/dev/null Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 I had a nice, long reasoned response all typed out and it got lost somewhere in cyberspace. OK. I've had that cyberspace thing happen, and it is frustrating. It's Obama and the NSA stopping you. But that's another topic for another thread. Just ask Greggy about the details he's been trying to share with us regarding his super secret UFO meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) Not at all. I would have preferred keeping the sanctions going (which I believe was possible including Russia and China) if we hadn't have been so naive. This administration made an agreement that put us in a no win situation. We've lost the sanctions since everybody basically has to be on board. Obama's policies have put us in a position of either letting these nuts have a nuclear bomb or us destroying their facilities with a lot of fire power or a tactical nuclear bomb or two. The second to the last thing I want to do is drop any kind of bomb on Iran, but the last thing I want to do is to have them nuke Israel or the U.S. I'm a reasonable guy who is conservative, but mainly fiscally conservative. I'm sort of traditional in that I truly believe that a marriage should be officially between members of the human opposite sex, but don't have a problem with Sue and Sue or Bob and Bob getting a civil union and having spousal benefits. I'm leary of going down the slippery slope though. I guess I'm more like Ike. Wake up. The coalition was about to go it's own way anwyay after wasting so much time and effort on this, just to see the US politians keep pulling out new stops to undermine it. Going along with it was the only way we could save face and not lose having an active role in the outcome Edited September 7, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who is Yuri? Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 I guess I'm more like Ike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 It's Obama and the NSA stopping you. But that's another topic for another thread. Just ask Greggy about the details he's been trying to share with us regarding his super secret UFO meeting That's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who is Yuri? Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) That's Sympathetic ear, here, GreggyT. I swear I saw a Sentinal drone buzz my place, but according to everyone I tell, the identity remains unidentified. The best I can get out of the folks I tell, is that it was some sort of common flying object. Two out of three ain't bad? Edited September 7, 2015 by Franz Kafka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Dummy, it's not drones anymore, it's nanobots. They wait till you're asleep. And they bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Wake up. The coalition was about to go it's own way anwyay after wasting so much time and effort on this, just to see the US politians keep pulling out new stops to undermine it. Going along with it was the only way we could save face and not lose having an active role in the outcome I see that what is important to you is for us to save face and have an active role in what will be a lousy outcome. Anyone who thinks that Iran will abide by the terms of any agreement is a fool. Guess what that makes you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 7, 2015 Author Share Posted September 7, 2015 It's Obama and the NSA stopping you. But that's another topic for another thread. Just ask Greggy about the details he's been trying to share with us regarding his super secret UFO meeting UFO meeting?? Lol, love to hear that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 UFO meeting?? Lol, love to hear that! It's all there for you to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 IRAN SIDE AGREEMENTS VOIDS CORKER-CARDIN LAW: David Rivkin and Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) have a spot-on piece in the Washington Post, explaining how the “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA mean that under the terms of the Corker-Cardin law, President Obama has never submitted any “agreement” for Congress to review: The act defines “agreement,” with exceptional precision, to include not only the agreement between Iran and six Western powers but also “any additional materials related thereto, including . . . side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.” But the president has not given Congress a key side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This document describes how key questions about the past military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved, as well as the precise operational parameters of the verification regime to which Tehran will be subject. This omission has important legal consequences. At the heart of the act is a provision, negotiated between Congress and the White House, freezing the president’s ability to “waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran” while Congress is reviewing the agreement. That review period was supposed to take 60 days and is triggered the day the president submits the agreement to Congress. However, because the president failed to submit the agreement in full, as the law requires, the 60-day clock has not started, and the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions. Indeed, since the act also provides for the transmittal of the agreement to Congress between July 10 and Sept. 7, the president’s ability to waive statutory sanctions will remain frozen in perpetuity if Congress does not receive the full agreement Monday. Since the time period specified in Corker-Cardin for transmittal of the agreement (and all side deals) has now expired, Congress is no longer bound by the law, and President Obama has accordingly not been authorized to suspend, waive, reduce, or otherwise limit existing statutory sanctions against Iran. If the President ignores this legal reality and waives Iranian sanctions anyway (he is rather fond of ignoring laws and taking unilateral executive action), Congress or the States should sue to stop him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 8, 2015 Author Share Posted September 8, 2015 Yes, Congress should vote against the deal, because of a side agreement between Iran and IAEA, says the people trying to stop the deal. Good luck with that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 IRAN SIDE AGREEMENTS VOIDS CORKER-CARDIN LAW: David Rivkin and Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-KS) have a spot-on piece in the Washington Post, explaining how the “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA mean that under the terms of the Corker-Cardin law, President Obama has never submitted any “agreement” for Congress to review: The act defines “agreement,” with exceptional precision, to include not only the agreement between Iran and six Western powers but also “any additional materials related thereto, including . . . side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.” But the president has not given Congress a key side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This document describes how key questions about the past military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved, as well as the precise operational parameters of the verification regime to which Tehran will be subject. This omission has important legal consequences. At the heart of the act is a provision, negotiated between Congress and the White House, freezing the president’s ability to “waive, suspend, reduce, provide relief from, or otherwise limit the application of statutory sanctions with respect to Iran” while Congress is reviewing the agreement. That review period was supposed to take 60 days and is triggered the day the president submits the agreement to Congress. However, because the president failed to submit the agreement in full, as the law requires, the 60-day clock has not started, and the president remains unable lawfully to waive or lift statutory Iran-related sanctions. Indeed, since the act also provides for the transmittal of the agreement to Congress between July 10 and Sept. 7, the president’s ability to waive statutory sanctions will remain frozen in perpetuity if Congress does not receive the full agreement Monday. Since the time period specified in Corker-Cardin for transmittal of the agreement (and all side deals) has now expired, Congress is no longer bound by the law, and President Obama has accordingly not been authorized to suspend, waive, reduce, or otherwise limit existing statutory sanctions against Iran. If the President ignores this legal reality and waives Iranian sanctions anyway (he is rather fond of ignoring laws and taking unilateral executive action), Congress or the States should sue to stop him. The only reason the sanctioned worked is because they were international sanctions, the only reason we got countries like China, Russia, India, and Germany on board was by making the agreement strictly about nuclear weapons and by making the agreement reasonable - congress blocking the plan would see China, Russia, and India Immediately doing business with Iran. The US will even be hard pressed to keep Germany, France and Japan in line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 The only reason the sanctioned worked is because they were international sanctions, the only reason we got countries like China, Russia, India, and Germany on board was by making the agreement strictly about nuclear weapons and by making the agreement reasonable - congress blocking the plan would see China, Russia, and India Immediately doing business with Iran. The US will even be hard pressed to keep Germany, France and Japan in line. Los Gatos foreign policy strikes again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I see that what is important to you is for us to save face and have an active role in what will be a lousy outcome. Anyone who thinks that Iran will abide by the terms of any agreement is a fool. Guess what that makes you? silly, don't you think Russia's recent assertiveness in Syria is due to the US being exposed as not being able to manage a coalition? That's what happens when we deviate so much and for so long from global standards. If the POTUS could have been seen operating with more authority this would not have happened. Now the US looks unreasonable, problematic to deal with, and impotent. Other coalition partners simply went their own way. Any fool could have predicted this, but with our system being behold to so many outside interests it produces irrational outcomes Edited September 10, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 silly, don't you think Russia's recent assertiveness in Syria is due to the US being exposed as not being able to manage a coalition? That's what happens when we deviate so much and for so long from global standards. If the POTUS could have been seen operating with more authority this would not have happened. Now the US looks unreasonable, problematic to deal with, and impotent. You forgot feckless, inconsistent, and weak. See "line, red." Obama administration foreign policy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) You forgot feckless, inconsistent, and weak. See "line, red." Obama administration foreign policy: agree, why didn't we attack Turkey? Sy Hersh Reveals Potential Turkish Role in Syria Chemical Strike That Almost Sparked U.S. Bombing Was Turkey behind last year’s Syrian chemical weapons attack? That is the question raised in a new exposé by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh on the intelligence debate over the deaths of hundreds of Syrians in Ghouta last year. The United States, and much of the international community, blamed forces loyal to the Assad government, almost leading to a U.S. attack on Syria. But Hersh reveals the U.S. intelligence community feared Turkey was supplying sarin gas to Syrian rebels in the months before the attack took place — information never made public as President Obama made the case for launching a strike. http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/7/sy_hersh_reveals_potential_turkish_role Edited September 10, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 UFO meeting?? Lol, love to hear that! You were there! Remember, Mom and Dad put you in the stroller.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) You forgot feckless, inconsistent, and weak. See "line, red." Obama administration foreign policy: Fetchez le bouton de réinitialisation Edited September 10, 2015 by /dev/null Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 The linked article was taken from something spoken in Farce-E which is very hard to understand. What he really meant to say was that due to recents agreements he wishes everyone in the world a Happy Birthday. Link Meanwhile I am having a hard time determining whether: 1. lamenting that the US isn't a dictatorship so that our President would be unencumbered when entering us into agreements that make us artificially and shamefully weak or 2. openly defending a known pedophile while lambasting his victims as money hungry liars is the most disgusting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 10, 2015 Author Share Posted September 10, 2015 Palin then turned to Iran, charging, “Of course Obama still is insane to anyone but Iranian regime sympathizers.” “Obama never even clenched a fist against a wicked regime where anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is official ideology, and with state-sanctioned torture and killing of women just because they’re women,” Palin said. “Nothing has really changed, except Hillary Clinton back then she insisted that Iran is seeking nukes but now she says, eh, that’s OK. She spins faster than thousands of Iranian centrifuges.” The former Alaska governor continued her rant against the president, saying, “Only in an Orwellian Obama world full of sprinkly fairy dust blown from atop his unicorn as he’s peeking through a really pretty pink kaleidoscope would he ever see victory or safety for America or Israel in this treaty ... You don’t reward terrorism, you kill it.” She called on Congress to kill the deal, saying the president is usurping lawmakers' right to review the agreement. “The president doesn’t trust you and he doesn’t trust us. He doesn’t trust Americans to even change our own lightbulb of our own choosing and yet he’ll trust a death cult,” she said. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/iran-deal-rally-sarah-palin-213459#ixzz3lL74Ff15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts