|
Yes, people enjoy debating and discussing in the Debate and Discussion sub forum
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
drakegrim posted:people really take poo poo serious in this forum? i mean come on, this is SA we are talking about... Zelder posted:Yes, people enjoy debating and discussing in the Debate and Discussion sub forum
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Different subforums, different posting cultures. This, for instance, is Debate & Discussion, where (in theory at least) subjects are debated and discussed. But since Something Awful is a comedy website, they can be debated and discussed in an offhand or 'ironic' manner just as easily as they are seriously. I follow politics like some follow football, but what i have learned is not to engage into a serious discussion with people about politics because some people cannot set emotions to the side. with that being said, i am all for intelligently discussing anything controversial or political.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
When people can be screwed over the way they can by politics seriousness can be expected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:When people can be screwed over the way they can by politics seriousness can be expected. Not a joke.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Hey now, football is pretty serious business too. Being from Texas, this is not an understatement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:na i make a poo poo load of money now, but that was the market where i lived. There was a bull market of IT professionals. you missed the point, i was unhappy with what i was making so i went to school, and getting out of school with almost no experiance i was at 50k. With experience i went up to 80k. Working for IBM i went up to 189k with getting a masters, all sorts of certs, etc. if you are not happy with making what you make, then get education, get experience and move up. its also called free market capitalism. Suppose all compsci employees voluntarily accepted the average U.S. wage - even with shortages in said employees. They would then be paid that wage, and employers would rejoice. Skill doesn't have an inherent value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:When people can be screwed over the way they can by politics seriousness can be expected. true, but there is nothing we can do about it just discussing it in a forum. For that reason, I am able to push emotions to the side. I am not in favor of this nuke deal with Iran, and because of Iran's broken promises in the past, and the territory they are in, i believe that only bad can come from this and more concerned that they will build a Nuke and attack Israel, united states, or our NATO partners. But if you disagree with me, i will not get angry because frankly you are not the one making this deal happen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
I saw this bill and it's a fun one:quote:SECTION 1. DEFINITION OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Hey now, football is pretty serious business too. lol Go Texas!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I saw this bill and it's a fun one: barack obama personally killing anybody would be problematic, even if they were engaged in hostilities against the united states
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
(12) Is Barack Obama
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:true, but there is nothing we can do about it just discussing it in a forum. For that reason, I am able to push emotions to the side. 1. What part of the framework deal do you think makes it easier or more likely for Iran to build a nuke, compared to now when there is no enforcement on their nuclear program? 2. What alternative do you have in mind? If sanctions continue, then Iran will keep building the bomb as a countermeasure. Do you want the United States to go to war against Iran?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:I am not in favor of this nuke deal with Iran, and because of Iran's broken promises in the past, and the territory they are in, i believe that only bad can come from this and more concerned that they will build a Nuke and attack Israel, united states, or our NATO partners. But if you disagree with me, i will not get angry because frankly you are not the one making this deal happen. What is the specific "bad thing" that will happen if IAEA inspectors get to inspect the Iranian nuclear facilities? Or are these just coming from your emotional response to Iran? What is the better policy alternative or deal that you would prefer? I'm also kinda curious which broken deals have you so upset and if you can list any of them. e: gently caress how can I get beaten on asking questions?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I saw this bill and it's a fun one: The fun part of that is going through it and seeing how many things the past few GOP presidents have done that would be considered impeachable offenses. Not that this will ever become law, but I want to see how fast they could get this stricken from the books as soon as a republican became president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:A few questions. we have sanctions in play that is supposed to prevent them from building a nuke. If they break the deal, then we (NATO) have every right to engage in war efforts against them. lifting sanctions pretty much says that if they build a nuke, we cannot go to war with them and if we did, that would make us look bad on the world stage as we would be breaking out commitment to lifting the sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Ah yes, the free market. lol no way in hell he makes 189k at IBM in IT with a masters
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:we have sanctions in play that is supposed to prevent them from building a nuke. If they break the deal, then we (NATO) have every right to engage in war efforts against them. lifting sanctions pretty much says that if they build a nuke, we cannot go to war with them and if we did, that would make us look bad on the world stage as we would be breaking out commitment to lifting the sanctions. I'm not so sure you understand what sanctions are or how war is declared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
I think (9) is designed to stop Underwood
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:we have sanctions in play that is supposed to prevent them from building a nuke. If they break the deal, then we (NATO) have every right to engage in war efforts against them. lifting sanctions pretty much says that if they build a nuke, we cannot go to war with them and if we did, that would make us look bad on the world stage as we would be breaking out commitment to lifting the sanctions. No, our sanctions don't give us the right to go to war against Iran if they build a nuke. However, the deal we are brokering will in fact provide a binding mechanism to punish Iran if they do start to build a bomb. So you pretty much are arguing in favor of the deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm not so sure you understand what sanctions are or how war is declared. We imposed Sanctions on uranium enrichment back in 1965 if my memory serves me correctly. Yes if they break the sanction such as obtaining technology or tools from other countries to enrich uranium, we would have reasonable cause to go to war with them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:I saw this bill and it's a fun one: Now I'm no expert on congressional procedure, but can't the House bring articles of impeachment for basically whatever they want already? Would this bill enable anything they can't already do?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:We imposed Sanctions on uranium enrichment back in 1965 if my memory serves me correctly. Yes if they break the sanction such as obtaining technology or tools from other countries to enrich uranium, we would have reasonable cause to go to war with them. According to you and no one else. The international community and our allies sure as hell wouldn't think so. Besides that's not even how sanctions work. Sanctions are how other countries deal with the target country, they aren't edicts the target must follow. Edit: you're thinking of a blockade, which is often considered an act of war. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No, our sanctions don't give us the right to go to war against Iran if they build a nuke. However, the deal we are brokering will in fact provide a binding mechanism to punish Iran if they do start to build a bomb. So you pretty much are arguing in favor of the deal. what about the Iran Supreme leader saying "death to america" just a month ago? that does not throw up any red flags? If the sanctions are lifted, they will be able to throw up a "x" amount of centrifuges that will enrich uranium. My solution, give them solar technology to run eco friendly solar plants as they are in a great place for that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:what about the Iran Supreme leader saying "death to america" just a month ago? that does not throw up any red flags? If the sanctions are lifted, they will be able to throw up a "x" amount of centrifuges that will enrich uranium. Who cares what the supreme leader says to rile up the masses, we're better off with a deal rather than no limits on what Iran can do. No. The deal in fact limits specifically how many centrifuges they can spin up, right now there is no limit whatsoever. So if you want an internationally enforceable agreement limiting the number of centrifuges Iran can use for enrichment, you are in favor of the plan. If you want no limit you should be against the plan. Your solution doesn't exactly match the problem. Besides Iran already has all the solar technology we do. They buy it from China just like us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Ok, let's unpack this post.drakegrim posted:we have sanctions in play that is supposed to prevent them from building a nuke. drakegrim posted:If they break the deal, then we (NATO) have every right to engage in war efforts against them. drakegrim posted:lifting sanctions pretty much says that if they build a nuke, we cannot go to war with them and if we did, that would make us look bad on the world stage as we would be breaking out commitment to lifting the sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:According to you and no one else. The international community and our allies sure as hell wouldn't think so. you may be right and i may be all hosed up, but from a few post i have read with a quick google search of "war sanctions" there are many articles suggestion that sanctions do lead to war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Who cares what the supreme leader says to rile up the masses, we're better off with a deal rather than no limits on what Iran can do. i see your point, and if that is in fact the case i can side with it. However, why not help them go more towards a clean source of energy like Solar? again they are in prime real estate for such a technology...
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Ok, let's unpack this post. It may have been because of their past leaders why there where sanctions on the table. Saddam was gassing his own people for testing chemical warfare.. but again, their supreme leader just a month ago saying "death to america" concerns me. I was under the impression that they where not allowed centrifuges at all. drakegrim fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Death to America is basically how they say "good morning" over there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
The US telling other countries to go for cleaner sources of energy is really funny. And as far as I heard, sanctions are ineffective. Just look at out piddly little sanctions on Russia. ^^The Iranian people are for the most part fine with the US (most even like us). Rick Steves did a good travel show on Iran.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Writing the Great Amergin Novel: With New Appendix by drakegrimm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
"Death to" is used like "gently caress" is used is english. If you spoke farsi you would say death to this cheeseburger if they forgot your bacon again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Death to America is basically how they say "good morning" over there. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but having your socially-responsible democracy overthrown by foreign entities, to be replaced by a monarchy that wasn't strong enough to hold off theocratic goons without the help of those same foreign entities, I can see how that would engender a bit of lasting animosity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:It may have been because of their past leaders why there where sanctions on the table. Saddam was gassing his own people for testing chemical warfare.. but again, their supreme leader just a month ago saying "death to america" concerns me. The deal will limit them to 6,000 of their older centrifuges down from their current number of about 19,000 centrifuges. How can you have such a strong opinion about the deal when you clearly know nothing about it except soundbytes? Here's a fact sheet that will help you get a better understanding: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/fact-sheet-from-state-department-parameters-of-plan-on-iran-nuclear-program/1507/ Also, are you aware that in 1953, the CIA helped with a coup that deposed a democratically elected leader in Iran? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat How come they don't love us, even though we've been severely loving with their country for a long time 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:How can you have such a strong opinion about the deal when you clearly know nothing about it except soundbytes? I'm sorry, have you met the Average Voter?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Edmund Lava posted:How come the only time EMS gets brought up is in this stupid loving context. Don't pretend you give a gently caress about us or what we're paid. Also RNs and Sanitation already earn well above 15$hr at least in my area. Exactly. EMTs get paid under $10/hr in many areas - gently caress the gently caress off with patronizing bullshit about them being heroes when you pay them the same as a McDonalds employee.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
az posted:"Death to" is used like "gently caress" is used is english. If you spoke farsi you would say death to this cheeseburger if they forgot your bacon again. I don't think many people in Iran are ordering bacon cheeseburgers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
drakegrim posted:It may have been because of their past leaders why there where sanctions on the table. Saddam was gassing his own people for testing chemical warfare.. but again, their supreme leader just a month ago saying "death to america" concerns me. Saddam was using chemical weapons manufactured by NATO to gas Kurds, which were covered up subsequently during the Iraq War because they weren't the WMDs we were looking for, and the sanctions weren't a result of usage of chemical weapons. Get your basic facts straight. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:53 |
|
|
Lemming posted:The deal will limit them to 6,000 of their older centrifuges down from their current number of about 19,000 centrifuges. Only hateful racists would disagree with that fact sheet http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/05/iran-disputes-us-nuclear-deal-fact-sheet
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:53
|
|
