Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32172301#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa





The biggest surprise for me (a pleasant one) was that Iran has agreed to unconditional inspections of all of its nuclear facilities for at least 15 years.

I think the Israelis are going to be mad, but that has nothing to do with the nuclear program itself, Israel just doesn't want Iran's economy to recover.

I'm glad it's pulled through. Iran can be a useful ally in the region and hopefully this is a starting block to further relations. Let's hope Israel doesn't kick up too much of a stink.

It's not just Israel, the Sunni Arab powers are also concerned because this deal won't do anything to address Iran's conventional power, but really they wouldn't be happy with anything short of the United States invading Iran and dismantling its government and military capabilities.

-"President Obama has hailed a deal restricting Iran's nuclear programme "

-"Iran must reduce the number of its centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium"

-"and agree not to enrich uranium over 3.67% - far less than is required to make a nuclear bomb"

But I thought Obama wanted Iran to become a nuclear-power, this doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by One_Angry_Scot
I'm glad it's pulled through. Iran can be a useful ally in the region and hopefully this is a starting block to further relations. Let's hope Israel doesn't kick up too much of a stink.



LOL. Israel is much more of a friend to us than Iran will ever be. Iran will never truly be our friend. They hate us (America). Always have. Always will.

HYG, Star428:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pahlavi_dynasty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Israel is much more of a friend to us than Iran will ever be. Iran will never truly be our friend. They hate us (America). Always have. Always will.

I don't think Iran is such an antagonist as you make them out to be. Their ambition is to become a necessary power in the region, and obviously most western countries would rather make deals without Iran getting in the way. These are geopolitical interests that will last for some time without a doubt, but it's hardly the basis for perpetual hate.

How is Iran necessary? Not trying to be sarcastic, just curious.

Egypt and Saudi seem like are better Arab allies.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's not just Israel, the Sunni Arab powers are also concerned because this deal won't do anything to address Iran's conventional power, but really they wouldn't be happy with anything short of the United States invading Iran and dismantling its government and military capabilities.


Conventional power is really outside the scope of a deal.

Iran's not exactly known for launching offensive wars either. They tend to be more the meddle-by-proxy type, they want bufferstates, not an empire.



Originally posted by Henry_Pym
How is Iran necessary? Not trying to be sarcastic, just curious.

Egypt and Saudi seem like are better Arab allies.


Because it's one of the major powers in the region (Egypt's a good ally and all, but it's on entirely the other side of things, while Iran borders Afghanistan and Iraq), and it's not going away anytime soon.

And to start with, I'll mention one key difference is they're not Arab at all, they're Persian, meaning they have a different mindset and culture than many of the nearby counties.


It's one of the most stable, most developed and educated, and even most democratic states in the area (the democratic part of their government is subservient to the clerics, but they *have* a democratic part, unlike most of their neighbors), and has a history of being a rational actor (i.e. while some countries are known for doing stupid things for ideological reasons, Iran isn't the type to attack someone it doesn't like if the blowback would be too hard). They aren't aggressive in the conquest sense either, they don't desire to absorb their neighbors, but do want influence over them and use proxy powers, much like we do.


Also, in terms of difficulty of knocking down militarily, if Iraq was a 3/10, Iran is a 7, maybe an 8. It's got a different military culture than it's neighbors (again going back to the different culture thing), meaning they have a much more competent well-trained military.


They're opponents of ISIS and Al Qaeda. After 9/11, they offered their support against Al Qaeda. We turned them down pretty rudely, but they did offer. If our relations with them improved... not, like, to friendly, but just to not-so-hostile, it'd make things much harder on the forces in the region that truly hate us, because due to being Shiite Persians instead of Sunni Arabs, they're usually number two or three on those group's hit lists.


One final, kinda funny thing. There's even been attempts to increase US tourism from Iran (I don't think very successful). You know how sometimes you hear Americans say 'We don't hate Iranians (or whoever), just their evil government'? They have a similar view on us.


Basically, they don't view the US as the great satan or monsters, they view us as political enemies who they can't entirely trust, and who have bad blood with, but who can be dealt with in the situations where interests align.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. Israel is much more of a friend to us than Iran will ever be. Iran will never truly be our friend. They hate us (America). Always have. Always will.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you've never spoken to an Iranian before.

Also, the fact that you don't have any knowledge of world events before 1979 explains a lot about you.

Agh, increase US tourism *to* Iran. As in, Iran said, 'hey Americans, if you come here, you'll have a good time.' Mixed that up...

Seems odd that Iran would spend billions on atomic energy, yet they can not spend millions to refine their own oil.

Do folks in Iran consider themselves Iranian? After all it was the west that came up with their name of the country 100 years ago. Much like the other countries named after the Ottoman Empire was abolished.

The West didn't come up with it- Persia requested the change based on what it had called itself historically.

They've had government changes in that time, most recently in the 70s. If they wanted a name change, they'd have it.

And unlike many of their neighbors, they aren't a slap-dash country with lines draw heedless of local groupings.


Originally posted by SayWhat
Seems odd that Iran would spend billions on atomic energy, yet they can not spend millions to refine their own oil.

Not odd at all when you realize one key thing. With nuclear power, they can sell their oil, rather than use it. The more nuclear power they have, the more profit they have.

Oil refining is a very large involved process too, with plenty of byproducts one has to deal with, if you want to do it in quantity. But they don't need the oil for themselves anyway, so selling crude is just as good to them.


The price of oil on the open market went down in response to this deal, as buyers noted Iranian oil is going to be reliably on the market as a result.

Originally posted by SayWhat
Do folks in Iran consider themselves Iranian? After all it was the west that came up with their name of the country 100 years ago. Much like the other countries named after the Ottoman Empire was abolished.
Iran comes from Aryana meaning "Land of the Aryans."

You have it the other way around, it was the Greeks who started the Western trend of calling Iran "Persia," which actually refers only to a small part of the country (the old capital region of the Achaemenid Empire), a mistake that stuck until the 20th century. The Iranians have called themselves Iranians for centuries.

Funnily enough, Greeks don't call themselves Greeks--they've always called themselves Hellenes, but I don't know the etymological battle there.

Edit: ****in Romans, that's why.

When I'm elected leader of the Earth, expect to see a 'call everyone what they call themselves' campaign.

No more Germany, just Deutschland. Nihon-koku! Hellenes! Etc.!

Germany is a particularly bewildering example as just considering their immediate neighbors in Europe there are four different etymologies for their name. Deutschland, Allemagne (French), Germany, and Nemetsia (Russian, Slavic, and Hungarian), along with various names in Baltic countries.

And I find it quite weird when it's names that are easily pronouncible in the other languages...

A state department graphic:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCF18IHW4AIqCC7.jpg


Which is also, arguably trolling Netanyahu some (context)

The conservative response to that picture would likely be that the consequences of "no deal" would be Israel bombing the shit out of them while we flooded their country with marines because hoora 'murica etc.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
The conservative response to that picture would likely be that the consequences of "no deal" would be Israel bombing the shit out of them while we flooded their country with marines because hoora 'murica etc.


Or in other words, "We don't like this deal because we want to go to war with Iran."



And that's frankly stupid, and if they wanted to go to Iran, they should just say so and try and justify themselves.

If we had to provide honest justifications for our wars, we wouldn't have any wars.

... and think of how boring that would be.

And, wow, Senator Cotton does come out and ask for outright war with Iran, thinking (wrongly) that we can take out their program with just a few quick strikes.


Note that these strikes would involve targeting active nuclear plants, so we're talking Chernobyl situations as well.

fgAVpPNusTs

Is that your final answer?

Originally posted by Stringer
Is that your final answer?

Is it yours, Epicurus?

No, Apate

It's really hard to tell if Khamenei's newest rhetoric is just dick-wagging to try to get a better deal or if he's actually trying to sink the deal by demanding terms that he knows the US will never accept. My money is on the former but who really knows.

In other news, Obama's own advisors are urging that fewer concessions be made than are currently planned: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33269405

I know you never take Iran seriously but cmon.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I know you never take Iran seriously but cmon.
C'mon what?

You never really take what they say serious.

You complain about maniacs with gun in America yet a country that is getting Nukes says they will wipe Israel off the map and its non negotiable.

It really seems like... Geo-politics would be a lot simpler if Israel wasn't around. :^)

Originally posted by Tzeentch
It really seems like... Geo-politics would be a lot simpler if Israel wasn't around. :^)

Yea sure, same with every other country in the world. How about a one world government?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You never really take what they say serious.

You complain about maniacs with gun in America yet a country that is getting Nukes says they will wipe Israel off the map and its non negotiable.
Well, there are three reasons why I don't take "wiping Israel off the map" to be a serious threat of nuclear annihilation.

1) Israel has nukes. Lots of them. Iran knows this. Iran also knows that America has nukes. LOTS OF THEM.
2) Since the revolution in 1979, Iran hasn't engaged in a direct, unprovoked attack on another country. Iran prefers to work through asymmetrical warfare and local proxies. It's a very aggressive country in the sense it's constantly meddling in neighbors' affairs and isn't above things like bombing Israeli embassies, but it has no track record for attacking its enemies first with actual military assets. Mark my words: if there is ever a shooting war between Israel and Iran, Israel will be the one who fires the first official shot.
3) Many in the Iranian government have clarified that what they mean when they say "wipe Israel off the map" they mean erase the borders of the Israeli state and return control of the territory to the Palestinians, probably through military force. Still pretty bellicose, but not quite the same as threatening to turn Israel into radioactive glass.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You never really take what they say serious.

You complain about maniacs with gun in America yet a country that is getting Nukes says they will wipe Israel off the map and its non negotiable.

Iran hasn't said they want to wipe Israel off the map.

Their actual stated preference is for the government to be replaced with a non-jewish lead one. Note how unlike some countries, they aren't rapidly anti-jewish, they have a jewish population. Still anti-Israeli, yes, but there's a distinction.


They're sane enough to not want to be blow up in return. They have more self-interest than the strong-man dictator states, and value their own hide much more than attacking someone else.


On the analogy, here's a thing- if a 'maniac with a gun' said, "Hey, he's the deal, I want to keep my gun, but I'll come and let you check my safety precautions, limit the amount of ammo I have at any one time, see to it that I only use ammo at the gun range* or in designated hunting areas, and let you watch to make sure this is the case for years," then, well, that makes them much less likely to shoot anyone! That would, indeed, seem to be a quite good deal, and make them come across as not-particularly-maniac.


*Which is similar to what Switzerland has. Everyone has a gun, but ammo is restricted.

Originally posted by Q99
Iran hasn't said they want to wipe Israel off the map.

Their actual stated preference is for the government to be replaced with a non-jewish lead one. Note how unlike some countries, they aren't rapidly anti-jewish, they have a jewish population. Still anti-Israeli, yes, but there's a distinction.


They're sane enough to not want to be blow up in return. They have more self-interest than the strong-man dictator states, and value their own hide much more than attacking someone else.


On the analogy, here's a thing- if a 'maniac with a gun' said, "Hey, he's the deal, I want to keep my gun, but I'll come and let you check my safety precautions, limit the amount of ammo I have at any one time, see to it that I only use ammo at the gun range* or in designated hunting areas, and let you watch to make sure this is the case for years," then, well, that makes them much less likely to shoot anyone! That would, indeed, seem to be a quite good deal, and make them come across as not-particularly-maniac.


*Which is similar to what Switzerland has. Everyone has a gun, but ammo is restricted.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f11/t614080.html

I am pessimistic about this agreement.

Republicans are shitting themselves, not because they actually believe Iran's going to build stockpiles of nukes and then nuke everyone in some suicide-Islamic-nuke-attack, as per that nonsense ranting, but because a possible peace will finally be had with Iran after over 30years and it will be had at the hands of not only a Dem POTOS, but Obama no less.

Originally posted by Robtard
Republicans are shitting themselves, not because they actually believe Iran's going to build stockpiles of nukes and then nuke everyone in some suicide-Islamic-nuke-attack, as per that nonsense ranting, but because a possible peace will finally be had with Iran after over 30years and it will be had at the hands of not only a Dem POTOS, but Obama no less.

Republicans just gave fast tracked Obama's dictator like Trade Powers, and you bashing them about being cautious about Iran?

Not sure what you mean.

But I am most certainly bashing them about Iran with their fear-mongering and war-mongering. They know Iran's not going to build nukes and start nuking everyone or even just Israel, it would be suicide. They fear a Dem POTUS making a deal that creates the US having good relations with a former enemy as it will echo down the line that the Democrats (Obama) achieved it.

edit: Especially considering how close the elections are. Imagine it, the previous Rep President started a war that turned Iraq into an unstable breeding ground for terrorist while the previous Dem President secured a tentative peace with a former enemy of 30+ years. Which sells better to the undecided purple-state voter?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure what you mean.

But I am most certainly bashing them about Iran with their fear-mongering and war-mongering. They know Iran's not going to build nukes and start nuking everyone or even just Israel, it would be suicide. They fear a Dem POTUS making a deal that creates the US having good relations with a former enemy as it will echo down the line that the Democrats (Obama) achieved it.

edit: Especially considering how close the elections are. Imagine it, the previous Rep President started a war that turned Iraq into an unstable breeding ground for terrorist while the previous Dem President secured a tentative peace with a former enemy of 30+ years. Which sells better to the undecided purple-state voter?

Thanks for pointing out what the Democratic strategy is.

Even if you take at your snarky "it's just voting strategy" and nothing else, the outcome of having a tentative peace with Iran is still great and only helps America as a whole.

Which is far more noble than the Republican attempt to sabotage it for votes and by connection screw over the American public.

Originally posted by Robtard
Even if you take at your snarky "it's just voting strategy" and nothing else, the outcome of having a tentative peace with Iran is still great and only helps America as a whole.

Which is far more noble than the Republican attempt to sabotage it for votes and by connection screw over the American public.

No. That is not what I was saying. I am far more pessimistic then that.

Shakyamunison: bellyitching since 2007.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Shakyamunison: bellyitching since 2007.

No, realistic. I don't believe the lie that Democrats are good. I could see them starting a war if they could blame it on the Republicans. After all, the Republicans are the true enemy, and they don't really care about the common people who will get hurt.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, realistic. I don't believe the lie that Democrats are good. I could see them starting a war if they could blame it on the Republicans. After all, the Republicans are the true enemy, and they don't really care about the common people who will get hurt.

You confused me. Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?

Originally posted by Robtard
You confused me. Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?

Wow! You are so indoctrinated. They are bot the same.

Asking you to explain what you said is indoctrination now? Odd.

Originally posted by Robtard
Asking you to explain what you said is indoctrination now? Odd.

Yes that is what he is saying. When you gonna realize that Rob?

Originally posted by Robtard
Asking you to explain what you said is indoctrination now? Odd.

You gave me a false choice that reflected your indoctrination.

You question:

"Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?"

As if one was scummier then the other. They are the same. The appearance that they are different is to keep everyone under control. Now do you get it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You gave me a false choice that reflected your indoctrination.

You question:

"Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?"

As if one was scummier then the other. They are the same. The appearance that they are different is to keep everyone under control. Now do you get it?

This is why are are badass my friend, you see the truth.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You gave me a false choice that reflected your indoctrination.

You question:

"Are you saying that the Democrats are scumbags but Republicans are still scummier (ie "the true enemy)?"

As if one was scummier then the other. They are the same. The appearance that they are different is to keep everyone under control. Now do you get it?
Have you ever heard of the Golden Mean Fallacy?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Have you ever heard of the Golden Mean Fallacy?

Completely different. I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory. I'm countering a conspiracy theory. To believe that one party is good and the other is evil is the conspiracy theory.

Whatever you believe for one is true for the other. That make sense. To believe that one is good and the other evil is just stupid.

I present it as they are both evil, because if I told you that they were also both good, no one would understand. All things posses the ten worlds including both political parties. Good and evil is in all things.

Let me guess, you don't understand. That is why I keep it simple. Both parties are evil. I think that is something that most people would have an easier time understanding.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Completely different. I'm not promoting a conspiracy theory. I'm countering a conspiracy theory. To believe that one party is good and the other is evil is the conspiracy theory.

Whatever you believe for one is true for the other. That make sense. To believe that one is good and the other evil is just stupid.

I present it as they are both evil, because if I told you that they were also both good, no one would understand. All things posses the ten worlds including both political parties. Good and evil is in all things.

Let me guess, you don't understand. That is why I keep it simple. Both parties are evil. I think that is something that most people would have an easier time understanding.


The Golden Mean Fallacy doesn't have to do with whether or not something is a conspiracy.

The fallacy is thinking that when presented with two options (one side bad, the other side bad, type stuff), that the answer must be something in between these two.


Simple facts:
The two sides do have different positions and different policies.

These different policies have different practical, real-world effects.


Given that, what are the odds of two different sets of actions just happening to cause the same amount of good and bad?


Pretty low, when you get down to it. Even if one views their motives as the same and them as two sides of the same coin, the observable fact is their actions are different on a number of matters.


You may write off them being different as 'indoctrination,' but in turn I view that as a buzzword, that overlooks that one can judge different groups by what they actually do, and unless they actually act the same- and I mean, actually the same in action, not a perceived deep-down motive- there'll thus be a difference in their effect on things.



Convincing yourself that everything is the same, and that neither choice matters, seems to me as a good way to simply minimize your own effect, and much less effective than analyzing things and making a judgement based on the likely results of actions.


Or to put it another way, writing the two parties off as the same and those who disagree with that as indoctrination, is a Golden Mean Fallacy. When presented with two choice, you decided the answer must be in between.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Thanks for pointing out what the Democratic strategy is.


Here's a thing I want to point out: If one group performs more effective actions than another, I am totally fine with it being cynical strategy.


A cynic that makes peace purely for their own benefit still results in peace.

A cynic that makes a mess like Iraq for their own benefit still made a mess.

Gimme the first self-interested cynic any day, because results matter.


So yea, it's the Democrat strategy to make peace, if it's reasonably possible, with a long term enemy, because they think it'll make them look good. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Originally posted by Q99
Here's a thing I want to point out: If one group performs more effective actions than another, I am totally fine with it being cynical strategy.


A cynic that makes peace purely for their own benefit still results in peace.

A cynic that makes a mess like Iraq for their own benefit still made a mess.

Gimme the first self-interested cynic any day, because results matter.


So yea, it's the Democrat strategy to make peace, if it's reasonably possible, with a long term enemy, because they think it'll make them look good. I don't think that's a bad thing.

That is not what I was saying. I was saying that the Democrats would start a war if they could blame the Republicans.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Wow! You are so indoctrinated. They are bot the same.

"No, realistic. I don't believe the lie that Democrats are good. I could see them starting a war if they could blame it on the Republicans. After all, the Republicans are the true enemy, and they don't really care about the common people who will get hurt."

Your very terrible writing in this post led to Robtard's confusion. As a very terrible writer, you shouldn't balk when people ask you to elaborate on what you have very terribly written.

I suspect your assertion that the Republicans are the "true enemy" was sarcastically meant to illustrate your perception of the Democratic mindset, but the following claim that "they don't really care about the common people" puts that interpretation into question. Given your wording, it would seem you are saying the Republicans don't care about the common people. However, this doesn't fit the context of your post, since your position is that both sides are equally wrong. Your poor sentence structure makes that last sentence seem like a non-sequitur, where you are randomly stating that Republicans are the definition of evil.

Let me go ahead and fix your post to make it more legible:

No, I've just been realistic. I don't believe the lie that Democrats are good. I could see them starting a war if they could blame it on the Republicans. After all, "the Republicans are the true enemy", and the Democrats don't really care about the common people who will get hurt by their actions.

There, with just a few minor alterations your post has been improved. You are welcome.

Why can't I quote your post?

No do me

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is not what I was saying. I was saying that the Democrats would start a war if they could blame the Republicans.

Oh.

.... maybe? But even from a ruthless point of view, that's a risky gambit, and wars cost money and one of the Democrat's big winning points is their economic success in comparison, so they wouldn't want to undermine that with war costs...


Even a completely realpolitik, ruthless-advantage view of each side can have significant differences between the sides.




Evil is something people have different positions on, so I'll skip that word.

One party does policies that my observations indicate as significantly more effective in areas such as lowering unemployment, raising economic growth, managing debt, and providing for the health of it's constituents.



Irony for you: The day after you made this post, a 5-4 vote for marriage equality was passed. Millions of Americans can get married now when they used to not be able to.

Had a different president been elected in place of the current one, there'd be a more conservative justice in place of one of those. It'd be 5-4 against, at best.

A difference was made.



I ask the same to you.

If two groups do visibly different policy with recordably different results, then where is the equal-ness you insist upon coming from?



Well, one is doing policy that screws me over significantly less. So, that one.

Do you have a reason to think they're the same besides assuming they are?

Would the Republicans have passed health care and marriage equality? Would they have passed the same size of stimulus, estimated in saving 2-4 million jobs?

Would they have acted the same?

If you do think they'd have acted the same, explain your reasoning, don't just toss out buzz-words like 'indoctrination' and 'kool-aid'.


Empty assumption of equalness of results is not the same as evidence of equalness of results. Cynicism is not wisdom, it is merely cynicism, and that assumes to be all your view is based on. That, and the fallacy that things automatically follow the in-between answer.







Exactly, it's a golden mean fallacy. You will assume the middle even when it's not true.

My question wasn't based on "false confusion", your odd sentence structure/wording actually confused me and why I asked for clarification. Nemebro was spot on.

To add context as to why I was confused: I know you as the guy who routinely says "Dems and Reps are equally bad", but then spends a considerable amount of time shitting on Democrats. Hence the confusion of you seemingly flipping and saying "both are bad, but Republicans are worse", which would be the opposite of how I know you. ie my "scummier" question.

Originally posted by Q99
...Exactly, it's a golden mean fallacy. You will assume the middle even when it's not true.

Obviously you have no idea what the middle way is, otherwise you would have gotten the joke.

Talking to you is a waist of my time.

Originally posted by Robtard
For the record, my question wasn't based on "false confusion", your odd sentence structure actually confused me and why I asked for clarification. Nemebro was spot on.

To add context why I was confused, I know you as the guy who routinely says "both Dems and Reps are equally bad", but then spends a considerable amount of time shitting on Democrats. Hence the confusion of you seemingly flipping and saying "both are bad, but Republicans are worse", which would be the opposite of how I know you. ie my "scummier" question.

Incorrect. You are seeing from your own bias. If I said anything negative about the Republicans everyone on this forum would agree with me, and no one would get the point. Instead I tell everyone that the Democrats are evil because it goes against their indoctrination, and they take notice (just like you did).

I have gotten into some conversations with conservatives on this forum where I point out their indoctrination, but it mostly happens in the religious forum.

The absents of something is not proof of something.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Incorrect. You are seeing from your own bias. If I said anything negative about the Republicans everyone on this forum would agree with me, and no one would get the point. Instead I tell everyone that the Democrats are evil because it goes against their indoctrination, and they take notice (just like you did).

I have gotten into some conversations with conservatives on this forum where I point out their indoctrination, but it mostly happens in the religious forum.

The absents of something is not proof of something.
What I said can't be argued against as it's how I read your statement and why it confused me.

Originally posted by Q99
Oh.

.... maybe? But even from a ruthless point of view, that's a risky gambit, and wars cost money and one of the Democrat's big winning points is their economic success in comparison, so they wouldn't want to undermine that with war costs...


Even a completely realpolitik, ruthless-advantage view of each side can have significant differences between the sides.




Evil is something people have different positions on, so I'll skip that word.

One party does policies that my observations indicate as significantly more effective in areas such as lowering unemployment, raising economic growth, managing debt, and providing for the health of it's constituents.



Irony for you: The day after you made this post, a 5-4 vote for marriage equality was passed. Millions of Americans can get married now when they used to not be able to.

Had a different president been elected in place of the current one, there'd be a more conservative justice in place of one of those. It'd be 5-4 against, at best.

A difference was made.



I ask the same to you.

If two groups do visibly different policy with recordably different results, then where is the equal-ness you insist upon coming from?



Well, one is doing policy that screws me over significantly less. So, that one.

Do you have a reason to think they're the same besides assuming they are?

Would the Republicans have passed health care and marriage equality? Would they have passed the same size of stimulus, estimated in saving 2-4 million jobs?

Would they have acted the same?

If you do think they'd have acted the same, explain your reasoning, don't just toss out buzz-words like 'indoctrination' and 'kool-aid'.


Empty assumption of equalness of results is not the same as evidence of equalness of results. Cynicism is not wisdom, it is merely cynicism, and that assumes to be all your view is based on. That, and the fallacy that things automatically follow the in-between answer.







Exactly, it's a golden mean fallacy. You will assume the middle even when it's not true.

So much BS in here where does one start. Talking about the gay marriage ruling in the Iran thread, priceless.

Originally posted by Robtard
What I said can't be argued against as it's how I read your statement and why it confused me.

I thought we were past that. I wasn't talking about your confusion. I was talking about the point. Okay, you were confused, I'm sorry, now get over it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Talking to you is a waist of my time. As is elementary-level spelling skills, apparently.

No one begged to ask why Q99 went off on a gay marriage tirade in the Iran framework thread? Interesting..

Originally posted by Tzeentch
As is elementary-level spelling skills, apparently.

Grammar Nazi!