sleeper;1739593 wrote:

QuakerOats;1739639 wrote:"The new rule takes this a step further and requires cities across the country to scrutinize their housing patterns for racial bias and report the results every three to five years. Communities would also have to set and track goals to further reduce segregation."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/08/new-hud-rule-good-intentions-or-another-government-power-grab/


You will integrate, or else !!!

Government gets bigger and bigger and more forceful and more forceful.

Change we can believe in ...

Spock;1740765 wrote:How in the hell did we make a deal with Iran while they have 4 americans in their jails?

Those people should of been let out before we ever talked.

ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

But, go on trash the deal.

ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

But, go on trash the deal.

QuakerOats;1740762 wrote:So we now have capitulation to Iran by the Nobel Peace Prize winner ..... the legacy is complete.



The Disaster Tour rolls on ...........


Change we can believe in ...

Crisis averted peace in our time.

“Well I think this is a beginning to start a different type of relationship with the West, and I hope that the United States can exhibit a type of behavior in the implementation of this agreement that can in fact help remove some of the compounded mistrust that has been building, mutually, between the two countries over the past many decades but particularly since the revolution,” Zarif said during an interview with NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell in Vienna on Tuesday

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/javad-zarif-iran-deal-reaction-120097.html#ixzz3fvLt0yoW

ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:If you were against any form of negotiations you do not like the agreement. There is nothing short of Iran eliminating every aspect of the nuclear program that would have satisfied that crowd. And, that is large portion of the people on here.

So, trying to waste space and explain the merits of the agreement is pointless.

I'll just say that the technical aspects are very well founded, complex, thought out, and make sense if you understand the subject.

I'll also suggest that people at least read the thing before you trash it totally.
I would have also liked Iran to cave on everything, but that was totally unrealistic and we have been trying that since 2005.

At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

But, go on trash the deal.

CenterBHSFan;1740842 wrote:A few things.
1.) I don't think you will manage to find too many people outside of DC who would be comfortable with this. Not everybody is as uneducated, thought-less or as trusting in the written word/spoken promises of Iran. It has nothing to do with the politics of a small message board. Most people with any sense are distrustful of this, as they very well should be. That doesn't have anything to do with political ideology.

2.) I'd really be interested in knowing, without a doubt, that inspectors can pop in at any given time to verify on whatever production is happening. Since you seem to have read this agreement, Ptown, can you verify this or not?
After all, "trust but verify" should be readily accepted by Iran also, yes?

3.) What if Iran stops any sort of pretense of wanting to play by the rules? What are the plans for consequences?

CenterBHSFan;1740842 wrote:A few things.
1.) I don't think you will manage to find too many people outside of DC who would be comfortable with this. Not everybody is as uneducated, thought-less or as trusting in the written word/spoken promises of Iran. It has nothing to do with the politics of a small message board. Most people with any sense are distrustful of this, as they very well should be. That doesn't have anything to do with political ideology.

2.) I'd really be interested in knowing, without a doubt, that inspectors can pop in at any given time to verify on whatever production is happening. Since you seem to have read this agreement, Ptown, can you verify this or not?
After all, "trust but verify" should be readily accepted by Iran also, yes?

3.) What if Iran stops any sort of pretense of wanting to play by the rules? What are the plans for consequences?

Most observers are likely to interpret the inspection, as it applies specifically to military sites, as a victory for Iran. UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren’t immediate or even guaranteed. Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission composed of one member from each of the negotiating parties. The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days, which critics will claim is enough time for Iran to cover up any non-compliance.

Spock;1740866 wrote:remember when Iraq kept kicking UN inspectors out and at least 19 times they werent allowed in at all. When the congress voted to go to war, this was the proof they had WMD

fish82;1740860 wrote:As far as question #2 goes:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-nuclear-deal-winners-losers/story?id=32437227



Color me unimpressed.

ptown_trojans_1;1740804 wrote:
At the end of the day though, we can say a few things that we could not before today.
Iran will stop enriching above 3%.
Iran will sign the Additional Protocol and Code 3.1 (which they have protested since 2003)
The IAEA will have access to the full fuel cycle, from mine to enrichment.
Iran will not reprocess or make plutonium.

But, go on trash the deal.

sleeper;1740876 wrote:No doubt we will eventually go into another pointless war with Iran.

cruiser_96;1740888 wrote:Given the "stability" of the people who now have a pathway for NUCLEAR ARMS, I'm not so sure it would be "pointless". I have a feeling when Iran makes a nuclear weapon and uses it once, there will be a new list of targets.

But maybe that's just me.

sleeper;1740889 wrote:Nuclear arms with zero percent chance of hitting the USA.