The agreement with Iran is not perfect. The French President admitted that, and stated it needs improvement. But if we back out now, how are we supposed to make a deal with North Korea? "Hey, you guys in the North... let's make a deal where you stop doing those things we want you to stop, and we'll take away some of these sanctions! No, no... there is no way we'll come back in a couple years and renege on the deal even though you are following it... what makes you think we'd do that?"
Obama signed a "deal" rather than a treaty so he didn't need to seek Congressional approval.
Now an agreement can be undone with the same executive caprice.
The first deal may not have been perfect but undoing it could be dangerous.
But the president has surrounded himself with a bunch of neoconservatives who can't wait for war with Iran or anybody else they can get in their crosshairs.
Iran had no intention of honoring the nuclear deal from the very beginning, despite President Obama's bribe money. They have violated it since 2016 and continue to do so by illegally testing ballistic missiles. That is definitely dangerous; a nuclear missile-missiles. Obama gave Iran 1.7 billion dollars cash to fund their nuclear ambitions, and fund terrorist organizations, such as Hamas.
We kept our end of the bargain while President Obama ignored or played down Iran's blatant cheating. President Trump ran on and promised to end Obama's bad deal.
Well, I figured there was a good chance Trump was just another shill, but I didn't know for sure. I knew what's her name was and we would be stomping all over Syria right now if she would have won. So again we were given no good choice. I'm now officially anti Trump.
If the corrupted mainstream media had given Ron Paul a fair play he probably would have been elected in 2012 and millions of innocent lives lost in our wars would have been saved. Check this out and tell me again how they're not corrupted. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/in35c7/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-in…
I never said, always, merely frequently and having to walk things back contingent on the network. For example, at the beginning of May, NBC walked back their reporting that feds wiretapped Cohen's calls, yet another big blunder. We don't know what is going behind the scenes, or if there is a plan B, as that would tip our hand to Iran.
The Iranian government would be foolish and virtually treasonous to their people to stop arming themselves. Virtually every country around them has been played with same scheme.
You must do away with your chemical weapons! They're too ugly, we like tidy battles where our intended targets who have very limited technology will have nothing but inferior conventional weapons and will tow the line or be bombed out of existence. Often being destroyed while towing the line. Those countries also may be the target of economic warfare (sanctions) in order to make malcontents of the citizens, making it much easier to create a substantial subversive "freedom fighter force. In any case we have shown time and again that even if they comply and weaken themselves they are just that much easier a target.
Our "friends" the Israelis (government) is the real push behind breaking the deal with Iran. The unbelievable hipocracy is sad and sickening. They who have an estimated 75 to 400 nukes in their arsenal and refuse to be part of ANY arms agreements with ANY country or entity! They still refuse to acknowledge the existence of their arsenal. An arsenal that honest Israelis have become whistleblowers to verify. One of which is being sequestered in country and banned from speaking of it. Enter Mordechai Vanunu, or Israeli Nuke whistleblower.
They use the leverage of this arsenal to force the hand of other countries including ours.
President Kennedy was trying to force the hand of the Israeli prime minister Ben-Gurion to allow inspection of the Israeli Nuclear plant at Dimona and was very concerned that an Israeli nuclear arsenal would destabilise the Middle East. WHAT? Check here. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/26/how-the-israelis-hoodwinked-jfk-on-…
Israel is a country constantly under the gun of annihilation by it's Arab neighbors. I have no doubt that Iran would use a nuclear weapon unprovoked against Israel if allowed to develop the bomb. The Jewish Nation is dedicated to the cause that the Holocaust of WWII will never be repeated. They have the best weapons and the best trained military in the World.
Reporting that something isn't true, and a verified "fact" that someone is being wiretapped (President Trump), recording and listening to the conversation, people talking, is different from what actually occurred. The retracted walked backed story was picked up my other News sources and parrotted over and over again, 24/7 for several days. Impressions were being made in people's minds. The damage is done. They walk back. They retract. "They then report the FBI was logging in the times the telephone calls were made. One story true, and one story false. Sloppy reporting, and likely from unverified anonymous sources in a rush to get out the news.
Later, three other sources came forward and contradicted what the previous sources said.
That isn't walking back. That isn't bad reporting. That isn't the grand left-wing conspiracy fantasy you want to spin. That is just the nature of news reporting. It's the normal course of reporting. Every journalist will at times report stuff that later turns out to be contradicted by new information. That's life.
To use it as an indictment of "the media" or proof of anything nefarious is pure partisan political nonsense. It's believing what you want to believe not the truth.
Tom, I appreciate where your coming from but the instigator in Israeli conflicts is Israel. The creation of Israel was foisted upon the peaceful inhabitants of the region from which it was created. See here. Watch "Son of Israeli General is Shocking The World & Israel (Full Interview)" on YouTube https://youtu.be/7m_SXXxZv3w
The stories recounted by Miko Paled are just the tip of the iceberg regarding Israeli citizens who themselves take responsibility for the mess that is the Middle East. Speaking truth outside of the "Faith" is extremely difficult for members of the Jewish community as they will be demonized, ostracized, marginalized, and sometimes eulogized. There are many examples including Miko and Vanunu. So these heroes, even of the faith, would and are branded anti-semetic, and ostracized by their own family members.
As far as being in fear of other nations perpetrating evil upon them, Israel has had the means to repel and or destroy any threat that might come their way for decades. And the fear you hold for them is exactly as they want it to be. It suits their interests in many ways.
I accused your main stream media of derailing the presidential campaign of Ron Paul and there was a link included to a very telling segment of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Despite Stewart's levity, the segment is a screaming indictment of the press. Couple that with the parties Crooked Hillary cooked up with many of her mainstream media backers, it shows how your media darling are in fact corrupted.
You're John Stewart clip, for example, is a bunch of talking heads with their opinions. They're welcome to their opinions, unless, of course, you don't believe in the First Amendment. Stewart indicts pundits, not the press.
All I hear from my progressive friends is how unfair news reporters and editors -- not even pundits (which is all you seem to be concerned about) -- were for concentrating on HRC and email and Benghazi. They tell me it was the media that cost her the election because they paid too much attention to Trump and gave her too much negative coverage.
I happen to believe news coverage got it right on both Trump and HRC but partisans on both sides disagree often with contradictory views.
The Washington post in an article dated roughly a month after the Stewart piece aired called it a an indictment of the main stream media. Some of the segments had reporters feeding live threads.
Besides, no matter what case you care to make about any failure to cover Paul as you believe he should have been covered is no proof of corruption.
At worst, it's proof of cognitive biases that prevented certain individuals from seeing a bigger picture. Confirmation bias is a powerful weakness in all human beings.
You keep calling "the media" (whatever that means) corrupt with zero factual evidence.
Face it Howard, it's time for you to eat a little crow on some earthy flat bread topped with a healthy slice of moon cheese. # It's giving me a good laugh.
Confirmation bias must be a contagious disease with so many reporters exhibiting the same EXACT symptoms. Sounds like a case of denial on your part. Can't grasp reality when it's taken you by the hand and tried to let you understand not only the fact that it's happened, but just why your puppy died.
You said in part, “the grand left-wing conspiracy fantasy you want to spin.” That is you defending your, faction and profession. That is Hogwash! I’m not taking it personally.
I have a thick skin, and I don’t have a problem with that. I take Daniel Palmer at his word to have a brew with him at O’lacy’s when I return from my tour of the Western States, and I offer you the invitation the same in good faith.
Partisan: A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
And you’re correct; believing what you want to believe not the truth.
Rich, Daniel -- My position isn't just "belief." It's reality. Accept it or reject it. It's your choice. I've refuted every single thing you've said and you continue to say I'm wrong. That's not my problem.
I believe in the First Amendment and I will fight for it one way or another until my dying breath. It's one of the greatest accomplishments of human history.
Your part of the problem Howard, you are hanging on to your mantra in the face of all reality. The propagandists utilize this technique as it's been proven that if you repeat the lye often enough it becomes fact in the minds of the susceptible. I'm not a buyer, I prefer facts that can be proved through cross reference and empirical block building. I've done both for you.
...and maybe, just maybe, Ron Paul was disregarded as a serious candidate (aka "possible successful candidate") because there is a very limited portion of the voting public that believes in the same style of libertarianism that Paul espouses.
This country has, for better or worse, pretty much split into two parties/factions. Paul may win folks over from the left with talk of personal freedom, but he turns many off with with his fiscal policy. He may win folks on the right over with his fiscal policy, but turns many away with his military and social policies. That is not meant to smear the guy - it is simply a way to view his favorable/unfavorable attributes.
As to the media not covering his policies and declaring THIS IS THE GUY HE IS GREAT HE IS OUR SAVIOR HE CAN DO IT NICKY!!!... well, that's not a weakness or conspiracy of the media - that is a weakness of the candidate and his inability to convince voters that he is The One.
Paul had an awful lot of people cheering for his smackdown of the warmongers sharing the stage in the clip I provided, or did you not look at it. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiasm. The polls were giving him way more than respectable numbers, especially considering his lack of name recognition. The different pre election caucuses, and primaries are opportunities for candidates to be assessed by the voters and build momentum for their campaigns. Marginalizing a candidate in the early stages of the process can and did derail him.
In a debate the media entity or entities covering live can't hide a popular candidate as they did with the one reporter giving live feed and scoffing about Paul being on the other side "but we're talking about 2 others who aren't even there." I remember seeing YouTube videos of the same type of enthusiastic crowds elsewhere but being shunned by the corrupted press queers the process, thereby robbing voters of their ability to make informed decisions.
Ron Paul was a good Republican but alas both parties are in lock step unison as war parties. Romney was about as dry and musty as an old catchers mitt. Pun fully intended. So rather than have an anti war candidate who might build on the excitement shown in the early stages of the Paul campaign, the war partiers picked stodgy warmonger mitt. He got blown out by a better than 3 to 2 margin. Also voter turnout was quite low.
I would think such shenanigans would upset people but for better or for worse some people like status quo.
The agreement with Iran is
The agreement with Iran is not perfect. The French President admitted that, and stated it needs improvement. But if we back out now, how are we supposed to make a deal with North Korea? "Hey, you guys in the North... let's make a deal where you stop doing those things we want you to stop, and we'll take away some of these sanctions! No, no... there is no way we'll come back in a couple years and renege on the deal even though you are following it... what makes you think we'd do that?"
One of the main problems here
One of the main problems here is executive power.
Obama signed a "deal" rather than a treaty so he didn't need to seek Congressional approval.
Now an agreement can be undone with the same executive caprice.
The first deal may not have been perfect but undoing it could be dangerous.
But the president has surrounded himself with a bunch of neoconservatives who can't wait for war with Iran or anybody else they can get in their crosshairs.
Only if Israel signs whatever
Only if Israel signs whatever we ask Iran to sign in place of it.
Iran had no intention of
Iran had no intention of honoring the nuclear deal from the very beginning, despite President Obama's bribe money. They have violated it since 2016 and continue to do so by illegally testing ballistic missiles. That is definitely dangerous; a nuclear missile-missiles. Obama gave Iran 1.7 billion dollars cash to fund their nuclear ambitions, and fund terrorist organizations, such as Hamas.
We kept our end of the bargain while President Obama ignored or played down Iran's blatant cheating. President Trump ran on and promised to end Obama's bad deal.
According to Dunford and
According to Dunford and Mattis, Iran was not in material breach of the deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oU1becPOys
Washington Post
Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/05/20/is-iran-…
Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/11/10/iran-violates-limit-established….
So experts can't agree. That
So experts can't agree. That supports it was a bad deal. That doesn't support that pulling out of it was a good move with no Plan B.
It should be noted that all of our European allies also say Iran is in compliance.
I find it interesting you cited the Washington Post. I thought that was part of the "liberal media" that is always getting things wrong?
Well, I figured there was a
Well, I figured there was a good chance Trump was just another shill, but I didn't know for sure. I knew what's her name was and we would be stomping all over Syria right now if she would have won. So again we were given no good choice. I'm now officially anti Trump.
If the corrupted mainstream media had given Ron Paul a fair play he probably would have been elected in 2012 and millions of innocent lives lost in our wars would have been saved. Check this out and tell me again how they're not corrupted. http://www.cc.com/video-clips/in35c7/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-in…
I never said, always, merely
I never said, always, merely frequently and having to walk things back contingent on the network. For example, at the beginning of May, NBC walked back their reporting that feds wiretapped Cohen's calls, yet another big blunder. We don't know what is going behind the scenes, or if there is a plan B, as that would tip our hand to Iran.
Rich, getting new information
Rich, getting new information and reporting it is not "walking back" anything.
If Plan B is the kind of thing we would worry about tipping our hand on, nobody should want that plan. It is a horrible plan.
Even Patrick J. Buchanan, a supporter of the president, said Iran was abiding by the deal and encouraged the president to stick with it.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/mr-president-dont-trash…
Again, the warmongers have won.
The Iranian government would
The Iranian government would be foolish and virtually treasonous to their people to stop arming themselves. Virtually every country around them has been played with same scheme.
You must do away with your chemical weapons! They're too ugly, we like tidy battles where our intended targets who have very limited technology will have nothing but inferior conventional weapons and will tow the line or be bombed out of existence. Often being destroyed while towing the line. Those countries also may be the target of economic warfare (sanctions) in order to make malcontents of the citizens, making it much easier to create a substantial subversive "freedom fighter force. In any case we have shown time and again that even if they comply and weaken themselves they are just that much easier a target.
Our "friends" the Israelis (government) is the real push behind breaking the deal with Iran. The unbelievable hipocracy is sad and sickening. They who have an estimated 75 to 400 nukes in their arsenal and refuse to be part of ANY arms agreements with ANY country or entity! They still refuse to acknowledge the existence of their arsenal. An arsenal that honest Israelis have become whistleblowers to verify. One of which is being sequestered in country and banned from speaking of it. Enter Mordechai Vanunu, or Israeli Nuke whistleblower.
They use the leverage of this arsenal to force the hand of other countries including ours.
President Kennedy was trying to force the hand of the Israeli prime minister Ben-Gurion to allow inspection of the Israeli Nuclear plant at Dimona and was very concerned that an Israeli nuclear arsenal would destabilise the Middle East. WHAT? Check here. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/26/how-the-israelis-hoodwinked-jfk-on-…
Israel is a country
Israel is a country constantly under the gun of annihilation by it's Arab neighbors. I have no doubt that Iran would use a nuclear weapon unprovoked against Israel if allowed to develop the bomb. The Jewish Nation is dedicated to the cause that the Holocaust of WWII will never be repeated. They have the best weapons and the best trained military in the World.
You're right Tom, they would.
You're right Tom, they would. Their stated goal is the annihilation and destruction of the Country of Israel.
Reporting, something isn't
Reporting that something isn't true, and a verified "fact" that someone is being wiretapped (President Trump), recording and listening to the conversation, people talking, is different from what actually occurred. The retracted walked backed story was picked up my other News sources and parrotted over and over again, 24/7 for several days. Impressions were being made in people's minds. The damage is done. They walk back. They retract. "They then report the FBI was logging in the times the telephone calls were made. One story true, and one story false. Sloppy reporting, and likely from unverified anonymous sources in a rush to get out the news.
They reported what two
They reported what two sources told them.
Later, three other sources came forward and contradicted what the previous sources said.
That isn't walking back. That isn't bad reporting. That isn't the grand left-wing conspiracy fantasy you want to spin. That is just the nature of news reporting. It's the normal course of reporting. Every journalist will at times report stuff that later turns out to be contradicted by new information. That's life.
To use it as an indictment of "the media" or proof of anything nefarious is pure partisan political nonsense. It's believing what you want to believe not the truth.
Tom, I appreciate where your
Tom, I appreciate where your coming from but the instigator in Israeli conflicts is Israel. The creation of Israel was foisted upon the peaceful inhabitants of the region from which it was created. See here. Watch "Son of Israeli General is Shocking The World & Israel (Full Interview)" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/7m_SXXxZv3w
The stories recounted by Miko Paled are just the tip of the iceberg regarding Israeli citizens who themselves take responsibility for the mess that is the Middle East. Speaking truth outside of the "Faith" is extremely difficult for members of the Jewish community as they will be demonized, ostracized, marginalized, and sometimes eulogized. There are many examples including Miko and Vanunu. So these heroes, even of the faith, would and are branded anti-semetic, and ostracized by their own family members.
As far as being in fear of other nations perpetrating evil upon them, Israel has had the means to repel and or destroy any threat that might come their way for decades. And the fear you hold for them is exactly as they want it to be. It suits their interests in many ways.
Too much truth Howard? Your
Too much truth Howard? Your silence is deafening.
What am I supposed to say?
What am I supposed to say?
I accused your main stream
I accused your main stream media of derailing the presidential campaign of Ron Paul and there was a link included to a very telling segment of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Despite Stewart's levity, the segment is a screaming indictment of the press. Couple that with the parties Crooked Hillary cooked up with many of her mainstream media backers, it shows how your media darling are in fact corrupted.
I don't think it shows that
I don't think it shows that at all.
You're John Stewart clip, for example, is a bunch of talking heads with their opinions. They're welcome to their opinions, unless, of course, you don't believe in the First Amendment. Stewart indicts pundits, not the press.
All I hear from my progressive friends is how unfair news reporters and editors -- not even pundits (which is all you seem to be concerned about) -- were for concentrating on HRC and email and Benghazi. They tell me it was the media that cost her the election because they paid too much attention to Trump and gave her too much negative coverage.
I happen to believe news coverage got it right on both Trump and HRC but partisans on both sides disagree often with contradictory views.
The Washington post in an
The Washington post in an article dated roughly a month after the Stewart piece aired called it a an indictment of the main stream media. Some of the segments had reporters feeding live threads.
Again, an opinions. Yawn.
Again, an opinions.
Yawn.
Besides, no matter what case you care to make about any failure to cover Paul as you believe he should have been covered is no proof of corruption.
At worst, it's proof of cognitive biases that prevented certain individuals from seeing a bigger picture. Confirmation bias is a powerful weakness in all human beings.
You keep calling "the media" (whatever that means) corrupt with zero factual evidence.
Face it Howard, it's time for
Face it Howard, it's time for you to eat a little crow on some earthy flat bread topped with a healthy slice of moon cheese. # It's giving me a good laugh.
Confirmation bias must be a
Confirmation bias must be a contagious disease with so many reporters exhibiting the same EXACT symptoms. Sounds like a case of denial on your part. Can't grasp reality when it's taken you by the hand and tried to let you understand not only the fact that it's happened, but just why your puppy died.
Hogwash!
Hogwash!
You said in part, “the grand left-wing conspiracy fantasy you want to spin.” That is you defending your, faction and profession. That is Hogwash! I’m not taking it personally.
I have a thick skin, and I don’t have a problem with that. I take Daniel Palmer at his word to have a brew with him at O’lacy’s when I return from my tour of the Western States, and I offer you the invitation the same in good faith.
Partisan: A fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea.
And you’re correct; believing what you want to believe not the truth.
Rich, Daniel -- I'm quite
Rich, Daniel -- My position isn't just "belief." It's reality. Accept it or reject it. It's your choice. I've refuted every single thing you've said and you continue to say I'm wrong. That's not my problem.
I believe in the First Amendment and I will fight for it one way or another until my dying breath. It's one of the greatest accomplishments of human history.
Your part of the problem
Your part of the problem Howard, you are hanging on to your mantra in the face of all reality. The propagandists utilize this technique as it's been proven that if you repeat the lye often enough it becomes fact in the minds of the susceptible. I'm not a buyer, I prefer facts that can be proved through cross reference and empirical block building. I've done both for you.
You've done nothing for me
You've done nothing for me except provide easily refutable, paper-thin assertions.
...and maybe, just maybe, Ron
...and maybe, just maybe, Ron Paul was disregarded as a serious candidate (aka "possible successful candidate") because there is a very limited portion of the voting public that believes in the same style of libertarianism that Paul espouses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZl5LGornI
This country has, for better or worse, pretty much split into two parties/factions. Paul may win folks over from the left with talk of personal freedom, but he turns many off with with his fiscal policy. He may win folks on the right over with his fiscal policy, but turns many away with his military and social policies. That is not meant to smear the guy - it is simply a way to view his favorable/unfavorable attributes.
As to the media not covering his policies and declaring THIS IS THE GUY HE IS GREAT HE IS OUR SAVIOR HE CAN DO IT NICKY!!!... well, that's not a weakness or conspiracy of the media - that is a weakness of the candidate and his inability to convince voters that he is The One.
Paul had an awful lot of
Paul had an awful lot of people cheering for his smackdown of the warmongers sharing the stage in the clip I provided, or did you not look at it. Enthusiasm breeds enthusiasm. The polls were giving him way more than respectable numbers, especially considering his lack of name recognition. The different pre election caucuses, and primaries are opportunities for candidates to be assessed by the voters and build momentum for their campaigns. Marginalizing a candidate in the early stages of the process can and did derail him.
In a debate the media entity or entities covering live can't hide a popular candidate as they did with the one reporter giving live feed and scoffing about Paul being on the other side "but we're talking about 2 others who aren't even there." I remember seeing YouTube videos of the same type of enthusiastic crowds elsewhere but being shunned by the corrupted press queers the process, thereby robbing voters of their ability to make informed decisions.
Ron Paul was a good Republican but alas both parties are in lock step unison as war parties. Romney was about as dry and musty as an old catchers mitt. Pun fully intended. So rather than have an anti war candidate who might build on the excitement shown in the early stages of the Paul campaign, the war partiers picked stodgy warmonger mitt. He got blown out by a better than 3 to 2 margin. Also voter turnout was quite low.
I would think such shenanigans would upset people but for better or for worse some people like status quo.
Tim, I looked at your link
Tim, I looked at your link and unless your like... 12, you should be embarrassed.
Oh, I pity those with no
Oh, I pity those with no sense of humor...