IRAN: 'WE DID NOT AGREE TO DISMANTLE ANYTHING'




:huh:

QuakerOats;1570912 wrote:IRAN: 'WE DID NOT AGREE TO DISMANTLE ANYTHING'




:huh:

No, it is the first step toward that, hopefully.
The deal was for them to stop going further.
So, instead of going to 20% enrichment and building a heavy water facility, they are halting the levels of enrichment.
(Read up on nuclear enrichment for details).

This has not happened since 2004 pretty much.
So, a small step, but a significant one.

Also, the Iranian guy has to play to his audience and hard liners.

believer;1570387 wrote:My rhetoric may be a tad more fiery and blunt, but based on some if not most of your posts, Gut, I'd say you tend to lean just as far as the rest of us "bad" right-wingers.

With all due respect, "libertarian" is to conservative as "progressive" is to liberal. Just euphemisms for those who are a bit too skittish to call a spade a spade.

I consider myself a libertarian conservative. Obviously conservative on fiscal issues, anti intervention foreign policy which I consider conservative. I Guess you would label me socially liberal although I don't consider keeping the government out of people's personal life a totally liberal idea.

Unfortunately the term conservative has become associated with Neo con war Mongers, bible thumping social conservatives, tea party anti science nut jobs.

I'm not saying that's you as I've seen enough of your posts to know but that's the image created by the media and the fact those are the guys getting airtime.

jmog;1570617 wrote:The day you learn to do arithmetic correctly will be your first...so sorry, you have proven your ineptitude in arithmetic a few times on this board, so I wouldn't trust what you have to say on economics (a highly mathematical field) until you learn basic mathematics.

I'll put my math skils and my 800 SAT score in math against yours anytime...any day. And...apparently you think math= economics. Wrong.

Footwedge;1571012 wrote:I'll put my math skils and my 800 SAT score in math against yours.

Ooooooo! MATH FIGHT!

Footwedge;1571012 wrote:I'll put my math skils and my 800 SAT score in math against yours anytime...any day. And...apparently you think math= economics. Wrong.

He is right about the fact that the stock markets health does not necessarily correlate with the economy's health.

The Fed is creating another asset bubble that will burst soon enough.

pmoney25;1570961 wrote:I Guess you would label me socially liberal although I don't consider keeping the government out of people's personal life a totally liberal idea.

Sorry but I had to chuckle a bit when I read this comment.

The very nature of liberalism is to view active government intervention as the ultimate cure to all societal ills. That's the paradox of labeling yourself a "libertarian". Libertarians tend to embrace fiscal responsibility when it comes to their wallets while embracing the benefits of social liberalism. The problem with social liberalism is it usually ties to the idea of a social safety net which requires wealth redistribution via government edict. This leads to over-regulation in private affairs (corporate & personal) and generally irresponsible government spending to support the safety net via fiscally damaging confiscatory policy.

pmoney25;1570961 wrote:Unfortunately the term conservative has become associated with Neo con war Mongers, bible thumping social conservatives, tea party anti science nut jobs.

As you've stated, these connotations are largely due to biased and distorted images conveyed by the left-leaning mainstream media and ultra-leftist Hollyweird.

First, there are plenty of Neo "lib" war mongers in DC but the media always seems to give that a free pass.

Second, the problem with the image of "Bible thumping social conservatives" is that the anti-Christian left is desperately attempting to downplay and/or eradicate (via revisionism in our public education system and with the eager help of the media and the "entertainment" industry) the fact that overt Judeo-Christian values are intricately interwoven in the underpinnings of the forming of the great American Experience which helps explain why the left tends to ignore Constitutional principles. The extreme vitriol the left is willing to use to portray Christians as uneducated narrow-minded toothless hill-jacks only demonstrates their frustration with the fact that the Christian voice in American politics cannot really be silenced. Leftist obsession with silencing conservative Christians is hilariously hypocritical from a political philosophy that claims to be "all-inclusive".

As far as "tea party nut jobs" is concerned, keep in mind that libertarians played a major role in the formation of that movement. The tea party movement is a relatively loose grassroots coalition of libertarians, social conservatives, and populists rebelling against the growth of Big Government and is at the very heart of the current disarray impacting the Republican Party.

believer;1571020 wrote:Sorry but I had to chuckle a bit when I read this comment.

The very nature of liberalism is to view active government intervention as the ultimate cure to all societal ills. That's the paradox of labeling yourself a "libertarian". Libertarians tend to embrace fiscal responsibility when it comes to their wallets while embracing the benefits of social liberalism. The problem with social liberalism is it usually ties to the idea of a social safety net which requires wealth redistribution via government edict. This leads to over-regulation in private affairs (corporate & personal) and generally irresponsible government spending to support the safety net via fiscally damaging confiscatory policy.



As you've stated, these connotations are largely due to biased and distorted images conveyed by the left-leaning mainstream media and ultra-leftist Hollyweird.

First, there are plenty of Neo "lib" war mongers in DC but the media always seems to give that a free pass.

Second, the problem with the image of "Bible thumping social conservatives" is that the anti-Christian left is desperately attempting to downplay and/or eradicate (via revisionism in our public education system and with the eager help of the media and the "entertainment" industry) the fact that overt Judeo-Christian values are intricately interwoven in the underpinnings of the forming of the great American Experience which helps explain why the left tends to ignore Constitutional principles. The extreme vitriol the left is willing to use to portray Christians as uneducated narrow-minded toothless hill-jacks only demonstrates their frustration with the fact that the Christian voice in American politics cannot really be silenced. Leftist obsession with silencing conservative Christians is hilariously hypocritical from a political philosophy that claims to be "all-inclusive".

As far as "tea party nut jobs" is concerned, keep in mind that libertarians played a major role in the formation of that movement. The tea party movement is a relatively loose grassroots coalition of libertarians, social conservatives, and populists rebelling against the growth of Big Government and is at the very heart of the current disarray impacting the Republican Party.

This is wrong on so many levels. First off, you keep bringing up the left like I agree with them or anything they do. Their social liberalism is meant to keep people in groups and does not promote individual liberty at all which in my opinion is what a conservative values more than anything. Believing in liberty does not equate to believing in a social safety net. The safety net is provided by liberal fiscal policy not from the idea that people should be free to live their lives how they see fit as long as they are not harming others. I also believe it is ok to have social conservative views as I do on some issues. I just draw the line on what the government should do about those issues.

As for the Bible Thumpers, I consider myself a Christian. I again believe in peoples right to practice religion or not to practice. The issue with the Bible thumpers is the tend to ignore the whole love your fellow man philosophy and spend more time condemning their fellow man and trying to use government to not allow people to live their own lives.

I am aware of the tea party movement and how it started. That has nothing to do with where it is today. It has been hijacked by a bunch of clowns.

If you truly believe in small government, I'm not sure how you can be a social and fiscal conservative. As well as a interventionist Neo con.

IRS targets conservative group in Hollywood...



The lawlessness continues, but somehow, a few people getting stuck in a traffic jam is a million times more important than this regime's use of IRS intimidation against real Americans. UN-FUCKING BELIEVABLE.

Change we can believe in ...

I agree with most of what believer posted with the exception of libertarians' concept of social liberalism including government edict...in fact it is the exact opposite. Liberatarians are opposed to government interfering in people's private lives...hence they would support social ideas such as elimination of marijuana laws and gay rights, on the basis that government has no business in making restrictive laws on people's lifestyles. That some of Libertarian views on issues happen to be the same as the 'left' is more due to arbitrary definitions of 'socially liberal'....they may support the same things as the left...but for vastly different reasons.

HitsRus;1571309 wrote:I agree with most of what believer posted with the exception of libertarians' concept of social liberalism including government edict...in fact it is the exact opposite. Liberatarians are opposed to government interfering in people's private lives...hence they would support social ideas such as elimination of marijuana laws and gay rights, on the basis that government has no business in making restrictive laws on people's lifestyles. That some of Libertarian views on issues happen to be the same as the 'left' is more due to arbitrary definitions of 'socially liberal'....they may support the same things as the left...but for vastly different reasons.

Good explanation.

Footwedge;1571012 wrote:I'll put my math skils and my 800 SAT score in math against yours anytime...any day. And...apparently you think math= economics. Wrong.

If you actually read my post, I said economics is a highly mathematical field. You translated that into me saying "math=economics". Your reading comprehension is about on par with your math skills.

There is no way, with the many egregarious mathematical errors you have made on this board you got a 800 on your SAT.

You got me there, I only got a 36 on the ACT math and 36 on ACT science (mid 20s on other 2). I never took the SAT.

pmoney25;1571025 wrote:I am aware of the tea party movement and how it started. That has nothing to do with where it is today. It has been hijacked by a bunch of clowns.

Specify....who are these clowns you speak of?

jmog;1571470 wrote:If you actually read my post, I said economics is a highly mathematical field.

You're dealing with people who probably haven't taken any economics at all, much less advanced courses. They have no idea what you are talking about.

^^^^expanding on yesterday's post

As far as "tea party nut jobs" is concerned, keep in mind that libertarians played a major role in the formation of that movement. The tea party movement is a relatively loose grassroots coalition of libertarians, social conservatives, and populists rebelling against the growth of Big Government and is at the very heart of the current disarray impacting the Republican Party.

I think that is a great assesment of the 'origins' of the tea party, although most libertarians have pulled out because of the heavy influence of the social conservatives. It is unfair to characterize the party as 'nut jobs' , as all the political parties have their extremists. Lost in all this was a tremendous opportunity to create an effective counterweight to the advancing big government agenda expoused by the Democratic party which, unlike the other groups that oppose it, fully grasps and employs "big tent' politics to hammer out its' agenda. The Tea Party social conservatives and libertarians like to thump their chests about their purity the their cause, and their unwillingness to compromise their principles,... but in the end, it is a losing strategy, because they will never alone be able to capture enough people to be a political majority. They could however, along with RINO's, Neo cons, tea party and libertarians, form a big enough group to stop the advancing elephant of big government. Alone and seperate, they will be nothing more than an annoyance to the Dems who are comfortable enough in their continuing and successive small victories while their opposition focuses on self destruction.

Now I know someone will get on here and tell me that there is no difference between the 'Pubs and the Dems....Keep dreaming fellas....and then you'll wonder how the **** Hillary got elected president.

I'm not sure I really understand why the right wingnuts hijacked (sort of) the TEA Party. A conspiracy theorist might say that's an establishment ploy to weaken/destroy the movement. I'm sure it's just a case of hitching their wagon to what was popular at the time.

Anyway, they just need to reach critical mass and then actually split-off into a 3rd, Libertarian, party. It's the right move to build a coalition within the Republican party to gain momentum, but at some point you have to completely separate the caucus (and the TEA Party is holding its own convention(?) and also giving a separate SOU response).

The time to do that may be shortly after 2014 elections. I don't know if Rand Paul can get the Repub nomination, if the Libertarians break off (and it looks to be heading that direction) and Paul leads that he may have a chance in a 3-way general election. But I think the TEA Party brand has been mostly ruined by both the left and the right, so you need to re-brand it the Libertarian Party (and boot-out the wingnuts).

Define that term..."right wingnuts"....that's a vague term that Democrats use to hammer their opposition....and win. The Tea Party and concerned libertarians should work within the Republican party.....give a little, demand a little...and work to expand their influence within the party. Go it alone as a third party and prepare to be trampled....and you WILL be trampled ... because that is what happens to 3rd parties.

Thank you.

Tea Partier / wing nut >> one who believes in individual liberty and fiscal sanity.

Only a marxist or communist could demonize such patriots. Speaks volumes of where the new progressive party wishes to lead us.


God save the Republic.

No, I didn't equate TEA Party to wing nut, I'm referring to the bible thumping zealots that have hijacked, or attempted so, the movement. I don't think there are very many of those (probably more who lost elections), but the left has used these nuts to paint the TEA Party in broad strokes.

Stands in stark contrast the to wayyyy left loons Pelosi and Reid who are actually RUNNING the Democratic party. Throw in Diane Feinstein and Debbie Nutserman Shultz and you're talking about people with truly pretty bad and radical ideas.

I see these studies showing the Republican party "moving farther right relative to the Dems" and I just SMH....I don't know how that's possible when the LEADERS of the Democratic party are as far left as I've seen in my lifetime. Not to mention the RINO's basically running the Repub party (i.e. moving to the left) is another sign that those studies are probably not unbiased.

gut;1571608 wrote:You're dealing with people who probably haven't taken any economics at all, much less advanced courses. They have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe economics to be as mathematically challenging as engineering, but still, markets are modeled with differential and partial differential equations.

Heck, the main stock prediction methods are based off what mathmeticians call the "negative heat equation". There is a partial differential equation (very high mathematics, 3 semesters of calculus and a semester of regular differential equations as prerequisites before you can take that course), called the "heat equation" that most engineers know that models how heat flows through almost anything.

Put a negative sign one one side of the equation and you have a stock market predictor (obviously the variables are different, instead of distance and energy you have risk, etc).

The "drive by" economist here on the board would never understand this.

"To the vanquished, the terms of surrender come in installments."

--- adolf hitler.

[h=1]Dems press Obama to OK Keystone[/h] WHITE HOUSE CALLS on further evaluation of Keystone Pipeline, even after new report from State Department raised no major environmental objections to project, prompting one Democrat to say, 'It's time to build.'


The marxists at the White House continue their assault on capitalism via their favorite weapon of choice - EPA et.al.

Obama just kicked O'Reilleys ass on Fox.

Tiernan;1575477 wrote:Obama just kicked O'Reilleys ass on Fox.

To expand on Obama's football analogy - most players who fumble repeatedly get benched.

In typical liberal fashion, Obama attempts to dismiss legitimate questions by attacking the source. I can't recall a POTUS who actively engaged a war on specific news networks and radio personalities.

You'll never hear Obama say "yeah, MSNBC is a real suck ass - you should tune them out"

ccrunner609;1575499 wrote:I missed it. Is it online?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3142612336001/bill-oreillys-super-bowl-interview-with-president-obama/#sp=show-clips