Iran enriches uranium to 20%

2456710

Comments

  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Go right ahead. That just demonstrates you don't give a shit about the environment. If green energy doesn't become a priority of this nation soon, we're going to fall even further behind in the technology race. Getting off fossil fuels is a good thing, like it or not. Much of the rest of the world wants to. It's in our economic best interests (ooh, money, that should make your greedy conservative ears perk up) to dominate the science of green energy.
  • e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,070member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    We aren't attacked by major countries because it isn't economically advantageous. If we poured our money into funding medical research and green energy solutions rather than having an anachronistic penis measuring contest, perhaps humanity as a whole would benefit.



    War is seldom economically advantageous. I can only think of a few examples where it made money - but that does not seem to stop it. I think that your logic is flawed here.
  • brbr Posts: 8,313member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    War is seldom economically advantageous. I can only think of a few examples where it made money - but that does not seem to stop it. I think that your logic is flawed here.



    Sure it is...for the military-industrial complex, for the financial speculators with insider knowledge, and for those who retain power instead of being ousted by invaders or the home opposition.



    Oh, sure, the people may suffer, but how many of the super-elite actually give a flying fuck?
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Now the President has another party to attend, a couple more fundraisers to go to and finally a few rounds of golf to play.



    Trumptman.



    1) Which of the following presidents took MORE days of holiday at the same point in their presidency?



    A) George W Bush or B) Barack Obama.



    Choose one.



    2) Which American president, since Ronald Reagan, took the MOST DAYS OF HOLIDAY at this stage of their presidency? (Hint: it is ONE OF THE PRESIDENTS IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.)



    3) How heavy is water? To carry? For die-hard Republican hacks?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Trumptman.



    1) Which of the following presidents took MORE days of holiday at the same point in their presidency?



    A) George W Bush or B) Barack Obama.



    Choose one.



    Oh I know it will be George W. Bush but the thing about that is I personally don't consider someone going to their house to be the same thing as on vacation. Bush basically treated his home as the second White House and spent considerable time conducting business from there. While the media or other sources may count that as vacation days, I think the public at large doesn't see it that way.



    Quote:

    2) Which American president, since Ronald Reagan, took the MOST DAYS OF HOLIDAY at this stage of their presidency? (Hint: it is ONE OF THE PRESIDENTS IN THE PREVIOUS QUESTION.)



    I'll gladly add again that Bush spent considerable time at his Crawford ranch.



    Quote:

    3) How heavy is water? To carry? For die-hard Republican hacks?



    Yes of course you are right. Iran isn't enriching uranium. They aren't conducting naval exercises or threatening their neighbors. It is all a Republican meme being pushed to make Obama look bad.



    It isn't like all these parties, golf rounds and fundraising are just being pushed by Republicans. They are just being reported and people are drawing their own views. The liberal media complex trying to make Obama look so awesome by showing him with his shirt off playing volleyball "accidently" keeps reporting that he's on vacation and in Hawaii for extended periods. When reporting all the fundraising he is doing and the large amounts of money pulled in, obviously trying to demoralize Republicans, it also lets slip how many he had, how much was pulled in per head and the cost, etc.



    People draw their own conclusions from that info. You can't help it if the media put it out there with one intention and due to their disconnect from main street, a different conclusion is drawn instead.
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Gotcha.



    George Bush took more days of holiday than any other president in history. But that's OK.



    You don't say a single fucking word about that. That is no grounds for criticism. Nope.



    Barack Obama, on the other hand, is an evil shit and an incompetent layabout, even though he takes less holidays.



    How thrilling to be so full of hate.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Oh I know it will be George W. Bush but the thing about that is I personally don't consider someone going to their house to be the same thing as on vacation. Bush basically treated his home as the second White House and spent considerable time conducting business from there. While the media or other sources may count that as vacation days, I think the public at large doesn't see it that way.







    I'll gladly add again that Bush spent considerable time at his Crawford ranch.







    Yes of course you are right. Iran isn't enriching uranium. They aren't conducting naval exercises or threatening their neighbors. It is all a Republican meme being pushed to make Obama look bad.



    It isn't like all these parties, golf rounds and fundraising are just being pushed by Republicans. They are just being reported and people are drawing their own views. The liberal media complex trying to make Obama look so awesome by showing him with his shirt off playing volleyball "accidently" keeps reporting that he's on vacation and in Hawaii for extended periods. When reporting all the fundraising he is doing and the large amounts of money pulled in, obviously trying to demoralize Republicans, it also lets slip how many he had, how much was pulled in per head and the cost, etc.



    People draw their own conclusions from that info. You can't help it if the media put it out there with one intention and due to their disconnect from main street, a different conclusion is drawn instead.



    Yeah, right. Obama, who is known to be addicted to his Blackberry, his iPhone, and his iPad, turns off all those devices every time he leaves the White House, and he doesn't do any work. While Bush, who didn't even know how to send an email, was really working all the time at Crawford.



    Need a few more buckets?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


    Gotcha.



    George Bush took more days of holiday than any other president in history. But that's OK.



    Actually we call them staycations to make the 3-5% of the population that is permanently unemployed under Obama feel better. When you stay home all day and don't go out, it's not unemployment, it's a staycation. See how that works?



    Working at home isn't a foreign concept, except perhaps for you. You insult millions when you declare if they telecommute or work from home, they are actually golfing or playing volleyball on the beach.



    When someone says they are working from home repeatedly, it sounds completely plausible because plenty of people do it.



    When people say they are working from a boogie board on the beaches of Hawaii, not really the same of course.



    Quote:

    You don't say a single fucking word about that. That is no grounds for criticism. Nope.



    Actually I've criticized Bush plenty, but you probably don't count it because it didn't include a racial slur, some sort of made up lie, or a bunch of name calling. Those seem to be the only things you understand.



    Quote:

    Barack Obama, on the other hand, is an evil shit and an incompetent layabout, even though he takes less holidays.



    Actually given his level of incompetence, we prefer him on vacation. He does less damage then.



    Quote:

    How thrilling to be so full of hate.



    Hope you are enjoying the projection.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Yeah, right. Obama, who is known to be addicted to his Blackberry, his iPhone, and his iPad, turns off all those devices every time he leaves the White House, and he doesn't do any work. While Bush, who didn't even know how to send an email, was really working all the time at Crawford.



    Need a few more buckets?



    It must be nice to have chats with the "facts" in your head. Please provethe claim that Bush doesn't know how to send an email. Considering his administration had a small controversy related to it, I'd find it interesting to see you prove this lie.



    Obama wasn't known for being addicted to his Blackberry, he just wasn't going to give it up when becoming President and that created a problem because all things Blackberry have to go through RIM's servers. You can see why sending presidential emails up to RIM and back might be a problem with White House Security.



    So prove your point or admit you are making stuff up. Oh wait, you do that in most threads anyway. It's sort of like how you won't say what you would do to parents who don't hand their daughter's bodies over to the government and then call a bunch of names while making up your own facts there too.



    Oh and btw, while you guys are swearing Obama does more in Hawaii than Bush did in Crawford, Iran is still going nuclear on his watch and also still threatening their neighbors. Way to focus on the important stuff!! Perhaps you ought to encourage Obama to go back to Hawaii. When he is back in D.C. his appailing lack of leadership becomes that much harder to explain.
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Oh and btw, while you guys are swearing Obama does more in Hawaii than Bush did in Crawford, Iran is still going nuclear on his watch and also still threatening their neighbors. Way to focus on the important stuff!! Perhaps you ought to encourage Obama to go back to Hawaii. When he is back in D.C. his appailing lack of leadership becomes that much harder to explain.



    I see two opposing ideologies but I don't see much in the way of substance to this thread. Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you give some indication of what you think Obama should be doing to deal with this "crisis"?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    The president should be doing all in his power to get our troops out of the Middle East and end foreign aid to Israel, Pakistan, and other countries in the region (and the rest of the world).
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    The president should be doing all in his power to get our troops out of the Middle East and end foreign aid to Israel, Pakistan, and other countries in the region (and the rest of the world).



    I heard something recently that I'm not sure is true. Are we still giving foreign aid to Germany (and other European countries)?



    ? That needs to stop. I can understand charitable aid to countries that have experienced a natural disaster, but when they're 1st world countries and nothing's going on? No. And countries that refuse to stop funding terrorism or comply with our requests? No foreign aid; you're right.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I heard something recently that I'm not sure is true. Are we still giving foreign aid to Germany (and other European countries)?



    … That needs to stop. I can understand charitable aid to countries that have experienced a natural disaster, but when they're 1st world countries and nothing's going on? No. And countries that refuse to stop funding terrorism or comply with our requests? No foreign aid; you're right.



    I wouldn't be surprised if we are still sending money in some form or fashion to Germany and Japan. We still have a military presence in those countries, so it's probably true. It's time to bring our troops home from there, as well.



    And South Korea certainly has the capital and resources to defend itself now. Why are we still there?



    You raise a good point regarding humanitarian aid. I don't believe government should be using tax money for that purpose at all (I don't believe government should be taxing income either, but that's a different conversation ).



    Private organizations and charities such as the Red Cross already do far more good around the world than governments. We should continue to encourage and support such efforts through private donations - NOT tax money.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    I see two opposing ideologies but I don't see much in the way of substance to this thread. Just to satisfy my curiosity, could you give some indication of what you think Obama should be doing to deal with this "crisis"?



    He should be doing a few things. One is he should not be stopping our domestic energy production. He has placed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. He has Canada threatening to send their oil to China to be refined instead of of keeping it close due to his lack of decision on a pipeline. Secondly he should be taking action both through the U.N. and with allies to make sure Iran does not go nuclear.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I heard something recently that I'm not sure is true. Are we still giving foreign aid to Germany (and other European countries)?



    ? That needs to stop. I can understand charitable aid to countries that have experienced a natural disaster, but when they're 1st world countries and nothing's going on? No. And countries that refuse to stop funding terrorism or comply with our requests? No foreign aid; you're right.



    Not only are we still giving foreign aid, we have massive bases abroad. Whether we are giving direct aid, we are certainly giving a free ride when we provide their defense for them.



    Foreign aid



    Bases overseas
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    He should be doing a few things. One is he should not be stopping our domestic energy production. He has placed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. He has Canada threatening to send their oil to China to be refined instead of of keeping it close due to his lack of decision on a pipeline. Secondly he should be taking action both through the U.N. and with allies to make sure Iran does not go nuclear.



    Yes OK - what action would that be?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Not only are we still giving foreign aid, we have massive bases abroad. Whether we are giving direct aid, we are certainly giving a free ride when we provide their defense for them.



    Foreign aid



    Bases overseas



    Is this your position on this? Really? Because it's pretty much the Democrats and Libertarians who are demanding a reduction in bases. It's the Republicans who are refusing to do so. I commend you for disagreeing with your party for once! Well done!



    And now you're suggesting we work with the UN on international matters? Wow. Just wow. Will the real Trumptman please stand up?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Yes OK - what action would that be?



    Sanctions with a follow up threat of action if certain lines of action are crossed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Is this your position on this? Really? Because it's pretty much the Democrats and Libertarians who are demanding a reduction in bases. It's the Republicans who are refusing to do so. I commend you for disagreeing with your party for once! Well done!



    There is an entire wing of the Republican party that thinks this way. I mean this in the nicest way possible tonton but we've discussed this. The very thread where I declared Obama would undertake the same thing Bush had done because he was following Pax Americana had all of this explained.



    There is a paleocon wing of the Republican Party. Regardless of what you claim, there is also a majority section of the Democratic Party that endorses Pax Americana. Obama claimed to run against it but was also running against Biden, Clinton, etc who had endorsed the Iraq war and likewise Kerry in the prior election cycle had voted for action in Iraq. I used to have a sig declaring that the same people who wanted our troops out of Iraq wanted to put them into Darfur.



    Neo-con can only be called that because it is old liberal. It is new to the Republican party to not be isolationist and demand to be the police of the world. It is OLD to the Democratic Party. From eugenics to world affairs, they think a central authority can control it all and fix all the world's problems. You'd realize this if you stopped with the strawmen and caricatures and just actually quoted people while reading what they said.



    Quote:

    And now you're suggesting we work with the UN on international matters? Wow. Just wow. Will the real Trumptman please stand up?



    I've never claimed there isn't a role for the U.N. I've simply said our troops should not be commanded by them and we shouldn't disproportionately shoulder the funding and workload. Likewise both Bush presidents did use the U.N. Bush I did precisely what every liberal claims he should do and the net result was he wasn't re-elected. He took a coalition, removed the threat from Kuwait but didn't remove it. He enacted sanctions, as did Clinton and let the problem fester.



    Bush II took his coalition of the willing and did part of what needed to be done in Iraq. If anything Iran is showing that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. The same arguments going on with Iran right now involving WMD's are the same ones we were having with Iraq.



    In the meantime, a good chunk of the power, wealth and ability to act by these crazy regimes goes away when we do things like drill in the Gulf and build pipelines so allies like Canada can send us their oil to refine. Sure we can help fund research and see what happens but the reality is that subsidizing solutions that are not cost effective won't suddenly make them cost effective. Look at how powerful and how quick the innovations in tech and electronics occur. Why is it that this doesn't happen in solar or wind? Probably because there is an upper limit on the effectiveness and the solutions. We can undertake tech based environmentalism and likely get better yields, but honestly most current environmentalists don't endorse many solutions short of a few billion people dying off and most of the world returning to the agrarian age. That isn't a real choice.



    So try disagreeing with your party in a few areas like...say building a pipeline. It might be good for you too.
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Sanctions with a follow up threat of action if certain lines of action are crossed.




    Keep going. We already have sanctions. What lines, and what kind of follow up actions?
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Keep going. We already have sanctions. What lines, and what kind of follow up actions?



    Obviously stricter and wider than what we have now and that follows for U.N. and allies.



    Add something to the discussino besides 20 questions. This is a forum. I'm not writing you a chapter or two just so you can ask for a book.
  • muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,285member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Obviously stricter and wider than what we have now and that follows for U.N. and allies.



    Add something to the discussino besides 20 questions. This is a forum. I'm not writing you a chapter or two just so you can ask for a book.



    Why the sudden reticence to share your wisdom? Disregard - another of those damned questions. So your brand of logic just triggered my curiosity. For example, to paraphrase a previous part of this thread:



    "Obama is lazy and takes too many vacation days."



    Turns out he takes less than his predecessor...



    "OK - he takes less than Bush did, but he's an incompetent leader so we prefer it that way."



    That's simply brilliant. How could I possibly add anything to such an erudite discussion? Instead, I was looking forward to you reconciling the dichotomy between two of your other recommendations - insularity and world domination. Of course you were way too clever to fall for that one.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Why the sudden reticence to share your wisdom? Disregard - another of those damned questions. So your brand of logic just triggered my curiosity. For example, to paraphrase a previous part of this thread:



    "Obama is lazy and takes too many vacation days."



    Turns out he takes less than his predecessor...



    "OK - he takes less than Bush did, but he's an incompetent leader so we prefer it that way."



    That's simply brilliant. How could I possibly add anything to such an erudite discussion? Instead, I was looking forward to you reconciling the dichotomy between two of your other recommendations - insularity and world domination. Of course you were way too clever to fall for that one.



    Sorry but the thing you fail to see is this thing called productivity and effectiveness.



    If I accomplish more in ten days than you do in twenty, that means I'm more productive.



    Productivity and accomplishment is how you measure effectiveness, not vacation days.



    The problem with the comparison is taking a strawman, vacation days and applying it against the measure of whether a leader is effective.



    Bush was profoundly effective, so much so that Democrats increasingly became enraged at his accomplishments. They voted for his measures and bills, having read the same intellegence and then claiming he lied.



    On the flip side, if someone is not competent and is in fact lazy, and polarizing, then being on task at that more often doesn't make them a better leader, just the opposite. If they are applying a bad strategy for a longer period and are less productive, that isn't a virtue.



    I work at $100 an hour and earn $1000 in 1.2 days of labor. You work at $10 an hour and take 2.5 weeks. It doesn't mean I'm lazy. It means I'm more productive.



    Look at the governing majorities and how they grew for Bush most of his term. Look at the legislation passed. We are still debating his tax cuts three years after he has left office. That is effective. The only things Obama has undertake have made things worse and the debate is about how to overturn it.
Sign In or Register to comment.