Extremely false. I rarely post an intro to articles, and if I do, I'm hardly the only one. Funny how you'll only call me out for it. Your attempt at trying to appear fair and balanced is as laughable as Fox News's. I don't call anyone who disagrees with me those things. Another false statement. And in this particular case, I was referring to the extremists in the US and in Iran that are trying to scuttle this deal, not anyone here, but you already knew that. Our postings are irrelevant to what ultimately happens.
You were posting from sites whose intent is the destruction of Israel. You were posting falsehoods that Israel was firing indiscriminately into pal neighborhoods. You denied, and time proved you incorrect, that Hamas was storing weapons in hospitals and civilian homes, and deliberately placing children in danger. Heck, according to Guesser's rules my Iran Poll is invalid because the wrong people asked the question. That old saying, you can't have your cake......
Fair and balanced? I'm not fair and balanced. My posts are purely opinion based on my views and beliefs. It is what it is. I take shots at you because I find the idea that you think you're full of integrity and above the fray nauseating. But hey, all you have to do is give me a nailed it and I'm gone for good. I know you want to silence the opposition, here's your chance.
It would really be great to debate issues with people who rely solely on reason and not emotion, and if in disagreement would try to take an opponent's argument apart and not the opponent himself.
"Breitbart, har har har" is not debate. It's only meant to taunt. Repeating a falsehood a dozen times is not debate either. Ex: How many times do I have to show that there will not be sanctions reimposed on Iran? Or that inspections will never be immediate? Etc etc....
I know you have a thing with Guesser and it is what it is....but Guesser deals with some of the same nonsense I do. Guys like acebb, zit,Dave and joe will have 10 bashing and name calling posts in a row.....I will respond the same way.....and all anyone will comment on is the response.
I'm with you. It would be great. I realize that this place is not likely to ever be that way, but maybe one day.
Ha, can you imagine how bad my bi-polar disorder would be if you stole my meds? Scary thought. If he gives me the nailed it, I've got no choice. I said I would and I'll honor my word.
I certainly don't want to silence the opposition. That would be the sick stalkers who applaud chasing Aki off the site. To your credit, you mildly admonish them, and aren't one of them. I indeed have integrity, because I won't give you a nailed it until/unless you earn it. I don't think I'm above the fray. I readily admit I lower myself into the gutter with the scum, a weakness of mine when I'm attacked.
You post from Radical extremist sites like Caroline Glick, and yet you admonish someone who disagrees with your views as posting from radical extreme sites?? When you try and portray someone like Glick as the centrist voice of reason, you lose the debate.
29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama
By WILLIAM J. BROADAUG. 8, 2015
Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to supportthe agreement.
The two-page letter may give the White House arguments a boost after the blow Mr. Obama suffered on Thursday when Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat and among the most influential Jewish voices in Congress, announced he would oppose the deal, which calls for Iran to curb its nuclear program and allow inspections in return for an end to international oil and financial sanctions.
The first signature on the letter is from Richard L. Garwin, a physicist who helped design the world’s first hydrogen bomb and has long advised Washington on nuclear weapons and arms control. He is among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age.
Also signing is Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor who, from 1986 to 1997, directed the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. The facility produced designs for most of the arms now in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
Other prominent signatories include Freeman Dyson of Princeton, Sidney Drell of Stanford and Rush D. Holt, a physicist and former member of Congress who now leads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society.
Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances — granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military’s top secret security clearance.
Document: Scientists’ Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal
Many of them have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies over the decades. For instance, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton physicist, served as assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton administration.
The five Nobel laureates who signed are Leon N. Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon L. Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The letter uses the words “innovative” and “stringent” more than a half-dozen times, saying, for instance, that the Iran accord has “more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.”
Graphic: The Iran Nuclear Deal – A Simple Guide
“We congratulate you and your team,” the letter says in its opening to Mr. Obama, adding that the Iran deal “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.”
In a technical judgment that seemed more ominous than some other assessments of Tehran’s nuclear capability, the letter says that Iran, before curbing its nuclear program during the long negotiations, was “only a few weeks” away from having fuel for nuclear weapons.
Dr. Garwin and Dr. Holt were the main organizers behind the group that wrote and signed the letter, according to two of the letter’s signatories. The letter comes amid a flurry of organized efforts by supporters and opponents of the agreement to shape the public debate ahead of congressional action on the deal.
OPEN GRAPHIC
The body of the letter praises the technical features of the Iran accord and offers tacit rebuttals to recent criticisms on such issues as verification and provisions for investigating what specialists see as evidence of Iran’s past research on nuclear arms.
It also focuses on whether Iran could use the accord as diplomatic cover to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.
The deal’s plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates “concerns about clandestine activities.” It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as “unprecedented,” adding that the agreement “will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern.”
It also welcomes as without precedent the deal’s explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons “rather than only their manufacture,” as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age.
The letter notes criticism that the Iran accord, after 10 years, will let Tehran potentially develop nuclear arms without constraint. “In contrast,” it says, “we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely.”
By WILLIAM J. BROADAUG. 8, 2015
Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to supportthe agreement.
The two-page letter may give the White House arguments a boost after the blow Mr. Obama suffered on Thursday when Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, a Democrat and among the most influential Jewish voices in Congress, announced he would oppose the deal, which calls for Iran to curb its nuclear program and allow inspections in return for an end to international oil and financial sanctions.
The first signature on the letter is from Richard L. Garwin, a physicist who helped design the world’s first hydrogen bomb and has long advised Washington on nuclear weapons and arms control. He is among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age.
Also signing is Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor who, from 1986 to 1997, directed the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. The facility produced designs for most of the arms now in the nation’s nuclear arsenal.
Other prominent signatories include Freeman Dyson of Princeton, Sidney Drell of Stanford and Rush D. Holt, a physicist and former member of Congress who now leads the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society.
Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances — granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military’s top secret security clearance.
Document: Scientists’ Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal
Many of them have advised Congress, the White House or federal agencies over the decades. For instance, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton physicist, served as assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton administration.
The five Nobel laureates who signed are Leon N. Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon L. Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The letter uses the words “innovative” and “stringent” more than a half-dozen times, saying, for instance, that the Iran accord has “more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.”
Graphic: The Iran Nuclear Deal – A Simple Guide
“We congratulate you and your team,” the letter says in its opening to Mr. Obama, adding that the Iran deal “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.”
In a technical judgment that seemed more ominous than some other assessments of Tehran’s nuclear capability, the letter says that Iran, before curbing its nuclear program during the long negotiations, was “only a few weeks” away from having fuel for nuclear weapons.
Dr. Garwin and Dr. Holt were the main organizers behind the group that wrote and signed the letter, according to two of the letter’s signatories. The letter comes amid a flurry of organized efforts by supporters and opponents of the agreement to shape the public debate ahead of congressional action on the deal.
OPEN GRAPHIC
The body of the letter praises the technical features of the Iran accord and offers tacit rebuttals to recent criticisms on such issues as verification and provisions for investigating what specialists see as evidence of Iran’s past research on nuclear arms.
It also focuses on whether Iran could use the accord as diplomatic cover to pursue nuclear weapons in secret.
The deal’s plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates “concerns about clandestine activities.” It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as “unprecedented,” adding that the agreement “will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern.”
It also welcomes as without precedent the deal’s explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons “rather than only their manufacture,” as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age.
The letter notes criticism that the Iran accord, after 10 years, will let Tehran potentially develop nuclear arms without constraint. “In contrast,” it says, “we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely.”
[h=1]IRAN DEAL: JEWS NOW OPPOSE 2-TO-1; YOUTH 4-TO-1[/h]
by JOEL B. POLLAK7 Aug 2015691
[h=2]American Jews now oppose the Iran deal by a margin of two-to-one, according to a new poll–with those between 18 and 30 against the deal four-to-one.[/h]The telephone poll of 1,035 registered voters, conducted by McKeon & Associates July 29 and 30, found that a large plurality of registered Jewish voters oppose the deal, 45% to 22%.
That is a sharp reversal from initial polls (though polling questions have varied).
As the Iran deal debate began, a large plurality of American Jews supported the Iran deal,49% to 31%. A week later, a plurality opposed the deal, 45% to 40%. A week after that, the margin widened substantially.
The latest poll was commissioned by Citizens for a Safe Middle East, a group that was formed to oppose the Iran deal. In a statement, the group said:
On Thursday,
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)
, announced that they oppose the Iran deal. Schumer confirmed that he will vote to override President Barack Obama’s expected veto of a congressional resolution disapproving the deal.The White House continued to lash out at opponents of the Iran deal, repeating the accusation that Republicans who opposed the deal had made “common cause” with the “hard-liners” in the Iranian regime.
1465
6
306
by JOEL B. POLLAK7 Aug 2015691
[h=2]American Jews now oppose the Iran deal by a margin of two-to-one, according to a new poll–with those between 18 and 30 against the deal four-to-one.[/h]The telephone poll of 1,035 registered voters, conducted by McKeon & Associates July 29 and 30, found that a large plurality of registered Jewish voters oppose the deal, 45% to 22%.
That is a sharp reversal from initial polls (though polling questions have varied).
As the Iran deal debate began, a large plurality of American Jews supported the Iran deal,49% to 31%. A week later, a plurality opposed the deal, 45% to 40%. A week after that, the margin widened substantially.
The latest poll was commissioned by Citizens for a Safe Middle East, a group that was formed to oppose the Iran deal. In a statement, the group said:
The survey also found that opposition to the agreement crosses party lines. The results showed that a plurality of Democratic Jewish voters (40-38), a significant plurality of Independent Jewish voters (44-24), and overwhelming majorities of Republican Jewish voters (51-4) and those identifying as Libertarian Jewish voters) (71-4) oppose the deal.
The survey also found that opposition to the agreement crosses party lines. The results showed that a plurality of Democratic Jewish voters (40-38), a significant plurality of Independent Jewish voters (44-24), and overwhelming majorities of Republican Jewish voters (51-4) and those identifying as Libertarian Jewish voters) (71-4) oppose the deal.
“Every group across the spectrum is against the pact, even the administration’s fellow Democrats,” said spokesperson David Spak. “Folks recognize that the deal is not in our country’s best interests. Congress should insist that the administration go back to the negotiating table with a stiffer spine.”The survey also found that opposition to the agreement crosses party lines. The results showed that a plurality of Democratic Jewish voters (40-38), a significant plurality of Independent Jewish voters (44-24), and overwhelming majorities of Republican Jewish voters (51-4) and those identifying as Libertarian Jewish voters) (71-4) oppose the deal.
On Thursday,
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)
2%
and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY)
11%
, announced that they oppose the Iran deal. Schumer confirmed that he will vote to override President Barack Obama’s expected veto of a congressional resolution disapproving the deal.The White House continued to lash out at opponents of the Iran deal, repeating the accusation that Republicans who opposed the deal had made “common cause” with the “hard-liners” in the Iranian regime.
