Obama defends Iran policy

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
#76
The White House lies about alot of things, we all know this...not so sure lying about the Iran deal is such a good idea though...

Iran: White House Lying About Details of Nuke Deal

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

Iran and Western nations including the United States came to an agreement on the framework for an interim deal late Saturday night in Geneva. The deal has yet to be implemented

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

“What has been released by the website of the White House as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text in Geneva and some of the explanations and words in the sheet contradict the text of the Joint Plan of Action, and this fact sheet has unfortunately been translated and released in the name of the Geneva agreement by certain media, which is not true,” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham told the Iranian press on Tuesday.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.

“This comprehensive solution would enable Iran to fully enjoy its right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under the relevant articles of the NPT in conformity with its obligations therein,” the agreement reads, according to a copy released to Iranian state-run media.

“This comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures to ensure the peaceful nature of the programme,” the Iranian draft reads. “This comprehensive solution would constitute an integrated whole where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”

Iran’s objection to the deal as presented in the fact sheet raises new concerns about final stage talks meant to ensure that the deal is implemented in the next few weeks.

The White House confirmed to the Washington Free Beacon on Monday that the final details of the plan have yet to be worked out, meaning that Iran is not yet beholden to a six month freeze its nuclear activities.

“Technical details to implement the Joint Plan of Action must be finalized before the terms of the Plan begin,” a senior administration official told the Free Beacon. “The P5+1 and Iran are working on what the timeframe is.”

The White House could not provide additional details on the timeframe when approached by the Free Beacon on Tuesday.

As the details are finalized, Iran will have the ability to continue its most controversial enrichment program. This drew criticism from proponents of tough nuclear restrictions.

“The six month clock should have started early Sunday morning,” said former Ambassador Mark Wallace, the CEO of United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI). “If this is a serious agreement, the P5+1 must ensure that these negotiations do not become a tool for Iran to further increase its enrichment abilities.”

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) Executive Director David Brog said he fears that the White House may have been “played by the Iranians.”

“This may prove to be yet another worrisome sign that the Obama Administration was played by the Iranians,” Brog told the Free Beacon in a statement. “Their concessions were either illusory or meaningless, while ours will resuscitate the Iranian economy.”

The White House said in its fact sheet on the deal that it could release up to $7 billion dollars to Iran during the first phase of the agreement.

The United States additionally agreed to suspend “certain sanctions on gold and precious metals, Iran’s auto sector, and Iran’s petrochemical exports, potentially providing Iran approximately $1.5 billion in revenue,” according to the now disputed fact sheet.

Iran could earn another $4.2 billion in oil revenue under the deal.

Another “$400 million in governmental tuition assistance” could also be “transferred from restricted Iranian funds directly to recognized educational institutions in third countries to defray the tuition costs of Iranian students,” according to the White House.

While Iranian foreign ministry officials did not specify their precise disagreements with the White House, they insisted that “the Iranian delegation was much rigid and laid much emphasis on the need for this accuracy.”
 

Georgie

Registered User
#77
The White House lies about alot of things, we all know this...not so sure lying about the Iran deal is such a good idea though...
Why not? There still hasn't been a repercussions to the countless other times this administration has lied and mislead the American people.
 

WadsOfShit

Dead to Everyone on Wackbag.
#78
Why not? There still hasn't been a repercussions to the countless other times this administration has lied and mislead the American people.
Well, that and if you called out Obama on his shit you are considered a "racist".
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#81
Well, that and if you called out Obama on his shit you are considered a "racist".
A close friend of mine's father posted an article on his Facebook about this very topic and criticized Obama. A few other people followed up bitching about Obama and then came in "that guy". This guy is in his mid-50s and is a very successful personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer and he came in calling everyone right wing loons and racists. So I tried to engage him avoiding all insults using only well known facts. He immediately labeled me a right wing extremist and said this is nothing compared to the Reagan administration and the Iran Contra affair. My response was that he was comparing apples and oranges and that the political climate has changed a bit in the last 25 years+ but that I would compare the Iran Contra affair to Operation Fast and Furious. I said that whether you agree with the Iran Contra affair or not the Reagan administration felt that funding the Contras was in the best interest of the United States and that's why they did it. Then I suggested that letting illegally purchased guns walk across the border and end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels was an attempt to aggravate the gun violence problem and create more pressure to increase gun control. Well I was immediately labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist and a racist. When I asked him what good walking those guns would do for the US he responded with "To trace them, Einstein." To which I posed the question if he was suggesting that the Obama administration is guilty of allowing illegally purchased firearms to make their way to the hands of Mexican drug cartels and used to kill hundreds of people including a US Border Patrol agent so they could trace them. His response was that I was making it all up and I'm crazy and, yes, a racist.

Sorry. I had to rant about this somewhere. I just can't believe there are people who function in the real world on some level but still think like this when it comes to politics. I used to just always write people like that off for being stupid but this guy isn't stupid. It's something else. Like you don't get to be a lawyer on his level without being constantly in the know about precedents and changing trial law but when it comes to politics he can't be bothered to look up a few basic facts to see that I'm not just reciting some made up bullshit I saw on Fox News. It's mind boggling to me.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
#82
A close friend of mine's father posted an article on his Facebook about this very topic and criticized Obama. A few other people followed up bitching about Obama and then came in "that guy". This guy is in his mid-50s and is a very successful personal injury and medical malpractice lawyer and he came in calling everyone right wing loons and racists. So I tried to engage him avoiding all insults using only well known facts. He immediately labeled me a right wing extremist and said this is nothing compared to the Reagan administration and the Iran Contra affair. My response was that he was comparing apples and oranges and that the political climate has changed a bit in the last 25 years+ but that I would compare the Iran Contra affair to Operation Fast and Furious. I said that whether you agree with the Iran Contra affair or not the Reagan administration felt that funding the Contras was in the best interest of the United States and that's why they did it. Then I suggested that letting illegally purchased guns walk across the border and end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels was an attempt to aggravate the gun violence problem and create more pressure to increase gun control. Well I was immediately labeled a crazy conspiracy theorist and a racist. When I asked him what good walking those guns would do for the US he responded with "To trace them, Einstein." To which I posed the question if he was suggesting that the Obama administration is guilty of allowing illegally purchased firearms to make their way to the hands of Mexican drug cartels and used to kill hundreds of people including a US Border Patrol agent so they could trace them. His response was that I was making it all up and I'm crazy and, yes, a racist.

Sorry. I had to rant about this somewhere. I just can't believe there are people who function in the real world on some level but still think like this when it comes to politics. I used to just always write people like that off for being stupid but this guy isn't stupid. It's something else. Like you don't get to be a lawyer on his level without being constantly in the know about precedents and changing trial law but when it comes to politics he can't be bothered to look up a few basic facts to see that I'm not just reciting some made up bullshit I saw on Fox News. It's mind boggling to me.
PI/Med Mal Lawyers have, by far, the LEAST use for the facts of just about every profession... including other types of lawyers.

A PI/Med Mal lawyer's job is basically to manipulate and obfuscate the facts to the best of their ability... usually by exploiting people's emotion in order cloud the facts.

PI/Med Mal lawyers are shit, and I'd expect nothing less than exactly the type of interaction you had with one.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#83
PI/Med Mal Lawyers have, by far, the LEAST use for the facts of just about every profession... including other types of lawyers.

A PI/Med Mal lawyer's job is basically to manipulate and obfuscate the facts to the best of their ability... usually by exploiting people's emotion in order cloud the facts.

PI/Med Mal lawyers are shit, and I'd expect nothing less than exactly the type of interaction you had with one.
You're right and you're wrong. They do want to manipulate and obfuscate the facts but they have to do so within a legal framework and, while your average ambulance chaser really doesn't put much effort into doing it, when you get to the level where you're working multimillion dollar malpractice suits there's really a lot of technique and hard work that goes into it. Enough to make some simple fact checking in a political debate seem really easy. I guess he would just rather risk being wrong than finding out that he actually is wrong.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
#84
You're right and you're wrong. They do want to manipulate and obfuscate the facts but they have to do so within a legal framework and, while your average ambulance chaser really doesn't put much effort into doing it, when you get to the level where you're working multimillion dollar malpractice suits there's really a lot of technique and hard work that goes into it. Enough to make some simple fact checking in a political debate seem really easy. I guess he would just rather risk being wrong than finding out that he actually is wrong.
Your last sentence answered your original question. Dont forget trial lawyers are married to the Democrat party for life to keep their gravytrain rolling. Tort reform-shmort reform
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#85
Your last sentence answered your original question. Dont forget trial lawyers are married to the Democrat party for life to keep their gravytrain rolling. Tort reform-shmort reform
That's not true either. Both lawyers I work for are conservatives that hate Obama. The original article posted was blasting the Obama administration and the guy posting it is a trial lawyer. Alot of trial lawyers I have met are conservatives that support Republicans but don't agree with tort reform. They can support a party without having to blindly agree with everything the party supports.
 

mascan42

Registered User
#86
Obama on one side, the Jews on the other . . . the board may tear itself apart from the conflicting racism.

: popcorn:


Oh, and Netanyahu's apparently got an official YouTube account:

 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
#87
You're right and you're wrong. They do want to manipulate and obfuscate the facts but they have to do so within a legal framework and
Well... anybody who paid attention to the Zimmerman trial has seen that lawyers don't really have to stay within a legal framework. There are times when they can squat and shit on the legal framework and get away with it basically scott free.

while your average ambulance chaser really doesn't put much effort into doing it, when you get to the level where you're working multimillion dollar malpractice suits there's really a lot of technique and hard work that goes into it.
Yes... and that "technique" is appeal to emotion, emotion, emotion... and avoid, ignore, and twist the facts to fit your agenda whenever possible.

Enough to make some simple fact checking in a political debate seem really easy. I guess he would just rather risk being wrong than finding out that he actually is wrong.
He wouldn't bother checking his facts because he knows the facts show that he's wrong... but that's not a problem when you have no use for the facts to begin with.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#88
I said that whether you agree with the Iran Contra affair or not the Reagan administration felt that funding the Contras was in the best interest of the United States and that's why they did it. Then I suggested that letting illegally purchased guns walk across the border and end up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels was an attempt to aggravate the gun violence problem and create more pressure to increase gun control.
Except that's just a cursory explanation of the whole scandal. Funding/arming rebels in a third world country is one thing, but to secretly do business with one of our biggest enemies (Iran), all the while proclaiming "we don't negotiate with terrorists," in order to achieve those goals is a much bigger deal. And they had done it to get around an express ban on supporting the Contras that Congress had passed a couple years prior.

And it went higher up the chain of command under Reagan. Besides Ollie North, the Secretary of Defense was also indicted.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#89
Except that's just a cursory explanation of the whole scandal. Funding/arming rebels in a third world country is one thing, but to secretly do business with one of our biggest enemies (Iran), all the while proclaiming "we don't negotiate with terrorists," in order to achieve those goals is a much bigger deal. And they had done it to get around an express ban on supporting the Contras that Congress had passed a couple years prior.

And it went higher up the chain of command under Reagan. Besides Ollie North, the Secretary of Defense was also indicted.
The Congressional ban was partisan politics at it's best but all that aside my point still stands. You may not agree with how they went about doing it but it was done because the administration felt it was in the our best interest for the Contras to win as well as, at least initially, thinking they were getting US prisoners back. I don't agree with it. I don't think it was the right move. But I don't question the motive behind it. I do question the motive behind Operation Fast and Furious.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#91
No the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983 was passed 411-0. Attached to that piece of legislation was the Boland Amendment which is the piece of legislation that banned assistance to the Contras and was added as part of a compromise to get the bill passed. I realize you're probably used to the Obama style of politics but back in the day when the country wasn't falling apart the President would actually compromise with congress when it was controlled by the opposing party rather than call them racists and let the government get shut down. :action-sm
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#92
I
No the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983 was passed 411-0. Attached to that piece of legislation was the Boland Amendment which is the piece of legislation that banned assistance to the Contras and was added as part of a compromise to get the bill passed. I realize you're probably used to the Obama style of politics but back in the day when the country wasn't falling apart the President would actually compromise with congress when it was controlled by the opposing party rather than call them racists and let the government get shut down. :action-sm
Defense appropriation bills got passed without a major fight back then. It was added because the Contras were being accused of war atrocities. So not even a single Republican made a "statement" vote of nay because they thought the amendment was a bad idea?

I realize you're probably used to arguing this shit on Facebook where most people would fail a civics test, but that's not the case here. For example, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate until 1987, so the Democrats didn't "control" Congress until the last two years of his presidency.
 
Last edited:

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#93
I
Defense appropriation bills got passed without a major fight back then. It was added because the Contras were being accused of war atrocities. So not even a single Republican made a "statement" vote of nay because they thought the amendment was a bad idea?

I realize you're probably used to arguing this shit on Facebook where most people would fail a civics test, but that's not the case here. For example, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate until 1987, so the Democrats didn't "control" Congress until the last two years of his presidency.
No they didn't vote nay because it was a compromise they all agreed on and they all supported the package as a whole even if they didn't agree with every piece of it.
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
#94
No they didn't vote nay because it was a compromise they all agreed on and they all supported the package as a whole even if they didn't agree with every piece of it.
No, they all (that were present) unanimously voted on that specific piece of it. A "committee of the whole" debates and votes on amendments separately from a House session.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United_States_House_of_Representatives)

I'll see if I can't find a Schoolhouse Rock video to show you on how a bill becomes a law. I'll check my Facebook... :action-sm
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#95
No, they all (that were present) unanimously voted on that specific piece of it. A "committee of the whole" debates and votes on amendments separately from a House session.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_the_Whole_(United_States_House_of_Representatives)

I'll see if I can't find a Schoolhouse Rock video to show you on how a bill becomes a law. I'll check my Facebook... :action-sm
Alright since we're throwing around wikipedia links:

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

Please direct your attention the "Backround" section where it says:

The Boland Amendment, proposed by Edward Boland, was a highly limited ambiguous compromise because the Democrats did not have enough votes for a comprehensive ban.
You can take your schoolhouse rock video and cram it up your diseased cunt. I don't have a problem discussing someone but I've had with your unfounded condescending attitude. I'm done with you.
 

Hoagie

I suggest you tread lightly
Wackbag Staff
#98
Which I tried to do here until:

I'll see if I can't find a Schoolhouse Rock video to show you on how a bill becomes a law. I'll check my Facebook... :action-sm
I guess being overly condescending faggots who can't discuss something without insulting the other person is a trait that runs in all democratic supporters as well one other thing. Being wrong.
 

mascan42

Registered User
#99
Go debate 30-year-old policies somewhere else. This thread is about who is more wrong, the ****** or the kikes. :D:action-sm
 

Party Rooster

Unleash The Beast
Which I tried to do here until:
Which I tried to do here until:

I realize you're probably used to the Obama style of politics but back in the day when the country wasn't falling apart the President would actually compromise with congress when it was controlled by the opposing party rather than call them racists and let the government get shut down. :action-sm
I guess being overly condescending faggots who can't discuss something without insulting the other person is a trait that runs in all democratic supporters as well one other thing. Being wrong.
I was just pointing out that your assessment of the IC Affair ignored much more serious parts of it, and there seemed to be a smugness and condescending tone to your comments. Both to him and later to me. Sucks when it gets thrown back at you, huh?

But I guess calling people faggots with diseased-riddled cunts is the same as cracking a Schoolhouse Rock joke. And I wouldn't say that's a trait that runs in all conservative supporters, because I've had plenty of intelligent debates around here where it doesn't devolve into that.
 
Top