DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... If the King had his way

So am I to understand that you equate foreign lobbyists to the President of the United States and his Department of State?
pfft

Don, if you are completely apathetic as in relation to your vote, then by all means, don't vote.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I was very motivated to vote in all the previous elections, local, state, and federal.

I don't like obamacare. I don't like the IRS being used as a weapon. I don't like our soldiers going to war without a definitive "until the enemy is dead or surrenders unconditionally" plan. I think race relations have suffered in this country under obama, as his administration perceives ethnicity as a deficit and a reason to victimize. I don't like him cutting a deal with Iran or setting 'red lines' without consequences. I also don't like the fact that I would be called racist because of my views, as I couldn't care less about color.

Equality will never be achieved by force. Equality comes from acceptance. Acceptance comes when we are all treated the same, no matter our race, wealth, social views, etc. The black panthers should be investigated for voter intimidation just like the klan should be, without exception. The DOJ should investigate any law breakers without consideration of party. We have not gotten these things from this administration.

Wow. I for one completely agree.

There's all sorts of Israeli Lobbying Groups. Palestinian ones as well. There's also Sheldon Adelson. All sorts of money flowing to Congress and PACs. Surely both Parties.

Here's one: http://www.aipac.org/about/mission

the top agenda on their mission is to get US foreign aid for Israel. Currently $3 Billion a year.

But hey, Israel has universal health care. I just view it as us redistributing $500 US tax dollars per Israeli for free healthcare.

And we are also supplying aid to the Palestinians. I would guess their money goes to the democrats. As they are an official PAC, their donations should be monitored for foreign influence. Adleson is an American, so he can donate to whoever he wishes.

We support Israel as they are the only democracy in the middle east, and they are supposedly our ally. I'm sure Germany, GB, Italy, and many others enjoy the money we give them for leasing bases and the economic stability our military brings them.

On foreign influence, Israel has a lot of dual-citizens. Some well-connected Americans in D.C. are also Israeli Citizens. I've heard its key to their lobbying process and makes it easier for them to move money into our political system.

I don't care what the lobby/PAC/SuperPAC represents or which side they fund. Its out of control and its corrupting our system. I'd like to get back to small, personal donations exclusively. And exclude Billionaires from pouring their own money in.

stop.

the US supports israel cause everybody still feels guilty about the holocaust.

on top of that, they aren't muslims.

And I thought you weren't coming back.

I don't feel guilty about the holocaust, as I had nothing to do with it. Israel was founded partly out of guilt, partly because Jews decided to return to their ancestral homeland. The guilt part would be from the UN in 1948. It's obvious the UN no longer feels that way.

They are the only democracy in the middle east, and they are the only country there we actually trust.

As for your statement on muslims, do you really think we'd have that much problem with them if there weren't groups of them bent on 'death to America' and the 'convert or kill' theology. Wouldn't the world just be a better place if certain muslim groups, like hamas, would remove the 'destruction of Israel' part of their charter. How would things go if they declared peace and meant it. I have no problem with a religion until they try to force it on me.

There's a lot of people in Ukraine with death chants and talk trash about America, yet we still decided to back them.

Have you been to Israel? I have, don't think it isn't going on over there, you just don't hear about it.

A lot of european countries have people that hate Americans, yet we support them through NATO, the UN, financially and such.

yet when the muslims do it......lol. can't be associated with them huh?

Compared with a lot of African nations LOVE america, yet we don't give two craps about them.

There's a lot of palestinians here in the US that LOVE us. They embraced our culture. Hell, they own a lot of urban clothing stores, and are deep in hip hop music. bout as American as you can get.

But we don't support them, and turn a blind eye the genocide Israel conducts on them since 1948.

but hey, do what you do, bro.

No, that's why we're on this board...

What?

Ninja'd

What?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ninja%27d

i edited my comment right before you posted that. Correcting my mistake, but leaving yours there. That robbed it of it's context. Is your personal tirade over yet?

What?

Who?

arch:

"ninja'd"

When posting on a forum, you submit a post... only to find that someone has posted the same thing only seconds earlier.

Exanple:

Ha ha, Julia Roberts is so lame.
----
Ha! Julia Roberts is so lame.

EDIT: DAMMIT! Ninja'd!

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ninja%27d

********************
********************


Basically, it's a case of "two great minds sharing a single thought"... only one was quicker on the keyboard than the other.

It's one of those "D'OH!!!" moments. I've had many on this board.

________________

On Page One of this thread, Clevesteve wrote: "Why do I even click on these links?"

I responded to him in a post of my own, a few entries later. My post read: "One word: "Masochism."

..............

Apparently, CHS read cleve's post, hit the reply button, and made the same response as I did. After returning to the thread and reading a few more posts, he found my entry.

"DAMMIT!" he cried. "My material was soooo good! So funny and 'original.' How could I have been scooped by someone else?"

So... CHS then raced to edit his post, so it wouldn't be a carbon copy of an earlier poster's 'original' genius. He did it just before you arrived on the scene. His "masochism" remark was replaced with:

"No... that's why we're on this board"... which is funny as hell in its own right, if you consider the context. Made me laff out loud... 'cause I remember the original exchange (from a day or two ago, if I recall...)

We have a 'stealth edit' feature on this board. If you decide to edit a post for things like spelling, punctuation, etc, you can click a box that allows you to edit your post without registering it in the thread as "edited." I assume that's what CHS did on this occasion.

In the meantime, you stumbled upon his post, which made no sense to you, and asked; "What?"

He then replied to you, in essence: "I got Ninja'd (by Clem, way back on Page One)."

...and that's how all this went down. I think.

I now trust you to fill in all the rest of the blanks that might linger- but that's the essence of what just went down.

Do have it about right, CHS? (Well... excluding the 'Clem's a comedic genius' part, of course-)

???

Essentially.

Obama admits Iran nuclear deal only delays inevitable, leaves problem for future presidents

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.

Obama made the comments about Tehran's so-called "breakout time" in an interview with NPR News that aired Tuesday morning. The president was attempting to answer the charge that the deal framework agreed upon by the U.S., Iran, and five other nations last week fails to eliminate the risk of Iran getting a nuclear weapon because it allows Tehran to keep enriching uranium.

Obama said that Iran would be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms of uranium -- not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material.

"What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero," Obama said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/07/obama-iran-nuclear-deal-breakout-time-year-13-israel/

-He would make Neville Chamberlain proud.

Fox News would have American Soldiers fighting Isis, Iran, a chemically-equipped Syria and Putin all at the same time. Waiting for our Israeli Allies to pour troops into Russia...

So you are saying Obama lied to NPR where he did the interview?

This is why I post from Fox News, just to show the foolishness of those who would ignore the truth only because it is told by Fox.

But anyway, Obama can claim no new wars on his watch as he passes that responsibility down to the next President and the rest of us of course.
Maybe the next Prez will close gitmo, bring us home from Afgan, create good jobs, regain the trust and respect of our allies, deal with ISIS, and every other thing Obama will be passing the Buck on.

Any time an agreement has an ending date, you're agreement only lasts until that deadline. At that point, yes, someone else will have to deal with forging a new agreement. Stating the obvious isn't anything that's newsworthy.

And- it's how these agreements have always worked.

As the deadline approaches, new diplomatic negotiations start back up. IMO, it's the only logical approach that works, because situations change over time. A new POTUS will have to deal with this, as well new new leadership in Iran. When that time comes, both sides will be required to take a fresh look at the existing dynamics and adjust policy going forward. It's how diplomacy always works.

This isn't so much the POTUS (or Iran, or the EU countries involved)'passing the buck' as it is giving all parties the option to work things out over time.

The only other option is the least logical of all: Warfare. Again.

..and we all know how effective fighting over there has been...

Just like the agreement we had with North Korea huh. We signed, they cheated, now we face a Nuclear armed foe only miles from the capitol of one of our best allies in Asia. So foolish to allow it to happen again, but I know, its your peace loving guy doing it so it's ok.

Once again, proving you have zero idea with what you speak.

We're not allowed to blame Bush for passing a ton of garbage to Obama. But we are allowed to blame Obama for only clearing 1800 pounds of it.

Yes! Almost word for word what Neville Chamberlain said just before Germany overran Europe!

The previous Republican administration doubled our National Debt and Obama is on his way to tripling it! More than all the administrations before him, combined! We borrow over a million dollars per minute now!
-from Paul's speech today.

If true, that means we were borrowing 3 million dollars per minute in 2009. He's taking us back there?

Martha, bring me my club please.

Fair enough... sarcasm and all.

And has "the third leg of The Evil Axis" used a bomb? Even once?
No.

Has Pakistan?
No.

India?
No.

China?
No.

Russia?
No.

All these crazy mf's have it... and yet, none of them have ever used it.

I'd hazard 3 guesses as to why that is:

1. Ongoing global diplomacy
2. Common sense on the part of those who possess The Bomb. (It's still called 'mutually assured destruction')
3. In all their conflicts, both armed AND diplomatic, they've never felt that they were at the point of "last resort."

As scary as all those 'bad guys' are, they've all seemed to show remarkable restraint over the past 30-50 years, wouldn't you say?

-----------

The secondary 'fear' of a nuclear Iran is that their bomb might fall into the hands of an ISIL(S)- like organization. At present, that cannot happen because there IS no bomb to steal. If we (that is, the other signatories to this agreement) are better at monitoring Iran than they were at monitoring NK, this remains a hypothetical situation to fear. And that's a good problem to have, for the next 15 years.

Now, I'd ask you to share with the class how "Diplomat 40" would have handled this situation. Please state what you'd do and why... and perhaps we can have a stimulating, constructive conversation about this.

I'd welcome that. You might be able to teach me something.

_________________

p.s.

USA?
Yes. Twice.

Has that coiled snake in the bush next to you reached out to strike your leg and kill you yet?
No.

These should not even be problems. ISIS should not even exist and Iran should swear off Nukes forever. Those would have been my Diplomatic goals from the beginning. Not this wishy washy "Peace in our time" crap.

...and you would achieve this- how?

Goals are great. Step by step procedures determine outcomes.

He doesn't know how. Because he doesn't know what he's talking about.

So instead of giving some long statement on how I would solve the problems of the world for you to pick pick pick at and drive me nuts while PDR's pet swish barks from the other room, I will tell you this...

I would not settle for a half-arsed deal with Iran and try to sell it to our citizens as peace in our time nor would I pass it down to the grown ups who the American people are going to vote in to replace me.

Oh you absolutely are allowed to talk about the conditions when Bush left and Obama came into office. Where you will come into conflict is if you start talking about when Clinton left and Bush took over. In the eyes of many, Clinton left us in a utopian state and Bush ruined it. We had finally achieved world peace and we were going to have budget surpluses forever. If you are old enough to remember the Bush/Gore campaign, both of them were spending those surpluses as fast as they could, promising to pay off basically everybody, neither one had the cajones to stand up and say that they just might never happen, even though economists at the time were already predicting that they weren't going to happen.

However, if you look at it more objectively, the surpluses never happened because the dot.com bubble was about to implode, the housing bubble was building, and we had endured about half a dozen smaller terrorist attacks during Clinton's tenure that we never responded to and the terrorists were using that motivation to plan something bigger.

Obama should leave office with the country in a better place than he found it. Some of that was Bush's fault, some was not. I would argue that we could be in an even better place if Obama had done some things differently. He has been far from perfect.

In general, he has extended some of the things I find most troubling.. our debt is soaring, government intrusion into our lives is rampant and unchecked, government support programs are growing, our government becomes less and less transparent every day... and we are arguing over whether a Christian should have to bake a cake for a gay couple... yep, they have us right where they want us.