• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.

KingK

Member
CCGEgQJUoAECm6A.jpg:large




I do this and I'm not a politician. I sound different depending on who I'm talking to. I adopted a more spanish accent living there, adopt a southern accent when I'm with southerns, can sounds brusk and yankee when I'm with my family up there.

see this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...-mimic-other-accents-psychologists-claim.html

Biden pic is awesome.

Also, I've done the same thing. After spending a couple weeks in Germany i started to notice myself saying 'Ja' instead of 'Yeah' and stuff like that.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Also, I've done the same thing. After spending a couple weeks in Germany i started to notice myself saying 'Ja' instead of 'Yeah' and stuff like that.
I always say "Ja" and "Danke schoen" and count to ten in German among other things. I haven't been to Germany since I left under an assumed name in the Spring of 1945.

Irregardless, of any such flourishes, I am stubborn in my language and dialect.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I always say "Ja" and "Danke schoen" and count to ten in German among other things. I haven't been to Germany since I left under an assumed name in the Spring of 1945.

Irregardless, of any such flourishes, I am stubborn in my language and dialect.

I hope you at least changed your mustache.
 

ICKE

Banned
The upcoming Republican primary is going to be so entertaining and the winner is hard to predict.

Ted Cruz has huge grassroots support, Rand Paul is popular among libertarians and Walker / Bush will receive votes from the run-of-the-mill conservatives. This is definitely something the democrats seem to lack at the moment. I do hope some outsiders challenge Hillary.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats don't even hold any debates.

Why let Hillary get beat up on by Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley for four months when they're going to get vaporized anyway.

Just do softball interviews instead.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
The upcoming Republican primary is going to be so entertaining and the winner is hard to predict.

Ted Cruz has huge grassroots support, Rand Paul is popular among libertarians and Walker / Bush will receive votes from the run-of-the-mill conservatives. This is definitely something the democrats seem to lack at the moment. I do hope some outsiders challenge Hillary.

and if they get vaporized and drop out after iowa then what was the point?

you should be asking for a "credible" challenger. A run for her money type candidate where she could actually improve as a candidate. Any challenger will get the above effect like Benji stated. If she got a bunch of softball yes men then the challenge is moot. "I agree with Secretary Clinton" etc
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I wouldn't be surprised if the Democrats don't even hold any debates.

Why let Hillary get beat up on by Jim Webb and Martin O'Malley for four months when they're going to get vaporized anyway.

Just do softball interviews instead.

If anyone can mess up softball interviews, it's Hillary.

Did Hillary ever mess up any of the 2008 debates? I feel like most of her big flubs came from outside of the debates.
 

benjipwns

Banned
If anyone can mess up softball interviews, it's Hillary.

Did Hillary ever mess up any of the 2008 debates? I feel like most of her big flubs came from outside of the debates.
She had that flub about New York ID's which was like a minor point everyone else jumped on and then came back the next debate with an over-prepped answer. And there were the attacks on her individual mandate. (;) lol)

From the article I linked:
Campaigns are punctuated by moments of high stagecraft — debates, convention speeches — that require oratorical talents that Clinton does not possess in abundance. “She doesn’t make mistakes in the debates, but that’s different than being good,” says a Democratic operative. “She doesn’t win a lot of people over.” The former Obama aide Bill Burton, who thought Clinton did well in her 2008 debates, nonetheless sums up her performances another way: “Maya Angelou said people won’t remember what you say or do but they’ll remember how you made them feel. If anything, she was a little too driven by data and less driven by how she was going to come off.” In fact, one of the greatest sources of agita among Democrats these days is that, deprived of a competitive primary, Clinton will face her well-seasoned Republican opponent without having debated in more than eight years.

...

For instance, in 2007, “in a panic about Obama” — as a Hillary strategist later confessed to Gerth and Van Natta — when confronted with the prospect of speaking opposite him at a civil-rights commemoration in Alabama, she adopted a ridiculous southern drawl. Her comparison of Putin to Hitler at the height of last year’s Ukraine crisis was presumably an attempt to offset her failed Russian-reset policy during her time in Obama’s Cabinet. And it can’t have been a coincidence that Clinton’s heavy-handed critique of free-market ideology — “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs” — came at an event during which she shared the stage with Elizabeth Warren, who poses a threat to Clinton from the left.

Clinton’s worst gaffe of late came last year, in response to a question from Diane Sawyer about her sky-high speaking fees. Recognizing her vulnerability, she overcompensated, claiming that she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left the White House. According to one Republican operative who’s conducted focus groups on Clinton in Ohio and Colorado, “when you play that Diane Sawyer interview for lower-income women, women who really have struggled to put food on the table for their kids, they got physically upset at her about that remark.” Clinton only compounded the error when, in subsequent interviews, she tried to defend it as literally true. “She’s not very adept at cleaning that stuff up,” says the Republican operative. “Her tendency is to double down, rather than say that was a ridiculous comment.” Or, as Luntz says, “She doesn’t know when or how to say, ‘Hey, I fucked up.’ ”

In this sense, the March press conference actually represented a sort of progress: Clinton contended that, “looking back,” she wished she’d done things differently. “Rewind to 2008, and everyone was telling her to say that about Iraq and she didn’t,” says a Democratic strategist close to Clinton’s team. “Did the mountain move? No. Did the hills get smaller? Yes. There was an indication that this wasn’t the same Hillary."

And since I like this bubble bursting from the piece:
In a tug-of-war campaign, no one gaffe is as consequential as it feels in the moment. “Especially in a presidential race, when there’s so much information about the candidates, it’s very difficult for these moments to pierce people’s consciousness,” says John Sides. This can be true, he argues, even with monumental gaffes, like Romney’s surreptitiously videotaped “47 percent” comments. Although it was the defining quote of the campaign — and dominated headlines, as well as Obama’s media strategy — for much of September and October, Sides and Vavreck demonstrate in The Gamble that it had no bearing on the race’s outcome. Yes, some supporters abandoned Romney in the two weeks after the comments became public, but they didn’t go to Obama — they began identifying themselves as “undecided.” Then, after Romney’s strong performance in the first debate, they returned to him. And so what looked like a groundswell after the debate was simply his old supporters coming home.

What if Romney hadn’t performed well in the first debate? Sure, the voters who abandoned him after his gaffe may never have seriously entertained voting for Obama, but what was suddenly in play was their enthusiasm for the candidate — and, by extension, their likelihood of turning out to vote.

Motivation, not persuasion, is the key factor in a presidential race with an electorate as polarized as it is today. “The idea of the thoughtful independent voter,” says Karol, “is mostly a myth.” As a candidate, you’re not trying to sell yourself; you arrive presold, and the critical question becomes, How many of your kinds of shoppers are out there?
But various academic studies have shown that even the debates that we consider most game-changing — Kennedy’s besting of a sweaty, five-o’clock-shadowed Nixon in 1960; Michael Dukakis’s botching of a question involving the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife; George H.W. Bush’s impatiently glancing at his watch in 1992 — had little or no impact on voter preferences. “Thinking of debates as changing people’s minds about politics is like thinking fans watching a basketball game are going to change which team they’re rooting for,” says Dartmouth’s Nyhan. “The people who watch debates are already invested, and the people who aren’t invested don’t care so they don’t pay attention to debates.”

Clinton might give a terrific acceptance speech at the Democratic convention; it could also be lackluster. Chances are it won’t be remembered by the fall. Dukakis accepted his party’s nomination to the strains of Neil Diamond and led George H.W. Bush by 17 points after the Democratic convention; Sarah Palin seemed to light a fuse under John McCain’s candidacy with her convention star turn in 2008, and he surged five points ahead of Obama. Or consider Al Gore, whose eight-point convention bounce in 2000 is one of the largest since World War II. “Was Al Gore’s speech that great? He was sweaty, and he made out with Tipper at the end. But people wanted to believe,” says Nyhan. “A lot of what a convention is doing is reminding people who they are, what their partisan loyalties are, and what the state of the country is. Gore was underperforming where the fundamentals suggested he should be, and so he got a big convention bump. It was people snapping back into place.”
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok

This doesn't really account for the Republican position that "no deal" would mean "we bomb the capability out of them".

That seems to be the disconnect. For Republicans and Bibi, its not a choice between maintaining the status quo and a deal which restricts down Iran's capability. Its a choice between invading/bombing Iran to the point of them being incapable of being a threat, and allowing them any kind of nuclear capability, weaponized or not.

And horrible to think that Republicans and Bibi would prefer to go to war over the possibility that Iran might be able to do something aggressive with nuclear capability one day, 15 years or more from now, maybe, while somehow keeping those weaponization efforts secret by magic. Even worse, I'm sure some of them would prefer to go to war rather than say "Good job, Obama".
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member

benjipwns

Banned
Remember when George Bush Sr. getting upset at Dan Rather was seen as a positive moment in his campaign.

https://youtu.be/FqwQw3THRvU?t=385

Maybe I've been reading too much Ailes lately, but it seems like his only mistake is apologizing about it.
That's because Bush was seen as not passionate and wooden and wishy washy and soft. And they came prepared:
In their post-election book looking behind-the-scenes look at Campaign ’88, “The Quest for the Presidency,” Newsweek reporters revealed how Vice President Bush initially presumed that Dan Rather would take an honest approach to the interview (“‘He’s a fair man,’ the vice president said.”) but the campaign learned that CBS staffers were “running around the network boasting that they would take Bush out of the race.” Media adviser Roger Ailes reminded the Vice President of Rather’s most embarrassing moment on the air (up to that time), a point Bush used in the interview when Rather became contentious.

Also lol at that whole high tech late 1980s setup there.
 
This doesn't really account for the Republican position that "no deal" would mean "we bomb the capability out of them".

That seems to be the disconnect. For Republicans and Bibi, its not a choice between maintaining the status quo and a deal which restricts down Iran's capability. Its a choice between invading/bombing Iran to the point of them being incapable of being a threat, and allowing them any kind of nuclear capability, weaponized or not.

And horrible to think that Republicans and Bibi would prefer to go to war over the possibility that Iran might be able to do something aggressive with nuclear capability one day, 15 years or more from now, maybe, while somehow keeping those weaponization efforts secret by magic. Even worse, I'm sure some of them would prefer to go to war rather than say "Good job, Obama".
They claim thats not what they want though. They want a better deal which is.....
 

pigeon

Banned
This doesn't really account for the Republican position that "no deal" would mean "we bomb the capability out of them".

That seems to be the disconnect. For Republicans and Bibi, its not a choice between maintaining the status quo and a deal which restricts down Iran's capability. Its a choice between invading/bombing Iran to the point of them being incapable of being a threat, and allowing them any kind of nuclear capability, weaponized or not.

We don't, in any practical sense, have the ability to invade and conquer Iran, and no smaller intervention can end the nuclear threat, so this is not a real choice. It's diplomacy or just letting them have the bomb.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Oh damn. Rand Paul asked the DNC chair if it is okay to kill a 7 pound baby, which, for the record, I highly doubt any embryo <20 weeks old is going to weight 7 lbs unless it belongs to a giant mammal.

Her response?

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand...ll-a-7-pound-baby-in-the-uterus-dws-responds/

“Here’s an answer. I support letting women and their doctors make this decision without government getting involved. Period. End of story. Now your turn, Senator Paul. We know you want to allow government officials like yourself to make this decision for women –– but do you stand by your opposition to any exceptions, even when it comes to rape, incest, or life of the mother? Or do we just have different definitions of ‘personal liberty’? And I’d appreciate it if you could respond without ‘shushing’ me.”
 
At least he didn't embarrass himself by doing a Foghorn Leghorn impression to trick voters into thinking he was Southern like Pawlenty did.

We don't, in any practical sense, have the ability to invade and conquer Iran, and no smaller intervention can end the nuclear threat, so this is not a real choice. It's diplomacy or just letting them have the bomb.

But Tom Cotton said a calculated bombing run would only take a few days and would be 100% effective!
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...ion-against-iran-would-only-take-several-days
 

Jooney

Member
Good.

President Obama this week will call for an end to such psychiatric therapies aimed at “repairing” gay, lesbian and transgender youth, White House officials said. His decision on the sensitive issue is the latest example of his continuing embrace of gay rights.

In a statement to be posted on Wednesday evening alongside a WhiteHouse.gov petition begun in honor of Ms. Alcorn, Mr. Obama will condemn the psychiatric practice, sometimes called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors. The petition has received more than 120,000 signatures in three months.

just saw a OT thread here.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Can you even imagine if Obama was that thin skinned? The shit Rand gets thrown his way is so minor and he can barely keep his composure.

I know, it's absolutely hilarious. Remember the plagiarism thing? It should have been a one-day story tops and his inability to handle pressure turned it into a thing spanning a couple of weeks. There's no way he'd be able to handle the general electorate, let alone do the actual job.
 

Diablos

Member
Polls are all over the board on issues. I blame every single one of you.

In ABC/WaPo:
59% think the economy is not good or poor, 38% think it's good. 49% approve of Obama's economy handling, 46% disapprove.

In Marist:
45-50 Obama on economy
38-56 Obama on foreign policy
35-56 Obama on ISIS

In Fox
45-52 Obama on economy
42-54 Obama on health care
40-54 Obama on terrorism
37-58 Obama on immigration
36-55 Obama on foreign policy
33-58 Obama on Iran

In CBS
47-46 Obama on economy
42-50 Obama on terrorism
38-51 Obama on foreign policy
38-47 Obama on Iran
36-53 Obama on ISIS

29-27-33 US gives too much - too little - right amount of support to Israel (was 31-17-38 in 2011 lol)

In National Journal:
25% economy excellent/good, 44% economy fair, 29% economy poor
next twelve months: 32% improve, 38% same, 25% worse

Because it's interesting:
Code:
Overall, when you think about the biggest economic and social challenges facing America, do you think new ideas
and solutions are more likely to come from…

State and Local institutions like government, businesses, and volunteer or community
organizations because they are closer to the problems, are more adaptable, and have
more at stake in finding solutions.
69%
National institutions like the federal government, national businesses, and major nonprofit
organizations because they have more financial resources, experience, and
long-term stability.
22%
Code:
Who Would Do A Better Job At…
(Among Total Sample)
State & Local
Institutions

National
Institutions

Don’t know /
refused

25. Making neighborhoods more attractive places
to live 89% 9% 2%
21. Improving the way we educate young people 66% 29% 5%
24. Finding new ways to provide more opportunity
to poor people 63% 32% 6%
20. Developing new products and services that
create new jobs 63% 30% 7%
26. Improving wages and living standards for
average families 57% 39% 5%
23. Ensuring that businesses are regulated fairly
and consistently 51% 43% 6%
22. Finding new ways to save energy and improve
the environment 43% 51% 6%
Why the fuck does ISIS have its own category? IT'S TERRORISM.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Cruz and Rand are going to be old news next week when Rubio and Hillary launch. And then everyone else will start jumping in. And then we'll have 24/7 meaningless news until August 15th. And then we go into hyperdrive.

I mean people are already forgetting about Cruz's launch!
 

benjipwns

Banned
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson sues over amendment approved by voters
Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to try and hold on to her leadership spot after voters approved a constitutional amendment that was likely to result in her demotion.

For the past 126 years, the chief justice position has gone to the most senior member of the Supreme Court. Since 1996, that has been Abrahamson. But the amendment approved by voters on Tuesday would instead allow the seven justices to decide who should be chief.

The liberal Abrahamson is expected to be voted out by the four-justice conservative majority.

Abrahamson, 81, argued in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Madison that the change should not be applied until after her current term ends in four years or if she leaves before then.

To have the selection process change immediately would shorten the 10-year term of office to which Abrahamson was elected as chief justice, she argued, and would therefore violate her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection rights.

She also is asking for a temporary restraining order to block the other six justices on the court from taking any action to remove her as chief justice.

The lawsuit names the other members of the court and top state officials charged with implementing the amendment. It was brought on behalf of Abrahamson and a handful of state residents who voted for her. Their votes, the lawsuit argues, will be “diluted and results of the 2009 election undone long after-the-fact, while the Wisconsin court system’s leadership will become unsettled.”

“In the most recent election, which took place April 7, 2009, her campaign committee was called the ‘Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson Reelection Committee,’ and her campaign advertising ended with the tagline, ‘Wisconsin’s Chief’ ... making it clear to voters that a vote for her was a vote to continue her in the office of chief justice,” Abrahamson wrote in her complaint.

“She campaigned extensively and expended substantial resources for reelection on that theme of continuity in the chief justice position and would not have sought reelection if there was a question about whether her reelection would retain her in the office of chief justice,” the lawsuit says.

The chief justice selection amendment doesn’t take effect until after the election’s results are certified by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Board. That is expected to happen at the board’s April 29 meeting.

....

“She should accept the will of the people,” said Sen. Tom Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, one of the amendment’s chief sponsors. “She’s an elected justice of the Supreme Court. She was not elected as the chief justice of the Supreme Court.”

Brandon Scholz, treasurer for a group called Vote Yes for Democracy that backed the change, said he was surprised by the lawsuit, calling it “self-serving.” Scholz is also the former campaign manager for Justice Pat Roggensack, who has often clashed with Abrahamson and who supported the amendment.

Earlier Wednesday, before Abrahamson filed the lawsuit, Roggensack told The Associated Press that she hoped to meet “quite soon” to discuss how to proceed following the amendment’s adoption.

Roggensack said her priority was improving the functioning of the court, which has been in the spotlight for high-profile disputes among the justices in recent years. Roggensack is part of the court’s four-justice conservative majority.

“We have some repair to do, frankly, with the image of the court and I want to work very hard to get that done,” said Roggensack, a member of the court since 2003.

The measure was placed on the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature, and opponents said it was a clear attempt to remove Abrahamson, a member of the court since 1976.

Under the new amendment, the justices have to decide every two years who they want to serve as chief justice. There are no specifics about how that is to be done or when the first decision has to be made.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Sarah Palin 2.0
In 2010, writing in her New York Times opinion column, Maureen Dowd called Sarah Palin the GOP &#8220;Queen Bee,&#8221; a reference to her status among other women in the GOP.

Five years later, it seems the GOP has finally found a new Queen: Carly Fiorina. In 1999, Fiorina became a household name&#8212;at least in a certain kind of household&#8212;when she was named CEO of Hewlett-Packard, making her the first female head of a Fortune 20 company. (She was fired in 2005 after a series of scandalous leaks.) In 2008, Fiorina was one of McCain&#8217;s chief economic advisors, and Palin and Fiorina supported one another over the years: Fiorina defended Palin against &#8220;sexist attacks&#8221; in 2008; later, in 2010, Palin endorsed Fiorina&#8217;s campaign for Barbara Boxer&#8217;s California Senate seat.

Fiorina has sought to distance herself from Palin and from other Tea Party conservatives of late, though, including during her California Senate run. As 2016 looms, the GOP, too, has begun to shift: In their quest to find more politically viable candidates to put forward, it&#8217;s no wonder Fiorina has recently become a household name. (Again, in a certain kind of household.)

At first glance, Fiorina can be seen as an upgraded Palin, and she occupies a similar position in the party: Fiorina is a charismatic woman with enough success and outsider-status to plausibly appeal to conservative voters&#8212;and to possibly even attract new ones. In fact, in 2008 there was even speculation that Fiorina might run with McCain.

Monday night, during a Center For Strategic & International Studies-hosted &#8220;Smart Women, Smart Power&#8221; conversation with Carly Fiorina in the District, a sea of young women nodded in agreement at almost everything Fiorina said. They laughed at her jokes and interrupted her to applaud.

Fiorina has said that there&#8217;s a &#8220;higher than 90 percent&#8221; chance she will run for president, and many of last night&#8217;s questions pivoted on the topic. One woman was so eager she misspoke: &#8220;It&#8217;s January 2018 and you&#8217;re president-elect&#8212;&#8221;

&#8220;2017,&#8221; Fiorina corrected her.

...

Though she&#8217;s committed fewer blunders than Palin, Fiorina does have some obvious similarities to the former vice-presidential candidate. Both favor words like &#8220;outsider&#8221; and &#8220;tough,&#8221; and allow themselves to be cast as a woman who does it all: They&#8217;re breadwinner moms with business savvy and enough charisma to make their raw ambition palatable. Similarly, both women&#8217;s careers have been marred by major professional failures: Fiorina&#8217;s firing from Hewlett-Packard and Palin&#8217;s "bridge to nowhere" (which, ironically, Fiorina initially defended).

Just this week another similarity emerged. Fiorina told Glenn Beck that California's drought was a human-caused environmental disaster. &#8220;Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California&#8217;s population has doubled,&#8221; Fiorina said. Palin, too, cited man-made climate change in a roundabout way in 2008. &#8220;You know there are&#8212;there are man's activities that can be contributed to the issues that we're dealing with now, these impacts. I'm not going to solely blame all of man's activities on changes in climate,&#8221; Palin told Katie Couric.

Yet the one thing that really unites Palin and Fiorina is their willingness to criticize Hillary Clinton. When news of Clinton&#8217;s private email server broke last month, both Fiorina and Palin attacked the former Secretary of State&#8212;Fiorina on Twitter and Palin in an op-ed for Fox News. Palin was expected to &#8220;siphon off&#8221; Clinton supporters in 2008, Jane Meyer wrote. Fiorina, too, has been hailed by the right for her recent remarks on Hillary Clinton: &#8220;No other potential 2016 contender was tougher on Hillary Clinton than Carly Fiorina at CPAC,&#8221; the Daily Signal wrote.
Failing upwards!

You'd think she'd take another shot at that seat and Kamala Harris than waste time on this. The chances on that have to be way better even if it's still likely she loses.
 
Fiorina and Meg Whitman have tag-teamed to disembowel HP. I have an acquaintance that works at HP and is looking to get out. Meg Whitman has removed the work from home policy completely, and if you want to, you need to put in a special request. The company culture is horrible and everyone is depressed. Read some of the reviews here. I don't know why Fiorina and Whitman use HP as a stepping stone at all in their resume. They are both TERRIBLE. I have more respect for Mitt Romney for having business acumen than these two idiots who have no freaking clue how to run a tech company.
 
Fiorina and Meg Whitman have tag-teamed to disembowel HP. I have an acquaintance that works at HP and is looking to get out. Meg Whitman has removed the work from home policy completely, and if you want to, you need to put in a special request. The company culture is horrible and everyone is depressed. Read some of the reviews here. I don't know why Fiorina and Whitman use HP as a stepping stone at all in their resume. They are both TERRIBLE. I have more respect for Mitt Romney for having business acumen than these two idiots who have no freaking clue how to run a tech company.

Yup. Yes, Romney largely ran a vulture firm that fleeced money out of companies, loaded them with debt, then sold them off for profit, but damn it, he was good at that job. On the other hand, both Whitman and Fiorna have been failures.

I mean, is by chance, Fiorna got nominated as anything, you could just literally run an ad series, "Random HP Employee #xxx" to destroy her credibility.
 

Chichikov

Member
Fiorina and Meg Whitman have tag-teamed to disembowel HP. I have an acquaintance that works at HP and is looking to get out. Meg Whitman has removed the work from home policy completely, and if you want to, you need to put in a special request. The company culture is horrible and everyone is depressed. Read some of the reviews here. I don't know why Fiorina and Whitman use HP as a stepping stone at all in their resume. They are both TERRIBLE. I have more respect for Mitt Romney for having business acumen than these two idiots who have no freaking clue how to run a tech company.
Letting people with business degrees run tech companies is a terrible idea.
See: Steve Ballmer.
 
Senator Tom Cotton Disagrees! It wouldn't only take a few days or so

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpoli...ion-against-iran-would-only-take-several-days
You totally stole this post from me (previous page). Like your ancestors stole publishing from our music artists!

Many of Iran's nuclear facilities are underground to the point that bunker busting bombs wouldn't even be effective. Such a strike would simply result in them gloating and deciding to create a bomb. Which means the only follow up response for the US would be outright war. Cotton probably knows this. Smarter people like Netanyahu, David Frum, Bill Kristol, etc sure as hell know this. A prolonged military engagement benefits multiple interests, would re-commit the U.S. to the Middle East/Israeli interests, etc.
 

Ecotic

Member
Fiorina and Meg Whitman have tag-teamed to disembowel HP. I have an acquaintance that works at HP and is looking to get out. Meg Whitman has removed the work from home policy completely, and if you want to, you need to put in a special request. The company culture is horrible and everyone is depressed. Read some of the reviews here. I don't know why Fiorina and Whitman use HP as a stepping stone at all in their resume. They are both TERRIBLE. I have more respect for Mitt Romney for having business acumen than these two idiots who have no freaking clue how to run a tech company.

Republicans who do their research on her will just conclude that people were upset that she was pushing tough love Republican discipline on the company and the liberals in California and in the tech media just didn't 'get it'.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...te_n_7029340.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016

Where is the poster that said shumer shouldn't be majority leader cause jews will sabotage Iran or something

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) on Wednesday evening asked Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to postpone markup of his controversial Iran legislation until the U.S. and its five negotiating partners reach a final nuclear agreement with Iran.

The bill, which would require a congressional vote on any nuclear deal and temporarily suspend President Barack Obama's ability to waive economic sanctions against Iran, is scheduled for markup in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

&#8220;To force Congress to weigh in now on the Iran nuclear talks before a final deal has been completed would be a reckless rush to judgment," Boxer wrote in a letter to Corker. "It would undermine negotiations at a critical moment and could derail a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deal with this looming threat.&#8221;

Boxer in March offered legislation that was widely seen as an alternative to the Corker bill. Her legislation would require the White House to update Congress on Iran&#8217;s compliance with any nuclear deal every three months, and would expedite the ability of Congress to reinstate sanctions if Iran violates the agreement.

Unlike Corker&#8217;s legislation, Boxer's proposal does not demand that Congress vote on a final deal, which negotiators are working to reach before a June 30 deadline.

Boxer is jewish FYI

You totally stole this post from me (previous page). Like your ancestors stole publishing from our music artists!

Many of Iran's nuclear facilities are underground to the point that bunker busting bombs wouldn't even be effective. Such a strike would simply result in them gloating and deciding to create a bomb. Which means the only follow up response for the US would be outright war. Cotton probably knows this. Smarter people like Netanyahu, David Frum, Bill Kristol, etc sure as hell know this. A prolonged military engagement benefits multiple interests, would re-commit the U.S. to the Middle East/Israeli interests, etc.

I totally didn't see your post
 

benjipwns

Banned
Boxer is jewish FYI
So sad to see traitors to their own people like that. Bibi has spoken, she should listen.

Did you know that Michelle Obama celebrated Iranian holidays at the White House?

And that she might have a pierced nipple?

How will this affect the outcome of the King case?

I'm just asking questions. Or am I?
 

Chichikov

Member
Letting business guys run anything is a bad idea.
I generally agree.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/...te_n_7029340.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016

Where is the poster that said shumer shouldn't be majority leader cause jews will sabotage Iran or something



Boxer is jewish FYI
There is a good chance Schumer will try to sabotage the Iran deal, he already moved in that direction, and yes, the fact he's Jewish has something to with it. That of course doesn't mean that all Jews will try to sabotage or even oppose that deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom