Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...

There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattis and Rumsfeld.

Unfortunately Mattis is not "The Decider".

 feeder wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
That feeling when someone who has committed treason calls someone else a terrorist

The newly elected president of the National Rifle Association has claimed that gun control activists, like those who have emerged following a deadly shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February, are “civil terrorists.”



Oliver North, who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal in which profits from weapons sales to Iran were secretly funneled to right-wing guerrillas in Nicaragua, was named the lobbying group’s new president earlier this week. And he has wasted no time attacking activists who have criticized the NRA’s role in continued gun violence.



“They’re not activists—this is civil terrorism. This is the kind of thing that’s never been seen against a civil rights organization in America,” Oliver North told the Washington Times. “You go back to the terrible days of Jim Crow and those kinds of things—even there you didn’t have this kind of thing.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nra-president-oliver-north-says-175639346.html

This is the kind of ignorant dumbfeth rhetoric that makes the modern conservative movement such a clown college. What a gakshow.

 Frazzled wrote:
Exactly. The Republican Party left me a while back.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Many asked the same questions right about March 2003...

There’s a huge difference in competency between Mattis and Rumsfeld.

Unfortunately Mattis is not "The Decider".

True but he’s going to push back real hard against dumb ideas that will get our troops killed needlessly. If Trump overrides his Marine combat veteran SecDef and launches a poorly thought out military campaign for political reasons he won’t be able to hide that from the media and it will become a counter productive disaster for him. Senate and House Republicans are t going to pick Trump over Mattis in a military dispute.

 whembly wrote:

'Tis why I voted libertarian down ticket last election.

It's a party right? No... I mean... it's REALLY is a P.A.R.T.Y. right!!!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And then people get their knickers in a twist when Clinton calls them out on it, because how dare she?!

Prestor Jon wrote:

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/11/america-must-respond-to-irans-attack-on-israel-to-prevent-regional-war.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2018/05/israel-iran-inching-closer-war-180511195154571.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-iran-war-latest-syria-golan-heights-rocket-air-strikes-a8344291.html

So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.

I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.

 sebster wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And then people get their knickers in a twist when Clinton calls them out on it, because how dare she?!

A week ago Republicans were outraged that a comedian would refer to the Press Secretary's eye shadow in a joke about her constant lies. This week a Republican staffer jokes about an ailing senator dying soon, and hey it's just a joke you guys.

 daedalus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

'Tis why I voted libertarian down ticket last election.

It's a party right? No... I mean... it's REALLY is a P.A.R.T.Y. right!!!

Between that and Johnson, at least they're the party with the sense of humor.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/11/america-must-respond-to-irans-attack-on-israel-to-prevent-regional-war.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2018/05/israel-iran-inching-closer-war-180511195154571.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-iran-war-latest-syria-golan-heights-rocket-air-strikes-a8344291.html

So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.

I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.

Exactly. The simple scenario is: Iran works to build "the bomb" (thanks to Trump cancelling the Iran Deal), Israel attempts to stop Iran from building "the bomb" (by using force), shooting between the two starts, and the US hops in on Israel's side faster than you can say "Archduke Franz Ferdinand".

US President Donald Trump has accused foreign governments of extorting "unreasonably low prices" from pharmaceutical firms.

Speaking in Washington on Friday, he said he had directed his top trade negotiator to make the issue a priority in trade talks.

"It is time to end the global freeloading once and for all," he said.

The president is under pressure to deliver on campaign promises to reduce the high costs of prescription drugs.

In his speech, the president pinned the problem in part on price controls in other countries that he said "extort unreasonably low prices" from drug-makers, forcing Americans to pay more to "subsidise the enormous costs of research and development".

"That is unacceptable," he said.

However, experts say foreign pricing is not a major influence on US costs and changing it will not help Americans.

Paul Ginsburg, a professor of health policy at USC and the director of the USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, said firms set prices to maximise profits and already have ample incentives to innovate.

"The notion that if other countries pay more for drugs that US consumers will pay less, that's just not true," said

"If they are able to get other countries to pay more, I don't believe it will have any effect on prices in the United States," he added. "It will only raise drug company profits."

Shares of health care companies jumped after the president's speech.
Higher costs

Polls repeatedly find that reducing the high cost of prescription drugs is a priority for American voters.

The US spent $1,443 per capita on pharmaceutical costs in 2016, compared to a range of $466 to $939 in 10 other high income countries, including the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan, according to a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The report said those costs were one of the primary drivers of overall US health spending, which was nearly twice as high as in the other countries.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption The rising cost of healthcare is concern for many in the US

President Donald Trump seized on the issue during his 2016 election campaign.

At the time, he said the government should negotiate drug prices for government health programmes, such as Medicare. He also voiced support for allowing people to buy medicines from countries where they cost less, such as Canada.

Neither of those proposals was mentioned in Friday's speech.

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, said the president's blueprint offered "little more than window dressing".

"The idea that asking Germany to charge their citizens more for drugs will help Americans is a cop-out and the height of absurdity that nobody believes," he said.
Details of the plan

US drug prices are set by companies and subsequently renegotiated with insurers, suppliers and hospitals through rebates, discounts and other measures.

President Trump said he wants to eliminate "the middlemen" in that system.

The White House blueprint calls for requiring disclosure of out-of-pocket costs and for ending rules that limit what pharmacists can share about costs, among other measures.

President Trump also said he is considering requiring firms to identify drug costs in advertisements.

The plans also emphasises increasing competition among drug manufacturers, by speeding up approvals for generic drugs and cracking down on the "gaming" of intellectual property patents.

Some of those measures are already under way. US Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on Friday warned "it will take time" for the system to change.

Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University, said he is sceptical the proposals will reduce health care costs overall and it is too early to gauge the political effect.

"I don't know how the American public is going to respond," Mr Anderson said. "It clearly does not meet what President Trump said he was going to do when he was elected."

He also said it is unlikely that countries will be cowed by administration demands about pharmaceuticals.

"I don't expect that any country is going to say, 'Oh, we're going to increase our prices because President Trump wants it'," he said.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.

Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No one noticed there was a bonbing of an Episcopal Church in Beaumont. The second in the town in a month.

Or the fact that we're dangerously close to yet another shooting war in the middle east thanks to bailing on the Iran deal?

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

Steelmage99 wrote:
And let us not forget that Hillary Clinton was unfit to be President, because she absolutely was a warhawk, that with 100% certainty would have started WW3 with Russia over Syria (or at least start one more of those expensive, basically unwinnable, Middle Eastern wars) that Donald Trump was such a vocal opponent of

........Or something like that.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Why do you think we’re close to a war in the ME with Iran? Unless Iran does something drastic like try to interdict the Strait of Hormuz what compelling reason exists to make us attack them? If Israel is nervous about Iran they can bomb them themslves they’ve got an Air Force of their own.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/05/11/america-must-respond-to-irans-attack-on-israel-to-prevent-regional-war.html

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2018/05/israel-iran-inching-closer-war-180511195154571.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-iran-war-latest-syria-golan-heights-rocket-air-strikes-a8344291.html

So, frothing radicals in Trumpland, Israel, and Iran are ready to go to war right now. In all honesty, I'm not sure who's crazier, the genocidal Israelis, the genocidal Iranians, or Trump.

I can say I trust none of the above with nuclear weapons.

Exactly. The simple scenario is: Iran works to build "the bomb" (thanks to Trump cancelling the Iran Deal), Israel attempts to stop Iran from building "the bomb" (by using force), shooting between the two starts, and the US hops in on Israel's side faster than you can say "Archduke Franz Ferdinand".

Actually, I'm not sure it isn't a stated goal to let Iran build the bomb just to give cover and rationale for our support of Saudi Arabia to build their own. The cat was out of the bag and I'm a bit surprised it stayed quiet for so long. I mean, I thought that was what the entire Iran deal was about from our side, give the Saudis time to build their own and come out like a debutante in her own good time.

 sebster wrote:
Pompeo has said getting North Korea to give up its nukes would require the US to commit to economic support. I mean, yeah, I agree that's a pretty realistic assessment, it's kind of amazing that the US is beginning the discussion from an opening bargaining position that is weaker than the final version of the Iran deal that Trump just walked away from.

Pointing out these guys are a bunch of idiot hypocrites probably doesn't even need to be said at this point. Really the thing to notice now is the incredible whiplash suffered by anyone trying to defend these clowns. WIthin one week the collecton of professional nonsense talkers have had to shift from claiming a deal where the US gave no resources while getting Iran gave up its nuke program and accept on-going inspections was bad, to claiming a deal that will at best gives North Korea billions in (likely) grain, oil and coal to get them to give up their nukes is genius deal making.

It'd be funny except this crap has serious real world consequences. Maybe it'll funny when Trump is out of office and we can look back and laugh. But right now all we can say is the most powerful office in the world is being run by liars who don't give a crap, who are enabled by lairs who don't give a crap.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the P5 countries that are still in the Iran Deal can’t keep Iran from building nuclear weapons without the US participating in the deal then it really was a terrible deal. The mullahs and politicians in Iran build their careers on promoting anti US sentiment but they’ll only honor a no nukes deal if the US engages in commerce with them?

This makes zero sense. The P4+1 are going to be actively punished by adhering to the Iran deal and so is Iran, by P number 5. Iran never had anything to fear from the P4+1, just nr 5 as the US. This is like saying North Korea shouldn't have nukes because they had a deal with Japan and China. Those two countries aren't the reason for North Korea to want nukes. The commerce part might also go down the toilet as business prefers to trade with the US instead of getting sanctioned while trading with Iran. The US leaving undermined the entire deal, if it collapses that isn't because it was terrible, its because the US is trying to actively blow it up by sanctioning allies.

It isn't just about commerce, it is also about the unspoken sentiment that the US wasn't going to go Iraq on them. That just went out the window and the best defence for all those mullahs and politicians not to get hanged like Saddam is nuclear weapons.