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.
Frazzled wrote: I supported it. Does that mean I had something to do with it? Again Reagan's greatness is unrelated to gun control. My you are a one hit note beat aren't you.
We can go at it from another angle of false greatness, Reagan had nothing to do with the USSR falling. It was 20 years of Soviet incompetence that happened to finally fall and end up in the lap of Reagan. But, you can continue to move the goal posts Frazz because if Reagan would of voiced support for a total AWB today he would be run out of the GOP
You like to accuse people of moving the goal posts. Not me. I have a bad back.
We could argue the merits of how much to attribute the fall of Communism to Reagan, but that should be a separate thread or a history board.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: The point is that Reagan supported the AWB and the Brady Bill, and that GOP lawmakers directly cite him as the reason for their votes in favor of it, causing it to pass.
The statement "Reagan had nothing to do with the AWB" is simply false, and at a minimum Reagan was in full support of the ban and according to Representatives it would not have passed without his support at all.
Again...and? Literally what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: Did we forget that Reagan was pro gun control or something? He pushed for the AWB and directly hurt the NRA. But yet, he is still the second coming.
We must have gotten a fresh new pair of extra rose tinted glasses or something.
Reagan is the second coming because Communism died, he cut taxes, and the economy grew at the greatest rate since WW2.
I don't like talking about Reagan because I look at Reagan then I look at Bush, then a look at how the amateurs took over after.
Yeah, Communism is definitely dead and the economy definitely grew after his tax cuts, not the deficits that his tax cuts caused.
Revisionist history, pretty sure that is what people called this sort of thing.
Really Reagan's tax 'cuts', were nothing of the sort because they were paid for by closing loop holes on corporations & the wealthy, meaning no net tax reduction. The reason they are (rightfully imo) remembered as cuts is because only a small minority who had a ton of wealth anyways paid more while a huge number of Americans paid less. And we know the economic result.
Historically speaking, the less power the wealthy have had in a society the better off that society has been. I'm not aware of any exceptions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/30 22:22:38
Honestly, for me the only reason these two main discussions (NRA and/or Reagon) even matter is because they expose a certain level of hypocrisy that simply annoy me.
The NRA will take any opportunity to rail against any law or regulation that creates a gun-free zone, makes it clear that anyone in a gun free zone makes him or herself vulnerable because criminals will always target gun-free zones, that nobody should walk in a gun-free zone, and that people would never advertise their home as a gun-free zone. But because they like Pence they will roll over and sanction a gun-free zone rather than just throwing a live video feed on a screen at the convention.
If you are a politician in favor of gun-free zones, they will throw money and resources into your state until the cows come home to make sure you are defeated because you are a threat to everything this country stands for. If you are a politician they like and you want to speak at their convention, they will throw up the "no guns allowed" sign faster than speed at which Trump pours Ketchup on his well-done steaks.
And with politicians in general, they will bend over backwards to out-Reagan each other while spending millions to paint themselves as the 2nd Coming of Reagan. But they will paint any Democrat with the same political positions and opinion as Reagan as the biggest threat to America currently existing.
Reagan The Person is held up as the patron saint of the Republican Party.
Reagan The Policy is frequently in direct contrast to the Republican Party.
Neither is hypocritical D... unless, you just want to pick some perceived low-hanging fruit and feel like venting.
The Secret Service has jurisdiction over the venue whenever POTUS/VP speaks at a venue... that is something that is WELL understood by the public. It's not like the SS is telling the NRA "no guns" at the convention at all... only during the venue that the VP will have his speech.
Reagan was a great President.... no, he wasn't perfect. The only people who keeps pushing the whole "Saint Reagan!" are those mockingly making a poor point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/30 23:27:30
whembly wrote: Neither is hypocritical D... unless, you just want to pick some perceived low-hanging fruit and feel like venting.
The Secret Service has jurisdiction over the venue whenever POTUS/VP speaks at a venue... that is something that is WELL understood by the public. It's not like the SS is telling the NRA "no guns" at the convention at all... only during the venue that the VP will have his speech.
Reagan was a great President.... no, he wasn't perfect. The only people who keeps pushing the whole "Saint Reagan!" are those mockingly making a poor point.
So tell him that if he has to have a gun free zone, he can have a gun free zone at the White House and just video call in. He doesn't have to be there to give a speech. The NRA is saying "no guns at the convention at all" during the time the VP is in the Arena. Which means everybody who brought guns will have to, wait can they even keep their guns in their cars for this? Where are all of these people keeping all of these guns they are bringing to the NRA Convention?
Also, the only people pushing the whole "Saint Reagan!" thing are the ones you vote for that are trying to ride his coattails in to history.
This is not mentioning that every time a government official requires no guns at a location they are attending it is supporting the idea that guns are dangerous to have around. People who genuinely believed guns make people safer would advocate for as many guns as possible in schools, airports, hospitals, political events, conventions, etc. They don't, because they don't actually have the opinion they express.
d-usa wrote: Back to a refuted point in less than 10 hours? That might be a new record.
The NRA made the choice of having the gun-free zone by inviting people that require the creation of a gun-free zone.
Refuted? Nah... 'tis just your opinion.
You not liking a fact doesn't make it my opinion.
Why is Pence there?
Either the NRA invited him, with the full knowledge that there will be a gun-free zone and that their members will be forced to disarm for his appearance.
The other possibility is that Pence invited himself and told the NRA that he will be there whether they like it or not and that everybody will remove their weapons whether they like it or not.
I'm gonna go with the first option there, which means that the NRA is okay with gun-free zones as long as they really like the reason all their guns are gone.
*sigh* ...and this is coming from someone who has a shotgun and pistol locked up and disassembled since about a year ago...
A convention is a large gathering of people.
Granted, in this case most of them are law abiding citizens, knowledgeable of gun safety rules, but still a large gathering of people.
There are ALWAYS security measures taken when large gatherings of people are organized, especially to protect those law abiding citizens.
Even if it was the NRA banning weapons to some areas within the convention, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. The NRA exists to defend the 2nd Amendment and to promote gun safety, not to promote a wild wild west society.
Inviting a sitting POTUS/VP incurs additional security as the USSS dictates. This is *well* telegraphed by the NRA's own's website. All attendees would be aware of this...and can adjust accordingly.
Furthermore, the convention is televised as well... so, any attendee refusing to give up their firearms can watch it outside of the venue.
Ya'll are making a proverbial mountain out of an anthill. Sheesh.
The NRA disagrees with most of everything you claim they stand for.
And yes, I know that they know that inviting the VPOTUS reguires a gun-free zone. To put it pluntly: that is the entire fething point of why it’s the NRA making the choice to have a gun-free venue.
Pence is more important than guns.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 00:20:31
whembly wrote: *sigh* ...and this is coming from someone who has a shotgun and pistol locked up and disassembled since about a year ago...
A convention is a large gathering of people.
Granted, in this case most of them are law abiding citizens, knowledgeable of gun safety rules, but still a large gathering of people.
There are ALWAYS security measures taken when large gatherings of people are organized, especially to protect those law abiding citizens.
Even if it was the NRA banning weapons to some areas within the convention, there would be absolutely nothing wrong or hypocritical about it. The NRA exists to defend the 2nd Amendment and to promote gun safety, not to promote a wild wild west society.
Inviting a sitting POTUS/VP incurs additional security as the USSS dictates. This is *well* telegraphed by the NRA's own's website. All attendees would be aware of this...and can adjust accordingly.
Furthermore, the convention is televised as well... so, any attendee refusing to give up their firearms can watch it outside of the venue.
Ya'll are making a proverbial mountain out of an anthill. Sheesh.
I think you're willfully ignoring the obvious hypocrisy of the NRA railing and fighting against any measure of gun control or gun-free spaces, while then going and doing exactly that at one of their conventions.
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
d-usa wrote: The NRA disagrees with most of everything you claim they stand for.
I'm sorry... wut?
And yes, I know that they kn
ow that inviting the VPOTUS reguires a gun-free zone. To put it pluntly: that is the entire fething point of why it’s the NRA making the choice to have a gun-free venue.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
The art of the con is the administration is really angry at being called liars, but they can't just say that because then people will respond by pointing out all the lies the administration tells on a regular basis. So instead they run on a false offense, pretending that a line about Sanders using burnt facts for an eye shadow is somehow an attack on her looks.
But the problem is this position is pretty obviously weak, and the White House is really bad at message discipline, even when Trump isn't screwing it up with random tweets. As a result Matt Schlapp, the guy who made a big show of walking out and tweeting about it, was just on CNN saying "Journalists should not be the ones to say that the president or his spokesperson is lying".
These guys are so terrible they can't even keep the cover up for a day before someone blurts out what its really about. But pathetically that was more than long enough to get an apology from the correspondents association.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: It's not a gun-free zone... armed Secret Service personnel will be there.
Oh, so it's okay for a population to be banned from carrying firearms, as long as there are government officers with firearms?
Dude... I mean, I think the disarmed NRA event thing is a non-story and I didn't want to get involved but you are really leading with your chin here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Here is Wolf's nearly 20 minute routine. While I thought that lot of her individual jokes were weak and fell flat, overall I was very impressed. She called out everyone in the room.
"You all created this monster, and now you are all profiting from it." My respect for Wolf has gone way up.
Calling out the administration on its lies, her points about the media's role in Trump's creation and how they profit from his chaos now were good points that need to made in a public platform like the correspondent's dinner. But there was no single moment of clarity or insight, and no thread that made the whole thing work as a collective idea. Instead it just ended up scatter shot, one liners that sometimes hit and mostly missed.
And its a real shame, because the dinner is a massive platform, its an opportunity to say something that will be heard, that can cut through and go a long way to really defining how we understand an issue. Colbert's 'truthiness' is the stand out, it gave us the language to describe the Bush administration's method of placing beliefs about the actual facts, it turned what had been a Bush admin weapon in to a massive weakness.
There's a line in The Usual Suspects, 'How do you shoot the devil in the back, what if you miss?' Wolf took her shot, but she missed.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 02:35:21
“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.
Ouze wrote: For a long time, the NRA was an organization that really looked out for sportsmen, police officers, and stood up to the worst excesses of the government. At some point in recent history, maybe the 80s or early 90s - I can't say exactly when, but maybe Frazzled could...
1977. The Cincinnati Revolt. Before then the NRA saw itself primarily as an organisation that served gun hobbyists, and remained largely outside of politics. The few Federal gun laws that were enacted were done with NRA approval, albeit muted and passive. But all that changed in 1977 when Harlon Carter took a fringe of supporters to the GM and won the presidency. Within a couple of years the NRA was transformed from a hobbyist's club to a political lobbying group.
Fast forward 40 years from that and you have Dana Loesch saying the left "will perish in the political flames of their own fires", which totally isn't what you'd hear out of cult at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Reagan is the second coming because Communism died, he cut taxes, and the economy grew at the greatest rate since WW2.
The economy grew faster under Clinton than it did under Reagan. It also grew faster under Kennedy and Johnson. Your claim is completely false.
Also, Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration was completely blindsided and had no idea it was coming. All the stuff about big military spending was a rewrite after the event. Hell, even that big spending that Reagan fanboys pretend caused communism to fail wasn't even a Reagan policy, it was begun under Carter, due to a change of policy towards constant readiness driven by strategic think tanks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: Really Reagan's tax 'cuts', were nothing of the sort because they were paid for by closing loop holes on corporations & the wealthy, meaning no net tax reduction.
No. Reagan's 1981 tax cut was not a zero sum tax bill, the loopholes closures weren't meant to offset the revenue. What was meant to happen was the tax cut would spur massive growth, so the tax cuts would pay for themselves. That didn't happen and as a result the deficit exploded. Reagan was honest enough to see a problem, and as a result he then went about passing tax increases every other year of his presidency. However, these were not enough to rebuild revenue back to its pre-Reagan rates, it went from 19.1% of revenue down to 16.9% at its low point in 1986, and certainly not enough to recover the deficit, which went from 32% of GDP to 53% of GDP, and has been geared structurally to rise long term ever since due to Reagan locking in tax rates that are too low for service commitments.
The reason they are (rightfully imo) remembered as cuts is because only a small minority who had a ton of wealth anyways paid more while a huge number of Americans paid less.
And we know the economic result.
Less growth than we saw in the 90s, a period in which Bush and then Clinton passed tax increases. So no, most people don't know the history.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 03:19:52
“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.
People forget that... not ONLY did he help drop the tax rate... he ALSO advocated for more government spending.
EDIT: ...and Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR? I'm not saying he should have all the credit... but, nothing at all??? That's an interesting take...
Fast forward 40 years from that and you have Dana Loesch saying the left "will perish in the political flames of their own fires", which totally isn't what you'd hear out of cult at all.
Oh... by the way... Dana Loesch is fricking awesome chick*.
*I'm biased as I've listened to Dana back in the day and been to a few concerts that her husband played in (Full System Purge).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 03:37:21
People forget that... not ONLY did he help drop the tax rate... he ALSO advocated for more government spending.
EDIT: ...and Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR? I'm not saying he should have all the credit... but, nothing at all??? That's an interesting take...
The fall of the USSR began with Brezhnev and his prioritizing of Military and the Space Race over consumer goods. By the time Reagan was president a large chunk of the USSR economy was made up of black market goods, so no he does not nearly deserve the amount of credit he is given
People forget that... not ONLY did he help drop the tax rate... he ALSO advocated for more government spending.
Reagan, GW Bush, and now Trump. Cut taxes and boost spending. The only Republican to refuse to do that was GHW Bush, so of course he's the one who got voted out after one term :(
EDIT: ...and Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR? I'm not saying he should have all the credit... but, nothing at all??? That's an interesting take...
By what mechanism or policy did he make any of the events of the collapse in the Soviet Union happen?
Oh... by the way... Dana Loesch is fricking awesome chick*.
Best we just never, ever comment on this, ever.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Seb, I realize I wasn't specific. I meant to refer to the '86 package specifically but did not actually say it.
Cool. And yeah, the '86 package was, it really did close loopholes and use those loopholes to fund overall cuts. One of the better things Reagan did, and something no-one since Reagan has even managed to get past a campaign speech.
But note that the '86 package doesn't exist in isolation. Before then we had the massive '81 tax cut, which was meant to fund itself through Laffer curve magic, then we have the two or three small tax increases just to bring some stability back to government revenue, then we have the '86 deal.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 03:48:11
“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.
NinthMusketeer wrote: @Seb, I realize I wasn't specific. I meant to refer to the '86 package specifically but did not actually say it.
Cool. And yeah, the '86 package was, it really did close loopholes and use those loopholes to fund overall cuts. One of the better things Reagan did, and something no-one since Reagan has even managed to get past a campaign speech.
But note that the '86 package doesn't exist in isolation. Before then we had the massive '81 tax cut, which was meant to fund itself through Laffer curve magic, then we have the two or three small tax increases just to bring some stability back to government revenue, then we have the '86 deal.
Absolutely. But there is some real credit there for both learning from previous mistakes and creating a bipartisan compromise. Oddly enough these things are anathema to the modern GOP. Reagan's party indeed.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Absolutely. But there is some real credit there for both learning from previous mistakes and creating a bipartisan compromise. Oddly enough these things are anathema to the modern GOP. Reagan's party indeed.
Yep. Since then we've had 3 tax cuts under Republican presidents, and they all followed the model of the '81 tax cut, just an unfunded cut with a claim it won't bust the budget because of Laffer curve magic. Every time, the result was big deficit increases.
Slight change of subject, I read a funny thing recently. The Trump tax cut is very unpopular, under 30% approval. Which is interesting because its functionally no different to the two tax cuts under Bush, where small middle class tax cuts were used to deflect from large cuts for the wealthiest, and the whole thing was paid for with debt, and those were pretty popular because hey, free money. But this time, with the Trump tax cut, not only is the whole thing unpopular, it's managed to be less popular than the tax increases GHW Bush and Clinton passed.
Something has changed, when a tax cut is less popular than previous tax increases.
“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.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
The art of the con is the administration is really angry at being called liars, but they can't just say that because then people will respond by pointing out all the lies the administration tells on a regular basis. So instead they run on a false offense, pretending that a line about Sanders using burnt facts for an eye shadow is somehow an attack on her looks.
But the problem is this position is pretty obviously weak, and the White House is really bad at message discipline, even when Trump isn't screwing it up with random tweets. As a result Matt Schlapp, the guy who made a big show of walking out and tweeting about it, was just on CNN saying "Journalists should not be the ones to say that the president or his spokesperson is lying".
These guys are so terrible they can't even keep the cover up for a day before someone blurts out what its really about. But pathetically that was more than long enough to get an apology from the correspondents association.
He... he actually said that on CNN?
The jellyfish are really out in force for this admin. And I can't believe the association folded so quickly, they think they were being too rude about people who engage in racism and falsehoods on a daily basis. Is having your one day in the sun so important you will just bend over at the first hint of critique? These really are unbelievable times. Each day we go further down the rabbit hole of insanity.
Its awefully convenient to say the least that he found it right now. Its already clear documents Bibi included were also partly handed over by Iran themselves years ago. Question is, how long have the Israelis been sitting on this and should we really put our trust in Bibi when it comes to the Iran deal? Its like asking Erdogan how we should feel about Gülen/the Kurds. Israel has a clear agenda, this shouldn't just be taken at face value. Critical point, nothing Bibi showed is a direct violation of the 2015 deal. These are documents Israel might have hoarded for years to damage the process.
And to be honest Iran isn't going to renegotiate to get a worse deal with Trump even if this is false. What is Trump going to do, invade Iran? It would certainly please Pompeo and Bolton, coincidentally the people who have been pro intervention for years and shouting in support of Israel the loudest. Will Iran get a fair chance between Bibi, Pompeo and Bolton?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/05/01 07:25:27
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Frazzled wrote: And Kennedy would be called a Republican, and therefore a racist Nazi. Still not getting your point. Inversely I don't see Democrats now hailing Reagan as the second coming of Feinstein or something.
Which Kennedy?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I just wanted to comment on the Michele Wolf thing - it's pretty funny to see supporters of a president who has crudely insulted many women, veterans, the disabled and whoever else get so upset over a comedian making some edgy jokes.
The hypocrisy is pretty delicious. I thought left wing people were the snowflakes?!
Disciple of Fate wrote: Well I hope Pence isn't forcing the NRA so he can attend, that sounds almost tyrannical
As for the WH dinner. What an overreaction. People going this is why Trump wins you guys just for pointing out Sanders lies? I guess the people watching Obama thought "that poor Trump, if he ever runs again we will elect him, that will show the meanies!" Meanwhile much more horrific things have been said that weren't even jokes by the current admin but that's yesterday's news.
... ... ...
And to be honest Iran isn't going to renegotiate to get a worse deal with Trump even if this is false. What is Trump going to do, invade Iran? It would certainly please Pompeo and Bolton, coincidentally the people who have been pro intervention for years and shouting in support of Israel the loudest. Will Iran get a fair chance between Bibi, Pompeo and Bolton?
No-one serious is putting any value on the Netanyahu documents.
All the experts on BBC news and analysis are saying this is the same documentation we were aware of a decade ago, when a lot of it was already old news. Yes, it was an feat by Mossad to exfiltrate such a mass of documentation, but it's irrelevant to the current situation.
The dramatic revelation now is an obvious ploy to bounce Trump into not signing the acccord for another extension.
This may not make any difference to Trump, though, as he takes his situation briefings in the form of picture postcards.
With regards to the Correspondents' Dinner, I read a selection of the jokes. Some were very funny, most were to the point -- this is an administration that richly deserves mockery. They weren't all great and some went wincingly close to the bone. Arguably that's all within the brief, and part the nature of political comedy, particularly since US culture has more of a tradition of cruel jokes.
If there is a valid liberal complaint, it should be that the President is making a mockery of all the unwritten rules of consideration and propriety that underpin the real functioning of American democracy. The 4th estate should not lower itself to the same level. If you like, Democrats and Independents should preserve the respect for the office and institution which the GoP and Trumpists have thrown out the window.
Trump won't last forever. The country needs to get back to civilised government when he's gone.
And to be honest Iran isn't going to renegotiate to get a worse deal with Trump even if this is false. What is Trump going to do, invade Iran? It would certainly please Pompeo and Bolton, coincidentally the people who have been pro intervention for years and shouting in support of Israel the loudest. Will Iran get a fair chance between Bibi, Pompeo and Bolton?
No-one serious is putting any value on the Netanyahu documents.
All the experts on BBC news and analysis are saying this is the same documentation we were aware of a decade ago, when a lot of it was already old news. Yes, it was an feat by Mossad to exfiltrate such a mass of documentation, but it's irrelevant to the current situation.
The dramatic revelation now is an obvious ploy to bounce Trump into not signing the acccord for another extension.
This may not make any difference to Trump, though, as he takes his situation briefings in the form of picture postcards.
With regards to the Correspondents' Dinner, I read a selection of the jokes. Some were very funny, most were to the point -- this is an administration that richly deserves mockery. They weren't all great and some went wincingly close to the bone. Arguably that's all within the brief, and part the nature of political comedy, particularly since US culture has more of a tradition of cruel jokes.
If there is a valid liberal complaint, it should be that the President is making a mockery of all the unwritten rules of consideration and propriety that underpin the real functioning of American democracy. The 4th estate should not lower itself to the same level. If you like, Democrats and Independents should preserve the respect for the office and institution which the GoP and Trumpists have thrown out the window.
Trump won't last forever. The country needs to get back to civilised government when he's gone.
The problem is that Bolton and Pompeo aren't exactly nobodies in the Trump admin and they have already used the Bibi documents to argue you can't trust Iran. So they already have put value on them to forge a narrative with which to break the Iran deal. My use of the word false was more in relation to the fact that it wouldn't surprise me if the Israelis actually included falsified documents to convince the US. I know the value of the documents themselves is small and actually would help the Iran deal if it wasn't for the massive spin. It matters to Trump because he is isolated from critical sources and surrounded by people who will feed him the Bibi BS.
Yes it was a so so routine. Funny at times and head scratching at others. Most of it was brutally honest though. I share the concerns about the Trump admin demolishing the unwritten rules, hopefully they will be patchable when he leaves, but I have some doubts, as what is considered normal/acceptable is already sliding.
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Lots of hypocracy in the media and the anti gun lobby talking against guns because, ,”guns kill”, when alcohol is responsible for as many drunk driver deaths per year as are people murdered in gun related incidents. Add to that, overall alcohol kills 88,000 people per year, yet no where near the out rage as against guns. Quite the opposite, if advertisements for alcohol are anything to go by.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
