StrangeSox

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:12 AM) So you basically didn't read it. He brings up other examples (immigration and immigration supporters), Castro and his brother, Putin, Libya, etc. His mention of Nazi Germany was pretty short. Give me an example of when Obama "played nice" and the situation has dramatically changed for the better in terms of US interests. Are things worse with Cuba? Obama "played nice" with Libya? And most of it is just nonsense, anyway. "It was often said" means "here's a chance to bash liberals with no evidence, wee!" On immigration: Deportations have increased under Obama. on Iran: Uh, yes? That's what they've been doing for decades even with American threats of military force. I can't imagine why VDH thinks that Congress blocking the agreement would suddenly make Iran cower with fear. On Iran, 1980: President-elect Reagan negotiated a deal with Iran that released several billion dollars in frozen assets (something like $25B in today's dollars) in exchange for the hostages. President Reagan also illegally dealt weapons to Iran in order to illegally funnel money to right-wing juntas in South America a couple of years later. On Cuba: (man, VDH sure loves to hear himself talk) It would seem that VDH would prefer a never-ending and ineffective embargo of Cuba over normalized relations. Why continuing the failed policies of the last 55 years would be better going forward is left unexplained. Possibly? Or are we to take VDH's international mind-reading abilities as a given? On Russia: Putin didn't react to 2009 diplomatic overtures from the Obama administration by invading anyone. He reacted to the Russian-friendly government in Ukraine getting thrown out about 6 years later. VDH seems to have a very weird sense of causality. Would mean words from the US President have prevented his actions? At least Obama didn't look into his eyes and see that he had a good soul. Nobody would respect a world leader who said something like that. How does this even fit in with his "appeasement" narrative above? He really seems to have lost his train of thought. Because of the Syrian civil war (oddly unmentioned) and an inept and dysfunctional Iraqi government that used the political space provided by "the surge" in order to continue sectarian purges rather than unify and rebuild the country. And, again, VDH seems to be falling for post hoc ergo propter hoc.

There doesn't appear to be any editor's notes indicating that the story has been changed, either. Quality work.

The man has done phenomenal work after his Presidency. It looks like they're pretty close to eradicating the Guinea Worm, a pretty awful disease that Carter's foundation has worked on for decades.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 10:05 AM) But you're still relying on Iran to provide the IAEA with samples, right? The IAEA can't collect them themselves, which is sort of the point when you have an independent agency. This is all still based on trust of Iran to tell the world the truth, which is the whole moronic thing about this deal. It's slightly better than having no idea what they're doing, except now we've lifted economic sanctions, which could potentially ramp up their efforts rather than stop it. No, it's not based just on trust. It's based on verifiable sampling methods. The IAEA has their own credibility at stake here. Why shouldn't we assume that if they say the agreed methodology meets their standards and requirements that it really is sufficient? Sanctions weren't going to last much longer, anyway. edit: and keep in mind, as the Yahoo story points out, the AP story is unconfirmed and relies on draft documents, not the final agreements.

IAEA says access to Iran's Parchin military site meets demands

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 20, 2015 -> 09:47 AM) Great, so again this deal has less teeth than we were told. Iran gets a loophole on inspections. If the whole point here was to lift sanctions in exchange for full disclosure and an end to their nuclear ambitions, we didn't really get that if they're able to set up these exceptions. What's to stop Iran from basically telling the IAEA "no, uh, that building over there is for, uh, other military equipment. You can't go in there. Our inspectors have checked it though and they say it's totally fine! Nothing to see here, move along." The actual process by which the IAEA verifies when and where the samples were taken from prevents Iran from just making things up. That's what Balta was explaining--it's not just relying solely on Iran self-reporting violations and inspections [insert shot at "self-regulating industry" here], it's using approved Iranian officials to go into very specific places and collect samples in a detailed and verifiable manner. The IAEA would still be the ones testing the samples. The initial reporting and headlines make it seem like it's the scenario you're depicting, but that doesn't appear to be what it actually is.

A lot of Republican candidates are jumping on the "end birthright citizenship/amend the 14th amendment" bandwagon.

Josh Duggar, "family values" activist/teenage child molester, apparently had a couple of active Ashley Madison accounts.

The Score's new Bears post-game show will be Hub Arkush, James "Big Cat" Williams and Olin Kreutz.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 12:08 PM) There are multiple definitions of miracle. I'm not saying it's based on some unexampled, unknowable divine act. It's a wonder. A marvel. An outstanding, extraordinary event. And it's not just the child, it's the whole process. I think Crimson's getting a little hung up on the definition of miracle here, but you did say "literally." It's not supernatural, and it's not improbable (generally speaking, of course) or uncommon.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 11:55 AM) If it's a dollar it's a dollar too much. And as Alpha said earlier, also illegal. I was questioning your hypothetical "PP would push for more abortions so that they could get all the money." The financial incentive isn't really there, even if we assume that multiple PP affiliates (it's not a centralized, top-down organization really) across the country would be willing to commit felonies routinely and would discuss them with some small, previously unheard of biotech group. Maybe she was made uncomfortable by these activists who were trying to push her to agree to illegal actions? Either way, she was crystal-clear that they only recover costs and do not profit from facilitating fetal tissue donations.

Abortions already represent a small fraction of the services that PP provides, and abortions when the pregnancy is far enough along to result in usable fetal tissues even less so. And exactly how much money do you think PP would be making on $75 or even the $100 the activists tried to push her to take? How many fetal tissue samples do they even process? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 11:13 AM) She could have easily stopped talking about it. Why are you even discussing that outside of an official meeting in a conference room when you have all the facts/figures in hand? And again, she never once said covering costs or recouping costs, at least that I can remember. The whole thing seemed off to me. She was playing along with him. She was meeting with a supposed biotech group to discuss fetal tissue donations for research purposes. I don't see anything wrong with discussing that in an open manner in some initial meetings. She did state, repeatedly, that they do not profit from this and that they only recover the expenses they incur. If you only watched the shorter video, then you watched the one where the activists edited it to deliberately lie to you and give you exactly that misleading impression.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 10:40 AM) 1) Regarding PP, while they might not be harvesting/farming fetuses like a factory, the problem I have, if it's true they're selling this stuff for profit, They're not and there's zero evidence, anywhere, that they are. What does it even mean for PP to "push for more abortions?" How many abortions that they perform do you think end up with donated fetal tissue? They are. How should professionals discuss it? How do you imagine discussions with hospital administrators for parts from organ donors go? She said that she wasn't sure what the costs were and would have to check. She threw out an estimate of $75, and the activists kept trying to pressure her to take more. What is your basis for assuming that most people don't understand fetal development?

Ok, but what he's trying to say is meaningless nonsense. Which is where this started.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 09:12 AM) I don't like the idea of speaking for Dr. Carson, but I think it's of his opinion that it's not the source that's the problem, it's the how and why it was acquired in the first place. So, from what I gather, he's against "harvesting" this type of tissue specifically for the sake of research...it's grey area, but I still get his point. So, it's not the same unless you completely ignore his opinion on the subject. His opinion doesn't make sense, that's the problem. Nobody is "harvesting" fetal tissue for research in that they're getting women pregnant and then terminating the pregnancies in order to collect fetal tissue (and I don't think Carson was trying to say that happens, either). But in order to get fetal tissue for research, it must be "harvested" during an abortion and processed specifically to be used for research. There isn't another way to get it. There isn't a grey area.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 08:24 AM) There's no difference at all. It's the same source. Exactly. It's not like there's some fetal tissue factory, getting women pregnant and aborting the fetuses in order to harvest fetal tissue. It's all sourced from terminated pregnancies.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 17, 2015 -> 07:49 AM) Isn't that what ongoing investigations will prove? How come people can never (either side of this argument) let the facts rise to the surface BEFORE commenting as if they know for sure? Because this isn't a real "investigation" but some crappy 'stings' by an anti-abortion group who heavily edits their videos and lies.

Welp

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 06:53 PM) Dude, there is no chance of this happening. Scouts love the arm, someone will give up the pick for him a multi-year deal.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 04:02 PM) All what SS means is that he is still spending more than we take in, just doing it at a slightly lower rate. Still can't balance a budget. Still adding to the amount we all owe. What I mean is that the deficit now is less than what the deficit was i.e. the deficit is shrinking.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 02:38 PM) 2. He had some health care plan that included the market or something. I didn't understand it but he mentioned it. sounds promising! But the ACA already includes the market. That's what the exchanges are all about. by being smaller than it was previously. no you are probably thinking of the debt. Trump may have also conflated the two--many politicians and pundits often do. Anyway, people have been saying that the debt will cripple us for years now, but much of the scholarship underlying those claims has been shown to be less-than-persuasive at best in the last few years.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) And sounds like you have equally accepted the PP version. That's fine. But when they negotiate the pricing, that isn't 'recouping costs'. What do you imagine hospitals do when negotiating with various groups over organ donations?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 14, 2015 -> 12:28 PM) They don't 'donate' anything, they sell it. Big difference. And they need the consent of the women to even do that, which the last 2 videos claim they rarely got. They donate it and recoup the processing costs. It's the exact same thing a hospital would do if you are an organ donor. Or what an animal rescue organization does when they adopt out an animal. These videos have claimed lots of things, but so far they've shown absolutely nothing when they aren't heavily selectively edited. You're also not actually addressing the point. edit: besides, I thought the only thing you cared about was some hypothetical program wherein taxpayers would be paying for abortions?

By "clown" I mean more their actual policy proposals and ideas (or lack thereof) than their demeanor.

Isn't "sex addiction" not actually a recognized thing in the DSM?