Soren wrote:I think a nuclear deal made int he 7th year of someone's presidency is deserving of a high level of scrutiny and we should try to set aside go team go politics for a bit to talk about it. I don't care how much of the Bush evidence RE: WMDs jh went along with. It's irrelevant.

That's obscure - this is "irrelevant":

this is why we can't have nice things

Soren wrote:Just so we're clear on how wildly inappropriate that was, I was a victim of (physical) child abuse and several members of my family were victims of sexual abuse as children. I get that you're upset but that's a bit much don't you think?

It was a joke, obviously.

And i'm not upset? Not sure where you got that. we're talking on a message board. there's a limit to how upset I can get.

and my "put aside go team go" politics wasn't directed at left OR right. It was a general comment.

Soren wrote:FWIW, I have (probably irrational hope) that as the current gen of Iranians take over they push the government away from totally fucking crazy to reasonably far right and we can start making some real progress.

I'm on board with you but we have, ermmmm, 'difficulty' making real progress with our own "reasonably far right", so best keep your progress bar low

i was simply saying i'm not go team go. I've been against signature strikes which have completely f'ed up the country of Yemen. It's pretty much going undiscussed in the US but that country is blowing up

we've conducted 100 strikes in Yemen. Success.

Drone strikes are horrifying and I would hope that at some point they're considered war crimes.

drsmooth wrote:

Soren wrote:FWIW, I have (probably irrational hope) that as the current gen of Iranians take over they push the government away from totally fucking crazy to reasonably far right and we can start making some real progress.

I'm on board with you but we have, ermmmm, 'difficulty' making real progress with our own "reasonably far right", so best keep your progress bar low

I treat jh's comments and insights with a similar level of skepticism.

Can you have your gay pie and eat it too?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-mcgurn ... 1428361423

“Civil-rights laws are turned upside down when used to harass small businesses with minority viewpoints. These viewpoints need constitutional space between them and the relentless ambitions of an ascendant gay rights movement that seems to have quickly forgotten that its members were once on the receiving end of the unthinking and abusive exercise of state criminal law.”

... the movement for gay rights has “moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

“The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable.”

"relentless ambitions of an ascendant gay rights movement"

I don't even know what to say really. It parodies itself.

TomatoPie wrote:Can you have your gay pie and eat it too?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-mcgurn ... 1428361423

“Civil-rights laws are turned upside down when used to harass small businesses with minority viewpoints. These viewpoints need constitutional space between them and the relentless ambitions of an ascendant gay rights movement that seems to have quickly forgotten that its members were once on the receiving end of the unthinking and abusive exercise of state criminal law.”

... the movement for gay rights has “moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

“The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable.”

this takes "butthurt" to new places

sore winners != not wanting to be fired simply for being gay

it hasn't all been 'won'

as for this"

There is also history. In 1964, when the Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act’s requirement that hotels serve African-Americans, blacks, especially in the South, effectively had their ability to travel restricted by the possibility they couldn’t secure lodging. In contrast, no one today suggests gay couples can’t find a baker or photographer for their weddings.

who is 'no one'? I'm amazed he brought the Civils Rights Act up in a piece highlighting how libertarians dislike non-discrimination laws and then he used its existence as a DEFENSE of libertarians while forgetting many don't agree with it.

this idea of ascribing a business with religious values worth defending is a weird one to me, I must say. a business one runs is not an extension of the personal self's rights. these are two distinct entities. if you want to participate in commerce, you follow the rules. the rules should be set up for non-discrimination.

pacino wrote:but we're doing the thing that worked? iraq did not have WMDs. We went to war anyway. It would appear the current administration is not going to go to war with a country but will let the IAEA go forward. Saddam 'thumbed his nose at us' because of national pride and appearances (as you stated previously he was 'irrational' in this respect)...so we are letting Iran keep up appearances and taking out the irrationality of national pride. This seems like a fairly sound strategy.

the reason I keep bringing up Iraq is the necon fantasy of creating deomcracy in the Middle East through war was an infantile fantasy that let loose a host of problems. Our drone strikes in Yemen have(edit) led to a host of problems (this under Obama, the president I lapdog to). Perhaps we could LEARN from these errors. It appears we are, at least with respect to Iran.

The inspections regime in Iraq was accompanied by crippling sanctions, a denial to Saddam's regime the ability to purchase any sort of potentially bad thing, No Fly Zones for the Iraqi military over most of its territory, etc. This deal isn't that. And they were still able to stymie the inspectors to the point where it certainly seemed like they were hiding something bad. It is going to be difficult to monitor everything going on in Iran given they will have resources Iraq did not have. Hopefully if an agreement is reached, inspectors are allowed free movement inside the country and access to what they want when they want.

I don't think it is irrational that Iran wants to keep its underground nuclear facility stocked with centrifuges that are not enriching uranium as they abide by the terms of the agreement in order to get their sanctions lifted. It allows them to quickly reboot their nuclear enrichment program either when the deal ends or sooner if they want to break the terms early with the equipment in place in a place that would be really, really hard for us or the Israelis to bomb. The administration had singled out this facility as being something obviously unnecessary for a civilian nuclear power program, and everyone wanted it dismantled as part of an agreement. The Iranians refused. The administration, in trying to sell the deal to Congress/the American people, are playing this off as no big deal, just some prideful Iranians being irrational holding onto things that won't be developing nuclear material while the inspectors are around. The spin seems pretty transparent to me. Maybe there's something I'm missing here that wasn't in the article that you can see with your non team member glasses on.

slugsrbad wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:You all realize that "Lol 12 years ago you did the same wrong thing I am doing now" is not the most convincing of arguments?

jerseyhoya wrote:Becoming the 20th state to pass a state version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act written by Chuck Schumer and signed into law by President Clinton. The radicalism is almost too much to stomach.

But they were right then, so this too is not the most convincing of arguments.

If they break the agreement, we're no worse off. They've shown themselves to be irresponsible actors and the sanctions begin again (if they were already taken off, which it's stated that won't happen u til certain goals are met) and likely more steps at isolation. You appear to disagree with the idea that what is being said to the world is what is actually going to happen. This is what we have to go on in foreign affairs, no? Appearances, actions and posturing? You don't think we got enough. I do. I guess we'll see.

jerseyhoya wrote:The inspections regime in Iraq was accompanied by crippling sanctions, a denial to Saddam's regime the ability to purchase any sort of potentially bad thing, No Fly Zones for the Iraqi military over most of its territory, etc. This deal isn't that.

No, this deal is not that. This deal doesn't need to be that. Iraq is not Iran. Then is not now. Etc. Etc. Etc.

John Bolton is never going to actual devise foreign policy again. Neither is Bob Corker. What Congressional opponents ought to start working on is what will give Congress the most effective role in shaping what will happen with this blueprint - not pretending nothing has happened, or will.

I'm glum because I don't believe Corker, or McConnell, or Boehner, or anyone affiliated with them, is up to that job.

And please, please, please tell my in your best cynical voice that you're sure Chuck Schumer is up to it. Please tell me you've been played by his "opposition" to the deal.

do your homework johnson!

TomatoPie wrote:Can you have your gay pie and eat it too?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-mcgurn ... 1428361423

“Civil-rights laws are turned upside down when used to harass small businesses with minority viewpoints. These viewpoints need constitutional space between them and the relentless ambitions of an ascendant gay rights movement that seems to have quickly forgotten that its members were once on the receiving end of the unthinking and abusive exercise of state criminal law.”

... the movement for gay rights has “moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

“The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable.”

Also, a business crowd funded close a million dollars because people wanted to support the right to deny service to a group of people. How can we seriously concern ourselves with the slippery slope arguments about "the ascendant gay rights movement" and its “[move] from tolerance to totalitarianism” when 1) there are states where you can be fired for being gay 2) there still aren't equal rights federally for gay couples and 3) there has been an increase push to label discrimination as some form of religious expression. These same thoughts were conjured in response to desegregation and later in response to interracial marriages.

It's bothersome to me that a group of people, who are only asking for what others in a free society are given, are coming to be thought of as some kind of invasive pest set on eroding our values.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Can you have your gay pie and eat it too?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bill-mcgurn ... 1428361423

“Civil-rights laws are turned upside down when used to harass small businesses with minority viewpoints. These viewpoints need constitutional space between them and the relentless ambitions of an ascendant gay rights movement that seems to have quickly forgotten that its members were once on the receiving end of the unthinking and abusive exercise of state criminal law.”

... the movement for gay rights has “moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

“The bad news, for those of us on the suddenly victorious side of the gay marriage debate, is that too many people are acting like sore winners, not merely content with the revolutionary step of removing state discrimination against same-sex couples in the legal recognition of marriage, but seeking to use state power to punish anyone who refuses to lend their business services to wedding ceremonies they find objectionable.”

this takes "butthurt" to new places

I was thinking childish, but butt hurt works, too.

These people are babies. Whiny little babies.

pacino wrote:If they break the agreement, we're no worse off. They've shown themselves to be irresponsible actors and the sanctions begin again (if they were already taken off, which it's stated that won't happen u til certain goals are met) and likely more steps at isolation. You appear to disagree with the idea that what is being said to the world is what is actually going to happen. This is what we have to go on in foreign affairs, no? Appearances, actions and posturing? You don't think we got enough. I do. I guess we'll see.

But it's not at all clear from the current deal framework that Iran violating the terms of the agreement would result in the sanctions beginning again, and if so how that would go about happening - Foreign Policy blog post about this. .