@vil
@StukaFox
@wtfcaniuse

Obama made this mess, not our government, not Trump.

Donald Trump isn’t ripping up a treaty, he’s walking away from Barack Obama’s personal pledge. President Obama made a deal with Iran without support from Congress. Trump is pulling out of President Obama’s personal commitment, and he doesn’t need Congress’s support to do” it because Congress had nothing to do with authorizing this.

Iran can’t violate because they never signed it! Therefore, technically they’re incapable of violating. This is just a set of political documents put forth by Obama, never ratified by the Senate, not signed by the Iranians.


Iranian President Hassan Rowhani opposes a parliamentary vote on the nuclear deal reached because terms of the agreement would turn into legal obligations if passed by lawmakers. “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government. it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rowhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?”



2015 — in the Obama State Department, “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA),” said that the Iran deal, “is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document…” It was the final document.




State Department: Iran Deal Is Not ‘Legally Binding’ and Iran Didn’t Sign It
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/


White House admits it played us for fools to sell Iran deal
https://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

Rowhani: no need for parliament vote on nuke deal
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/08/29/Rowhani-Iran-nuke-deal-doesn-t-need-parliament-approval.html

"most notably rejecting the chance to appear in Paul Feig’s 2015 Ghostbusters reboot. Apparently, the Schwartz is mightier than a proton pack."

I think more likely he knew how big of a turd a Feig-led Ghostbusters reboot would be. I cant understand how it even got funded in the first place.

Def a parody, none of those cars were even a 2015+ mustang when the narrator mentioned a 310 hp 2018. 2018 GT's are 460hp.

Looks like a pretty sweet camp site:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/09/248CF32F00000578-2903981-image-a-19_1420843028055.jpg

Not that I saw, but I didn't watch it all.
The glaring issue to me was, when asked 'You found out in 2015 about this data breach, when did you notify your customers?'
he answered with 'When we found out, we removed the apps and asked the thieving companies to delete the data, and took their word that they did...which was a mistake.', never addressing the question because they still haven't notified all the customers whose data was taken by this one breach and never would have if it hadn't been discovered by investigators and made public, and make no mistake it's far from the only breach.
To me, it's outrageous that he's pretending that keeping your data private is a goal, it's not. They exist by selling your data. Nothing's free, and things that claim to be free usually cost far more than you would voluntarily pay.

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Monday, April 13th, 2015 7:12am PDT - doublepromote requested by newtboy.

Yeah, the comics are pretty good. Some of the Darth Vader stories have been really excellent.

There's a constant rumour of an Obi-wan movie with Ewan McGregor. That could work, but I'd like to see it as a smaller story.

There's an excellent comic that features Obi-wan on Tatooine, and it has this great line:
"As hard as it was to become a Jedi, it was even harder to stop being one.

But I did."

That's a movie I'd like to see.

Wow, that a fascinating statistic you pulled out of your ass.

Let's see what literally THREE FUCKING SECONDS of searching on Google produces

(search term: "Australia homicide rate")

Oh, look!

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2016~Main%20Features~Victims%20of%20Crime,%20Australia~3

Aaaaand I quote:

"Across Australia, the number of victims of Murder decreased by 4% between 2015 and 2016, from 236 to 227 victims

A weapon was used in 69% of Murders (157 victims). A knife was twice as likely to have been recorded as the murder weapon (71 victims), when compared to a firearm (32 victims). (Table 4)"

So there was a DECREASE in the murder rate in 2017. Furthermore, of 227 murders, only -32- were from firearms, or ~14%.

Let's look at mass shootings in Aussieland.

Oh, that's right, we can't: BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE!

How about the good ol' USA where any idiot can purchase a gun?

In 2016, there were 10,182 murders by firearms. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/). A total of 17,250 people were reported killed in the US in 2016, with the number of murders increasing by about 8.6% in comparison to 2015. (https://qz.com/1086403/fbi-crime-statistics-us-murders-were-up-in-2016-and-chicago-had-a-lot-to-do-with-it/)

Let's see here: ~14% of the murders is your maligned Antipodes were committed with a firearm and the murder rate was down while ~60% of the murders here in the US were committed with a firearm and the murder rate is up.

What conclusions can we draw from this?

Oh, yeah, there's this as well:

https://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

And a nb: I know you're going to howl and wail that Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws in the US and people are getting mowed down there left, right and center.

From NPR:
(https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work)

"A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns."

(actual study here: http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JCrimLC%202015%20Guns%20in%20Chicago.pdf )

In conclusion: maybe do a little research next time, hmm?

*ban self link. Video is from same yt account as this which was just banned.
https://videosift.com/video/Color-Picker-visual-basic-2015

Well lets just look at 1 of you girl Hillary at a town square meetings . -- For old time sake. Lets remissness how how her moral fiber and honesty is.

Lets see how fair and honest Hillary , the Media and the audience with questions are.



Please tell me that this Liar is a better choice.. how she represents something different politics, that she is not of the establishment that she will clean house if she got into office.

Remember the Poll: ‘Liar’ Tops List of 50 Words Americans Used to Describe Hillary Clinton.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/27/poll-liar-tops-list-of-50-words-americans-used-to-describe-hillary-clinton/





In the latest Quinnipiac poll, the pollsters asked a simple question of Americans: “What is the first word that comes to mind when you think of Hillary Clinton?”
The survey included responses from 1,563 registered voters nationwide including 666 Republicans and 647 Democrats.

here are the top terms for our girl from this poll

liar 178
dishonest 123
untrustworthy 93
experience 82
strong 59
Bill 56
woman 47
smart 31
crook 21
untruthful 19
criminal 18
deceitful 18
Democrat 16
intelligent 15
email 14
politician 13
Benghazi 12
corrupt 12
crooked 11

And you still choose her?

Double-Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Thursday, November 19th, 2015 8:44am PST - doublepromote requested by eric3579.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by eric3579.

Your video, Port of Amsterdam - Timelapse SAIL 2015, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Just to clear things up, YES Magnus Carlsen was playing this game from my account during the ETCC 2015!" https://twitter.com/johansalomon/status/904645888282382336

There is still some debate on the authenticity of this.

I read an article last night by a lawyer (uninvolved with the DNC) who openly questioned whether Donna Brazile was looking at the 2015 or the 2016 JFA. The reason she was asking, was that the 2016 JFA, of course, contains nothing but mentions of HRC because she was at that time the nominee, which is to be expected.

I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but it was a fascinating article. I spent about 5 minutes trying to find it right now, but I read it last night at home on my iPad, so I don't have the history handy to find the article again easily.