A new all time low for partisan politics

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

I am of the camp that thinks most of the world's problems are due 2 things the corrupting influence of money and religion. Billions made from fueling the war machine and higher priced oil due to constant turmoil.

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

[Rupert Pupkin]

Iranian Dissidents Criticize Obama’s Nuclear Diplomacy:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/iranian...ear-diplomacy/

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Iranian Dissidents Criticize Obama’s Nuclear Diplomacy:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/iranian...ear-diplomacy/

Stop the presses an Iranian dissident is critical of Iranian policy. To borrow a line from a song "The things that pass for knowledge, I can't understand"

[Danzig]

of course the dissidents don't want a deal. brokering a deal means a rollback of sanctions-something i'm sure the dissidents hoped would help break the current regime.

[jms62]

Our government is no longer for the people and it should be a concern. The below bill was sponsored by BOTH Gangs so it is not a partisan issue. The whole ****ing process is out of control and they are too arrogant to even try and conceal it anymore.

http://thehill.com/regulation/235970...-chemical-bill

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

Our government is no longer for the people and it should be a concern. The below bill was sponsored by BOTH Gangs so it is not a partisan issue. The whole ****ing process is out of control and they are too arrogant to even try and conceal it anymore.

http://thehill.com/regulation/235970...-chemical-bill

it's becoming a more common practice.
health lobbyists, banks and financial institutions, koch industries, oil companies.....
take note of the most recent budget bill, with tucked in amendments to remove some regulations on banks regarding trades. and of course the additional language that raised the amount of money that can be 'donated' to a campaign by tenfold.
it's not even a secret anymore, that companies that are supposedly to be regulated are the ones actually writing the regs.
the money has got to stop flowing from large corporations to 'our' politicians.
i don't even know that jack abramoff would be arrested today. congress has been sold to the highest bidders.
where does that leave all of us, who can't afford to hire lobbyists?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's becoming a more common practice.
health lobbyists, banks and financial institutions, koch industries, oil companies.....
take note of the most recent budget bill, with tucked in amendments to remove some regulations on banks regarding trades. and of course the additional language that raised the amount of money that can be 'donated' to a campaign by tenfold.
it's not even a secret anymore, that companies that are supposedly to be regulated are the ones actually writing the regs.
the money has got to stop flowing from large corporations to 'our' politicians.
i don't even know that jack abramoff would be arrested today. congress has been sold to the highest bidders.
where does that leave all of us, who can't afford to hire lobbyists?

Unfortunately those that can "Stop" this are the one's that are profiting from it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Stop the presses an Iranian dissident is critical of Iranian policy. To borrow a line from a song "The things that pass for knowledge, I can't understand"

Steely Dan fan?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Steely Dan fan?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Me too!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

of course the dissidents don't want a deal. brokering a deal means a rollback of sanctions-something i'm sure the dissidents hoped would help break the current regime.

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

BULLSCHIT!...How were they an enemy and a threat to us?..Iraq couldn't even hit Israel with their scud missiles in the first Gulf War..all the reasons that rogue regime -Bush/Cheney and co,-used to invade were bogus..
except he gassed his own people and who here or anywhere gave a schit..Dumya should have read his Dad's book on why he didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad..and invading Iraq wasn't just a bad idea
it was a disaster...still is!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The deal is only one piece of it. The main point is that the White House has basically ignored the issues of human rights and democracy in Iran. Obama does everything he can to overthrow regimes that are our allies such as Egypt and Libya, yet with the regime in Iran (who is our enemy), Obama does the opposite. He tries to help them. That's a great idea to get rid of regimes who are our allies but try to keep regimes in power who are our enemy. Welcome to the Obama school of foreign policy.

I realize that there are a lot of complexities when it comes to foreign policy. Sometimes you may have to throw the enemy a bone. I understand that, but overall I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster.

You can criticize Bush for Iraq, but at least in that case we were getting rid of an enemy and going to have it replaced with a friend. At least there was some upside there. In other words, even if invading Iraq was a bad idea, it was the greatest idea in the world compared to trying overthrow the regimes in Libya and Egypt.

[Pants II]

This project is worth far more than the measly 25 billion required to build it.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Afric...s/%28page%29/2

That precious resource is what future generations will kill for.

Why else would one of the dynasty families buy land and mineral rights in northern Paraguay?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by bigrun

BULLSCHIT!...How were they an enemy and a threat to us?..Iraq couldn't even hit Israel with their scud missiles in the first Gulf War..all the reasons that rogue regime -Bush/Cheney and co,-used to invade were bogus..
except he gassed his own people and who here or anywhere gave a schit..Dumya should have read his Dad's book on why he didn't pursue Saddam to Baghdad..and invading Iraq wasn't just a bad idea
it was a disaster...still is!

Iraq was not our enemy? If you say so. At least we had something to gain by getting rid of Saddam and getting a regime in there that was friendly to us. What did we have to gain by helping to oust Mubarrak and Kaddafi, who were our allies? Helping to oust Mubarrak was a disaster. The Muslim Brotherhood took over. We are just lucky that the Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya has turned out to be a complete disaster. How can you criticize Bush over Iraq and not slam Obama over Libya? As I said before, it is bad enough to overthrow an enemy, but why would you want to overthrow an ally?

By the way, with regard to Iraq, everyone seems to have a very short memory. We had every right to invade Iraq. If you remember, part of the agreement to the cease-fire in the Persian Gulf war were that Saddam agreed to a number of conditions. We signed a cease-fire and agreed not to invade Bagdhad as long as Saddam honored the conditions of the cease-fire. The conditions were things like open inspections, honoring the no-fly zone, not killing the Kurds, etc. Sadaam violated practically every part of the agreement. The cease-fire becomes null and void at that point and we have the right to invade. Saddam was the one who started the whole thing with his invasion of Kuwait. Just because we had the right to invade, it doesn't mean it was necessarily the right choice. But all this nonsense about Bush/Cheney being a rogue regime is absurd considering that Saddam violated practically every term of the cease-fire.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

[Pants II]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

Our foreign policy has been pretty much pathetic since ww2. And we've been in an almost constant state of war since then as well. To call out Obama while defending bush....well, that's not being consistent. Bush was awful, Obama is awful. Our foreign policy is a shambles.
As for 'good guys' and human rights, etc.....I would direct your attention to our most favored nation in trade.
Foreign policy isn't based on good guys vs bad.

We've been in conflict since the inception excluding 30 or so years in total.

Nothing new under the Sun.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Coming from you (the resident brain surgeon), I take that as a compliment.

With all due respect sir you thought the solution to deer overpopulation was a Deer relocation program.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Ah, reducing to the personal already? Tsk tsk

You insulted me first. You responded to my comments with the rolled eyes like my comments were crazy. I have no problem if someone disagrees with me. But if you disagree with me, tell me what I was wrong about. I think that is the most civil and constructive way of having a conversation. If someone says something I disagree with, I will say, "I disagree with you. Here are the reasons I disagree with you....." I won't just say, "You are wrong", or "you are an idiot", are "you are crazy", or anything like that. That doesn't add anything to a conversation.