dayman

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/04/iran-suspend-uranium-enrichment Iran has suspended the enrichment of uranium stockpiles to the 20% purity needed to bring it a short step from building a nuclear device, news services in the region have reported. Mohammad Hossein Asfari, a member of parliament responsible for foreign policy and national security, was quoted as saying that the move was a "goodwill" gesture, aimed at softening Iran's position before a new round of scheduled talks with the United States after this week's presidential elections. Asfari said he hoped sanctions would be lifted in return for Iran's actions, otherwise it would resume the programme, according to a website belonging to the Al Arabiya news channel. Talks aimed at halting Iran's enrichment programme have made little progress, leading to the west tightening sanctions and increasing the prospect of military action by Israel. The Islamic republic's economy has plummeted in the grip of punitive economic measures and Tehran indicated earlier this month that it would be willing to negotiate. However, the offer to suspend enrichment required so many concessions that it was dismissed by the United States. Iran has a stockpile of 20% uranium weighing just over 90kg (200lb), according to an International Energy Agency watchdog report in August. Experts say between 200-250kg is needed for one nuclear device. Once uranium reaches 20% purity, it is close to becoming weapons grade. Experts have estimated it would take Iran another year to produce a warhead small enough to put on a missile. Tehran is said to have nearly completed a nuclear enrichment plan with the last of 3,000 uranium centrifuges installed at the underground site of Fordo, near the holy city of Qum. The machines were working at only half capacity, but the development was a crucial step in developing a nuclear device, the New York Times reported. Israel has drawn a "red line" in spring next year based on its own calculations, when it could launch a pre-emptive military strike to stop the programme. Iran has said it needs to refine uranium for civilian use, with the material converted to fuel rods used for medical isotopes to diagnose and treat illnesses.

Meh...honestly for most offices there's only a few things that interest me one way or the other. For instance I live at the beach...and I basically vote on parking issues for all local offices....little else matters to me.

Well I know you are a farmer in NC. I on the other hand live in a multi-story condo in Florida and have no private yard.

Ya b/c soil and water conservation is something I follow daily developments for. And I'm well aware of every kook running for county judge.

lol God damn isn't it the truth Obama Obama (by a closer margin obviously) No b/c Obama will win by more than 1 state

I would respectfully disagree. Should the waitress know she is serving a single mother, she can then be sure to treat her badly and subtly shame her for her situation as society requires. So it's quite a tip.

My girlfriend waited about a half hour today in Florida. Although she said rumors were that it was taking hours at other places... Personally I just sent the damn thing in by mail. I like to sit with it and research some of the judges and agriculture spots and fill in as I read then it just seems easier to mail it right then and there. I know there's a much greater chance it somehow isn't counted, but so be it.

Murray is garbage

There is never an absolute expectation of repayment. If they wanted, terms of the loan could be conditioned upon proof of insurance, it wasn't. What is the incentive to not make every loan on earth if there is no worry about if the people can pay? Once again, all I'm saying is my heart does not weep given these facts for the lender.

I'm not arguing there is anything wrong with what you have just laid out. I'm simply saying, my heart does not weep for the lender here. Every time the don't borrow money you can't pay back comes out, there's the flip side to that...

Of course. That said, from the info in her sob letter my heart does not weep for the lender under these circumstances....3rd loan, private loan (so obviously the fed wouldn't put up another for some reason), music production, dead.

IDK about this one, seems fake certainly if that's what the /1 means how do you even do that? I'm no fiscal conservative when it comes to eating out ... but that is outrageous. Also...screw waiters that post checks online anyway. They should be tipped...but they should not go bitching by posting people's checks online most places (especially those where you can rack up a bill like that ) will fire you for that if they find out.

Also a 61 year old lady with a 23 year old kid?

It's true. But there is a predatory aspect to much student loan activity ... this private loan... I don't know anything about it but I doubt it had the best terms and it was piling on after 2 other federal loans for music production co-signed by apparently an old lady that can't pay? Old lady is guilty for stupidity but you feel sorry for her loss and having wanted what she thought was good for her son (that doesn't mean she "deserves" anything necessarily). Bank? Nobody should feel sorry for the bank under any circumstances if they don't get their cash back.

lol no sympathy on PPP

What is the main libertarian argument against Johnson?

"Conservatives and libertarians don't be discouraged by moderate Mitt just vote for him anyway; Libya was Obama killing Americans and Obam/Romneycare is evil...just vote Mitt" hehe....either way though I do agree that if you are in a swing state and dislike Obama it will be stupid to vote Johnson EDIT: Although it is stupid to suggest any meaningful primary action against a President Romney in 2016 would mean anything and honestly on principle alone for those that truly do believe in Johnson they should just vote for him...two sides of this coin

Well how you would use Clinton is one thing, but one way or another he has his role and it's head surrogate...I actually am in a rare point of agreement here that they can't overplay him and shouldn't worry about it but one way or another he is not going to be anything other than second fiddle and for reasonable reasons...so to just to look to where Big Bill is and say that means they're terrified just isn't reading the campaign right. That's all I'm saying.

Clinton is in mop up mode though. He's been in Fla and Virginia lately and whatnot...Obama himself and sometimes Biden (although he's been in Fla a bit) hit the crucial swing states hard first with as much possible after that,,,but first priority for the actual ticket is Ohio, Iowa, etc.... Clinton is left to hit up Fla and virginia and apparently PA in these final moments to maintain a presence there and try and push when Obama is out in the areas he must lock up that may be at risk. Just saying...Clinton is what he is...valuable no doubt but to think that where Clinton is the last days means desperation is not accurate. At this point Clinton is gravy...

Building and maintaining a strong lasting economy that works for the broad base of the public is hard practical work. All ideas in history have flaws and it would nice to see two parties bang out a variety of ideas, practical real world ideas, and hammer out something good. One side insisting on some theological dogma, demanding CRS reports to be retracted that contradict it, shading history to represent these ideas as something they are not, and refusing to consider other ideas or critically examine their own...is banana republic. If there was a magic pill that was so simple, the party that preached it would forever dominate. There isn't. Just reality. Taxes are low right now (contrary to certain insane rambling). Deficits matter (now more than ever). The economy is changing and must be reactionary the rest of the world. And strong public-private partnerships is what works in the real world.

Lol gop will never reconsider their dogma

I'm thinking Obama takes it 281-257 Obama: IA, WI, MI, OH, PA, NV, NH Romney: FL, VA, NC, CO

Think about what you are saying. Let's take 2010, 2006, 2002, and 2004, and average them out. That's 2012. In other words lets take 3 non-presidential races (where the dynamic is different and turnout is lower obviously), and the presidential race last time the GOP won, but lets leave out 2008 b/c Obama is black and nobody cares anymore....if we average these 4 years where only 1 was even a Presidential race then we magically have the 2012 electorate. Forget any growth in minority participation that's just a Dem pipedream. It's ok we leave out the electorate that happened most recently for a President, b/c Obama was black that time and it was new, and b/c I am personally so disgusted with him that I can't imagine everybody else doesn't feel the same it makes sense that blacks will not turn out as they did nor will other minorities grow as expected and white people are back ready to make 2010 look like the new normal! Red State supreme! Woo! I'm not sitting here vowing for every pollster or even getting into the minutia...but I know you have been deluding yourself and too into Dick Morris and other people who are much too bullish on this GOP surge and fail to recognize the reality of certain struggles the GOP has while emphasizing struggles the Dems have. Romney can win. Obama can win. If Romney wins it will be an upset, not a historical upset but an upset. Why? B/c your nonsense isn't reality. It's the reality distortion field you think you can materialize to boost your enthusiasm. Settle down, stop thinking you know what you are talking about, and accept reality.

You problem is you are way out of your mind bullish about so called "low propensity voters" just slinking back to silence b/c of reasons they know nothing about (hence why they are low propensity voters in the first place). Additionally, you discount historical growth with naive wishes. Is it possible the Dems have a view of the electorate that is a bit beyond reality? It is possible, of course. Is it likely that the historical developments with the electorate that have consistently built up over years just go away in a presidential election year? Probably not. I saw a post where you advocated taking the last 4 electorates EXCEPT 2008, then averaging them...and proclaiming that is what 2012 looks like. You are out of your mind to say such a thing. There's a reason people who's jobs depend on being as close to accurate as possible don't do stupid things like that...and it isn't b/c they just want to make slow gentle love to Obama it's b/c there is an election next week and everybody will know if they were credible or not.

I have never seen such obsession with polls when the election is less than a week away. Nobody knows the turnout, Obama does have a good "ground game" in swing states, and it's safe to say it won't be 2008 or 2010. But rest assured good men of PPP, there is an actual day where people will vote and it's less than 7 days away.