what's he saying?

'machine-gun bacon'

he cooked bacon on the barrel of an AR-15 (not a machine gun, so obviously he's full of shit and pandering weirdly since he doesn't even know the difference)

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm supposed to take that as a compliment? And you're pissed that I didn't?

You should just put him on ignore. I do that about once a year until I realize that I am fully capable of reading/skimming his inanity without caring. He'd be much sadder if you didn't engage him at all, since his posts are constructed almost entirely to inflame.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm supposed to take that as a compliment? And you're pissed that I didn't?

You should just put him on ignore. I do that about once a year until I realize that I am fully capable of reading/skimming his inanity without caring. He'd be much sadder if you didn't engage him at all, since his posts are constructed almost entirely to inflame.

It's not ruining my day or anything. It is getting a bit repetitive. Maybe with people who generally agree with him politically telling him he's being silly or over the top he'll reevaluate things. Maybe not.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm supposed to take that as a compliment? And you're pissed that I didn't?

You should just put him on ignore. I do that about once a year until I realize that I am fully capable of reading/skimming his inanity without caring. He'd be much sadder if you didn't engage him at all, since his posts are constructed almost entirely to inflame.

Oh , I thought you were talking about Nightman. Though I can certainly see how it it would apply to dr. smooth as well. Or maybe more so, since i'm now pretty certain that Nighman really is that misinformed, while dr. smooth definitely likes to throw in an elbow or more likely a purple nurple now and then.

I often disagree with the good doctor, who, as his name implies, can be doctrinaire more than now and again. However, here I figured he was on the right track. Both you and jersey are certainly very intelligent people . You really can't be all that enraged by a treaty that at it's worst slightly decreases the chances of Iran developing nuclear armaments while interfering with our ability to starve it's children (an ability that seemingly amazingly has not managed to increase the likelihood of rapprochement between us and Iran or it's neighbors)? And one that can very easily revert to the status quo should the ends not seem to be being met? I understand that it's Obama, and that makes it tough, but we're all friends here. You can admit that you're pro world peace and all God's children living hand in hand as one without anyone holding it against you.

swishnicholson wrote:And one that can very easily revert to the status quo should the ends not seem to be being met?

This is categorically false.

And the problem with the deal is given the leverage we had we did not do nearly enough in the way of slightly decreasing Iran's chances of developing nuclear armaments.

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:And one that can very easily revert to the status quo should the ends not seem to be being met?

This is categorically false.

And the problem with the deal is given the leverage we had we did not do nearly enough in the way of slightly decreasing Iran's chances of developing nuclear armaments.

Do we have some sort of provision that does not allow us and others to impose sanctions should terms not be met or even if some completely different scenario arise? Of course not. We, and the other nations of the world, have all options we ever had still available to us. But you said categorically, so I guess it meust be true, er, false.

Not nearly enough is still better than nothing. And frankly, I am, and I think anyone would be, far more interested in creating a geopolitical climate that makes the utilization of nuclear or other weapons less likely to be used. That comes from integrating a nation into sate of mutual dependency , much as we've done with the cooperation on water issues with Iran. Isolation and demonization gets you North Korea. It's fun to have axes of evil to shale a stick at I know, but a little more grownup to work to avoid them.

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:And one that can very easily revert to the status quo should the ends not seem to be being met?

This is categorically false.

And the problem with the deal is given the leverage we had we did not do nearly enough in the way of slightly decreasing Iran's chances of developing nuclear armaments.

Do we have some sort of provision that does not allow us and others to impose sanctions should terms not be met or even if some completely different scenario arise? Of course not. We, and the other nations of the world, have all options we ever had still available to us. But you said categorically, so I guess it meust be true, er, false.

Not nearly enough is still better than nothing. And frankly, I am, and I think anyone would be, far more interested in creating a geopolitical climate that makes the utilization of nuclear or other weapons less likely to be used. That comes from integrating a nation into sate of mutual dependency , much as we've done with the cooperation on water issues with Iran. Isolation and demonization gets you North Korea. It's fun to have axes of evil to shale a stick at I know, but a little more grownup to work to avoid them.

You said that we can easily revert to the prior sanctions regime, which took like a decade to put together. Russia and many of the EU countries will have established various economic agreements with Iran in the wake of this agreement. Getting them to scrap those and return to the old status quo is unlikely shy of Iran conducting a nuclear test. At which point they'll be kinda useless.

because if Iran does break the agreement our European allies will tell us to fuck off if we want to impose stronger sanctions to protect their precious economic agreements with fucking Iran? what weird paranoid world is it you live in?

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm supposed to take that as a compliment? And you're pissed that I didn't?

yes.

and yes.


I worked for elected state-level Republican legislators in one of my first salaried jobs. I did it for almost 5 years. I admired some of them. I still admire the people who employed me, some of whom still toil in the ranks of party machinery and/or public service.

Their kind - people with brains ,who used them, to do respectable things, for the communities they loved - are mostly gone, as far as I can see, from the ranks of people who describe themselves as Republicans.

My feeling has long been that you are one of that kind of people. And it irritates me that you, and those of your caliber, are reduced to kowtowing to sociopaths, venal assholes and revolting clowns.

But I guess I'm over trying to get this little homily across to you, and your "libertarian" sidekick. You seem determined to deserve everything you'll become ashamed of, if you have a grain of integrity.

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I'm supposed to take that as a compliment? And you're pissed that I didn't?

You should just put him on ignore. I do that about once a year until I realize that I am fully capable of reading/skimming his inanity without caring. He'd be much sadder if you didn't engage him at all, since his posts are constructed almost entirely to inflame.

{sigh}

#tw: drsmooth

I suppose it was inevitable

IRAN TOOK AMERICANS HOSTAGE IN 1979! WE MUST HATE THEM FOREVER!

Of course the Rs oppose any deal that lets Iran increase oil production. It'll drive down the ppb and impact the revenues of the GOP owners.

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

swishnicholson wrote:And one that can very easily revert to the status quo should the ends not seem to be being met?

This is categorically false.

And the problem with the deal is given the leverage we had we did not do nearly enough in the way of slightly decreasing Iran's chances of developing nuclear armaments.

Do we have some sort of provision that does not allow us and others to impose sanctions should terms not be met or even if some completely different scenario arise? Of course not. We, and the other nations of the world, have all options we ever had still available to us. But you said categorically, so I guess it meust be true, er, false.

Not nearly enough is still better than nothing. And frankly, I am, and I think anyone would be, far more interested in creating a geopolitical climate that makes the utilization of nuclear or other weapons less likely to be used. That comes from integrating a nation into sate of mutual dependency , much as we've done with the cooperation on water issues with Iran. Isolation and demonization gets you North Korea. It's fun to have axes of evil to shale a stick at I know, but a little more grownup to work to avoid them.

You said that we can easily revert to the prior sanctions regime, which took like a decade to put together. Russia and many of the EU countries will have established various economic agreements with Iran in the wake of this agreement. Getting them to scrap those and return to the old status quo is unlikely shy of Iran conducting a nuclear test. At which point they'll be kinda useless.

You think very little of our allies and other countries.

Trump actually went UP in the most recent CNN poll. 3.5% margin of error

Among all Americans he was the most liked Republican, same for registered voters, same for those likely to vote. He is the #2 choice of Republican voters not picking him #1. These all went up since July 22-25. Best on the economy. Best on illegal immigration (the second questoin asked completely DUE to Trump being in the race!) he can deal with ISIS, he's got social issues. He also has the highest negatives (Bush is a whopping 3% behind him amongst all americans and 1% amongst registered voters). You love or you hate The Donald.

Beltway wisdom be damned.

Carson and Fiorina saw 4% jumps, form 1 to 5 and 4 to 8. Cruz saw no gains, actually a slight decrease.

Jim Gilmore, the man running for speaking fees, has a *
FWIW, Rick Perry isn't even paying his staff. He's done.

drsmooth wrote:not yet #$!&@ the bed but definitely dropping eggy farts in there

Looking hard to find a spot IRL to quote that

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Menendez opposed the deal because of some combination of the facts he has received millions from Israeli interest groups and hates the Obama administration.

He's awful, all around.

This creep rose up after somebody else was taken down in a scndal, IIRC. The fact that he was a lifelong midlevel hack should have alerted party leaders that he was dirty to the core - but that may have been true of all the folks they vetted at the time

The Nightman Cometh wrote:If Jon Stewart entered the race tomorrow what do you think he would be polling against Hillary? (Please Jon)

If Al Franken could do it, then why Not Jonny?

i dont think he could stand it but something more realistic is running for a senate seat in NJ

The Dude wrote:

The Nightman Cometh wrote:Depends on what you think the probability of Hillary getting nailed on something and having to drop out.

i think if that happens, gore, or some other non-celebrity person will enter and still beat stewart

So Stewart gets a chakra release from the strains of campaigning