Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
jasper76 wrote: In any case, I seriously hope all 4 tickets make the debate, no matter if they receive 15% or not. That rule is a joke, it's undemocratic, totally designed to keep Republicans and Democrats in perpetual incumbency.
To be honest, that's a fine reason to vote third party anyways- any sort of third voice will start eroding this perpetual adversary election. The lesser of two evils mentality is incredibly ingrained in voters.
On the main election, I just saw the 'documentary' The Art of the Deal. I want every attack ad to be of that quality and humor content! That was absolutely hilarious. When are we going to see one attacking Clinton?
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
jasper76 wrote: In any case, I seriously hope all 4 tickets make the debate, no matter if they receive 15% or not. That rule is a joke, it's undemocratic, totally designed to keep Republicans and Democrats in perpetual incumbency.
To be honest, that's a fine reason to vote third party anyways- any sort of third voice will start eroding this perpetual adversary election. The lesser of two evils mentality is incredibly ingrained in voters.
On the main election, I just saw the 'documentary' The Art of the Deal. I want every attack ad to be of that quality and humor content! That was absolutely hilarious. When are we going to see one attacking Clinton?
I'm sure they will never make one, and if they did it would probably never become a landmark Supreme Court case.
whembly wrote: The AP is reporting that the states department admitted that the Iranian money was contingent on the releases of the hostages.
There's a term for that ya know...
Wouldn't that actually make Iran the country that negotiated with us? "Give us our people, or we don't care what the international court says, you won't get your money."
whembly wrote: The AP is reporting that the states department admitted that the Iranian money was contingent on the releases of the hostages.
There's a term for that ya know...
Wouldn't that actually make Iran the country that negotiated with us? "Give us our people, or we don't care what the international court says, you won't get your money."
No... Engender the Iranianian government played this out as a ransom deal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/18 23:51:01
No... Engender the Iranianian government played this out as a ransom deal.
No, you play this out as a ransom deal.
Sounds to me like quid pro quo, with the US government actually using some leverage to get something it wanted for something it was going to have to give up anyway. It sounds like we bluffed and Iran blinked.
No... Engender the Iranianian government played this out as a ransom deal.
No, you play this out as a ransom deal.
Sounds to me like quid pro quo, with the US government actually using some leverage to get something it wanted for something it was going to have to give up anyway. It sounds like we bluffed and Iran blinked.
Now the rest of the world knows the price of American held hostage....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/18 23:57:43
d-usa wrote: Sorry, I forgot who we were talking to. Of course the Iranian spin is the truth and your blogs and Twittah only confirm that.
Has Iran actually spun it that way? This reminds me of those two boats that the Iranians seized and how Republicans were all a fluttered with "Iran is taking our people hostage" when Iran never said anything of the sort.
For everybody else: a court ruled the money belong to Iran, with interest.
And we still managed to get some hostages free for it. Sounds like someone played hard ball to me
No... Engender the Iranianian government played this out as a ransom deal.
No, you play this out as a ransom deal.
Sounds to me like quid pro quo, with the US government actually using some leverage to get something it wanted for something it was going to have to give up anyway. It sounds like we bluffed and Iran blinked.
Now the rest of the world knows the price of American held hostage....
Now the rest of the world knows they can make an arms deal with the US, have the US confiscate the money when they don't like the new regime, wait a few decades, get a court to rule in your favor, then release prisoners, and then get a tiny portion of your own money back. What a stunning potential for all nations.
Yes it does. It's jurisdiction is "did you sign the treaty that gave us our authority? If yes then ignoring us has consequences." Even then, with how much the US ignores international law to begin with, we kind of have to keep our "screw you guys I'm going home" response for premium situations. A conflict with a country we are no longer really in conflict with isn't one of them.
LordofHats wrote: Now the rest of the world knows the price of American held hostage....
We didn't release any hostages. We gave someone money we were going to have to give back anyway and actually got something for it. Isn't "your side" (seriously, as if there are sides in this besides "ours"), the one that is always saying the Obama administration needs some backbone? Where there's you back bone. Turning something that we'd have to give up for free into something we got for something else. I want to know who negotiated this arrangement. They got something done.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/19 00:05:21
No... Engender the Iranianian government played this out as a ransom deal.
No, you play this out as a ransom deal.
Sounds to me like quid pro quo, with the US government actually using some leverage to get something it wanted for something it was going to have to give up anyway. It sounds like we bluffed and Iran blinked.
Now the rest of the world knows the price of American held hostage....
Now the rest of the world knows they can make an arms deal with the US, have the US confiscate the money when they don't like the new regime, wait a few decades, get a court to rule in your favor, then release prisoners, and then get a tiny portion of your own money back. What a stunning potential for all nations.
By this logic, since he owes the credit card money, it would be ok for the cc company to kidnap his kids and not release them until he pays off his credit card.
Yes it does. It's jurisdiction is "did you sign the treaty that gave us our authority? If yes then ignoring us has consequences." Even then, with how much the US ignores international law to begin with, we kind of have to keep our "screw you guys I'm going home" response for premium situations. A conflict with a country we are no longer really in conflict with isn't one of them.
LordofHats wrote: Now the rest of the world knows the price of American held hostage....
We didn't release any hostages. We gave someone money we were going to have to give back anyway and actually got something for it. Isn't "your side" (seriously, as if there are sides in this besides "ours"), the one that is always saying the Obama administration needs some backbone? Where there's you back bone. Turning something that we'd have to give up for free into something we got for something else. I want to know who negotiated this arrangement. They got something done.
No. It was not a signed and ratified treaty....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 00:10:07
By this logic, since he owes the credit card money, it would be ok for the cc company to kidnap his kids and not release them until he pays off his credit card.
Not really comparable. A comparable situation is;
Guy buys nice car from other salesman so that he can go street racing. A revolution happens, and the street race never takes place, so the salesman keeps the money and the car. New guy demands his money back. Salesman says no, I liked the old guy better. New guy takes hostages and demands his money back. Salesman says no. Two decades pace, new guy plays with nuclear fusion, a couple international incidents occur, new guys credit hits rock bottom, a whole lot of yelling and vague threats that might not really mean anything get exchanged. Eventually Salesman gets tired of the trouble and decides "whatever lets just move on" but still keeps the money. New guy goes to court, and the court tells the salesman to "give him his money back." Salesman asks "well can I at least get those hostages, you don't need them anymore." New guy says "whatever" and releases the hostages so he can get a comparatively miniscule sum back 20+ years after the whole thing started.
Truly this is the darkest time in American history. #NewDeadHorsetoBeatIThink
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 00:15:39
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 00:17:52
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
By this logic, since he owes the credit card money, it would be ok for the cc company to kidnap his kids and not release them until he pays off his credit card.
Not really comparable. A comparable situation is;
Guy buys nice car from other salesman so that he can go street racing. A revolution happens, and the street race never takes place, so the salesman keeps the money and the car. New guy demands his money back. Salesman says no, I liked the old guy better. New guy takes hostages and demands his money back. Salesman says no. Two decades pace, new guy plays with nuclear fusion, a couple international incidents occur, new guys credit hits rock bottom, a whole lot of yelling and vague threats that might not really mean anything get exchanged. Eventually Salesman gets tired of the trouble and decides "whatever lets just move on" but still keeps the money. New guy goes to court, and the court tells the salesman to "give him his money back." Salesman asks "well can I at least get those hostages, you don't need them anymore." New guy says "whatever" and releases the hostages so he can get a comparatively miniscule sum back 20+ years after the whole thing started.
Truly this is the darkest time in American history. #NewDeadHorsetoBeatIThink
No. That is exactly comparable.
When Khomeini and his band of theocratic psychopaths staged a coup and executed countless thousands of the Shah's men, he officially announced that ALL prior treaties, agreements, debt and financial arrangements made under the Shah's regime were null and void, now and forever.
And, just as he promised, the Islamist regime did indeed renege and default on every single agreement Iran had ever previously made.
Does this at least mean we won't have to hear about Hillary's emails anymore? I ask because once that started, we finally got to stop hearing bout the latest not-news update on the Benghazi witch hunts that embarrassed Republicans far more than Clinton, and if we're going to be continually bombarded with thread derailing conspiracies, I'd like it to stay moderately fresh and original.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/19 00:26:06
whembly wrote: When Khomeini and his band of theocratic psychopaths staged a coup and executed countless thousands of the Shah's men, he officially announced that ALL prior treaties, agreements, debt and financial arrangements made under the Shah's regime were null and void, now and forever.
And, just as he promised, the Islamist regime did indeed renege and default on every single agreement Iran had ever previously made.
We owe them NOTHING. Nada. Zilch.
Indeed, setting up the joint commission to settle the accounts between the US and Iran was a huge mistake. Whatever bleeding heart, left-wing President that brokered that deal sure must look foolish now - making American look weak like that surely made us look like fools on the world stage.
Hey, who was POTUS in 1981, anyway?
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
whembly wrote: When Khomeini and his band of theocratic psychopaths staged a coup and executed countless thousands of the Shah's men, he officially announced that ALL prior treaties, agreements, debt and financial arrangements made under the Shah's regime were null and void, now and forever.
And, just as he promised, the Islamist regime did indeed renege and default on every single agreement Iran had ever previously made.
We owe them NOTHING. Nada. Zilch.
Indeed, setting up the joint commission to settle the accounts between the US and Iran was a huge mistake. Whatever bleeding heart, left-wing President that brokered that deal sure must look foolish now - making American look weak like that surely made us look like fools on the world stage.
Hey, who was POTUS in 1981, anyway?
And?
Just making that point that we don't owe them gak.
Twitter told him it was a ransom so it's a ransom.
That's how this works.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
ran·som
ˈransəm/Submit
noun
1.
a sum of money or other payment demanded or paid for the release of a prisoner.
synonyms: payoff, payment, sum, price
"they demanded a huge ransom"
verb
1.
obtain the release of (a prisoner) by making a payment demanded.
"the lord was captured in war and had to be ransomed"
The problem is that Iran paid the ransom, not the US. Which is surprising because the US had absolutely zero leverage, but somehow we still managed to get the better deal.
The United States, by it's own treaties and laws which were upheld by SCOTUS, was legally obligated to give Iran this money. It wasn't ours, we knew it wasn't ours, we agreed it wasn't ours, and we agreed to give it back.
Yet, somehow the US managed to tell Iran "we aren't going to give you your own money back, even though we agreed to it, unless you give us something in return" and we got Iran to throw in some prisoners.
Or to put it in simpler language:
A 6 year old USA and 6 year old Iran get in a fight in the playground, the USA steals $20 from Iran, and for the next 30 years they fight about when the USA is going to give back the money they stole.
During these 30 years Iran and the USA go through arbitration and therapy, the USA agrees that they stole the money and that they should pay it back, and Iran is happy that after 30 years this finally gets settled.
They meet up at the old playground since it's a super special place to them to settle their old differences, and the USA shows up with a suitcase with 17.64 Euros in it because they just have to make things difficult and are thinking "feth Iran, I owe them $20 but to hell if I give them anything other than funny money". Iran goes "where is my money USAbowsky" and the USA opens the suitcase filled with plastic bills. Iran rolls their eyes but is just happy to get on with this.
Of course then the USA closes the suitcase and tells Iran "Remember last year? I gave you a stick of gum, and you never gave it back, I want a stick of gum and I want it now and I won't give you the money until I get my gum back!" Iran, tired of this crap, just wants their damn $20 and tells the USA "fine, here is your damn gum, but you ain't getting the fething gum until I get my money". They make a fancy exchange with Iran making a big show out of holding on to the piece of gum until the suitcase was in his hands, and after the USA lived up to the agreement he let him have his piece of gum.
The USA walks away, chewing on the piece of gum telling everyone that will listen "can you believe Iran, what an donkey-cave, wouldn't give me my gum back unless I paid him $20 for it"
Ok you know the definition (or at least have read it) now apply it. Notice, the definition doesn't have included in it "on the occasion where the claimant has a justifiable claim to their own money". You might be better off saying we were bartered for it. Or we were traded for it. Or, and I would go with this one, we had to give them their money because it was legally owed to them and if we didn't, we would be using our own money to try to hold it back. As a result we got more than we "bargained" for.
Edit: on the other hand, are you one of those people (said with as much distance and derision as internet speak will allow) that believes we should have taken the Mideast oil because we won the wars and all? I mean, to the victors go the spoils, right?
@i do not like that: sorry this response is so late but I just saw your post "so what do we do about it" it connection to China. The answer depends on what exactly you are willing to do. We "can" wipe them out. Efficiently, effctively and quickly (talk to the nuclear subs guys sometime as to what they have to train for twice a month in the South Pacific). We do not want to do that. We instead work with allies in the region to ensure that won't have to happen. We foster economic agreements to ensure that should not have to happen (which really blows my mind when people who are supposedly against war are also against international trade agreements). We attempt to make nuclear trade agreements that will lower the accidental likelylihood of it happening. But make no mistake, we are horribly prepared that it could. And that horror will be on us because we will have done it. The alternative would be worse.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/08/19 03:06:22
I think its quite interesting that people are taking Trump's fall in the polls, and Clinton's lead of about 8 points to be definitive. Polls have moved that much between August and November in the past. And polls in this campaign have swung quite a lot - if Trump can go from almost even to 8 points down in three weeks, then he can recover that ground in ten weeks. On top of that the campaign so far has typically defied any kind of narrative - as soon as people start to think things have settled in to some kind of natural state then something has upended that.
McCain was down by around 8 points for much of the 2008 campaign, and people didn't talk about that being in the bag. It turned out a comfortable win for Obama, but until election day there was always a chance something could have changed the race. But this year people are very quick to conclude that Clinton's 8 point lead means her certain election. I suspect this is just the latest round of 'surely no-one is really going to vote for Trump, his ridiculous campaign has finally gone too far'. That's a tempting story, but it is one that almost every sensible person has fallen for at least once during the campaign so far. And those sensible people have been wrong many times now, because something very not-sensible is happening deep within the base of the Republican party.
So maybe this time Trump's impossible popularity has finally been dashed his latest racist and stupid statements. Or maybe this will be like the last few times and in a couple of weeks he'll be back within a few points of Clinton.
jasper76 wrote: @Peregrine: You could be right, but I tend to think there are probably a whole lot of voters who would jump at the chance to vote for someone besides Trump or Clinton. Let's call them "Johnson voters".
Yeah, and people are making a big deal about lots of people moving over to Johnson because Trump and Clinton are so horrible. And yet there's Johnson polling a whopping 8 to 10% of the vote. I think we have to start to consider that the people who are willing to leave their team and vote for someone else are actually a very small number of voters. The much more common thing is for people to not like their team's candidate, and just stay home.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
