Sailors Seized

I see our detente with Iran is going just swimmingly.

Look, I think it is important that we move toward more normalized relations with Iran. The cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been heating up rapidly in recent weeks after the Saudis executed a Shiite cleric, the Iranians condemned the act and sent protesters against the embassy and Sudan, Bahrain and the UAE broken off diplomatic relations. We can’t take a side in this.

But it’s increasingly clear that the Obama Administration can not carry out this difficult feat of diplomatic jujitsu.

At this point, the sailors need to be returned immediately. Iran is testing us.

Comments are closed.

  1. AlexInCT

    I loved watching the usual complement of Obama cock suckers at CNN fret and wring their hands that this had just happened to poor ole Obama just as he was about to fix the universe. I have no idea who the idiot bitch was because I was just flipping through the news channels and happened on the moment, then shrugged – par for the course for the cock suckers I though – and moved on. But in hindsight, this has been the Obama presidency in a nut shell. He means so well but the world is just so broken and unable to understand him.

    Fucking delusional idiots seem unable to figure out the problem is with them and their idiotic view of the world. I bet you the Iranian leaders, especially the ones that got Obama to go along with them getting a nuke, are just laughing their ass off at how big of a cowardly idiot this moron really is.

    Obama changed the way the US was viewed after Boosh: now they think we are stupid losers but pushovers too. What a fucking debacle. Man even I couldn’t predict this idiot would make Carter look this fucking good, and he has done just that.

    Thumb up 0

  2. AlexInCT

    Way to open your mouth and remove all doubt about how fucking stupid you are CM. Let me type real slow so it can sink into even your dense brain: my point is that I doubt Iran would have tried this shit when the Cowboy was president. They knew there would be consequences if the fucked with the military. The pussy in the WH however is their fucking bitch, and they wanted to make that point (and did).

    Thumb up 1

  3. Hal_10000 *

    my point is that I doubt Iran would have tried this shit when the Cowboy was president

    You mean like when China took our pilot prisoner after the air collision? Or when terrorists bombed the Lebanon barracks and took hostages while Reagan was? Or when Saddam invaded another country while Bush I was?  Or when North Korea started testing nukes while Bush II was President? Yeah, that intimidation really works.

    Thumb up 0

  4. CM

    Exactly. Also, the ‘Cowboy’ royally fucked things up in terms of the next President being able to flex their muscles (should they have wanted to). Militarily, diplomatically, and in terms of domestic political support.

     

    Thumb up 0

  5. AlexInCT

    You mean like when China took our pilot prisoner after the air collision?

    Ah, goalposts moved. I thought we were discussing Iran, but I guess you missed that point for some obvious reason. BTW, what the Chinese did in that incident that caused Boosh to be called out for showing lack of strength, was steal military secrets by dismantling the NAVY plane that was forced to land after the collision. Of course what few people knew at the time was that the Chinese had already stolen those milspec secrets online back then, so the whole thing was of no worry to them. But yeah, we can compare China to Iran.

    Or when terrorists bombed the Lebanon barracks and took hostages while Reagan was?

    Wrong cowboy again. But since you went there, I should point out the fact that Reagan responded to those bombing by fucking up a lot of people involved. The Russians, and since we are discussing the ME, Qaddafi & others of his ilk in particular thought, this cowboy was one heck of a pussy.

    Or when Saddam invaded another country while Bush I was?

    I am pretty sure this is now stretching it because nobody called this fucking democrat-lite a cowboy as far as I know it. I could regale you with the history of how Saddam thought he had gotten an OK from Boosh I to go into Iraq to point out that you are off base (he asked for permission, and though he got it), but that wouldn’t register either. Besides, it is not like after Saddam did what he did Boosh II decided that wasn’t going to stand, got the world to agree with that, pulled together one heck of a military alliance, and then kicked Saddam’s military’s ass all the way back to the Iraqi border…..

     Or when North Korea started testing nukes while Bush II was President?

    Not Iran again, but par for the course, so I will mention that China was again involved (they are the NK patron), but yeah, this one I guess I will give you. Heck I would even have given you a thumbs up if you had mentioned Boosh II letting the Russians rape Georgia. I mean that one was rough, but the Russians and Chinese have some serious capabilities and they occasionally are also going to wag their big dicks. Then again, I bet both countries seriously calculated the risk vs. reward factor here. Shit Putin is still making fun of Obama, be it in the Ukraine or Syria, so there is that factor. He too can be called a cowboy I guess. But if you will pardon me for asking, I am still wondering who Iran has backing them today that makes them so bold just fucking with the US, however…

    Yeah, that intimidation really works.

    Who was talking about intimidation? I was talking of fearing consequences because the people in charge were not all hot air and limp dicks. There is a serious difference even if that conveniently escapes your grasp.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000 *

    Who was talking about intimidation? I was talking of fearing consequences because the people in charge were not all hot air and limp dicks. There is a serious difference even if that conveniently escapes your grasp.

    What I’m saying is that there is little evidence that cold air and hard dicks make bad guys fear consequences and not act against us.  Note that you didn’t address an important point — that we got our sailors back two weeks faster than Bush did precisely because we’ve reopened diplomatic channels which enables us to go to the Iranian government instead of letting their more militant military control the situation.

    Thumb up 1

  7. louctiel

    <i>Note that you didn’t address an important point — that we got our sailors back two weeks faster than Bush did precisely because we’ve reopened diplomatic channels which enables us to go to the Iranian government instead of letting their more militant military control the situation.</i>

    Yep.  So what did we give up to get the sailors back?  Iran has already said they won’t abide by the nuclear treaty.  We released money for nothing in return.  They demanded changes to the visa program and the administration rolled over on that.

    Also, Iran kept the GPS that would have shown the US was in their waters or not as the sailors contend.   We didn’t even demand that come back here.  (I wonder why?)

    I am not sure that there is a need for the militant faction in Iran because everything Iran wants, we give them.

    I am thrilled that the sailors are coming home, but in giving away the store to Iran, it will only lead to worse confrontations.  Then again, when you are the Obama administration and roll over with your legs in the air time after time, “confrontation” may not be the right word.

    Maybe we need to ask the sailors if they would be willing to have endured more time in Iran in order to save future attacks on US forces in the area.

    What do you think they would say?

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  8. richtaylor365

    Hal, the levels to which you stoop to parrot the party line is just stunning to me. No, I won’t accuse you of sucking Obama’s dick, that gets us nowhere, but gosh, I sure understand the sentiment behind it.

    All this nonsense about Iran being in compliance, about how lucky we were that we got our guys back so quickly (no mention of the illegality of Iran arresting our guys, humiliating them in front of the world), how this paper tiger agreement somehow has opened up dialogue so that now everyone trusts everyone else, it’s just bullshit.

    Where in your post was the outrage of arresting our guys in the first place? Both in international and maritime law there exists a protocol whereby lesser invasive means are first used, first alerting the host country of possible boundary violations,  contacting them and assisting the stray boat back to international waters, lending assistance if requested. What is NOT the norm is arresting them, threatening them at gunpoint, then kidnapping them under force of arms and confiscating their boat. Praising the Iranians after the fact, about their hospitality, and how fast they gave our guys back to us, phuck that shit, they should never have been abducted/arrested/humiliated in the first place.

    And what about that apology? This crap about speculating that it was given under duress. These guys all go through SEAR training, how much duress can be administered in less then one day, being fed and housed with the rest of your buddies?

    And now we learn that Obama gave these guys to Iran on a silver platter;

     

    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/defense-secretary-just-admitted-obama-admin-handed-our-sailors-over-to-iran/#

     

    Thumb up 0

  9. Hal_10000 *

    And now we learn that Obama gave these guys to Iran on a silver platter;

    http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/defense-secretary-just-admitted-obama-admin-handed-our-sailors-over-to-iran/#

    Do you guys ever get tired of this black helicopter shit? Obama “considered” an apology based on … no evidence.  Obama told Iran to get our guys based on … no evidence.  Just random spouting of Louis Gohmert, a certifiable lunatic.   I mean, weren’t you at least somewhat chastened when it turned out all those claims about Benghazi — that our soldiers were told to stand down, that the ambassador was raped and so forth — turned out to be a bunch of lies?

    Now contrast that against how you respond to documented evidence that Iran is in compliance.  Documented evidence that they’ve shipped most of their fissionable material to Russia.  That’s all laughed at.  But Louis Gohmert’s fevered imagination is regarded as the word of God.

    Sorry if I like to play in the real world.

    I didn’t say it was hunky-dory that they did this.  I said specifically that Iran was testing us and that the sailors needed to be returned immediately.  I didn’t comment on how our sailors were treated or what had happened because I posted it literally hours after it happened. And, I know this sounds crazy, but I like to get the facts before I comment. Now that we know a bit more, I think Iran was wrong both in capturing the sailors and showing pictures of them. But this was not the USS Pueblo incident.

    What I reject is the notion that if we only engaged in some macho posturing, it would have prevented this.  Or that tearing up an agreement that, at this point, appear to be working, is a good idea. The entire conservative wing is basically looking for an excuse to back out of the deal (and thus restart Iran’s nuclear program … this time without European or Russian sanctions).

    Thumb up 1

  10. louctiel

    The claim that the people in Benghazi were told to “stand down” came from the people on the ground.  The CIA denied this.

    Furthermore, a newly disclosed email shows that there were assets “spooled up” and ready to go to the aid of the consulate and annex but never took off.

    Panetta testified that the assets never would have made the fight in time, but that was unknown at the moment.   (It is also highly debatable if the statement was true from Panetta was even true as to time and distance.)

    I too prefer to render judgement based on facts.

    The facts are the US boats were illegally seized and boarded by the Iranians.  The treatment of the sailors was against maritime law and arguably against the Geneva convention.

    Oh, and btw – Iran never signed the nuclear agreement.  The Parliament approved the deal but as far as I can find, it was never signed.  The US State Department admitted it was not signed in November of 2015.

    Thumb up 0

  11. richtaylor365

    Obama “considered” an apology based on … no evidence. 

    Apparently you misunderstood (not a big surprise), the apology I was referring to was this;

    I thought the reference to SEAR training and the possibility of duress would have been enough clues for you to figure out what I was referring to.

     Just random spouting of Louis Gohmert, a certifiable lunatic

    I see, so if it doesn’t come from Dana Milbank or David Brock than it can’t really be true. Sure it may not be true, but that was an after thought to me calling you out on your regurgitation of Josh Earnest’s bullet points.

     turned out to be a bunch of lies?

    More of your true colors coming out, those “lies” were corroborated statements from guys that were actually there, guys that heard it with their own ears, guys that have no political ax to grind, only a disgust that what really happened, what they saw and heard personally, has been white washed by Obama/Hillary/Rice and company.

    Sorry if I like to play in the real world

    Hal, the world that you play in has nothing to do with reality, it is a prefabbed manufactured world right out of George Orwell, “You will believe what we tell you to believe”, much like this;

    Now to your undying fealty to this disastrous Iran nuclear deal. It has been revealing to see Obama take a step back, then one more step back, then another, then another, until his little minions start whispering in his ear that it is time to think about his legacy, bullocks to the details, get any damn thing on paper. We have seen him categorically state that he will not accept a nuclear Iran. The deal was simple, sanctions would end only when Iran gives up it’s nuclear program. Then it went to ,”OK, you guys can keep your nuclear reactors, but can’t enrich to weapons grade”. Then it went to ,”OK, you get weapons grade, but with  strict limitations”. Then finally, strict limitations with those limitations expiring sometime in the future. So essentially what we are agreeing to now is light years away from our original position, but that’s how Obama rolls.

    But this surrender agreement gets even worse. Iran has 24 days to scrub any site prior to inspections, and some sites are totally off limits and can not be independently inspected. But just for the sake of argument, lets assume that Iran does what it has always done in the past, and does not abide by this agreement, what happens then? Do the sanctions get reimposed? Nope. All prior business deals are grandfathered in, and worse, a key clause in the agreement prohibits the reintroducing and re imposing of sanctions, regardless of who violates the agreements, there is no hammer for non compliance.

    As if the agreement was not hollow enough, no mention of terrorist activities, human rights violations, even the held American captives. Iran still gets it’s arm embargo lifted in 5 years and their ballistic missile research embargo lifted in 8 (and as Louctiel pointed out, Iran is still hip deep in both). This is by far the worst deal that could ever be imagined, but it has Hal’s stamp of approval, so all is right with the world.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Hal_10000 *

    Apparently you misunderstood (not a big surprise), the apology I was referring to was this;

    Apparently you misunderstood when i said that showing pictures of them was not all right. This is something we should continue to pursue.

    More of your true colors coming out, those “lies” were corroborated statements from guys that were actually there, guys that heard it with their one ears, guys that have no political ax to grind, only a disgust that what really happened, what they saw and heard personally, has been white washed by Obama/Hillary/Rice and company.

    No. Wrong again.  Those statements — made by one guy on the ground and a bunch of political pundits at home — were refuted by both the bipartisan committee and the Republican-controlled House Armed Service Committee.  See, you need to update your talking points when new facts come out.

    . Iran has 24 days to scrub any site prior to inspections, and some sites are totally off limits and can not be independently inspected. But just for the sake of argument, lets assume that Iran does what it has always done in the past, and does not abide by this agreement, what happens then? Do the sanctions get reimposed? Nope. All prior business deals are grandfathered in, and worse, a key clause in the agreement prohibits the reintroducing and re imposing of sanctions, regardless of who violates the agreements, there is no hammer for non compliance.

    See, again, Rich, you have to occasionally fact check things you heard from right wing websites or read up as new data comes in.  The 24 day thing is total bullshit, completely made up.  The sites are under continuous surveillance.  The 24-day thing is the maximum length of time for the process of putting in inspectors if we suspect Iran has created new sites.  (And 24 days is not enough to clean a site.  The Iranians tried that a decade ago and got caught because of the radiation signatures.)

    No nuclear sites are off limits.  Non-nuclear military sites are.  But those can be inspected if we suspect activity there (see point above).

    And if Iran violates the deal, the sanctions do go back.  The only way they can not go back is if the UN Security Council votes to not put them back, which requires a unanimous vote, including the United States.

    See, this is the advantage of not suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.  I can look up things and see if the criticisms of him are valid.  I don’t just have to believe it because Ted Cruz said it.

    I didn’t say it was ideal.  But it’s what we’ve got.

    Thumb up 0

  13. richtaylor365

    Apparently you misunderstood when i said that showing pictures of them was not all right.

    No misunderstanding at all, you made a mistake, thinking I was referring to an Obama apology when in fact I was referring to a sailor apology with several clues (which you ignored) pointing to the sailor. Then you ignore that with some lame attempt to deflect with a factless claim that I misunderstood, must have learned that from Alinsky.

    No. Wrong again.  Those statements — made by one guy on the ground and a bunch of political pundits at home

    Really tedious, and oh so insulting to those brave fighting men that were actually there. Shame on you, Hal.

    The 24 day thing is total bullshit, completely made up. 

    Lets go to the exact text from the actual agreement;

    http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/

    Dang, it won’t allow me to cut and paste, but go to paragraph 78, it spells it out for you, I know you can add, 14+7+3 is where everyone is getting the 24 day figure, it is not bullshit like you are claiming. And it is even worst then that;

    In short, as Iran is free to interpret the agreement, 63 or even 78 days may pass, plus three potentially lengthy periods that Iran can stretch out: One of “explanations” before the clock starts, one to agree on necessary means and “resolve concerns,” and one for advisory-board selection near the end.

    And if Iran violates the deal, the sanctions do go back.  The only way they can not go back is if the UN Security Council votes to not put them back, which requires a unanimous vote, including the United States.

    Nope

    The Iran deal also includes a dramatic rollback of all “nuclear-related” sanctions — whether imposed by the United Nations, the European Union or the United States. This includes all energy, financial, transportation and trade sanctions. Indeed, the agreement includes page after page of names of people and companies whose assets will be “unfrozen.” In addition, sanctions relief includes, in year five, the lifting of the conventional arms embargo on Iran and, in year eight, the lifting of delivery of ballistic missile components to Iran.

    Moreover, there is a key commitment in the agreement that signatories are prohibited from “re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions” and, later in the text, are banned from “imposing discriminatory regulatory and procedural requirements in lieu of the sanctions and restrictive measures covered by the [agreement].”

     

    Thumb up 0

  14. richtaylor365

    I can look up things and see if the criticisms of him are valid

    Now would be a good time for you to start doing that, instead of going with what Josh Earnest says.

    I know we have lost most people, going into the weeds with this agreement but take a look at who is for it and who is against it, which countries back it (Uh, Obama and Iran) and which countries are against it (everyone else).

    Thumb up 0

  15. Hal_10000 *

    Really tedious, and oh so insulting to those brave fighting men that were actually there. Shame on you, Hal.

    Yes. Facts are tedious.  And you basically conceded the argument:

    Me: Here’s where it says you’re wrong.

    You: HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE TROOPS!

    Dang, it won’t allow me to cut and paste, but go to paragraph 78, it spells it out for you, I know you can add, 14+7+3 ism where everyone is getting the 24 day figure, it is not bullshit like you are claiming. 

    Well, first of, you’ve already conceded half the argument.  Those paragraphs refer to undeclared site — i.e, suspected new sites.  Existing sites are under current inspection, which you would have known had the other paragraphs of the agreement. He’s also conflating different parts of the agreement and speculating about what Iran “might” do, not what the agreement actually says.

    Your second link is simply wrong from the very beginning, repeating the myth that sites will not be continuously inspected and saying the Security Council must vote to reimpose sanctions.  This is false. Paragraph 37 says this explicitly that unless the Security Council votes to not impose sanctions, we will revert to the old sanction regime within thirty days.

    Keep trying, Rich.  I’m sure there’s proof that Obama’s a secret muslim in there somewhere.

    Thumb up 0

  16. richtaylor365

    Yes. Facts are tedious. 

    But you are not presenting facts, quit pretending otherwise. Look, you are free to believe anyone you want, I believe the guys that were actually there, the guys that actually heard what they heard and have no dog in the political fight. You believe the political hacks, the guys that were NOT there but have an agenda that must be fed. And for you to say that all those soldiers are liars is just shameful.

    He’s also conflating different parts of the agreement

    Who is “he”? that is  from the actual text of the agreement, no conflating whatsoever. The actual text spells out how long Iran has to stall, or are you saying that my link to the actual text is not really the actual text of the agreement?

    Keep trying, Rich.  I’m sure there’s proof that Obama’s a secret muslim in there somewhere.

    Yes, when all else fails, throw in a little Reductio ad absurdum.

     

     

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  17. Hal_10000 *

    You believe the political hacks, the guys that were NOT there but have an agenda that must be fed. And for you to say that all those soldiers are liars is just shameful.

    The soldiers never made this claim. One CIA contractor did. And the political hacks did. And then it was refuted by the people who were actually there. And then when called it on, you take cover behind the troops.

    Who is “he”? that is  from the actual text of the agreement, no conflating whatsoever. 

    Your quote is from someone’s analysis, not from the actual agreement.  The actual agreement says 24 days.  And, to repeat … again … that applies to sites not currently on the list.  All known sites have continuous monitoring.

    Thumb up 0

  18. richtaylor365

    The soldiers never made this claim

    Here 2 (CIA contractors, same thing as soldiers in my mind) that did, took me all of 5 seconds to find it;

    But yeah, these guys, Catherine Herridge, Brett Bair, Fox news, all lying, so tediously predictable.

    Your quote is from someone’s analysis

    It was not a quote, I admitted that the actual agreement link would not let me cut and paste, it was me summarizing what paragraph 78 of the agreement said. So again, haven’t a clue what you are talking about.

     The actual agreement says 24 days

    Yeah,  just what I said, 3 times.

     

    Thumb up 0

  19. AlexInCT

    The Iranian government signed it and, according to all reports, is in compliance.

    Oh god, did you really type that out without busting out laughing? If you really believe this then there is no discussion to be had. Iran violated that idiotic thing before the paper was dry by test firing a new ICBM not even a few hours later. The string of other violations have been innumerate, almost on a daily basis, but there are still Obama cock goblers (and you are not alone there) pretending that Iran is playing ball.

    Sorry if I like to play in the real world.

    Oh man, thanks for that laugh. The only thing that can one-up the unbelievable of that comment is CM posturing like he has the high ground on anything of substance.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    Note that you didn’t address an important point — that we got our sailors back two weeks faster than Bush did precisely because we’ve reopened diplomatic channels which enables us to go to the Iranian government instead of letting their more militant military control the situation.

    I bet that those “diplomatic channels” were used to again give in to some idiotic concession by Iran which will be scandalous when we find out about it. I am under no delusion that Lurch – or for that matter anybody in this administration unless part of the agreement with Iran made the Ayatollah Obama’s co-crime syndicate boss and he now has a stake in ripping us all off – used magic to talk them Iranians into just letting those troops go like you do. Nah, I bet the Iranians demanded something abso-fucking-lutely insane and we gave it to them so fast that they figured it was worth it. Don’t worry though, I bet this won’t be as idiotic as the Bergdhal trade was though. I hope…

    Thumb up 0

  21. richtaylor365

    The soldiers never made this claim. One CIA contractor did.

    First off, for you to create delineation lines between “soldiers” and CIA contractors is beyond lame. These “contractors” were tasked with protecting our American citizens (the Ambassador and his cadre of support team) in hostile lands, so yes, they were soldiers. And there were more than one;

    Rep.Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, said Wednesday that a number of witnesses had confirmed a stand-down order was given to military assets in proximity to Benghazi the night of the 2012 terror attack, while others said no one issued such an order.

    “The best I can do is tell you what the witnesses say, and then you can decide who you think is more credible,” Gowdy said during an interview with Boston Herald Radio.

    Sure, you can stay lazy and dismiss the Washington Examiner as just another black helicopter site if you want. But here’s the deal, the Benghazi hearings are not over;

    “I don’t know why the mainstream media doesn’t understand that you have to talk to everyone before you draw conclusions,” Gowdy said, noting the committee has roughly 12 witnesses left to interview before winding down its investigation.

    As Gowdy said, you are free to decide which POV is more credible, but don’t label those guys that put themselves in harms way to defend America and America’s interests as liars.

    Thumb up 0

  22. richtaylor365

    A buddy that I play tennis with, a retired Coast Guard commander, sent me an email asking this;

     

    The story pushed by the Administration is obviously phony. to believe it, you have to believe:

    -both boats lost GPS and all ded reckoning ability

    -both lost radio and back up radio

    -both lost engine power

    -both were lost on radar by the fleet

    all of which happening at the same time is flatly impossible.

    so, what is the real story?

    ———————

    If these were Coast Guard boats, they would be equipped with radar with range greater than 30 miles,  good enough to navigate outside the 12 mile Iranian waters.

    Thumb up 0

  23. AlexInCT

    As I suspected Hal, Team Obama got the prisoners back by fucking America over and giving Iran another big win:

    https://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-negotiating-free-americans-iran-u-blinked-sanctions-172640511.html

    If I was Iran, I would be trying my hardest to capture more Americans and demand the idiots running the US give me even more concessions. Maybe they can send Iran an angry “No bullying” letter or something to show them who is really boss….

    Thumb up 0

  24. Hal_10000 *

    Gowdy. Politician. Not a soldier. Making claims he can’t back up that the REPUBLICAN committee rejected.  OK.  I’m sorry I criticized that nobel brave soldier Trey Gowdy.

    Also, you guys need to make up your minds. You criticized Obama for not getting the prisoners released in the nuclear deal. Now you’re criticizing him for getting them released.  This is the problem I have with your Obama Derangement Syndrome. No matter what he does, it’s wrong, evil and Marxist because he hates America.

    Thumb up 0

  25. richtaylor365

    Gowdy. Politician. Not a soldier. Making claims he can’t back up that the REPUBLICAN committee rejected.  OK.  I’m sorry I criticized that nobel brave soldier Trey Gowdy.

     

    Crimminy , Hal, it’s not that complicated, why are you having such a hard time grasping it?, Couldn’t be your partisan slant, could it?

    Gowdy said he has confirmation from “a number of witnesses” that there was a stand down order, also some witnesses said there was not, and there are still 12 witnesses that have not been interviewed as yet. No where does he proclaim categorically and undeniably that there was in fact a stand down order, leaving it up to the reader (this far in the investigation) to weigh which POV is more credible. why on earth would you criticize him for that?

    Also, you guys need to make up your minds.

    And you need to quit taking the lazy way out and address your comments specifically. Yes, I did criticize Obama for not making the prisoner release part of the agreement, but I am thrilled that they are now coming home, my mind is made up so stop with the “you guys”.

    This is the problem I have with your Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Well, we went from ,”You guys are racists for criticizing Obama”, to ,”You guys must suffer from ODS for criticizing Obama”, same tack but just as lazy.

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  26. Hal_10000 *

    It is Derangement Syndrome. It’s the same shit I saw when Bush was President. A willingness to parrot any criticism, not matter what. A need to see every action as evil and nefarious. A almost gleeful pleasure in dabbling in conspiracy theories and secret plots (“The employment numbers are fake!  MRAPs!”)  It’s ridiculous.

    The fact is that Bush had carried out the exact same actions with Iran, 80% of the people criticizing it now would be praising it (and 80% of the people praising it would be criticizing it).

    Iran is now documented to have given up their nuclear stockpile, there are now inspectors in Iran, they are documented to be closing down facilities.  We just got them to release four prisoners. And yet we’re told the deal is a huge failure based on lies and distortions if what is actually in the deal.

    Our sailors, for whatever reason, sailed into Iranian territory, were detained and returned.  It was bad.  And yet we’re told this so somehow worse and more humiliating than when British sailors were captured and held for two weeks.

    It’s not enough the Benghazi represented dangerously bad management at the State Department and a horribly misguided decision to interfere in the first place. No, there’s got to be some conspiracy where Obama deliberately left people to die. Because he hates the military or something.

    It’s never enough for Obama to be wrong. No he’s got to be evil. And anyone who has the temerity to say, “Well, that’s not quite right” is told they must be an evil liberal too, “towing the party line” and sucking Obama’s dick. Tempering your criticism of the President, calling foul on illegitimate criticisms — is almost regarded as worse than agreeing with him.

    It’s garbage.  It’s the reason why people are turning away from conservatism in general and the Republican Party in particular. It’s a reason why Hillary might still win the election, despite being a corrupt incompetent nincompoop.

    I have watched in horror over the last decade as the movement I have been a part of since I became politically aware and the party I voted for in every election until 2004 has descended into this madness. It has culminated in the GOP’s frontrunner being a certifiable bullshit artist with bad hair.  It’s a world where falling crime rates are a huge explosion in crime because of Obama’s beer summit. It’s a world where the safest year for cops on record is a war on cops because of Obama’s comments of Trayvon. It’s a world where a shrinking deficit is exploding because of … something.  It’s a world where new jobs are not new jobs in October, but are in December. It’s a world where a bunch of idiots with towels around their head are going to destroy America. Conservatism used to be about optimism and hope for the future. Now it’s about doom and gloom and the end of the world.

    I’m more than willing to criticize Obama.  What little success he has had in his Presidency has been mainly due to a Republican Congress. He appointed two feckless judges to SCOTUS, has done nothing to control entitlements, has bungled foreign policy and Obamacare is a slowly unfolding disaster.  But I’m not willing to indulge in this fantasy universe drama queen crap.  I had quite enough of that when Bush was President.

    Thumb up 1

  27. CM

    Total ODS. Obama is literally the most evil person who ever existed apparently. I still think back to when Rich was even heavily and seriously critical of his wife’s birthday party, FFS. So banal.

    Thumb up 0

  28. richtaylor365

    Reductio ad absurdum , the ONLY arrow in CM’s quiver, so pathetic, so predictable.

    Don’t ever complain or criticize how your tax money (yes, your money) is being spent, don’t criticize how elected leaders are acting or governing, don’t voice an opinion on how your country is being run, anything critical and it gets placed in the ODS folder by the simpletons that can’t deal with it on it’s face.

    I guess Hal has GOPDS because he complains about them. And CM talks about being banal, and there is your morning laugh.

    Thumb up 1

  29. Hal_10000 *

    Don’t ever complain or criticize how your tax money (yes, your money) is being spent, don’t criticize how elected leaders are acting or governing, don’t voice an opinion on your country is being run, anything critical and it gets placed in the ODS folder by the simpletons that can’t deal with it on it’s face.

    As I said, perfectly willing to criticize.  Not willing to indulge in made up fantasy stuff.  That’s the difference.  It was perfectly legitimate to criticized Bush’s handling of Iraq.  It was Bush Derangement Syndrome to say “Bush lied, people died” or to say he invaded it to enrich Haliburton.  It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize the Iran deal (and I have). It’s ODS to mislead about what’s actually in it or pretend that Iran isn’t in compliance.  It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize government spending.  It’s ODS to pretend it hasn’t been flat for the last five years.

    See the difference?  It’s not criticism of Obama I dislike.  It’s this habit of making stuff up to make it seem worse than it actually is.

    Thumb up 0

  30. richtaylor365

    Not willing to indulge in made up fantasy stuff

    And you are the final arbiter on what is and what is not fantasy?

    I provide actual text from the actual agreement and you label it fantasy. I provide evidence that “a number” of witnesses heard the stand down order but you accuse them all of lying. You accuse Gowdy of duplicity because, heaven forbid, he is not ready to make conclusions even though he still has a dozen more witnesses to interview, you (and the Obama administration) get to ignore the blatant breach of the agreement by their missile demonstrations- all the awhile deluding yourself that they are really “in compliance”, and then you whine about how your “tempered” criticisms fly in the face of the whole GOP and their unbridled (and unfounded) hatred of Obama, they are unhinged, you have lost faith, and we are supposed to give a shit. Then you slam Alex for questioning price paid to get our hostages back, even though Obama has a history of atrocious deal making, that they were holding these folks illegally, and that it should have been part of the original agreement with no additional concessions made, all that matters not, Alex has ODS.

     It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize government spending.  It’s ODS to pretend it hasn’t been flat for the last five years.

    Again, you don’t get to decide the parameters, nope, not here. Yearly deficits or budgets only deal with one aspect of spending. And why is it (just like Obama and his aversion to saying the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism”) that you can never ever address the real problem, the national debt? What is it now, $18.9 trillion? When does SS go bust, medicare? Obama goes from running $1 trillion deficits a year down to $500 billion, and guys like you wet your pants, genuflect, then proclaim ,”We are saved”. The slowest recovery (yeah, what recovery) since the great depression, the lowest total work force participation since the early 70’s, the highest percentage of folks like ever on public assistance and in poverty, but he is your guy, so any criticisms, no matter how founded, is ODS.

    See the difference? 

    Yes, I do.

     

     

     

    Thumb up 0

  31. Hal_10000 *

    I provide actual text from the actual agreement and you label it fantasy

    No, you provided Fradkin and Libby’s analysis of it.  You couldn’t embed the actual agreement.  I looked at the deal and saw that what they said was wrong.  And even if they were right about that specific point, you’ve repeated several criticisms — that we can’t inspect any facilities w/o 24 days notice, that the sanctions don’t snap back — that are contradicted by the very agreement you linked to.

    I think you have a legitimate point here on ODS.  I have written several times about “Obama Defense Derangement Syndrome” where people reflexively defend anything Obama does, often with factually challenged methods and usually with accusations of racism.  The Bowie Bergdahl deal was terrible; ODDS sufferers will insist that it was fine and Bergdahl served with honor.  The stimulus didn’t work; ODDS sufferers insist it did.  Obama has massively expanded surveillance; ODDS sufferers insist he hasn’t.

    It’s not a matter of me deciding what’s legitimate.  It’s that facts are stubborn things.  A big reason I became a Republican initially was because the 1980’s Democrats lived in a fantasy world where the economy wasn’t really doing well, where we were the bad guys in the Cold War, where Gorbachev was a hero, where there were three million homeless people and where you were a pink slip away from losing your healthcare, your house, your family, your life, your plane of existence.  It drove me nuts.  It still drives me nuts.

    Thumb up 1

  32. CM

    Reductio ad absurdum , the ONLY arrow in CM’s quiver, so pathetic, so predictable.

    Nice projection Rich. Your opening posts are invariably just ‘libs are tards’ and rely heavily on reducto ad absudum. Did you not realise? Has it gotten that bad?

    Yes, I do.

    No, you very clearly don’t. Just like with climate change, you just attach yourself to anything that supports your existing conclusions. And EVERYTHING Obama does is wrong. They can’t even have a private party without it being wrong. You and Alex are classic ODS sufferers.

    Thumb up 0

  33. JimK

    You and Alex are classic ODS sufferers.

    And you are a classic ODDS sufferer. Only replace “Obama” with “Any prominent US Democrat currently in the news.”

    And this is why arguments here go around and around and around an no one has ever changed anyone’s mind on anything, no matter how rational or true the arguments. Saying you are willing to hear someone out and you base your opinions on unbiased facts (virtually impossible to get in today’s media climate, BTW) is not the same as actually doing that.

    And again, this is why I rarely look at this site and VERY rarely read the comments anymore. I already know exactly what will be said before it’s written. I could write a script for almost every word that gets posted here regardless of the news story.

    Thumb up 1

  34. CM

    And you are a classic ODDS sufferer. Only replace “Obama” with “Any prominent US Democrat currently in the news.”

    Nonsense. There is no basis for that comment, there is plenty of criticism of Obama where I don’t immediately defend Obama. And pointing out that the ‘you suck his cock because you don’t agree with my narrative’ argument is banal and stupid isn’t even remotely ODDS.

    And again, this is why I rarely look at this site and VERY rarely read the comments anymore. I already know exactly what will be said before it’s written. I could write a script for almost every word that gets posted here regardless of the news story.

    It sure is no Moorewatch forums, that’s for sure. Actual intelligent was had there, even between people who disagreed. There was even plenty of humour. Not here though. Hal makes a hell of an effort, almost all the rest are just regurgitating what their black-helicopter websites and talk-radio hosts have told them about how evil and stupid Obama and libs are, and how corrupt science is when it doesn’t give them the right outcome. Over and over and over and over again to create an echo chamber, to further reinforce how ‘right’ they are.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Iconoclast

     Actual intelligent was had there, even between people who disagreed. There was even plenty of humour. Not here though.

    …just regurgitating what their black-helicopter websites and talk-radio hosts have told them about how evil and stupid Obama and libs are, and how corrupt science is when it doesn’t give them the right outcome. Over and over and over and over again to create an echo chamber…

    If this place is so dingy, dismal, dark and dank, then why do you stay here?  Isn’t one definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over, but somehow expecting a different result?

    I got bored with the utter predictability, such as your always managing to bring up climate change (your favorite “conservitard” club for beating conservatives over the head, apparently).  You whine about “libtard”, but essentially say the same thing about us “conservitards” over and over.  Our sources are “black helicopter web sites”.  We all suffer “ODS”.  Climate change. And so on, as nauseam.

    I got bored and left.  Oh sure, I do drop by to see if anything has changed.  But it doesn’t.  Least of all your  incessant whining about how horrible and unenlightened this place is.  Which again begs the question:  Why are you still here?

    Thumb up 1

  36. JimK

    <blockquote>And you are a classic ODDS sufferer. Only replace “Obama” with “Any prominent US Democrat currently in the news.”</blockquote>

    Nonsense. There is no basis for that comment

    I typed out a prediction that you would say this and then deleted the line. I even toyed with making some kind of prediction post with a timestamp and a few lines for various commenters, but then I realized that I don’t want to waste that much time proving a blatantly obvious point.

    You’re a troll, CM, and you always have been. You say whatever needs to be said to get a reaction and keep people interacting with you. You are as transparent as glass. Feel free to write a minimum of 300 words that tell me I’m wrong, but contradict any concept of the reality of how you behave here. Because that’s what trolls do.

    Enjoy your week. Or don’t. I genuinely can’t be bothered to give a fuck either way

    Thumb up 2

  37. CM

    Provide a couple of examples of my ODDS then JimK – what Obama actions have I defended that went against fact/reality? Otherwise you’re no better than the others here who can never back up their accusations.

    always managing to bring up climate change

    ‘Always’ is a gross exaggeration. I do it seldomly. It is a good litmus test topic though, as I’ve mentioned previously.

     Our sources are “black helicopter web sites”. 

    This thread is possibly the only time I’ve mentioned ‘black helicopter’, and that was simply following on from what Hal said. Whereas there is a constant issue of ‘sources’ and ‘liberal media bias’ coming from the right here. For fuck’s sake.

    I got bored and left.  Oh sure, I do drop by to see if anything has changed.  But it doesn’t.  Least of all your  incessant whining about how horrible and unenlightened this place is.  Which again begs the question:  Why are you still here?

    But you had no problem with Alex (and lately Rich’s) incessant whining and abuse and dealing almost entirely in stereotypes?

    Such a massive transparent hypocrite.

    I typed out a prediction that you would say this

    Gosh, you guessed I wouldn’t agree with your accusation? Amazing! Such powers!

    Thumb up 0

  38. Iconoclast

    But you had no problem with Alex (and lately Rich’s) incessant whining and abuse and dealing almost entirely in stereotypes?

    You’re proving my point, chief.

    Thumb up 1