ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [358] -- Trump's Immigration Roundup

[ Posted Friday, August 21st, 2015 – 17:16 PDT ]

Another week has gone by, and Donald Trump remains the Republican frontrunner in the presidential nomination race. We've noticed that all the inside-the-Beltway pundits who so confidently predicted Trump's imminent and inevitable downfall are now slowly starting to revisit their predictions. This is making them extremely nervous, of course. Some are still finding solace in the "Trump's going to say something any day now that will sink him like a stone" way of thinking, but their numbers are getting smaller as time goes by and Trump defies political gravity once again.

Last weekend, Trump released his very first policy paper. It was, naturally, on immigration (Trump's signature issue). Reduced to tweet-length, this policy could be summed up as: "Build a big wall. Repeal birthright citizenship and 14th amendment. Round them all up and send them home." Of course, it was immediately popular with all of Trump's supporters.

The rest of the Republican presidential field, once again, was caught scrambling to respond. All of the other Republicans running for the highest office in the land routinely quake in their boots whenever Trump opens his mouth, because nobody's yet come up with any great ideas as to how to respond. Take Trump on directly? That hasn't worked out so well for the three notable candidates who have tried it (Rand Paul, Rick Perry, and Lindsey Graham), who are all polling below five percent. Agree with Trump no matter what comes out of his mouth (in the hopes of picking up all his supporters if he stumbles)? That's working pretty well for Ted Cruz, which is why Scott Walker is now giving it a try. Ignore him completely? That's what Jeb! Bush would really like to do, but again this hasn't worked out so well for him (as he watched his own poll numbers sink into single digits).

So far, most of the candidates have at least tentatively supported parts of Trump's immigration plan. More and more of them are just throwing up their hands and saying "OK, let's build a giant wall, what the heck." This week, at least half of the Republican field has expressed support for overturning birthright citizenship, which would require an amendment to the United States Constitution (since it's expressly part of the Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment). This is now the default Republican position, in fact. I guess conservatives only revere certain parts of the Constitution, even though they all carry a copy around with them in their pocket, as a talisman.

Jeb! Bush once again proved he is just as clumsy at being a politician as his brother, in response to Trump. Jeb! was trying to distance himself from Trump's position on birthright citizenship, but then he royally stepped in it by using the phrase "anchor babies." When called on the offensiveness of the term, Bush doubled down and tried to defend it, while he tried to channel some sort of weak-tea version of Trump taking on political correctness. "Anchor babies," Bush said, is a term Democrats use, to beat up on Republicans. He didn't explain how Democrats can only do so after Republicans use the term, of course. But watching him flounder around answering all the questions must be painful for all those folks who have already tossed over $100 million into Bush's campaign chest. This is really the guy who is going to vanquish Trump? Hey, good luck with that, Establishment Republicans!

Outside the presidential race, the rabid Republicans on the airwaves are pushing the issue even harder than Trump (hard as that is to even imagine). One radio host is essentially calling not just for repealing the Fourteenth Amendment, but also that pesky Thirteenth Amendment as well -- you know, the one that outlaws slavery. Seriously. His position is to give all undocumented immigrants a 60-day warning, and then round them up and stick them in concentration camps. They would then "become property of the state," after which the state would "start to extort or exploit or indenture" their labor. When a caller pointed out that it "sounds an awful lot like slavery," the host responded: "Well, what's wrong with slavery?"

Yes, this is the state of the Republican Party today, brought to you by none other than Donald Trump. Mitt Romney winning 27 percent of the Latino vote may turn out to be a high point for the party, which could put the White House out of Republicans' reach for the foreseeable future, at least until they purge this sort of nativist nonsense from their ranks. Which doesn't seem likely any time soon, of course. Things are probably going to get a lot worse before they get any better.

In other amusing news from the Republican campaign trail, Bobby Jindal has apparently been reduced to showing Planned Parenthood videos to crowds on his lawn (no, really), and Marco Rubio hit a kid in the face with a football (which was, of course, caught on camera for everyone's amusement).

We're going to skip over the Democratic campaign trail news for the moment, because we are going to address it all in the awards sections.

President Obama is spending his summer whipping (and counting) congressional votes for his Iran nuclear deal. When Congress returns from their excessive six-week summer vacation, they'll be voting whether to disapprove the deal or not. If they put such a disapproval on Obama's desk, he'll need to defeat a veto override in at least one house of Congress for the deal to go through. Most Washington wonks think he'll be able to clear this bar, but there is even one interesting possibility few have yet noticed: Obama may not even have to veto anything, because Republicans may not be able to pass it in the Senate. There are currently 54 Republicans in the Senate, plus two Democrats who have said they'll vote their disapproval of the deal. But 60 votes will be needed, meaning Republicans still need four more Democrats. As of right now, there are 13 Democratic senators who have not indicated either their support for the deal or their disapproval. If 10 of them ultimately vote to support Obama, then the disapproval bill will die in the Senate, and no veto will even be necessary. It's a fairly long shot at the moment, but the possibility does exist. As we get closer to the vote, we'll be paying a lot more attention to the whip counts, pro and con.

And finally, in amusing marijuana news, Novak Djokovic -- ranked number one in the world of tennis -- had to complain to the umpire in not just one but two recent matches in Montreal. His problem? The clouds of pot smoke drifting over the court. From the story:

"Somebody's getting high," he says to a smiling umpire. "No, honestly... The whole stadium smells."

Djokovic later makes a toking gesture as if he were holding a joint.

Who knew Canadian tennis fans were such stoners? C'mon, guys -- bring a brownie to the match instead, eh?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We've got two Honorable Mention awards to hand out before we get to the main event. Both of these go to Democratic presidential candidates, for different reasons.

First up, we have Martin O'Malley, who deserves credit for his plan to expand Social Security, rather than cut it or raise the retirement age. His plan might be called a timid version of the "scrap the cap" idea, since he would impose Social Security payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000 for the first time -- which would go a long way towards ending the regressive nature of this tax (which I detailed, with charts, a few years ago). O'Malley is to be applauded for being so specific in his plan, and for beginning to address the problem of the income cap on the payroll tax. However, his plan leaves a "doughnut hole" between roughly $120,000 of income and $250,000. So someone making $10 million a year would pay roughly the same tax rate as a nurse or a firefighter, but someone making $250,000 a year would pay less than half that rate. There's no real mathematical reason for this regressive doughnut hole, but there is a political one -- the portion of Americans making between $100,000 and $250,000 a year is one of the biggest groups who donate money to politicians. That's really the only reason for leaving such a hole in what by all rights should be -- at the very least -- a flat tax rate on all income. Still, O'Malley's plan goes further than other candidates have committed to, so he does deserve some applause.

I wrote about this earlier in the week, but Hillary Clinton deserves at least an Honorable Mention for how she answered the Black Lives Matter protesters (the video of their meeting was publicly released this week). Clinton pretty much agrees with the group in principle and goes out of her way to validate their positions, but she also challenges them to come up with some solid policy proposals that Democratic politicians can get behind. Clinton did an excellent job being both respectful and pragmatic, at least in our opinion.

Which brings us to the winner of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. We're not entirely sure this is within the boundaries of our own rules (since they don't exactly claim party membership), but rules are made to be bent at times. But the Black Lives Matter folks have finally come up with a very solid and reasonable policy platform (call it an "agenda" or a "list of demands" or whatever else, if you'd like).

The policy agenda is called Campaign Zero and includes such things as requiring body cameras on all police, better police training, and much stronger community oversight of all police. The list is an excellent one, and the policies should be embraced by all Democratic candidates for president as well as all progressive voters.

The Black Lives Matter movement has been controversial on the campaign trail, notably for disrupting Democratic presidential candidates by taking over speeches. They've always had a brilliant tactic, in the world of political theater. After all, they're protesting police violence against black people, so what are Democrats supposed to do -- call in the cops to physically remove Black Lives Matter from their speeches? That would reinforce the point the activists are making, and it would make the candidate look bad. It's a "Catch-22" sort of tactic, because neither siccing the cops on them nor allowing them to completely hijack a campaign event is a very good outcome.

But what they've been missing, even with such a brilliant tactic, is any sort of overall strategy. Sure, you can grab the microphone and address the crowd, but if all you do after being given the microphone is to insult your audience and the candidate, then you're not going to gain much support. Many people (I am one of them, for the record) have called on Black Lives Matter to come up with an agenda so that their natural allies -- Democratic politicians and the Democratic base -- can support the movement in a concrete way, instead of just being annoyed by their tactics.

This is precisely the point Hillary Clinton was making in the video, and we are glad to see Black Lives Matter respond in such a constructive and forward-looking fashion. This is part of what killed Occupy Wall Street -- not being able to agree on much of any plan for change -- and we firmly believe that the Black Lives Movement will find that their movement will in no way be limited by having a clear agenda, but in fact that it will grow as more and more people agree with and openly support the items listed by Campaign Zero.

So, whether they identify as Democrats or not, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement who put together Campaign Zero are more than worthy of this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact the Campaign Zero website to show your support.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Hillary Clinton had a rough week. Perhaps we're guilty of piling on, but we're going to add a Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to her problems.

Much like Donald Trump, the Hillary Clinton email server scandal is not going away any time soon. We've still got months of drip, drip, drip, as each new group of emails is released to the media and each development with the server itself plays out. The F.B.I. now has Hillary's server as well as the backup her lawyer had been holding onto for her. As many have pointed out, "F.B.I. investigation" is not something any political candidate wants to see in the headlines, while running for office.

Clinton, so far, hasn't done a very good job of addressing the issue, either. She held a very brief presser, got into a spat with a Fox News reporter, tried a silly joke to brush the whole thing off, and then left after about five minutes. The Washington Post has a rundown of five mistakes Clinton made during this appearance, but they missed one big one. You might call it "orange is the new orange."

Now, we realize (before we even explain that) that politicians shouldn't really be criticized on how they look in the first place, and in the second place, female politicians especially shouldn't be subject to snark about what they're wearing. Hillary Clinton has faced this time and time again. Still, whose idea was it to have Hillary Clinton appear in front of the press to answer questions about an F.B.I. investigation wearing the same shade of orange as prison jumpsuits? That is just breathtaking sartorial stupidity.

Hillary Clinton needs to take a few days off from campaigning. She needs to go on a retreat with her husband, in fact. During this time, Bill should coach Hillary relentlessly on how to successfully brush a political issue aside. There's a reason why Barack Obama joked at the 2012 Democratic National Convention that he should appoint Bill Clinton "Secretary of Explainin' Stuff." He is a master at it, in fact -- the best America has seen since Ronald Reagan. And Hillary -- obviously -- needs a little coaching from Bill on how to handle these things.

Start by laying out your viewpoint of the situation, in as simple terms as you can manage. Explain the motivations of those making claims of scandal. Then end with a rhetorical flourish in an attempt to lay the issue to rest. Hillary tried to do so, with her "wipe it down with a cloth" joke, but it fell awfully flat. She needs a lot of practice with Bill, and her campaign should devote a few days to it. Lock them both in a cabin in the woods, and let Bill school Hillary on how to deal with scandal and crisis. At this point, it couldn't hurt.

There are many Democrats -- even some Bernie Sanders supporters -- who feel deep down that Clinton will likely be the Democratic nominee and has a clear path to the White House next year. They just wish she was campaigning for it better, that's all. Team Clinton has got to learn to shift gears smoother and how to respond quicker. Clinton proved she's got a long way to go this week, which is why she's getting the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Hillary Clinton is a private citizen, and we have a longstanding policy of not linking to campaign websites, so you'll have to search her contact page on your own to let her know what you think, sorry.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 358 (8/21/15)

The talking points this week were influenced, once again, by Donald Trumps magical mystery campaign, which sooner or later we're just going to stop apologizing for. Hey, he is the Republican frontrunner!

We've got a few others mixed in, and two hilarious ones at the end, because we thought everybody could use a laugh after the past week of presidential politics.

 

1
   I support Campaign Zero

This one's easy, for both Democratic candidates and voters.

"I strongly support the positive and constructive agenda Black Lives Matter has laid out, which they're calling Campaign Zero. Their list has many excellent policy ideas which should be enacted at both the state and federal level. All police should have body cameras, because seeing is believing when it comes to what actually happens in confrontations. Police should be required to get much better training for conflict resolution, so the most violent response at their disposal isn't always their first choice. There are many such ideas contained in the Campaign Zero platform, and I call on all Democrats to not only endorse this agenda but also to immediately begin working as hard as possible on enacting these changes across the United States."

 

2
   Anchor babies!

To her credit, Hillary Clinton led in pushing back against Bush's slip of the tongue.

"I'm sorry, but Jeb Bush was supposed to be some sort of moderate guy on both immigration and Latino issues. He's married to a Mexican-American, after all, and speaks fluent Spanish. Previously, he has called for Republicans to avoid being intentionally offensive and to speak of immigrants in non-inflammatory terms. He used to be a voice of reason in a crowd of extremists. I guess now that his poll numbers are sinking like a rock, he's decided that offending Latinos is the way to go. If Jeb's not sure whether the term 'anchor babies' is offensive or not, I would suggest he ask a few members of his own family what they think about it."

 

3
   Selective constitutional worship

This, from politicians who swear up and down their fealty to the Constitution?

"In the entire history of the United States, we have only ever amended the Constitution to restrict rights a single time -- and Prohibition eventually had to be repealed by another amendment. Now Donald Trump and most of the rest of the Republicans running for president have come out in favor of overturning the Fourteenth Amendment because they don't like one phrase in it. This amendment was passed because racists were insisting that people born in the United States -- ex-slaves -- were not citizens and therefore could never vote. Republicans today want to make it impossible for undocumented immigrants ever to be eligible for citizenship for the exact same reason -- they never want these people to ever have a vote. And now they're attacking the Constitution itself to ensure that only those children born on American soil whom they deem acceptable can be citizens. To do so, we'd have to pass only the second amendment to the Constitution to ever deny rights rather than expand them. This is just a bad idea all around."

 

4
   Round them up? Really?

Pro-big government rears its ugly head in Republicanland, once again.

"So I see that Donald Trump is in favor of the biggest expansion of federal power ever, because his 'round them up and ship them home' plan to deal with undocumented immigrants would change American society forever. We'd have to create an enormous federal police force who would then go around knocking on every door in American and demand to see 'your papers, please.' Those without proof of citizenship would be forcibly rounded up and shipped out. Experts estimate this effort -- should any Congress be stupid enough to enact it -- would take hundreds of billions of dollars and have to last at least two decades. So Trump is in favor of spending an enormous amount of money to pay for jack-booted federal agents to round everyone up and ship them off, by knocking on every door in the country. Sounds like an explosion of 'big government' and creating an enormous federal army to be used for domestic purposes to me. Funny, I always thought Republicans were against those things, on ideological grounds."

 

5
   Rapists' baby support

At times, we are accused of creating talking points that are nothing short of hyperbole. Last week, we ran one that might have fit into that category (scroll down to talking point number five). We're going to repeat this talking point this week, with the addition of Mike Huckabee's name, since he has now openly admitted exactly the attitude the talking point was referring to.

"An 11-year-old girl just gave birth in Paraguay. She was 10 when she was raped by her stepfather, but the government denied her mother's request she be allowed an abortion. These are the real-world consequences of the position taken by many Republican presidential candidates, including Mike Huckabee. They want to outlaw abortion even in the case of rape and incest. That leads directly to 11-year-olds having to bear their stepfather's child after being raped. Mike Huckabee openly admitted that he wants to see that sort of thing here. He actually said: 'Let nobody be misled, a 10-year-old girl being raped is horrible, but does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child?' Yes, 11-year-old mothers forced to deal with their rapist's baby for the rest of their lives is exactly what we can expect if Huckabee ever got his way on outlawing all abortion. No rape victim should ever be forced to bear her rapist's baby. No 10-year-old should have to carry a baby to term against her will. Yet that is exactly what happens when abortion is outlawed."

 

6
   Deez Nuts for president!

We normally wrap these up with one amusing final talking point. This week, we're going to do two instead, just because.

"Have you seen the recent polling? A fake candidate named 'Deez Nuts' is polling at a surprisingly high level among voters. For some unfathomable reason a few state-level polls included 'Deez Nuts' in a few of the questions they asked poll respondents about, and he's now getting nine percent in North Carolina, eight percent in Minnesota, and seven percent in Iowa! As the candidate explains: 'I am a 15-year-old who filled out a form, had the campaign catch on fire, and am now putting up the best third-party numbers since Ross Perot.' Right now his poll numbers are better than most of the Republican field, in fact. In a year when Donald Trump is the frontrunner, somehow it seems entirely appropriate that 'Deez Nuts' should be approaching second place in the race, don't you think?"

 

7
   Limberbutt McCubbins for president!

And finally, one from the Democratic side.

"Deez Nuts isn't the only amusing candidate out there. A self-proclaimed 'Demo-cat' feline candidate has also thrown his furry hat into the ring. That's right, Limberbutt McCubbins is running for president, on a platform that includes legalizing both catnip and gay cat marriages. His campaign website and Facebook page boast some catchy campaign slogans, including 'Meow is the time' and 'Together we cat.' His owner states the main reason Limberbutt entered the race: 'Me and my friends have begun to realize how easy it is to run for office, and have learned about the way the F.E.C. and campaign finance work. Not that we don't want anyone to run, but I personally don't think that if I'm applying to run for the most important position in the U.S.A., that I should be able to do it in 20 minutes. Or less.' I don't know about that, but I do know that if it came down to Limberbutt McCubbins in the general election, I'd certainly vote for Limberbutt over a lot of the hairballs running on the other side."

-- 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

 

275 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [358] -- Trump's Immigration Roundup”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess conservatives only revere certain parts of the Constitution, even though they all carry a copy around with them in their pocket, as a talisman.

    As opposed to liberals who support the Constitution only when it serves their agenda..

    Goose.. Gander... :D

    I wrote about this earlier in the week, but Hillary Clinton deserves at least an Honorable Mention for how she answered the Black Lives Matter protesters (the video of their meeting was publicly released this week).

    Let me alter your comment to reflect the reality of the BLM movement and apply it to Republicans..

    I wrote about this earlier in the week, but Jeb Bush deserves at least an Honorable Mention for how he answered the KKK protesters (the video of their meeting was publicly released this week).

    That is an EXACT analogy of the message as to how it would apply to the Right..

    What would the Left's reaction be??

    So, whether they identify as Democrats or not, the leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement who put together Campaign Zero are more than worthy of this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

    Oh gods, I can't read any further!

    You DO realize that one of the leaders of the BLM group has been pulling a Rachel Dolezal, right???

    You DO realize that the BLM group is as racist as any KKK group, right??

    I am gabberflasted... I have to collect myself..

    "I have left to go find myself. If I return before I get back, please keep me here."

    :D

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, we realize (before we even explain that) that politicians shouldn't really be criticized on how they look in the first place, and in the second place, female politicians especially shouldn't be subject to snark about what they're wearing. Hillary Clinton has faced this time and time again. Still, whose idea was it to have Hillary Clinton appear in front of the press to answer questions about an F.B.I. investigation wearing the same shade of orange as prison jumpsuits? That is just breathtaking sartorial stupidity.

    OK, now you have come back to reality... :D

    "sartorial"??? That's a new one. :D

    The problem with Hillary is that she is a legend in her own mind. She thinks that explaining things, coming clean is for little people.. Not for royalty...

    Considering her latest performance and bitchy attitude at her last (so-called) press conference, her explosion is not long coming...

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The problem with Hillary Clinton is thinking that she can wear orange from head to toe, at any time.

    I mean, any shade of orange as an accent colour is one thing but ...

    I'm kidding.

    Sort of.

  4. [4] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    8 They have to go!

    The GOP, that is.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    8 They have to go!

    The GOP, that is.

    Keep dreamin', Pal... :D

    Let's face the facts.. The Left doesn't really want the GOP to disappear..

    Because then the Left wouldn't have ANYONE to blame all their bonehead moves and incompetence on...

    The Left would actually have to take some responsibility for their actions..

    "Oh my god, what a fuckin nightmare!!!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Michale

  6. [6] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    It's been another great week for KKKristianity.

    Josh "biggest hypocrite ever" Duggar has once again exposed the vile "morality" of the FRC hate group. When he was exposed as a child molester, his wife didn't think she needed to protect her children from him. Now that everybody knows that he's also an adulterer, I wonder if she'll change her tune despite the fact that Jesus forgives him for this mistake too. She should head on down to Planned Parenthood and get some STD testing ASAP.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    She should head on down to Planned Parenthood and get some STD testing ASAP.

    Planned Parenthood doesn't have time for STD testing.. They are too busy ripping apart unborn infants and selling them to the highest bidder...

    You see what actual FACTS look like, JFC??

    Try it some time.. :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Since we are in the End Times, I've been thinking about the day when Jesus returns. Will the Republicans allow Him to cross the wall into El Paso or will they hit Him with a drone strike? Or maybe they'll make Him a slave for returning.

    Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know... A lot of people go thru life wondering if they ever made a difference..

    Crew on Paris-bound train barricaded themselves in their staffroom and locked the door as Kalashnikov-wielding terrorist went on the rampage – leaving PASSENGERS to take him down
    Train staff on board train which was the scene of a foiled terrorist attack accused of abandoning passengers
    A man named in reports as Ayoub el-Qahzzani opened fire on train which had more than 550 passengers on board
    He was arrested by police at a train station in Arras and was initially taken to hospital but is now in custody
    The 26-year-old Moroccan national is a suspected radical Islamist who was known to security services
    Air Force airman Spencer Stone ran at the gunman when he opened fire on the high speed service to Paris
    Was on the train with friend Oregon National Guard member Alek Skarlatos, 22, who was travelling through Europe
    With the help of Anthony Sadler, from California, and British national Chris Norman, they stopped the attack
    Three people, including Stone, wounded in the attack and French police have hailed the bravery of the bystanders
    French media report the man denies being a terrorist and instead claims he wanted to carry out an armed robbery
    Also claims he wanted to ransom off passengers and he found the weapons in a bag 'by chance in a Brussels Park'

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3206426/U-S-Marines-armed-gunman-onboard-high-speed-train-Amsterdam-Paris.html

    United States soldiers don't have that problem....

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last weekend, Trump released his very first policy paper. It was, naturally, on immigration (Trump's signature issue).

    No matter how many times ya'all say it, it STILL won't make it so...

    Trump's issues.... AMERICANS issues are with ***ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS***, not Immigrants...

    And, as I said in the previous commentary, no one wants to discuss the ILLEGAL immigrant issue because no one can justify their positions on ILLEGAL immigrants...

    Ya know.. Criminals..

    But, never fear.. I'll always be around to clear up the spin with... yunno.. FACTS... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Last weekend, Trump released his very first policy paper. It was, naturally, on immigration (Trump's signature issue).

    No matter how many times ya'all say it, it STILL won't make it so...

    Trump's issues.... AMERICANS issues are with ***ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS***, not Immigrants...

    And, as I said in the previous commentary, no one wants to discuss the ILLEGAL immigrant issue because no one can justify their positions on ILLEGAL immigrants...

    Ya know.. Criminals..

    But, never fear.. I'll always be around to clear up the spin with... yunno.. FACTS... :D

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    DOH!! That damn double-tap.... :(

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    When Trump showed up late to do his civic duty on jury duty, he refused to write down that his profession is "politician". He just wouldn't do it. He's just like us.

  14. [14] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    They had to get a bigger venue. Then they had to get a bigger one. Then they had to get this one. I took heat for slurring illegals. Beautiful Kate. We’re stupider than everybody. JEB is stupid. Hillary is stupid. I’m rich. Everybody loves me. I’m corrupt. I’m a player. Trust me. The Art of the Deal. I love that book! Only the Bible is better. Korea – parasites. China. Germany. Saudi Arabia. We get nothing but competition. Japan traitors like Bergdahl. How stupid are we? Trump’s live on all the cable news channels. I know what I’m doing. I’m not bragging. The Bible my favorite book, the Art of the Deal isn’t even close in second. I’m suing everybody. I want money. Beautiful women. Politically correct. Ten billion dollars. I’m not bragging. My son can live on 400 million dollars. China. Caroline Kennedy my daughter likes her. I have the smartest, toughest, meanest, in many cases the most horrible human beings on earth. I know them all. They’re killers. Some are nice people. Carl Icahn has blood coming out of his eyes with hatred. China. Japan. Ford. Mexico. I’m really smart. Wharton. JEB. Low energy. I’m leading the polls. I don’t need pollsters. I’m good at military. I’m ahead in the polls. Why do we need an election? The media is dishonest. So many cameras. The Apprentice. Tremendous. We’ve had a horrible number of years. We can’t beat ISIS. It’s been amazing. The Ford deal. I love Israel. Trade war. Nabisco. We’re running on fumes. There’s nothing here. They’re so much sharper. They’re so much smarter. We need to make great deals. I will never ride a bicycle. Iran. ObamaCare. Insurance companies love ObamaCare. The insurance companies are making a fortune. We’re going to end that. Trade. We’re gonna fix it. Women’s health issues. We’re gonna fix it. Baltimore. Ferguson. No spirit. No jobs. No anything. The American Dream is dead. Make America great again.

  15. [15] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Trump campaign unsurprisingly makes interesting musical choices:

    You Can't Always Get What You Want by The Glimmer Twins

    I went down to the demonstration to get my fair share of abuse
    Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration and if we don't, we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"

    Dream On by Steven Tyler

    You gotta lose to know how to win

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Jeezus, JFC...

    Ease off the crack pipe... Yer gonna vapor-lock....

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting..

    A possible Biden/Warren ticket... :D

    Looks like Obama may try and pull a PUTIN.... :D

    Michale

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, back at the Clinton ranch...

    Hillary initially said that she did not send classified intel thru her home-brewed server..

    THAT turned out to be a lie..

    THEN Clinton said that she did not send classified intel thru her home-brewed server that was classified AT THE TIME..

    THAT turned out to be a lie..

    Clinton's third story??

    "The process for classifying data is stoopid so I was free to ignore it.."

    And THIS is the Left's choice for POTUS???

    :^/

    Ya'all just HAVE to know that, in the unlikely chance that Hillary is the Dem Candidate, she is going to be totally nuked at the debates..

    Ya'all know that, right??

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, it's looking more and more like Biden will throw his hat into the ring...

    This is ONLY made possible by the lousy campaign and the uber-scandal-prone of Hillary Clinton...

    TS... Still want to go with those odds?? :D

    Michale

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/middleeast/in-pushing-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-rationale-shows-flaws.html?_r=1

    You see the problem??

    In 10-15 years, Iran will have a completely legal and internationally legitimized and sanctioned nuclear weapons program...

    And it's Obama's deal that made it ALL possible...

    Obama went from "guaranteeing" that Iran will "NEVER possess nuclear weapons......

    .... to guaranteeing that Iran **WILL** possess nuclear weapons... With a USA/World stamp of approval...

    For Iran, this deal is a win/win even if they follow the deal to the letter..

    Iran gets hundreds of billions of dollars to support their terrorist programs... And, with patience, they will become a completely legitimate and world approved nuclear power...

    How ANYONE can say this is a good deal with a straight face is mind-boggling...

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    About the only argument that Obama has that is logical, rational and makes sense is the "It's the best option we have" argument..

    If Obama had even a modicum, an INGOT of integrity, he would simply stand up and say the truth...

    "Yea, it's a bad deal.. It's a VERY bad deal... It sucks purple panther piss.. In the annals of Bad Deals, this deal is the worst of the worst...
    BUT....
    But it's the best option we got..."

    At least, then I could give him points for honesty and integrity..

    But the problem with THAT argument is that it invariably leads to the question, "What incompetent moron(s) lead us to such a lose/lose situation??"

    And Obama/Kerry don't want THAT question asked because the answer is painfully embarrassing for Obama/Kerry...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    In 10-15 years, Iran will have a completely legal and internationally legitimized and sanctioned nuclear weapons program...

    That is absolutely and completely FALSE.

    You really must stop making false statements in your opposition to this deal.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    <I.That is absolutely and completely FALSE.

    It's actually dead on balls accurate, as even deal supporters attest to...

    The JCPOA, in and of itself, will allow Iran to create and possess nuclear weapons once the provisions of the JCPOA expire in 10-15 years..

    Basically, the world is telling Iran thru the JCPOA, "You may create and possess nuclear weapons.. Just not right now.."

    This is fact... This is reality..

    Now, if you have any evidence that disproves this...

    "I'm all ears.."
    -Ross Perot

    Michale

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    “The chief reservation I have about the agreement is the fact that in 15 years they have a highly modern and internationally legitimized enrichment capability. And that is a bitter pill to swallow.”
    -Representative Adam B. Schiff, D-CA, JCPOA Supporter

    “I believe it buys 15 years for real. But I do see vulnerabilities that I feel must be addressed. The gap between threshold and weapons status after year 15 is small.”
    -Dennis B. Ross, White House Iran Advisor

    The JCPOA legitimizes Iran's Nuclear Program once the JCPOA expires....

    To deny this is to deny the facts..

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm not denying that, Michale ... but you are still spreading falsehoods and making wholly non-serious comments when you say that Iran will have a legitimized nuclear weapons program as a result of this agreement. That is simply not true.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, if you have any evidence that disproves this...

    The agreement itself disproves your foolish statements. You should read it sometime.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm not denying that, Michale ... but you are still spreading falsehoods and making wholly non-serious comments when you say that Iran will have a legitimized nuclear weapons program as a result of this agreement. That is simply not true.

    It IS true..

    All the provisions of the JCPOA expire after 15 years...

    What's to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons??

    Not a thing...

    By imposing the JCPOA, the world is in effect saying, "Yes, you can build nuclear weapons. You just have to wait 15 years to do it."

    NOTHING in the JCPOA prevents Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons after the 15 yr mark...

    NOTHING in the JCPOA prevents Iran from pursuing terrorism in the here and now...

    The JCPOA is de-facto approval of BOTH...

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The agreement itself disproves your foolish statements. You should read it sometime.

    By all means..

    Point out the sections of the JCPOA that have any bearing or relevance after the 15yr mark...

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I will, with pleasure, later tonight!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awesome.. :D Can't wait...

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooooooo ECONOMIC MELTDOWN!!!

    On Obama's watch!!!

    Now, of course, the Left will concede it's ALL Obama's fault, right!??? :D

    hehehehehehehehe

    Ya see, that's the problem with Party Uber Alles...

    Eventually, it comes back and bites ya on the arse... :D

    Michale

  32. [32] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    While some of the restrictions on uranium enrichment and centrifuges end at the 10 - 15 year mark of the agreement, Iran will remain, indefinitely and beyond the life of the JCPOA, under the restrictions of the NPT and the Additional Protocol Iran has agreed to under the JCPOA.

    Additionally, the JCPOA has essentially eliminated the plutonium pathway to a nuclear weapon.

    And, there will be continuous surveillance of centrifuge production for 20 years and of uranium mines and mills for 25 years.

    Of course, all of this assumes that Iran does not violate the terms of the agreement and, if it does, that Iran will suffer serious consequences for its failure to live up to all of its nuclear commitments.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What follows are the pertinent sections of the JCPOA ...

    B. ARAK, HEAVY WATER, REPROCESSING
    8. Iran will redesign and rebuild a modernised heavy water research reactor in
    Arak, based on an agreed conceptual design, using fuel enriched up to 3.67 %, in
    a form of an international partnership which will certify the final design. The
    reactor will support peaceful nuclear research and radioisotope production for
    medical and industrial purposes. The redesigned and rebuilt Arak reactor will
    not produce weapons grade plutonium. Except for the first core load, all of the
    activities for redesigning and manufacturing of the fuel assemblies for the
    redesigned reactor will be carried out in Iran. All spent fuel from Arak will be
    shipped out of Iran for the lifetime of the reactor.

  34. [34] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    15. Iran will allow the IAEA to monitor the implementation of the voluntary
    measures for their respective durations, as well as to implement transparency
    measures, as set out in this JCPOA and its Annexes. These measures include: a
    long-term IAEA presence in Iran; IAEA monitoring of uranium ore concentrate
    produced by Iran from all uranium ore concentrate plants for 25 years;
    containment and surveillance of centrifuge rotors and bellows for 20 years; use
    of IAEA approved and certified modern technologies including on-line
    enrichment measurement and electronic seals; and a reliable mechanism to
    ensure speedy resolution of IAEA access concerns for 15 years, as defined in
    Annex I.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    O. TRANSPARENCY RELATED TO URANIUM ORE CONCENTRATE (UOC)
    68. Iran will permit the IAEA to monitor, through agreed measures that will include
    containment and surveillance measures, for 25 years, that all uranium ore concentrate
    produced in Iran or obtained from any other source, is transferred to the uranium
    conversion facility (UCF) in Esfahan or to any other future uranium conversion facility
    which Iran might decide to build in Iran within this period.
    69. Iran will provide the IAEA with all necessary information such that the IAEA will be able
    to verify the production of the uranium ore concentrate and the inventory of uranium ore
    concentrate produced in Iran or obtained from any other source for 25 years.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    , Iran will remain, indefinitely and beyond the life of the JCPOA, under the restrictions of the NPT

    Iran was under those restrictions BEFORE the JCPOA and it still was necessary to create the JCPOA..

    Why would anyone think that Iran would have a Come To Jesus moment and all of the sudden adhere to the NPT??

    Of course, all of this assumes that Iran does not violate the terms of the agreement and, if it does, that Iran will suffer serious consequences for its failure to live up to all of its nuclear commitments.

    What "serious consequences" would those be??

    Sanctions??

    The pro-JCPOA group is on record as stating that sanctions won't work...

    So, what "serious consequences" does Iran face if it violates the JCPOA??

    War???

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why would anyone think that Iran would have a Come To Jesus moment and all of the sudden adhere to the NPT??

    Iran won't change it's ways until Iran changes it's leaders..

    This is the fact that the JCPOA completely ignores...

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:
  39. [39] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't believe Joe Biden will run. I don't believe he had any intention of running this year. Maureen Dowd is a liar and she made up this story, including her "unnamed source". The US media foolishly fell for it like a kitten chasing a laser beam.

    Likewise, Elizabeth Warren will not run for either the presidency nor the vice presidency. She has said so repeatedly. Just for good measure, she has also said that she will not run for the Dem senate leadership.

    As for the Iran deal, I no longer care what they decide. As far as I'm concerned, the Congressional Democrats had a chance to put an end to this in April. They failed spectacularly. If this deal fails, it will be entirely the fault of the Congressional Democrats for whom I have no respect any longer, including the much vaunted Elizabeth Warren.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I disagree on the Biden run..

    Every action Biden has taken points to another POTUS run...

    There would be no need for ANY meeting with Warren or ANY get-together with campaign chums if Biden wasn't going to run..

    You may be right, but all signs to date point to a Biden run...

    I know Warren has taken a Sherman on a POTUS run.. But a VP slot is up in the air..

    But I agree.. It's more likely that Biden was merely seeking Warren's endorsement...

    As for the Iran deal, it's a bad deal... It's bad for this country, it's bad for Israel and it's bad for the region...

    Having said that, it looks like it's the best option available... Which simply illustrates Obama's complete and utter incompetence...

    Michale

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Iran was under [NPT] restrictions BEFORE the JCPOA and it still was necessary to create the JCPOA..

    You're completely missing the beauty of the JCPOA!

    The NPT is substantially strengthened under the provisions of the JCPOA where Iran is required to sign on to the Additional Protocol (instituted after the North Korea situation) and the safeguards agreement.

    Additionally, the JCPOA provides the time and space for more improvements to be made to the non-proliferation regime. I wish the US Congress would put as much time and energy into an effort to move that initiative along as they have to scuttle the JCPOA but, alas, that know-nothing body is simply not capable of constructive analysis and important work like that.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I don't believe Joe Biden will run. I don't believe he had any intention of running this year. Maureen Dowd is a liar and she made up this story, including her "unnamed source". The US media foolishly fell for it like a kitten chasing a laser beam.

    Those are pretty strong assertions you're making. I wonder what you're basing it all on, besides an obvious disdain for Maureen Dowd because she doesn't share your views on Hillary Clinton.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Additionally, the JCPOA provides the time and space for more improvements to be made to the non-proliferation regime. I wish the US Congress would put as much time and energy into an effort to move that initiative along as they have to scuttle the JCPOA but, alas, that know-nothing body is simply not capable of constructive analysis and important work like that.

    So basically your argument is that, by kicking the can down the road, it will give the world time to come up with a better plan...

    OK, I can get on board with that..

    Just so we're clear that the JCPOA does NOT, in and of itself, prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.... If the JCPOA is allowed to run it's course and the world does nothing else, Iran **WILL** become a nuclear power...

    The entire point of the JCPOA was to prevent that...

    That's my position....

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So basically your argument is that, by kicking the can down the road, it will give the world time to come up with a better plan...

    No, that is not my argument. I really don't think you know very much about this agreement nor do you understand the first thing about why all of the nuclear experts in the field who can see a good arms control agreement when they see one support the JCPOA.

    As Bill Maher said the other night, supporting this deal is a no-brainer. Of course, it's not the be all and end all of solving all the problems we have with Iran. I hope that's not what you were expecting this deal to accomplish because then I would know for sure that you inhabit a fantasy world.

    Still, your argument seems to be that because the JCPOA does not solve everything and that the international community must continue its collective work in strengthening the non-proliferation regime then the deal is not worth the paper it is written on and actually guarantees that Iran will become a nuclear weapons power because of it.

    You know what, maybe you do live in a fantasy world. If so, you have lots of company.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still, your argument seems to be that because the JCPOA does not solve everything

    No...

    My argument is that the JCPOA doesn't "SOLVE" anything!

    At BEST, it simply gives the world some breathing room on the Nuclear Weapons issue.. It does absolutely NOTHING to stop Iran from continuing it's terrorism..

    As a matter of fact, the JCPOA actually *FUNDS* Iran's terrorism, as Obama himself has conceded...

    Which brings up an interesting scenario...

    Since Obama has admitted that the JCPOA will fund Iran's terrorist activities, it's entirely plausible that any victim of Iran's future terrorism can SUE the Obama Administration and all signatories of the JCPOA...

    Chew on that...

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,
    I think it's time to revisit some of the JCPOA basics:
    This agreement puts Iran under very stringent limitations as far as its uranium enrichment program is concerned and will push the break out time from mere weeks to more than a year for producing enough HEU for one nuclear bomb for the long term or for a period of, at least, 15 years.
    This will be achieved through a number of measures which include prohibiting the enrichment of uranium above 3.67 percent (the normal reactor fuel grade of enrichment) and eliminating 98% of Iran's stockpile of LEU and capping it at just 300kg for 15 years.
    Iran's capacity for enriching uranium will be cut by more than half for 10 years as the number of installed centrifuges goes from 20,000 to 6,000 first-generation centrifuges with only 5,060 of those operational.
    And, the underground and formerly undeclared (until US and other intel services found it) uranium enrichment facility at Fordow will be wholly converted to a medical research facility with a 50% reduction in centrifuges and no enrichment activity for at least 15 years.
    The JCPOA also eliminates Iran's capacity for producing weapons-grade plutonium for at least 15 years through a redesign of the Arak reactor and prohibiting Iran from producing any new such reactors and from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

    I challenge you to explain how this is not light years better than the status quo.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think it's time to revisit some of the JCPOA basics:
    This agreement puts Iran under very stringent limitations as far as its uranium enrichment program is concerned and will push the break out time from mere weeks to more than a year for producing enough HEU for one nuclear bomb for the long term or for a period of, at least, 15 years.

    Key point being.. For 15 years...

    The JCPOA also eliminates Iran's capacity for producing weapons-grade plutonium for at least 15 years through a redesign of the Arak reactor and prohibiting Iran from producing any new such reactors and from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel.

    Again, key point being... For 15 years.....

    All the JCPOA does is, if it works perfectly and Iran is faithful to it, make the world and the region (excluding proliferation) safe for 15 years..

    After that??

    Nut n' Honey... :D

    And, if Iran is NOT faithful to the JCPOA.... nothing happens. No consequences of any consequence...

    I am also constrained to point out that Iran is free to continue it's terrorism activities, fully funded and approved by the US and other signatories..

    I get it... It's the best option we have... I, conditionally, agree to that...

    But it's, by NO stretch of the imagination, a GOOD option...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's a very, very good option, Michale. It is not a perfect option.

  49. [49] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Next lesson: what the JCPOA does for 25 years and longer!

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in other news..

    REPORTER MURDERED LIVE ON AIR
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/26/us/virginia-shooting-wdbj/index.html

    The results of the racist group, #BlackLivesMatter, and their position that **ONLY** black lives matter..... :^/

    Michale

  51. [51] 
    altohone wrote:

    Sorry M and E, but the back and forth you've been having stems from a false belief spread by the neolibcons that Iran violated the NPT in the first place, and therefore can't be trusted.

    No evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran has ever been presented. None. Zero. Nada. Nilch.

    Unsubstantiated claims? Yes. Frequently.
    But we all know thems aint facts.

    The neolibcons may not like that the NPT gives Iran the legal right to enrichment, but Americans wrote most of that treaty and our country ratified it.

  52. [52] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale-

    Your comparison of the BLM movement to the KKK is disgusting and unsubstantiated.

    Fighting to end the racism in this country is not racism.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Next lesson: what the JCPOA does for 25 years and longer!

    I'll lay down quatloos that Iran won't make it past the 5 year mark.. :D

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone,

    Are you talking to me? If so, you haven't been following along very well. :)

    And, have we met before - at Huffpost or Bill Maher's old "blog" ...

  55. [55] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... at those two sites, by the way, I was known as LizM ...

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    altohone,

    Welcome to CW.com ... You'll like it here! :)

    Sorry M and E, but the back and forth you've been having stems from a false belief spread by the neolibcons that Iran violated the NPT in the first place, and therefore can't be trusted.

    But, you're wrong on a couple or three counts ...

    First off, nothing to be sorry about.

    Secondly, my back and forth with Michale stems from a whole other motivation.

    Thirdly, there is no need to trust Iran, whether they are trustworthy or not. The monitoring and verification regime in the JCPOA is pretty solid and the intel services of the US and its international partners are also pretty solid.

    I take it you are a strong supporter of the Iran nuclear deal and agree that it was a much needed arrangement.

  57. [57] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Yup... that's me.
    Refused to participate when they mandated a switch to that third party data mining company with the horrible privacy policies for user verification, so it's been a while.
    I knew you were you by your comments, which is why I included you in my greeting.

    My comment was directed at you, but not for the excellent content that completely demolished that girls claims... just for the missing context.

    Iran was railroaded by hearsay with the only factual argument being a technical violation (that was supremely justified both legally and morally due to the illegal proxy and economic warfare Iran was being subjected to) in exercising a legal right.

    The sanctions were never justified, so the discussions of the deal (which should never have been necessary) to lift the sanctions should always start with that simple reality clearly stated.

    The endless propaganda machine that created the preferred narrative within which you are arguing just needs that one little screw removed and it falls apart.

    The concept of justice is diminished when the framing is unjust, particularly when the framing is created by repeat offenders.

    The deal is great in that an injustice is ending, but Obama (and you) going along with the framing leaves an opening for a resumption of that injustice in the future due to our misled population.

    I commend your defense of the deal... probably the best I've seen anywhere actually, but the punishment for a crime that wasn't committed aspect deserves repetition just in case voting machines are hacked or the Supreme Court appoints another Republican. We even have to worry about someone like Hillary.

    In any case, the girl with the Ouija board you were schooling who was insisting she knows what Iran WILL DO in 5 or 15 years (and all the people like her) really don't want that truth out there if you need another motivation... ;)

    Thanks for the nice welcome.
    A

    PS- for the record, I think everybody using nuclear power is foolish. Not only for the crazy risks, but also the insane costs when safe, renewable energy alternatives are now cheaper.
    But that's a different battle that continues as well.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    altohone,

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    Let's get to it, shall we...

    Your comparison of the BLM movement to the KKK is disgusting and unsubstantiated.

    Of course it's "unsubstantiated"... Because no one to date has asked that it be substantiated.. Mostly because they'all realize it's factual..

    But, since YOU asked... :D

    Let me substantiate it by giving you an alternate scenario..

    Say you have a group called #WhiteLivesMatter.. When they get together and protest, they hold up signs that say WHITE POWER...

    When some enlightened souls at the WLM protests stand and say, "Hay.. It's not only white lives that matter. ALL lives matter!!" they are viciously attacked...

    Now, I ask you..

    Would you consider that WLM group a "racist group"...

    Of course you would... You would condemn that group as a racist hate group and rightly so...

    So, please explain to me how is it that a WHITE group that exhibits the exact parameters of the BLM group would be racist but that the BlackLivesMatter group is NOT racist...

    Michale

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Not only for the crazy risks, but also the insane costs when safe, renewable energy alternatives are now cheaper.

    If you have something that costs a gazillion million dollars and then, after a fashion, it only costs a gazillion dollars, yes..

    It IS "cheaper".....

    But it is by no means affordable... :D

    Alternative forms of energy, wind, solar, etc etc are a fad.. They are, by no means, ready for prime time or mainstream use...

    They also have their own problems that piss off the whacko environmental groups as well..

    Having said that...

    If Global Warming morons had taken all the billions and billions and billions of dollars spent on TALKING about the Global Warming religion and actually spent it on fitting community residences and businesses with solar power rigs, then solar power (at least) might be more of a main stream alternative energy source...

    But actually CREATING a viable alternative energy plan has never been the goal of the Global Warming fanatics..

    Making money and establishing control has always been the Global Warming fanatics' plan..

    Michale

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fighting to end the racism in this country is not racism.

    Of course it isn't..

    But fighting against racism BY BEING RACIST is racism.. And it's bad...

    Can you say "Affirmative Action"?? Of course you can..

    Michale

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    But fighting against racism BY BEING RACIST is racism.. And it's bad...

    For example..

    The Leftiest blogosphere went hysterically batshit crazy over Dylan Roof's "race war"....

    But along comes Vester Flanagan and HIS "race war"??

    The collective silence from the Left is deafening...

    Double standard much??

    Michale

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of Weigantia chorused in and condemned Dylan Roof's attack as an act of terrorism and labeled Roof a terrorist..

    Now, of course, all of Weigantia will fall all over themselves to label Flanagan's attack as an act of terrorism and label Flanagan a terrorist...

    Right???

    "Riigggghhht??? Buddy????"
    -Woody, TOY STORY

    Michale

  63. [63] 
    altohone wrote:

    Sorry Michale

    But you didn't substantiate anything and regularly confuse assertion with fact.

    If you call people racist without proof, and believe fossil fuel and nuclear power PR despite available facts, and make senseless comparisons... well... I'm afraid mistaken conclusions was too generous.

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you didn't substantiate anything and regularly confuse assertion with fact.

    I GAVE you fact...

    Fact #1 "BLACK POWER" signs at BLM rallys.. If "WHITE POWER" signs are racist, the "BLACK POWER" signs are ALSO racist..

    Fact #2 The idea that *ONLY* black lives matter to the BLM racist hate group...

    The problem with the facts is that you don't like them, so you just ignore the facts..

    If you call people racist without proof

    Left Wingers have been doing that for over 6 years..

    NOW you have a problem with it???

    Besides, I have already given the proof.. You just have no response to it..

    and believe fossil fuel and nuclear power PR despite available facts,

    The difference is that I consider ALL the facts..

    You only consider the facts that support your agenda...

    . I'm afraid mistaken conclusions was too generous.

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    But it has absolutely nothing to do with reality..

    Michale

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    and believe fossil fuel and nuclear power PR despite available facts,

    You want fact??

    Fact is, in the here and now, with current technology levels, fossil fuel is the only viable energy source available...

    This is fact...

    Granted, it doesn't fit certain agendas and such...

    But that doesn't make it any less factual...

    Michale

  66. [66] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Regarding the Maureen Dowd story (and I wasn't the first or only person to pick up the "discrepancy"):

    It was reported at the announcement of Beau Biden's death that he never regained consciousness after surgery. In other words, it was not possible for him to have words with his father about anything. Therefore, Dowd was lying when she said that it was Beau's dying wish that his father run for president. She exploited Joe's son's death for her own gain.

    Doing that to someone suffering a devastating bereavement is unforgivable. It doesn't just lack journalistic integrity, it lacks human decency.

    That her article was not actually about Biden but used him to craft a hit piece on Clinton is equally inexcusable. How dare she exploit Biden like that! He isn't just a politician; he's a human being who has gone through a devastating tragedy. He deserves so much better.

    But it isn't just Maureen Dowd. Americans in general are a dispassionate lot. Perhaps they have to be to live in a country that slaughters 30,000 people a year in gun violence without ever lifting a finger to stop it. Where life is cheap, people become insensitive as a means of dealing with it.

  67. [67] 
    altohone wrote:

    No again Michale

    Nobody in BLM has ever carried a sign that said Only Black Lives Matter... so unless the quotes you put around "only" were to emphasize your fictitious invention, you are once again reaching mistaken conclusions or worse.

    Claiming that you presented facts when you didn't requires me to suggest a visit to one of the many free dictionaries available online. The word fact does not mean what you think it means.

    As for your other "fact" in that comment, since you seem unable to grasp the notion of context within the existing power structure as it relates to activism versus oppression, I will recommend a visit to Wikipedia for research on the topic.

    While you're there, look into solar and wind power, and you may discover that "all the facts" you think are facts, do not actually match the definition of fact.

    I won't hold my breath, but I hope you make the attempt. Informed debate is far more desirable.

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nobody in BLM has ever carried a sign that said Only Black Lives Matter...

    I never claimed anyone did. I stated that BLM carried "BLACK POWER" signs...

    Which is utterly and completely racist..

    At least, it would be if a white person carried "WHITE POWER" signs..

    No??

    As for your other "fact" in that comment, since you seem unable to grasp the notion of context within the existing power structure as it relates to activism versus oppression, I will recommend a visit to Wikipedia for research on the topic.

    You DO realize that you are not recording The Romulan Right Of Statement, right??

    I won't hold my breath, but I hope you make the attempt. Informed debate is far more desirable.

    Of course it is... That's the only reason I am here...

    I'll be around if you ever decide to actually address the facts.. Like the fact of how BLM racists got violently bent out of shape when some responded to "Black Lives Matter" with "ALL lives matter"... Like the fact of racist morons holding "BLACK POWER" signs... If those had occurred at a WHITE LIVES MATTER rally, you would definitely call that group a racist hate group..

    So, I'll be here if you want to actually address the facts...

    But I won't hold my breath. :D

    Michale

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me make it easy for you..

    ANY fact that you can come up with that shows that the KKK as a racist hate group ALSO applies to the BlackLivesMatter...

    "These are the facts.. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    Why do you put quotes around "discrepancy".

    Because, it's not really a discrepancy?

    You still haven't told us why you think the Dowd piece is not accurate, other than your belief that this columnist is a liar.

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    It was reported at the announcement of Beau Biden's death that he never regained consciousness after surgery. In other words, it was not possible for him to have words with his father about anything. Therefore, Dowd was lying when she said that it was Beau's dying wish that his father run for president. She exploited Joe's son's death for her own gain.

    I think you are being too literal here..

    "A dying wish" doesn't necessarily mean it was articulated immediately at the time of death...

    It's entirely plausible that Beau's "dying wish" was articulated many times prior to his actual death..

    Now, if Dowd had said, "dying words" then you might have an argument. Even then, such a highly emotionally charged incident is very subjective...

    The concept of Beau's dying wish that his father run for POTUS again has been out there in the mainstream media for quite a while, from several different sources..

    The fact that Joe Biden himself has not set the record straight (assuming there is a record to set straight) would seem to indicate that the idea of Beau's dying wish is valid...

    Michale

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    It was reported at the announcement of Beau Biden's death that he never regained consciousness after surgery. In other words, it was not possible for him to have words with his father about anything. Therefore, Dowd was lying when she said that it was Beau's dying wish that his father run for president. She exploited Joe's son's death for her own gain.

    Seriously? Sadly, Beau was dealing with a terminal illness for quite a long time and, knowing what I do of the Biden family, I can imagine that there were discussions amongst the members, including Beau, throughout this timeframe about everything.

    Who is exploiting what, here, Mopshell?

  73. [73] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell, do you think your distaste for Maureen Dowd and her views on your favourite presidential candidate have clouded your judgement Re. Dowd's piece on what Beau would do?

    That is certainly what it looks like from my vantage point.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    With the utmost affection....

    You have been hanging around me too long.. :D

    Michale

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale

    OK, You clearly did not take my advice to learn why the majority that controls the power structure and that has a violent history of oppression of minorities creates a context. The minority expressing a desire for equality (black power) is different than the majority expressing the desire to dominate the minority (white power). One is activism for change, one is racism. So your "fact" is a fiction.

    You are just repeating yourself in a circle of ignorant false accusations of racism by activists, which is beginning to come across as racist in and of itself. Your motivation for making false accusations is an issue, and not just due to your bizarre dismissal of what I wrote as an alien language you could not possibly comprehend, despite it being clear English. Your invented "fact" that "only black lives matter" is an "idea of BLM" is not just a twisted interpretation that exposes your lack of comprehension and/or projection. You, Michale, writing "only black lives matter" does not make it their idea. And you need to own up to that fact.

    You may be too young to know the history, but if you are unwilling to expend the effort to enlighten yourself, you are not being honest when you claim to want informed debate.

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, You clearly did not take my advice to learn why the majority that controls the power structure and that has a violent history of oppression of minorities creates a context. The minority expressing a desire for equality (black power) is different than the majority expressing the desire to dominate the minority (white power). One is activism for change, one is racism. So your "fact" is a fiction.

    So, let me see if I have this straight...

    If a white person holds up a "WHITE POWER" sign, that is racism...

    If a black person holds up a "BLACK POWER" sign, that is "activism for change"...

    So, the ONLY determining factor is whether it's a black person or a white people..

    In other words, RACE is the determining factor...

    The VERY DEFINITION of racism....

    f. Your motivation for making false accusations is an issue,

    My accusations aren't false... That's where your whole theory falls apart..

    You, Michale, writing "only black lives matter" does not make it their idea.

    *I* am not saying only black lives matter..

    It's the black racist morons that are saying only black lives matter when they argue and attack people who state *ALL* lives matter..

    That's the fact that you continue to ignore...

    Probably because it totally destroys your argument..

    You may be too young to know the history,

    BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Little Bit, I was out there in the real world in places you only have read about, while you were likely in diapers..

    I know all about the "history"... But what does the actions of people a hundred, two hundred years ago have to do with the here and now??

    Are you saying that we are all collectively guilty because of what our great great ancestors did???

    Is THAT your argument??

    Michale

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    The minority expressing a desire for equality (black power) is different than the majority expressing the desire to dominate the minority (white power). One is activism for change, one is racism. So your "fact" is a fiction.

    In YOUR opinion....

    I have stated facts...

    You have stated an opinion...

    Just so we're clear on that....

    Michale

  78. [78] 
    altohone wrote:

    And Michale

    Just to be clear, one of the patterns of racism in the history of the United States, is racists making false accusations to justify their racism. So when I wrote that you are "beginning to come across as racist", you should heed the warning. I believe that even under the generous comment policy here, you may be in danger of losing your privileges.

    But that's just my opinion.

    False accusations, even if based on ignorance or false interpretation, are no small matter. I hope you reconsider your approach. I don't want to assume the worst about you, so please do clarify while keeping what I wrote in mind.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Just to be clear, one of the patterns of racism in the history of the United States, is racists making false accusations to justify their racism.

    Ahhh.. OK... So it's your claim that false accusations of racism means that the accuser is racist..

    Well, I guess that means the entire Democrat Party is racist because there was non-stop false accusations of racism during the Obama years..

    So when I wrote that you are "beginning to come across as racist", you should heed the warning.

    BBBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Hi, I'm Michale... Nice ta meetcha.. :D

    False accusations, even if based on ignorance or false interpretation, are no small matter.

    I completely agree with you on that...

    Because I have been saying THAT for many many years now...

    The difference between MY accusations of racism and all the false accusations of racism coming from the Hysterical Left (Sanford, Ferguson, Cincinnati, Staten Island, Obama etc etc etc) is that MY accusations are backed up by FACTS...

    This is going to be a fun discussion!! :D

    Michale

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    You should probably know that institutionalized racism against black people is dead in this country...

    It died the day we elected a black POTUS...

    Michale

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I guess that means the entire Democrat Party is racist because there was non-stop false accusations of racism during the Obama years..

    Which is not all that far of a stretch...

    Since it is the Democrat Party that gave us the KKK in the first place.....

    Another one of those pesky and inconvenient facts that the Left wants to ignore...

    Michale

  82. [82] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    altohone,

    Booyakasha!

    "I believe that even under the generous comment policy here, you may be in danger of losing your privileges."

    Don't bet any money on that proposition and don't expect the reading comprehension issue to improve.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I believe that even under the generous comment policy here, you may be in danger of losing your privileges."

    "A pretty bold statement for an Ensign with only two months space duty under his belt."
    -Captain Hikaru Sulu

    I'm just sayin'.... :D

    Michale

  84. [84] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Michale

    If you could be bothered to learn and understand what I was saying, you would recognize that it is true. It is sad you are content with yourself as you are.

    My opinion is that you are in danger of violating the comment policy.
    It is an accepted fact that false accusations by racists to justify their racism occurred all too frequently.

    And history is everything before the present, so no need to pretend that I am talking about hundreds of years ago.

    And no, electing Obama did not prove that institutionalized racism is dead. It actually proved the opposite, as racists all over the country... from judges and politicians and police and city clerks and regular folks too numerous to count have spewed their hate publicly because of his election.

    I apologize for thinking you were young. It would have explained quite a lot, but now I am at a loss to explain the content of your comments and how you present yourself.

  85. [85] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    I believe that even under the generous comment policy here, you may be in danger of losing your privileges.

    Heh. You must be new around here. Oh, wait ...

    You should know that I am the only one who is allowed to be calling for the revoking of commenting privileges or for the merciful end to a comment thread.

    That was a little joke. :)

    Seriously, we will soon be into our fall training season around here - once the Blue Jays have safely wrapped up the World Series, that is - in preparation for the big annual Thanksgiving pledge drive and so the very last thing you would want to do is limit the number of comments at CW.com and that applies most especially, and affectionately, to Michale!

    It'll come to you on the bus home ... :)

  86. [86] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    PS- for the record, I think everybody using nuclear power is foolish. Not only for the crazy risks, but also the insane costs when safe, renewable energy alternatives are now cheaper.

    So, what do you think Iran was amassing all of that enriched uranium for, and doing so secretly and at tremendous cost to its economy. And, what about the difficulties that the IAEA has had with Iran over the years? I know you realize that it was not only the US applying sanctions to Iran and that many of the other countries going along with sanctions did so with no small amount of their own economic detriment.

    I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say sanctions against Iran were nothing more than an injustice that the JCPOA now remedies. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you could be bothered to learn and understand what I was saying, you would recognize that it is true. It is sad you are content with yourself as you are.

    You are talking in circles..

    My opinion is that you are in danger of violating the comment policy.

    Your opinion has very little merit as it is an opinion borne of ignorance..

    It is an accepted fact that false accusations by racists to justify their racism occurred all too frequently.

    You said that before. And I agreed with you by pointing out all the false accusations of racism thrown out by the Hysterical Left throughout Obama's term..

    A fact you ignore..

    And no, electing Obama did not prove that institutionalized racism is dead. It actually proved the opposite, as racists all over the country... from judges and politicians and police and city clerks and regular folks too numerous to count have spewed their hate publicly because of his election.

    Fine.. Give me ONE documented example of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism since 2009...

    I apologize for thinking you were young. It would have explained quite a lot, but now I am at a loss to explain the content of your comments and how you present yourself.

    If you stick around long enough you'll figure out that, with me, there is nothing to figure out. I have no hidden agenda. I am utterly politically agnostic and am not enslaved by Party dogma or ideology...

    Michale

  88. [88] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    Iran's enrichment was only to a level suitable for energy production, and they were pursuing that with a plan for half a dozen additional power plants.

    I don't think it's accurate to say they were amassing it secretly, as the secret was out before their enrichment program was scaled up.

    I think that sanctions were agreed by other countries based on two or three factors, depending on how you count... pressure and incentives from the US and Israel, Iraq style misinformation, and a desire by those in the nuclear business to prevent others from joining. An additional factor of profits from known but tolerated deals and known but unstoppable deals (oil sales to China) in violation of the sanctions may well have also been in play.

    In other words, the assumption of some secret evidence of nefarious activity is and always was bogus. If any existed, it would have been trotted out to scuttle the recent deal... actually probably sooner to sell a war.

    The "difficulties" with the IAEA were based on the makeup of the organization, the silence from the various countries involved about the illegal attacks on Iran, and their false claims about Syria (see the pocket swipe story) which were reported as valid by the IAEA despite the truth being known. Very good reasons not to trust them.

    On the sanctions bit that doesn't make any sense to you... punishing a country for what they might do in the future is an injustice. There is no legal basis for penalties based on crystal ball readings of the future, and it was even worse because it was predicted by a country holding a grudge and a track record of dishonesty (US). So ending the sanctions via this deal puts an end to that injustice. The deal doesn't make up for all those years of unjust punishment though.

  89. [89] 
    altohone wrote:

    OK Michale

    That makes me wonder if even you believe what you've written.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fine.. Give me ONE documented example of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism since 2009...

    To clarify...

    Fine.. Give me ONE documented example of INSTITUTIONALIZED racism against black people since 2009...

    Affirmative Action is the best example of Institutionalized Racism to date..

    But it is not against black people but rather in support of black people..

    But racism to SUPPORT a group is just as racist and insidious as racism AGAINST a group...

    Michale

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    That makes me wonder if even you believe what you've written.

    I have noticed that you tend to respond a lot without actually addressing or answering anything...

    Enough about me, already..

    Address the facts....

    Michale

  92. [92] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi again Liz

    To your other comment-

    I hate busses.
    What comes to me is not pleasant.
    You have access to my email if you want to share.

    Maybe an edit of the comment policy would make sense?

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe an edit of the comment policy would make sense?

    Dood!??

    Seriously!!????

    Michale

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe an edit of the comment policy would make sense?

    TRANSLATION: Someone is saying something I don't like. So let's change the policy to censor them...

    Yer new here, so I will cut you some slack and not open up with both barrels...

    Suffice it to say that, here in Weigantia, people aren't afraid of new and different ideas...

    You are, of course, free to ignore what I say if you have no rational or logical argument.. I get that a lot.. :D

    But shutting me up??

    Good luck with THAT! :D

    Peace out...

    Michale

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, getting back to the subject at hand..

    Do you want to know the BIGGEST stumbling block to fixing race relations in this country??

    It is an accepted fact that false accusations by racists to justify their racism occurred all too frequently.

    It's that those on the Left cannot discuss the subject calmly and rationally but rather just stoop to false accusations of racism...

    My record condemning false accusations of racism is well-documented here in Weigantia...

    Michale

  96. [96] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Maybe a sense of humour would be good.

    And, I think you are bordering on being cynical in the extreme. Of course, I could be wrong.

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe a sense of humour would be good.

    I should have a warning label stapled to my forehead..

    WARNING: SENSE OF HUMOR REQUIRED

    :D

    "WARNING: Tickets are not to be taken internally!"
    "See, kids! Because of me, they have a warning!!"

    -The Simpsons

    Michale

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yes, I think that may help. :)

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Didn't you read comment [85], Michale?

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, Al, what you're saying is that the Iranian leadership was and is a model regime of the world.

    No, wait ... what are you saying!?

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did now.. :D

    Al can be forgiven for his mistaken assumptions.. At first glance the arrangement here can look pretty weird...

    Like finding out Ann Coulter is a respected commenter on Daily KOS... :D

    Truly a W.T.F. moment! :D

    Michale

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like finding out Ann Coulter is a respected commenter on Daily KOS... :D

    Which isn't to say that I am the ideological equivalant of Ann Coulter...

    I am much more bitchier than that.. :D

    Michale

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Al, what you're saying is that the Iranian leadership was and is a model regime of the world.

    No, wait ... what are you saying!?

    I was a bit cornfused as well..

    It's almost as if Al is saying that Iran is the good guy..

    As if Iran being a terrorist nation that executes gay people is fully acceptable..

    Michale

  104. [104] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think it's too soon to talk about the arrangement here. :)

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I am much more bitchier than that.. :D

    Yes, I can certainly vouch for that.

  106. [106] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    In answer to Elizabeth Miller [72] I'm trying to defend Joe Biden and you think I'm exploiting Beau Biden's death? and Joe's bereavement? I cannot express how deeply and utterly devastated I am that you accuse me of this.

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Mopshell,

    You'll get over it. :)

    You should always try to avoid defending someone using less than factual arguments. There is nothing inaccurate in the Maureen Dowd article that I can detect insofar as the Bidens are concerned.

    Dowd actually has some atoning to do when it comes to her past treatment of Joe Biden and she has recently acknowledged this. Since then, she has been very fair in her coverage of the Biden family.

    I still don't know what information you are basing your accusations against Dowd on ... how do you know that Beau and his father didn't have a conversation about another presidential run?

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:
  109. [109] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    I was actually referring to making the comment policy reflect the reality, not altering the reality here. Sorry if my comment was poorly worded.

    Can't say I find ignorance or dishonesty funny.
    But I am certainly cynical when the evidence justifies it. Of course, another definition of cynical is showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty and morality, and that actually applies to the targets I distrust... so, yes and no.

    Model regime?
    Interesting conclusion to reach from what I wrote.
    I would prefer to discuss the actual content.

    But I guess the answer would have to be a couple of questions... compared to who?... and on what basis?

    The honoring of treaties signed?
    Number of people we incarcerate?
    Number of people we execute?
    Number of people killed while in custody?
    Number of wrongful convictions?
    Number of nations we've attacked?
    Number of coups we've instigated or supported?
    Corruption in economics and politics?
    Internal suppression of challenges to the status quo?
    Support for brutal regimes?
    The extent of influence by religion on society?
    Income inequality?
    Infant mortality?
    Etc. etc. etc.

    What are you including and excluding?

    And are we comparing apples to apples, or to a fictitious narrative based on propaganda, rhetoric and aspiration?

  110. [110] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    We have a very different idea about what constitutes humor.

    The first definition of cynical, distrusting the motives or sincerity of others, most assuredly applies to me when the actions of other people justify it.
    The second, showing contempt for accepted standards of honesty or morality, does not apply to me, but often motivates my actions.

  111. [111] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi again Liz

    Per comment 100, I did not say anything close to "the Iranian leadership was and is a model regime of the world". Not sure how you got there.

    If you want to know my idea of a model regime, I'd be happy to answer that question though.

    If you have any questions about what I actually said in my comment, I'd be happy to answer those too.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:
  113. [113] 
    altohone wrote:

    BTW Liz

    Still have no idea what you were referring to in comment 85... a clarification would be nice.

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey Big Al!

    Still have no idea what you were referring to in comment 85... a clarification would be nice.

    All will become clear, in due course. But, start saving up your loose change now, just to be ready ...

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Big Al,

    We have a very different idea about what constitutes humor.

    Yes, well ... we don't even spell it the same. :)

  116. [116] 
    Michale wrote:

    "When rhetoric ramps up to the point where cold-blooded assassination has happened, this rhetoric has gotten out of control. We heard 'black lives matter.' All lives matter. Well, cops' lives matter too, so why don't we drop the qualifier and say 'lives matter' and take that to the bank."
    -Sheriff Ron Hickman

    That is the point that the racist morons of the BLM don't seem to understand..

    ALL LIVES MATTER..

    Any attempt to quantify by race WHICH lives matter (and by default which lives DON'T matter) is inherently and undeniably racist..

    The funny thing about the BLM group is that, apparently, black lives *ONLY* matter when their deaths can be used as a political bludgeon to beat people over the head with..

    In any given year, less than 1% of black deaths are caused by LEO... In the same given year, over NINETY PERCENT of black deaths are caused by other blacks..

    So where is BLM at THOSE deaths???

    Answer. BLM is a racist group and they can only function when their target is other races...

    These are the facts whether you admit them or not..

    Michale

  117. [117] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    "All will become clear, in due course. But, start saving up your loose change now, just to be ready"

    I was hoping you weren't saying what you appear to be saying.

    Unpleasant indeed... and demotivating.

  118. [118] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Michale

    BLM is about how black lives matter too.

    You can claim it's about only black lives matter, but that is what you are saying, not them.

    How the black community is being treated by law enforcement is the subject.

    You can talk about criminals killing cops, but that's a different subject... though I would say mistreatment by law enforcement makes the problem more likely.

    You can talk about all lives matter, but that's a different subject, even though white people and other minorities are often also mistreated by law enforcement.

    You can talk about affirmative action, but that's a different subject too, though comparable opportunities and comparable resources in education would make it unnecessary.

    You can talk about black on black violence, but that's a different subject too.

    So, you can pretend BLM is what it isn't, you can change the subject as often as you like, but it is you missing the point, not making a point.

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Unpleasant indeed... and demotivating.

    I'm very sorry you feel that way, Big Al.

    Perhaps, after some more time and participation here at CW.com, you will feel differently about supporting a blog site that allows you to freely express yourself and to be part of a lively debate and discussion of a kind rarely found on the internet(s).

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Per comment 100, I did not say anything close to "the Iranian leadership was and is a model regime of the world". Not sure how you got there.

    I made that assumption after you explained that the Iranian regime had been sanctioned unjustly.

    I took that to mean that you think the international community has had no valid reason to sanction Iran.

    Have I misconstrued your thinking on this?

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    BLM is about how black lives matter too.

    Nothing in their rhetoric has indicated this...

    So this is your opinion unsubstantiated by any facts..

    You can claim it's about only black lives matter, but that is what you are saying, not them.

    No, it is what THEY are saying as I have amply proven...

    Do you recall how they reacted when O'Malley said "ALL lives matter"

    Point proven..

    How the black community is being treated by law enforcement is the subject.

    No, that's the subject that they BLM racists would LIKE it to be..

    The subject is, Black Lives Matter..

    But only under certain conditions..

    You can talk about criminals killing cops, but that's a different subject... though I would say mistreatment by law enforcement makes the problem more likely.

    You act like mistreatment by LEO is the majority of the time and the majority of the cops.

    You are in error..

    So, you can pretend BLM is what it isn't, you can change the subject as often as you like, but it is you missing the point, not making a point.

    It's all part of the same subject..

    But I understand why you (and the BLM racists) *HAVE* to ignore those points..

    Because those points PROVE that BLM is just another racist hate group with a racist agenda..

    No different than the KKK or any other race based hate group..

    Michale

  122. [122] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I thought the whole point behind the idea of BLM was the generally accepted assumption that white lives don't appear to be in jeopardy of ending at the hands of the police like black lives appear to be.

    Now, if we were to find that white lives were in the same kind of jeopardy as black lives are when it comes to interaction with police, then we may need a whole other kind of movement, no?

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, Michale, ALL LIVES do MATTER ... and, when ALL LIVES are in equal jeopardy of ending during an interaction with police, then the slogan ALL LIVES MATTER would have meaning.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought the whole point behind the idea of BLM was the generally accepted assumption that white lives don't appear to be in jeopardy of ending at the hands of the police like black lives appear to be.

    That is a mistaken assumption... Black lives are not in jeopardy from the police any more than white lives...

    This is what the facts bear out...

    In other words, Michale, ALL LIVES do MATTER ...

    *I* know that..

    *YOU* know that...

    But EVERY TIME that the point is brought up with the BLM crowd, they react violently.. I can cite MANY examples...

    So, apparently, the BLM morons don't know that ALL lives matter...

    Michale

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    The fact is, more than 98% of the police shootings in this country are justified...

    Experiences with Sanford FL, Ferguson MO and Cincinatti, OH bear this out...

    Michale

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is a mistaken assumption... Black lives are not in jeopardy from the police any more than white lives...

    There is a very VERY easy way for black people to feel safe from the police..

    "QUIT BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!!"
    -Jim Carrey, LIAR LIAR

    :D

    Michale

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The fact is, more than 98% of the police shootings in this country are justified...

    So, let's talk about the other 2% of police shootings that are not justified.

    Of those police shootings or other unjustified police treatments resulting in death of an individual, what percentage of those lives lost are non-white?

  128. [128] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In other words, Michale, ALL LIVES do MATTER ...*I* know that..*YOU* know that...

    Michale, once again you have taken my quote out of context.

    Here is what I said and meant:

    "In other words, Michale, ALL LIVES do MATTER ... and, when ALL LIVES are in equal jeopardy of ending during an interaction with police, then the slogan ALL LIVES MATTER would have meaning.

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of those police shootings or other unjustified police treatments resulting in death of an individual, what percentage of those lives lost are non-white?

    There is nothing statistically significant regarding police shootings as they are broken down by race...

    Every time a study of criminology statistics has been accomplished, the statisticians are "amazed" to discover that it's CRIME, not race, that drives the statistics..

    "In other words, Michale, ALL LIVES do MATTER ... and, when ALL LIVES are in equal jeopardy of ending during an interaction with police

    Fine.. Then show me HARD evidence, HARD facts that show that NON-CRIMINAL black people are more in danger from police than NON-CRIMINAL people of ANY other race..

    No mystical "code words", magical secret handshakes or super-duper-secret decoder ring type evidence..

    FACTS....

    You can't because no facts exist..

    The Left hysterically screamed about Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL... What happened??

    The Left was wrong....

    The Left hysterically screamed about Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.. What happened??

    The Left was wrong...

    And so on and so on and so on..

    You don't have to convince me that ALL lives matter. *I* know that..

    But you go to a BLM protest and proclaim loudly that "ALL LIVES MATTER"....

    See what happens...

    Because, to the BLM racists, *ALL* lives *DON'T* matter..

    ONLY black lives matter.. We see it in the eyes of the murderers of police officers in New York City, Houston Texas and elsewhere..

    This is documented as fact..

    Michale

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Less than 1% of black people are killed by cops a year. Practically ALL justified....

    Over NINETY PERCENT of black people are killed by other black people in a year..

    Honestly, doesn't it make MORE sense to address the black on black violence rather than the cop on black violence??

    If you want to break it down to numbers, say 10,000 black people are killed in a year...

    If the BLM were to be successful in their efforts (even though it's not possible, due to the criminal nature of the deaths), 100 black lives would be saved...

    If the BLM turned their attention to the BLACK ON BLACK deaths and were successful in their efforts, they would save NINE THOUSAND black lives.

    NINE THOUSAND!!!

    vs

    100...

    I mean, come on!!!

    The facts are clear..

    BLM is a racist group.. It's more concerned with white on black violence (99.999% justified) and ignores the violence that kills THOUSANDS of blacks every year...

    Michale

  131. [131] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Fine.. Then show me HARD evidence, HARD facts that show that NON-CRIMINAL black people are more in danger from police than NON-CRIMINAL people of ANY other race..No mystical "code words", magical secret handshakes or super-duper-secret decoder ring type evidence..FACTS....You can't because no facts exist..The Left hysterically screamed about Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL... What happened?? The Left was wrong....The Left hysterically screamed about Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.. What happened??The Left was wrong...And so on and so on and so on..

    First off, Michale, let's be sure we are talking about the same thing because, as you can see, I have tried to narrow the discussion to those incidents where police have NOT acted in a justified manner.

    I'm waiting for you to cite cases where LEOs have UNJUSTIFIABLY taken the lives of citizens - in two percent of all police shootings, in your view - and to tell me what percent of those deaths are non-white.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al says that black on black violence is "NOT the issue"..

    But I thought the issue was "Black Lives Matter"...

    I thought the issue was SAVING black lives....

    If the issue IS SAVING black lives, then the black on black violence is the ONLY issue...

    But as I have proven beyond ANY doubt, for the racist hate group, BLM, the issue is NOT saving black lives..

    The issue is pushing a racist hate agenda....

    If the death of a black person CAN'T be used as a political bludgeon to beat people over the head with??

    Well, according to the BLM group, THAT black life doesn't matter at all....

    I can cite HUNDREDs of examples that prove this..

    Michale

  133. [133] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Al says that black on black violence is "NOT the issue"..But I thought the issue was "Black Lives Matter"...

    Well, here you go again, not taking context into consideration.

    The BLM movement has taken place in the context of police action resulting in the death of citizens.

    Now, until you can enlighten us as to how the stats on unjustified police action resulting in the death of citizens break down by race, it's really hard to have an intelligent discussion about this.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    First off, Michale, let's be sure we are talking about the same thing because, as you can see, I have tried to narrow the discussion to those incidents where police have NOT acted in a justified manner.

    The amount of unjustified police homicides of black people is so small, it's statistically insignificant...

    Put in a proper context, it would be as if the medical forces of an entire country were mobilized to combat polio...

    I'm waiting for you to cite cases where LEOs have UNJUSTIFIABLY taken the lives of citizens - i

    The only one that comes to mind is the South Carolina shooting.

    And the cop was immediately stripped of his authority and charged with murder...

    What's the question??

    Michale

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What was the race of the person killed?

  136. [136] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, what you're saying is that you don't know what the percentage of non-white lives lost by unjustified police action is?

    Well, until we know that pertinent piece of information, there is no point in discussing this particular matter any further.

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The amount of unjustified police homicides of black people is so small, it's statistically insignificant...

    I would have thought that, when it comes to the unjustified deaths of American citizens at the hands of law enforcement officers throughout the United States of America, no number of lives lost could possibly be thought of as small or statistically insignificant.

  138. [138] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You see what the problem is here, right?

    The perception is that unjustified police action resulting in the death of citizens is happening disproportionately to black and minority citizens and there are no official stats to prove or disprove that perception.

    Why is that and shouldn't there be something done about it?

  139. [139] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Per comment 119

    I would say the punishment exceeded the "crime".
    Failure to notify the IAEA that they were choosing to exercise their legal right to enrichment for nuclear energy was a technical violation.
    But the context of illegal actions against Iran should have been taken into consideration.
    I would also say the harshness of the sanctions was justified using unproven assertions.

    My opinion that Iran's treatment was unjustified in this matter is very different than saying theirs is a model regime.

    And of course if we discuss model regimes, we would have to ask compared to who? And on what basis?

    Terrorists flying planes into the WTC was an unjustifiable attack... but that doesn't mean I'm saying the US is a model regime.

  140. [140] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale

    Per comment 120

    "No, it is what THEY are saying as I have amply proven

    You have never proven they have said it, ever.

    Claiming otherwise is fiction.

  141. [141] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Do you think Iran would be curtailing its nuclear program as required by the JCPOA without this agreement?

    I'm trying to gauge whether you believe the JCPOA is a very good agreement, as I do, based solely on the merits of the agreement, not on what led to the agreement.

  142. [142] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And of course if we discuss model regimes, we would have to ask compared to who? And on what basis?

    That's a whole other discussion for another day. :)

  143. [143] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi again Liz
    Michale

    First of all, the system that clears law enforcement of guilt is itself suspect, so official "justified" shooting statistics are also suspect.

    That said, BLM was triggered by police killings, but the movement is also about unjustified arrests and harassment, unjustified tickets and fines, unjustified suspicion in general, and other related issues.

    The day to day interactions are arguably a bigger part of the problem than the far fewer interactions that result in death.

    I recall booing from BLM activists and lots of attendees when O'Malley said all lives matter at Netroots, but I haven't seen activists "react violently".

  144. [144] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That said, BLM was triggered by police killings, but the movement is also about unjustified arrests and harassment, unjustified tickets and fines, unjustified suspicion in general, and other related issues. The day to day interactions are arguably a bigger part of the problem than the far fewer interactions that result in death.

    That's an extremely salient point.

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have never proven they have said it, ever.

    Yes, I have.. By their actions with O'Malley they have unequivocally stated that, as far as they are concerned, ONLY black lives matter..

    This is fact whether you acknowledge it or not..

    Michale

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    That said, BLM was triggered by police killings, but the movement is also about unjustified arrests and harassment, unjustified tickets and fines, unjustified suspicion in general, and other related issues.

    The problem is that, as far as BLM is concerned ANY contact between police and black people that result in a black arrest or a black death is "unjustified"..

    Once again I point to Sanford FL and Ferguson MO to prove my point...

    I notice you completely ignore these references...

    Because it completely blows your argument out of the water...

    BLM was wrong with Trayvon Martin...

    BLM was wrong with Michael Brown..

    "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" is a lie...

    "Black lives matter" is a lie...

    These are the facts...

    And they are indisputable...

    Michale

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    The perception is that unjustified police action resulting in the death of citizens is happening disproportionately to black and minority citizens and there are no official stats to prove or disprove that perception.

    No, it's not...

    It only SEEMS disproportionate because the Leftist MSM doesn't report when white people are killed by cops...

    The Leftist MSM serves to perpetuate the "black person is a victim" myth...

    Look at the coverage of the Dylan Roof shooting..

    Compare that to the coverage of the Vester Flanagan shooting...

    The facts are clear...

    For those who are not enslaved by Party/Ideological loyalty...

    Michale

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    I recall booing from BLM activists and lots of attendees when O'Malley said all lives matter at Netroots, but I haven't seen activists "react violently".

    Fine.. So we have a difference of opinion as to the magnitude..

    But at least we agree that BLM doesn't think that ALL lives matter...

    Michale

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    What was the race of the person killed?

    That person was black..

    Does that mean the cop was racist?? Probably...

    Does that indicate that there is a nationwide problem with cops murdering black people??

    Only in the minds of BLM racist hate-mongers....

    To put it into it's proper context...

    Some former Democrat Senator was busted in Haiti for raping little boys..

    Using the mentality of the BLM hate group and their enablers, that "proves" that ALL Democrat Senators are pedophiles...

    You see the point???

    Michale

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    The facts are clear...

    For those who are not enslaved by Party/Ideological loyalty...

    Present company excepted, of course.. :D

    Michale

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That goes without saying. :)

  152. [152] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Michale

    "by their actions with O'Malley they have unequivocally stated"?

    Your "interpretation" of their booing is far different than them saying anything, violence, unequivocal or fact.

    As an independent thinker with no agenda and no loyalty to any party, who just coincidentally always rails against the left and pursues the same agendas and uses the same talking points as right wing Republicans, I would hope you would admit that the clear contradiction between "actions" and "statements" is problematic and falls far short of the definition of fact.

    "difference of opinion as to the magnitude"?
    Video is available that proves you wrong.
    Check it out.
    And, I believe you are fully capable of doing so without my assistance.

    The two examples you cited both fall into the suspect "justified killings" category, but in any case do not prove there isn't a general problem that the BLM movement is trying to get addressed.

    The 98% justified claim is about as believable as the universities that reported zero sexual assaults, or Ahmedinijad's claim that Iran had no gay people...

    ... of course, before you get in a tizzy, that doesn't mean that all or even close to most cops are bad either.

  153. [153] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Per comment 140

    No, I don't think Iran would be curtailing their nuclear energy program without this agreement.
    They've spent billions to develop the energy resource and that suggests a pretty serious commitment to it.

    And, yes, I believe it was a very good agreement... far stronger than I expected actually. Iran gave up a lot.

    I hope that the countries with nuclear weapons who haven't joined the NPT can be pressured into doing so, and I hope those who have will work towards fulfilling their obligation under the NPT to work towards eliminating nuclear weapons too.

    The Iran deal suggests diplomacy can accomplish a great deal (no pun intended) when given the chance.

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your "interpretation" of their booing is far different than them saying anything, violence, unequivocal or fact.

    How else would you interpret that??

    How else could you interpret a college professor who received death threats because she dared to say "ALL lives matter"??

    There is only ONE interpretation...

    At least only one who can look at the issue dispassionately and objectively..

    As an independent thinker with no agenda and no loyalty to any party, who just coincidentally always rails against the left and pursues the same agendas and uses the same talking points as right wing Republicans,

    Yer new here...

    I rail against the Right as well...

    The only reason it's not as noticable is because it's just one voice in a whole plethora of voices railing against the Right..

    The two examples you cited both fall into the suspect "justified killings" category,,/I>

    "SUSPECT"???

    You see, THAT is exactly my point...

    There is no "SUSPECT" about the justification.. The facts, the law AND the courts all determined that they were, in FACT, justified..

    The funny thing is, I *KNEW* that as soon as the incidents happened.. Everyone else here fought against me on those issues tooth and nail..

    And I turned out to be dead on ballz accurate...

    Over and over and over again...

    The 98% justified claim is about as believable

    Based on what??

    Your "vast" Law Enforcement experience, training and expertise???

    Or based on the fact that the stat doesn't jibe with your political ideology...

    10,ooo quatloos says it's the latter... :D

    ... of course, before you get in a tizzy, that doesn't mean that all or even close to most cops are bad either.

    No tizzy here..

    I know for a FACT that the vast majority of cops (upwards of 97%) are good honest hard-working men and women, doing a job that is very dangerous so that others may live and thrive...

    It's only the Left that thinks the majority of cops are dirty, racist killer gestapo...

    Michale

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hope that the countries with nuclear weapons who haven't joined the NPT can be pressured into doing so,

    {cough} {cough} Israel... {{cough}} {{cough}}

    Ahhh....

    The I LOVE IRAN agenda becomes clear... :D

    Michale

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let's get specific here..

    The Michael Brown shooting gave us HANDS UP, DON'T SHOOT

    Fact or lie??

    Michale

  157. [157] 
    altohone wrote:

    Liz

    PS- I also hope nuclear energy will be recognized as the foolish and reckless source that it is, and phased out as soon as practicable.

  158. [158] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale

    I would interpret it as letting O'Malley know that he was missing the point, just like you are.

    But while I'm here, I noticed you like to generalize about a whole group based on the actions of individuals.
    Y'know, stereotyping.

    How do you justify that?
    Let me guess... the "they do it too so I can do it" ethically untenable argument?

  159. [159] 
    altohone wrote:

    And Michale

    There are three nuclear powers that haven't signed the NPT.
    Israel is one of them.

    But it is bizarre to equate wanting Israel to join a global treaty with "I love Iran".
    Do you think that helps Israel justify their inaction?

  160. [160] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your "interpretation" of their booing is far different than them saying anything, violence, unequivocal or fact.

    So, let me ask you...

    How would you "interpret" if a black person stood up in a crowd of Republicans and said, "Black lives matter!!" and was resoundingly booed by the Republican group??

    You would hysterically scream, "RACISM!!!!" to the highest heavens.

    Don't bother denying it, we both know you would...

    So, if it's racism then, it's racism when the BLM morons do it...

    Michale

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    But while I'm here, I noticed you like to generalize about a whole group based on the actions of individuals.
    Y'know, stereotyping.

    You mean, like ya'all stereo-type Republicans?? :D

    Do you think that helps Israel justify their inaction?

    Israel has all the justification it needs...

    PS- I also hope nuclear energy will be recognized as the foolish and reckless source that it is, and phased out as soon as practicable.

    But, if Iran pursues it, it's A-OK with you....

    With the exception of Saudi Arabia, Iran is the *LAST* country on the planet that needs to worry about nuclear energy...

    Ergo, their nuclear ambitions have nothing to do with energy...

    Michale

  162. [162] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    I don't think Iran has spent billions of dollars and made all of the sacrifices it has made in order to secure a nuclear energy source it doesn't need. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

    Iran wants what every other country on the planet wants ... it wants to be powerful. And, having nuclear weapons or, in the case of Iran, being on the verge of having a nuclear weapons capability is what has been driving their nuclear programme.

    I think we should be looking at the JCPOA not as an end unto itself but rather as one step along the path toward a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and further reductions in the nuclear weapons arsenals of Russia and the US, which in turn are steps toward the lofty and perhaps unattainable goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

  163. [163] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The Iran deal suggests diplomacy can accomplish a great deal (no pun intended) when given the chance.

    Indeed.

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think Iran has spent billions of dollars and made all of the sacrifices it has made in order to secure a nuclear energy source it doesn't need. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

    It doesn't make sense to any clear thinking rational individual..

    Iran wants what every other country on the planet wants ... it wants to be powerful. And, having nuclear weapons or, in the case of Iran, being on the verge of having a nuclear weapons capability is what has been driving their nuclear programme.

    Spot on!! :D

    I think we should be looking at the JCPOA not as an end unto itself but rather as one step along the path toward a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East and further reductions in the nuclear weapons arsenals of Russia and the US, which in turn are steps toward the lofty and perhaps unattainable goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

    The problem is, if you allow a fanatical regime like Iran to become a nuclear power, the legitimate governments in the region have a real reason to be fearful and they will want their OWN nuclear arsenal..

    Throw in the added problem that the MAD doctrine doesn't work in the region because Iran is on record as WANTING to bring about the End Of Days and the entire JCPOA makes no sense at all..

    While I agree that the JCPOA in and of itself is not the endgame, the problem with those supporting the deal is that there IS NO 'next step'... All the JCPOA does is kick the can down the road a decade or two and when asked, "What then", the *ONLY* response is, "We'll think of something.."...

    Great plan.. :^/

    Michale

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al,

    What it all boils down to is one simple fact.

    If the BLM group actually BELIEVED that black lives matter, then they would muster ALL their efforts to address the > 90% black on black fatalities..

    The mere fact that BLM concentrates on the 1% so-called "racist" component proves that saving black lives is not the goal..

    Pushing their racist Black Power agenda is the goal..

    Put another way....

    Let's postulate that every LEO killing of a black person is racist based and is unjustified.. You and I both know that this is not the facts, but let's say for the sake of the argument that it's true..

    Every LEO killing of a black person is racist and unjustified...

    Let's further postulate that the BLM group is 1000% successful in their efforts. They completely eliminate LEO killings of black people..

    Congratulations.. BLM just saved 100 black lives...

    AND YET....

    And yet, over *NINE THOUSAND* black lives ARE STILL DEAD...

    Don't THOSE black lives "matter"??

    So, while the BLM can pat themselves on the back for saving 100 black lives, they should be completely and unequivocally condemned for allowing *OVER NINE THOUSAND* black lives to be taken...

    I get it.. I really do...

    It's hard to take a look in the mirror and say, "Ya know.. Maybe *I* am part of the problem.." I mean, I do it all the time, but I know that for normal people, it's hard to do. :D

    But until the black community can take a look in the mirror and say, "Maybe our rampant crime is the problem. Maybe our complete and utter devotion to playing the victim is the problem."...

    Until the black community can take a look at themselves and even CONSIDER that they are responsible for at least some of their problems....

    Only THEN will things start to change...

    Racism is alive and well in this country. That is not the issue..

    The black community can continue to play the victim and complain, "Woe is me" and "It's all the white man's fault" egged on by a Democrat Party who is STILL enslaving black people with welfare and Obamaphones and constant reminders that, "Yes, you poor black people. You are victims.. You are victims.. None of it is your fault.. The police are targeting you.. You are victims"...

    The black community can just continue to be enslaved..

    Or the black community can take lessons from Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas and Hermann King and the thousands and thousands of other black people who stood on their own two feet and stated unequivocally, "I AM NOT A VICTIM!!! I AM NOT A SLAVE OF THE DEMCORAT PARTY!!"

    As long as the black community makes a conscious and informed decision to play the victim, they will always BE the victim...

    It's a self-fulfilling prophecy...

    Oh yea.. And Iran executes gay people..

    {{{DRINK}}}

    Michale

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dr Martin Luther King stated that he had hoped to have world where black people are judged by the strength of their character rather than the color of their skin..

    Every time a Trayvon Martin happens, or a Michael Brown or a Sam Duboes or a Eric Gardner happens, *EVERY TIME*.....

    The black community AND the entirety of the Left are judging the person by the color of their skin..

    NOT by the strength (or in these cases, lack thereof) of their character...

    EVERY..... TIME.....

    Dr King would be very very sad at what the black community has become here in America...

    Michale

  167. [167] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”
    -BLM chant

    Yea.. THAT'S not a "hate" group... :^/

    Hundreds gathered to remember a 9-year-old girl who was killed when shots were fired into her Ferguson home as she did homework on her mother's bed.
    http://news.yahoo.com/hundreds-mourn-slain-9-old-ferguson-girl-190420133.html

    Where was BLM when this innocent 9-yr girl was callously gunned down??

    Where's Obama's rendition of 'Amazing Grace' at this little girl's funeral??

    Oh, that's right. She was gunned down by another black person so her life doesn't "matter"... At least, not to Obama or the BLM racist hate group...

    You see why you are on the losing side of this debate, Al??

    You are trying to justify the unjustifiable...

    Trying to excuse the inexcusable...

    Michale

  168. [168] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    PER COMMENT 161

    It would seem that the first definition of cynical applies to you as well... but I understand that Iran's actions justify it. Insert smiley face punctuation here.

    Sure, Iran wants power, or to be left alone after generations of external "meddling" (resource exploitation, the coup, conventional warfare, economic warfare, cyber warfare, assassinations, etc.)

    Iran is pursuing nuclear energy, but I don't recall any treaties anywhere giving foreigners a vote let alone a veto on what another country decides they "need".

    Iran does have a history of wanting to be technologically advanced like us, and unlike the Saudis for example who were content just being able to buy advanced tech without a desire to understand or create it themselves (though there are now elements in SA waking from that slumber).

    The hard currency from being able to export their fossil fuels argument can't be ignored either, but I think your suspicions, and those of the global community are reasonable. Thinking that Iran wanted to take steps to master nuclear technology in order to have a potential deterrent makes sense.

    What doesn't make sense is jumping to the conclusion that they ARE taking the next step or pretending to know that they absolutely WILL take the next step of starting a nuclear weapons program... and pushing for more economic or direct warfare... without any evidence.

    Given that zero evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran has been discovered despite constant observation, spying and inspections, it would seem that the excessively paranoid distrust was not merited. And if Iran abides by the new deal as well, we can go back to regular NPT inspections and maybe send off the excessively paranoid gang to spend more time with their families instead of letting them shit on the negotiating table... I mean, sit at.

    And, of course, we shouldn't elect any leaders that want to kill millions of innocent people without evidence or with fabricated evidence ever again.

  169. [169] 
    altohone wrote:

    No Michale

    You still haven't grasped the definition of "fact".
    Your false accusations of racism are wrong.
    Your conclusions based on those false accusations are wrong.
    And your justifications violate the concept of ethics.

    I recognize that you don't want to admit any of those things are true, but they are.

  170. [170] 
    Michale wrote:

    Your false accusations of racism are wrong.
    Your conclusions based on those false accusations are wrong.
    And your justifications violate the concept of ethics.

    You keep saying that.

    Yet, provide absolutely substantiation...

    I provide facts to back up my opinions..

    You can keep saying I am wrong til the cows come home..

    But the facts speak for themselves..

    The BLM is a hate group.. This is evidence by the FACT of their chants to kill cops..

    The BLM is a racist group. This is evidenced by the FACT of their BLACK POWER signs and their ONLY BLACK LIVES matter statements and actions..

    The facts are there... For those who are willing to open their eyes and see..

    Michale

  171. [171] 
    Michale wrote:

    If black lives "matter" to the BLM morons, they would have had a presence at little 9yr old Jamyla Borden's funeral...

    FACT

    If black lives "matter" to the BLM racists, they would have taken to the streets and protest the brutal murder of this young black girl...

    FACT

    The FACT that BLM didn't do either of these things prove beyond any doubt that, unless black deaths can be used as a political bludgeon, black lives don't matter one whit to the BLM racist morons...

    There's your facts....

    Michale

  172. [172] 
    altohone wrote:

    Michale

    I am impressed by the gigantic amounts of projection in the ideas expressed in this thread.

    Some may even call it blatant amounts.

  173. [173] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Iran is pursuing nuclear energy, but I don't recall any treaties anywhere giving foreigners a vote let alone a veto on what another country decides they "need".

    Yes, well ... last I checked, Iran was part of the international community. No country is absolutely sovereign anymore and, in fact, hasn't been for a very long time.

    As citizens of the world, we are quite capable of assessing the needs of another country and what motivates it to take the actions it does. It's all part of trying to understand the geopolitics of any particular region and its impacts on the rest of the globe. Ahem.

  174. [174] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What doesn't make sense is jumping to the conclusion that they ARE taking the next step or pretending to know that they absolutely WILL take the next step of starting a nuclear weapons program... and pushing for more economic or direct warfare... without any evidence.

    Of course, I would never be so presumptuous as to jump to conclusions in that manner.

    Though, I think you are wrong to suggest that there has been no evidence indicating that Iran may indeed have ambitions to further its nuclear program into the realm of a nuclear weapons capability. Indeed, that is what the confidential safeguards agreement between Iran and the IAEA is all about.

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al,

    I am impressed by the gigantic amounts of projection in the ideas expressed in this thread.

    I am impressed by the fact that you can post a lot but not address the points being made..

    Impressive tap dancing.. :D

    Michale

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Al,

    Do you know THE most dangerous place for a black person to be???

    I'll give you a hint... It's NOT behind the wheel of a car...

    Michale

  177. [177] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Per comment 173

    I hope you don't think I was including you in that category. I wasn't.

    If you are privy to such secrets, please do share.
    I've already shared my feelings on such assertions.

    And it seems just as likely the side agreement is about protecting Iran from another IAEA pocket swipe mess like in Syria.

    Not sure I buy the "need" argument either.
    The NPT gives them the right to nuclear energy, and the new deal allows them to keep using nuclear energy, so the assessment of the international community seems to be that there is a need.

  178. [178] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    Iran's behavior over the years on the nuclear file and their willingness to sacrifice so much for it, particularly with regard to their economy, would all tend to lead a rationally thinking person that Iran's intentions go beyond a purely peaceful civilian nuclear program.

    Certainly the assessment of the international community, including the IAEA, has been that Iran has not been forthcoming on its nuclear program. Which is why the international community agreed to a very muscular sanctions regime as the way to bring Iran to the negotiating table to hammer out a compromise that is the JCPOA.

    The confidential safeguards agreement between Iran and the IAEA over Parchin and possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear programme (and, ah ... no, I'm not privy to any of that ... heh) is likely quite a lot about Iran saving face after the supreme leader put out a fatwa against nuclear weapons and then hypocritically working towards having a nuclear weapons capability.

    That is just my opinion, you understand.

    In any event, we are where we are, as they say. Now, I'm just hoping that the JCPOA will be fully implemented to the satisfaction of all parties involved and demonstrate how effective diplomacy can actually be when the prerequisite effort and resources are put into it.

  179. [179] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al, here is a link to an article that may be of interest to you, detailing how international intel services uncovered Iran's secret uranium enrichment facility hidden inside a mountain at Fordow ...

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/25/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-intelligence

  180. [180] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    If Obama showed *ANY* interest in those ideas, I would be much more inclined to see things your way..

    But he hasn't so I don't....

    Obama doesn't CARE what happens after the JCPOA is signed, sealed and delivered.. His FP legacy is in the history books...

    That's where Obama's concern begins and ends...

    Michale...

  182. [182] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know THE most dangerous place for a black person to be???

    I am glad you asked that..

    THE most dangerous place for a black person to be is not driving in a car, not in the ghetto, not roaming the streets..

    The most dangerous place for a black person to be is in the womb...

    Less than 40% of the residents of Mississippi are black. Yet black people account for OVER SEVENTY PERCENT of the abortions..

    In New York, black abortions are ALMOST that high at 64%..

    Now, my feelings on the abortion issue are well known..

    While I don't subscribe to the Right Wing idea that life begins at, "Geee, yer hot...", I ALSO don't subscribe to the Left Wing idea that life begins at the first tax deduction...

    But my point in bringing up this little factoid is this...

    If the BLM group was a legitimate activist group rather than a racist hate group, then their cause would be the de-valuation of black lives in American society...

    THAT is a true representation of what BLACK LIVES MATTER should be all about..

    Under THAT legitimate activist mantra, blacks being killed by white cops is way way way WAY down on the priority scale..

    Between black on black homicides (upwards of 96%!!) and the tens of thousands of black babies aborted, the percentage of blacks being killed by white cops is infinitesimally small to the point of non-existence..

    So, if BLM HONESTLY and TRULY believed that black lives DO matter.... Well, there are causes out there that would address the de-valuation of black lives MUCH more appropriately..

    Sadly, the BLM of the here and now don't give a rat's ass about black lives... They are only interested in pushing their racist hate agenda and the expense of tens of thousands of black deaths every year by other causes...

    To put it in the vernacular of LEO training, BLM sees a hazy outline of a possible (but unlikely) threat far off in the distance..

    And they are responding to THAT possible (but unlikely) threat while ignoring the dozens of armed perpetrators pointing M-16s right at their faces....

    It makes absolutely NO SENSE whatsoever until one considers the racist hate agenda of the KILL THE PIGS!! BLM movement..

    And then it makes perfect sense...

    Class dismissed

    Michale

  183. [183] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    What about the responsibility of Congress on these issues? In fact, as I have written before, the US Congress has a very critical role to play in this and there is no reason why they shouldn't get started on it today and work with President Obama and future presidents, throughout the term of the JCPOA.

    You might consider spending some of your time and effort persuading your own representatives that it would be far more productive to work with the JCPOA instead of trying to kill it.

  184. [184] 
    Michale wrote:

    What about the responsibility of Congress on these issues?

    Obama has made it clear he won't work with Congress..

    So Congress doesn't factor into anything..

    You might consider spending some of your time and effort persuading your own representatives that it would be far more productive to work with the JCPOA instead of trying to kill it.

    It's a matter of trust..

    Obama has so poisoned the well, even if Congress WANTED to work with Obama, Obama has made it clear that he would just as soon give Congress the finger as to compromise on anything...

    Michale

  185. [185] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm pretty sure you have that ass-backwards, Michale.

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am sure you think that.. :D

    Michale

  187. [187] 
    Michale wrote:

    I need to correct an error in my math above...

    In comment #164 I postulated a scenario of 10,000 black lives taken in a given year and BLM was successful with their Anti-Cop agenda and saved 100 black lives..

    The actual number of lives saved would be 10... Not 100...

    The actual statistic is .08% of black deaths are caused by white cops but I rounded up..

    So, in a year with 10,000 black deaths, the BLM racist morons saved TEN....

    Of course, if BLM actually CARED about black lives and applied their activism where it was REALLY needed then they could have saved 9,990 black lives..

    But I guess their political agenda is more important to them and black lives don't really matter to them at all...

    Michale

  188. [188] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey Liz

    Per comment 177

    Being opposed to nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, I believe every (ethical) effort should be made to prevent any new nuclear weapons powers from emerging and every effort made to convince everyone against using nuclear energy.

    The threat of potential proliferation risks from nuclear energy programs seems like a pretty good reason for an anti-nuclear policy overall (on top of the other reasons), yet US policy is to not just pursue it, but to encourage it... selling reactors and fuel for profit.

    As long as that remains the reality, I will rail against the hypocrisy and double standards.

    The "Iran is a special case" argument is shoddy.
    If you compare the "bad actions" of Iran against those of the US, we see further hypocrisy exposed. We've got them beat by a mile. Likewise with a comparison to our "allies" in the region.

    If we were leading by example, I think your position would not only be enhanced, but the right position.

    But we aren't.
    Not on the nuclear issue.
    Not on the instigators of violence to advance our interests issue.

    Like you said, we are where we are.
    We both support the deal.
    I would hope that you can see my position also qualifies as "reasonable"... ouch btw!
    Do unto others and practice what we preach aren't exactly foreign concepts.

    And thanks for the link... read it when it was published. Didn't notice it at the time, but after rereading it, I got the impression that the article didn't quite include the whole story. Don't know if you picked up on that?

  189. [189] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you compare the "bad actions" of Iran against those of the US, we see further hypocrisy exposed. We've got them beat by a mile. Likewise with a comparison to our "allies" in the region.

    For example.....??????

    "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

    :D

    Michale

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you compare the "bad actions" of Iran against those of the US, we see further hypocrisy exposed. We've got them beat by a mile. Likewise with a comparison to our "allies" in the region.

    Iran is THE world's sponsor of terrorism.. The US is not even in the club..

    Iran executes people for the gay lifestyle...

    (GT: {{DRINK}})

    Yea.. The US is much worse than Iran.. :^/

    Michale

  191. [191] 
    Michale wrote:

    As long as that remains the reality, I will rail against the hypocrisy and double standards.

    There is no hypocrisy or double standard..

    Iran is a fanatical religious state who has stated on more than one occasion it's goal to wipe Israel from existence...

    THAT is the reality...

    What COMPLETE MORON would even think about allowing such a fanatical terrorist supporting state to create a nuclear arsenal??

    Michale

  192. [192] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I would hope that you can see my position also qualifies as "reasonable"... ouch btw!

    Heh.

    Actually, I believe the apt phrase was "a rationally thinking person". But, your positions have always seemed pretty reasonable to me. :)

    I'm not sure I'd equate Iran with the US in the bad behavior department. As for the 2003 Iraq invasion, well, I believe Iran is still thanking the US for that one.

  193. [193] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [191], of course, was in response to Big Al, just to be clear ... :)

  194. [194] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    And thanks for the link... read it when it was published. Didn't notice it at the time, but after rereading it, I got the impression that the article didn't quite include the whole story. Don't know if you picked up on that?

    In point of fact, I did! Mostly because I don't think anyone - not even Karim Sadjadpour! - knows what the whole story is when it comes to Iran's known nuclear program, let alone its clandestine history. Thanks to the JCPOA, however, that particular situation should improve, substantially.

    There are known knowns - things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns - things that we know that we don't know. And, there are unknown unknowns - things that we don't know that we don't know ... I can never resist that particular urge, whenever the opportunity presents. Heh. It was the most profound utterance ever made by Secretary Rumsfeld. Of course, he inhabited the world of the latter, most of the time. :)

  195. [195] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Oops on the misquote... close enough I guess.
    And thanks.

    Leave it to Rummy to ruin what would otherwise be something I could quote without puking.

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again...

    Victory by default...

    Times Two :D

    What the hell, I'll take it. :D

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/what-should-obama-do-next-on-iran.html?ref=opinion&_r=1

    Once again, a good sober realistic plan that President Obama SHOULD follow vis a vis Iran..

    A million quatloos says Obama won't...

    He'll just rest on his "laurels" and let Iran kill as many innocent people as they want...

    Michale

  198. [198] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I don't think I've ever heard Nicholas Burns be so presumptuous as in that piece.

    While I agree with the general gist of what he is saying and I believe we'll hear quite a lot about that from Obama in a major speech following the congressional votes on the JCPOA, it sounds like Burns is trying to appease the know-nothings in congress and, in so doing, simply setting up another scenario for a Middle East war.

    I am usually more in sync with what Burns has to say about these matters but there is something in the tone of his piece in the NYTimes that just doesn't sit right with me.

    Do you agree with EVERYTHING he's saying here?

  199. [199] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yeah, Al, I hear what you're saying.

    And, that's why I always add the bit about Rumsfeld living in the world of unknown unknowns whenever I quote the most profound statement he has ever made. :)

  200. [200] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Iran is THE world's sponsor of terrorism..

    You keep repeating this mantra and none of us has really challenged you on its veracity.

    Where does Saudi Arabia fit on the odious ladder of support for terrorism and extremist ideology throughout the Middle East and, indeed, beyond?

    Why do you never call out the worldwide support for terrorism that Saudi Arabia provides in far greater magnitude than Iran ever has?

    Here's a piece worth reading ...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-our-radical-islamic-bff-saudi-arabia.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article
    ... and then we'll discuss!

  201. [201] 
    Michale wrote:

    You keep repeating this mantra and none of us has really challenged you on its veracity.

    That's because there is no rational challenge possible..

    Where does Saudi Arabia fit on the odious ladder of support for terrorism and extremist ideology throughout the Middle East and, indeed, beyond?

    For example....???

    Here's a piece worth reading ...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/opinion/thomas-friedman-our-radical-islamic-bff-saudi-arabia.html?ribbon-ad-idx=5&rref=opinion&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&pgtype=article
    ... and then we'll discuss!

    I really don't like to read links.. :D

    Yes, many Saudi Arabians have become terrorists..

    But that is a FAR FAR cry from the material, financial and military **GOVERNMENT** support Iran has given to the world's terrorists..

    In other words, is Saudi Arabia the world's sponsor of terrorism because some Saudis have become terrorists??

    No...

    Is Iran a world's sponsor of terrorism because they give material, money and man power to a plethora of the world's terrorist groups??

    Yes...

    The Anti-Semitic Left can't argue the point with facts, so they argue with hysterical emotionalism that the point doesn't exist...

    Just like the above issue with the racist hate group, BLM....

    Present (some) company excepted, of course.. :D

    Michale

  202. [202] 
    Michale wrote:

    In short, when you can show me facts that have SA saying they want to destroy Israel and wipe Israel from the map, then you will have an argument...

    Michale

  203. [203] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For example....???

    Please tell me you're joking.

  204. [204] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But that is a FAR FAR cry from the material, financial and military **GOVERNMENT** support Iran has given to the world's terrorists..

    How do I break this to you gently other than to just come right out and say that the House of Saud aka the government of Saudi Arabia has the Iranian regime beat on this score by much more than a country mile, and then some ...

  205. [205] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In short, when you can show me facts that have SA saying they want to destroy Israel and wipe Israel from the map, then you will have an argument...

    Now, this is just another example, Michale, of your EXTREME tunnel vision and how you get stuck on one argument to the exclusion of all other valid arguments.

    By the way, Israel can take care of itself with the unending and ever increasing help of the US and that is as it should be.

  206. [206] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    You really should read that Friedman link. But, obviously, you shouldn't stop there!

  207. [207] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Tunnel vision can be very, very dangerous thing.

  208. [208] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do I break this to you gently other than to just come right out and say that the House of Saud aka the government of Saudi Arabia has the Iranian regime beat on this score by much more than a country mile, and then some ...

    Then it shouldn't be too hard to document this, right? :D

    Now, this is just another example, Michale, of your EXTREME tunnel vision and how you get stuck on one argument to the exclusion of all other valid arguments.

    Address the fact that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map and then we can talk about the other allegedly "valid" arguments..

    You really should read that Friedman link. But, obviously, you shouldn't stop there!

    So, Iran is the "good guys" and SA is the "bad guy"....

    Sorry, you will never convince me of that..

    Michale

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran is a destabilizing influence in the region...

    Saudi Arabia is not...

    Simple fact...

    Michale

  210. [210] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saudi Arabia and Israel (not to mention practically every other country in the Middle East are on the same side in opposing the US and their new BFF, Iran....

    That is the difference that makes ALL the difference...

    Michale

  211. [211] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Then it shouldn't be too hard to document this, right? :D

    Oh, it has been documented, alright ... go look it up! I'm not here to provide all of the information for you. I'm here to discuss it once you have it under your belt ...

  212. [212] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    So, Iran is the "good guys" and SA is the "bad guy"....Sorry, you will never convince me of that..
    Address the fact that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map and then we can talk about the other allegedly "valid" arguments..

    Yes, there are many in Iran who chant "death to Israel, death to America" and there are still signs in that regard hanging from buildings in Iran.

    The JCPOA can, potentially, go a long toward sidelining those forces in Iran, over the long term, if the US and the rest of the international community plays its cards right.

    The Friedman link does not say what you understand it to say. But, if this link is the sole source for your information on Saudi Arabia, you need to seriously reach out for more before you go around here claiming that Iran the THE world's sponsor of terrorism because that claim is not valid.

  213. [213] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Iran is a destabilizing influence in the region...Saudi Arabia is not...Simple fact...

    As you know, I believe Iran is a destabilizing influence in the region.

    To claim that Saudi Arabia is not is outrageously wrong-headed and really needs to be addressed by Chris as this is his blog, after all, and your false claims should not go unanswered by him.

  214. [214] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, there are many in Iran who chant "death to Israel, death to America" and there are still signs in that regard hanging from buildings in Iran.

    There are many *IN THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN, UP TO **AND** INCLUDING IT'S SUPREME LEADER* who chant "death to Israel, death to America"....

    There.. Fixed it for you....

    The JCPOA can, potentially, go a long toward sidelining those forces in Iran, over the long term, if the US and the rest of the international community plays its cards right.

    Wishful thinking. Nothing more...

    The Friedman link does not say what you understand it to say. But, if this link is the sole source for your information on Saudi Arabia, you need to seriously reach out for more before you go around here claiming that Iran the THE world's sponsor of terrorism because that claim is not valid.

    You, like Al above, continue to make claims..

    Yet, like Al above, none are substantiated...

    Give me FACTS that I can look at and evaluate....

    Michale

  215. [215] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Give me FACTS that I can look at and evaluate....

    I don't play that game, Michale. Never have, never will, not when wholly spurious claims are made that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the reality is.

    I am not here to waste my time providing information that you should be putting the effort in to finding for yourself.

    I am here to discuss issues but I'll be damned if I'm going to start from the very beginning of any issue by providing the basic facts that we should all be armed with in the first place.

  216. [216] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You, like Al above, continue to make claims.. Yet, like Al above, none are substantiated...

    By the way, that's hilarious, coming from you, Michale.

  217. [217] 
    Michale wrote:

    The JCPOA can, potentially, go a long toward sidelining those forces in Iran, over the long term, if the US and the rest of the international community plays its cards right.

    Those "forces" are the Supreme Leader and the Republican Guard...

    Obama had a chance to "sideline" those forces in 2009...

    He blew it then....

    What makes you think any moderate forces within the Iranian people will Obama has changed his support of the Fanatical Theological regime??

    And, make no mistake, Obama DOES support the Fanatical Theological regime of Iran...

    The JCPOA proves that beyond any doubt...

    Obama opted for the Chamberlain/Hitler method rather than the Reagan/Gorbachev method....

    Michale

  218. [218] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, that's hilarious, coming from you, Michale.

    I don't see why...

    Al mentioned substantiation above...

    When I substantiated my facts and opinions, Al bailed from the debate and conceded by default..

    Now, I am asking you to substantiate...

    I am sure you KNOW that I won't run tail-tucked and hide when you do.. :D

    Michale

  219. [219] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't play that game, Michale.

    I never knew that asking for facts is a "game"...

    Color me surprised.. :D

    I am not here to waste my time providing information that you should be putting the effort in to finding for yourself.

    You made a claim that SA is a bigger world sponsor of terrorism against our friends than Iran is...

    All I ask is that you substantiate the claim with some facts...

    What could be simpler??

    Michale

  220. [220] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Once you have educated yourself on the Saudi Arabia regime, then I would love to have an extended discussion with you on the subject of who are the sponsors of terrorism throughout the Middle East and beyond and what the US and international community are doing about it and what they should be doing about it.

    In other words, you'll have to arm yourself with the basic facts on Saudi Arabia and its support for terrorism in the region and beyond before we can have a productive discussion about it.

  221. [221] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran sympathizers/defenders always make a big deal that the majority of 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia...

    So???

    How is that evidence of SA *GOVERNMENT* involvement??

    Answer: It's not...

    It's like saying that some Americans go overseas to fight with (Oh Mighty) ISIS and because of that, the US is THE world's sponsor of terrorism..

    It's taking a disparate fact and coming to a conclusion that is so far from reality as to be on a different planet in a different galaxy....

    Iran's GOVERNMENT is a terrorist government.. It was formed by a terrorist act....

    These are the facts that are indisputable...

    Michale

  222. [222] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, you'll have to arm yourself with the basic facts on Saudi Arabia and its support for terrorism in the region and beyond before we can have a productive discussion about it.

    Does having served there for a couple years as a liaison to their intelligence services count??

    I think the problem we have here is that there is no common frame of reference when it comes to the definition of terrorism..

    Michale

  223. [223] 
    Michale wrote:

    Does having served there for a couple years as a liaison to their intelligence services count??

    Actual time feet-dry was about a year as I was TDY a lot...

    Michale

  224. [224] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/byman20050201.pdf

    Michale,

    The above link provides a boatload of facts about how the House of Saud has sponsored terrorism and is responsible for the spread of anti-American and anti-Jewish ideologies throughout the Middle East and beyond.

    Iran is not the only or even the biggest cause for concern in the Middle East.

  225. [225] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hi Liz

    Keep trying, but I think it may be pointless.

    It never ceases to amaze me how Mittens got it so wrong about who is actually in the entitled "give me" crowd that expects others to do the work and receive things for nothing.

    I also think it's willful blindness, not tunnel vision.

    I second you call for CW to cover the topic.

  226. [226] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The US has tolerated the actions and inaction of Saudi Arabia for far too long.

  227. [227] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Al,

    I second you call for CW to cover the topic.

    We'll see.

  228. [228] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iran is not the only or even the biggest cause for concern in the Middle East.

    That's your opinion and I respect that.. Even though it is borne of ideology and not fact... I know this from personal experience

    Iran is a terrorist regime...

    This is fact..

    Iran was born out of a terrorist act...

    This is also fact...

    Obama's cuddling with and coddling of Iran won't change these basic facts..

    Now, if you want to obfuscate the issue by claim OTHER regimes are terrorist regimes, fine... Factually, I know different, but I won't begrudge you for your ideology...

    But it doesn't change the FACT that

    A> Iran is a terrorist regime...

    and

    2> Iran was born from a terrorist act....

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed..."
    -Captain 'Smilin' Jack Ross

    Michale

  229. [229] 
    Michale wrote:

    It never ceases to amaze me how Mittens got it so wrong about who is actually in the entitled "give me" crowd that expects others to do the work and receive things for nothing.

    What does ROMNEY have to do with any of this??

    Jeezus, one too meenie martoonies???

    Michale

  230. [230] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/analysis/byman20050201.pdf

    Michale,

    The above link provides a boatload of facts about how the House of Saud has sponsored terrorism

    **PASSIVE** sponsorship....

    As opposed to ACTIVE sponsorship.. Like Iran engages in..

    Granted, PASSIVE sponsorship is still not a good thing..

    But to compare it to IRAN's *ACTIVE* sponsorship??

    You are comparing apples and orangutans...

    To put it into context, you are comparing a person that goes out and murders people (IRAN) with the person who doesn't call 911 when they see someone being murdered...

    You say what you say because you THINK it.. Because you read it somewhere..

    I say what I say because I have been there and done that....

    Personal experience is the difference that makes ALL the difference..

    Now, I'll be the first to concede that my training, experience and expertise MAY be somewhat dated...

    I have been out of the field for quite a number of years...

    "But things in this life change very slowly if they ever change at all.."
    -THE EAGLES, The Sad Cafe

    Michale

  231. [231] 
    Michale wrote:

    The US has tolerated the actions and inaction of Saudi Arabia for far too long.

    I see...

    The US can't dictate to enemy regimes like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran. They Left gets all twitter-pated when the US tries that..

    But the Left wants the US to dictate to our friends and allies??

    You see what I mean by it's all nothing more than partisan ideology at work here...??

    Michale

  232. [232] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, looks like ya'all are going to get your wish..

    Obama will have his Foreign Policy legacy...

    A nuclear armed Iran...

    Obama just guaranteed a war and a nuclear arms race in the Middle East

    Congrats.... :^/

    Michale

  233. [233] 
    Michale wrote:
  234. [234] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You like to listen to and quote the quotes of experts..

    "The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will enable Iran to increase support for terrorist and insurgent proxies, aggravate sectarian conflict and trigger both nuclear and conventional proliferation cascades."
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/nuclear-deal-will-make-war-with-iran-more-likely-f/

    You see, there are experts that don't agree with your experts..

    One has to rely on common sense..

    And common sense CLEARLY dictates that giving a country that is THE world's sponsor of terrorism hundreds of billions of dollars and a clear field in 15 years is the STOOPEDIST course of action possible..

    Michale

  235. [235] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Over the next little while, I'd like to focus on a few exerpts from the Executive Summary of the report that your Washington Times article was based on:

    "By allowing Iran to become a nuclear threshold state and enabling it to become more powerful and expand its influence and destabilizing activities – across the Middle East and possibly directly threatening the U.S. homeland – the JCPOA will place the United States in far worse position to prevent a nuclear Iran."

    In reality, Iran is already a nuclear threshold state and has over the last several years substantially advanced its nuclear program.

    The JCPOA rolls back the Iranian nuclear program and increases the break out time (the time it would take Iran to compile enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon) to more than a year, much longer yet to actually weaponize that material, for at least 15 years, with further restrictions on its nuclear program for 20 - 25 years with an improved NPT regime, indefinitely.

    Iran's behavior in the region has not decreased under the most muscular sanctions regime ever placed on a country and the funds that will be available to Iran under the sanctions relief of the JCPOA will not inordinately change this equation, given the circumstances that the Iranian regime must operate in, domestically and internationally.

    Meanwhile, the US along with its regional and international partners will not be sitting idly by with their collective hands tied behind their backs by the JCPOA with regard to stopping and preventing Iran's non-nuclear destabilizing actions in the region. The JCPOA was meant to deal solely with Iran's nuclear programme and that is what it does.

  236. [236] 
    Michale wrote:

    In reality, Iran is already a nuclear threshold state and has over the last several years substantially advanced its nuclear program.

    That depends on what you consider "threshold"...

    By some accounting, Iran could be considered a "threshold" state as soon as it decided to build a nuclear arsenal..

    The JCPOA rolls back the Iranian nuclear program and increases the break out time (the time it would take Iran to compile enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon) to more than a year, much longer yet to actually weaponize that material, for at least 15 years,

    For ONLY 15 years..

    At the end of the 15 year span, all things being equal, Iran would be weeks away from a nuclear arsenal..

    Iran's behavior in the region has not decreased under the most muscular sanctions regime ever placed on a country and the funds that will be available to Iran under the sanctions relief of the JCPOA will not inordinately change this equation,

    Not according to Obama. Obama and his administration has already stated that the funds Iran garner from the JCPOA will go into their terrorism activities...

    Meanwhile, the US along with its regional and international partners will not be sitting idly by with their collective hands tied behind their backs by the JCPOA with regard to stopping and preventing Iran's non-nuclear destabilizing actions in the region.

    Prove it....

    Give me ONE statement from Obama that indicates what the US will do POST-JCPOA...

    You can't because no such statement exists...

    Obama HAS no AFTER-JCPOA plan...

    The ONLY thing that Obama (and ya'all incidentally) have is "HOPE"...

    And we know how well HOPE has worked out in the past...

    The JCPOA was meant to deal solely with Iran's nuclear programme and that is what it does.

    And, by ignoring the terrorism and other activities, Obama has given tacit approval to those activities...

    Iran can state, with utter accuracy, that ALL their activities are US Approved.. Because, if the US didn't approve, they would have made it part of the deal...

    De-facto approval...

    Proof positive that Obama just cared about his legacy...

    Michale

  237. [237] 
    Michale wrote:

    Had to get creative again.. :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/cw-commentary2.jpg

    Michale

  238. [238] 
    Michale wrote:

    The JCPOA was meant to deal solely with Iran's nuclear programme and that is what it does.

    Yea... That's what Clinton said about North Korea...

    Guess what??

    It didn't work....

    Why anyone thinks that fanatical regimes will actually FOLLOW agreements is beyond me...

    Michale

  239. [239] 
    Michale wrote:

    And there is absolutely NOTHING to prevent Iran from abrogating the JCPOA...

    There are no consequences...

    No incentive to adhere to the agreement...

    Israel, the region and the world will simply have to trust the good intentions of the fanatical Iranian leadership...

    Yea... Great deal... :^/

    Michale

  240. [240] 
    Michale wrote:

    No arms race in the Middle East??

    Kerry Promises Israel, Saudis Money In Wake of Iran Nuclear Deal
    http://freebeacon.com/national-security/kerry-promises-israel-saudis-money-in-wake-of-iran-nuclear-deal/

    Shirley you jest... :D

    Michale

  241. [241] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    This report, by the way, is a product of the Iran Security Council, part of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) though there is a disclaimer that the opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions of JINSA.

    The report says,

    "The United States’ regional allies have already voiced serious concerns about the strategic implications of the JCPOA for their own security and what it says about the perceived willingness of the United States to abandon the decades-old balance of power and its leadership in the region. Most importantly, Saudi Arabian officials, despite accepting the deal, have explicitly threatened – and other regional allies have suggested – they would pursue their own nuclear arsenals in response to Iran attaining nuclear weapons. Many of us have served in the region, and we take those remarks very seriously. Unlike in the Cold War, when the spread of nuclear weapons among U.S. allies reinforced deterrence, a proliferation cascade in the Middle East would undermine it, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, Israel and potentially others trapped in an inherently unstable multilateral nuclear imbalance. "

    The authors of this report base their assessment on what ifs and could be's and essentially ignore the political and technical challenges that would very likely prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

    No middle eastern nation currently has the technical ability to develop a nuclear weapon on its own. And, countries like Saudi Arabia that threaten to acquire a nuclear weapons capability if Iran does are so heavily dependent on the United States and others for their security that any hint of behavior in this regard will be met with a very strong disincetive coming from the West.

    Of course, there are things that the West can do to reduce and eliminate any chance that Middle Eastern regimes would act to acquire nuclear weapons, including continuing to provide help to these regimes in terms of their civil nuclear energy programs and in developing an international fuel bank for nuclear energy programs.

    So, the warnings that the authors of this report give about a cascade of nuclear weapons acquistions in the Middle East do not strike me as being particularly reality-based.

  242. [242] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a related note..

    Police said an employee at an Arby’s located at 11755 Pines Blvd denied the uniformed officer service on Monday night. According to police, the officer was denied service because she was a police officer.
    The manager allegedly laughed about it and said the clerk was allowed to refuse to serve the officer.
    That’s when the officer said she was unsure about the condition of her food, decided not to eat there and asked for a refund, the report states.

    http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/09/02/pd-pines-officer-denied-service-at-arbys/

    The officer should have said she was a lesbian... Then these scumbags would have fallen all over themselves to serve her...

    Isn't it funny how it's the Left Wingers who say, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone", but the Right get threatened and condemned when they use the same reasoning..

    Pure unadulterated hypocrisy....

    Michale

  243. [243] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No arms race in the Middle East??

    Of course, there is an arms race in the Middle East as a result of the JCPOA. I told you about this when we first started discussing the Iran nuclear deal.

    These kinds of assurances that the US is providing to Israel and to the GCC and its member states is precisely what the US should be doing, among other things, and what you have always said the Obama administration would not do. I guess this means that you have been proven wrong, my friend!

  244. [244] 
    Michale wrote:

    The authors of this report base their assessment on what ifs and could be's and essentially ignore the political and technical challenges that would very likely prevent a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

    When you are talking about the annihilation of an ENTIRE country, the 'what if's and the 'could be's take on special significance..

    Maybe it would be more important to the Left if Israel was full of gay people or illegal immigrants.. :^/

    So, the warnings that the authors of this report give about a cascade of nuclear weapons acquistions in the Middle East do not strike me as being particularly reality-based.

    Of course they don't... That's because they are saying something your ideology doesn't want to hear....

    But, given the violent nature of the fanatical Iranian regime, isn't it better to err on the side of caution???

    I mean, if I am wrong, Iran gets slapped around some more..

    If you are wrong, Tel Aviv goes up in a nuclear cloud...

    Of the two possibilities, which is worse?? :^/

    What it all boils down to is that the Left chose Obama's ego over the safety of Israel and the region..

    That's the entire debate in a nutshell...

    Michale

  245. [245] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Yea... That's what Clinton said about North Korea...Guess what?? It didn't work....

    Well, I hope you're not saying that the NK situation is just like the Iran situation because, there are important differences.

    Most critically, lessons were in fact learned by the NK situation and that is why we have the Additional Protocol and strengthening of the NPT.

    You can't say that the JCPOA is anything like the NK agreement ... no way, no how!

  246. [246] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course they don't... That's because they are saying something your ideology doesn't want to hear....

    Actually, I don't have an ideology. Seriously!

    I just have an ability to judge what makes sense and what doesn't. The report you cite is simply not persuasive.

  247. [247] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, there is an arms race in the Middle East as a result of the JCPOA. I told you about this when we first started discussing the Iran nuclear deal.

    So, we are in agreement.. The JCPOA is setting off an arms race... In THE most volatile area of the planet..

    And how is that a good thing??

    These kinds of assurances that the US is providing to Israel and to the GCC and its member states is precisely what the US should be doing, among other things, and what you have always said the Obama administration would not do.

    The fact that Obama *HAS* to do such things to counter Iran PROVES how bad the JCPOA deal actually is..

    Guess I was proven right.. :D

    And, I am also constrained to point out that Saudi Arabia has "said" they will pursue a nuclear arsenal..

    So, if you stick with what Obama has "said" about importing more arms into the region, then you HAVE to concede what SA "said" about pursuing a nuclear arsenal is also valid..

    And THERE is your nuclear proliferation...

    Michale

  248. [248] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, I don't have an ideology. Seriously!

    Yea... I can see that. :D

    I just have an ability to judge what makes sense and what doesn't. The report you cite is simply not persuasive.

    But... But.... But...

    It's by "EXPERTS!!!" It HAS to make sense!!

    Ahhhh.. Only the experts that agree with ya are "really" experts... :D

    Michale

  249. [249] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, I am also constrained to point out that Saudi Arabia has "said" they will pursue a nuclear arsenal..

    Saudi Arabia can say whatever it wants to say, it doesn't make it so, as I fully explained in [239].

    Wait a second ... 239!!!

  250. [250] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Only the experts who make sense are worth listening to, Michale.

    Unfortunately, not all of us have the ability to make that distinction.

  251. [251] 
    Michale wrote:

    Saudi Arabia can say whatever it wants to say, it doesn't make it so, as I fully explained in [239].

    And Obama can say whatever he wants about arming Israel..

    Doesn't mean he will actually do it..

    Which proves me right about Obama throwing Israel and the region under the bus..

    It works both ways..

    Do you have ANY evidence to support the claim that SA *won't* pursue a nuclear arsenal???

    No you do not..

    Ergo, their stated position stands as factual..

    Only the experts who make sense are worth listening to, Michale.

    In other words, only the experts that say what you already agree with...

    Which proves my point...

    :D

    Look, it's a moot point..

    You won.. Obama won..

    This country, Israel, the Middle East and the world have lost..

    That's the end of it...

    Michale

  252. [252] 
    Michale wrote:

    You will NEVER convince me that the JCPOA is a good deal and here's is why.

    It legitimizes Iran...

    It COMPLETELY ignores everything that makes Iran a scumbag fanatical despotic state and welcomes them onto the world stage with open arms...

    It would be as if Hitler survived WWII and the US ignored everything that the Reich leadership had done and made a deal with that leadership..

    THAT is your JCPOA.

    And that is why I will never EVER think it's a good deal...

    And I am certain that the future will prove me right..

    The only uncertainty is how many innocent lives Obama's ego and the Left's preservation of same is going to cost..

    Michale

  253. [253] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And Obama can say whatever he wants about arming Israel..Doesn't mean he will actually do it..

    In reality, he has actually done it!

  254. [254] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's the end of it...

    Well, that's typical, coming from the side of losing arguments. :)

  255. [255] 
    Michale wrote:

    In reality, he has actually done it!

    Prove it.. Show me Israel's receipt of the new F-35 AWTF.... :D

    Kerry has SAID that Obama will do it...

    It has yet to be done.. And, my guess is, when BiBi goes it alone in taking on Iran, Obama will renege on what Kerry has said...

    Well, that's typical, coming from the side of losing arguments. :)

    No... What's typical is that the losing side just runs away and hides, licking their wounds...

    THAT is what is typical of the losing side around here.. :D

    And you DON'T see me, nor will you EVER see me run and hide, let alone have any wounds to lick.. :D

    Michale

  256. [256] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But, but, but ... you're the one that said our little discussion is over!! :)

  257. [257] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html

    Read it and weep, Michale ... but, not for Israel! For your own weak arguments that are not factually based.

  258. [258] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No... What's typical is that the losing side just runs away and hides, licking their wounds... THAT is what is typical of the losing side around here.. :D And you DON'T see me, nor will you EVER see me run and hide, let alone have any wounds to lick.. :D

    That wasn't both barrels, was it? :)

  259. [259] 
    Michale wrote:

    Read it and weep, Michale ... but, not for Israel! For your own weak arguments that are not factually based.

    And I could quote FoxNews that will say just the opposite.. :D

    But, but, but ... you're the one that said our little discussion is over!! :)

    And yet, here we are.. :D

    The debate IS over.. You have your "facts" and I have reality.. And neither is going to budge so we have only what the future holds to show who was right and who was wrong...

    Kinda like the 2014 Mid Terms.. :D

    I am content to wait and be proven right.. :D

    Michale

  260. [260] 
    Michale wrote:

    That wasn't both barrels, was it? :)

    Not even close.. :D heh

    Michale

  261. [261] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Whew ...

  262. [262] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/opinion/the-truth-about-obama-and-israel.html

    I am also constrained to point out that THAT was from 2012..

    Before Obama screwed over Israel in favor of his newest BFF, Iran...

    Be interesting to hear that Haim Saban's opinion now...

    Michale

  263. [263] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And I could quote FoxNews that will say just the opposite.. :D

    If FoxNews, or any other source, says that the military/intel support that Israel has received from the US under the Obama administration isn't the most it has received under any previous administration, then they would be wrong.

  264. [264] 
    Michale wrote:

    If FoxNews, or any other source, says that the military/intel support that Israel has received from the US under the Obama administration isn't the most it has received under any previous administration, then they would be wrong.

    And if the New York Times or any other source says there is no daylight between Obama and Israel's security than they would be wrong..

    It's uncanny how, more often than not, it works both ways! :D

    Michale

  265. [265] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They both can't be right, Michale.

  266. [266] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... on the issue of US military support to Israel, I mean.

  267. [267] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm gonna run and hide now ... :)

  268. [268] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure they can...

    Your OpEd was 3 years ago...

    Put it another way...

    Postulate a scenario where Britian or France gave Russia or China high technology totally stealth ICBMs..

    And then said, "There is no daylight between us and the security of the United States..."

    Their words say one thing but their actions say the exact opposite..

    So it is with Obama.. He CLAIMS to support Israeli security... But he guarantees that Israel's mortal enemy will have a nuclear arsenal in less than 2 decades...

    Actions speak louder than words...

    Michale

  269. [269] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm gonna run and hide now ... :)

    Me too.. I'll let you get in the last word...

    "Just for that, I'll let you get in the last word."
    "THANK YOU!"
    "Your welcome"

    -M*A*S*H

    :D

    Michale

  270. [270] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Heh.

  271. [271] 
    Michale wrote:

    #BlackLivesMatter Costs Black Lives
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423453/black-lives-matter-murder-spike-american-cities

    The facts about the BlackLivesMatter racist hate group..

    It's actually contributing to the deaths of innocent black people...

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

    Michale

  272. [272] 
    Michale wrote:

    #BlackLivesMatter Costs Black Lives
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423453/black-lives-matter-murder-spike-american-cities

    The facts about the BlackLivesMatter racist hate group..

    It's actually contributing to the deaths of innocent black people...

    Michale

  273. [273] 
    Michale wrote:

    #BlackLivesMatter Costs Black Lives

    The facts about the BlackLivesMatter racist hate group..

  274. [274] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://youtu.be/dG7mZQvaQDk

    When are you people going to understand...

    It's the BLACK community that is suffering DIRECTLY due to the actions of racist hate groups like BLM...

  275. [275] 
    Michale wrote:

    Me too.. I'll let you get in the last word...

    At least on THAT subject! :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.