Politics S2 MAGAs

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
I'm not going to read all of this.... but is calling someone a MAGA considered an insult now?
 
dviss1 said:
Sigh... I know where it comes from... Besides the giving Iran pallets of cash for terrorism narrative being crap, I'm just wondering if that vernacular would've been used sans Obama...

Prob not.
Click to expand...
And I'm saying that use of the Moss quote has nothing to do with Obama's ethnicity. I've used it many times in situations when everyone involved is caucasian. You're reading race into a situation when it isn't warranted.
 
Natebishop3 said:
I'm not going to read all of this.... but is calling someone a MAGA considered an insult now?
Click to expand...
No. The thread title was originally "Trumpanzees". Sly changed it to "MAGAs" to eliminate the offense.
 
This was taken at one of his latest rallies.

42319349_10210634891982137_711184745278472192_n.jpg
 
Hey, no fair cherry-picking the group of Trump supporters with the highest IQ.

barfo
 
Lanny said:
They all look like Mortimer Snerd.
Click to expand...

good lord, I want to like this just for the simple fact you referenced Mortimer Snerd.
 
dviss1 said:
"straight cash homie"....? Yeah... Is that part of your normal vernacular?

I suspect not...

41576886_287241398541556_8844041899661590528_n.jpg
Click to expand...
Yeah, because no sports fan with an encyclopedic memory and a penchant for cultural appropriation has ever heard of Randy Moss. Where was your faux derision when I posted "can't wait" clips of Bart Scott? Shocker, I've even uttered the term "Ball don't lie" from time to time.

In this case, it was a goddamn literal pallet of unmarked cash in multiple different currencies. Straight. Cash.
 
dviss1 said:
Sigh... I know where it comes from... Besides the giving Iran pallets of cash for terrorism narrative being crap, I'm just wondering if that vernacular would've been used sans Obama...

Prob not.
Click to expand...
C'mon, man. Don't look for it where it isn't there. I'll help you with your wondering. Yes.
 
dviss1 said:
Sigh... I know where it comes from... Besides the giving Iran pallets of cash for terrorism narrative being crap, I'm just wondering if that vernacular would've been used sans Obama...

Prob not.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by this. There were literal pallets of cash (not online transfers, not e-deposits, not a big lottery check, not a bank wire--CASH) given to Iran. What do you think was crap?
Rep. Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also introduced a bill that prohibits cash payments to Iran and demands transparency on future settlements.

"Sending the world's leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn't just terrible policy," Royce said. "It's incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans. ... This cash bonanza has emboldened Iran's radical regime, and undermined America's national security."
Click to expand...
 
BrianFromWA said:
C'mon, man. Don't look for it where it isn't there. I'll help you with your wondering. Yes.
Click to expand...
And why did we give them cash, you ask. Because they (Iranians) weren't allowed to deal with financial institutions because of UN sanctions. Cash was the only way to get them their money. Oh, and it was their money.
 
Lanny said:
And why did we give them cash, you ask. Because they (Iranians) weren't allowed to deal with financial institutions because of UN sanctions. Cash was the only way to get them their money. Oh, and it was their money.
Click to expand...
I know why we gave them cash. And it's interesting that we gave them a couple of billion in unmarked cash at a time when the UN said they shouldn't be getting money. So yes, we flew pallets of unmarked cash in multiple currencies into Iran to get around sanctions so that we could pay a ransom that we'd been holding onto for 40 years due to multiple claims against that money from victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Yes, it was their money originally.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I know why we gave them cash. And it's interesting that we gave them a couple of billion in unmarked cash at a time when the UN said they shouldn't be getting money. So yes, we flew pallets of unmarked cash in multiple currencies into Iran to get around sanctions so that we could pay a ransom that we'd been holding onto for 40 years due to multiple claims against that money from victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Yes, it was their money originally.
Click to expand...
What victims of Iranian terrorism?
 
BrianFromWA said:
I know why we gave them cash. And it's interesting that we gave them a couple of billion in unmarked cash at a time when the UN said they shouldn't be getting money. So yes, we flew pallets of unmarked cash in multiple currencies into Iran to get around sanctions so that we could pay a ransom that we'd been holding onto for 40 years due to multiple claims against that money from victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Yes, it was their money originally.
Click to expand...

All currency is marked. That's what the serial numbers are for. As far as some other identifying mark on the money besides serial numbers? That's not really needed. All large currency exchanges like that would have included all parties involved having the serial numbers. Otherwise there would have been no way to verify that we were given the correct amount of money in exchange with the countries providing it, and if Iran received the amount we claimed we sent them.
 
http://www.usvsst.com/

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/...-in-iran-win-compensation-36-years-later.html

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/medi...iran-still-owes-53-billion-in-unpaid-us-cour/
According to Jennifer Elsea of the Congressional Research Service, U.S. federal courts have, over the last two decades, issued some 92 judgments finding the Iranian government and its officials liable for acts of terrorism that claimed American victims.[1] These judgments have resulted in over $26 billion in compensatory damages and over $30 billion in punitive damages against Iranian government entities and officials.[2] Iran has never willingly paid a penny.

Victims and their families have instead received less than $100 million in compensation from Iranian government assets blocked by the U.S. government.[3] The April 20 Supreme Court judgment – ensuring that nearly $2 billion in Iranian government assets are used to pay U.S. victims of Iranian terrorism – will increase Tehran’s price at least twenty-fold for its history of attacks against Americans.

Still, over $53 billion in U.S. federal court judgments against Iranian government entities and officials remain outstanding.[4] This includes over $1 billion in damages that were awarded against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself.
Click to expand...
 
Lanny said:
Again, what victims?
I guess I'm wondering if you mean victims of war in Iraq or Syria or some such thing. That's why I'm wondering "What victims?"
Click to expand...

No, there are a list of incidents whereby courts (sometimes just US, I think) have held the Iranian state responsible for terrorist attacks farther down in the 3rd linked article:

Still, over $53 billion in U.S. federal court judgments against Iranian government entities and officials remain outstanding.[4] This includes over $1 billion in damages that were awarded against Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself. The list of judgments against Iranian government entities and officials, and the cases underlying them, makes for remarkable reading. They include, but are not limited to, U.S. courts having held Iran liable for the following:
  • A Hezbollah truck bomb that killed 63 people in April 1983 at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, including 17 Americans.[5]
  • A second Hezbollah truck bomb that destroyed a U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut in October 1983, killing 241 U.S. service members.[6]
  • Hezbollah’s abduction and torture in Lebanon throughout the 1980s of U.S. citizens working in Beirut, including two journalists,[7] a priest,[8] and three administrators of educational institutions.[9]
  • The April 1995 and February 1996 murders of five U.S. citizens in two terrorist bombings of Israeli buses. Judge Royce Lamberth, the U.S. District Court judge who decided these cases, found Khamenei personally responsible.[10]
  • The June 1996 killing of 19 U.S. servicemen by a truck bombing at Khobar Towers, a residence on a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia. Judge Lamberth singled out Khamenei for responsibility, stating that the attack was “approved by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran at the time.”[11]
  • The July 1997 Hamas bombing of an outdoor market in Jerusalem that killed a U.S. citizen. Judge Lamberth found the Iranian government, its Ministry of Information and Security, and Khamenei himself liable for the killing.[12]
  • The August 1998 truck bombings that destroyed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing more than 300 and wounding over 5,000.[13]
  • The October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen, which resulted in the deaths of 17 American sailors.[14
  • The September 11, 2001 attacks that killed some 3,000 people. In December 2011, a U.S. District Court found the Iranian government and Khamenei himself among those responsible.[15] The court’s lengthy opinion included extensive evidence that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had provided “funding and/or training for terrorism operations targeting American citizens, including support for Hizballah and al Qaeda” and evidence that IRGC activities were controlled by Khamenei. The opinion also quoted from the 9/11 Commission report that “Iran furnished material and direct support” for travel for at least eight of the hijackers. The Iranian government, Khamenei, and the other defendants have thus far been ordered to pay over $16 billion in compensatory and punitive damages to the victims.[16]
When the U.S. government negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran, it left Iranian terrorism off the table. Iran was required neither to halt its state sponsorship of terrorism nor to compensate victims. This is in contrast to the successful U.S. effort to pressure Libyan strongman Moammar Qaddafi to verifiably dismantle his nuclear program, halt sponsorship of terrorism, and compensate families of victims of the Pan Am 103 bombing and other acts of Libyan state-sponsored terrorism. As a result, Libya paid some $4 billion to U.S. victims of those attacks.
Notwithstanding U.S. officials’ hopes that last summer’s nuclear deal would moderate Iranian behavior, Iran has continued its state sponsorship of terrorism, and the nearly $2 billion was extracted from it over its objections. The good news is that the April 20 Supreme Court verdict will, when implemented, increase from less than $100 million to some $2 billion the total compensation paid from Iranian funds to U.S. victims of Iranian terrorism.
However, U.S. victims of Iranian terrorism will still hold some $53 billion in outstanding U.S. federal court judgments against Iranian government entities and officials
Click to expand...
 
BrianFromWA said:
No, there are a list of incidents whereby courts (sometimes just US, I think) have held the Iranian state responsible for terrorist attacks farther down in the 3rd linked article:
Click to expand...
So, why weren't the court orders enforced?
 
e_blazer said:
Not a Trump fan at all, but your thread title is offensive and probably a violation of board rules. If you want reasonable discussion (yeah, like that’s your objective) you might want to change that.
Click to expand...

Throwing gasoline on the fire, eh? :gasoline:

Haha!
 
yankeesince59 said:
...quoting posts from other threads and pasting/posting them here?

...lemme guess, tequila shots?
Click to expand...
I only drink tequila in margaritas. Of course, that's just me. Haven't had a straight shot of tequila since college.
 
e_blazer said:
Just to be clear, I never objected to the thread. I objected to an in-your-face insulting thread title. I wasn't insulted by it personally, because I think Trump is a nitwit. But I do think that if the goal of the board is to foster discussion, putting cutsie insults in thread titles isn't conducive to that goal.

It appears that I was on a solo mission in my objection, so I'll just leave it where it ended yesterday.
Click to expand...
I was responding to an obvious insult.
 
Lanny said:
I only drink tequila in margaritas. Of course, that's just me. Haven't had a straight shot of tequila since college.
Click to expand...

...lol...Lanny, that damned "ignore" button is betraying you again...I was replying your boy Marz. He quoted about 4 posts by different people and one of them was mine...but the problem was that he quoted a post of mine from a completely different thread about a completely different topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top