T1B

This president and his administration is worthless. You can pretty much take anything that the press secretary says and turn it around 180* and that'd be the truth.

While you are waiting for the spin on that, put the Obamacare collapse on the waiting list. Many rural counties will have no insurers left for next year when the subsidies to insurers stop. But this was an excellent plan. Those that Obamacare relied on to offset the old/sick are just choosing to pay the $695 tax.

How can it be a ransom if it's their money? :?

The Obama administration lied? How can that be? Of course MS forgets we are supposed to be imposing sanctions on a regime that sponsors terrorism and "loves" the USA. Sorry for the sarcasm. You can take the New Yorker out of New York, but you can't take New York out of the New Yorker, or something like that.
BTW---couldn't Barry S. or O. simply have cut the mullahs a check? If he was a 100% white dude, he'd been impeached a long time ago.

Wolfman wrote:The Obama administration lied? How can that be? Of course MS forgets we are supposed to be imposing sanctions on a regime that sponsors terrorism and "loves" the USA. Sorry for the sarcasm. You can take the New Yorker out of New York, but you can't take New York out of the New Yorker, or something like that.
BTW---couldn't Barry S. or O. simply have cut the mullahs a check? If he was a 100% white dude, he'd been impeached a long time ago.

English, please.

Did you listen to the Pres?
They don't have a bank to wire it to nor can they cash a check for the same reason.
We were holding it in a bank.
Anymore juvenile questions?

I hate to agree with MS, but they had a legitimate claim to the money -- paid for goods that were never delivered.

But as a compromise, I think they should fuck off on the interest.

Not only are they not getting interest they are not even getting all the frozen cash.

Edit: upon further research it would appear that they are getting all the frozen cash from our (400million$) deal with them and the rest of the frozen cash is still frozen, as it arose from different deals. So this settlement was to return the original 400million plus 1.3billion in interest, even though the interest on 400 million over 30+ years runs into the billions.

Would have been a lot easier if Obama had just sent them a $400 million Walmart gift card.

88 wrote:What does contingent on release of the hostages mean? Take your time.

It means they are not giving back the cash unless the other side releases the humans. Why are you struggling with basic English?

R A N S O M

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:What does contingent on release of the hostages mean? Take your time.

It means they are not giving back the cash unless the other side releases the humans. Why are you struggling with basic English?

In other words, it is a ransom payment.

The way this should have worked is, you are holding four American citizens against their will. Release them now or we shall send a plane. This plane will not be an unmarked jet with palets of currency inside, It will be a B2 bomber loaded full of something else. And we won't just drop it on baby formula factories, we will drop it on the highest ranking politician we can find.

You have 48 hours to release them, unharmed. If you do not, we will send more planes and maybe a cruise missle or three. Or maybe, we'll just tear up that little policy paper we have and go all Harry fukking Truman on your sorry asses because guess what, we already have nukes.

Yes, and completely destabilize yet another Middle Eastern nation? What could go wrong? Oh, wait...

Remove your head from your fucking ass and try another crack at that, corky.

Screw_Michigan wrote:Yes, and completely destabilize yet another Middle Eastern nation? What could go wrong? Oh, wait...

Remove your head from your fucking ass and try another crack at that, corky.

Corky is right, so I guess that makes you a dumber than corky liberal fukkkking moron!

I would have told the Irans, release the hostages immediately or there will be no future dealings, including any previously agreed to transfers of cash.

smackaholic wrote:
In other words, it is a ransom payment.

No ransom is when you pay your money to get someone or something released. We held their $ hostage. They held our people hostage. We then exchanged hostages. Happens every day slappy.

Left Seater wrote:I would have told the Irans, release the hostages immediately or there will be no future dealings, including any previously agreed to transfers of cash.

That is basically what they did. Glad to see you agree with your President.

I'm 100% convinced it was RANSOM and the only way I would even consider going down to 99% convinced it was ransom is if the smartest, most logical person on this message board said it wasn't ransom. Mvscal, was it ransom or not ransom?

I wait for the voice of reason.

Nice white flag.
Your third in a row.
Why are you even here?

Dinsdale wrote:I hate to agree with MS, but they had a legitimate claim to the money -- paid for goods that were never delivered.

But as a compromise, I think they should fuck off on the interest.

2nd.

There is only one person that can settle this argument.

O Mvscal, Mvscal! wherefore art thou Mvscal?

The money wasn't paid for the hostages it was returned in a failed contract. How dumb (or biased) are you?

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:How can it be a ransom if it's their money? :?

If it's their money, why are we flying it in as cash strapped to pallets? We're we holding it for them?

Yes, we were holding on to it, interest free. However, that $400 million is not part of the billions frozen in various sanction efforts. No, this $400 mil is the payment Iran had made to buy arms from America as part of the Iran/Contra deal. Except the utterly criminal Reagan gang got caught and the sale not made. Up to speed now?

And by the way, the Reagan administration set the record for indictments and convictions, forced resignations and various censures, etc., That's the legacy. The $400 million is just the property of Iran.

And let's remember that the initial sanctions--as a result of the year-long hostage standoff, were lifted soon after the release, and the new sweeping sanctions were initiated as the U.S. directly supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq with chemical weapons to attack Iran. And why? Why would the Reagan gang support Saddam the butcher in gassing the Iranians? And try to devastate its economy? Because Iran had the temerity in 1954 to demand possession of its own resources? Because it kicked out the puppet Shah? Because the Reagan gang--really just an extension of the Dulles brother CIA/Mossad/M15--is simply an imperialist crime syndicate with neither morals nor qualms about murder and the use of chemical weapons.

And the $400 million in weapons which Iran had already paid for? The U.S., while keeping Iran's money, sold them to someone else.

Dinsdale wrote:I hate to agree with MS, but they had a legitimate claim to the money -- paid for goods that were never delivered.

No, they don't. The government that paid for those goods doesn't exist anymore.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I hate to agree with MS, but they had a legitimate claim to the money -- paid for goods that were never delivered.

No, they don't. The government that paid for those goods doesn't exist anymore.

GAME, SET, MATCH!!!


Ransom confirmed in 13 words!

Case closed!

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I hate to agree with MS, but they had a legitimate claim to the money -- paid for goods that were never delivered.

No, they don't. The government that paid for those goods doesn't exist anymore.

Now is the time for 88's spinning top gif.

mvscal wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I hate to agree with MS, but they had a legitimate claim to the money -- paid for goods that were never delivered.

No, they don't. The government that paid for those goods doesn't exist anymore.

What's this, bab's embarrassing himself again?

Um, bab's , are you suggesting that the Reagan administration had concocted the $400 million dollar arms deal with the Shah? Are you suggesting that the Revolutionary government--with which it had of course made the deal--is somehow...no longer existing?

And by the way, what's the lock-step neocon excuse for the U.S. actively helping Saddam attack another nation?

When I first heard of this, it was supposed to be payment for jets sold to the shah, not part of the Iran-Contra deal. I believe that was something they were trying to spin it into lately. Anyway, fukk them. We shouldn't have given them a dime. And if we did, it should have been long after the 4 were released. But, s has been said by one of those hostages, they were held until the money was on the tarmac. Therefore, it was ransom. EOS. The fact that it may have been money that was due them is irrelevant.

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:I would have told the Irans, release the hostages immediately or there will be no future dealings, including any previously agreed to transfers of cash.

That is basically what they did. Glad to see you agree with your President.

Wrong. It is my understand that the hostages were released after the cash was handed over. If this is incorrect please hit me up with something proving otherwise.

But as until the hostages were released we shouldn't have paid a dime to Iran. I don't care what was previously agreed to or if there was a contract. Taking hostages is breach of contract in my book.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Um, bab's , are you suggesting that the Reagan administration had concocted the $400 million dollar arms deal with the Shah? Are you suggesting that the Revolutionary government--with which it had of course made the deal--is somehow...no longer existing?

Shut the fuck up, moron. The deal was made by the Carter Administration to supply aircraft to the Shah's government and the deal was stopped by the Carter administration after the revolution, you gibbering fuck puddle.

mvscal wrote:
Shut the fuck up, moron. The deal was made by the Carter Administration to supply aircraft to the Shah's government and the deal was stopped by the Carter administration after the revolution, you gibbering fuck puddle.

Also known as breach of contract.

Left Seater wrote: Wrong. It is my understand that the hostages were released after the cash was handed over. If this is incorrect please hit me up with something proving otherwise.

But as until the hostages were released we shouldn't have paid a dime to Iran. I don't care what was previously agreed to or if there was a contract. Taking hostages is breach of contract in my book.

Im not sure what your complaint is. Almost every settlement has some drag time on one side or the other.

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote:
Shut the fuck up, moron. The deal was made by the Carter Administration to supply aircraft to the Shah's government and the deal was stopped by the Carter administration after the revolution, you gibbering fuck puddle.

Also known as breach of contract.

The contract was with the Shah's government.

So what?

Moving Sale wrote:

Left Seater wrote: Wrong. It is my understand that the hostages were released after the cash was handed over. If this is incorrect please hit me up with something proving otherwise.

But as until the hostages were released we shouldn't have paid a dime to Iran. I don't care what was previously agreed to or if there was a contract. Taking hostages is breach of contract in my book.

Im not sure what your complaint is. Almost every settlement has some drag time on one side or the other.

Wrong. Taking hostages isn't drag time. It changes the playing field completely and not only move the goal posts but destroys them.

Wtf are you talking about? They had our people, we had their money and we switched, albeit not at the exact same time. I still don't get what your problem with this is other than Obama was president when it happened.

Weird thread for this board. I've haggled for things I've needed and paid with cash. Sure there's no tax but you get what you want and no one gets hurt.

I'm guessing no one on this board lives in a large city? Too many lawyers in this thread, not enough haberdashers.

Dr_Phibes wrote:Sure there's no tax but you get what you want and no one gets hurt.

That's actually the inscription on my Uncle Izzy's headstone.

:o

Moving Sale wrote:Wtf are you talking about? They had our people, we had their money and we switched, albeit not at the exact same time. I still don't get what your problem with this is other than Obama was president when it happened.

Nice Strawman. Yes Obama is in the WH, but I wouldn't agree with this regardless of who made the decision. Timing is everything here just like it is in most business or other transactions. You have said you require payment up front from your clients. There is a reason you do that. You take payment then you do your lawyering. Same thing here.

Yes payment first. So what's your problem again?