Chicog Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 So are the republicans if they keep angering the latino/other vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Irrespective of the attacks on Fox news, its viewers, its advertisers, there is a very important reality- Fox news is higher in all the ratings because regardless of whether you call it spin or one sided it clearly appeals to a large population of Americans. Transfer invective to them if one wishes but this is an example of addressing the symptom and not the cause. Fox is a symptom and fair and balanced or not they are successful because what has traditionally passed for central locations for national news has been rejected by large populations of people and demonstrably biased. "MainStream Media" is now considered with great suspicion in the US (Fox among them) because they parrot news that is diametrically opposed to what people are experiencing in their own lives- cognitive dissonance. I suspect most westerners living abroad get news from multiple sources. Thus having a contrary point of view on TV does not mean someone only watches MSNBC. Constantly asserting liberal POVs are educated only from MSBNC is ridiculous; as if tossing the name "MSNBC" into the retort somehow minimizes the opposing point of view. Likewise Fox News. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Irrespective of the attacks on Fox news, its viewers, its advertisers, there is a very important reality- Fox news is higher in all the ratings because regardless of whether you call it spin or one sided it clearly appeals to a large population of Americans. Transfer invective to them if one wishes but this is an example of addressing the symptom and not the cause. Fox is a symptom and fair and balanced or not they are successful because what has traditionally passed for central locations for national news has been rejected by large populations of people and demonstrably biased. "MainStream Media" is now considered with great suspicion in the US (Fox among them) because they parrot news that is diametrically opposed to what people are experiencing in their own lives- cognitive dissonance. I suspect most westerners living abroad get news from multiple sources. Thus having a contrary point of view on TV does not mean someone only watches MSNBC. Constantly asserting liberal POVs are educated only from MSBNC is ridiculous; as if tossing the name "MSNBC" into the retort somehow minimizes the opposing point of view. Likewise Fox News. I have never once disputed Fox's business model. It's superb. It's also the only one that exclusively caters for its target market segment: old, white conservative males. No-one else does it so the rest are fragmented. Yes there is the odd show that leans the other way, Maddow and the other Wallace spring to mind, but they are a fraction of the output. Edited July 29, 2015 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 The only thing you have proven here is the fact that the older a person gets, the wiser their news watching habits become. Hehe that's definitely one way of looking at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Some off topic posts about Obamacare and Fox News have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 So what do you have to say about the leaders of the countries that think the Iran deal is a good thing? The EU, the UN, the weapons inspectors? Ohnsorry, you must just hink it is Obamas deal and no one else matters. Did he steal your bike when you where a child or something. Change black to white and anyone would think you were talking about GWB. "So what do you have to say about the leaders of the countries that think the Iran deal is a good thing? The EU" I think they are GUTLESS, more interested in trading to make money that to stand on virtue. Ok so as you are against the deal would you please list the parts of the deal you dislike and the reasons why. We appreciate your indepth knowledge so that we may change our view to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TooPoopedToPop Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The commotion over an Iranian nuclear bomb is a diversionary tactic - a red herring - on Israel's part. What they really fear is a resurgent Iran that will play a greater political and military role in the Middle East. So far, the Iranian leadership have played their cards very cleverly. The Zionists are scared, and it shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDGRUEN Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A list of 10 reasons for my opposition to the Iran Agreement aside from the fact that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State simply cannot be trusted to look out for the safety and security of America... These 10 reasons/objections are shared by many around the world. But I do not know why I bother as these reasons/objections will be dismissed out of hand by the Obama Cult members and Israel Haters ... - Iran is not required to disclose current or past nuclear weaponization achievements.- Sanctions against Iran are not linked to Iran's support of terrorism - especially that directed towards Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas- Conceding to allow Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges - this large number points to a military purpose not a civilian power generation function (According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.- Iran is not barred from acquiring and using of more technologically advanced centrifuges that will come on line- The U.S. position that war is the only alternative to signing on to this dubious agreement. - nothing scare tactic and an exaggeration and embellishment.- The sunset clause is an obvious problem in that Iran only has to out wait the end point and do as they please.- Sanctions that took years to put in place are needlessly taken away immediately without Iran proving any good faith- Iran's track record of concealing nuclear activity is not taken into consideration by the barring of unannounced inspections at any time at any place.- Soil samples around suspected (concealed) nuclear sites will be submitted by Iran (a totally laughable situation)Iranian statements in total opposition to any real cooperation in this deal show even before hand how this agreement is doomend..Iran's tract record of NOT sticking to any such agreement is only eclipsed by that of North Korea. http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2015/IranianStatementsMemo.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A list of 10 reasons for my opposition to the Iran Agreement aside from the fact that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State simply cannot be trusted to look out for the safety and security of America... These 10 reasons/objections are shared by many around the world. But I do not know why I bother as these reasons/objections will be dismissed out of hand by the Obama Cult members and Israel Haters ... - Iran is not required to disclose current or past nuclear weaponization achievements. - Sanctions against Iran are not linked to Iran's support of terrorism - especially that directed towards Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas - Conceding to allow Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges - this large number points to a military purpose not a civilian power generation function (According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. - Iran is not barred from acquiring and using of more technologically advanced centrifuges that will come on line - The U.S. position that war is the only alternative to signing on to this dubious agreement. - nothing scare tactic and an exaggeration and embellishment. - The sunset clause is an obvious problem in that Iran only has to out wait the end point and do as they please. - Sanctions that took years to put in place are needlessly taken away immediately without Iran proving any good faith - Iran's track record of concealing nuclear activity is not taken into consideration by the barring of unannounced inspections at any time at any place. - Soil samples around suspected (concealed) nuclear sites will be submitted by Iran (a totally laughable situation) Iranian statements in total opposition to any real cooperation in this deal show even before hand how this agreement is doomend.. Iran's tract record of NOT sticking to any such agreement is only eclipsed by that of North Korea. http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2015/IranianStatementsMemo.pdf Well thanks for that but i actually asked for YOUR reasons. Being so strongly against it surely you have read the agreement. Yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinot Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The average age of a Fox News viewer is 68. It's pretty amusing seeing you complain about spin. Left-wing talking points are just about all you post on here and most of them are not very honest. A lot of old people watch news on TV and that apples to every channel. The average age of a MSNBC and CNN viewer is 60 years old and 62 to 64 for the broadcast networks - all old. Fox News is a little bit higher. Please try to tell the whole story for a change. Yeah, why do you libs never include the whole story? The one I hear 24/7. There was no acceptable outcome from these negotiations for Republicans. Obama is satan and everything he does is wrong. He hates America. War is the only answer. Dick Chaney is right. Always. That side of the story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 The average age of a Fox News viewer is 68. It's pretty amusing seeing you complain about spin. Left-wing talking points are just about all you post on here and most of them are not very honest. A lot of old people watch news on TV and that apples to every channel. The average age of a MSNBC and CNN viewer is 60 years old and 62 to 64 for the broadcast networks - all old. Fox News is a little bit higher. Please try to tell the whole story for a change. Yeah, why do you libs never include the whole story? The one I hear 24/7. There was no acceptable outcome from these negotiations for Republicans. Obama is satan and everything he does is wrong. He hates America. War is the only answer. Dick Chaney is right. Always. That side of the story? Stop being foolish.Of course there was an acceptable outcome. NO ENRICHING URANIUM. National Security Adviser Susan Rice made clear that Iran would not be permitted to continue enriching uranium under any potential deal with the West. If the Obama administration had stuck to its guns, EVERYBODY (but the Iranians) would have been happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDGRUEN Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A list of 10 reasons for my opposition to the Iran Agreement aside from the fact that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State simply cannot be trusted to look out for the safety and security of America... These 10 reasons/objections are shared by many around the world. But I do not know why I bother as these reasons/objections will be dismissed out of hand by the Obama Cult members and Israel Haters ... - Iran is not required to disclose current or past nuclear weaponization achievements. - Sanctions against Iran are not linked to Iran's support of terrorism - especially that directed towards Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas - Conceding to allow Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges - this large number points to a military purpose not a civilian power generation function (According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. - Iran is not barred from acquiring and using of more technologically advanced centrifuges that will come on line - The U.S. position that war is the only alternative to signing on to this dubious agreement. - nothing scare tactic and an exaggeration and embellishment. - The sunset clause is an obvious problem in that Iran only has to out wait the end point and do as they please. - Sanctions that took years to put in place are needlessly taken away immediately without Iran proving any good faith - Iran's track record of concealing nuclear activity is not taken into consideration by the barring of unannounced inspections at any time at any place. - Soil samples around suspected (concealed) nuclear sites will be submitted by Iran (a totally laughable situation) Iranian statements in total opposition to any real cooperation in this deal show even before hand how this agreement is doomend.. Iran's tract record of NOT sticking to any such agreement is only eclipsed by that of North Korea. http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2015/IranianStatementsMemo.pdf Well thanks for that but i actually asked for YOUR reasons. Being so strongly against it surely you have read the agreement. Yes? The list reflects my opinion -- where is your list of why you think it is such a good deal ... surely you have read it - correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A list of 10 reasons for my opposition to the Iran Agreement aside from the fact that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State simply cannot be trusted to look out for the safety and security of America... These 10 reasons/objections are shared by many around the world. But I do not know why I bother as these reasons/objections will be dismissed out of hand by the Obama Cult members and Israel Haters ... - Iran is not required to disclose current or past nuclear weaponization achievements. - Sanctions against Iran are not linked to Iran's support of terrorism - especially that directed towards Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas - Conceding to allow Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges - this large number points to a military purpose not a civilian power generation function (According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. - Iran is not barred from acquiring and using of more technologically advanced centrifuges that will come on line - The U.S. position that war is the only alternative to signing on to this dubious agreement. - nothing scare tactic and an exaggeration and embellishment. - The sunset clause is an obvious problem in that Iran only has to out wait the end point and do as they please. - Sanctions that took years to put in place are needlessly taken away immediately without Iran proving any good faith - Iran's track record of concealing nuclear activity is not taken into consideration by the barring of unannounced inspections at any time at any place. - Soil samples around suspected (concealed) nuclear sites will be submitted by Iran (a totally laughable situation) Iranian statements in total opposition to any real cooperation in this deal show even before hand how this agreement is doomend.. Iran's tract record of NOT sticking to any such agreement is only eclipsed by that of North Korea. http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2015/IranianStatementsMemo.pdf that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State Got it. And the capitalised official title too. It's that time of the month again, full moon and all the serious howling that goes with it... Good thing nobody asked for a hundred points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Good thing nobody asked for a hundred points. JDGRUEN's 10 points were convincing enough. 100 points might put readers to sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loafie Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Obama "allowed the destabilization of Lybia and Syria"? You're loony if you think the US could have done anything about it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I can't imagine being more concerned about an Iranian bomb than the "Samson Option". If Iran were to even think about testing a bomb, they would be vaporized. You have admitted to being anti-Israel on pretty much every issue as well as having anti-Semetic issues. Of course you re going to side with the radical Islamic Mullahs in Iran. That is such a ridiculous piece of perverted logic. Do you not think it's possible for people to dislike elements of Israeli policy and yet want the mad mullahs removed from Iran? Get a grip man. You don't have to scream "antisemite" or "mullah lover" every time someone disagrees with you. "I can't imagine being more concerned about an Iranian bomb than the "Samson Option". If Iran were to even think about testing a bomb, they would be vaporized." Is this a fallacy of false analogy? Is this a call to hypocrisy? Either way, responding "You have admitted to being anti-Israel on pretty much every issue as well as having anti-Semetic issues. Of course [therefore] you re going to side with the radical Islamic Mullahs in Iran" in an effort to note the false logic does not make the noting itself false logic= "perverted logic." Such and various responses to valid appraisal of this historic folly are mostly met with such inversions, or protests, or innuendo. However, as noted throughout this thread there is overwhelming evidence to suggest this "deal" is at best theatrics, fantasy, smoke and mirrors, and horribly, distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) A list of 10 reasons for my opposition to the Iran Agreement aside from the fact that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State simply cannot be trusted to look out for the safety and security of America... These 10 reasons/objections are shared by many around the world. But I do not know why I bother as these reasons/objections will be dismissed out of hand by the Obama Cult members and Israel Haters ... - Iran is not required to disclose current or past nuclear weaponization achievements. - Sanctions against Iran are not linked to Iran's support of terrorism - especially that directed towards Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas - Conceding to allow Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges - this large number points to a military purpose not a civilian power generation function (According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. - Iran is not barred from acquiring and using of more technologically advanced centrifuges that will come on line - The U.S. position that war is the only alternative to signing on to this dubious agreement. - nothing scare tactic and an exaggeration and embellishment. - The sunset clause is an obvious problem in that Iran only has to out wait the end point and do as they please. - Sanctions that took years to put in place are needlessly taken away immediately without Iran proving any good faith - Iran's track record of concealing nuclear activity is not taken into consideration by the barring of unannounced inspections at any time at any place. - Soil samples around suspected (concealed) nuclear sites will be submitted by Iran (a totally laughable situation) Iranian statements in total opposition to any real cooperation in this deal show even before hand how this agreement is doomend.. Iran's tract record of NOT sticking to any such agreement is only eclipsed by that of North Korea. http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2015/IranianStatementsMemo.pdf Well thanks for that but i actually asked for YOUR reasons. Being so strongly against it surely you have read the agreement. Yes? The list reflects my opinion -- where is your list of why you think it is such a good deal ... surely you have read it - correct? So you have no opinion. Got it.And you have not read it anyway. Got it. Why would I need to read it? I'm not the one Complaining about it. I just sgree with the rest of the world and its leaders that think its good. You dimply dont like it because you dont like Obama. If the Republicans did the same deal you would love it. Edited July 30, 2015 by Linky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Obama "allowed the destabilization of Lybia and Syria"? You're loony if you think the US could have done anything about it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk What post are you quoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would I need to read it? Because you are lecturing every one else about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would I need to read it? Because you are lecturing every one else about it. Hear Hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law. http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would I need to read it?Because you are lecturing every one else about it. Wrong again. I agree with it. The world agrees with it. If you are arguing that you dont agree with it and havent even read it then you lack all credibility and shows you have no idea but just ranting against Obama for the sake of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law. http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/ Its not a treaty. If the US pulls out the only thing it changes is the US will get nothing whilst the rest of the world trades with Iran. It will have very little effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would I need to read it?Because you are lecturing every one else about it. Wrong again. I agree with it. You haven't read it, but you agree with it. Lemmings have nothing on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDGRUEN Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A list of 10 reasons for my opposition to the Iran Agreement aside from the fact that Narcissistic Pathological Liar Obama and his Vietnam era traitorous Secretary of State simply cannot be trusted to look out for the safety and security of America... These 10 reasons/objections are shared by many around the world. But I do not know why I bother as these reasons/objections will be dismissed out of hand by the Obama Cult members and Israel Haters ... - Iran is not required to disclose current or past nuclear weaponization achievements. - Sanctions against Iran are not linked to Iran's support of terrorism - especially that directed towards Israel via Hezbollah and Hamas. When Israel starts abiding by international law and allows weapons inspectors it can then be considered. Until then they can like it or lump it. - Conceding to allow Iran to retain 6,500 centrifuges - this large number points to a military purpose not a civilian power generation function (According to Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Not having an agreement would mean Iran keep ALL its centrifuges. - Iran is not barred from acquiring and using of more technologically advanced centrifuges that will come on line Why should it be barred. It isnt barred from doing that without the agreement. - The U.S. position that war is the only alternative to signing on to this dubious agreement. - nothing scare tactic and an exaggeration and embellishment. Which Israel has been wanting. - The sunset clause is an obvious problem in that Iran only has to out wait the end point and do as they please. They do as they please now. - Sanctions that took years to put in place are needlessly taken away immediately without Iran proving any good faith You cant prove good faith before you have the opportunity. - Iran's track record of concealing nuclear activity is not taken into consideration by the barring of unannounced inspections at any time at any place. Israel has the same track record. - Soil samples around suspected (concealed) nuclear sites will be submitted by Iran (a totally laughable situation) Something they dont need to do anyway woth no agreement. Iranian statements in total opposition to any real cooperation in this deal show even before hand how this agreement is doomend.. Iran, as with most counties state things for show. Its actions are not the same. Iran's tract record of NOT sticking to any such agreement is only eclipsed by that of North Korea. And Israel. http://www.aipac.org/~/media/Publications/Policy%20and%20Politics/AIPAC%20Analyses/Issue%20Memos/2015/IranianStatementsMemo.pdf Response under each point. The rest of the world is more than happy. Easy to see from your answers that Israel is your problem ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arjunadawn Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Here's more on the so called executive agreement. Obama in effect put the U.S in violation of the nuclear non proliferation treaty by using an executive order to usurp it. Congress should thereby debate the deal as they would any other treaty. To veto a rejection by congress would put the president serially in violation of U.S law. http://www.forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2015/07/27/obama-cannot-alter-non-proliferation-treaty-by-executive-order/4/ The link you provide is great. It takes the intuitive gut sense of the novice and makes plain to see the absurdity of this agreement legally. There is little precedent to suggest this president would follow rules of law, only count on not being called on their trampling. Indeed, this assumption (correct) has informed all of his aggressive constitutional confrontations. This agreement has the disadvantage (for the president) of having the only fig leaf of legitimacy the wholly manipulated UN as background authority. History will judge (and I mean contemporary history) that this "deal" was a capitulation disguised as "progress." (Indeed, core issues were excised and abrogated to a UN process for which their is no viability; another gross sleight of hand). Edited July 30, 2015 by arjunadawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would I need to read it?Because you are lecturing every one else about it. Wrong again. I agree with it. You haven't read it, but you agree with it. Lemmings have nothing on you. No different to the chumps that say "This is the worst deal EVER!" when they haven't read a word of it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Why would I need to read it?Because you are lecturing every one else about it. Wrong again. I agree with it. You haven't read it, but you agree with it. Lemmings have nothing on you. No different to the chumps that say "This is the worst deal EVER!" when they haven't read a word of it though. I'm not the one arguing against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 No different to the chumps that say "This is the worst deal EVER!" when they haven't read a word of it though. How do you know they have not read it? John Bolton has read it. Charles Krauthammer has read it. This particular chump admits that he hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linky Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 No different to the chumps that say "This is the worst deal EVER!" when they haven't read a word of it though. How do you know they have not read it? John Bolton has read it. Charles Krauthammer has read it. This particular chump admits that he hasn't. Why would i need to read it if I am not arguing adainst it? Have you read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now