America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by frankj1. 146 replies replies.
3 Pages123>
Iran Nuclear Deal
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Burner02 Offline
#1 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 2:09 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Following is approximately 5.5 minutes long.

http://prageruniversity.com/Political-Science/The-Iran-Nuclear-Deal.html#.VcJRoS4PQoU.email
Abrignac Offline
#2 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 3:26 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Cliff's Notes?
banderl Offline
#3 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 3:53 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager University?
How's their football team?
tonygraz Offline
#4 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 5:20 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
The Prager ragers ?
banderl Offline
#5 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 7:15 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Majors?
TMCTLT Offline
#6 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 7:16 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
banderl wrote:
Prager University?
How's their football team?



WGAF?????
danmdevries Offline
#7 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 7:28 PM EST
Joined: 02-11-2014
Posts: 17,392
What's the tl;dr on this one?
banderl Offline
#8 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 7:32 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
TMCTLT wrote:
WGAF?????



I do, what's it to you?
banderl Offline
#9 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 7:34 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Flagers?
banderl Offline
#10 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 8:00 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Pagers?
TMCTLT Offline
#11 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 8:10 PM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
banderl wrote:
I do, what's it to you?



Not a damn thing....WGAF?
banderl Offline
#12 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 8:14 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Schwagers?
tonygraz Offline
#13 Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 9:19 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Prager Quickies - this is not an accredited university - no diplomas - all courses are 5 minutes. The Iran peace deal is 5.5 minutes - must have put more thought into it.


Or maybe needed some overtime.

No football team - can't play a game in 5 minutes.
Burner02 Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 1:27 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
It does not matter if the messenger is a monkey shagging a football if the facts are correct.

And the facts are correct.

This will be O'blunder's biggest blunder to date.
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 1:45 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Burner02 wrote:
It doe not matter if the messenger is a monkey shagging a football if the facts are correct.

And the facts are correct.

This will be O'blunder's biggest blunder to date.


There are no facts in that moronic video.

If someone is using that video as an argument for or against anything, they lack cognitive reasoning skills.

The speaker's "argument" against the deal was that it directly mirrors the 1938 deal with Hitler. His evidence? His evidence didn't mention the deal at all. He just went on and on about Iran = Nazis.

By that poor logic, we can't deliver a pizza to Iran. Because that's just like the 1938 deal with Hitler. Because Iran = Nazis.

Hell, if the current Iran deal involved dismantling the leadership, disarming the entire country and requiring the ayatolla fellate Obama publicly, the same piss-poor argument would stand "It directly mirrors the 1938 deal with Hitler! Because Iran = Nazis!"

Don't bring that bs to the adults table.
Burner02 Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 2:31 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
victor809 wrote:
There are no facts in that moronic video.

If someone is using that video as an argument for or against anything, they lack cognitive reasoning skills.

The speaker's "argument" against the deal was that it directly mirrors the 1938 deal with Hitler. His evidence? His evidence didn't mention the deal at all. He just went on and on about Iran = Nazis.

By that poor logic, we can't deliver a pizza to Iran. Because that's just like the 1938 deal with Hitler. Because Iran = Nazis.

Hell, if the current Iran deal involved dismantling the leadership, disarming the entire country and requiring the ayatolla fellate Obama publicly, the same piss-poor argument would stand "It directly mirrors the 1938 deal with Hitler! Because Iran = Nazis!"

Don't bring that bs to the adults table.



Who said anything about pizza? Really, your logic seems rather poor. In case you are unable to understand the logic of the video, it doesn't say one equates to the other. What it does is say that we are responding to the same type of tyranny using the same weak response--appeasement. "Do what you want, we trust you will do the right thing"? Anyone who buys into that logic is either naive or totally ignorant of world issues and/or the history of human conflict.

I'm out - mic dropped.
victor809 Offline
#17 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 2:42 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Burner02 wrote:
Who said anything about pizza? Really, your logic seems rather poor. In case you are unable to understand the logic of the video, it doesn't say one equates to the other. What it does is say that we are responding to the same type of tyranny using the same weak response--appeasement. "Do what you want, we trust you will do the right thing"? Anyone who buys into that logic is either naive or totally ignorant of world issues and/or the history of human conflict.

I'm out - mic dropped.


You can drop your mic all you want. It's especially funny when you do it on such a poor argument.

A full half the video (or more) was spent trying to compare Iran to the Nazis. It does NOT, as you assert, actually use appeasement as an actual argument (other than saying "we're appeasing them! Just like the nazis!")

This is what the video is saying:
Evil is bright! (literally, it starts an opening argument with something which is not based in reality)
Iran is evil!
Hitler was evil!
Hitler was appeased and look at all the bad stuff that happened!
Here are points in which Iran and Hiter agreed! (this is the meat of the video, and literally the only "facts" he lists)
Therefore we are appeasing Iran with this deal! (no actual points of the deal are discussed. No quotes from the deal. No specifics.)

This is bad logic. It shows a poor understanding of the well established logic structure, and, dare I say a certain poor understanding of basic algebraic concepts.

What I'm saying is that if you think your argument is sufficient to "drop a mic" , then you do not understand logic or math.
banderl Offline
#18 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 4:29 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Tagers?
tonygraz Offline
#19 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 4:56 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Prager schmagers
banderl Offline
#20 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 5:12 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Wollaegers?
tonygraz Offline
#21 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 8:11 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
No degrees, no graduation, just learn --- and make videos to prove you didn't.
Burner02 Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 8:39 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
victor809 wrote:
You can drop your mic all you want. It's especially funny when you do it on such a poor argument.

A full half the video (or more) was spent trying to compare Iran to the Nazis. It does NOT, as you assert, actually use appeasement as an actual argument (other than saying "we're appeasing them! Just like the nazis!")

This is what the video is saying:
Evil is bright! (literally, it starts an opening argument with something which is not based in reality)
Iran is evil!
Hitler was evil!
Hitler was appeased and look at all the bad stuff that happened!
Here are points in which Iran and Hiter agreed! (this is the meat of the video, and literally the only "facts" he lists)
Therefore we are appeasing Iran with this deal! (no actual points of the deal are discussed. No quotes from the deal. No specifics.)

This is bad logic. It shows a poor understanding of the well established logic structure, and, dare I say a certain poor understanding of basic algebraic concepts.

What I'm saying is that if you think your argument is sufficient to "drop a mic" , then you do not understand logic or math.



Just curious Vic, how old are you? If you knew your history you might understand the analogous relationships. Do you even know who Neville Chamberlain was? I dare say that on the surface someone like you would see what you see, and therein lies the sad state of affairs in our country. George Santayana said it best, “Those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.”

If you need to catch up on your history to really understand the diplomatic and political ramifications of this deal with Iran, I recommend A History of the Twentieth Century, Vol’s 1 and 2, by Martin Gilbert.

One more thing, do you think the Iranian nuclear deal is a good deal?
teedubbya Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:00 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I think we should just sell them nukes and use the cash to fight another war somewhere.

There isn't much correlation between current day Iran and 1930s Germany or the world for that matter. Saying there is doesn't bake it so.

Sorry to hear you dropped Mike. You made a nice couple.
banderl Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:14 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Yeagers?
teedubbya Offline
#25 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:24 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Lol completely missed that anyone would use prayer "university". Riley Martin university would be a better source.
teedubbya Offline
#26 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:29 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Prayer = prager but either way.
tonygraz Offline
#27 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:40 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Does Riley Martin have a football team ? Maybe the flying purple martins ?
tonygraz Offline
#28 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:41 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Wasn't Neville Chamberlain Wilt the Stilt's gay brother ?
teedubbya Offline
#29 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 9:42 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
And such my good man
victor809 Offline
#30 Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 10:04 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Ah burner... The "you don know your history!" Argument.

My age is irrelevant. Hell, the way your argument is based, I could have a 3rd grade knowledge of history and still disagree with it.

Do you really not see the flaw in your "Prager university" video, narratived by Prager himself?

Let me spell it out for you. Likening two participants in two different agreements does not liken the agreements.

Neither you, nor your illustrious Prager have identified a single similarity in the agreements. Your entire argument is based on both iran and nazis being bad people, therefore this agreement must be as bad as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler. This is incorrect logic. As I pointed out, and you completely failed to understand, this "logic" of yours could just as easily be applied to any agreement made with Iran, whether it is factually good or bad.

So, since your logic in applying any knowledge you may have is bad, your knowledge of history is absolutely irrelevant. If one were to apply Bloom's taxonomy, you "remember" and may even "understand" facts but you have no ability to apply them appropriately. Perhaps you should work on that?
DrafterX Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 7:45 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,555
Trump wants to bomb Iran and take the Iraqi oil.... Mellow
tonygraz Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 8:26 AM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
That Bastid !
HockeyDad Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:32 PM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,135
#iranianlivesmatter
gummy jones Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:38 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
victor809 wrote:
Ah burner... The "you don know your history!" Argument.

My age is irrelevant. Hell, the way your argument is based, I could have a 3rd grade knowledge of history and still disagree with it.

Do you really not see the flaw in your "Prager university" video, narratived by Prager himself?

Let me spell it out for you. Likening two participants in two different agreements does not liken the agreements.

Neither you, nor your illustrious Prager have identified a single similarity in the agreements. Your entire argument is based on both iran and nazis being bad people, therefore this agreement must be as bad as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler. This is incorrect logic. As I pointed out, and you completely failed to understand, this "logic" of yours could just as easily be applied to any agreement made with Iran, whether it is factually good or bad.

So, since your logic in applying any knowledge you may have is bad, your knowledge of history is absolutely irrelevant. If one were to apply Bloom's taxonomy, you "remember" and may even "understand" facts but you have no ability to apply them appropriately. Perhaps you should work on that?


"factually good or bad"

hmmm...ill have to scratch my head about that one for a while and get back to you
victor809 Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 12:54 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gummy jones wrote:
"factually good or bad"

hmmm...ill have to scratch my head about that one for a while and get back to you



... not much of a head scratcher. A factually good deal would be one which can be proven (using real facts) to be good. An example would be, "we remove the sanctions, Iran agrees to execute their leader and everyone who supported him as well as all ISIS members. They donate all money to puppies". A factually bad deal may be something like "We remove sanctions and provide them with 2 submarines and an arsenal of nuclear missiles."

As either of these scenarios could be argued against (with equal accuracy) using the argument posed by the moron in the video, the argument he was using is clearly a poorly constructed argument. He did not argue the facts of the deal.
gummy jones Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:10 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
victor809 wrote:
... not much of a head scratcher. A factually good deal would be one which can be proven (using real facts) to be good. An example would be, "we remove the sanctions, Iran agrees to execute their leader and everyone who supported him as well as all ISIS members. They donate all money to puppies". A factually bad deal may be something like "We remove sanctions and provide them with 2 submarines and an arsenal of nuclear missiles."

As either of these scenarios could be argued against (with equal accuracy) using the argument posed by the moron in the video, the argument he was using is clearly a poorly constructed argument. He did not argue the facts of the deal.


seems to me it is pure subjectivity but then again i aint to learned and we have disagreed on most things today and its not even dinner time!

oh well, back to work.
victor809 Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:25 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
gummy jones wrote:
seems to me it is pure subjectivity but then again i aint to learned and we have disagreed on most things today and its not even dinner time!

oh well, back to work.


There is subjectivity. You are correct. Whether a deal is good or bad can be subjective, especially in the middle ground. However, if an argument used to decide whether a deal is good or bad can be applied to every single deal along the entire spectrum of options, then the argument itself is bad. In this case, the argument is bad.

The deal in question could be horrible. But the video doesn't provide evidence of this at all.
Burner02 Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 1:58 PM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
victor809 wrote:
Ah burner... The "you don know your history!" Argument.

My age is irrelevant. Hell, the way your argument is based, I could have a 3rd grade knowledge of history and still disagree with it.

Do you really not see the flaw in your "Prager university" video, narratived by Prager himself?

Let me spell it out for you. Likening two participants in two different agreements does not liken the agreements.

Neither you, nor your illustrious Prager have identified a single similarity in the agreements. Your entire argument is based on both iran and nazis being bad people, therefore this agreement must be as bad as the 1930s appeasement of Hitler. This is incorrect logic. As I pointed out, and you completely failed to understand, this "logic" of yours could just as easily be applied to any agreement made with Iran, whether it is factually good or bad.

So, since your logic in applying any knowledge you may have is bad, your knowledge of history is absolutely irrelevant. If one were to apply Bloom's taxonomy, you "remember" and may even "understand" facts but you have no ability to apply them appropriately. Perhaps you should work on that?




Bloom’s taxonomy? Really? Is that all you got?

You once again discount what someone has to say because he doesn’t have the academic “pedigree” you think he should to be considered credible. An observation on my part is that your response (which is typical of all your posts) to me avoided any answering of a direct question—do you think the Iranian nuclear deal is a good deal? Instead of really focusing on the issues, you like to lob little intellectual barbs to prove you have some education. What does that add to the conversation? I think what is lacking here on your part is known as common sense. Talking just to talk seems to be your mode of operation.

Carry on.
victor809 Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 2:21 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Burner02 wrote:
Bloom’s taxonomy? Really? Is that all you got?

You once again discount what someone has to say because he doesn’t have the academic “pedigree” you think he should to be considered credible. An observation on my part is that your response (which is typical of all your posts) to me avoided any answering of a direct question—do you think the Iranian nuclear deal is a good deal? Instead of really focusing on the issues, you like to lob little intellectual barbs to prove you have some education. What does that add to the conversation? I think what is lacking here on your part is known as common sense. Talking just to talk seems to be your mode of operation.

Carry on.


Seriously? You don't think the application of knowledge is important? This explains your arguments.

Fine. Lets get down to "common sense" as you so clearly want. You posted the video, you stand by it.

Using only facts stated in the video, state what we are giving up, and what we are gaining from the Iran deal. Explain how we are giving up more than we are gaining (ie, a bad deal).

My opinion is irrelevant in this discussion. I haven't given it and I don't need to give it for the video to be wrong.
banderl Offline
#40 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 3:19 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Nagers?
gummy jones Offline
#41 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:21 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Prager redskins
banderl Offline
#42 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:28 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
gummy jones wrote:
Prager redskins



No you didn't!
banderl Offline
#43 Posted: Tue, Aug 11 2015, 4:29 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Daigres?
banderl Offline
#44 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:33 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Prager Meighers?
victor809 Offline
#45 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:35 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Guess Burner is still trying to find any scrap of useful data in that video.
banderl Offline
#46 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 3:43 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
I wonder what kind of offense their team runs?
gummy jones Offline
#47 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
banderl wrote:
I wonder what kind of offense their team runs?


Mostly long bombs
banderl Offline
#48 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 5:34 PM EST
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
Is Roman Gabriel Jr. their QB?
gummy jones Offline
#49 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 6:18 PM EST
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
banderl wrote:
Is Roman Gabriel Jr. their QB?


No I think it's kordel stewart
tonygraz Offline
#50 Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 7:43 PM EST
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
De Pew stinks.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>
Back to Top