SarasotaSabre

hear hear

pretty simple actually; he stonewalled like his inner Hillary

so how was Black Mass? It's on my to-do list.

for all the fun and scorn poked at Boehner, I actually felt sorry for him yesterday. Did anyone see his facial contortions while crying during the Pope's address yesterday? Dude could not control himself.

that's one way to look at it.... :flirt: Boehner's been trying to get a Papal visit for 20 years and is a Catholic from a family of 12 kids, so I can I see why it was a little overwhelming for him, but he's keeping the hankie manufacturers in business.))

in other news, Boehner is crying like a fountain. Shocking.

I would question your statement on the majority of Americans who agree with her policy positions. I have not seen that data. I think the bigger issue is whether voting citizens think she is honest and trustworthy. Right now it's running 55-60% who think she is dishonest & untrustworthy. Regardless of your defense of Hillary and the polarization she is creating, her candidacy will be decided by the voters, not a Republican hit campaign, if she is the nominee. She doesn't need any help from her opponents; any defeat of Hillary will be self-induced. Have you ever stopped to question why Loretta Lynch has not been summoned to pursue a formal investigation? So much for that phantom Republican takedown campaign. I cannot comprehend how anyone would defend Hillary in any capacity given her arrogance and naïveté that she was not aware she could have different email accounts on a single device. Is she that stupid, or that duplicitous? Either way, is this the level of competence & judgement worthy of the highest office in the U.S.? And your attempt to conflate Jesus with a Marxist as a position of the Republican party is just a little melodramatic.

that's the question I asked upthread; the answer appears to be zero, zilch, nada OK, things in this thread seem to be getting a little serious, so I thought I'd lighten things up a bit: http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/9/17/9341799/donald-trump-is-bigger-than-the-gop

I'm glad you asked. I believe it's an oversimplification that the only other option to the deal which was struck is war. That's what proponents of the deal would have you believe. I cannot pretend to know exactly what is all in the existing deal, nor was I part of any negotiation. But how can anyone feel comfortable with the integrity of a deal that has (supposed) side agreements? How about nullifying the deal and negotiating a real one, or else stronger sanctions kick back in? And why in the hell does Iran get $150b from this deal? It's insane. And no, I am not a proponent of going to war with Iran right now. I don't understand your contention that it's either the acceptance of this deal or war. Maybe I'm ignorant and missing something ??

that's not what I was stating - I was referring directly to the "deal" with Iran. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of Americans are disgusted & against this canard of an agreement with Iran. With all due respect, the "simple truth" you're referring to is an oxymoron. Do you actually feel good that if/when Iran breaks the deal, we will merely find out about it? At what cost? When things go off the rails after the horribly negotiated 24 day advance notice window for them to hide and dismantle their operations? By that point the damage may have been done w/ respect to their nuclear capabilities. Sorry, just don't see how any sane mind can position this deal as acceptable when the Iranians are being granted the power of self-inspection. IF we find out about them breaking the deal, the horse may then be out of the barn, so what good is "we can then go back to what we were doing"?? What exactly is that? Slapping sanctions on a terrorist state which has been enriched by $150b from this great "deal"? Iran and Iran alone benefited from this deal; the definition of a good deal is when both sides win, and I fail to see how we did with this one.

I like Kasich for his experience, esp. in working across the aisle, and think he is fairly pragmatic. I also like his lack of bombast. But I am not on board with his position on the Iran nuke deal; he came across as soft & milquetoast. Sanctions & expecting them to self-inspect? Ugh, not so much. He removed himself from my short list with that tomfoolery. In the simplest sense, taxing consumption instead of (punishing) production. that was their plan, to stage it like a cage match by pitting the candidates directly against each other - in the name of "promoting a real Lincoln-Douglas style debate". An obvious ploy to drive ratings after Fox killed it with their 24 million or whatever.

I had posted the exact thing previously and would kill for that matchup; it would be an MMA event, must-see TV

Since no one yet has asked the question, I'll take a stab at it: can you please explain the reasons behind your bolded statement. I am sincerely interested in your explanation, for if I have missed something on Carson, I'd like to be educated. Please enlighten me PA ...... thanks

6. Drunker ?

insane; just when I thought it could not become any more surreal. I kept waiting for Horowitz to take down Guevara but the closest he came was questioning the hypocrisy of accepting Federal financial aid.

It has been reported that there is distinctly no military option and once the Iranians knew it, all the power in the negotiation went to them. However, Obama has written a letter to all Democrats in Congress promising an exercise of military option should Iran breach the terms of the deal. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/21/obama-promises-keep-military-options-open-iran-nuclear-deal So I guess the question remains: is military force as an option to enforce the deal explicitly written into the agreement, or is Obama just saying this as a means of assuaging the remaining Dems who might be on the fence? I think it's a fair question to ask.

I don't subscribe to the theory that any deal is better than what we have currently. The deal which is on the table never contained any enforceable threat of a military option and baked in $150b to aid & abet Iran. On its face this deal was struck from a position of weakness b/c the Iranians knew we were desperate to get a deal done. The Iranians are master negotiators and they knew the political implications: it's Obama's last year in office, and ANY deal would cement his legacy. Are you asking what we should do in terms of a better deal in hindsight, or completely pressure Obama into a different type of deal which would be more supportable? Those seem to be 2 different scenarios. I can't say exactly, b/c I am not a foreign policy expert, but if i could it over as John Kerry, I would do the following: 1) maintain a military option as a visible signal; 2) no financial aid of any kind (why there is $150b going to the Iranians is way above my pay grade; 3) eliminate the 24 day advance notice which is a farce; 4) insist & demand there will be no self-inspection but on-demand, external inspection. Bottom line: we negotiated from a position of weakness, lost all leverage, gave away way too much, and are now being sold a bill of goods by Kerry that this was the best deal possible....not too mention we have zero knowledge of the side agreements which have apparently been baked into the deal. I am mortified not because of partisan ideology but b/c I am sincerely afraid of what lies ahead, and what our allies in the region may be compelled to do as a means of self-defense. WHAT ?? a fairly rigid inspection "scheme" that is self-managed by the Iranians, along with a 24 day advance inspection request during which time a massive cover up could be carried out, or the nuclear facilities made dirty to the point of complete obfuscation. I'd have to respectfully disagree with your description with this "scheme" as being "fairly rigid."

I am sure this post will provoke some fierce debate on both sides, but it looks like Obama has secured the 34th senate vote from a soon to be retired Md. senator, Barbara Milkulski, to avoid the Iranian deal getting hamstrung by a Republican veto. Surely I can't get in her head but my educated guess her support is motivated by nothing other than partisan loyalty. So that begs the question, does such partisan loyalty trump a reasoned vote which would favor the safety & sanctity of American citizens and its allies? I find it laughable that this "great deal" was sold by Kerry as the only alternative to war. Ironically enough, the enablement of nuclear weaponry by Iran may very well serve to promote additional instability & insecurity in the Middle East. For example, don't think for a moment that US allies in the region such as UAE, the Saudis, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, & Kuwait won't be looking over their shoulders and may very well go after nukes of their own as a symbol of a forthcoming zero-sum game. To wit: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-makes-middle-east-allies-nervous What this deal also tells me is that it's not merely about greasing the skids for a nuclear Iran; it's about further enabling their status as the #1 perpetrator of state-sponsored terrorism, aided & abetted by 1) relaxation/elimination of embargoes & 2) $150 billion in aid from the US. So that will result in the US serving as a proxy to the Iranian-sponsored terrorism activities. Most shockingly, I listened to a radio interview with Rand Paul today, in which he was asked if Congress had received a fully copy of the entire deal including the side agreements which have been rumored to be part of this deal. He said no, they have not received anything to review, laughed sardonically and asked in a rhetorical manner, "do you mean we should have the opportunity to read the entire deal in its entirety?" Sound familiar about a now infamous piece of domestic legislation? Guys/gals: I am sincerely NOT TRYING to gin up the debate along partisan lines. I am trying to get something on the table for discussion/debate, for I am scared sh*itless about the implications of this deal. Is it fair to ask that the avoidance of war is a cover for Obama to achieve his piece of foreign policy legacy to go with his shining piece of domestic policy, the ACA? Am I wrong with anything I've laid out here? I welcome the incoming friendly fire I assume will be headed my way ....)) unless your definition of lunacy includes the right of a home/property owner to protect against theft on said property.... :flirt:

very well said and well-reasoned; fair-minded with equanimity ! sorry to any Hillary supporters out there; I found this story too funny to not share it here: http://nypost.com/2015/08/30/hillary-for-prison-signs-keep-getting-stolen-in-the-hamptons/

now that's a nice outcome to the disagreement; well done men !

great excerpt Neo, very illustrative

Honestly, it did not, but a racial component did.

Agreed, entirely. The badge and the uniform trumps the race of the victim. Targeted assassinations w/out racial qualification.

Understood...and to further complicate matters is the dilemma of African American police officers slain in the line of duty.

Thanks for the stats, they belie what feels like a more acute epidemic. And I'm not sure your stats answer the basic premise of my question.