little while ... :)

And, if a comprehensive negotiated agreement can be reached to achieve that, then it will be a win for everyone.

It will be a "win" for everyone except the gay people that are executed...

Not much of a "win" for them, eh??

I'm just sayin'....

Michale

Name a couple or three of those experts for me ... I'd like to read more about their reasoning.

Trust has EVERYTHING to do with the agreement..

Because, as NUMEROUS Nuclear Proliferation experts have testified to, it is simply IMPOSSIBLE to verify Iran's compliance...

Which is yet another example of your non-serious assertions about these negotiations that only tells me that your understanding of these negotiations is far less than you would have readers here believe.

Actually, my understanding is dead on ballz accurate because it deals in REALITY...

The world as it really is...

Rather than the world as some would WISH it to be...

Michale

If someone wanted to elect Charles Manson as a California State Representative, they could make the argument that his crimes really have nothing to do with his ability to represent constituents properly...

However, one could ALSO make the argument that his brutal murder of a bunch of people, including a pregnant woman, just MIGHT have some bearing on his trustworthiness...

Replace "California State Representative" with a "Nuclear Proliferation Deal".

Replace "Charles Manson" with "Iran"???

I fail to see ANY relevant difference...

Please.. Someone explain to me how I am wrong here??

Michale

Which is yet another example of your non-serious assertions about these negotiations that only tells me that your understanding of these negotiations is far less than you would have readers here believe.

No one here trusts the GOP when they say they have the best interests of the country at heart...

Yet, ya'all are going to TRUST a regime that executes people for being gay!??

How is that not totally and completely whacked??

Michale

But that is EXACTLY where you are wrong..

Obama's *STATED* goal is to limit Iran's ability to build a nuclear device (their "breakout" time) to just ONE YEAR...

But even if you were right, even if preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon for 10-25 years...

It is ALL completely and solely based on TRUSTING Iran...

TRUSTING a regime who is the world's sponsor of terrorism...

TRUSTING a regime who *EXECUTES* people for being gay...

No one... Not ONE SINGLE person.... has addressed this one simple fact..

How can the world trust a regime that commits such heinous acts of barbarity???

It's like trusting Adolf Hitler when he says, "No, seriously.. I harbor no ill will towards Jews..."

How can such be trusted???

Michale

Re. "Obama getting a win"

This sums up why your assertions about the Iran negotiations are wholly non-serious.

It's not about "Obama getting a win" ... it's about the US and the other P4, plus one ensuring that the pathways to a nuclear weapon are blocked for Iran for 10 to 25 years.

And, if a comprehensive negotiated agreement can be reached to achieve that, then it will be a win for everyone.

Not when you are championing gay rights while Iran is EXECUTING gay people...

Don't you even find that the LEAST bit weird??

I mean, what line WON'T be crossed??

Let's say you have a billionaire who has provided so much to the poor.. His philanthropy is un-matched... He is a saint....

But once a year, he abducts a child, rapes and then murders that child...

Only 1 child a year...

Match that against ALL the good this uber-philanthropist has done and has yet to do.... Hell, with his billions, he will ultimately find the cure for cancer...

Does all the good that is possible in the world for one man to do erase that one act of barbarity??

Ever see STEPHEN KING'S STORM OF THE CENTURY??

I completely understand having to deal with evil people to accomplish good..

I was a cop for a long time. I have been a federal FSO and was an MI Elltee with the US Army during Desert Storm...

I am INTIMATELY familiar with the concept of THE ENDS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS...

And, if you state for the record that Obama getting a "win" is worth a bunch of executed gay people, then I will accept that...

I just find it hard to believe that you... That ANYONE here would make/support that claim...

Michale

Actually, I have tried the male on male thing... Doesn't float my boat..

Now my lovely wife, on the other hand, loves to play with the ladies as much as she does with the gentlemen...

Does that mean she gets special privileges?? :D

Also, even if being gay is a product of the environment, all indications are that the orientation is set while you are a toddler, long before you reach puberty, probably by the time you are 5 years old.

Yes, there is evidence to suggest that..

Just as there is evidence to suggest that adult traumas can "turn people gay"...

I have family members that are gay... I have very VERY close friends whose daughter was gay, then she wasn't, then she was and now she's not...

I put gay people in the category of WOBs... Yea, it's fun to be different for a while...

But then reality sets in and the consequences of our CHOICES rear their ugly heads...

I realize that I have no hope of changing your mind on the issue..

Telling a devout liberal that it's possibly NOT a product of genetics is like telling a devout christian that it's POSSIBLE that there is not a god...

But that doesn't mean we can't get shit-faced drunk together... :D

Michale

"I could tell you the exact moment, but it would probably gross you out.. :D Suffice it to say it was 1968... :D"

If that is really the case Michale, then I would argue that probably like most people, you are actually bisexual, and not really gay or heterosexual. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Also, even if being gay is a product of the environment, all indications are that the orientation is set while you are a toddler, long before you reach puberty, probably by the time you are 5 years old. So in practicality, there would still be little difference from it NOT being a choice.

Let me preface the hard left turn with the following..

The SyFy network is not known for it's quality entertainment programming.. The programming decisions made at SyFy remind me of the programming decisions that "Beavis & Butthead" (AKA Rick Berman & Brannon Braga) made regarding the direction of STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE..

To whit, they were worried about dollar signs rather than the fan base...

BUT......

There is a new SyFy series that seems to actually be good...

12 MONKEYS

Like many, I wasn't expecting much from this new SyFy series...

Time travel shows usually fall into one of two categories.. They are either impossibly complex and you need a degree in Temporal Mechanics from Starfleet Academy to understand them..

Or they are dumbed down so much as to be totally implausible and more than a little boring...

But being a sci-fi fan of many MANY decades, I decided to give it a try. The REAL test, however, would be my lovely wife.. She is no where near a sci-fan at all, plus her grasp of Temporal Mechanics is non-existent..

Happy to report that we BOTH enjoy the show. The switch from time period to time period is smooth and easy to follow without being condescending..

When they throw you a curve with an alternate timeline, you are thinking more, "WHOOAAAA" rather than, "HUH W.T.F.!!!???"

In short (too late! :D) 12 Monkeys is complex enough to be exciting and easy enough to follow without being insulting...

I am just curious if anyone else has watched it and what their thoughts were...

We now return you to our regularly scheduled partisan bloodshed and political mayhem.. :D

Michale

Ya'all are making the wrong argument.

Ya'all are trying to argue that the laws are textually different..

It's a proven fact that, with that one minor exception I already mentioned, the laws are textually identical...

The Indiana RFRA is identical to the RFRA law that Democrats championed and that Clinton signed into law in 1993...

The Arkansas RFRA is identical to the Illinois RFRA that State Senator Barack Obama voted for....

The argument you SHOULD be making is that the INTENT of the laws are different...

THAT is an argument that is more reasonable and has a lot more chance of success..

Of course, I have an answer for THAT argument as well :D but it's a much more logical and rational argument than the one ya'all are trying to make...

Just tryin' ta help out a little.. :D

Michale

I could tell you the exact moment, but it would probably gross you out.. :D Suffice it to say it was 1968... :D

As I said, you can point to scientific evidence that INDICATES being gay is genetic..

And I can point to scientific evidence that being gay is a product of the environment..

But, like with other Democrat so-called "science" issues, it's really a political issue...

People *HAVE* to be born gay.. Because if they weren't, if it IS a product of experiences and environment, then a MAJOR plank of the Democrat Party platform completely collapses..

That's why it *MUST* be genetics...

Science has nothing to do with it..

It's all political ideology...

As someone unfettered by political ideology, I can look at things rationally and objectively...

Michale

"Being gay is a choice. We have already established this as factual right here in Weigantia..
The only difference of opinion is how MUCH is choice and how much is genetics..
But being gay is a choice. This is settled..
Look at it this way...
Being an alcoholic has genetic properties...
But there is also an element of choice..."

This is one issue on which I will argue with you about until I am blue in the face, because no matter how much YOU say it, it does not make it true. IT IS NOT SETTLED. BEING GAY IS NOT A CHOICE.

If being gay is a choice. Then being black is also a choice. If being gay is a choice, then being born male or female at birth is a conscious choice by the baby.

Once again you are confusing orientation with behavior. You talk about how much of a choice it is. BULL! You can choose to be celibate or not, but that is the only choice you have in the matter. You cannot choose how much you like girls as opposed to boys. You either are attracted to them or you are not. You don't get to choose how much or to the degree to which your body is aroused to someone on a conscious level.

"That if your genes say you are gay, then you are gay.. No matter HOW much ya like big jugs, you HAVE to go with men because your genes say so..."

That is such an illogical statement. If you are gay, if your genes say you are gay, then you would never have any kind of attraction to big jugs in the first place! Unless of course you are a lesbian. :-)

If being gay is a choice, then so is being heterosexual. So tell me Michale, assuming that you are straight and male, when did you decide to become heterosexual instead of homosexual? How much gay sex did you have before you made the choice to be heterosexual instead? If you didn't, then why not? If it was something that just happened to you during puberty, that you became aware of without having to consciously decide or experiment about, then why do you assume it was any different for anyone else?

If someone who is gay tells you that being gay is not a choice, and you are not gay yourself, then who are you to try to tell them something different? That would make about as much sense as a white man trying to tell Oprah that he knows better than she does what it is like to be black and female.

This assertion is being used by right-wingers to try to excuse Indiana Republican's flirtation with legislated bigotry and it is factually incorrect.

Says you...

The facts and the text of the 1993 Clinton Law and the Indiana Law says different.. :D

The *ONLY* difference in the laws is that the 1993 Clinton Law is that it only applies when a Government entity is involved and the Indiana Law applies whether it's government or private party...

"These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
-Kevin Bacon, A FEW GOOD MEN

Amazing how often that quote is so applicable around here, eh?? :D

But, I'll give ya an "E" for effort.. :D

JM,

Thanks for the flattery! But what led you to make that totally unfounded assumption? I am actually just old enough to remember seeing President Lyndon Johnson, the Martin Luther King assassination riots, the death of Robert Kennedy and the manned moon landings live on television, in black and white no less!

You misunderstand..

You weren't around HERE..

Weigantia...

It was here in Weigantia that there was daily BUSH roasts etc etc..

Which is why I can state with absolute CERTAINTY that everyone here would be making the exact same arguments I am making over the Iran Giveaway if it were a GOP POTUS who was making the deal...

I am actually just old enough to remember seeing President Lyndon Johnson, the Martin Luther King assassination riots, the death of Robert Kennedy and the manned moon landings live on television, in black and white no less!

I actually remember watching the moon landing at my grandparents house in Banning, CA...

Don't remember any of the rest, but I do vividly recall that..

Michale

"Again, you weren't around during the Bush years.. You didn't see what it was like. Day in, Day out BUSH IS HITLER!!! BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL!!! BUSH IS THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!."

Thanks for the flattery! But what led you to make that totally unfounded assumption? I am actually just old enough to remember seeing President Lyndon Johnson, the Martin Luther King assassination riots, the death of Robert Kennedy and the manned moon landings live on television, in black and white no less!

Those laws are identical to the RFRA Law that was sponsored by Democrats and overwhelmingly passed Congress and was signed by President Clinton in 1993...

This assertion is being used by right-wingers to try to excuse Indiana Republican's flirtation with legislated bigotry and it is factually incorrect. But since Michale came out of the gate with this one, I am reminded he is a silly, silly man.

Amanda Marcotte wrote an excellent (I thought) piece about where the lines get drawn between "my freedom versus your freedom": Up until recently, most of us seemed to understand that the best way to maximize religious freedom for everyone was to stay in your own lane: You can choose what to believe yourself, but if you start trying to force your beliefs on others, that is when a line has been crossed."http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/how-conservatives-hijacked-religious-freedom-indiana-pence

Meanwhile: Yay President Obama and Secretary Kerry. (Yay to the President for ending the stupid, stupid, stupid Cuban embargo.) Blessed are the Peacemakers.

Verifying Iran Nuclear Deal Not Possible, Experts Say

“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action will not be effectively verifiable,” said Paula DeSutter, assistant secretary of state for verification, compliance, and implementation from 2002 to 2009.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/verifying-iran-nuclear-deal-not-possible-experts-say/

Reagan said, "TRUST, BUT VERIFY"...

Obama is trusting without any verification possible...

That's not what I am saying..

That's what the experts are saying...

I am also constrained to point out (AGAIN) that Obama is trusting a regime that executes people for being gay.. That supports terrorism world-wide...

And ya'all think that Iran will do the right thing here??

Based on nothing more than wishful thinking and the desire to support Obama no matter what...

Michale

Such is my right...

For the record, if a christian comes into my shop and says "You HAVE to serve me because I am christian!!" THEY ALSO would be out on their ass....

If anyone tries to tell me I *have* to serve Group A, then I will deny Group A service simply on principles.. :D

"I run my unit how I run my unit!!"
-Colonel Nathan R Jessup
Commanding Officer
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
A FEW GOOD MEN

:D

Michale

But being gay is a choice. This is settled..

Look at it this way...

Being an alcoholic has genetic properties...

But there is also an element of choice...

I mean, imagine what you are saying....

Imagine a world where there is absolutely NO CHOICE over matters such as this. That free will is non-existent and one is a slave to their genetic make-up..

That it's all genetics and choice doesn't enter into it at all..

That if your genes say you are gay, then you are gay.. No matter HOW much ya like big jugs, you HAVE to go with men because your genes say so...

That sounds suspiciously like a christian talking about "destiny"??? Hell at least christians have their "free will" mantra... Which I find MIGHTY convenient, I don't mind telling you.. :D One of the many "convenient" issues found in religion... :D

The proponents of NATURE in the NATURE v NURTURE argument don't even allow for that free will...

Michale

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2015/04/01/john_deering_john_deering_for_04012015_5_.jpg

Now THAT is funny!!! :D

Michale

No, actually you don't.

Yes I do. And I exercise that right each and every day, every hour, every SECOND my business is open.

And no blatantly hypocritical government is going to tell me different..

For example, if a gay person comes in my shop and says, "You HAVE to serve me because I am gay!!" guess what??

He will be out on his ass so fast it will make his head spin...

Such is my right...

:D

No, they should not be threatened with death.

But the christian who stays true to her values?? It's OK if SHE is threatened with death...

Got it.. {{wink}} {wink}

Just kidding... I know you are against that, even if it's like pulling teeth to get you to admit it. :D

The other is this; Refusing to print a hate message on a cake, for instance, is not the same as refusing a wedding cake to gay people. If you sell the product to one person but refuse another simply for who that person is, that is discrimination. When you refuse to make a product that you wouldn't make for anyone, it is NOT discrimination.

Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the gay hairdresser in Santa Fe, NM who refused to continue to provide service to the NM Governor..

So, obviously you support discrimination as long as it's the RIGHT (pun intended) people being discriminated against..

Again, I completely understand where you are coming from. As I pointed out in that link above (way WAY above), we're all bigots.. We ALL discriminate..

The only difference is the groups we choose to discriminate and be bigoted against..

Ya'all are bigoted against Republicans but support Democrats..

I am bigoted against ALL politicians, Democrats AND Republicans...

There is NO such thing as a gay lifestyle! Being gay is an orientation, not a lifestyle. Lifestyle implies a choice, which it is not.

That's your opinion based on SOME science..

It is not scientifically factual...

Being gay is a choice. We have already established this as factual right here in Weigantia..

The only difference of opinion is how MUCH is choice and how much is genetics..

But being gay is a choice. This is settled..

I understand where you are coming from on the issue.. And there ARE scientific facts to support your position..

But, like with many other so-called "science based" issues the political dimension far FAR exceeds the actual science..

The gay couple, for instance, who had been refused a cake for their wedding, were longtime customers of the business. The business had been more than happy to provide them with cakes in the past, and in the future. They just didn't want to provide a cake for their wedding only.

If they were "long time customers" then they would KNOW that the business was a christian business and would not want to be involved in a gay wedding..

The fact that the gay couple went ahead and forced the issue and THEN publicized the issue proves beyond any doubt exactly what their agenda was..

At least, it proves it to me.. Y M M V :D

et me bring up something else while we are sort of in the subject. Lets say I work as a cashier for Walmart, I refuse to sell alcohol to someone because of my sincerely held religious belief. I work in Wisconsin that has a newly passed right to work law. Walmart says I either sell the alcohol or find a job elsewhere. Which takes precedence? The right to religious liberty law? Or the right to work law that gives my employer the right to fire anyone at anytime for any reason?

That's actually a very good point. Kudos...

But the answer is simple...

One is artistry, the other is not...

Let me give you an example..

Let's say you are a DMV photographer and a muslim. You take pictures of people for their driver license... Day in, day out, that's all you do. Take pictures for driver's license..

You cannot refuse to take a picture of a woman who'se face is uncovered because of your religion.. That would be completely illogical and irrational..

Now, let's say you are a christian photographer who creates fantastic works of art with your photos... Some couple comes in and wants you to take pictures of them in various sexual positions with a large group of men and women..

As a christian, you would refuse to take such pictures. Such refusal would be logical and rational...

To put your WalMart example into this context...

No, if you are mormon or amish and you work at a WalMart, you cannot refuse to sell a gay couple a bottle of wine because your religion forbids alcohol.. That would be illogical and irrational..

BUT, if you are the CREATOR of that bottle of wine, it is completely logical and rational that you would have complete control over where that wine goes..

The key point in this particular case is the artistry....

It's why I could not force you to get me elected if you were a DEMOCRAT consultancy and I wanted you to get me elected as if I was a Republican..

Consultancy of that nature is artistry...

But, again. That was a damn good point...

Actually, no I would not Michale, and you want to know why? Because there is a very old saying, and I will quote Spock on this, "Only Nixon could go to China."

Damn!!! Now yer really getting good!!! :D

Again, you weren't around during the Bush years.. You didn't see what it was like. Day in, Day out BUSH IS HITLER!!! BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL!!! BUSH IS THE ANTI-CHRIST!!!.

I know for an absolute fact that if it was a GOP POTUS, the vast majority of Weigantians would be on the same side as me over the Iran Giveaway..

Now, you claim you would be all for it, even if a GOP POTUS was making the deal?? OK, kewl.. I don't know you well enough to dispute that so I will accept yer word on that..

But the rest?? Yea, I am pretty sure I can safely say that... :D

"Good talk.."
-Dr Rodney McKay, STARGATE: ATLANTIS, McKay And Mrs Miller

Michale

Menendez sounded pretty defiant after the indictment was announced, vowing to fight to clear his name. Which could indeed happen, as political corruption can be notoriously hard to prove in court. So, as always, we issue this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week with the caveat that we will rescind it should Menendez win his case.

It was a stroke of genuis for Obama to direct his DOJ to indict Menendez at JUST the right moment to scuttle opposition to the Iran Giveaway...

It served as a shot across the bow to other Democrats..

"Cross the boss and we will come after you. "

Obama deserves a MIDOTW award for that nifty political dirty trick...

Michale

Yet, this same Left, this EXACT SAME LEFT turns around and says that making a deal with a country that ***EXECUTES*** people for being gay is a good thing...

Well, we signed all kinds of agreements with the Soviet Union didn't we? Ronald Reagan signed arms control agreements with them at the same time he was condemning them as the evil empire, telling Gorbachev to tear down this wall, and castigating them for their human rights record.

Are you really going to say now that we can't do the same thing with Iran???

Just let me point out one obvious fact that will end the debate...

If it had been a GOP President that made this deal with Iran, ya'all would be making the EXACT same argument that I am making, using the EXACT same points that I have been using, pointing to the EXACT same facts that I have been pointing to..

Actually, no I would not Michale, and you want to know why? Because there is a very old saying, and I will quote Spock on this, "Only Nixon could go to China."

Gay activists are going to these places SOLELY to produce the Leftist feeding frenzy that they KNOW will happen...

Actually something of yours Michale that is totally not true. The gay couple, for instance, who had been refused a cake for their wedding, were longtime customers of the business. The business had been more than happy to provide them with cakes in the past, and in the future. They just didn't want to provide a cake for their wedding only.

Let me bring up something else while we are sort of in the subject. Lets say I work as a cashier for Walmart, I refuse to sell alcohol to someone because of my sincerely held religious belief. I work in Wisconsin that has a newly passed right to work law. Walmart says I either sell the alcohol or find a job elsewhere. Which takes precedence? The right to religious liberty law? Or the right to work law that gives my employer the right to fire anyone at anytime for any reason?

The gay activists should respect that and not be so aggressively violent against people who don't want to accept their lifestyle...

Obviously Michale, before we can have even the begining of a rational discussion with you, you need some serious education.

There is NO such thing as a gay lifestyle! Being gay is an orientation, not a lifestyle. Lifestyle implies a choice, which it is not. Is there a heterosexual lifestyle? A single gay man going out to the clubs every night, a lesbian couple raising a child together, and a monogamous gay male couple who have been together the past 20 years may all be gay, but that is practically the only thing they have in common, and they sure don't all share the same "lifestyle."

For your further education, by the way, you can also be gay and still be totally and completely a virgin. That's for the people who claim that being gay is purely a behavior and a choice, and confuse behavior with the term orientation.

I hope this helps. :-)

In 2012, a gay hairdresser in Sante Fe, New Mexico refused to continue to provide services to NM Governor Susana Martinez because of Martinez's stance against gay marriage..

The gay community treated the hairdresser as a hero, willing to stand for his principles..

As I have been saying all along..

The Left doesn't mind bigotry or discrimination as long as it's the RIGHT (pun intended) people who are being discriminated against.

You seem to be confusing a couple of very important points. One is this; there is a difference between fighting to expand rights for people, as the hairdresser was doing, and fighting to contract or restrict rights for people, as the Governor was doing, or as your poor midwestern girl was doing in her expression of bigotry.

The other is this; Refusing to print a hate message on a cake, for instance, is not the same as refusing a wedding cake to gay people. If you sell the product to one person but refuse another simply for who that person is, that is discrimination. When you refuse to make a product that you wouldn't make for anyone, it is NOT discrimination.

OK... So, using your reasoning, if you open up a political consultancy firm, you would HAVE to work to elect Republicans that choose to hire your company..

So, a PETA member who runs a catering service would HAVE to cater an AFTER SLAUGHTER Lunch at the local slaughter house..

So, a black baker would HAVE to bake a cake for a KKK Birthday bash...

And if the above 3 business owners REFUSED to provide the requested service, then they should be run out of business and threatened with death, etc etc etc..

Actually I did address those when I used your Jewish example regarding the Nazis. Different group, same principle. No, they should not be threatened with death. But, if they lose their business for refusing to comply with a non discrimination law would I be ok with that? You bet I would!!!

If it had been a GOP President that made this deal with Iran, ya'all would be making the EXACT same argument that I am making, using the EXACT same points that I have been using, pointing to the EXACT same facts that I have been pointing to..

And, once again, there would be complete and utter agreement all across the vast Weigantian empire... :D

Any country that executes people for being gay simply cannot be trusted...

Any country that supports terrorism on a world wide scale simply cannot be trusted...

And I am simply gabberflasted that I am the only one here who sees that...

Michale

My "business philosophy" is simple...

I have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason...

No, actually you don't. You haven't since at least the late 1960's. Part of the segregation laws from the 1950's made it impossible for someone who was black for instance, to be able to find either a single public motel or hotel room or public restroom available for them to use anywhere in an entire state like Alabama.

So the civil rights and public accomodation laws changed that by prohibiting certain forms of discrimination. And we are all much better off for that.

And her life was threatened, her well-being was threatened and her family was threatened...

Granted, she also made almost a million bucks as well from the kind generosity of real Americans..... :D

But the point is still valid...

Michale

The problem in a nutshell..

It's about creating punishments for thoughtcrime..

Because, when one discards all the hysterical hyperbole from the Left, THAT is the only "crime" this poor mid-west girl committed...

She made a comment regarding a hypothetical situation, a comment that was true to her christian values..

And her life was threatened, her well-being was threatened and her family was threatened...

And no one from the Left said "boo" about that...

Michale

But I respect their rights to have their values..

I wouldn't go to a christian catering service and force them to cater a Couples Swing Lifestyle party because that would be disrespectful...

THAT's the entire point..

Gay activists are going to these places SOLELY to produce the Leftist feeding frenzy that they KNOW will happen...

They are assholes of the highest caliber that don't deserve any sympathy..

My sympathy goes to the poor mid-west girl who spoke from the heart and was rewarded with threats of death and arson and the like..

Funny how no one here has condemned any of THAT, eh?? :^/

Michale

And if christians here in the US start going that route, MY intolerance will far FAR surpass ya'alls.. :D

But we're not talking about that.

We're simply talking about people of faith wanting to run their businesses according to that faith..

The gay activists should respect that and not be so aggressively violent against people who don't want to accept their lifestyle...

Michale

If we're tolerant of hate they won't hate?

Again with the hate...

There is no hate...

By and large, however, I agree with your principle. There are certain situations, however, where it doesn't make sense to me.

The problem there is that those "situations" are completely determined by the political ideology..

Hence, no one wants to comment on #42 or #34

Michale

All ya'alls scorn and hate is reserved solely and utterly for christians...

Funny how that is, eh?? :D

Michale

If we're tolerant of hate they won't hate?

By and large, however, I agree with your principle. There are certain situations, however, where it doesn't make sense to me.

For example, the religious folks beheading people in the Middle East. I don't know as being tolerant of that type of behavior is going to see tolerance returned.

-David

Another one for the NNL filter. :D

Liz, you'll have to wait and see the completely awesome, totally factual and awesomely stupendous comment... :D

Michale