Home / Culture and Society / Yet Another Demonstrable Obama Lie

Yet Another Demonstrable Obama Lie

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Here is yet another demonstrable President Barack Hussein Obama lie; this time, it may have international consequences. Do you remember that, back in December, 2011, Obama signed stricter sanctions against Iran, to be enforced under an order he signed in February, 2012. Obama said the tougher sanctions were warranted “particularly in light of the deceptive practices of the Central Bank of Iran and other Iranian banks.” Obama tried to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program. But Iran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, saying that its goal in developing a nuclear program is to generate electricity without dipping into the oil supply it prefers to sell abroad, and to provide fuel for medical reactors. If you believe Iran’s statement, then I own a bridge in NYC in which you may be interested.

Here it is, March, 2012, and Obama has lied, uh, reversed himself again. The Obama administration on Tuesday, March 20, 2012, exempted Japan and ten European nations from sanctions intended to punish those who continued to purchase oil from Iran. The sanctions put the Obama administration in the difficult position of punishing some of the US’ closest allies. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton exercised a provision in the law that exempted any country that significantly reduced the supply of oil from Iran, but did not specifically define “significant reductions,” nor what would qualify for an exemption, giving the administration significant room to further lie, er, I mean, maneuver.

Besides Japan, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Britain received sanction exemptions. Additionally, China, India, and South Korea get more than 60 percent of their oil from Iran. It is not clear whether they too will receive exemptions from sanctions.

Britain is among the countries that will be allowed (by the sanction exemption) to continue to do business with Iran, despite the claimed Obama/Hillary “get tough” sanctions on Iran. This is astounding in view of the fact that it was the British who initiated the new “get tough on Iran” policies recently. The British announced they would cut off all financial ties with Iranian banks to stem the flow of funds for its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Britain’s new restrictions included an order that its financial institutions cease doing business with all Iranian banks, including Iran’s Central Bank

Once again, we see that Obama announced to the world new get tough sanctions against Iran to deter their efforts to secure nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Yet Obama has given exemptions that will allow the British (and other countries) to continue to put money into Iranian banks, thus allowing Iran to continue its stated desire to wipe Israel off the map with nuclear bombs.

So is the latest sanction exemption a reversal of policy or another demonstrable lie? Either way, it is a major ambarrassment for the joke that is Obama.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by


  • Kyle, go to the top of the page and hover your cursor over “writers” and you’ll see a link just below it.

  • Drudge screws things up for everybody (:^pbpbpb~~~~~~~~~~~

  • Zingzing

    We’re not using lemonparty.org anymore?

  • Kyle Hunter


  • That used to be the password until it got hacked and all the private user details got posted on Drudge.

  • Kyle Hunter

    Odd I would have thought the password would have been simply Hussein

  • Go to ganguponwarren.com and type in the password: obamacaresocialismandcookies.

  • Kyle Hunter

    How do I become a contributor so that I can “gang up” on Warren too?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Mouth-to-mouth isn’t easy in the ‘down-dog’ position….

  • Does Glenn need Mouth-to-Mouth?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    thanks, Doc – I take that as a compliment!

  • Glenn, you’re odd.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OH! Ow…ya…GOT me, pardner! *cough* *cough* Just tell them I…did it all…in the name of statism and…*cough*…just to ruin…Roger’s world. *cough-hack* I’m…so…sorry….

    [breathes his last breath, expires, and automatically goes into the ‘down-dog’ yoga position of all liberals when they die]

  • roger nowosielski

    Equally important, he almost disowned his own people for idolatry and incestuous behavior. And that’s a better parallel for you, on account of your worship at the altar of false God, Ba?al Obama.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing – do you realize that Moses was an illegal immigrant? And true to the fear of conservatives everywhere, this particular illegal immigrant got just a heartbeat away from running the whole nation!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger! Before I whack you with this big honking stick, I say unto you, “Let my people write!”

  • Which leaves me what… the research department? I don’t even deserve honorable mention?

  • zingzing

    there’s room for all of us in the big tent of the left, glenn. you be moses and roger can be judas and i’ll make dick jokes off to the side.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing #70 –

    I do believe I’ve just been schooled….

  • Zingzing

    69 was for 67.

    But Glenn, roger’s probably a very different person from the belligerent hypocrite he projects around here. Just as clavos probably doesn’t correct everyone’s grammar in the real world. If any of us acted like we do around here anywhere else, someone would probably smack the shit out of that person, because they’d be acting like an asshole. Shit, if you and I were having a beer together and you brought up how you used to be a racist AGAIN, I’d probably wince and bear it, but I’d be thinking about slapping you around for a bit. But this is the Internet, where we can all say what we like without having to deal with any real fallout. Like the rest of us, Roger probably writes something, sits back, and revels in the absurdity. It’s just that he doesn’t publicly acknowledge the absurdity that bugs me.

  • Zingzing

    Such a hypocrite… Every time you agree with and/or insult someone, which is all you’ve done here, I damn you to take a minute and think about what you are doing. For a “philosopher,” your inability to introspect is hilarious.

    And your use of gender as an insult is getting rather old and trollish. now I’m going to go and make more homophobic masturbation jokes. See? One can own up to their hypocrisy. Don’t take yourself too seriously, rent boy.

    Now go hijack another thread. Or continue to hijack this one. It’s what you do.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Riiiiight. So all the compliments I’ve given Joseph and Clavos and Dan (Miller) – and YOU – all these were only digs, and they were never sincere. Mm-hmm, sure.

    Roger, you’re letting your attitude blind you to the very real good that is in people who you distrust or dislike just because of their political beliefs. How many of your friends are liberal? How many of your friends are way out there on the left side of the political spectrum? As for myself, I’ve often stated that most of my friends are quite conservative – more so than you, certainly! If I were all about attacking conservatives just because they’re conservative as you seem to think I do, I wouldn’t have a single conservative friend.

    Roger, you’ve got some real issues that you need to take care of. Otherwise, you’re going to wind up hurting someone.

  • roger nowosielski

    As usual, missing the point, Glenn. In each and every example given, the so-called “compliment” is inseparable from a dig at the opponent. As the zing here, the lady protests too much, so she ain’t gonna get a response. So yes, I’ll talk to you, but I won’t feed the trolls, not even if they act ladylike.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    And you have never complimented someone else’s comments? You’ve never complimented someone’s articles? C’mon, guy – you know very well what it’s called when you castigate others for what you yourself do!

    You accuse me of ‘masturbating’ on line, yet you yourself insult people right and left. Yes, I rebuke others on a regular basis – yes, I do tend towards the sanctimonious – but YOU, sir, most of what you do anymore is insult others, either personally or in broad, sweeping statements.

    Frankly, I think you’d be all over Joseph’s article about Ayn Rand, seeing as how you hold yourself to be of a superior (‘non-liberal’) mind. Yeah, I get judgmental myself, but at no point do I hold my faculties to be superior to others.

    So get off your high horse and get a life, Roger, because for some time it’s been pretty obvious that your near-constant insults stem directly from your own insecurity and self-pity! All you’re doing is making yourself look bad!

  • zingzing

    we should all apologize to clavos (mother) for our behavior. and we should listen to roger’s scolding because he is in fact an authority on all things (father knows best). thank you for trying to set us straight, guys. if it wasn’t for you, we don’t know where we’d be. probably choking to death…

    thus sayeth the gang of ants. or whatever.

    clavos, any open political space is pretty much the jets and the sharks going at it. your side is just as bad about it as the other. i don’t know why you’d bother pretending otherwise.

    roger, you are a terrible psychologist. always have been. and you don’t understand a damn thing people say. and nobody likes you, except whichever right winger you happen to be jerking off at the moment. but they’ll forget about you. they’ll forget about you.

  • Um 56-57… what did I do with my glasses… oh they’re both full of beer.

  • (sigh of exasperation] I knew it was a waste of time with #s 66-67 but I gave it a shot.

    [wanders off to play chess with his computer]

  • roger nowosielski

    An appropriate slogan for the X-files series, “731,” season 3 (just watching):

    “Apology is Policy.”

    Could well be appropriated by our liberal friends here.

  • roger nowosielski

    Which isn’t to say there’s no “group effort” after the fact, patting each other on the back.

    “I’ve told him, haven’t I, Jet?”

    “But that’s Warren’s world, zing!”

    “Atta boy, Glenn, this should set him straight!”

  • Clavos

    ‘Ganging up’ has the connotation of ‘group effort’.

    Or a gang mentality…(which doesn’t necessarily imply collusion — it’s an all too human trait).

  • roger nowosielski

    No suggestion of group-effort on my part, just the prissy “quality” of the liberal mind. And it’s all the more annoying precisely because it shows up with such a regularity without the need to conspire. Just like a society of ants or other social insects whose members are moved by instinct rather than individual thought.

  • Zingzing

    Making up MOs is roger’s MO. I have so many MOs at this point, I can only remember the last few.

    And clavos can see it as ganging up if he wants to, and he can claim he only sees one side doing it, but who really cares? His conviction that his side is right and true and always plays fair is expected. The objective fact is that very few right wingers have deemed it necessary to protect poor Warren from this perceived left wing blitzkrieg gang bang, yet I’m the one obfuscating? Please. Clavos, you’re creating motivations as much as I am.

    But hell, since the right wingers don’t come around warren’s articles, and clavos won’t allow the left to have any fun, I suppose we could follow mommy clavos’ stern lecture on playing nice and just not respond to warren’s increasingly silly articles at all.

  • Another GENTLE object lesson…

    A wealthy born-again Christain has noticed those little green numbers along an expressway near his home at exactly one-mile intervals.

    According to his bible, things should be measured in cubits, regardless of what everyone else says. In his opinion if you don’t measure things in cubits, then you are not a true Christian. Without warning and no prior explanation to motorists, he goes about hiring a road crew, digs all the little sign markers up, and repositions them according to biblical measurements instead.

    This screws up everyone else’s travel, but he strongly warns that GOD might be watching.

    Do you defy and correct the man risking eternal damnation, or ignore him and dig the signs back up and put them back where they belong?

    …gently explaning that his truth isn’t our truth.

    … and what if he goes out and does it again anyway because he steadfastly believes he’s right?

  • An GENTLE object lesson:

    You are a school teacher… a few nights ago some friends came over and you beat your wife and friends at poker, winning all the cookies in the pot and eating them right in front of your friends and your spouse.

    A few days later a child walks up to the blackboard in front of the class and writes his opinion that you haven’t yet stopped beating your wife… making it sound like she’s been bruised and battered repeatedly… based on the selected facts he’s overheard his parents talking about.

    He’s not lying, but he isn’t telling the truth either.

    Do you let the statement stand, or correct the brat?

    What about the other children? Do you erase the statement before the other kids read and spread the false statement-violating the child’s right to free speech (ignoring libel laws of course)

    First thete’s the wonder of if he’s written or spoke this statement elsewhere, or if someone else has heard him.

    Which do you correct first; that you HAVE stopped beating your wife, or that you don’t beat your wife at all.

    I suppose the first step (as with the first article) is to make a “group effort” and try to correct the little darling so that he doesn’t repeat an obvious twisting of facts.

    If that doesn’t work and he does it again, (as with this article) you “gang up” on the kid and make sure he knows the consequenses of his actions.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    I should say five or six people here (and we all know who they are!) have for all intents and purposes defined this site and, in a manner of speaking, hijacked it — so much so that no honest-to-goodness discussion is even possible because the dogs keep on barking

    Pot. Kettle. Black.

    Do you ever – ever! – hold yourself to the same standard that you seem to expect of others?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    ‘Ganging up’ has the connotation of ‘group effort’…and it’s not. When someone says something obviously wrong, I’m going to call them on it whether or not my fellow liberals do so as well. And I’m pretty sure they see things the same way.

    It’s not a group effort, and is not ‘ganging up’. Get the conservative writers to say things that are, shall we say, less stupid…and you’ll find a lot fewer instances of what you see as ‘ganging up’ on them.

  • Across the North American continent, records have been smashed: from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic, a heat wave like nothing we’ve ever seen before is hitting the US and Canada, while out west, Oregon has gotten a new record for snowfall.

    This past Wednesday broke records all across the Midwest and Northeast.

    Chicago has broken high temperature records for nine days in a row, though today is likely to end that streak. The temperature in Chicago this week has been sometimes 15 degrees higher than the average.

    Many Canadian cities including Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Quebec City, St. John, Windsor, Hamilton, and London, all broke high-temperature records on Wednesday. St. John’s high of 25.4°C was higher than any recorded temperature in April.

    The —low— temperatures in Marquette, MI and Mt. Washington, NH, was —higher than the record high temperature— in the past.

    Lake Michigan has a water temperature closer to average June readings than March, reaching into the mid-10s in the middle of the lake.

    The server that handles NOAA’s weather records has been down for days, due to unprecedented traffic.

    New York City has had seven days of record-breaking temperatures, with yesterday’s high of breaking a 74-year-old record.

    But! Due to the weird shape of the jet stream that’s causing all of this, the west coast is actually getting temperatures well below average, from BC to LA. Earlier this week, Eugene, OR broke its record for most snowfall in March.

    Wunderground’s weather historian, Christopher C. Burt, said of the heat wave that “it’s almost like science fiction at this point.”

    Mike Halpert, deputy director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center, called the record-breaking month “mind-boggling.”

    Bill McKibben says regarding climate change, “it’s not just off the charts, it’s off the wall the charts are tacked to.

  • roger nowosielski

    Obfuscating matters is zing’s MO. Besides, he’d virtually admitted a few comments ago that masturbation is public is what internet, or this site at least, is all about. Which is precisely why BC has become nothing but pure entertainment for me — at least insofar as the comments space is concerned; because he had surely lived up to that promise.

    Dreadful, I may have overreached there, but the point was essentially didactic, in that arguments concerning beliefs are rarely if ever settled, especially in such an impersonal environment as this one. I don’t know you, you don’t know me, we’re all pixels on the screen. Why should I pay you any heed or you me under the circumstances? Establishing rapport with a person is a first step on the way to reaching an agreement. Well, it’s a kind of rarity here, don’t you think? We’re all more at one another’s throats than anything else — if for no other reason that we can. We can be rude and offensive to another other simply because we can do so with impunity, each and everyone acting by proxy. Perhaps we’re just exercising our latent hostilities, providing them with an outlet, because we certainly wouldn’t be as abusive to one another, day in and day out, in our everyday lives. A form of therapy, perhaps? Still, it’s sick, and the worst part is, it’s addictive.

  • As to the global warming controversy, there are valid arguments on both sides, and the jury is still out.

    There actually aren’t valid arguments on both sides, Roger. And while the jury may very well be still out, you know as well as I do that juries often come to the wrong verdict, especially when presented with faulty or misleading evidence.

  • Clavos

    You’re obfuscating, zing. It’s not the nature of Warren’s (or anyone’s) articles I’m arguing, it’s the ganging up that’s objectionable to me, along with the casting of all manner of aspersions that stop just short of personal attacks, at which Jet especially is particularly adept.

    And before you come back at me with examples of my own aspersion casting, I’m not claiming innocence on that point, but I insist that I don’t see conservatives ganging up; most of us just ignore the really bad articles — regardless of the article’s POV.

    In re conservatives allegedly ignoring the real junk; I, for one, don’t usually comment on conservative articles, period. I save my right wing points to argue with you lefties.

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, don’t present yourself as a neutral judge. It only happens with certain writers. What you might be seeing is not so much the left ganging up as much as it is some right winger writing some junk that no one on the right wants to even acknowledge. You don’t see too many right wingers hanging around warren’s articles, do you?

  • Zingzing

    Roger, how does the last paragraph of #42 not apply to you? And how does the last sentence of #43 not make you seem like a complete asshole? Humanity, Roger. Look it up.

  • Clavos


    Perhaps because we write our articles a little better Clavos.

    Sure, Jet. I’m one of the guys who edits and publishes them — both liberal and conservative; much as you would like to think that, it’s just not so.

    unlike what this nitwit does with his articles. (emphasis added)

    You just can’t stop can you?

  • Well, as someone who is both liberal and tolerant, I find little in common with any of them…

  • Clavos

    Read it again, Chris. I don’t think I cast the point about lying politicians in that light, but I was responding to EB’s #36 and wanted to make the except/accept play on words that was in my #37.

    And once brought up, I wanted to make the further point that the liberal commenters are far more prone to, in Roger’s very apt characterization, “gang up” on the conservative writers than vice versa.

  • Clavos, I think we agree with each other in believing that politicians lie but why are you casting this in the light of conservatives v liberals? Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are liberal.

  • roger nowosielski

    Hey, Jetski, me and Cindy have just as many disagreements as agreements? Can you comprehend this given you’re in a highly-medicated condition?

  • roger nowosielski

    Clavos wrote some articles, too, Jetski, and they were no less well researched than yours. And so does Cotto, when he’s in good form. So it’s a lame excuse you’re giving. As to the global warming controversy, there are valid arguments on both sides, and the jury is still out.

    Let’s just face it — it’s not contempt for facts that you’re so adamant against but contempt for the other person’s views. The fact that some writers here may appear to you to have contempt for facts is no excuse why you should have contempt for them. In any case, most of the disagreements here have less to do with “facts,” most to do with beliefs. So don’t be coming across here like some fucking holy man whose shit doesn’t stink. And hiding here behind “that’s only my opinion” stinks to high heaven too, unless you and Glenn are competing here as to who’s going to get the 2012 sanctimonious asshole award.

  • Thank god you pointed that out Roger, whose never been accused of such a thing… has he Cindy?

  • roger nowosielski

    Exactly, which makes it a fucking gang, ‘scuse my French.

    I should say five or six people here (and we all know who they are!) have for all intents and purposes defined this site and, in a manner of speaking, hijacked it — so much so that no honest-to-goodness discussion is even possible because the dogs keep on barking. And that’s a fucking, there goes my French again, shame!

  • Perhaps because we write our articles a little better Clavos. I mentioned the word “lies” in the title of my article on the TransCanada pipeline, yet not one conservative jumped in… why? I carefully researched the article and based my opinions on facts and credible quotes, unlike what this nitwit does with his articles.

    …of course that’s only my opinion

  • Clavos

    My point was not whether or not the man in the white house lies; hell, he’s an american politician — they ALL lie — almost all the time. My point is I get tired of seeing all of you (yes, EVEN you) ganging up on virtually every writer who isn’t a card carrying Democrat, and often viciously.

    I don’t see the same phenomenon occur nearly as much, nor as unanimously, and especially not as viciously in the comment threads of left of center articles. Conservatives on this site don’t do that — not to the extent y’all do.

  • Clavos

    I agree, EB. It seems you libruls except anything a conservative says or writes.

    But you rarely accept them.

  • Way to miss the point, Clavos. Did anyone say Obama has never lied or that Warren doesn’t always make the case? That you sought other sources rather than support his specific claims speaks volumes or do you agree with him about the border fence being incomplete?

    “the author just points out a long list of untruths and half truths uttered by He Who Sleeps in the White House.”

    Just saying they are untrue doesn’t make them so. It would have been nice if the author had made the case why they were false, but why bother when some people will except anything they read.

  • Clavos if your links were “pornography” you’ve probably made poor Warren cream his jeans by now… if he’s still wearing them.

  • Well Clavos you’ve certainly opened my eyes, I’m voting for Rick Sanitarium this fall!

  • Clavos

    Good grief, there’s no end to these things…

  • Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Hussein Obama is the only president in the United States to push an idea that failed. No other president has conned the American People into following his lead on faulty information and for that reason he must be impeached.

    Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra Solyndra

    They’re beginning to sound like a nagging ex-wife that is still bitching about something that happened months ago and just won’t let it go to the point that you stop listening to her, want to bitch slap her, and want to tell her how STUPID she sounds.

    No politician in the world has EVER made a mistake except HUSSEIN Nobama.


  • Clavos

    One more… (This one doesn’t call him a liar directly; the author just points out a long list of untruths and half truths uttered by He Who Sleeps in the White House.)

  • I applaud the link in #28, not for its content, but the fact that it is published in the opinion section where it belongs.

  • I wrote an article about #26 a few weeks ago, but I made the silly mistake of using facts and credible quotes, which only confused and mystified people.


  • Clavos
  • I was going to point that out, but I didn’t want him more pissed at me than he already is.

  • Clavos

    Another Fascist pig who says Obama lies…

  • Igor

    #9-Clavos: uses an ad hominem to attack an ad hominem! Good grief!

    People overestimate the power of irony.

    In the end, nobody cares.

  • Okay Warren, answer me this… if you dare!

    If Romney is elected in November is Rick Santorum lying in the following quotes uttered only today in public…

    (CBS News) Coming off a decisive victory in Saturday night’s Louisiana primary, Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is blasting Mitt Romney’s campaign as “desperate” and lacking in message – and one that will be unable to effectively go head-to-head with President Obama come November.

    Santorum, in an interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation,” contended on Sunday that Republican voters want to elect a nominee who has “their principles written on their heart – not on an erasable tablet.”

    “A lot of folks are saying this race is over,” Santorum told CBS News chief White House correspondent Norah O’Donnell. “The people in Louisiana said, ‘No, it’s not,’ and they still want to see someone who they can trust, someone who’s not running an Etch a Sketch campaign but one that, you know, has their principles written on their heart not on an erasable tablet.”

  • “Every loyal Republican in Congress is charged with only one important and sacred duty; To make absolutely sure that this president accomplishes little or nothing during this term.”

    Not only is it emblazened across the top of my political website in big letters, but it has come to pass by just looking at how the GOP has deadlocked legislation to the point that NO ONE has accomplished anything.

    You have only to contact me through my politics site in the “about me” section and request permission to publish, then when I contact you back, you give me permission to reprint or publish, a link to your article, and I’ll be only to happy to reject it immediately.

    You see I’ve seen your idea of factual opinion and would NOT allow it to taint the integrity of my site.

    …as for our spelling Nazi, I have a numb right pinkie and a left index finger that’s broken in two places. Forgive me if my touch-typing isn’t up to par.

    perfcetoin is in teh eey of teh behlodre.

  • Clavos

    Feelings hurt because you’re probably the one that published this drivvel [sic]?


  • Re: comment # 5, Jet, I’m still waiting…

    Re: comment # 7, Glenn, I would have written about Obama’s decisions if that was my purpose and/or point. I wrote specifically about his “get tough” sanctions, then his reversal or lie. The article has/had nothing to do with “the wheels within wheels of international diplomacy.” Again, I ask: Why do you try to change the subject? Is it perhaps because you find your position untenable?

    Re: comment # 9, Clavos, well said.

    Re: comment # 12, Costello, I make the same offer/challenge to you that I made to Jet: produce your own web site, accept contributions, then reject any I submit.

    Re: comment # 15, Dr. Dreadful, same response as the one to Costello (#12)

    Re: comment # 16, El B, about my lies, I’m still waiting for your specific (or even general) response(s).

  • …I’m so ashamed

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jet! How DARE you! You know very well the problems that most conservatives have with science! But noooooo, you just had to mention the ‘s-word’ somewhere on your website, and now look what happened!

    The nerve!

    [stomps off to console himself by reading the latest on arstechnica.com]

  • Maybe he clicked on my name and saw my science page and became frightened?

  • Clavos, #4 is a response to the last of #3 and I thought paraphrasing Winston Churchill was not only justified, but down right necessary, considering his title implications are hypocritical considering the article lies and misinforms more than he assures everyone that President Obama does.

    Feelings hurt because you’re probably the one that published this drivvel?

  • Yes, but on his previous piece, Warren was caught lying multiple times in an effort to prove his point. No surprise he wanted to distance himself from that major “ambarrassment”.

    Is there anyone aside from Warren who thinks this is an example of a lie?

  • Not sure why this merited an article of its own. Could just as easily have been a comment on Warren’s previous piece on the subject…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    Speaking of tone-deaf, if you had read #10 correctly, you would have seen that I’m picking on myself far more than on Clavos, and that I was only using Clavos as an opportunity for a really stupid (or brilliant, depending on one’s preferences) play on words.

    But by your own admission, you’ve assigned my words an unflattering tone – you said you could “hear my words in your head” – and by doing so you’re coloring everything I say. That’s why you missed the self-deprecating humor I put in my comment.

  • roger nowosielski

    Some articles aren’t worthy enough to bother enough, Costello. That’s the simplest explanation.

  • Costello

    If Clavos was really concerned about people looking foolish, it’s hard to comprehend how this article got published. Amending an international agreement is not a lie and yet here we read it. Quite an odd website that the comments are held to a higher standard than the articles.

  • roger nowosielski

    There wasn’t a trace of sanctimony in #9. (Chastisement isn’t the same.)

    The fact you can’t see that only tells you’re tone-deaf and color-blind (insofar as English is concerned, ’cause I have no idea about your musical talents or lack thereof).

    Which account for most of your reading comprehension difficulties, in spite of your best efforts to remedy that defect.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    One is SO tempted to look at #9 and say, “Well, up your nose with a rubber hose!” But since I’m guilty not only of saying the wrong thing but also (and especially) of too-sanctimoniously pointing it out in others, does that mean that you and I share that sacred bond of sanctimony?

    Sorry – couldn’t resist.

  • Clavos

    Jet, If you can’t debate and refute the points with which you disagree, insulting their author is childish, immature and settles nothing, as even a cursory glance at a list of logical fallacies will tell you.

    It’s called ad hominem, Jet, and it proves nothing, refutes nothing; it just makes you look foolish.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Warren –

    Compliments on using HuffPost and NYT as references – though I’m pretty sure you’re doing so for the same reason I often use right-wing sites in my arguments.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    I’m assuming you’re referring to the comic strips I referenced in comments in other articles.

    No, Warren, I’m not trying to ‘obfuscate’. I’m trying to point out to you the wheels within wheels of international diplomacy. America instituted the sanctions back in December – but there’s this little economic crisis going on in Europe right now, one that could spread back to America – you might recall the shocks to the Dow from bad economic news from not-exactly-economic-giants like Iceland and Greece.

    So Obama had to make a decision – which is more important to the interests of America? Maintaining a hard line on Iran? Or helping ease economic hardship on the EU? Obviously, the second is the more important of the two, because Iran is not a threat to the world economy. They are a regional threat and nothing more. The EU, on the other hand, is the largest economy in the world. If the EU economy falters, it WILL adversely affect America’s economy.

    That, sir, is why Obama granted the exemptions – not out of love for Ahmedinejad or out of weakness or malicious attempt to deceive the viewers of Fox News (who are never ever deceived, honest!).

    Remember Bush 41? Remember “No new taxes”? Sure you do. Remember why he raised taxes? Because he had to, because it was necessary to protect our economy. So did Bush 41 lie? Was he planning all along to raise taxes? Of course not. Once he was in office, he saw that he had to do what was necessary regardless of what he claimed on the campaign trail. Sometimes a leader – or a parent – has no choice but to do something other than what he said he’d do. Does that make him a liar? Of course not. If you’ll think about it, it wasn’t really a choice at all.

    So it goes with Obama. Did he impose the sanctions, but was all the while planning on granting lots of exemptions? I see no indication of that at all. What I do see is that he had to make a choice – maintaining a hard line on Iran, or protecting the economy of the EU. And if you’ll think about it, it wasn’t really a choice at all.

    So…Warren, I’d recommend that before you go off calling someone a liar, first define what a ‘lie’ is. For if someone has to do something other than what they said they’d do, you have to consider the following:

    1 – did they make the original promise all the while knowing they’d break it? and

    2 – did they really have a choice when they broke the promise?

    Gotta be careful with that ‘liar’ accusation, Warren.

  • Warren has stumbled over the truth a few times, but fortunately he was able to pick himself up, dust himself off and then quickly scurry away before anyone noticed.

    Thanks Winston!

  • I would sooner post a link to a Rush Limpbaugh quote than publish anything you wrote.

  • Re: comment # 1, Glenn, I don’t remember saying anything about the effects of the sanctions, other than Britian (and other countries) is now free to financially support Iran’s nuclear program. Why do you INSIST on trying to change the subject? Are you trying to obfuscate?

    Do you deny that Obama either lied or reversed his policy?

    BTW, the comic strip link you supplied was quite humorous.

    Re: comment # 2, Jet, I was/am aware of your web site, but could not find where I could submit articles so you could reject them. Can you tell me where that is?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, and Warren –

    That last reference in your article – that big graph in it is absolutely false, as is made obvious even by the information plainly seen on usgovernmentspending.com, which is a site maintained by right-wing writer Chris Chantrill. I use that site a lot – it’s very useful for digging into the numbers and showing right-wingers such as yourself numbers that you really don’t want to see.

    Anyway, the numbers CLEARLY show that the biggest deficit in American history was NOT from Obama, but from Dubya…because who was it that submitted the budget for 2009? Dubya.

    It’s the same thing for the first year of ANY new president, Warren – the outgoing president is the one who submits the budget for the first year of the incoming president.

    But be sure to ignore all this, too, since it wildly conflicts with what your boys on Fox News tell you day in and day out….

  • [Jet shakes his head sadly, looks at Warren’s head and asks, “What’s it like in there?]

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yet another “Obama’s the Great Satan” piece by Warren, without the least attempt to edjimicate himself on both sides of the issue.

    Concerning the sanctions, Warren, here’s what the oh-so-liberal Wall Street Journal said:

    In an interview, [State Department Representative] Hormats said that sanctions never have 100% international backing or effectiveness but the measures taken against Iran’s energy industry, its central bank and financial sector are hitting home.

    “Our goal has never been to bring the Iranian economy to a point of collapse,” he said. “But we think that there has been a real impact on their economy and that it is likely to intensify.”

    The EU decided in January to ban new contracts to import Iranian oil and to ban any purchases of Iranian crude oil from July 1. The detailed legal text enacting those sanctions was finally approved at a meeting of foreign ministers on Friday. The U.S. and Europe has also tightened the noose on Iran’s financial sector by restricting transactions with Iran’s central bank. Others Iran banks have been blacklisted.

    And the other Gulf States are piling on as well, but in a different – and perhaps more effective – way:

    The decision by the Gulf states, and especially the United Arab Emirates, to stop trading in Iranian rials deals a harsh blow to the Iranian economy. Thousands of Iranian companies opened branches in Dubai in recent years, and tens of thousands of Iranian businessmen use the country to import and export non-oil merchandise. Now, they will have to come up with another way to run their businesses.

    Iranian businessmen have a double problem: Not only are the banks refusing to accept Iranian rials, but Iranians are finding it difficult to pay for goods in other currencies, because their government imposes strict restrictions on taking foreign currency out of the country.

    Mind you, what anyone truly familiar with the Middle East will recognize right away in that last piece is that a major part of what’s driving the decisions of the UAE and the other Gulf states is the fact that they’re Sunni, and Iran is Shi’a.

    Warren, the Sunni/Shi’a split doesn’t mean squat to most Republicans (it didn’t mean anything to Dubya, either)…and if that’s what your mindset is, then you’re only showing ignorance on the matter.

    And here’s another article on just how bad Iran’s economy is getting.

    Warren, as the WSJ article points out, we do NOT want Iran’s economy to crumble – that’s a major cause of most wars. What we do want is for their economy to hurt just enough that the people will work towards regime change, but not so much that the regime will lash out militarily against its neighbors.

    Ah, but I forgot again! YOU DON’T GIVE A RAT’S HIND END about what’s really going on. All you really care about is attacking the black guy in the White House – you know, the Kenyan Muslim who is only one letter away from having the same names as the Two Big Bad Men from the Bush years….