myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
PROOF: Obama IS the end of the free world
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14602

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

None of that is relevant to the topic, which in this case is Obama's blatant, threatened misuse of the EPA as a weapon to circumvent both the Congress and any business sector he dislikes, as he's already proved with some of his stated enemies including coal, gas, competitive healthcare insurance, and capitalism itself.

Last edited by isobars on Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2036

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Capetonian...I always appreciate your perspective on the extraction industries. It is so much more complicated than many of us understand.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 6021

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can always tell when certain folks are predictably short on facts. Nothing matters but their hate for President Obama.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
boggsman1



Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 3745
Location: at a computer

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

swchandler wrote:
You can always tell when certain folks are predictably short on facts. Nothing matters but their hate for President Obama.

....And the good news for those people is that Obama is around for 3 1/2 more years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5558

PostPosted: Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For those that have some interest in seeing both sides of a story before they make up their mine, here's a little more about the issues that the mining proposal faced:

Quote:
The Pebble mine was seen as one of the most important environmental decisions on Barack Obama's second term agenda – even though it was overshadowed at times by the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline.

The mining companies and their opponents were gearing up for a big and expensive lobbying and advertising campaign over the project. The two companies in the Pebble venture spent $500,000 last year to lobby members of Congress for its approval.

Monday's announcement from Anglo American may have been the result of growing uncertainty over whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would approve the project, in light of its threat to miles of pristine streams and wetlands, habitat for half of the world's sockeye salmon.

Every summer, 30 to 40 million sockeye salmon return to the bay to spawn.

Environmental campaigners and local native Alaskan communities had fiercely opposed the project, arguing that it posed a threat to the commercial fishing industry as well as their traditional way of life.

But even more tellingly for Anglo American were the signs that the EPA was disinclined to give the project a swift go-ahead.


Now I got entitlements for very big, and sometimes controversial projects. The thing that folks like Mike Fick and Jibe miss in their hatred of enviros and Obama is that it is hard. It is actually in the interest of businesses to have a credible environmental process that weighs the law and the project's impacts. If the responsible agency approves the project, and makes findings relating to all of the issues at controversy, the courts customarily accord them deference. But such matters often go to court, and without a good record, the proposer frequently loses.

I know that they long for the days when the Minerals Management Service was bought and paid for by oil, and Cheney rolled the Federal agencies for big carbon. But many of those projects lost in court--California used to routinely beat the MMS on offshore leases, both politically and legally.

I would agree that we need to develop mineral resources--responsibly--and that enviros can be absolutely unreasonable. That, of course, is why you need people at the resource development businesses who listen and understand the law (certainly not mrgybe or Iso), and do their homework. Of course, this illustrates Mikey's contempt for both the law and homework.

Us nerds routinely kick the ass of sloppy, angry anti-environmentalists. It's not even hard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never really liked the title of this thread, but this is the best place to post this wonderful little tidbit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exclusive: Obama’s Secret Iran Détente
by Eli Lake, Josh Rogin
Nov 8, 2013 5:45 AM EST


Long before a nuclear deal was in reach, the U.S. was quietly lifting some of the financial pressure on Iran, a Daily Beast investigation reveals. How the sanctions were softened.

The Obama administration began softening sanctions on Iran after the election of Iran’s new president in June, months before the current round of nuclear talks in Geneva or the historic phone call between the two leaders in September.

While those negotiations now appear on the verge of a breakthrough the key condition for Iran—relief from crippling sanctions—began quietly and modestly five months ago.

A review of Treasury Department notices reveals that the U.S. government has all but stopped the financial blacklisting of entities and people that help Iran evade international sanctions since the election of its president, Hassan Rouhani, in June.

On Wednesday Obama said in an interview with NBC News the negotiations in Geneva “are not about easing sanctions.” “The negotiations taking place are about how Iran begins to meet its international obligations and provide assurances not just to us but to the entire world,” the president said.

But it has also long been Obama’s strategy to squeeze Iran’s economy until Iran would be willing to trade relief from sanctions for abandoning key elements of its nuclear program.

One way Obama has pressured Iran is through isolating the country’s banks from the global financial sector, the networks that make modern international commerce possible. This in turn has led Iran to seek out front companies and cutouts to conduct routine international business, such as selling its crude oil.

In this cat and mouse game, the Treasury Department in recent years has routinely designated new entities as violators of sanctions, forcing Iran to adjust in turn. In the six weeks prior to the Iranian elections in June, the Treasury Department issued seven notices of designations of sanctions violators that included more than 100 new people, companies, aircraft, and sea vessels.

Since June 14, however, when Rouhani was elected, the Treasury Department has only issued two designation notices that have identified six people and four companies as violating the Iran sanctions.

When an entity is designated as a sanctions violator it can be catastrophic. Banks and other investors almost never take the risk of doing business with the people and companies on a Treasury blacklist because of the potential reputational harm and the prospect they could lose access to U.S. financial markets.


“Sounds like Obama decided to enter the Persian nuclear bazaar to haggle with the masters of negotiation.”


A Treasury spokesman contacted by The Daily Beast said the effectiveness of sanctions should be measured by their results and not the number of entities designated. (A White House spokesman declined to comment, directing inquiries to the Treasury.) The Treasury spokesman also said that the significant financial pressure on Iran in recent years changed the calculus of the country’s leaders and led to the election of Rouhani, who is a former nuclear negotiator and is considered more moderate than his predecessor.

“In the months since the Iranian election we have continued to pursue our unwavering goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the spokesman said. “We have not let up on vigorous sanctions enforcement one iota. This includes new designations of sanctions evaders as well as other steps to address potential sanctions evasion.”

But the enforcement of sanctions, experts said, is very different than the process of designating new violators. To start, sanctions enforcement means the levying of fines or other legal measures against those people and entities already designated by the Treasury Department as a violator.

The designation process is more proactive. “The designations are important because they identify illicit actors that are abusing the international financial sector in addition to signaling the U.S. intention to isolate Iran’s economy,” said Avi Jorisch, a former U.S. Treasury official who has worked closely on Iran sanctions and has advocated for toughening these sanctions since leaving government.

Advocates of sanctions relief also acknowledge that the administration has pursued a policy of quietly lessening financial pressure on Iran. They argue that was a logical policy when married to the process of renewing diplomatic negotiations with Iran, which according to the Wall Street Journal this week, has been going on for several months.

“Before the election there were a lot of these designations,” said Trita Parsi, the executive director of the National Iranian American Council, a group that has advocated for ending sanctions on Iran since. “Their impact was probably not decisive, but it was a way for the White House to signal to the Iranians and Congress they were going forward with the sanctions train.” Parsi continued: “After the election [the Obama administration] wanted to give the opposite signal, a pause. The last thing you would want to do is let the sanctions train go forward and potentially scuttle an opportunity that could have been there.”

Following the Iranian elections, there were also a lot of changes inside the Iranian government, making the task of designating officials and entities a bit more tricky, Parsi said. But a significant part of the administration’s decision, in Parsi’s opinion, was the belief that continuing a high pace of designations would “undermine the signal that they were trying to send, that there was an opening.”

Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, an organization that has worked closely with Congress and the administration on devising the current Iranian sanctions, said the slow pace of designations was only one kind of sanctions relief Obama has been offering Iran.

“For five months, since Rouhani’s election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief,” Dubowitz said. “First there’s been a significant slowdown in the pace of designations while the Iranians are proliferating the number of front companies and cutouts to bust sanctions.”

The second kind of relief Dubowitz said the White House had offered Iran was through its opposition to new Iran sanctions legislation supported by both parties in Congress.

By Dubowitz’s estimates, Iran is now selling between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of oil per day on the black market, meaning that Iran has profited from the illicit sale of over 35 million barrels of oil since Rouhani took office, with little additional measures taken by the United States to counter it.

“Sounds like Obama decided to enter the Persian nuclear bazaar to haggle with the masters of negotiation and has had his head handed to him,” Dubowitz said.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/08/exclusive-obama-s-secret-iran-d-tente.html

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5558

PostPosted: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In the real world, the news reports that European negotiators are making progress on nuclear issues with Iran, and that Obama is speculative. In the paranoid raving world of the Central Coast, where the Republican Party has become a joke, people are still subscribing to right wing neo-con sites without paying any attention to either their credibility or what they may have economically to gain. A frequent shortcoming of the rightie ravers. Here's what NW's source is about:


W
Quote:
ho's paying?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Wednesday, July 20, 2011 - 11:43 AM Share

One of my occasional hobbyhorses on this blog has been the desirability of greater transparency on where research and advocacy organizations (and intellectuals) get their money. It's the old question: cui bono? You can read what I've said in the past here and here. I frankly would welcome a system where think tanks had to publicly disclose all of their sources of support, so that consumers of their work could see exactly who they were beholden to. Lest you think I'm being hypocritical about this, I think university professors ought to do the same with any outside income that they earn.** The reason in both cases is simple: when anyone participates in public discourse on vital issues, outsiders should be aware of potential conflicts of interest and should know exactly who might be paying for it.

Eli Clifton at the Center for American Progress has a revealing post up on the various backers of the neo-conservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies. This organization has been in the vanguard of the campaign for war with Iran, reflexively supportive of the Israeli right, and a fertile source of fear-mongering Islamophobia. It will therefore surprise no one that its primary financial backers are also hard-core Zionists, and that the democracy it seems most committed to defending is located far from Washington D.C.

This situation underscores a point that John Mearsheimer and I emphasized in our book: the Israel lobby is not confined to formal "lobbying" organizations like AIPAC. It also includes well-funded think tanks and advocacy organizations that actively work to shape political debate and public discourse in ways intended to reinforce the U.S.-Israel "special relationship" and to persuade policymakers to support policies that these organizations believe (in my view incorrectly) will be beneficial for Israel and the United States.

It bears repeating that there's nothing illegal, conspiratorial, or unethical about what these donors are doing; individuals and foundations in the United States are entitled to fund whatever advocacy organizations they wish. But Clifton's data helps you understand why discourse inside-the-Beltway is so heavily skewed in one direction.

**Postscript: In my own case, in 2010 I received a consulting fee from the S Rajaratnam School in Singapore and speakers' fees from eight other universities (for public lectures). I also received honoraria for presentations at several events sponsored by the Department of Defense and for participating in a colloquium sponsored by the State Department. I was also paid to speak at an Economist magazine conference in Athens and for doing some research work for the New America Foundation. Foreign Policy pays me a modest amount to write this blog, and Cornell University Press pays me to co-edit a book series. And in case some of you are wondering, I didn't receive any money from any individuals, groups, countries, or corporations connected with Middle East politics.


Yeah NW, we take you seriously. Your buddies have reshaped the Middle East to be safe for American oil importers, and saved the Federal government money along the way. All those who are missing limbs back in America thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1908
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac: "Yeah NW, we take you seriously."

For somebody who claims to never take me seriously, you seem obsessed with pouncing on every one of my posts.
Sounds pretty serious to me, such dedication, somebody should be proud.
Not really sure who though.
Are you a ping pong player?

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5558

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW--it amuses me what passes for thinking on the right. You persist in reading only one side of the story, finding the most militaristic approach to all problems, hammering Obama with fake facts and so forth. I don't expect you to stop, or find more balanced sources. I research so I can find the other side of the story; I post so the right wing bullying and lying does not go un-rebutted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 6021

PostPosted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Earlier in the week I saw a talking heads interview on the PBS News Hour where one of the two participants was a representative from the Federation of Defense of Democracies (FDD). The discussion focused on establishing an agreeable framework for negotiations between the US, Russia, China and others with Iran. As a backdrop for the discussion, there was also a video clip of a speech where Netanyahu was offering his view of current negotiations with Iran. There was no question about the strident position that the FDD is promoting, and its clear parallel with Netanyahu's viewpoint and stance. The other participant in the interview voiced a more pragmatic view that the current stage of negotiations were showing good signs of establishing a productive foundation for addressing the stickier more difficult details that would potentially follow if preliminary agreements were reached.

While I'm optimistic that negotiations with Iran will prove productive, I can't say that I have a strong opinion that's fixed right now. In my view, it's very early in negotiations, and as a result, it's hard to predict an outcome. I can say this though, the FDD guy was far too negative and aggressive in his position for my tastes. In his arguments he seemed very close to promoting a military first strike approach to solving the problems with Iran. Neo-conservatives have a proven record of advocating for military action in the Middle East. You would think that we as a nation have seen enough war and strife in the Middle East, but sadly some folks don't see it that way.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409  Next
Page 405 of 409

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group