ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [353] -- Donald Trump, Frontrunner

[ Posted Friday, July 10th, 2015 – 16:25 PDT ]

Yes, it's strange but true -- Donald Trump is now a frontrunner for the Republican nomination for president. That's a pretty breathtaking place for the Republican Party to find itself in, isn't it? But it cannot be denied. Trump is sucking so much oxygen from the nomination race, it's a wonder any of the other candidates are still drawing breath. Trump is not only the major subject all other candidates get asked about in interviews, he's also been climbing in the polling. Oh, sure, some of that is likely just name recognition, but not all of it. Like it or not (for the Republican Party), Trump's views on immigration are resonating with a certain slice of the party's base. This doesn't exactly bode well for any attempt by the Republican Party to reach out to Latino voters, of course.

In other news from the Republican race, apparently 16 candidates is not enough. One more Republican announced he's considering a presidential bid, which the Huffington Post reported with the amusing headline: "Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore To Run For President Because Why Not" (funniest one we've yet seen in the 2016 race). Heck, why not 18? Or 20? The more the merrier!

Over on the Democratic side of things, Bernie Sanders is finally getting some serious press attention (instead of ridicule), and Hillary Clinton sat down with a reporter for a nationally-broadcast interview. This is news because it is the first time she's done so, despite campaigning for about three months now. She used the opportunity to point out that while she's "disappointed" with what Donald Trump's been saying about immigration, virtually the entire Republican field largely agrees that citizenship should be out of the question for undocumented immigrants currently in America. Hillary slightly overstated the case by painting all the candidates with the same brush (Lindsey Graham actually does support a path to citizenship), but Graham is polling at one or two percent so it's easy to forget he's actually in the race. Hillary's main target was Jeb! Bush, who used to support a path to citizenship but now only supports a path to "legal status" -- code words for "they can stay and enjoy all benefits of citizenship except voting." This is a big flip-flop on Bush's part, and it's good to see him getting called out on it.

In other election news, Alan Grayson is running for the Senate seat in Florida that Marco Rubio is vacating (to run for president). Grayson is always worth listening to, because he's of the "tell it like it is" school of politics (he posted an article on Huffington Post this week, if you've forgotten who he is and what he stands for).

Today was a historic day in South Carolina, as the Confederate battle flag was lowered for the final time on the statehouse grounds. This has been a swift reaction to the racist terrorist attack on a Charleston church, and while many credit Governor Nikki Haley for her leadership on the issue, what really drove the issue home (and forced Haley to act) was the image of the United States and South Carolina flags flying at half-staff while the Confederate flag flew at the top of its pole. Our guess is that one of those images is going to win a Pulitzer Prize this year, because it so perfectly framed the issue in visual terms.

At virtually the same time as Governor Haley was signing the "take down the flag" bill, the United States House of Representatives was in a tizzy over an amendment which would have codified permission to fly the Confederate battle flag in national cemeteries and other federal properties. This amendment was inserted quietly and was backed by roughly 100 Republican House members, which derailed the bill the House was supposed to be passing, much to the chagrin of Speaker John Boehner. One of these supporters, in a jaw-dropping statement, said he didn't think the flag was racist, and that Confederate soldiers didn't have "any thoughts about slavery." No thoughts? Really? Wow. Democrat Hakeem Jeffries was perhaps the best voice on the other side, as he spoke in front of an image of the flag in the House: "Had this Confederate battle flag prevailed in a war 150 years ago, I would be here as a slave." Nancy Pelosi summed the whole fracas up with: "Isn't that remarkable? A hundred of their members would vote against the bill. As Congresswoman McCollum said, the bill wasn't bad enough for them... they needed hatred in the bill as well."

The White House press secretary piled on as well:

Right now, the Interior appropriations bill in the House is jammed up because a sizable number of House Republicans are eager to protect the status of the Confederate flag on National Park Service grounds. These are the same House Republicans who voted for a party leader who once described himself as "David Duke without the baggage." These are the same congressional Republicans who have declined to criticize the race-baiting rhetoric of a leading Republican presidential candidate. So when you hear me say that congressional Republicans have an agenda that is out of step with the vast majority of Americans, this record, at least in part, is what I'm referring to.

Boehner, realizing he was on shaky ground (especially on the anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment) was finally forced to abandon the bill, for now.

In other flag-coming-down news, the mayor of a small Alabama town regretfully had to take down a "Christian flag" from in front of city hall. The Freedom From Religion Foundation had written him a letter requesting he do so (and threatening a lawsuit if he didn't), and the mayor is now very sad he won't get to continue blatantly ignoring the Constitution any longer. Oklahoma's governor, however, is standing firm in defying his state's supreme court, which ruled the Ten Commandments monument at the statehouse must come down. We'll be interested to see whether he gets cited for contempt of court any time soon.

In other religious/political news, the governor of Kansas has banned something which doesn't actually exist. Fearful that government jack-booted thugs were going to start throwing ministers in jail for refusing to perform gay marriages, Sam Brownback issued an executive order banning such tyranny. Except, of course, that nothing of the sort is ever going to happen in Kansas (or anywhere else in this country). Ministers and priests in Kansas can sleep better knowing that they are safe from something that was never going to happen, we suppose.

On the federal level, laws are being updated to bring the benefits of marriage to all American citizens, no matter what state they live in.

The White House is hosting the first-of-its-kind Tribal Youth Gathering, bringing Native American youths together to meet with the First Lady, cabinet officials, and others. The news media largely failed to report on this event, much preferring to write about how the Washington [Racist Slur] football team lost yet another round in its battle to keep its trademark.

In marijuana news, the state of Washington is bringing in roughly twice the tax money they had projected ($70 million instead of the $36 million estimate). As Tom Angell of the group Marijuana Majority put it:

These impressive numbers are likely to catch the eyes of policymakers in other states that could use a little help closing their budget gaps. While this amount of money isn't nearly enough to run a whole state with, these are real dollars that can now be spent on things like schools, healthcare and road repair instead of going straight into the pockets of the drug dealers who controlled the marijuana market prior to legalization. And this is only the first year. Expect to see even more revenue generated -- and more jobs created -- in the next few years.

One can only hope other states are paying attention.

In international news, Greece is melting down, China's stock market saw a bubble pop, and John Kerry is still talking with the Iranians (but sounds like he's running out of patience). OK, that's enough of a weekly roundup, let's move on to the awards, shall we?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Medical marijuana has always had a serious Catch-22 problem. "It's medicine" its supporters say, but the federal government responds: "There are no scientific studies." However, when such scientific studies are attempted, up until very recently they were told: "You can't study that, it's not medicine, it's a dangerous drug." Catch-22. You can only reclassify it as medicine if there is science to back it up, but you cannot do scientific studies on it because it is not medicine.

This week, Democratic House members Earl Blumenauer and Sam Farr moved to break this logjam, even if the change might wind up being mostly symbolic. Marijuana is currently classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, the most serious classification there is. Even drugs like crystal methamphetamine are listed on Schedule II. Marijuana's inclusion as the worst of the worst has always been political, of course, and the real answer is to just reschedule it as a Schedule II (or even Schedule III) substance -- or to "deschedule" it entirely and just hand it over to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, where it really belongs.

Blumenauer and Farr's bill doesn't take either of these steps. Instead, it would create a special sub-classification of "Schedule I-R" for marijuana, which would at least separate it from the other substances listed on Schedule I.

It's not the perfect answer, but any attempt to make the situation better should be applauded. If your main complaint about medical marijuana is "there aren't enough studies," then why not make it easier to actually perform such studies? Both Blumenauer and Farr have become leaders on the issue, and for their proposed change to the law they both deserve this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

The insanity of the War On Weed will have to be chipped away at relentlessly, one bit at a time, and this could be an important step in that process. Kudos to Farr and Blumenauer for continuing to fight this important fight in Congress.

[Congratulate Representative Earl Blumenauer on his House contact page, and Representative Sam Farr on his House contact page, to let them know you appreciate their efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

You know what? Nobody disappointed us all that much this week.

If we've overlooked anyone richly deserving the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award, please let us know about it in the comments, as always.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 353 (7/10/15)

Before we get started, we have a program announcement to make. We'll be in Phoenix next week, attending the Netroots Nation get-together of liberal bloggers and activists. Because we'll be busy, this column won't appear again until two Fridays from now. Hopefully we'll be able to present some interesting columns next week anyway (we're working on it, but can't absolutely make promises yet), so there should be something for you to read, just not a "Friday Talking Points" column. So, fair warning to everyone.

OK, with that out of the way, let's get to this week's talking points. Due to the 800-pound gorilla that is Donald Trump's ego, almost all of our talking points this week are intended to make fun of both The Donald and the Republican Party leaders currently quaking in their boots over how they found themselves in this particular situation. Enjoy!

 

1
   Donald Trump, frontrunner

This one hurts, for Republicans.

"It is now impossible to deny that Donald Trump has become one of the frontrunners for the Republican nomination for president. I know many Republicans would prefer to treat Trump as some sort of freakshow on the sidelines, but that's not what the polls are saying. He's polling in first or second place both in state-level polls and in national polls right now. That is not some sideshow -- that is the very definition of frontrunner. Republicans may tell themselves that Trump can't possibly be out in front of much more serious candidates, but the reality is that he's now a frontrunner in the Republican nomination race. Deal with it."

 

2
   The face of the Republican Party

This one hurts even worse.

"Donald Trump is not just a frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, he's actually become the face of the Republican Party. Think about it -- whenever any Republican candidate gets interviewed, what is one of the first questions asked? 'What do you think of what Trump said?' To put this another way: Trump speaks, then all other Republicans react. By definition, Trump is speaking for the party now, and everyone else is just playing catch-up. Establishment Republicans can deny it until they're bright red in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that Donald Trump is now the most prominent voice in their party -- Trump is indeed the face of the Republican Party."

 

3
   This is only the beginning

Just to rub it in....

"I hasten to remind Republicans that this is just round one. Trump isn't going to fade quietly away or anything -- it's not in the man's nature to do so. Just when Republicans get over one inflammatory comment from Trump and think they've safely navigated the minefield, Trump's going to pop up and address some other subject with equally-inflammatory language. The Republican Trump problem isn't going to be confined to immigration and losing Latino voters. There'll be a lot more issues exploding from Trump's mouth in the future. He's got enough money to stay in the race as long as he likes, and the media isn't going to suddenly decide not to cover him anymore. This is just the beginning of a very long road, folks."

 

4
   The Trump Party

And to send Republicans screaming into the night....

"In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Donald Trump hinted that he not only might not support the eventual Republican nominee (if he loses his bid), but that he might actually consider a third-party run as an Independent. Just picture for one moment what that is likely to do to Republicans' chances for winning the White House next year. Trump himself said that 'so many people' want to see him mount a third-party bid -- 'everybody' wants him to do so. I don't know about 'everybody,' but I'm sure that pretty much every Democrat would indeed cheer if Trump ran as an Independent!"

 

5
   Trump is wrong, of course

This needs to be repeatedly pointed out to the media, because so far they're not doing a terrific job of fact-checking.

"Donald Trump is flat-out wrong about immigrants, of course. The facts plainly show that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes, and less likely to be incarcerated than the native-born population. Those are the facts. Trump is just as wrong about immigrant crime as he is about virtually everything else, which should come as no real surprise."

 

6
   Most Republicans essentially agree with Trump

Hillary slightly misspoke, but she's got a good point.

"Hillary Clinton is essentially right -- most Republican candidates for president may not agree with Donald Trump's inflammatory statements, but at heart they agree on what policies should be enacted to solve the problem of immigration. Other than Lindsey Graham, I don't know of any Republican running for president who supports a path to citizenship for the 11 million people already in this country without papers. Jeb Bush used to support this, but now he doesn't, as Hillary very accurately pointed out. Now he's for a path to 'legal status,' which would forever deny people of ever participating in American elections. And Jeb's actually more reasonable than most of the Republicans running, many of whom won't even go as far as Jeb. So while Republicans timidly denounce Trump, weeks later, they are essentially in agreement with him over what should be done about the problem. Once again, Trump is indeed the face of the Republican Party."

 

7
   Work longer hours, slackers!

And finally, because Jeb! is probably feeling a little left out this week...

"Jeb Bush apparently has the answer to the problems the American middle class is facing: work harder! Incredibly, that's exactly what he said recently in an interview. While standing firm for 'four percent growth,' Bush tells America's workers 'we have to be a lot more productive,' which 'means that people need to work longer hours.' Got that, middle class Americans? Your main problem is that you have been slacking off. Why not go out and get a second job? Heck, maybe put the kids to work, too. Because in Jeb!'s America, that's what you have to look forward to. Not a raise in the minimum wage, not expanded overtime pay, not guaranteed sick leave, not fair pay for women -- instead all your problems can be solved by working more hours. So what are you waiting for, slackers? Get back to work!"

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

163 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [353] -- Donald Trump, Frontrunner”

  1. [1] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Donald Trump is not just a frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, he's actually become the face of the Republican Party."

    The Orange Revolution.

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "It's all about money and what you're going to reward over time is the people with the most money and you're destroying the early primary process and I think that's bad for the Republican Party." - Lindsey Graham (R) whining that SCOTUS-approved political speech is bad for the GOP because he doesn't like the way that billionaires will Trump the Fox Noise Debate rules with their unlimited political speech.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oklahoma's governor, however, is standing firm in defying his state's supreme court, which ruled the Ten Commandments monument at the statehouse must come down. We'll be interested to see whether he gets cited for contempt of court any time soon.

    Uhh.... Did the OK Governor recently pull a Bruce Jenner that I am not aware of?? :D

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Fallin

    :D

    Michale

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most Republicans essentially agree with Trump

    Ahem.. AND many Democrats ALSO agree with Trump..

    Most notably Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Call-Me-Senator Boxer..

    Still waiting for someone.... ANYONE... to point out any inaccuracy in Donald Trump's facts..

    "Anyone?? Anyone??? Buehler???"

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have to admit, I am somewhat surprised at the blatant hysteria coming from the Left over Donald Trump...

    I mean, honestly..

    In a 24 hour period, CNN mentioned ISIS 61 times.. Mentioned Iran 35 times. Mentioned John Kerry 18 times..

    Donald Trump?? A whopping 239 times!!

    The phrase, "Me thinks thou doth protest TOO much" surely comes to mind..

    Trump envy is strong..... :D

    I guess that's what happens with the Left when all they have is old white people on their side.. :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    A TRUMP and SANDERS match-up!!

    Just THINK of the possibilities!! :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except, of course, that nothing of the sort is ever going to happen in Kansas (or anywhere else in this country).

    Yea.. And 10-20 years ago, it would "never happen" that christian business owners would be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for running their business according to their beliefs..

    It always will be "never happen" right up to the point that it happens..

    Do you HONESTLY believe, considering the track this country is heading down, that it's IMPOSSIBLE for a priest/minister be threatened for not performing a gay marriage..

    Are ya'all willing to take a Sherman in defense of religious freedom??

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    dsws wrote:

    The face of the Republican Party

    Good grief. He's been ahead in one poll, so of course he's favor-of-the-week in the media. Before that, the front-runner was John! Ellis! Bush. The Donald is entertaining to the media, so his flavor-of-the-week time is particularly intense. But no one is paying attention. Not even the media itself, really.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    I honestly don't know why there is so much rancor against Trump..

    He demonizes illegal immigrants who kill and rape and rob Americans..

    That's a lot better than Bernie Sanders, who demonizes fellow Americans who's only "crime" is being successful...

    Sanders is a divider as much as Trump allegedly is...

    Yet Bernie gets a pass...

    Strange, eh?

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 Eat the rich.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://abc11.com/news/another-illegal-immigrant-accused-of-hit-and-run/841448/

    Another drunk illegal immigrant on the road.. Another serious accident...

    Remind me again why illegal immigrants are a GOOD thing??

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jamiel Shaw Sr., the father of a high school student killed by an undocumented immigrant, will introduce Donald Trump on Saturday at a rally in Phoenix, Trump campaign officials tell CNN.

    Shaw's son, a high school football star, was shot and killed in Los Angeles in 2008 by a gang member born in Mexico. On Friday, Trump met in Los Angeles with Shaw and other family members of victims of crimes perpetrated by undocumented immigrants. He then gave a lengthy press conference in which he consistently railed against illegal immigration.

    Shaw said Friday that Trump's recent comments about illegal immigration resonated deeply with him.

    "He's speaking for the dead. He's speaking for my son," he said. "He's speaking for the people who can't speak for themselves that demand that somebody do something."
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/11/politics/donald-trump-phoenix-rally/index.html

    It's funny... A punk thug attacks a Security Officer and Obama is all over that siding with the punk thug......

    Another punk thug attacks a Police Officer and Obama is all over THAT again siding with the punk thug...

    Illegal immigrants attack and kill Americans and Obama is...

    {{chiiirrrrpppp}} {{chiiiiiirrrrrppppp}}

    ... suddenly too busy to comment...

    How sad.....

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘Offended’ flea market shopper calls 911 over Confederate merchandise
    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/offended-flea-market-shopper-calls-911-over-confederate-merchandise/

    And so it begins.....

    "People like blood sausage. People are idiots!"
    -Bill Murray, GROUNDHOG DAY

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Oh no! I hope Mexico doesn't send El Chapo to Toledo.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh no! I hope Mexico doesn't send El Chapo to Toledo.

    Mexico can't send El Chapo anywhere...

    Mexico refused to extradite the scumbag to the US.. They said it was a matter of "national pride" to incarcerate the scumbag in Mexico..

    Which brings us to his SECOND escape...

    What a bunch of incompetent maroons!!

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    After Trayvon Martin was killed, President Obama spoke emotionally about his death, declaring “this could have been my son.”

    After Michael Brown was killed, Obama promised to ensure that “justice is done” and declared: “We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. He was 18 years old. His family will never hold Michael in their arms again.” He even sent administration officials to attend Brown’s funeral.

    After Freddie Gray was killed, Obama walked out to the Rose Garden and declared: “We have some soul-searching to do. This has been going on for a long time. This is not new, and we shouldn’t pretend that it’s new.”

    But after Kathryn Steinle was killed July 1, allegedly by an illegal immigrant with seven felony convictions, Obama said .?.?. nothing.

    No promises of “justice.” No calls for “soul-searching.”

    His silence has been deafening.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-silence-on-kathryn-steinle-killing-is-deafening/2015/07/13/06f5730e-2959-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

    Where is Obama on Kathleen Steinle??

    Where is Obama on Jamiel Shaw??

    I guess Obama only cares about American deaths when he can use those deaths as a political bludgeon...

    So much for being a POTUS for "all Americans.."... :^/

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Obama has accomplished one thing..

    Unless Congress can scuttle this "deal", Obama has all but guaranteed that there will be an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure...

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-17

    Overt or Covert?

    If overt,

    What target, what means?
    When? Early (yr 1-3) or later?

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    What target, what means?

    Israel has received a couple dozen EBBs (Enhanced Bunker Busters) in the last year from the US...

    When? Early (yr 1-3) or later?

    I would say sooner rather than later.. Right now, Iran is less than six months from having a nuclear weapon...

    With the tens of billions Iran is going to receive by the end of 2015, they will be able to afford to purchase nuclear devices and know how... Pakistan and North Korea will be the likely sellers... Probably NK...

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    Put another way..

    Obama has his Munich Agreement..

    It's entirely likely that the results will be nearly as dangerous...

    History repeats itself...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You can't possibly have had enough time to peruse the details of the deal at this early stage. And, I won't engage you in a debate or discussion about it until have had a good look at it.

    I would hope - in the midst of all of your unsurprising criticism - that you would offer up alternatives that would prevent Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. And I mean feasible alternative that would have reasonable prospects for success, not some wild imaginings of yours.

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You can't possibly have had enough time to peruse the details of the deal at this early stage. And, I won't engage you in a debate or discussion about it until I have had a good look at it.

    I would hope - in the midst of all of your unsurprising criticism - that you would offer up alternatives that would prevent Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. And I mean feasible alternative that would have reasonable prospects for success, not some wild imaginings of yours.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Iran will NOT develop a nuclear weapon."
    -President Barack Obama

    "If you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."
    -President Barack Obama

    'Nuff said.....

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    I would hope - in the midst of all of your unsurprising criticism - that you would offer up alternatives that would prevent Iran from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons. And I mean feasible alternative that would have reasonable prospects for success, not some wild imaginings of yours.

    Alternatives have already been offered up..

    The alternatives that have been working... The alternatives that have DRIVEN Iran to the negotiating table...

    SANCTIONS....

    Now that Obama has abandoned sanctions, do you HONESTLY believe that Israel is going to sit idly by and let it's great enemy develop the most destructive weapon on the planet??

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Fine, if that's the way you want it.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fine, if that's the way you want it.

    The way I want it has absolutely nothing to do with anything..

    It's the way things are...

    We are talking about a country that is THE world's sponsor of terrorism...

    We are talking about a country that EXECUTES people for being gay...

    I mean, honestly.. Ya'all demonize, castigate and DESTROY a frakin' BAKER who won't bake a cake for a gay couple...

    Yet, ya'all are advocates for a deal with a country that EXECUTES gay people!???

    Where is the logic???

    Ya'all won't even deal with a political Party who you claim persecutes gay people..

    Yet ya'all advocate accepting a deal with a country who EXECUTES gay people??

    Again, I ask... Where is the logic??

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Look at the time of my comment ... it was referring to your comment #23, not your preferred Iran deal.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll be back in a week ... it's 159 pages!

  30. [30] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I see that there is no logic in discussing this deal with you, Michale, since you are against a deal with Iran, no matter what.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see that there is no logic in discussing this deal with you, Michale, since you are against a deal with Iran, no matter what.

    I am against a deal with a regime that is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism and who executes people just because they are gay..

    Yup...

    Guilty as charged..

    The REAL question is...

    Why are ya'all FOR a deal with such a regime??

    Oh, that's right...

    Obama's legacy...

    Seems a REALLY piss poor reason to support such a country as Iran...

    But hey...

    Different strokes, I guess.... :^/

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Actually, the real question is what is the viable alternative to this historic deal?

    And, for that, you continue to present no logical answer.

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, the real question is what is the viable alternative to this historic deal?

    And, for that, you continue to present no logical answ

    Actually, I have.. On MANY occasions..

    Tried and true, PROVEN to work..

    SANCTIONS...

    But Obama must have his legacy...

    And if the Middle East gets embroiled in a Nuclear Arms race??

    Oh well... Obama must have his legacy....

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for that, you continue to present no logical answer.

    And ya'all have yet to provide no logical answer..

    Why would ya'all want to deal with a regime that is THE state sponsor of terrorism??

    Why would ya'all want to deal with a regime who EXECUTES gay people??

    Ya'all refuse to deal with Republicans in Congress... Yet you are BFFs with IRAN???

    Where is the logic??

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Has the Administration reached out to the family of Kathleen Steinle??"
    -Question To DHS Sec Jeh Johnson

    Sec Johnson's response??

    "Who??"

    THAT right there says it all about how much this Administration cares about the American people.....

    CW, this happened in your own backyard...

    What's the word on the ground there??

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - 19

    Uranium or plutonium weapon pathway or both?

    Raid or sustained air campaign?

    Target operational reactors?

    The USAF considers the EBB too small for the task of taking out deep Iranian nuclear sites. Hence the 15 ton MOP which only the B2 can carry.

    Would Israel consider a strike with a nuclear war head modified EEB to make up its "low" mass?

  37. [37] 
    dsws wrote:

    My guess is that Iran doesn't actually want a nuclear weapon. Rather, Iran wants Xeno's policy. It wants to keep on making progress toward nuclear weapons, getting closer and closer, indefinitely. It wants to remain Iran, rather than turning into North Korea.

    Whenever Iran gets noticeably closer to getting a nuclear weapon, there's lots of hand-wringing. The hardliners on all sides get to puff out their chests and rattle their sabers. People worried about wussy stuff like prosperity and human rights get shouted down.

    But if they actually get a weapon, all that will end. It's sort of like a sitcom where the frustrated romantic almost-a-couple finally has sex: the series is over.

    The show needs a plot twist, a new barrier to consummating the ongoing quest. Iran needs to ditch most of its highly-enriched uranium, and it needs a new agreement to keep sort-of violating, then definitely violating, then flagrantly violating.

    We didn't really need to give them anything, for it to be a good deal for them. But we're kind of in the same position. Sanctions are mutually detrimental. We don't want sanctions, but we need to keep ratcheting them up so that we can look as though we're doing something. Otherwise people might start to wonder whether we're really a superpower any more.

  38. [38] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    So, what you're saying is ... what the heck are you saying!?

  39. [39] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Re. The purpose of sanctions

    No government has orchestrated a tougher or more effective international sanctions regime than the Obama administration has done against the Islamic Republic of Iran. But, the imposition of this sanctions regime was never conceived to be an end, in and of itself but, rather a means to an end. In this case, the sanctions regime against Iran has helped to bring an evolving Iranian leadership to the negotiating table.

    And, the international sanctions regime was put together as part of a plan to do just that. The sanctions were never meant to be in place indefinitely, just long enough to bring Iran to the table to discuss the future of its nuclear program and for Iran to agree to certain key demands of the international community and implement them. There is no reason to believe that the strong international sanctions in place now will remain, let alone be strengthened, if this deal is somehow skuttled by the US Congress.

    So, there is no reason to believe that the international sanctions regime would not fall apart if the US fails to live up to its end of the bargain. Which is why the only other alternative that the opponents of this deal have is military action and I'm not talking about air strikes or limited raids. Make no mistake, military action taken against Iran by the US and/or Israel will mean all out war, replete with all of the wholly predictable disastrous consequences.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    My guess is that Iran doesn't actually want a nuclear weapon.

    So, that's why they have allowed their economy to be crippled to the large extent that it is, and why they have gone to so much trouble to install so many centrifuges and conceal and lie about the existence of nuclear facilities etc. etc.

    That seems to be quite a lot to put your country through if you don't really want a nuclear weapon.

    Having said that, I do tend to agree with you. I think Iran desperately wants and needs to be on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons. And, that's close enough for me to believe that this deal, if fully implemented to the letter and spirit of the agreement, is a good one and so it should be supported.

    I also think that this deal isn't the end of it. If the Obama administration is smart, it won't waste any time in working to resolve the other issues it and the international community have with Iran, beyond the nuclear deal, that will further increase security and stability in the Middle East.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    From "The Deal"..

    “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.”

    Basically, what's going to happen is that the IAEA will inform the UN that they want to inspect Iranian Nuke Site X...

    The UN will inform the Iranians that the IAEA wants to inspect Iranian Nuke Site X...

    Then there will be a round of negotiations not dissimiliar to what we have just went thru..

    THEN and ONLY then will the IAEA maybe possibly be able to inspect Iran Nuclear Site X....

    Does anyone here HONESTLY believe this is a feasible inspection??

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I am happy that the Islamic Republic of Iran has achieved a great victory by reaching an agreement."
    -Syria President Bashar al-Assad

    If THAT doesn't show ya'all what a bad bad deal this is, NOTHING will..

    It's like having Josef Stalin or Adolph Hitler sign off on a deal...

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's a very good point in and of itself..

    For the deal...

    Iran, China, Russia, Syria

    Against the deal...

    Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, QATAR

    The countries for this deal are all US enemies...

    The countries against this deal are all US allies...

    That right there should be a clue and a half for ya'all.....

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The countries for this deal are all US enemies...The countries against this deal are all US allies...

    Demonstrably false. Not to mention non-serious and asinine.

    It amazes me how much stock you put into what leaders like Assad have to say. Surely you can't be that naïve.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it into a context that ya'all can readily identify with..

    If there was a deal pending between Democrats and Republicans and the deal was supported by Trump, Bush, Cruz and Limbaugh......

    Would ya'all think it was a good deal??

    I think we ALL know the answer to that question.. :D

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Demonstrably false.

    By all means.. Demonstrate.. :D

    It amazes me how much stock you put into what leaders like Assad have to say. Surely you can't be that naïve.

    It's not ME who is putting stock in what Assad says...

    It's ya'all who are in agreement with Assad..

    Of course Assad is excited about this deal.. He knows that, out the hundreds of billions Iran is going to get, Assad is going to get a piece of that pie..

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By all means.. Demonstrate.. :D

    Seriously!?

    There are a handful of countries opposed to any deal with Iran.

    The rest of the world supports it. Many of the countries that support it are US allies.

    I can't believe you don't know this!

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    From your initial reactions to the deal with Iran, it is obvious to me that discussing the terms of the deal and its implications for the broader Middle East with you will be pointless.

    Perhaps, after a careful reading of this complex deal and a serious consideration of viable alternatives to the deal as well as to what Iran would do with its nuclear program in the absence of a deal like this, you will refrain from the typical knee-jerk, non-serious assertions in your comments here.

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    From your initial reactions to the deal with Iran, it is obvious to me that discussing the terms of the deal and its implications for the broader Middle East with you will be pointless.

    Not at all...

    We already know the implications for this deal for the Middle East.

    A nuclear arms race.. This is established as fact...

    There are a handful of countries opposed to any deal with Iran.

    The simple fact that countries like Iran, Syria, Russia and China support it should be all the info needed to determine if it's a good deal or not..

    I refer you to comment #45...

    If there was a GOP/DEM deal pending and the deal was supported by the likes of Limbaugh, Cruz and Trump..

    What would be Weigantians assessment of the deal??

    We both know the answer to that..

    It's the same thing..

    This is Obama's Munich Agreement, pure and simple..

    Michale

  50. [50] 
    dsws wrote:

    Liz M, have you read the part of the agreement where it tells about Iran handing over most of its highly-enriched uranium? I heard that on the news, but I haven't gotten to those details in the actual text yet.

    what the heck are you saying!?

    It's mostly about domestic politics, on both sides but especially for Iran. The worse the confrontation, the more the people in charge get to look tough. Sanctions hurt the riffraff, not the regime.

    I also think that this deal isn't the end of it.

    Agreed. A deal that's the end of it isn't what Iran wants.

    I think Iran desperately wants and needs to be on the cusp of developing nuclear weapons.

    That's close to what I think. I think Iran desperately wants and needs to be close enough to be scary, and making progress. You can't keep making progress if you're really-really on the cusp.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh great..

    ANOTHER Hillary "introduction"... How many of these do the American people have to endure???

    Re-Re-Re-Reintroducing Hillary Clinton
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/magazine/re-re-re-reintroducing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

    Hillary's introduction reminds me of the Gore Recount morons..

    Continue to do it and do it and do it until the desired results are obtained... Regardless of how utterly stoopid and moronic it makes them look...

    No matter HOW many times Hillary is "introduced" to the American people, the vast majority of Americans will always see Hillary the same.

    A mean old woman who feels entitled to the POTUS-ency..

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Liz M, have you read the part of the agreement where it tells about Iran handing over most of its highly-enriched uranium? I heard that on the news, but I haven't gotten to those details in the actual text yet.

    First, it says that Iran will maintain a total enriched uranium of no more than 300kg of up to 3.67% for 15 years; all excess will be down-blended or sold on the international market.

    As for highly enriched uranium, it says that all uranium oxide enriched between 5% and 20% will be fabricated into fuel plates, transferred outside of Iran or diluted to 3.67% or less.

    From the little I have read so far about this deal, I can say with some confidence that most of the critics of this deal - especially those in Congress who say that Iran got everything and "we" got nothing - are being very disingenuous in their criticism, to say the least!

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of the details of the deal, it is undeniable that Iran's power has grown in the region because of the deal..

    There can be no denying this...

    Given this fact and given the fact that Iran is still the Numero Uno sponsor of terrorism, this begs the question..

    How can this deal be a GOOD thing if it makes Iran, THE state sponsor of terrorism, even STRONGER??

    That's the question no one seems to want to answer...

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    This deal empowers Assad...

    This deal empowers Hamas...

    This deal empowers Hezbollah..

    How could such a deal that empowers so many terrorists and scumbags be viewed, in ANY context, as a good thing???

    It's mind-boggling...

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    My mind always comes back to this one simple point..

    We're making a deal with a country that EXECUTES gay people..

    And ya'all are completely, unequivocally and 1000% on board with this..

    The Left is willing to DESTROY the lives and livelyhoods of people who won't bake a frakin' CAKE for a gay person!

    But make a deal with a country that EXECUTES gay people!???

    "Sure, why not!"

    Once again... Lefty logic.... Defies belief....

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    FINALIZATION DAY 14 Jul 2015..

    ALL UN SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN WILL BE TERMINATED....

    Ya'all said that Iran must be in compliance before sanctions are lifted..

    Ya'all said that if the deal allows that sanctions are lifted PRIOR to Iran's compliance, then it is a "bad deal"..

    Are ya'all back-pedaling???

    Michale

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3162770/Obama-says-Iran-nuclear-deal-best-way-avoid-Mideast-war.html

    It's amazing how much Obama sounds like Neville Chamberlain...

    The resemblance in tone, argument and circumstances are eerily identical to Chamberlain's arguments...

    Michale

  58. [58] 
    dsws wrote:

    it says that Iran will maintain a total enriched uranium of no more than 300kg of up to 3.67% for 15 years; all excess will be down-blended or sold on the international market

    I found that after I asked. (Thank you for posting the link to the actual text, btw.) What I haven't found yet is how it's verified that they don't have more than 300kg, or even that really sell what they say they do.

    I expect them to start violating the agreement in small ways as soon as implementation begins, and I expect utterly spurious accusations of much worse violations to show up in the Republican talking points whenever there's a slow news day back here in the US. (Or when worse yet, from their point of view, there's good news.)

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am also constrained to point out that Iran gets to keep all the Americans they are holding hostage...

    Yea... GREAT deal... :^/

    So, to sum up...

    Iran gets to continue to sponsor terrorism around the world...

    Iran gets to continue nuclear work..

    Iran gets to have control over the inspections...

    Iran gets to retain all Americans being held hostage...

    AND...

    Iran gets approx 146 BILLION dollars...

    Yea... It's a great deal..

    FOR IRAN...

    For the rest of the world??

    Not so much...

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the rest of the world?? Not so much...

    So, what did the rest of the world get?

  61. [61] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the rest of the world?? Not so much...

    So, what did the rest of the world get?

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    What I haven't found yet is how it's verified that they don't have more than 300kg, or even that really sell what they say they do.

    Exactly!!

    The verification process is non-existent..

    It all comes down to, "We can trust Iran to abide by the agreement..."

    It's funny that Obama and the Democrats trust the Iranians moreso than they trust Republicans...

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Iran would not have a right to enrich uranium until it had irreversibly shut down its nuclear weapons program.”
    -Hillary Clinton, 2011

    But I guess that depends on what the definition of "it" is... :^/

    Michale

  64. [64] 
    dsws wrote:

    It all comes down to, "We can trust Iran to abide by the agreement..."

    Not quite. It comes down to "We can trust Iran to pursue its own interests, as perceived by the people in power there." As I said, I expect Iran to start violating the agreement in small ways, as soon as implementation begins. But Iran's leaders want to look like the people who have the big bad USA (in the opinion of those they're trying to impress) all worried. To do that, their best option is to keep making progress toward a nuclear bomb -- not to actually have one.

  65. [65] 
    TheStig wrote:

    The JCPOA reads like stereo instructions....except the parts that read like yellow page listings. Must have been edited by the folks over at The Handbook For The Recently Deceased Press. My poor scroll finger!

  66. [66] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Apocalyptic nutbags from the only country that has ever used a nuclear bomb screaming that apocalyptic nutbags in some other country can't be trusted even as the former apocalyptic nutbags openly threaten to renege on an international agreement? You have to be impressed by just how badly the Republicans want another war. GOP "moderate" Lindsey Graham would nuke Iran even if they were holding Brad Pitt hostage!

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, you know what's even better than that?

    Prime Minister Netanyahu warning about a disastrous historic mistake having to do with an empowered Iran.

    If that's not the height of irony, I'm sure I don't know what is.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Prime Minister Netanyahu warning about a disastrous historic mistake having to do with an empowered Iran.

    So let me get this straight..

    You see nothing wrong with "empowering" (your word) a country that is the world's sponsor of terrorism??

    You see nothing wrong with "empowering" a country that EXECUTES gay people??

    I am beyond gabberflasted...

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not quite. It comes down to "We can trust Iran to pursue its own interests, as perceived by the people in power there." As I said, I expect Iran to start violating the agreement in small ways, as soon as implementation begins. But Iran's leaders want to look like the people who have the big bad USA (in the opinion of those they're trying to impress) all worried. To do that, their best option is to keep making progress toward a nuclear bomb -- not to actually have one.

    And if you are wrong??

    If Iran IS serious about wanting a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel??

    You have to keep in mind, we are NOT dealing with a country that has rational leadership...

    We are dealing with a country that has leadership that are religious fanatics...

    Are you willing to bet the survival of Israel on your premise?

    The verification process built in to this deal is non-existent.

    So, yes..

    It all DOES come down to ""We can trust Iran to abide by the agreement..."

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what did the rest of the world get?

    A nuclear armed Iran and a nuclear arms race in THE most volatile part of the country..

    Yea.. "Great" deal... {/sarc}

    Michale

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    The entire text of the deal makes absolutely no difference.

    The ONLY relevant part of the deal is the text on verification..

    And THAT text says that Iran will have almost a month from the time an inspection is announced until the time the inspection actually happens, IF it happens at all..

    THAT is the text from the deal.

    There can be no verification under this deal.. None whatsoever...

    And THAT is what makes this a bad deal...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    And THAT text says that Iran will have almost a month from the time an inspection is announced until the time the inspection actually happens, IF it happens at all..

    To put it in a more understandable context, it would be like the cops advising the local drug cartel, "We'll be executing a search warrant on your place of business in a month."

    Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that such a verification process is actually viable??

    Michale

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Prime Minister Netanyahu warning about a disastrous historic mistake having to do with an empowered Iran.

    Oh, Michale ... didn't you read what I said next?

    You know, the part about it being the height of irony?

    As in Netanyahu couldn't push the US any harder if he tried into the Iraq war, 2003 edition and, in so doing, is a big part of the crew most responsible for empowering Iran in the Middle East.

    He hasn't apologized for this yet, has he? :rolleyes:

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that such a verification process is actually viable??

    I don't think anyone here is qualified to make that assessment. Neither is most of the rest of the blogosphere and media, for that matter.

    That's why I rely on the experts in the field of nuclear physics and arms control who disagree with your assessment.

  75. [75] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am beyond gabberflasted...

    Well, you're most assuredly beyond something! :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think anyone here is qualified to make that assessment. Neither is most of the rest of the blogosphere and media, for that matter.

    That's why I rely on the experts in the field of nuclear physics and arms control who disagree with your assessment.

    You don't need to be in ANY field to know that a verification process that allows almost a month notice is no verification process at all..

    All one needs is political agnosticism and a heaping healthy dose of common sense..

    Well, you're most assuredly beyond something! :)

    :D Touche' :D

    FINALIZATION DAY 14 Jul 2015..

    ALL UN SANCTIONS AGAINST IRAN WILL BE TERMINATED....

    Ya'all said that Iran must be in compliance before sanctions are lifted..

    Ya'all said that if the deal allows that sanctions are lifted PRIOR to Iran's compliance, then it is a "bad deal"..

    Are ya'all back-pedaling???

    So I can assume ya'all are back-pedaling...

    Here's another prediction for you..

    Obama stated that the UN Sanctions against Iran would be "suspended" and could be snapped back at any time..

    10K Quatloos says that, when Obama goes to the UN in the next few days to have the sanctions lifted, the sanctions will be TERMINATED....

    Not suspended....

    Remember, you heard it here first...

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So I can assume ya'all are back-pedaling [Re. lifting of sanctions]...

    No, you cannot.

    But, I can assume that you completely misunderstand the difference between Finalization Day and Implementation Day.

    You like crow, right? :)

  78. [78] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "Facts are stupid things." - Ronnie Raygun

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    As in Netanyahu couldn't push the US any harder if he tried into the Iraq war, 2003 edition and, in so doing, is a big part of the crew most responsible for empowering Iran in the Middle East.

    He hasn't apologized for this yet, has he? :rolleyes:

    Apologize?? For looking out for his own country's best interests??

    I wish Obama was a QUARTER of the leader that Netanyahu is...

    We wouldn't be having this discussion...

    So, what you are saying is that the Middle East would be a better place than it is today if Saddam had been left alone to rape and pillage and make war on his neighbors at will??

    What do you base that assumption on??

    I put forth to you that, with Saddam constantly attacking Iran, Iran would ALREADY have nuclear weapons...

    And Tel Aviv might now be a smoking radioactive crater..

    That's the fun thing about hindsight.. You can postulate whatever scenario you wish to... :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's the fun thing about hindsight.. You can postulate whatever scenario you wish to... :D

    That's not hindsight, Michale ... that is what's known as a severe case of panglossian thinking on your part. Ahem.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, I can assume that you completely misunderstand the difference between Finalization Day and Implementation Day.

    Finalization Day is actually 2 Days ago..

    It's the day that Obama goes to the UN and terminates ALL UN Sanctions against Iran..

    Something ya'all claimed would make the deal a BAD deal...

    But now that it's actually coming to pass, ya'all still maintain that it's a GOOD deal..

    That's back-pedaling...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    But, credit where credit is due...

    To date, you are the only one with the courage to take a position on the Iran deal...

    Yer wrong, but at least you are taking a stand.. :D

    Kudos...

    Michale

  83. [83] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    It's the day that Obama goes to the UN and terminates ALL UN Sanctions against Iran..

    FALSE!

    Now, go look up Implementation Day and tell me when and how all of the sanctions (US/EU/UN) will be lifted.

    Take your time.

  84. [84] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase that ...

    Now, go look up Implementation Day and tell me when and how each of the various sanctions (US cf EU cf UN) will be lifted and/or suspended.

    Take even more time!

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, you are in error, Liz..

    According to the text of the agreement, Finalisation Day will result in the termination of all UN Sanctions per Section 18 of the deal Annex..

    18. In accordance with the UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA, the
    provisions imposed in UN Security Council resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) will be terminated subject to re-imposition in the event of significant non-performance by Iran of JCPOA commitments, and specific restrictions, including restrictions
    regarding the transfer of proliferation sensitive goods will apply.

    This will take place on FINALISATION DAY..

    A. Finalisation Day
    2. Upon conclusion of the negotiations of this JCPOA, the E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and Iran will endorse this JCPOA.
    3. Promptly after the conclusion of the negotiations of this JCPOA, the proposed UN Security Council resolution referred to in Section 18 of this Annex will be submitted to the UN Security Council for adoption without delay.

    There it is in black and white...

    Once the agreement is put to the UN (within the next couple days), all UN sanctions will be terminated...

    But, if you don't want to believe the black and white text of the deal, I can wait the few days until the UN does it's thing...

    THEN will you concede that it's a bad deal??

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    To sump things up...

    Finalization Day is when the US goes to the UN..

    When the US goes to the UN, the UN will approve the JCPOA...

    Upon approval of the JCPOA, UN Resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) will be terminated.

    All those sanctions will be terminated **SOLELY AND COMPLETELY** based on Iran's word that it will abide by the JCPOA...

    It's all based on trusting Iran..

    Iran.. A country that is THE sponsor of terrorism.

    Iran.. A country that EXECUTES gay people solely for being gay.

    Michale

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Switching tracks for a moment..

    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150716/us-dem-2016-clinton-poll-bf705a485e.html

    Ya gotta just laugh at this...

    Every time the country get's "introduced" to Hillary Clinton, her poll numbers go down.. :D

    She was MORE popular before all her "introductions".. :D

    How hilarious is that!!?? :D

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    From the main part of the JCPOA:
    "SANCTIONS

    "18.The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue - 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) SIMULTANEOUSLY (my emphasis) with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V."

    The US and EU sanctions will be handled in similar fashion, as per the JCPOA. You should take a closer look at Annex V.

    From Annex V (the part you glossed over, ahem):

    "C.Implementation Day

    "14. Implementation Day will occur upon the IAEA-verified implementation by Iran of the nuclear-related measures described in paragraph 15 below, and, simultaneously, the E3/EU+3 taking the actions described in paragraphs 16 and 17 below, and with the actions described in paragraph 18 (the one you cite above but conveniently take out of context, Michale) below taking place at the UN level in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution."

    This agreement is remarkably detailed and complex and you should be very careful when posting quotes of it out of context in a futile attempt to give weight to your spurious arguments.

    How would you like your crow, Michale?

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will take place on FINALISATION DAY.

    Not according to the text of the JCPOA...

    According to the text of the JCPOA, the UN sanctions will be lifted once the UN adopts the JCPOA..

    Don't take my word for it.. Just read the text..

    Better yet, let's just wait a few days til the UN adopts the JCPOA and terminates the UN Sanctions...

    When the UN does this in the next few days/week you will simply have to concede that it's a bad deal solely based on the lifting of sanctions issue..

    It's already a bad deal based on the ludicrous notion of 24-Day Notification Of "Snap" Inspections..

    But the sanctions issue is enough to label it a bad deal..

    Let's just wait and see what the UN does.. :D

    I'll have your Crow Feast ready for you. :D

    Michale

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Put another way...

    When the UN adopts the JCPOA and terminates all UN Sanctions, THEN will you admit it's a bad deal???

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Re-read my comment #88 ... or, better yet, re-read the ALL of the parts of the JCPOA + ANNEXES that deal with sanctions.

    But, first, TAKE OFF YOUR BLINDERS!!!

  92. [92] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let's just wait and see what the UN does.. :D

    How many years must we wait until you admit that you are wrong about this?

    I hate crow, by the way. Probably because I've never had the opportunity to acquire a taste for it. Heh.

  93. [93] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Should I duck and cover now ... or later?

    :-)

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    How many years must we wait until you admit that you are wrong about this?

    Not years... Just til the UN adopts the JCPOA and terminates UN Sanctions...

    According to Obama's deal that should be by the end of the month...

    Keep in mind, however...

    It still doesn't make it a good deal even if the UN DOESN'T terminate the sanctions, as there is still the laughable idea of "snap inspections"..

    But, when the UN does terminate the Sanctions as per Obama's deal, then we would be in agreement that it is a "bad deal"...

    There is still the hurdle of the US Congress actually allowing Obama to consummate this deal..

    THAT is a whole nother argument..

    I hate crow, by the way. Probably because I've never had the opportunity to acquire a taste for it. Heh.

    Apparently, you are going to have ample opportunity to develop the taste for it..

    Don't worry... It tastes like chicken.. :D

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Snap inspections?

    I think you mean snap-back sanctions.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Snap inspections?

    I think you mean snap-back sanctions.

    No.. I mean the "snap" inspections that allows Iran almost a month from the time that the "snap" inspection is announced until the time that it actually happens...

    As per comment #72

    It would be like the cops advising the local drug cartel, "We'll be executing a search warrant on your place of business in a month."

    Does anyone here HONESTLY believe that such inspections are viable??

    Michale

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You have to understand the whole nuclear fuel cycle to understand why 24 days or even 24 weeks would give inspectors ample time to discover nefarious nuclear activity.

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Snap inspections?

    I think you mean snap-back sanctions.

    And, for the record, there will be no "snap BACK sanctions"...

    Any re-imposition of sanctions will have to go thru the UN Security Council where Russia and China can exercise their VETO...

    There will be no sanctions...

    Iran can continue to sponsor terrorism and kill gays to their hearts content, with President Obama's blessing....

    Michale

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran can continue to sponsor terrorism and kill gays to their hearts content, with President Obama's blessing....

    Not to mention continue to hold innocent Americans hostage...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-press-conference-was-a-case-for-american-weakness/2015/07/15/bca75e1e-2b3a-11e5-a250-42bd812efc09_story.html

    Michale

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Any re-imposition of sanctions will have to go thru the UN Security Council where Russia and China can exercise their VETO...

    Wrong again, Michale.

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I refuse to click on that link to one of more asinine question a "journalist" has ever asked.

    Not because he asked about why the Americans being held unjustly in Iranian jails was not part of the deal - a valid question which Obama answered.

    Asinine because the inept reporter assumed that Obama was content with that scenario.

    Back much later tonight, if time permits ...

    ... I think CW may have to adjust the title of this column a wee bit ... :)

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have to understand the whole nuclear fuel cycle to understand why 24 days or even 24 weeks would give inspectors ample time to discover nefarious nuclear activity.

    Yea.....

    This assumes that Iran is completely trustworthy and honest about WHERE it's performing the entire chain of nuclear fuel cycle.. :^)

    It all comes down to trust...

    Obama trusts the world's sponsor of terrorism..

    Obama trusts the country that executes people for being gay....

    What does common sense tell you??

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Well done Liz!

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    Asinine because the inept reporter assumed that Obama was content with that scenario.

    Obviously Obama *IS* content with it because he didn't insist that it was part of any deal...

    In other words, Obama's legacy was more important than the safety and freedom of Americans being held hostage by Iran...

    And to see Obama get so pissy because he was called on this reality???

    Priceless.....

    Michale

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any re-imposition of sanctions will have to go thru the UN Security Council where Russia and China can exercise their VETO...

    Wrong again, Michale.

    Really??

    How else will sanctions be re-imposed??

    By your own admission, the US cannot impose sanctions alone. It would have to have world-wide support, INCLUDING support from Russia and China...

    As such, the ONLY way sanctions would be re-imposed would be to go thru the UN...

    You seem to be straying away from the actual TEXT of the deal and venturing into areas that you would LIKE the text to say, but doesn't actually say...

    Irregardless, the argument will be settled when the JCPOA is adopted by the UN...

    Once sanctions are terminated, we will know who was right and who was wrong...

    But, like the 2014 Mid-Terms, no one here will ever concede that they were wrong and I was right.. :^./

    Michale

  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, like the 2014 Mid-Terms, no one here will ever concede that they were wrong and I was right.. :^./

    But, that's really OK..

    It's enough to know that *I* am living in reality and everyone else is living on the banks of denial... :D

    Michale

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    I realize that it's a crushing blow..

    But Obama is NOT always right...

    Whatever Obama does is NOT always good for the country..

    Sometimes, Obama ROYALLY scrooos the pooch...

    This is one of those times...

    This is the reality...

    Michale

  108. [108] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M-98

    "Any re-imposition of sanctions will have to go thru the UN Security Council where Russia and China can exercise their VETO..."

    They can, but won't, due to clever legal construction. In the event of a dispute, a preliminary process of lifting the sanctions can start, but it's toothless. The Security Council must then vote to continue stopping the sanctions (yes) or stop terminating them (no). A veto by Russia or China a automatically reinstates the the economic sanctions! The power of the veto rests with the US and like minded allies. If Security Council fails to act, then the sanctions are automatically reinstated. That's why this provision is referred to as snap back.

    Here's the official language:

    37. Upon receipt of the notification from the complaining participant, as described above, including a description of the good-faith efforts the participant made to exhaust the dispute resolution process specified in this JCPOA, the UN Security Council, in accordance with its procedures, shall vote on a resolution to continue the sanctions lifting. If the resolution described above has not been adopted within 30 days of the notification, then the provisions of the old UN Security Council resolutions would be re-imposed, unless the UN Security Council decides otherwise. In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council, expressing its intention to prevent the reapplication of the provisions if the issue giving rise to the notification is resolved within this period, intends to take into account the views of the States involved in the issue and any opinion on the issue of the Advisory Board. Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Which means that it's the UN that makes the determination..

    And that worked out SO WELL during the IRAQ issue where the UN pulled in over 9 BILLION dollars...

    Regardless of all that, the simple fact is, after FINALIZATION DAY (within the next week or two) there won't BE any more UN resolutions for the UN to decide on...

    As per Section 18 of the JCPOA Annex..

    THAT is the point ya'all want to ignore..

    Once Obama goes the the UN, the UN sanctions are history...

    Don't take my word for it..

    Let's see what happens...

    Michale

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:
  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:
  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    When all is said and done.... When all the comments are commented..

    Ya'all are taking the word of President If-You-Like-Your-Health-Plan-You-Can-Keep-Your-Health-Plan Obama and a country that EXECUTES people for being gay...

    And ya'all think *I* am the one who is wrong here???

    :D

    Michale

  113. [113] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    This Iranian policy of EXECUTING people for "being gay" is deplorable and must end. Even if the sanctions are lifted, I would never buy any of their oil. On the other hand, some people say that "I was born this way" is just a Big Gay lie. They say that going gay is really just an illegal and immoral behavioral choice and there's no evidence to the contrary. USA executes people for behavioral choices like running away while black. An "our executions are more righteous than yours" pissing match would've been awesome!

  114. [114] 
    dsws wrote:

    This calls for a big thank-you to LizM, and a smaller one to TheStig, for going through the details. I wouldn't have gotten around to finding out this much.

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS,

    Thanks! But, I don't think my work is done here ... :(

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    You're welcome!

    This deal will take some time to go through and to focus on the parts that I actually understand. For the rest, I will rely on the experts in the field.

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    USA executes people for behavioral choices like running away while black.

    Really??

    THAT is official USA policy!??

    I think you should talk to your President about that...
    {/sarc}

    Jeeze.. Talk about an apples/eskimo argument. It is official Iranian policy set by their LEADERS that gay people are executed..

    If you can make the same claim about some rogue cop shooting a black guy....???

    JM, I expected better from you...

    Michale

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Thanks! But, I don't think my work is done here ... :(

    Perhaps not.

    But once Obama goes to the UN and the UN sanctions are terminated, my work will be.. :D

    But again, credit where credit is due. At least you have the courage to actually TAKE a position on the deal and defend it.. :D

    No one else does...

    Michale

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's face the facts people.

    The *ONLY* reason that Obama thinks this is a good deal is because he NEEDS a deal.. ANY deal.. for his legacy...

    And the *ONLY* reason ya'all think this is a good deal is because Obama NEEDS a deal... ANY deal... for his legacy...

    If this exact same deal was on the table with a GOP POTUS, ya'all would be making the EXACT same arguments that I am making.. The only difference is that we would all be in complete agreement..

    And so ends the debate... :D

    Michale

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    USA executes people for behavioral choices like running away while black.

    Institutionalized racism is dead in America.. It died the day we elected a black President..

    No one, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON, has been able to offer ANY evidence, ANY shred or ingot of fact, that disproves this statement..

    And you want to compare THAT to Iran's official policy of executing people SOLELY because they are gay??

    I mean, honestly, look in a mirror!

    Ya'all get downright HYSTERICAL when an American baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay person..

    Yet, ya'all enthusiastically support a deal that immeasurably empowers a country whose official policy is to EXECUTE people for being gay!??

    So, I guess the only logical conclusion is that ya'all don't really care about gay people...

    Or, more accurately, Obama's ego is more important to ya'all than gay people who are executed for being gay...

    Michale

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news...

    Another mass shooting in an Innocent Victim Shooting Gallery..

    AKA "Gun Free Zone"

    Why don't advocates of Innocent Victim Shooting Gallerys put up a sign that is factually accurate?

    Instead of a sign that says:

    GUN FREE ZONE

    put up a sign that says:

    Only Psychotics With Murder On Their Minds Have Guns Zone

    At least people would know they run the risk of being victims...

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    "THAT is official USA policy!?"

    That is USA police policy.

    There, I fixed that for you. The only logical conclusion is that they're a well organized criminal gang and they don't really care about official USA policy (or laws).

    "I guess the only logical conclusion is that ya'all don't really care about gay people."

    LOL! Concern trolling is always touching, despite its insincerity.

  123. [123] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    We should offer asylum and citizenship in the USA to any and all gay Iranians. We cannot allow them to be tyrannized by anti-gay theocrats.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is USA police policy.

    "Of course, you can PROVE that, right!?? Oh yea, that's right.. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Do you have any FACTS that show it's policy??

    Jeeze, look who I am asking for facts.. :^/

    LOL! Concern trolling is always touching, despite its insincerity.

    You realize that every time you respond to me, I win..

    You realize that, right? :D

    Irregardless of that, the simple fact is, apparently, that I care more for about the welfare of gay people than ya'all do..

    I would *NEVER* be agreeable to empowering a country that EXECUTES gay people...

    Apparently, ya'all don't have a problem with that...

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts clearly show who is on the side of gay people and who isn't...

    At least on THIS issue..

    I'll grant you.

    If a gay person wants a cake from a christian baker, ya'all are RIGHT THERE, screaming hysterically and protecting that all important right of having that cake baked.......

    Credit where credit is due and all that...

    But when it comes to the more mundane hoo-hum issues of oh, I dunno.... SAVING LIVES...

    Well, I guess it's only me that is in the gay people's corner...

    It's a bear I must cross, I spose... :D

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    What the hell!!????

    I guess the Weigantia Press Office REALLY wanted to make that point, eh?? :^/

    CW, can ya delete comment #126 thru 132

    Michale

  134. [134] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I've hoid of the right wing echo chamber, but this is ridiculous!

    - channeled by Groucho

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You know, it really doesn't matter how many times you say it, Michale ... it's still just ... :)

  136. [136] 
    TheStig wrote:

    M - 125 - 132

    ...."gay people's corner"....

    Closet??? ; - )

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know, it really doesn't matter how many times you say it, Michale ... it's still just ... :)

    hehehehehe Yea, I dunno what happened.. I pushed away my trackball as I hit SUBMIT COMMENT and I think the button hit my HDD Docking device and got pushed...

    Sorry about that.. :^/

    ...."gay people's corner"....

    Closet??? ; - )

    No... Corner... I am claustrophobic and don't like closets.. :D

    Michale

  138. [138] 
    TheStig wrote:

    "You realize every time you challenge me, I win"

    Don't go there.....self identification as a troll, self diagnosis of paranoia and/ or narcissism. : - )

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of the incredible, fantastical, absurd, unbelievable, inconceivable, ridiculous redundancy of the comment, the point itself is still valid...

    I mean, think back to recent history..

    The Left in general and the gay community specifically went absolutely ape-shit when a gay hotel owner met with Ted Cruz because Cruz has sad some meany things about gay people...

    Ya'all are supporting a deal with a country that *executes* people for being gay...

    Gay guy meets with a guy who is mean to gays.
    Lefties lose their frakin' minds!!

    US makes a deal with a country that EXECUTES gay people...
    Lefties are completely and unequivocally supportive...

    Do ya'all see why someone would be a tad confused???

    Michale

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't go there.....self identification as a troll, self diagnosis of paranoia and/ or narcissism. : - )

    We're talking Chat-Bottery... :D

    Michale

  141. [141] 
    TheStig wrote:

    124 - "Irregardless"

    When did you commence to start using that word?

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    I have used it quite often....

    It's a freaky word...

    Like road

    :D

    michale

  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:
  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    When did you commence to start using that word?

    I think the earliest I have used that word was in 1988 in USENET..

    Or was it FIDO???

    Sorry, the memory ain't what it used to be.. :D

    michale

  145. [145] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Response time to the submit comment button HAS been rather slow lately. On the order of 5 - 10 seconds to see the confirmation swipe.

  146. [146] 
    TheStig wrote:

    One thousand, two thousand......nine thousand on comment 145. Device/APP dependent?

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hmmmmmmm

  148. [148] 
    TheStig wrote:

    HuffPO will now cover TheDonald in their entertainment section - and only in entertainment! Has SnarkWeek II at CW.com gone global?!

    CW is going to return home facing a mess similar to the one my parents encountered when the went on vacation and left me in charge of my brothers!

  149. [149] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Five seconds on 148, from my Windows 7 desk top. Shorter, but nothing conclusive. Spam filter on the CW.com pipe?

    Most, if not all my double taps seem to occur when I hit submit again before receiving confirmation of the first submission.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    7 seconds from my Windows 10 machine...

    Most, if not all my double taps seem to occur when I hit submit again before receiving confirmation of the first submission.

    Yep...

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From tablet (randomized block design, heads coin toss).

  152. [152] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From desktop (tails coin toss)

  153. [153] 
    TheStig wrote:

    From desktop (tails)

    post 151 7 seconds, post 152 3 seconds

    This post is a randomized desktop submission.

    All - please excuse the geek in me, but I wanna know!

  154. [154] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Transmit time one second for comment 153

    This post randomized tablet

  155. [155] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Five seconds for post 154

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    I love watching a geek geek-out :D

  157. [157] 
    Michale wrote:

    I love watching a geek

    No offense... :D

    Michale

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:
  159. [159] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I dunno what happened.. I pushed away my trackball as I hit SUBMIT COMMENT and I think the button hit my HDD Docking device and got pushed...

    I have no idea what that means but, I hope you didn't hurt yourself. :)

  160. [160] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Ames Iowa update: Trump suddenly realizes his fortune isn't nearly enough to spend what it's going to take to win.

  161. [161] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Do you know what day it is? Guess what day it is!

    The UN has voted to affirm the nuclear deal agreed by Iran and P5+1 powers.

    And, guess what!?

    That's right. There will not be immediate sanctions relief but, rather UN sanctions will be lifted according to the plan outlined in the deal and as I discussed with you earlier in this thread.

    What's your favourite crow recipe?

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's OK, Michale,

    I would never dream of serving up a dish of crow for you.

    You should know me better than that ... :)

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    I do.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.