08-06-2016, 09:35 AM
Quote:
![[Image: 9cc.gif]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/932/745/9cc.gif)
Absolute truth..
Absolute truth..
08-06-2016, 09:36 AM
Quote:Absolute truth..
That could literally happen and Anchorman/Indy2jax would be doing this exact thing.
08-06-2016, 09:40 AM
Quote:Cuz we dumb.
Yeah, I'm guilty of that as well but I'm trying to stay out of it.
08-06-2016, 09:44 AM
Quote:Yeah, I'm guilty of that as well but I'm trying to stay out of it.
You smart.
08-06-2016, 09:45 AM
Quote:Yeah, I'm guilty of that as well but I'm trying to stay out of it.
Quote:You smart.
Very smart!!
08-06-2016, 09:49 AM
I did argue with JJ about football fans for 3 or 4 years so maybe I have a problem. 
08-06-2016, 09:50 AM
Quote:You smart.
The stress isn't worth it. I don't mind debating but when the person has their head stuck firmly in the sand or plays merry-go-round with their words I'm not playing that game. I do always enjoy reading your responses to things though. We don't always agree but I always appreciate what you have to say.
08-06-2016, 09:50 AM
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.vox.com/2016/8/4/12370848/ransom-iran-400-million' title="External link">http://www.vox.com/2...ran-400-million</a>
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Here's the easiest way to understand it...
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.
<div style="margin:0px;">
</div>
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Crucially for the present issue, it also halted a delivery of fighter jets that Iran’s pre-revolution government had already paid $400 million for. Normally the US would return the money if it wasn’t going to deliver the planes — countries don’t just break formal agreements like that. But it had frozen Iranian assets in the US as punishment for the hostage-taking — and that included the $400 million.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The hostage crisis was eventually resolved in 1981, at a conference in Algiers. But the Algiers Accords didn’t resolve every outstanding issue — including the legal status of the $400 million.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Instead, it set up an international court, based in the Hague, to deal with any legal claims that the governments of Iran and the United States had against each other, or that individual citizens of the two countries had against the other country.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">This court, called the <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.iusct.net/' title="External link">Iran</a><a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.iusct.net/' title="External link">–</a><a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.iusct.net/' title="External link">United States Claims Tribunal</a>, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. In any case, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama’s second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/ap-fact-check-trump-off-base-on-clinton-and-iran-payment/2016/08/03/437cb10c-59a5-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html?postshare=6911470254874098&tid=ss_tw' title="External link">the</a><a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/ap-fact-check-trump-off-base-on-clinton-and-iran-payment/2016/08/03/437cb10c-59a5-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html?postshare=6911470254874098&tid=ss_tw' title="External link"> Associated Press</a>’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">By January 2016, the countries had struck a deal — the US would pay Iran $1.7 billion, which amounts to about $300 million in interest on top of the originally frozen assets (accounting for inflation).
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Here's the easiest way to understand it...
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">In very simple terms, this payment is the first installment of a refund for a weapons purchase America never delivered. It starts in 1979, the year of the Iranian Revolution.
<div style="margin:0px;">
</div>
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">In November 1979, a group loyal to the revolutionary regime took 52 Americans hostage at the US Embassy in Tehran. In response, the United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran and froze Iranian assets in America.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Crucially for the present issue, it also halted a delivery of fighter jets that Iran’s pre-revolution government had already paid $400 million for. Normally the US would return the money if it wasn’t going to deliver the planes — countries don’t just break formal agreements like that. But it had frozen Iranian assets in the US as punishment for the hostage-taking — and that included the $400 million.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The hostage crisis was eventually resolved in 1981, at a conference in Algiers. But the Algiers Accords didn’t resolve every outstanding issue — including the legal status of the $400 million.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Instead, it set up an international court, based in the Hague, to deal with any legal claims that the governments of Iran and the United States had against each other, or that individual citizens of the two countries had against the other country.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">This court, called the <a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.iusct.net/' title="External link">Iran</a><a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.iusct.net/' title="External link">–</a><a class="bbc_url" href='http://www.iusct.net/' title="External link">United States Claims Tribunal</a>, functioned as a kind of binding arbitration. In any case, the involved parties could either negotiate a settlement out of court or take it to a panel made up of three US-appointed judges, three Iranian-appointed judges, and three neutral judges. The panel would then hear the case and issue a binding ruling.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">This process, as you might guess, was very, very slow. By the time Obama’s second term in office began, the tribunal still had not come to a ruling on the issue of the $400 million. Sometime afterward, <a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/ap-fact-check-trump-off-base-on-clinton-and-iran-payment/2016/08/03/437cb10c-59a5-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html?postshare=6911470254874098&tid=ss_tw' title="External link">the</a><a class="bbc_url" href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/whitehouse/ap-fact-check-trump-off-base-on-clinton-and-iran-payment/2016/08/03/437cb10c-59a5-11e6-8b48-0cb344221131_story.html?postshare=6911470254874098&tid=ss_tw' title="External link"> Associated Press</a>’s Matt Lee reports, the US government apparently concluded that it was going to lose the case — and lose big: Iran was seeking $10 billion in today’s dollars.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"US officials had expected a ruling on the Iranian claim from the tribunal any time, and feared a ruling that would have made the interest payments much higher," Lee writes.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So the Obama administration decided to settle out of court, opening up negotiations with Iran on the terms of the settlement. It did this at the same time it was negotiating the nuclear deal and the return of four US citizens who had been detained by Iran more recently. However, the people working on the nuclear deal and the prisoner release were different from the team working on the court case — some of whom had been involved with the claims tribunal for years.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">By January 2016, the countries had struck a deal — the US would pay Iran $1.7 billion, which amounts to about $300 million in interest on top of the originally frozen assets (accounting for inflation).
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The settlement was announced the same day in January as Iran received its first round of sanctions relief from the Iran deal.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">The $400 million payment, delivered in foreign cash because US law prevents the government from giving Iran dollars, was the first installment toward the $1.7 billion total. Getting together large amounts of foreign cash is hard, apparently — hence the installment plan.
<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">So there you have it. The payment, which sounds really shady out of context, was actually the end of a boring, decades-old international legal case totally unrelated to the hot-button nuclear and prisoner issues.
08-06-2016, 09:50 AM
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">Almost immediately after the $1.7 billion deal was announced, critics began suggesting that all was not as it seemed. The timing of the decades-old weapons payment settlement and the hostage release suggested that it wasn’t just a settlement on a legal issue — it was a ransom payment.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">"A deal that sent $1.7 billion in U.S. funds to Iran, announced alongside the freeing of five Americans from Iranian jails, has emerged as a new flashpoint amid a claim in Tehran that the transaction amounted to a ransom payment," the Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon, who also co-wrote the recent piece that broke the $400 million payment story, reported at the time.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But there was no direct evidence to back up this theory. The speculation about timing was just that — speculation.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The August Wall Street Journal piece, written by Solomon and Carol Lee, attempted to resolve these questions. It uncovered that the first $400 million payment, which was part of the $1.7 billion total settlement, happened on the same day as the hostage release — and that the Obama administration clearly chose not to include that particular fact in its announcement back in January.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">That’s suggestive of a link between the hostage negotiations and the weapons settlement, but it’s hardly conclusive.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">Beyond that, the WSJ report contained two real pieces of evidence suggesting that the arms deal payment was actually ransom.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">First, Iranian negotiators involved in the prisoner exchange allegedly linked the two: "US officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible," Solomon and Lee report.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But the Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange were not the same negotiatorsinvolved in the weapons deal settlement. Therefore, they couldn’t make demands of the US team negotiating the weapons deal settlement, which means they couldn’t negotiate a quid pro quo of money for hostage release, the definition of a ransom.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">So even if this report is true — and you should always be skeptical of anonymous unquoted references to "US officials" — the Iranians would have gotten the money no matter what.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The second piece of evidence for the payment being a ransom is that the Iranians spun it that way. "Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment," write Solomon and Lee.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But of course Iranian officials would spin it as a hostage payment. This makes them look strong to their domestic audience and America look weak. We don’t take political spin from American officials at face value, so we shouldn’t take Iranian spin at face value either — especially when it’s contradicted by independent evidence.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">One could make the argument, I suppose, that the timing was a form of ransom. By delivering the payment on the same day as the prisoner release, Iranian officials could claim that they got the money as part of a ransom deal.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But the truth is that the Iranians could have claimed that no matter when the cash was delivered. If the Obama administration had forked over $400 million six months later, those same Iranian defense officials could have lied and said it was part of the prisoner release deal rather than the weapons settlement.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The lie isn’t significantly more credible just because the cash was delivered on the same day. Nor should American media and politicians help validate the Iranian lie by treating Iranian propaganda as actual evidence.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The bottom line, then, is that the new Wall Street Journal piece uncovers no real evidence suggesting that the US agreed to give Iran money that it wouldn’t have gotten otherwiseas part of the hostage release deal. There’s smoke here, but no fire.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">"A deal that sent $1.7 billion in U.S. funds to Iran, announced alongside the freeing of five Americans from Iranian jails, has emerged as a new flashpoint amid a claim in Tehran that the transaction amounted to a ransom payment," the Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon, who also co-wrote the recent piece that broke the $400 million payment story, reported at the time.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But there was no direct evidence to back up this theory. The speculation about timing was just that — speculation.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">Moreover, the basic logic of it didn’t make any sense. Iran was going to get that money back no matter what through the arbitration process — probably more, if the Obama administration was right. Why would it release potentially valuable hostages in exchange for money it would have gotten otherwise? Iran would have to be the world’s dumbest hostage taker.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The August Wall Street Journal piece, written by Solomon and Carol Lee, attempted to resolve these questions. It uncovered that the first $400 million payment, which was part of the $1.7 billion total settlement, happened on the same day as the hostage release — and that the Obama administration clearly chose not to include that particular fact in its announcement back in January.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">That’s suggestive of a link between the hostage negotiations and the weapons settlement, but it’s hardly conclusive.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">Beyond that, the WSJ report contained two real pieces of evidence suggesting that the arms deal payment was actually ransom.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">First, Iranian negotiators involved in the prisoner exchange allegedly linked the two: "US officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible," Solomon and Lee report.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But the Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange were not the same negotiatorsinvolved in the weapons deal settlement. Therefore, they couldn’t make demands of the US team negotiating the weapons deal settlement, which means they couldn’t negotiate a quid pro quo of money for hostage release, the definition of a ransom.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">So even if this report is true — and you should always be skeptical of anonymous unquoted references to "US officials" — the Iranians would have gotten the money no matter what.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The second piece of evidence for the payment being a ransom is that the Iranians spun it that way. "Iranian press reports have quoted senior Iranian defense officials describing the cash as a ransom payment," write Solomon and Lee.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But of course Iranian officials would spin it as a hostage payment. This makes them look strong to their domestic audience and America look weak. We don’t take political spin from American officials at face value, so we shouldn’t take Iranian spin at face value either — especially when it’s contradicted by independent evidence.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">One could make the argument, I suppose, that the timing was a form of ransom. By delivering the payment on the same day as the prisoner release, Iranian officials could claim that they got the money as part of a ransom deal.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">But the truth is that the Iranians could have claimed that no matter when the cash was delivered. If the Obama administration had forked over $400 million six months later, those same Iranian defense officials could have lied and said it was part of the prisoner release deal rather than the weapons settlement.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The lie isn’t significantly more credible just because the cash was delivered on the same day. Nor should American media and politicians help validate the Iranian lie by treating Iranian propaganda as actual evidence.
<p style="font-family:Balto, Helvetica, Arial, 'Nimbus Sans L', sans-serif;font-size:1.3em;color:rgb(76,78,77);background-color:rgb(241,243,242);">The bottom line, then, is that the new Wall Street Journal piece uncovers no real evidence suggesting that the US agreed to give Iran money that it wouldn’t have gotten otherwiseas part of the hostage release deal. There’s smoke here, but no fire.
08-06-2016, 09:54 AM
Here's the article I linked 2 pages ago with an additional exerpt. Again, you guys want to paint it as though I'm not providing the reasons why I don't find this deal to be a huge issue. But nobody seems to even want to touch the actual facts.
Also, you guys keep mentioning Iran as a terrorist state. Yes, we have designated them as such for a long time.
But you realize they are helping us with ISIS at this point, and the Iran Nuclear deal is trying to bring them back into the mix of normal relations.
So keep calling them a terrorist state, but the nuclear deal is working. This money was theres and was gonna be given back to them, triply so in the tribunal, at some point. There was an opening to make multiple deals, it happened.
It's their money, they were suing us for it. I still don't see your problem. I have alot of skepticism for government, if you want to talk about TPP, for instance.
But I don't distrust our government. Especially when something is rationally explained. Which this can be. But please, make a bengazie out of this. The current facts as they stand show that there is no "there, there. As I've pointed out several times now.
Also, you guys keep mentioning Iran as a terrorist state. Yes, we have designated them as such for a long time.
But you realize they are helping us with ISIS at this point, and the Iran Nuclear deal is trying to bring them back into the mix of normal relations.
So keep calling them a terrorist state, but the nuclear deal is working. This money was theres and was gonna be given back to them, triply so in the tribunal, at some point. There was an opening to make multiple deals, it happened.
It's their money, they were suing us for it. I still don't see your problem. I have alot of skepticism for government, if you want to talk about TPP, for instance.
But I don't distrust our government. Especially when something is rationally explained. Which this can be. But please, make a bengazie out of this. The current facts as they stand show that there is no "there, there. As I've pointed out several times now.
08-06-2016, 09:56 AM
Quote:That could literally happen and Anchorman/Indy2jax would be doing this exact thing.
All I said was it was old news. I questioned the why did this close to 7 months ago. I question the timing as it doesn't appear either candidate was involved. So as an attempt to somehow put this on Hillary is disingenuous.
Curious so this video Donald saw? Does it exist?
08-06-2016, 10:00 AM
Quote:The stress isn't worth it. I don't mind debating but when the person has their head stuck firmly in the sand or plays merry-go-round with their words I'm not playing that game. I do always enjoy reading your responses to things though. We don't always agree but I always appreciate what you have to say.
Yeah, if this causes stress, then it's not worth it. I'm a sick twisted freak, so I enjoy it most of the time. Certain posters that always attack personally get frustrating to deal with from time to time. But for the most part I enjoy the back and forth. It helps me see the other perspective, even if I totally disagree with it.
08-06-2016, 10:34 AM
Quote:All I said was it was old news. I questioned the why did this close to 7 months ago. I question the timing as it doesn't appear either candidate was involved. So as an attempt to somehow put this on Hillary is disingenuous.
Curious so this video Donald saw? Does it exist?
Exactly who is trying to put this on Hillary?
08-06-2016, 10:58 AM
Quote:Yeah, if this causes stress, then it's not worth it. I'm a sick twisted freak, so I enjoy it most of the time. Certain posters that always attack personally get frustrating to deal with from time to time. But for the most part I enjoy the back and forth. It helps me see the other perspective, even if I totally disagree with it.Well, at least we know your motivation now. Lol.
I also enjoy debate, but name calling and not straight up answering questions are two things that will take me out of a conversation. Otherwise I just watch it all like a tennis match and let others beat their heads into a wall.
08-06-2016, 11:53 AM
Quote:Curious so this video Donald saw? Does it exist?http://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/vi...an-emerges
08-06-2016, 11:55 AM
I2J thinks that is just a scene from Brewsters Millions.
08-06-2016, 01:10 PM
Quote:I2J thinks that is just a scene from Brewsters Millions.
No
No
I want to know more about this video.
Trump saw it he says before he backtracked.
It didn't exist per the WH.
Now it exists.
Yeah I want the details of this video.
08-06-2016, 01:19 PM
Quote:No
No
I want to know more about this video.
Trump saw it he says before he backtracked.
It didn't exist per the WH.
Now it exists.
Yeah I want the details of this video.
If the WH said it didn't exist, then it obviously didn't exist.
This is just beginning. Get your popcorn.
08-06-2016, 01:47 PM
Quote:If the WH said it didn't exist, then it obviously didn't exist.
This is just beginning. Get your popcorn.
So why did Trump backtrack on seeing this video?
Do you believe he saw it?
08-06-2016, 01:49 PM
So here's another question. Was this transaction illegal in any way?