AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

I am sure that you wont respond to this, Revel, since you are probably also a gutless coward that either can't or won't attempt to answer, but read the following FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, NO LESS and then have the guts to write again----WE HAD THE SUPREME COURT.

Are you a non reader? Are you someone who only reads MoveOn.Org?

I am sure that you do not think that the New York Times is a RIGHT WING ORGAN?

Note:

NYTimes
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER
Published: Monday, November 12, 2001

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ? filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.

Thus the most thorough examination of Florida's uncounted ballots provides ammunition for both sides in what remains the most disputed and mystifying presidential election in modern times. It illuminates in detail the weaknesses of Florida's system that prevented many from voting as they intended to. But it also provides support for the result that county election officials and the courts ultimately arrived at a Bush victory by the tiniest of margins.
*********************************************************

Read it, Revel, but make sure you stay ensconced in your ignorance!

They should have allowed the count to be continued to be counted so that everybody would have known for sure rather than having the supreme court interfere and decide for themselves. People can predict all kinds of things, but they could be wrong or bias, 'close examination' or no.

There is a protest rally scheduled for today, despite the Supreme Leader's
demanding an end to demonstrations. Iranian state TV says the rallies are
canceled; others say they will go on with them anyway.

If the protests go forward, they will almost certainly be put down with force.

In any case it seems that quite a few republican statesment agree with Obama's measured response to the Irainian election situation. Including Kissenger.

Kissinger: Obama is handling the situation in Iran well.

You have to admire their willingness to die for something they believe in.

I hope this doesn't come off as patronizing, but I am amazed at how many of
the protesters are women, and at their courage.

I wasn't sure the demonstrations would continue beyond the recent warnings that the regime had had enough and meant business when it ordered them to cease.

Obviously they have, and this suggests a degree of organization that presents a real threat to the regime. There is now a real possibility of significant change, but I continue to believe there is better chance that there will be a crushing crackdown with a lot more bloodshed and even a purging within the regime.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528004,00.html

Ten additional deaths could have been expected whether these demonstrations were isolated expressions of anger or part of an organized rebellion. However the fact that the daughter and four other relatives of ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani have been arrested is significant sign.



Unfortunately this was expected as well. Even if the demonstrations were to cease entirely, retributional actions by the regime will continue. The Supreme Leader is not going to want to give another chance to the people who have stepped forth and revealed themselves capable of rebellion.

Initially the knowledge that all will not be forgiven if the demonstrations cease will likely stiffen the resolve of the opposition, and, unfortunately, increase the level of violent retribution. If they have not already done so, the opposition may be reaching a point of no return.

The possibility, of course, exists that at some point there will be a political resolution of this crisis and that the regime will offer some level of reforms in exchange for an end to civil unrest.

I don't think this will happen though. While the Islamic Revolution that ousted the Shah is already 30 years old, it remains vital. Khameni is only the second Supreme Leader and was the successor of the iconic Khomeni. There are no signs that the zeal of the Revolutionary Guard has diminished as its military and political power has grown and so we are talking about a regime that has not experienced generational changes or diminished fervor for power. This is not the tired and complacent Soviet empire.

Meanwhile President Obama finally stepped up the rhetoric, however he chose to do it in written statement:



http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-Iran/

Much better than prior statements but it would have been much better still if he had used his considerable oratory skills and made these comments in a speech that could have been downloaded and sent throughout Iran via cell phone.

I was struck by the contrast in these two photos.

The first photo is similar to ones taken of any number of other demonstrations on any number of other issues; in any number of places in the world.

The difference between this demonstration and virtually any other held in the West, is that these protestors actually face being subject to the brutality depicted in the second photo.

With the Iranian's regime efforts to shut down all news coverage of the demonstrations, there aren't a whole lot of photos available, and I think I may have found everyone that can be accessed via the internet. I was also struck by the fact that except in those photos where protestors are bravely confronting their assailants, there is very little anger expressed on the faces of the demonstrators. Too small a sample to render this anything but an impression.

Is that why Obama's poll numbers are dropping?

Actually, is the following photo what Obama has in mind for his "National Security Force," that will be "just as strong, just as powerful, and just as well funded as the military?" After all, what else would Obama have in mind for such a thing? Maybe he could learn how they do it in Iran?

Hes not doing his job with his eye to his poll numbers. Least I hope hes not.

As far as your terminal comment, WHY NOT? Your clan seems to be leaderless so any comment you pull out of your ass may have legs.
Whats happened to Obama stealing all our guns?? I see that ammo manufacturers are keeping this one alive.

I hear that Obama will take our first born children for a NATIONAL YOUT' SERVICE.

Would a rally of such an organization look something like this, farmerman?



Or would it be more like this?

I post the following article, which proves talking nice does nothing, accomplishes nothing, and although I agree the Iranian policy is a failure, reading the details of the article reveals their reasons are different than mine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html?_r=1

"Have We Already Lost Iran?
By FLYNT LEVERETT and HILLARY MANN LEVERETT
Published: May 23, 2009
Washington

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S Iran policy has, in all likelihood, already failed. On its present course, the White House’s approach will not stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear fuel program " or, as Iran’s successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran " a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

This judgment may seem both premature and overly severe. We do not make it happily. We voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and we still want him to succeed in reversing the deterioration in America’s strategic position. But we also believe that successful diplomacy with Iran is essential to that end. Unless President Obama and his national security team take a fundamentally different approach to Tehran, they will not achieve a breakthrough.

...."

I once read a book, written by a Catholic priest about the Holocaust. His point, that sticks in my mind, was that Jews are a bellwether for humanity. When someone threatens Jews they do not stop there.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but there are actually some Obama supporters who are claiming that his extending his hand to Iran has been a success so far.

Okie-FOR THE FIRST TIME, Rasmussen Reports shows that Obama's ratings are in negative territory.

Note:

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama (see trends).

Sixty percent (60%) of Democrats Strongly Approve of the President’s performance but only 8% of Republicans share that view. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove.
********************************************************
NOTE--THE PRESIDENT'S LOWEST RATING TO DATE AND THE FIRST TIME THE PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL INDEX HAS FALLEN BELOW ZERO FOR OBAMA....For additional details log into Rasmussen Reports.

The American people are catching on-Okie!!!! They know he is a fraud!!!

As for Farmerman sluffing off the attention a president places on polls, I maintain that Farmerman knows little about the attention presidents put on polls.

Note HOW CLOSELY CLINTON FOLLOWED POLLS---

quote from "Shadow" by Bob Woodward( no conservative--rather liberal)

P. 336

"At one point Clinton said that as a practical matter the country didn't have elections any more. What they had were photographs of public opinion polls, a kind of over-the-counter market quotation of the polls in an ongoing partisan war that would last all four years. BUT THE NUMBERS IN THOSE POLLS WERE THE MOST IMPORTANT NUMBERS IN THE WORLD FOR CLINTON>"
****************************************

And, despite Farmerman's erroneous statement, also for OBAMA>

What do you wish to do,? This election isnt about US. Ahmedinejad voiced a positive view toward the election of Obama as one that Iran could possibly work with. We should be trying to build and mend relationships with Iran , as such, Obamas handling of the situation is as correct as it could be.

Are we supposed to be proud of this?

BTW, it's Ahmadinejad

I'm not talking about Ahmedinejad in particular, since I simply don't know enough about him to decide, but, generally, there are some national rulers to whom extending a hand of friendship is not the right tactic, because they are the sorts of people who will continue to do bad things no matter how we approach them.

EDIT: this is a response to Waterboy.

God, what an idiot. No one said to be proud of it, just to maintain a realistic attitude--something which seems to be nearly impossible for the conservative bottom feeders.

As for how to spell Ahmedinejad, if someone wants to spell it with two "e-s" rather than three "a-s", so what? The name is being translated from a different alphabet, dipshit.

This is a response to setanass.

Piss off!