24
   

AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

 
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:14 am
I dont have anyone on ignore but Okie is one I just pass right by. Sad because someday he may have something worth reading. But I doubt it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:18 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I have heard of some of their little touchy feely projects, but I have never seen personally anything they have ever done. But Obama wants to fire the IG that is finding graft, and I think he wants Michelle to get her stickly little fingers into this little pet project, increase funding, and turn it into his own little pet organization. No, I don't trust it at all, and we don't need it. It is pretty harmless now, but merely a waster of money, and in the future it might not be harmless, it could be used for political purposes, no doubt at all. It already has been by Obama's friend, Kevin Johnson, and that is why the IG is being accused of being mentally unbalanced. Too bad Obama does not have a Siberia, is that where the Soviets sent the mentally unbalanced?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:20 am
Somebody send me a PM when we leave the realm of Okie's delusions and return to the subject of Iran.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:26 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Somebody send me a PM when we leave the realm of Okie's delusions and return to the subject of Iran.

Well as soon as somebody can explain this one to me, I might admit Obama is not dangerous. I never thought this could happen here, but I am forced to believe otherwise, by Obama's own words: I have posted this a few times, but it needs to be posted again, in light of what can happen. Yes, it could happen, all we need is a bad apple and enough people to follow him or her. It won't happen soon, but if we allow a bad apple a few years to go down the wrong road, I think it could. It has happened in other places, and does not hurt to be vigilant, to see the danger signs. As I said, if anyone can explain Obama's words here, I would like to hear it. So far, its been dead silence. He said them, not me, so if anyone wants to accuse someone of being a kook, it isn't okie, its Obama.

Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:30 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

I have heard of some of their little touchy feely projects, but I have never seen personally anything they have ever done


So, you're willing to equate a bunch of college kids who took jobs working in poor schools, to a group of murderous, government-supporting thugs? Based on no knowledge whatsoever?

Quote:
But Obama wants to fire the IG that is finding graft, and I think he wants Michelle to get her stickly little fingers into this little pet project, increase funding, and turn it into his own little pet organization. No, I don't trust it at all, and we don't need it. It is pretty harmless now, but merely a waster of money, and in the future it might not be harmless, it could be used for political purposes, no doubt at all. It already has been by Obama's friend, Kevin Johnson, and that is why the IG is being accused of being mentally unbalanced. Too bad Obama does not have a Siberia, is that where the Soviets sent the mentally unbalanced?


Sad, really, that you have sunk to this deranged level of conspiracy theory. You have no knowledge of these situations other than what you have read on right-wing blogs attacking Obama, yet style yourself some sort of expert at predicting where the US is going to be headed, based on this stuff. Really crazy stuff here.

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 10:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

I have heard of some of their little touchy feely projects, but I have never seen personally anything they have ever done


So, you're willing to equate a bunch of college kids who took jobs working in poor schools, to a group of murderous, government-supporting thugs? Based on no knowledge whatsoever?

I do not equate the actual group of kids now, but I do equate the potential in future years. I think it is a bad policy, a very bad thing to do, to form such groups under the administration's authority. None of these types of groups start out as evil or dangerous, cyclops, they are always formed as an idea to do wonderful things for the community or country.

Quote:
Quote:
But Obama wants to fire the IG that is finding graft, and I think he wants Michelle to get her stickly little fingers into this little pet project, increase funding, and turn it into his own little pet organization. No, I don't trust it at all, and we don't need it. It is pretty harmless now, but merely a waster of money, and in the future it might not be harmless, it could be used for political purposes, no doubt at all. It already has been by Obama's friend, Kevin Johnson, and that is why the IG is being accused of being mentally unbalanced. Too bad Obama does not have a Siberia, is that where the Soviets sent the mentally unbalanced?


Sad, really, that you have sunk to this deranged level of conspiracy theory. You have no knowledge of these situations other than what you have read on right-wing blogs attacking Obama, yet style yourself some sort of expert at predicting where the US is going to be headed, based on this stuff. Really crazy stuff here.

Cycloptichorn

I have never been a conspiracy guy, never, but I admit I don't trust Obama, but its based on his own words and actions. Bad things have happened, and will happen, and so it pays to take note of what is happening. It won't happen overnight, or it may never happen, but I am simply telling everybody here that the potential is there, based upon Obama and his mindset. I actually think there enough checks and balances to keep Obama in check, but it isn't because of Obama's good intentions, not in my opinion. I admit it seems a little crazy to me, but some of the things coming out of Obama's mouth are the crazy things. It isn't me making them up, just remember that, cyclops.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:14 am
@okie,
Quote:
Well as soon as somebody can explain this one to me, I might admit Obama is not dangerous.


Hey, Einstein . . . the subject of this thread is Iran. There are any number of brain-dead conservative "The sky is falling, the sky is falling ! ! ! " threads about the evil Obama in which you can vent your spew. Why not take your horseshit elsewhere?

Shame on you, Cyclo, for encouraging his idiocy. Do you mind if we discuss Iran and the Persians?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:15 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Well as soon as somebody can explain this one to me, I might admit Obama is not dangerous.


Hey, Einstein . . . the subject of this thread is Iran. There are any number of brain-dead conservative "The sky is falling, the sky is falling ! ! ! " threads about the evil Obama in which you can vent your spew. Why not take your horseshit elsewhere?

Shame on you, Cyclo, for encouraging his idiocy. Do you mind if we discuss Iran and the Persians?


Sorry, sorry

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:22 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
Well as soon as somebody can explain this one to me, I might admit Obama is not dangerous.


Hey, Einstein . . . the subject of this thread is Iran. There are any number of brain-dead conservative "The sky is falling, the sky is falling ! ! ! " threads about the evil Obama in which you can vent your spew. Why not take your horseshit elsewhere?

Shame on you, Cyclo, for encouraging his idiocy. Do you mind if we discuss Iran and the Persians?


Sorry, sorry

Cycloptichorn

Sorry about that, but I thought I would point out the dangers of groups like the Basiji in Iran, that similar things happen and could happen in other places. An important point I believe, and very instructive as we watch what can happen. Carry on.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:41 am
@George,
George wrote:

Quote:
It is precisely because of the role of the Basiji, as reported by Persians via twitter (and had at third hand from media sources) that i say this situation is not analogous to the 1979 uprising. It is precisely because of them, and similar militias in the countryside that i don't think anyone will pull off a revolution.

I agree that it is not analogous to '79. But there is a revolution of some sort
going on there. It won't overthrow the government and probably will not
even cause a nullification of the election. People have had a taste of open
defiance; things bubbling under the surface have boiled up. The theocracy
has pulled off its mask and shown itself as brutal and impious. This is going
to change things. In what way? How much? To what long term effect? Beats
the hell outta me.

Yep. It really is too late for them to turn back. If they are not successful in changing the government then they all have retribution to look forward to. They're out there, and the only two possible outcomes are success (new government) or failure (much more repressive regime than they already had). The police and the military are not helping the government at this time, and the more the Basiji kill protesters the more hated they become. At some point they will be outnumbered. The people really can't stop now. There's no turning back.
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:45 am
@okie,
okie wrote:

George wrote:
On the
other hand, the Basiji seem to be glorying in their bloody role, praised by
the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard.

Precisely why we do not want or need groups like ACORN, Americorp, or Obama's imagined National Security Force running around as the little minions of the president.

This has got to be the most absurd thing I have ever seen you write. To compare ACORN to an armed religious militia that is currently shooting unarmed protesters in Iran is so bizarre and illogical in the extreme I can hardly believe that even you would do it. Further, the Basij are loyal to the Supreme Leader who is not up for election ever. That's a far cry from being "minions" of a president who can't hold office for more than 8 years. Take a breath, okie. This is not Iran and never will be unless we decide that separating church and state isn't such a good idea after all.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 11:49 am
Okie wrote:
I have never been a conspiracy guy. . .

So, what's the latest news about the conspiracy to hide Saddam's WMD's from you, Okie?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:15 pm
@FreeDuck,
Thats fine, I hope you are right, but maybe someday somebody will explain why Obama wants a "civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded as the military." I did not say that. Obama did. As I said, carry on, but if anyone can answer the question, please try it.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:33 pm
Here's an interesting piece of information.

Apparently Prsident Obama intended to publicly pronounce on Friday, the written statement that was released on Saturday.

So, it seems like I have less to criticize him for than I previously thought.

I wonder if those who applauded the reserve shown by a written vs oral statement now consider they have less to praise him for than they previously thought? Smile


Obama: Iran 'Wants to Open Up'
CBS response: Huh? Did someone say something?
By JAMES TARANTO

By now you probably know that President Obama on Saturday finally put out a clear statement supporting the antiregime protesters in Iran, as we and many others spent much of last week urging. What you may not know is that the president actually changed his tune on Friday--and not just in a written statement but in a TV interview. The comments did not air on Friday, however, apparently because flatfooted journalists at CBS failed to realize their significance.

Here's the pertinent portion from the transcript of Harry Smith's interview with the president:

Smith: Let's move on to news of the day. The Ayatollah Khamenei gave his--speech today and gave his sermon. He said that the election in Iran was, in fact, legitimate. He said, quote/unquote, "the street--street demonstrations are unacceptable." Do you have a message for those people in the street?

Obama: I absolutely do. Well, first of all, let's understand that this notion that somehow these hundreds of thousands of people who are pouring into the streets in Iran are somehow responding to the West or the United States. that's an old distraction that I think has been trotted out periodically. And that's just not gonna fly.

What you're seeing in Iran are hundreds of thousands of people who believe their voices were not heard and who are peacefully protesting and--and seeking justice. And the world is watching. And we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. And, you know, already we've seen violence out there. I think I've said this throughout the week. I want to repeat it that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict, and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that's a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.

And I'm very concerned based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching. And how they approach and deal with people who are, through peaceful means, trying to be heard will, I think, send a pretty clear signal to the international community about what Iran is--and is not.

But the last point I want to make on this--this is not an issue of the United States or the West versus Iran. This is an issue of the Iranian people. The fact that they are on the streets under pretty severe duress, at great risk to themselves, is a sign that there's something in that society that wants to open up.

As HotAir.com's "Allahpundit" notes, however, the two paragraphs we've put in bold above were cut from the interview excerpts aired on the "CBS Evening News." Thus Katie Couric's viewers did not hear the president say publicly for the first time that "we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way" and that "there's something in that society that wants to open up."

They heard, instead, the familiar refrains: "We respect Iran's sovereignty," and, "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States." Somehow CBS found this week-old mush more newsworthy than Obama's first clear statement of support for the Iranians.

The White House appears to have wanted to make news with Obama's new toughness. The "CBS Evening News" airs at 6:30 ET, and the interview excerpts led Friday's broadcast. At 6:48--after the segment had aired but before the broadcast was complete--the White House blog posted the full exchange under the title "The President on Iran: 'The World Is Watching.' "

This does not seem to have drawn much notice--who knew the White House had a blog?--and on Saturday the White House press secretary's office issued the written statement reiterating the points that had ended up on CBS's cutting room floor:

Quote:
The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said--"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples' [sic] belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.


This was widely reported. Obama got his message out, albeit a day late. But CBS could have reported it on Friday, and it would have had a big scoop. How could the network have missed it?

Taranto offers his thoughts on why which contain a hilarious reference to the hard nosed reporting of CBS White House correspondent John Knoller and his resemblance to "American journalism's crazy old aunt in the attic."

If you're interested check out

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB124568712609137571.html
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:33 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Thats fine, I hope you are right, but maybe someday somebody will explain why Obama wants a "civilian national security force that is just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded as the military." I did not say that. Obama did. As I said, carry on, but if anyone can answer the question, please try it.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:37 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I wonder if those who applauded the reserve shown by a written vs oral statement now consider they have less to praise him for than they previously thought? Smile

Did anyone really applaud the reserve shown by a written statement? Perhaps I missed it. You were the only one I read that seemed to place importance on how the statement was delivered. Not to pick a fight with you -- I'm pretty much in agreement with you except that I don't care how the statement was delivered. (One twitterer reported that state tv had shown Obama speaking his earlier statement but dubbed over an incorrect translation to the effect of "I support the protesters".) I thought the basic argument was whether he should have used harsher language and condemned the regime.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 12:48 pm
Here is more from Taranto. Exceprted from his June 17th column

Quote:
'Those Palestinian Animals'

The Jerusalem Post reports that some Iranian dissidents claim the Tehran regime has imported Palestinian terrorists to help crush the opposition:

"The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of," the young man went on, "is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots."

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.
On Monday, he said, "my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people's money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too."

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad "tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel." His hope, he added, was that Israel would "come to its senses" and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.

The Post includes an apposite disclaimer: "Amid the violence, confusion and government restrictions on communication, the accuracy of conflicting accounts is hard to ascertain." But certainly these claims are no less credible than Roger Cohen's "reports" about happy Iranian Jews.


Assuming the regime has imported Hamas thugs into Tehran to break Iranian bones, this along with indisputable involvement of the Baseej goes to what I believe is Setanta's point on the chances of these demonstrations developing into a full scale revolution.

In order for an Iranian revolution to have any chance of success would require to some extent, the defection of the Iranian army to the ranks of the revolutionaries.

Dictators always need worry how their troops (drawn from the general poulace) will react to firing on their fellow citizens.

No such fear with the Baseej and Hamas whose basic human nature, prior to associating with either group, was cruel and even murderous thuggery.

These demonstrations are what the Baseej live for. They can't possibly get their sadistic fill from beating the "immoral" during less uproarious times, and so I'm sure they are now just having an absolute ball. That their brutality ingratiates them with their masters in the regime only sweetens the task.

With them, effectively, doing all of the regime's dirty work, the need to test the military's loyalty vs its humanity will never arise.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:04 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
The people really can't stop now. There's no turning back.


I don't know that i agree with that. The protesters are not a monolith. There is no reason to assume that they are all motivated by a single idea, or are pursuing a single agenda. Some of them may simply be "wild in the streets." Others, inclulding those responding to some political opposition organization, may be intent on sending a message to the theocracy that they will accept just so much, and no more.

I think it is far too soon to assume that there is a genuine revolutionary movement. I also don't think that, right now, a revolution has a hope in hell.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:27 pm
@George,
I am on the side of those protesting for the rights, but the video is a little sketchy.

My trip to Iraq and treating casualties for more than a year taught me this: a GSW to the lungs usually results in frothy spray only if the person lives long enough aspirate the blood. Arterial bleeding would spray the blood outward, or out of an exit wound. The theatrical blood "pouring" out of the mouth and nose is unlikely, judging from her supine position and supposed loss of conciousness. If it hit a vein, it is possible that she bled out internally, and then the pressure on her chest from her family/friends pushed the blood out, but this seems unlikely.

From a physiological standpoint, I am skeptical about the authenticity of this video. If it is genuine, it is horrid and I feel for her family/friends, as should any other compassionate person. However, this video, for better or worse, is part of the political process now, and should be examined with an impartial eye for accuracy and unemotional analysis. If she was shot, unarmed and causing no threat, it was murder, and those responsible should be punished accordingly.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Jun, 2009 01:33 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
The people really can't stop now. There's no turning back.


I don't know that i agree with that. The protesters are not a monolith. There is no reason to assume that they are all motivated by a single idea, or are pursuing a single agenda. Some of them may simply be "wild in the streets." Others, inclulding those responding to some political opposition organization, may be intent on sending a message to the theocracy that they will accept just so much, and no more.


Sure. But all of them are vulnerable to retribution if the current regime remains unchanged. There have already been thousands of arrests. The university of Tehran has been attacked by Basij. Tell me you don't think things would be worse for the people who participated if the regime and its bullies smell victory.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 11:57:38