# Iranians Shrug Off Obama - America Soon To Follow?



## Sinatra

I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.

It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.

So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.

And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.

The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.

And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.

The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.

Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp


----------



## Nik

Sinatra said:


> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp



Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
Click to expand...


this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
Click to expand...


Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
Click to expand...


Didn't mean to commit blasphemy.  I apologize.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to commit blasphemy.  I apologize.
Click to expand...


Retard.


----------



## Sinatra

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
Click to expand...



FYI:  Stupider is not a word...


----------



## Nik

Sinatra said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:  Stupider is not a word...
Click to expand...


stupider definition | Dictionary.com

stu·pid   (st&#333;&#333;'p&#301;d, sty&#333;&#333;'-)   
adj.   *stu·pid·er*, stu·pid·est

   1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
   2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
   3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
   4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
   5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

n.  A stupid or foolish person.


----------



## del

Sinatra said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:  Stupider is not a word...
Click to expand...


yes it is. the more stupid among us use it frequently. 
it's not preferred usage, however.


----------



## Sinatra

del said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FYI:  Stupider is not a word...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yes it is. the more stupid among us use it frequently*.
> it's not preferred usage, however.
Click to expand...





I stand corrected!

Yes, not preferred usage - the two or more syllable rule, which does get a bit murky...


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp




,,,


----------



## Metternich

Didn't take long for this to get pulled off-topic, did it?

Well, all I have to say, is that the elections may or may not have been fair. Either way, Obama Generic Speech #04 isn't going to change anything. 

Oh, the election was rigged - Iran has some civil issues - so Obama gives a speech and nothing happens.

Oh, the election wasn't rigged - Iran has some global issues - so Obama gives a speech and nothing happens.

See, that's the problem I have with the OP. There's nothing to discuss; unless we want to discuss the pro/con's of Obama's charisma in the face of people who care about their country.


----------



## Indiana Oracle

As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.

The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.


----------



## Sinatra

Indiana Oracle said:


> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.



What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.

The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.

What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.

Obama failed - BIG TIME.


----------



## Nik

Sinatra said:


> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
Click to expand...


So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?


----------



## oreo

Yeah here is the article.  I must admit--I didn't think it would be this bad of a whopping.  It looks like it remains the same in Iran.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090612/ts_nm/us_iran_election_30

TEHRAN (Reuters) &#8211; Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won re-election by a thumping margin, official figures showed Saturday, but his moderate challenger rejected the tally as a "dangerous charade" that could lead to tyranny.

The scale of Ahmadinejad's victory -- he took nearly twice as many votes as former Prime Minister Mirhossein Mousavi with counting almost complete after Friday's poll -- upset widespread expectations that the race would at least go to a second round.

Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said Ahmadinejad won 62.6 percent of the vote and Mousavi 33.75 percent. Turnout was a record 85 percent of eligible voters.

Mousavi protested against what he said were many obvious violations.

"I'm warning I will not surrender to this dangerous charade. The result of such performance by some officials will jeopardize the pillars of the Islamic Republic and will establish tyranny," Mousavi said in a statement made available to Reuters.

He had been due to hold a news conference, but police at the building turned journalists away, saying it was canceled.

Iranian and Western analysts abroad greeted the results with disbelief. They said Ahmadinejad's re-election would disappoint Western powers aiming to convince Iran to halt work they suspect is aimed at making bombs, and could further complicate efforts by U.S. President Barack Obama to reach out to Tehran.

"It doesn't augur well for an early and peaceful settlement of the nuclear dispute," said Mark Fitzpatrick at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies.

A bitterly fought campaign generated strong interest around the world and intense excitement inside Iran. It revealed deep divisions among establishment figures between those backing Ahmadinejad and those pushing for social and political change.

Ahmadinejad accused his rivals of undermining the Islamic Republic by advocating detente with the West. Mousavi said the president's "extremist" foreign policy had humiliated Iranians.

Friday night, before official results emerged, Mousavi had claimed to be the "definite winner." He said many people had been unable to vote and ballot papers were lacking.

He also accused authorities of blocking text messaging, with which his campaign tried to reach young, urban voters.


----------



## Soaring

It's impossible to have a fair election in any country these days.  There are just too many ways to cheat that can go unchecked.  Iran has not been a democratic state since the Shah was ousted back in the late 70's, so why is anyone surprised that the radicals won this election?


----------



## Sinatra

Soaring said:


> It's impossible to have a fair election in any country these days.  There are just too many ways to cheat that can go unchecked.  Iran has not been a democratic state since the Shah was ousted back in the late 70's, *so why is anyone surprised that the radicals won this election*?




The Obama White House is.

And now, how much covert money and manpower is going to be spent to try and get some form of actual revolution in Iran so the American President can save face?

Happening as we post - of that you can be certain...


----------



## L.K.Eder

Sinatra said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a fair election in any country these days.  There are just too many ways to cheat that can go unchecked.  Iran has not been a democratic state since the Shah was ousted back in the late 70's, *so why is anyone surprised that the radicals won this election*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama White House is.
> 
> And now, how much covert money and manpower is going to be spent to try and get some form of actual revolution in Iran so the American President can save face?
> 
> Happening as we post - of that you can be certain...
Click to expand...


why don't you start another thread about this mysterious evil-doer postman or something.


----------



## Soaring

L.K.Eder said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a fair election in any country these days.  There are just too many ways to cheat that can go unchecked.  Iran has not been a democratic state since the Shah was ousted back in the late 70's, *so why is anyone surprised that the radicals won this election*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama White House is.
> 
> And now, how much covert money and manpower is going to be spent to try and get some form of actual revolution in Iran so the American President can save face?
> 
> Happening as we post - of that you can be certain...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why don't you start another thread about this mysterious evil-doer postman or something.
Click to expand...

Hey, L.K., do you have something to add to this thread?    I know you do, but you just don't seem to know how to say what you think.  We are not talking about a mysterious evil-doer postman. Where in hell did you come up with that idea?  We are talking about the recent election of the Iranian president.  Get back on task youngun. )


----------



## L.K.Eder

i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.

i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.


----------



## brownlou

Protests erupt in Iranian capital | Video | Reuters.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXCnaFOmcho]YouTube - Iranians protest against Ahmadinejad, plz send this to everyone. reformists aljazeera al jazeera[/ame]

These people look plenty pissed off at the election results.
I don't know if the second video is authentic. 

It looks to me like these Iranians want change for sure.


----------



## Sinatra

brownlou said:


> Protests erupt in Iranian capital | Video | Reuters.com
> 
> YouTube - Iranians protest against Ahmadinejad, plz send this to everyone. reformists aljazeera al jazeera
> 
> These people look plenty pissed off at the election results.
> I don't know if the second video is authentic.
> 
> It looks to me like these Iranians want change for sure.




Absolutely they do.  Sadly, it appears they are a minority.

The hardliners remain in charge.

On a related side note, the Israeli contempt for Obama has likely increased with these results - Obama comes off looking very weak and uncertain - to say nothing of completely naive.

Carter Part II indeed...


----------



## toomuchtime_

Sinatra said:


> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protests erupt in Iranian capital | Video | Reuters.com
> 
> YouTube - Iranians protest against Ahmadinejad, plz send this to everyone. reformists aljazeera al jazeera
> 
> These people look plenty pissed off at the election results.
> I don't know if the second video is authentic.
> 
> It looks to me like these Iranians want change for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely they do.  Sadly, it appears they are a minority.
> 
> The hardliners remain in charge.
> 
> On a related side note, the Israeli contempt for Obama has likely increased with these results - Obama comes off looking very weak and uncertain - to say nothing of completely naive.
> 
> Carter Part II indeed...
Click to expand...


Dangerously naive.


----------



## WillowTree

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
Click to expand...


Oy another left wing iberal who loves that ACORN made sure our own elections were not free and fair.. oy indeed!


----------



## oreo

L.K.Eder said:


> i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.
> 
> i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.




Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.

Does this mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.

Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is.  And we've been dealing with middle east problems since right after WW2 which was 1945!


----------



## Sinatra

oreo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.
> 
> i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  *The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened*--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> *Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is*.
Click to expand...


Good point.

The arrogance of those posts in here mirrored the arrogance of the Obama White House regarding this issue leading up to these elections.

Obama continues to show, as someone else indicated, a dangerous naivete.

And his impotence with foreign policy mirrors his impotence with our own American economy.  (that is, unless it is his desire to further weaken said economy - for which Obama must then be deemed a much greater success...)


----------



## oreo

brownlou said:


> Protests erupt in Iranian capital | Video | Reuters.com
> 
> YouTube - Iranians protest against Ahmadinejad, plz send this to everyone. reformists aljazeera al jazeera
> 
> These people look plenty pissed off at the election results.
> I don't know if the second video is authentic.
> 
> It looks to me like these Iranians want change for sure.



Yes--the younger generation in Iran have wanted a change for decades now.  It's too bad really--because they are educated young people--& yet there are so many hard-liners still in power it's almost impossible to get rid of them.  Hopefully--the young won't do what they have done in the past.  They got so hopeless they wouldn't even vote.

This is the first time ever they got to witness a public televised debate between political parties.  Can you believe it?


----------



## JW Frogen

Promises of coninued economic and social stagnation along with possible nuclear war are always vote winners.

Rigged. 

The morose mullahs still control this country that is why they are so afraid of a successful real democracy, the one emerging next store, Iraq.


----------



## Vel

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.*
Click to expand...




Hmm.. Who possibly thinks that the election was "free and fair"? Obama paid 700 million dollars for the Whitehouse so it certainly wasn't free and given the biased press and Black Panthers with billy clubs hanging out at polling places, I'm not sure we can say it was fair either


----------



## oreo

Sinatra said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.
> 
> i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  *The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened*--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> *Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> The arrogance of those posts in here mirrored the arrogance of the Obama White House regarding this issue leading up to these elections.
> 
> Obama continues to show, as someone else indicated, a dangerous naivete.
> 
> And his impotence with foreign policy mirrors his impotence with our own American economy.  (that is, unless it is his desire to further weaken said economy - for which Obama must then be deemed a much greater success...)
Click to expand...



Yes--Obama has been giving the cold shoulder to Isreal.  Netenyaho--boy the tension when he met Obama at the White House was unbelievable.  I don't know if you saw that look Netenyaho gave Obama but it wasn't good.

I think it was the leading up to the recent speech Obama gave to the Arab world.  He probably didn't want to seem to friendly to Isreal.  He needs to get real friendly with them now.


----------



## rhodescholar

Nik said:


> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.



Obama successes:
- foiled somalian pirates by providing military option to Navy

Obama failures:
- North Korea launches missile, Obama says UN will take "strong action," nothing happened
- Obama shows no leadership as Pelosi damages relationship between clandestine services and elected government - he opened this can of worms by agreeing to allow for the Bush admin's lawyers to be investigated...not too smart a move...
- Obama asks Europeans to increase stimulus spending, they say "no"
- Obama asks Europeans for more NATO troops to be sent to Afghanistan, they say "no"
- Obama administration rolls over decades of past legal doctrine, destroys creditor value as it mid-wifes the Chrysler marriage to Fiat
- Obama makes speech in Egypt to "soothe" arab street, and pressures Israel to make potentially dangerous geographical sacrifices

So far, Obama hasn't accomplished a hell of a whole lot in his time in office.


----------



## oreo

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?
Click to expand...

  The article on the original of this thread--states that the majority for Wassawi came around the capital of Tehran--the outlying areas came in heavily for Amenajenadad.

The point is who knows?  Really this is the first time in years that the younger generation in Iran has actually taken the time to vote.  They have been so discouraged by the Mullahs--that they really got excited about watching the first televised debate EVER.  They came out for this one, but it sure doesn't look like they were successful.  

At 63% of the vote--it's going to be very difficult to prove voter fraud.   If it was much closer it might be worth taking a second look at.


----------



## Xenophon

Bo has zero influence in Iranian elections.

The young people have wanted change for 50 years, the last revolution was co-opted by the religious nuts.

I said in a different thread Imadingyslob would win, it was pre ordained, anyone that follows the doings of religious fanatics knew it would be so.

It was ludicrous of Kirkybot to start that tread claiming obama was 'changing things' in the middle east, he hasn't changed a thing and won't, the ME is not a problem for the US to solve.


----------



## rayboyusmc

> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.



So now the right is so impressed with Aminadork, they believe it was a fair election.  What a bunch of bullshit.  They were hand counted ballots and they had the results in hours.

As to the messiah etc shit, it is only the right who uses these terms.

You lost this election. Live with it.  You won with Bush and now we are still living with the disaster you voted in.

Damn, when the right supports the Ayatollahs and Amin.


What about Lebanon?


----------



## Bfgrn

Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...

You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...

Please provide a valid link...


----------



## Nik

Vel6377 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. Who possibly thinks that the election was "free and fair"? Obama paid 700 million dollars for the Whitehouse so it certainly wasn't free and given the biased press and Black Panthers with billy clubs hanging out at polling places, I'm not sure we can say it was fair either
Click to expand...


Are you claiming the US election was rigged?


----------



## Toro

Sinatra said:


> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp



You can't be serious.

Let's go around the world and adjudge all elections, far or foul, as referenda on Obama.  

Talk about inward-looking, narcissistic, America-centered myopic claptrap.


----------



## Red Dawn

Sinatra said:


> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the *now-crumbling* foundation of the Obama administration.







Obama's disapproval rating is around around 28 or 29%.  The same level Bush's approval rating was when he left office. 

Why is it that the same people who think Obama is an abysmall failure, are also _the exact same people _who thought george bush was doing a great job.  You voted for bush twice, you tell me why that is.


----------



## Metternich

Toro said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious.
> 
> Let's go around the world and adjudge all elections, far or foul, as referenda on Obama.
> 
> Talk about inward-looking, narcissistic, America-centered myopic claptrap.
Click to expand...


Let's take out Proper Nouns, and see if it is not you who is generally unable to percieve the world as it is, because it is too American.

It's an election year, in two country's, one has more troops in two next door countries (one literally, next door) then the rest of the world has deployed since Korea, and has spent more on a third country then most European countries have in GDP per year.  

That first country has also had a "change" election in which a canidate rides into office promising change, end to corruption, ect... 

The second country's Prime Minister has also made it a referendum on himself - he is famous for getting in fronT of nations C-Z denouncing country A. 

Tell me, why would you think country B cares about what country A feels? Would that affect how they vote? If not, why so?

Anyhow, thanks for playing - run away now.


----------



## MaggieMae

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
Click to expand...


And even more retards who hate Obama so much that they appear to be supporting enemies now. Why are they gleeful over another four years of Achmedinijad? Sick, sick, sick.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
Click to expand...


The only ones who thought he _SHOULD_ perform miracles, and who therefore labeled him The Messiah, are the fringers, like you. When was the last time a president was successful in changing the geopolitical face of any Muslim country? But suddenly the fact that Obama can't "micraculously" do it, earns another strike against him. Are you idiots for real?


----------



## Meister

MaggieMae said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even more retards who hate Obama so much that they appear to be supporting enemies now. Why are they gleeful over another four years of Achmedinijad? Sick, sick, sick.
Click to expand...


I don't understand that at all.  Achmedinijad may be the most dangerous person in the world including that N. Korea nutjob.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
Click to expand...


By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.

Obama&#8217;s speech: A boost to moderates in Iran&#8217;s election? | csmonitor.com
*Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only ones who thought he _SHOULD_ perform miracles, and who therefore labeled him The Messiah, are the fringers, like you. When was the last time a president was successful in changing the geopolitical face of any Muslim country? But suddenly the fact that Obama can't "micraculously" do it, earns another strike against him. Are you idiots for real?
Click to expand...


Obama has zero influence on Iran's or any other country's elections.  The sooner people like chris and Nik accept that reality, the better.  If the Messiah comment is so outrageous, explain why people were fainting at his rallies.


----------



## MaggieMae

Indiana Oracle said:


> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.



*Sure you would. *


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.
> 
> Obamas speech: A boost to moderates in Irans election? | csmonitor.com
> *Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*
Click to expand...


no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones who thought he _SHOULD_ perform miracles, and who therefore labeled him The Messiah, are the fringers, like you. When was the last time a president was successful in changing the geopolitical face of any Muslim country? But suddenly the fact that Obama can't "micraculously" do it, earns another strike against him. Are you idiots for real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has zero influence on Iran's or any other country's elections.  The sooner people like chris and Nik accept that reality, the better.  If the Messiah comment is so outrageous, explain why people were fainting at his rallies.
Click to expand...


So nobody votes based on foreign policy?  You are really, really stupid dude.  Outrageously so, even.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.
> 
> Obamas speech: A boost to moderates in Irans election? | csmonitor.com
> *Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
Click to expand...


Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
Click to expand...


Translation: I didn't pay attention to his speech, I never do, nor do any in my club, so that must mean that "very few" do.

Gotcha.


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And even more retards who hate Obama so much that they appear to be supporting enemies now. Why are they gleeful over another four years of Achmedinijad? Sick, sick, sick.
Click to expand...


Isn't this what you liberals accused the right of doing?  so now anyone who hates Obama is supporting our enemies?  You are a bigger bitch than I thought.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones who thought he _SHOULD_ perform miracles, and who therefore labeled him The Messiah, are the fringers, like you. When was the last time a president was successful in changing the geopolitical face of any Muslim country? But suddenly the fact that Obama can't "micraculously" do it, earns another strike against him. Are you idiots for real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has zero influence on Iran's or any other country's elections.  The sooner people like chris and Nik accept that reality, the better.  If the Messiah comment is so outrageous, explain why people were fainting at his rallies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So nobody votes based on foreign policy?  You are really, really stupid dude.  Outrageously so, even.
Click to expand...

They don't vote based on another country's leader, you fucking invalid.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even more retards who hate Obama so much that they appear to be supporting enemies now. Why are they gleeful over another four years of Achmedinijad? Sick, sick, sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't this what you liberals accused the right of doing?  so now anyone who hates Obama is supporting our enemies?  You are a bigger bitch than I thought.
Click to expand...


I think it was less the "hating Obama" and the more going around the board gleefully proclaiming Ahmadinejads victory part which made her think that.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has zero influence on Iran's or any other country's elections.  The sooner people like chris and Nik accept that reality, the better.  If the Messiah comment is so outrageous, explain why people were fainting at his rallies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So nobody votes based on foreign policy?  You are really, really stupid dude.  Outrageously so, even.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They don't vote based on another country's leader, you fucking invalid.
Click to expand...


Really?  Why not?  You don't think that maybe, just maybe, if another country demonizes you, you might vote for the individual who demonizes the other country back?  Is that so incredibly absurd to you?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even more retards who hate Obama so much that they appear to be supporting enemies now. Why are they gleeful over another four years of Achmedinijad? Sick, sick, sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this what you liberals accused the right of doing?  so now anyone who hates Obama is supporting our enemies?  You are a bigger bitch than I thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it was less the "hating Obama" and the more going around the board gleefully proclaiming Ahmadinejads victory part which made her think that.
Click to expand...


Show us who did that, prodigy.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't this what you liberals accused the right of doing?  so now anyone who hates Obama is supporting our enemies?  You are a bigger bitch than I thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was less the "hating Obama" and the more going around the board gleefully proclaiming Ahmadinejads victory part which made her think that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show us who did that, prodigy.
Click to expand...


Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win


----------



## MaggieMae

Question: Was there this much discussion last week when the people of Lebanon voted against Hezbollah, which Iran directly controls? Of course not. It's so much easier to lambaste the U.S. President over the reelection of the hardliner in Iran, isn't it...

This entire topic, on this message board, has nothing to do with Iran. It has everything to do with the pure unadulterated hatred of Barack Obama. 

_*Suggestion to Gunny, et al.*_ How about a new topic called *HATE OBAMA? POST THOUGHTS HERE.* That way, there would be no confusion over who supports what ISSUES because the topic would not be issue-oriented.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was less the "hating Obama" and the more going around the board gleefully proclaiming Ahmadinejads victory part which made her think that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us who did that, prodigy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
Click to expand...


An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> Question: Was there this much discussion last week when the people of Lebanon voted against Hezbollah, which Iran directly controls? Of course not. It's so much easier to lambaste the U.S. President over the reelection of the hardliner in Iran, isn't it...
> 
> This entire topic, on this message board, has nothing to do with Iran. It has everything to do with the pure unadulterated hatred of Barack Obama.
> 
> _*Suggestion to Gunny, et al.*_ How about a new topic called *HATE OBAMA? POST THOUGHTS HERE.* That way, there would be no confusion over who supports what ISSUES because the topic would not be issue-oriented.



No, it has everything to do with your unadulterated worship of Obama.  His message HAD to have resonated with the country.  Therefore when A-jad won, since Obama's messianic speeches should have been the difference in the election, the election must have been stolen.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us who did that, prodigy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
Click to expand...


You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.

And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?


----------



## Nik

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So nobody votes based on foreign policy?  You are really, really stupid dude.  Outrageously so, even.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't vote based on another country's leader, you fucking invalid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Why not?  You don't think that maybe, just maybe, if another country demonizes you, you might vote for the individual who demonizes the other country back?  Is that so incredibly absurd to you?
Click to expand...


Gonna respond to this Elvis?  Or does it not fit in your worldview, so your just gonna wish it away?


----------



## MaggieMae

Soaring said:


> It's impossible to have a fair election in any country these days.  There are just too many ways to cheat that can go unchecked.  Iran has not been a democratic state since the Shah was ousted back in the late 70's, so why is anyone surprised that the radicals won this election?



I'm sure not surprised. I would have been surprised had it gone any differently. For one thing, Iran does not allow international election monitors, which would have never allowed votes to be inserted into plastic containers held together with clothespins.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Was there this much discussion last week when the people of Lebanon voted against Hezbollah, which Iran directly controls? Of course not. It's so much easier to lambaste the U.S. President over the reelection of the hardliner in Iran, isn't it...
> 
> This entire topic, on this message board, has nothing to do with Iran. It has everything to do with the pure unadulterated hatred of Barack Obama.
> 
> _*Suggestion to Gunny, et al.*_ How about a new topic called *HATE OBAMA? POST THOUGHTS HERE.* That way, there would be no confusion over who supports what ISSUES because the topic would not be issue-oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has everything to do with your unadulterated worship of Obama.  His message HAD to have resonated with the country.  Therefore when A-jad won, since Obama's messianic speeches should have been the difference in the election, the election must have been stolen.
Click to expand...


Who said his message HAD to have resonated with the country?  Care to quote someone on that?


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Soaring said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to have a fair election in any country these days.  There are just too many ways to cheat that can go unchecked.  Iran has not been a democratic state since the Shah was ousted back in the late 70's, *so why is anyone surprised that the radicals won this election*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama White House is.
> 
> And now, how much covert money and manpower is going to be spent to try and get some form of actual revolution in Iran so the American President can save face?
> 
> Happening as we post - of that you can be certain...
Click to expand...


Yes, you said so. It *must* be true.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Was there this much discussion last week when the people of Lebanon voted against Hezbollah, which Iran directly controls? Of course not. It's so much easier to lambaste the U.S. President over the reelection of the hardliner in Iran, isn't it...
> 
> This entire topic, on this message board, has nothing to do with Iran. It has everything to do with the pure unadulterated hatred of Barack Obama.
> 
> _*Suggestion to Gunny, et al.*_ How about a new topic called *HATE OBAMA? POST THOUGHTS HERE.* That way, there would be no confusion over who supports what ISSUES because the topic would not be issue-oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has everything to do with your unadulterated worship of Obama.  His message HAD to have resonated with the country.  Therefore when A-jad won, since Obama's messianic speeches should have been the difference in the election, the election must have been stolen.
Click to expand...


The election was stolen because there are reams and reams of evidence that the election was stolen.  Or don't you know how to read?


----------



## Full-Auto

You cite a hit piece has proof?

Hilarious.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
Click to expand...


OK, you win.  TWO fucking people said it.  We should believe now that more than ONE percent of those who don't worship Obama like you do are supporting our enemies.  
You daft ****.


----------



## Nik

Full-Auto said:


> You cite a hit piece has proof?
> 
> Hilarious.



Oh?  If you disagree with it, please do explain exactly whats wrong with it.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Was there this much discussion last week when the people of Lebanon voted against Hezbollah, which Iran directly controls? Of course not. It's so much easier to lambaste the U.S. President over the reelection of the hardliner in Iran, isn't it...
> 
> This entire topic, on this message board, has nothing to do with Iran. It has everything to do with the pure unadulterated hatred of Barack Obama.
> 
> _*Suggestion to Gunny, et al.*_ How about a new topic called *HATE OBAMA? POST THOUGHTS HERE.* That way, there would be no confusion over who supports what ISSUES because the topic would not be issue-oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has everything to do with your unadulterated worship of Obama.  His message HAD to have resonated with the country.  Therefore when A-jad won, since Obama's messianic speeches should have been the difference in the election, the election must have been stolen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The election was stolen because there are reams and reams of evidence that the election was stolen.  Or don't you know how to read?
Click to expand...


Fuck off asshole.  You thought it was stolen the minute it looked like A-jad wouldn't win.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, you win.  TWO fucking people said it.  We should believe now that more than ONE percent of those who don't worship Obama like you do are supporting our enemies.
> You daft ****.
Click to expand...


Oh, I'm sure its not a ton.  But it is sad that well known right-wingers are supporting enemies of the US.  Shows how sad you pathetic fucks have fallen.  

Its obvious that, sadly, you have Obama derangement syndrome.  Might want to go visit a doctor there, skippy.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has everything to do with your unadulterated worship of Obama.  His message HAD to have resonated with the country.  Therefore when A-jad won, since Obama's messianic speeches should have been the difference in the election, the election must have been stolen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The election was stolen because there are reams and reams of evidence that the election was stolen.  Or don't you know how to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck off asshole.  You thought it was stolen the minute it looked like A-jad wouldn't win.
Click to expand...


Really?  Is that why I said many, many times that it was unclear what happened and that it MAY have been stolen until i saw what was, to me, enough evidence to conclude that?


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> brownlou said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protests erupt in Iranian capital | Video | Reuters.com
> 
> YouTube - Iranians protest against Ahmadinejad, plz send this to everyone. reformists aljazeera al jazeera
> 
> These people look plenty pissed off at the election results.
> I don't know if the second video is authentic.
> 
> It looks to me like these Iranians want change for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely they do.  Sadly, it appears they are a minority.
> 
> The hardliners remain in charge.
> 
> On a related side note, the Israeli contempt for Obama has likely increased with these results - Obama comes off looking very weak and uncertain - to say nothing of completely naive.
> 
> Carter Part II indeed...
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, _the minority fringers_, most people _who matter _don't share that opinion.

Obama Approval High Among Muslims, Jews, and Catholics


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't vote based on another country's leader, you fucking invalid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Why not?  You don't think that maybe, just maybe, if another country demonizes you, you might vote for the individual who demonizes the other country back?  Is that so incredibly absurd to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonna respond to this Elvis?  Or does it not fit in your worldview, so your just gonna wish it away?
Click to expand...


So now Bush convinced the Iranians to vote for A-jad?  Is that what you're saying, daft ****?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Why not?  You don't think that maybe, just maybe, if another country demonizes you, you might vote for the individual who demonizes the other country back?  Is that so incredibly absurd to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna respond to this Elvis?  Or does it not fit in your worldview, so your just gonna wish it away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now Bush convinced the Iranians to vote for A-jad?  Is that what you're saying, daft ****?
Click to expand...


He didn't "convince" them, but he surely had an effect.  As I said before, it was probably marginal but it surely was there.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you win.  TWO fucking people said it.  We should believe now that more than ONE percent of those who don't worship Obama like you do are supporting our enemies.
> You daft ****.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure its not a ton.  But it is sad that well known right-wingers are supporting enemies of the US.  Shows how sad you pathetic fucks have fallen.
> 
> Its obvious that, sadly, you have Obama derangement syndrome.  Might want to go visit a doctor there, skippy.
Click to expand...


Maybe I and everyone else that doesn't bow down to him should be sent away for "political education".  I am sure you would like that, wouldn't you Adolf?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna respond to this Elvis?  Or does it not fit in your worldview, so your just gonna wish it away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now Bush convinced the Iranians to vote for A-jad?  Is that what you're saying, daft ****?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't "convince" them, but he surely had an effect.  As I said before, it was probably marginal but it surely was there.
Click to expand...


YYYYYYEah.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you win.  TWO fucking people said it.  We should believe now that more than ONE percent of those who don't worship Obama like you do are supporting our enemies.
> You daft ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure its not a ton.  But it is sad that well known right-wingers are supporting enemies of the US.  Shows how sad you pathetic fucks have fallen.
> 
> Its obvious that, sadly, you have Obama derangement syndrome.  Might want to go visit a doctor there, skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I and everyone else that doesn't bow down to him should be sent away for "political education".  I am sure you would like that, wouldn't you Adolf?
Click to expand...


What are you trying to do, prove that the internet is as fucking retarded as Godwin thought it was?

Jesus, grow the fuck up kiddo.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So now Bush convinced the Iranians to vote for A-jad?  Is that what you're saying, daft ****?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't "convince" them, but he surely had an effect.  As I said before, it was probably marginal but it surely was there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YYYYYYEah.
Click to expand...


And why do you think it didn't?


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.
> 
> i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  *The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened*--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> *Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> The arrogance of those posts in here mirrored the arrogance of the Obama White House regarding this issue leading up to these elections.
> 
> Obama continues to show, as someone else indicated, a dangerous naivete.
> 
> And his impotence with foreign policy mirrors his impotence with our own American economy.  (that is, unless it is his desire to further weaken said economy - for which Obama must then be deemed a much greater success...)
Click to expand...


Just curious where you get your information from. There is absolutely nothing anywhere that defines Obama's foreign policy as being "impotent" unless it's from one of your favorite blogs. Even FOX has his foreign policy (at last poll taken, I believe in April, as 55% approval). As for the mideast, the stories both here and abroad generally support this survey.

Poll: Obama more popular than U.S. in the Middle East | FP Passport
McClatchy reports on the Middle East's love affair with U.S. President Barack Obama:

_The poll of six Arab nations found that residents think that Obama will have a positive impact on the Middle East  a region marked by war, religious disputes, ethnic and sectarian violence  as well as on the United States and the rest of the world.

Obama scored highest in Jordan, where 58 percent of its citizens have a favorable opinion of him, 29 percent have an unfavorable view, 6 percent had no opinion and 7 percent didn't know. 

Saudi Arabians have a 53 percent favorable opinion of Obama, followed by 52 percent in the United Arab Emirates. From there, Obama's popularity dips below 50 percent with a 47 percent favorability rating in Kuwait, 43 percent in Lebanon and 35 percent in Egypt. In none of these countries, however, was Obama's unfavorable rating higher than his favorable one.

In contrast, only 38 percent of Saudis have a favorable view of the United States, followed by 36 percent of Jordanians, 34 percent of UAE residents, 31 percent of Lebanese and 22 percent of Egyptians._


----------



## MaggieMae

Vel6377 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. Who possibly thinks that the election was "free and fair"? Obama paid 700 million dollars for the Whitehouse so it certainly wasn't free and given the biased press and Black Panthers with billy clubs hanging out at polling places, I'm not sure we can say it was fair either
Click to expand...


 Romney had already paid $50 million out of his own pocket just to win Iowa, a year before the election. Your point is fucking MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure its not a ton.  But it is sad that well known right-wingers are supporting enemies of the US.  Shows how sad you pathetic fucks have fallen.
> 
> Its obvious that, sadly, you have Obama derangement syndrome.  Might want to go visit a doctor there, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I and everyone else that doesn't bow down to him should be sent away for "political education".  I am sure you would like that, wouldn't you Adolf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you trying to do, prove that the internet is as fucking retarded as Godwin thought it was?
> 
> Jesus, grow the fuck up kiddo.
Click to expand...


I'm not a kid, asshole.  And don't tell me I need a doctor because I don't like Obama, Got it ADOLF?


----------



## MaggieMae

oreo said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  *The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened*--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> *Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> The arrogance of those posts in here mirrored the arrogance of the Obama White House regarding this issue leading up to these elections.
> 
> Obama continues to show, as someone else indicated, a dangerous naivete.
> 
> And his impotence with foreign policy mirrors his impotence with our own American economy.  (that is, unless it is his desire to further weaken said economy - for which Obama must then be deemed a much greater success...)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes--Obama has been giving the cold shoulder to Isreal.  Netenyaho--boy the tension when he met Obama at the White House was unbelievable.  I don't know if you saw that look Netenyaho gave Obama but it wasn't good.
> 
> I think it was the leading up to the recent speech Obama gave to the Arab world.  He probably didn't want to seem to friendly to Isreal.  He needs to get real friendly with them now.
Click to expand...


Netanyahu thinks he's David Ben-Gurion reincarnated. Israel got their country; now Palestine wants theirs. It's a no-brainer.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I and everyone else that doesn't bow down to him should be sent away for "political education".  I am sure you would like that, wouldn't you Adolf?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to do, prove that the internet is as fucking retarded as Godwin thought it was?
> 
> Jesus, grow the fuck up kiddo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a kid, asshole.  And don't tell me I need a doctor because I don't like Obama, Got it ADOLF?
Click to expand...


You need a doctor because you can't see past your blind, insane, psychosis that is linked with blaming Obama for everythign that exists.  And I'll tell you whatever I feel like, fuckface, especially if your going to stupidly compare me to Hitler.


----------



## Full-Auto

And I'll tell you whatever I feel like, fuckface

Is this how you prove intelligence?  LOL


----------



## MaggieMae

rhodescholar said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even stupider than you normally do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama successes:
> - foiled somalian pirates by providing military option to Navy
> 
> Obama failures:
> - North Korea launches missile, Obama says UN will take "strong action," nothing happened
> - Obama shows no leadership as Pelosi damages relationship between clandestine services and elected government - he opened this can of worms by agreeing to allow for the Bush admin's lawyers to be investigated...not too smart a move...
> - Obama asks Europeans to increase stimulus spending, they say "no"
> - Obama asks Europeans for more NATO troops to be sent to Afghanistan, they say "no"
> - Obama administration rolls over decades of past legal doctrine, destroys creditor value as it mid-wifes the Chrysler marriage to Fiat
> - Obama makes speech in Egypt to "soothe" arab street, and pressures Israel to make potentially dangerous geographical sacrifices
> 
> So far, Obama hasn't accomplished a hell of a whole lot in his time in office.
Click to expand...


Add me to your ignore list because *anyone* who simply makes blanket statements like yours as if they are the gospel truth is full of shit. And it's something a Rhodes Scholar would NEVER do, so you're also a liar.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to do, prove that the internet is as fucking retarded as Godwin thought it was?
> 
> Jesus, grow the fuck up kiddo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a kid, asshole.  And don't tell me I need a doctor because I don't like Obama, Got it ADOLF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a doctor because you can't see past your blind, insane, psychosis that is linked with blaming Obama for everythign that exists.  And I'll tell you whatever I feel like, fuckface, especially if your going to stupidly compare me to Hitler.
Click to expand...


thanks for clearing that up, ADOLF.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> this, coming from an Obamabot, who is puzzled that his Messiah has yet to perform any miracles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones who thought he _SHOULD_ perform miracles, and who therefore labeled him The Messiah, are the fringers, like you. When was the last time a president was successful in changing the geopolitical face of any Muslim country? But suddenly the fact that Obama can't "micraculously" do it, earns another strike against him. Are you idiots for real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has zero influence on Iran's or any other country's elections.  I never said Obama DID have "influence" on Iran's election. That's you morons EXPECTING that he SHOULD. The sooner people like chris and Nik accept that reality, the better.  If the Messiah comment is so outrageous, explain why people were fainting at his rallies. So what the fuck does THAT have to do with the price of milk? People "fainted" at some of McCain's ralleys, too, because of heat, asshole.
Click to expand...


...


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.
> 
> Obamas speech: A boost to moderates in Irans election? | csmonitor.com
> *Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
Click to expand...


Then why is it only the FRINGERS (the rabid Obama haters) starting these threads? You are absolutely pissing your pants that Achmedinejad won so you can then proclaim that OBAMA HAD NO INFLUENCE. Fess up, were' really not stooooooopid, ya know. You really couldn't give a sweet shit about Iran (and probably even Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything else except your own little world of hate).


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.
> 
> Obamas speech: A boost to moderates in Irans election? | csmonitor.com
> *Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why is it only the FRINGERS (the rabid Obama haters) starting these threads? You are absolutely pissing your pants that Achmedinejad won so you can then proclaim that OBAMA HAD NO INFLUENCE. Fess up, were' really not stooooooopid, ya know. You really couldn't give a sweet shit about Iran (and probably even Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything else except your own little world of hate).
Click to expand...


No I wasn't bitch.  stop calling people who don't like Obama "supporters of our enemies" ok bitch?


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even more retards who hate Obama so much that they appear to be supporting enemies now. Why are they gleeful over another four years of Achmedinijad? Sick, sick, sick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't this what you liberals accused the right of doing?  so now anyone who hates Obama is supporting our enemies?  You are a bigger bitch than I thought.
Click to expand...


Excuse me? I don't recall ever visiting any message board during the most bloody years of the Iraq war who "supported" Saddam Hussein. Did we think there were options other than an invasion and occupation? Of course. Big fucking difference.

And that you think I'm a bitch falls off me like water on a duck's back.


----------



## Full-Auto

The left used those other options too.

Thus the paper tiger phrase emerged. Along with continued attacks.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: Was there this much discussion last week when the people of Lebanon voted against Hezbollah, which Iran directly controls? Of course not. It's so much easier to lambaste the U.S. President over the reelection of the hardliner in Iran, isn't it...
> 
> This entire topic, on this message board, has nothing to do with Iran. It has everything to do with the pure unadulterated hatred of Barack Obama.
> 
> _*Suggestion to Gunny, et al.*_ How about a new topic called *HATE OBAMA? POST THOUGHTS HERE.* That way, there would be no confusion over who supports what ISSUES because the topic would not be issue-oriented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it has everything to do with your unadulterated worship of Obama.  His message HAD to have resonated with the country.  Therefore when A-jad won, since Obama's messianic speeches should have been the difference in the election, the election must have been stolen.
Click to expand...


I don't support him on all issues, fool. But you apparently like to think that anyone who supports Obama must be stupid just because *you* hate him. Which is dumber?

I've posted many things about Obama that have bothered me, including some of my MAJOR issues over the spending. But seems anytime there's a sensible and civil debate, the topic gets shoved to some other category and the comments thereby lost to the bowels of USMB. But in the meantime, I continue to give him the opportunity to get this country back on track. Just prior to the election, a full 88% of the American people (and surprise, surprise, that obviously included millions of REPUBLICANS) thought we were headed in the wrong direction.


----------



## auditor0007

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?
Click to expand...


Two possibilities; one is that it was fair and that while Mousavi enjoyed close to equal support in the urban areas, that support did not carry over to the smaller towns and villages and rural areas.  Obviously, the second option is that there was massive fraud in favor of Ahmadinejad so that a runoff election could be avoided.  Putting odds on it, I'd take the side of massive fraud.  So the question must be asked, do the Iranians even care what Obama or this administration thinks?  Answer; highly unlikely.  

There is a huge difference between being liked and being respected.  Bush was disliked throughout most of the world, but our adversaries respected him behind closed doors, if for no other reason than that they couldn't predict how he might react to certain situations.  Obama on the other hand is liked the world over, but he is not respected behind closed doors, especially in countries that are at odds with us.  This is becoming ever more apparent and isn't likely to change.  His words are not at all a threat and therefore those countries that are at odds with us will do as they please.


----------



## Nik

Full-Auto said:


> And I'll tell you whatever I feel like, fuckface
> 
> Is this how you prove intelligence?  LOL



Nope.  I usually do it by inane questioning followed by middle school acronyms.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a kid, asshole.  And don't tell me I need a doctor because I don't like Obama, Got it ADOLF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need a doctor because you can't see past your blind, insane, psychosis that is linked with blaming Obama for everythign that exists.  And I'll tell you whatever I feel like, fuckface, especially if your going to stupidly compare me to Hitler.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thanks for clearing that up, ADOLF.
Click to expand...


No problem von brunn.


----------



## MaggieMae

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
Click to expand...


Hey, unless it comes from Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh & Co., or one of their own right-wing blog sites, it must be a lie. Notice how gleefully the OP was citing the <gasp> New York Times!! And they try to tell us it's not about Obama when they can't WAIT to post information justifying that Obama made no difference in the Iran election.


----------



## Nik

auditor0007 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two possibilities; one is that it was fair and that while Mousavi enjoyed close to equal support in the urban areas, that support did not carry over to the smaller towns and villages and rural areas.  Obviously, the second option is that there was massive fraud in favor of Ahmadinejad so that a runoff election could be avoided.  Putting odds on it, I'd take the side of massive fraud.  So the question must be asked, do the Iranians even care what Obama or this administration thinks?  Answer; highly unlikely.
> 
> There is a huge difference between being liked and being respected.  Bush was disliked throughout most of the world, but our adversaries respected him behind closed doors, if for no other reason than that they couldn't predict how he might react to certain situations.  Obama on the other hand is liked the world over, but he is not respected behind closed doors, especially in countries that are at odds with us.  This is becoming ever more apparent and isn't likely to change.  His words are not at all a threat and therefore those countries that are at odds with us will do as they please.
Click to expand...


Oh?  You know that hes not respected behind closed doors?  What, are you Putin or something?


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Why not?  You don't think that maybe, just maybe, if another country demonizes you, you might vote for the individual who demonizes the other country back?  Is that so incredibly absurd to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna respond to this Elvis?  Or does it not fit in your worldview, so your just gonna wish it away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now Bush convinced the Iranians to vote for A-jad?  Is that what you're saying, daft ****?
Click to expand...


The more obsenities you use, the less credibility you have, ya know. Grow up.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you win.  TWO fucking people said it.  We should believe now that more than ONE percent of those who don't worship Obama like you do are supporting our enemies.
> You daft ****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure its not a ton.  But it is sad that well known right-wingers are supporting enemies of the US.  Shows how sad you pathetic fucks have fallen.
> 
> Its obvious that, sadly, you have Obama derangement syndrome.  Might want to go visit a doctor there, skippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I and everyone else that doesn't bow down to him should be sent away for "political education".  I am sure you would like that, wouldn't you Adolf?
Click to expand...


You are entitled to your opinions, just not absurd ones which only prove that you DO need an education. You might try expanding your reading material.


----------



## MaggieMae

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only ones who thought he _SHOULD_ perform miracles, and who therefore labeled him The Messiah, are the fringers, like you. When was the last time a president was successful in changing the geopolitical face of any Muslim country? But suddenly the fact that Obama can't "micraculously" do it, earns another strike against him. Are you idiots for real?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has zero influence on Iran's or any other country's elections.  I never said Obama DID have "influence" on Iran's election. That's you morons EXPECTING that he SHOULD. The sooner people like chris and Nik accept that reality, the better.  If the Messiah comment is so outrageous, explain why people were fainting at his rallies. So what the fuck does THAT have to do with the price of milk? People "fainted" at some of McCain's ralleys, too, because of heat, asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Let's try that again. I had highlighted in red responses to each sentence, but it didn't show up.


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, unless it comes from Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh & Co., or one of their own right-wing blog sites, it must be a lie. Notice how gleefully the OP was citing the <gasp> New York Times!! And they try to tell us it's not about Obama when they can't WAIT to post information justifying that Obama made no difference in the Iran election.
Click to expand...


I don't watch Fox and don't listen to Limbaugh.  But this tool expects me to take something from huffington Post about republicans seriously.


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna respond to this Elvis?  Or does it not fit in your worldview, so your just gonna wish it away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now Bush convinced the Iranians to vote for A-jad?  Is that what you're saying, daft ****?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more obsenities you use, the less credibility you have, ya know. Grow up.
Click to expand...


Really?  Says who?  The PC police?


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm sure its not a ton.  But it is sad that well known right-wingers are supporting enemies of the US.  Shows how sad you pathetic fucks have fallen.
> 
> Its obvious that, sadly, you have Obama derangement syndrome.  Might want to go visit a doctor there, skippy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I and everyone else that doesn't bow down to him should be sent away for "political education".  I am sure you would like that, wouldn't you Adolf?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are entitled to your opinions, just not absurd ones which only prove that you DO need an education. You might try expanding your reading material.
Click to expand...


and according to you, it should include what?  The Audacity of Hope?  hell why not the Communist Manifesto?


----------



## Sinatra

auditor0007 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two possibilities; one is that it was fair and that while Mousavi enjoyed close to equal support in the urban areas, that support did not carry over to the smaller towns and villages and rural areas.  Obviously, the second option is that there was massive fraud in favor of Ahmadinejad so that a runoff election could be avoided.  Putting odds on it, I'd take the side of massive fraud.  So the question must be asked, do the Iranians even care what Obama or this administration thinks?  Answer; highly unlikely.
> 
> *There is a huge difference between being liked and being respected.  Bush was disliked throughout most of the world, but our adversaries respected him behind closed doors, if for no other reason than that they couldn't predict how he might react to certain situations.  Obama on the other hand is liked the world over, but he is not respected behind closed doors, especially in countries that are at odds with us.  This is becoming ever more apparent and isn't likely to change.  His words are not at all a threat and therefore those countries that are at odds with us will do as they please.*
Click to expand...


That is a very accurate summary of Obama's standing in the international world.

He has a certain celebrity status  - but a minimal leadership status.

And it appears a similar situation is occuring within the U.S. Congress regarding Obama...


----------



## Meister

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.
> 
> Obama&#8217;s speech: A boost to moderates in Iran&#8217;s election? | csmonitor.com
> *Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.
Click to expand...


How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass???  Tell me how do you know???  Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far left wingnut opinion.


----------



## elvis

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass???  Tell me how do you know???  Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far right wingnut opinion.
Click to expand...


he posted two, quoted from the Huffington post.


----------



## Bfgrn

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, unless it comes from Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh & Co., or one of their own right-wing blog sites, it must be a lie. Notice how gleefully the OP was citing the <gasp> New York Times!! And they try to tell us it's not about Obama when they can't WAIT to post information justifying that Obama made no difference in the Iran election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox and don't listen to Limbaugh.  But this tool expects me to take something from huffington Post about republicans seriously.
Click to expand...


BUT, you will take seriously the lead article which identifies NO author or provides a link to a NYT article?


----------



## Meister

elvis3577 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass???  Tell me how do you know???  Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far right wingnut opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he posted two, quoted from the Huffington post.
Click to expand...

Oh...I see, the Huffington Post.   They probably paid a couple of derelicts to pose as republicans and stated that nonsense.  Nickie would buy into it.


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, unless it comes from Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh & Co., or one of their own right-wing blog sites, it must be a lie. Notice how gleefully the OP was citing the <gasp> New York Times!! And they try to tell us it's not about Obama when they can't WAIT to post information justifying that Obama made no difference in the Iran election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox and don't listen to Limbaugh.  But this tool expects me to take something from huffington Post about republicans seriously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BUT, you will take seriously the lead article which identifies NO author or provides a link to a NYT article?
Click to expand...


Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.


----------



## DiveCon

Red Dawn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the *now-crumbling* foundation of the Obama administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's disapproval rating is around around 28 or 29%.  The same level Bush's approval rating was when he left office.
> 
> Why is it that the same people who think Obama is an abysmall failure, are also _the exact same people _who thought george bush was doing a great job.  You voted for bush twice, you tell me why that is.
Click to expand...


Obama's job approval rating will never get that low, because brainddead obamabots will never admit he is failing
kinda like YOU


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it was less the "hating Obama" and the more going around the board gleefully proclaiming Ahmadinejads victory part which made her think that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us who did that, prodigy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
Click to expand...

ROFLMAO
so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true


thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
Click to expand...

that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are

first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
they are moderate to LIBERAL


----------



## Sinatra

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
Click to expand...



True - JFK was a NEOCON.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you trying to do, prove that the internet is as fucking retarded as Godwin thought it was?
> 
> Jesus, grow the fuck up kiddo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a kid, asshole.  And don't tell me I need a doctor because I don't like Obama, Got it ADOLF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need a doctor because you can't see past your blind, insane, psychosis that is linked with blaming Obama for everythign that exists.  And I'll tell you whatever I feel like, fuckface, especially if your going to stupidly compare me to Hitler.
Click to expand...

WOW, irony metter is exploding


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> By your bump, I see you're unfazed and rooting for another four years of Achmedinijad. Good for you. At least we know where you're coming from. The Iranian election, however, may well spark another revolution, because like most countries who recognize that they can no longer survive in a closed society, moderates are demanding CHANGE. Even the Ayatollah's in Iran (who have the real power) are aware of this.
> 
> Obamas speech: A boost to moderates in Irans election? | csmonitor.com
> *Obama criticized Holocaust deniers. But Ayatollah Khamenei praised US effort at a "new image."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why is it only the FRINGERS (the rabid Obama haters) starting these threads? You are absolutely pissing your pants that Achmedinejad won so you can then proclaim that OBAMA HAD NO INFLUENCE. Fess up, were' really not stooooooopid, ya know. You really couldn't give a sweet shit about Iran (and probably even Iraq, Afghanistan, or anything else except your own little world of hate).
Click to expand...

hey dumbo, have you looked for the threads started by Chris?
proclaiming Obama cause Ajob to lose?


these threads are laughing at YOU fucking moronic obamabots


----------



## Bfgrn

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox and don't listen to Limbaugh.  But this tool expects me to take something from huffington Post about republicans seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you will take seriously the lead article which identifies NO author or provides a link to a NYT article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...

Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...

You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)

Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...

Hmmmmm....


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you will take seriously the lead article which identifies NO author or provides a link to a NYT article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> *Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope*". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
Click to expand...


Obama was running for President of Iran.

Obama lost.

Shit....


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you will take seriously the lead article which identifies NO author or provides a link to a NYT article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
Click to expand...


It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.  
Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)


----------



## Sinatra

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  dumb fuck.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...

You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...

Please provide a valid link...


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  dumb fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...
> 
> You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...
> 
> Please provide a valid link...
Click to expand...



That OP-ED piece was mine....


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...



My friend Jim says otherwise...

American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...
> 
> You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...
> 
> Please provide a valid link...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That OP-ED piece was mine....
Click to expand...


WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...

Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Sinatra...you post an op-ed piece, then provide a link to "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote" from the NY Time > World > Middle East section...
> 
> You don't identify the name of the author and a search using your title and numerous sentences from your article yield ZERO results...
> 
> Please provide a valid link...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That OP-ED piece was mine....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...
> 
> Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...
Click to expand...


I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...

The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend Jim says otherwise...
> 
> American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.
Click to expand...


You need new friends...Jim is a pea brain...

REAL neocons like Richard Perle heard ONLY the soaring rhetoric that supported THEIR radical hawkish views in JFK's Inaugural Address...but totally ignored Jack Kennedy's qualifiers and they missed his REAL message...

Neocons heard: 
"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americansborn in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritageand unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."

What they FAILED to hear is:

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.	

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present courseboth sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anewremembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. 

Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of armsand bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiahto "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."	

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. 

But let us begin. (Emphasis added) 



Tell your pea brain friends that neocons NEVER talk like that...


----------



## elvis

Yeah, sinatra, anybody that doesn't bow down to Obama and kennedy is a pea brain.


----------



## auditor0007

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass???  Tell me how do you know???  Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far right wingnut opinion.
Click to expand...


I don't think there are many who support Ahmadimiwhit.


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend Jim says otherwise...
> 
> American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need new friends...Jim is a pea brain...
> 
> REAL neocons like Richard Perle heard ONLY the soaring rhetoric that supported THEIR radical hawkish views in JFK's Inaugural Address...but totally ignored Jack Kennedy's qualifiers and they missed his REAL message...
> 
> Neocons heard:
> "Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans&#8212;born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage&#8212;and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world."
> 
> What they FAILED to hear is:
> 
> Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
> 
> We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
> 
> But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course&#8212;both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
> 
> So let us begin anew&#8212;remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.
> 
> Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
> 
> Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
> 
> Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms&#8212;and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
> 
> Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.
> 
> Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah&#8212;to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."
> 
> And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
> 
> All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet.
> 
> But let us begin. (Emphasis added)
> 
> 
> 
> Tell your pea brain friends that neocons NEVER talk like that...
Click to expand...



Sorry, but the JFK Neocon link has been discussed by many other sources, and is a quite credible premise.

Within this column, you see reference to the LA Times column declaring JFK the first ever NEOCON president.

Glen's Blog: JFK, The Father Of the NeoConservative Movement

And yet another interesting discussion of JFK's Neoconism...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1967059/posts


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> That OP-ED piece was mine....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...
> 
> Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...
> 
> The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...
Click to expand...


Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran

You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...
> 
> Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...
> 
> The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran
> 
> You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!
Click to expand...


Are you always this stupid or is today a special occasion?


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the NYT link/... people on this board thought it was a NYT op-ed...
> 
> Looks a little slimy... actually A LOT slimy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...
> 
> The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran
> 
> You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!
Click to expand...



Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.

Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...


----------



## Agnapostate

Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy.


----------



## Sinatra

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indiana Oracle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted hear often, my impression is that The Prophet has undertaken a counter propaganda campaign. It may or may not work, whole or in part. He is in a unique position to attempt it.
> 
> The Prophet's public execution of this has been poor so far and has already caused him to lose support in the US across parties. For that reason and his apparent assumption that all these savvy, crooked, megalomaniacal savages will fall into his thrall, I believe his initiative will fail no matter how it is spun. Would love to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is clear is that his trip to the Middle East, his silly invitation for Iranians to celebrate the 4th of July with him - was timed during the lead up to these elections.
> 
> The Obama administration likely thought the elections were almost certain to go a different way, and thus, attempted to position the teleprompter in such a was as to make it appear he helped usher in a new era in Iran.
> 
> What has actually happened is, Obama gave a series of speeches that few paid attention to (his speeches all sound alike these days, and thus, bore the hell out of people) and the Iranians threw their support behind the more, not less, extreme anti-American candidate.
> 
> Obama failed - BIG TIME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So its your position that the Iranian election was free and fair?
Click to expand...


No - a few appear to be missing the point.

There were those in the media, and in this very forum, announcing some silly "Obama effect" - or "Cairo Effect"...in essence, declaring that Obama made a speech that would alter the Middle East.  It was clear these figures believed that the Iran election outcome would be different than they actually were.

The fact the Obama administration timed his speech right before the elections, show they too were "believing their own press" as it were - a sign of both arrogance and naivete that are clear and present dangers to our own security.

This president and this White House are floundering - both domestically and abroad.

Either they grow up fast and realize the world is a far more complicated place that cannot be altered by further telepromtings, or we are in for some potentially serious hurt.

The Obama administration's gamble that the Iranian elections were going to be different - instead mirroring the lofty teleprompted rhetoric of his Cairo speech, was a failure.

The Iran elections are directly linked to the Obama adminstration's current inability to accept that words are not action - that action is difficult, while words are easy.

Obama failed.

It is my sincere hope he does not continue to do so - but I am not optimistic in that regard.


----------



## DiveCon

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...
> 
> The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran
> 
> You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you always this stupid or is today a special occasion?
Click to expand...

so far, i'd say always


----------



## Gunny

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
Click to expand...


Another mindless leftbot troll who can't address the topic with anything more than a deflection.


----------



## Sinatra

Agnapostate said:


> Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, *but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy*.



I am repeatedly surprised as well - so many in here throw out "neoconservative" without any real understanding of the historical context of that term.

But alas, perhaps some are being educated this very moment!


----------



## DiveCon

Sinatra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you are confusing things a bit pard...
> 
> The link was an op-ed that shares much of my own take on the subject - some factual basis for my own conclusions as it were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran
> 
> You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...
Click to expand...

of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand


----------



## Sinatra

DiveCon said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran
> 
> You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand
Click to expand...


True enough - and the fact I started off my comments by referencing this forum, and yet they assumed it was a NY Times column, well....that kind of stupid is too easy to mock, and so, I shall let it pass...


----------



## DiveCon

Agnapostate said:


> Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy.


wow, well stated
i dont agree that it went to terrorism, but otherwise, i agree


----------



## Sinatra

The fact is, JFK would have little place in today's Democrat Party.

Hell, some so-called Republicans would consider him too conservative.


----------



## Bfgrn

It is clear that none of you know much about John F. Kennedy...

He was a pragmatist, and a liberal, in THAT order, much like Obama...

Near the end of Ike's administration, the CIA started plans for an invasion of Cuba using Cuban exiles who had fled the island... This led to what is called the Bay of Pigs...

Allan Dulles and Richard Bissell (CIA) LIED to Kennedy...they KNEW ahead of time an invasion by the exiles had NO chance of success...unless the US sent in the Marines and Air Force...Kennedy told the CIA he would NOT send in the US military... 

Dulles and Bissell thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle...he DIDN'T...

Kennedy was so mad, he threatened to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." He did fire Dulles and Bissell. From that point on, Kennedy had no use for CIA or the Chiefs of Staff...

The lessons learned during the Bay of Pigs were all applied successfully during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs and most of his cabinet that pushed hard for bombing the missile sites and the military wanted an invasion. Kennedy crafted a peaceful resolution through backdoor channels and smart diplomacy...

We learned later if Kennedy had caved to the Joint Chiefs and invaded Cuba, the Russians would have reduced Washington and major cities within 1000 miles of Cuba into radioactive rubble....and chances are, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the USA as we know it wouldn't EXIST!

So pea brains...IF JFK were a neocon hawk, as you contend...WHY did he refuse to invade Cuba...TWICE?


----------



## elvis

Bfgrn said:


> It is clear that none of you know much about John F. Kennedy...
> 
> He was a pragmatist, and a liberal, in THAT order, much like Obama...
> 
> Near the end of Ike's administration, the CIA started plans for an invasion of Cuba using Cuban exiles who had fled the island... This led to what is called the Bay of Pigs...
> 
> Allan Dulles and Richard Bissell (CIA) LIED to Kennedy...they KNEW ahead of time an invasion by the exiles had NO chance of success...unless the US sent in the Marines and Air Force...Kennedy told the CIA he would NOT send in the US military...
> 
> Dulles and Bissell thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle...he DIDN'T...
> 
> Kennedy was so mad, he threatened to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." He did fire Dulles and Bissell. From that point on, Kennedy had no use for CIA or the Chiefs of Staff...
> 
> The lessons learned during the Bay of Pigs were all applied successfully during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs and most of his cabinet that pushed hard for bombing the missile sites and the military wanted an invasion. Kennedy crafted a peaceful resolution through backdoor channels and smart diplomacy...
> 
> We learned later if Kennedy had caved to the Joint Chiefs and invaded Cuba, the Russians would have reduced Washington and major cities within 1000 miles of Cuba into radioactive rubble....and chances are, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the USA as we know it wouldn't EXIST!
> 
> So pea brains...IF JFK were a neocon hawk, as you contend...WHY did he refuse to invade Cuba...TWICE?



except Kennedy was going to invade cuba.  He had been planning it for over a year.  Only reason he didn't invade was because he found out the missiles were operational.  If you want to cling to  your "Thirteen Days"/ camelot  version of history, go ahead.  
He also bombed the hell out of south vietnam, killing thousands of people, and supported Diem, a brutal dictator.


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> It is clear that none of you know much about John F. Kennedy...
> 
> He was a pragmatist, and a liberal, in THAT order, much like Obama...
> 
> Near the end of Ike's administration, the CIA started plans for an invasion of Cuba using Cuban exiles who had fled the island... This led to what is called the Bay of Pigs...
> 
> Allan Dulles and Richard Bissell (CIA) LIED to Kennedy...they KNEW ahead of time an invasion by the exiles had NO chance of success...unless the US sent in the Marines and Air Force...Kennedy told the CIA he would NOT send in the US military...
> 
> Dulles and Bissell thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle...he DIDN'T...
> 
> Kennedy was so mad, he threatened to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." He did fire Dulles and Bissell. From that point on, Kennedy had no use for CIA or the Chiefs of Staff...
> 
> The lessons learned during the Bay of Pigs were all applied successfully during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs and most of his cabinet that pushed hard for bombing the missile sites and the military wanted an invasion. Kennedy crafted a peaceful resolution through backdoor channels and smart diplomacy...
> 
> We learned later if Kennedy had caved to the Joint Chiefs and invaded Cuba, the Russians would have reduced Washington and major cities within 1000 miles of Cuba into radioactive rubble....and chances are, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the USA as we know it wouldn't EXIST!
> 
> So pea brains...IF JFK were a neocon hawk, as you contend...WHY did he refuse to invade Cuba...TWICE?


you are the pea brain


----------



## Bfgrn

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that none of you know much about John F. Kennedy...
> 
> He was a pragmatist, and a liberal, in THAT order, much like Obama...
> 
> Near the end of Ike's administration, the CIA started plans for an invasion of Cuba using Cuban exiles who had fled the island... This led to what is called the Bay of Pigs...
> 
> Allan Dulles and Richard Bissell (CIA) LIED to Kennedy...they KNEW ahead of time an invasion by the exiles had NO chance of success...unless the US sent in the Marines and Air Force...Kennedy told the CIA he would NOT send in the US military...
> 
> Dulles and Bissell thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle...he DIDN'T...
> 
> Kennedy was so mad, he threatened to "shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." He did fire Dulles and Bissell. From that point on, Kennedy had no use for CIA or the Chiefs of Staff...
> 
> The lessons learned during the Bay of Pigs were all applied successfully during the Cuban Missile Crisis. JFK ignored the advice of the Joint Chiefs and most of his cabinet that pushed hard for bombing the missile sites and the military wanted an invasion. Kennedy crafted a peaceful resolution through backdoor channels and smart diplomacy...
> 
> We learned later if Kennedy had caved to the Joint Chiefs and invaded Cuba, the Russians would have reduced Washington and major cities within 1000 miles of Cuba into radioactive rubble....and chances are, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because the USA as we know it wouldn't EXIST!
> 
> So pea brains...IF JFK were a neocon hawk, as you contend...WHY did he refuse to invade Cuba...TWICE?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except Kennedy was going to invade cuba.  He had been planning it for over a year.  Only reason he didn't invade was because he found out the missiles were operational.  If you want to cling to  your "Thirteen Days"/ camelot  version of history, go ahead.
> He also bombed the hell out of south vietnam, killing thousands of people, and supported Diem, a brutal dictator.
Click to expand...


My knowledge of Kennedy is not from "13 Days" or "JFK"...I've read about and studied the man for 46 years... 

I'm really excited! We found out in 2002 that the missiles on the island were operational and nuclear...I THOUGHT I read where Jack Kennedy died...years ago...I HOPE I can get to meet him!!! 

NO, he never planned an invasion of Cuba...the CIA was working with the Mafia to take out Castro... Actually Kennedy wanted to normalize relations with Cuba because he believed we could sell them TV's and refrigerators...always the pragmatist... 

Supported Diem??? THAT'S interesting! When a coup d'etat was being planned by General Minh, the United States gave secret assurances they would not interfere. Diem was overthrown November 1, 1963 and he and his brother were murdered on November 2, 1963.

Now THAT is support!


----------



## Nik

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> no one was rooting for another four years of A-jad, you dumb fuck.  We were saying that your Messiah had no pull over him winning or losing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually a number of right-wingers were rooting for Ahmadinejad, sadly enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass???  Tell me how do you know???  Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far left wingnut opinion.
Click to expand...


I already posted them, dumbass.  Reading comprehension fail.


----------



## Nik

Meister said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck would you know you know, dumb ass???  Tell me how do you know???  Bet you can't put any names out there, and your just spewing you far right wingnut opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he posted two, quoted from the Huffington post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I see, the Huffington Post.   They probably paid a couple of derelicts to pose as republicans and stated that nonsense.  Nickie would buy into it.
Click to expand...


Umm, no.  Try reading the article, dickface.  They linked to the website and video of Republicans saying as much.  Oh, but I'm sure it was all staged, cause you are a little conspiracy nutter, aren't you?


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show us who did that, prodigy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFLMAO
> so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true
> 
> 
> thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are
Click to expand...


Oy.  Let me make this very clear for all the retarded fucking rightwingers.

If you have a problem with the source, point to exactly what you disagree with.  Attacking the authority is a logical flaw and causes you to fail.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he posted two, quoted from the Huffington post.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I see, the Huffington Post.   They probably paid a couple of derelicts to pose as republicans and stated that nonsense.  Nickie would buy into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, no.  Try reading the article, dickface.  They linked to the website and video of Republicans saying as much.  Oh, but I'm sure it was all staged, cause you are a little conspiracy nutter, aren't you?
Click to expand...


Fine, fuckhead.  We'll start quoting from Hannity's website, then.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An editorial from the Huntington Post, who cited TWO neocons.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
Click to expand...


????????????????????

You can't be serious?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
Click to expand...


Moron.  I don't give a shit about their opinions, I was pointing to them because they listed the neocon shitheads who supported Ahmadinejad.  You and your retarded right-wing bitches can't seem to get past the fact that its *gasp* the huffington post.  Maybe its because you know that if you actually read the damn thing, you wouldn't have anything to say in response.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????????????????????
> 
> You can't be serious?
Click to expand...


may want to read up on the history of neoconservatism before you start criticizing others on the subject, fuckstain.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true
> 
> 
> thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oy.  Let me make this very clear for all the retarded fucking rightwingers.
> 
> If you have a problem with the source, point to exactly what you disagree with.  Attacking the authority is a logical flaw and causes you to fail.
Click to expand...

you are one to call anyone retarded, you fucking moron
the puffington post is a piece of SHIT
i suppose you would deal with us using newsmax or WND as a source and treat it as gospell

grow a fucking brain asshole


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ????????????????????
> 
> You can't be serious?
Click to expand...

its the truth you fucking moron


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron.  I don't give a shit about their opinions, I was pointing to them because they listed the neocon shitheads who supported Ahmadinejad.  You and your retarded right-wing bitches can't seem to get past the fact that its *gasp* the huffington post.  Maybe its because you know that if you actually read the damn thing, you wouldn't have anything to say in response.
Click to expand...


like I said, we'll start quoting Hannity's site, then.


----------



## DiveCon

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????????????????????
> 
> You can't be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> may want to read up on the history of neoconservatism before you start criticizing others on the subject, fuckstain.
Click to expand...

he's a complete fucking moron


----------



## Nik

Gunny said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another mindless leftbot troll who can't address the topic with anything more than a deflection.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, do you actually have anything to say about the topic?  Or are you just going around trashing lefties because you are too stupid to form an opinion other than "lefties are evil!"?

You come in here and post no substance and then attack me for not posting substance?  Fuck off, bitch.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your linked article shares NONE of your take or your right wing pea brain views...oh, I take that back. both mention Iran
> 
> You were trying to pass off YOUR pea brain Obama HIT piece as a NY Times article...You are a SCUM BAG !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand
Click to expand...


I know.  Damn lefties always dismiss links out of hand without reading them.  Like the guy who said this:



> ROFLMAO
> so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true
> 
> 
> thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are
> __________________



Consistency fail, bitch.


----------



## DiveCon

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.  I don't give a shit about their opinions, I was pointing to them because they listed the neocon shitheads who supported Ahmadinejad.  You and your retarded right-wing bitches can't seem to get past the fact that its *gasp* the huffington post.  Maybe its because you know that if you actually read the damn thing, you wouldn't have anything to say in response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said, we'll start quoting Hannity's site, then.
Click to expand...

hey, how about we find stuff on the freerepublic
its as reliable as the puffington post


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Another retarded article that assumes that the election was free and fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another mindless leftbot troll who can't address the topic with anything more than a deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, do you actually have anything to say about the topic?  Or are you just going around trashing lefties because you are too stupid to form an opinion other than "lefties are evil!"?
> 
> You come in here and post no substance and then attack me for not posting substance?  Fuck off, bitch.
Click to expand...


Aw what's the matter, did chris refuse to use lube  again last night?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...
> 
> 
> 
> of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  Damn lefties always dismiss links out of hand without reading them.  Like the guy who said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true
> 
> 
> thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistency fail, bitch.
Click to expand...

wrong again, asshole
grow a fucking brain, that cavity between your ears may begin to collapse soon


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh...I see, the Huffington Post.   They probably paid a couple of derelicts to pose as republicans and stated that nonsense.  Nickie would buy into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.  Try reading the article, dickface.  They linked to the website and video of Republicans saying as much.  Oh, but I'm sure it was all staged, cause you are a little conspiracy nutter, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, fuckhead.  We'll start quoting from Hannity's website, then.
Click to expand...


Go for it, as long as he includes direct links to sources, as the Huffington article did.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ????????????????????
> 
> You can't be serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> may want to read up on the history of neoconservatism before you start criticizing others on the subject, fuckstain.
Click to expand...


I know the history, dumbass.  JFK wasn't a neocon.  That shit is incredibly absurd.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.  I don't give a shit about their opinions, I was pointing to them because they listed the neocon shitheads who supported Ahmadinejad.  You and your retarded right-wing bitches can't seem to get past the fact that its *gasp* the huffington post.  Maybe its because you know that if you actually read the damn thing, you wouldn't have anything to say in response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said, we'll start quoting Hannity's site, then.
Click to expand...


Like I said, as long as they cite to direct sources, you can quote whoever the hell you want.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true
> 
> 
> thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oy.  Let me make this very clear for all the retarded fucking rightwingers.
> 
> If you have a problem with the source, point to exactly what you disagree with.  Attacking the authority is a logical flaw and causes you to fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one to call anyone retarded, you fucking moron
> the puffington post is a piece of SHIT
> i suppose you would deal with us using newsmax or WND as a source and treat it as gospell
> 
> grow a fucking brain asshole
Click to expand...


Really?  So do you think the cites they linked too are faked?  Or what exactly?


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  Damn lefties always dismiss links out of hand without reading them.  Like the guy who said this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO
> so, the puffington post says it so it MUST be true
> 
> 
> thanks for showing how fucking braindead you really are
> __________________
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consistency fail, bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again, asshole
> grow a fucking brain, that cavity between your ears may begin to collapse soon
Click to expand...


Oh, do explain how I am wrong.  Oh wait, you can't.


----------



## user_name_guest

Left-wingers and right-wingers are a problem.  I'm talking about the ones who only listen to their ideologues that feed them garbage.  They take this garbage and fill up their landfills. They start tossing (spitting it out) the debris to non-believers.  You wonder why they are a bunch of crap.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know.  Damn lefties always dismiss links out of hand without reading them.  Like the guy who said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistency fail, bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, asshole
> grow a fucking brain, that cavity between your ears may begin to collapse soon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, do explain how I am wrong.  Oh wait, you can't.
Click to expand...

i already have, asshole


----------



## mememe

Sinatra said:


> And now, *how much covert money *and manpower is going to be spent to try and get some form of actual revolution in Iran so the American President can save face?
> 
> Happening as we post - of that you can be certain...



I thought the US run out of crayons to draw $$...


----------



## Maple

That's because he is VERY WEAK and UNCERTAIN- he's a community organisor turned President.


----------



## Gunny

Fuck Iran.

Questions?


----------



## Agnapostate

Q: How do people like you get into elected office? Is the electorate on crack?


----------



## Maple

How true Sinatra, Kennedy was no mindless, weak kneeded leftist, he was conservative and passed one of the largest across the boards tax cuts in history. He tolerated no B.S from foriegn leaders and handled the Cuban Crisis with total strength and determination during the cold war. 

So many democrats like to tout his name, but if they actually knew what a strong determined, tax cutting, pro business president he was, I wonder if they still would.

He was nothing like his brother Ted, they were related in blood only, otherwise they were total opposites in ideology.


----------



## Maple

credit for the fighters in Pakistan fighting the Taliban, for Lebanon, for what's going on in Iran, for the parting of the waters, and the spreading of locusts. I like Sinatra beleive that should you give credit to Obama for what you claim is disarming the terrorists then I am going to give him credit for the current state of this economy.  He OWNS it now and he can no longer claim it was the previous adminstration's fault.

Hell, he has lost 2 million more jobs since he took over, and it ain't over yet folks, just wait until inflation kicks in. It's high time he manned up.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again, asshole
> grow a fucking brain, that cavity between your ears may begin to collapse soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, do explain how I am wrong.  Oh wait, you can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i already have, asshole
Click to expand...


No, you haven't.  Saying "wrong again, asshole" isn't an explanation, retard.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, do explain how I am wrong.  Oh wait, you can't.
> 
> 
> 
> i already have, asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  Saying "wrong again, asshole" isn't an explanation, retard.
Click to expand...

it has been explained to you SEVERAL times
yet you still claim it hasnt, and you are calling anyone else a retard?
you are nothing but a fucking MORONIC ASSHOLE


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> i already have, asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  Saying "wrong again, asshole" isn't an explanation, retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it has been explained to you SEVERAL times
> yet you still claim it hasnt, and you are calling anyone else a retard?
> you are nothing but a fucking MORONIC ASSHOLE
Click to expand...


Really?  Its been explained several times why you didn't fail at consistency?

Considering I only made that point 15 posts ago, can you please point me to exactly which posts explained it?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  Saying "wrong again, asshole" isn't an explanation, retard.
> 
> 
> 
> it has been explained to you SEVERAL times
> yet you still claim it hasnt, and you are calling anyone else a retard?
> you are nothing but a fucking MORONIC ASSHOLE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Its been explained several times why you didn't fail at consistency?
> 
> Considering I only made that point 15 posts ago, can you please point me to exactly which posts explained it?
Click to expand...

only a fucking moronic asshole thinks there was any inconsistancy


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> it has been explained to you SEVERAL times
> yet you still claim it hasnt, and you are calling anyone else a retard?
> you are nothing but a fucking MORONIC ASSHOLE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Its been explained several times why you didn't fail at consistency?
> 
> Considering I only made that point 15 posts ago, can you please point me to exactly which posts explained it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only a fucking moronic asshole thinks there was any inconsistancy
Click to expand...


Wait...I thought it was explained to me several times.  You mean you can't show to me where it was explained how they were consistent?  So you mean your a lying shitbag?  Say it ain't so Dive...say it ain't so


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Its been explained several times why you didn't fail at consistency?
> 
> Considering I only made that point 15 posts ago, can you please point me to exactly which posts explained it?
> 
> 
> 
> only a fucking moronic asshole thinks there was any inconsistancy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait...I thought it was explained to me several times. You mean you can't show to me where it was explained how they were consistent? So you mean your a lying shitbag? Say it ain't so Dive...say it ain't so
Click to expand...

you are such a fucking moronic asshole
there is no need to explain beyond the original posts because there was ZERO inconsistancy
you cant possibly be more stupid than chric/bobo, but it sure seems like you are trying very hard to show you are


----------



## L.K.Eder

oreo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.
> 
> i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does this mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is.  And we've been dealing with middle east problems since right after WW2 which was 1945!
Click to expand...


ok, after reading your post, friend, i decided to give this thread another chance.

it is after all designed to give me a little history lesson the middle east.


----------



## oreo

L.K.Eder said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> i have nothing to add to this piece of shit thread. it is the mirror of the "obama effect" thread. same shit different side.
> 
> i said what i had to say in this other thread, this one deserves only ridicule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does this mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is.  And we've been dealing with middle east problems since right after WW2 which was 1945!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ok, after reading your post, friend, i decided to give this thread another chance.
> 
> it is after all designed to give me a little history lesson the middle east.
Click to expand...



Great--I am glad to see you back.  I really don't know how old you are--but this has been going on for decades in the middle east.  I don't know if you remember this or not--but Bill Clinton spent his last weeks with the then prime--minister of Isreal & Arafat--trying to get to peace in the region.  Clinton & the prime minister of Isreal worked up an unbelievable deal for Arafat.  Even the political pundents--stated there would be no other better deal--it was put on a silver platter for Arafat--& he shocked everyone by turning it down FLAT.

G.W. Bush  got so ticked at Arafat for turning down the Clinton deal--that he wouldn't even acknowledge Arafat's presence in a room.  You probably remember the horrendous bombings in Isreal (after Arafat turned down Clinton's deal?)  Then Arafat dies during the Bush administration.  We're all HEY this is it--Palistians have got to be sick & tired of living in poverty--they've got to be sick & tired of war--they're going to elect the more moderate to run their country.  They SHOCKED the entire world by electing a terrorist organization (Hamas) to be in charge of the government of Palistine.

*This is the middle east. * If you have read any books on them--you will note that they have been warriors--barbarians in their culture for centuries.  If they're not fighting us they fight each other.  It's like they live for war.

We have been unsuccessful at changing that culture.  We have been sucessful with moderate Muslims--but the hard-liners--forget it.  _It's a waste of time, in my opinion._

The Mullahs in Iran really are the ones in control.  Unfortunately--we did not back the Shaw of Iran & they took over.  They have been there for decades now.  While the younger want change & have wanted change for a very long time--they've got a real uphill battle in front of them.

Every single President has tried to settle issues & bring a lasting peace to the region.  And every one of them have come up empty handed.


----------



## Chris

Sinatra said:


> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp



The election was stolen and the Iranian people know it.

Obama's election is helping to lead to the destruction of the Iranian government.

It is disintegrating before our very eyes.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> only a fucking moronic asshole thinks there was any inconsistancy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...I thought it was explained to me several times. You mean you can't show to me where it was explained how they were consistent? So you mean your a lying shitbag? Say it ain't so Dive...say it ain't so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are such a fucking moronic asshole
> there is no need to explain beyond the original posts because there was ZERO inconsistancy
> you cant possibly be more stupid than chric/bobo, but it sure seems like you are trying very hard to show you are
Click to expand...


Wait...theres zero need to explain?  I thought you said it had been explained several times now?  

Man this is just too fucking easy.


----------



## Sinatra

The Mullahs are cracking down now.

It was the youth who brought them into power - and now it's (some) of the youth who want them out of power.

Sadly, my money is on the Mullahs.

The Obama administration's arrogance is to blame for much of this.

And if you can't figure that one out - you ain't looking hard enough kid...







Hope and Change...Change and Hope.
Yup...that should about do it.
Now go vote!!!!


----------



## Nik

Sinatra said:


> The Mullahs are cracking down now.
> 
> It was the youth who brought them into power - and now it's (some) of the youth who want them out of power.
> 
> Sadly, my money is on the Mullahs.
> 
> The Obama administration's arrogance is to blame for much of this.
> 
> And if you can't figure that one out - you ain't looking hard enough kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope and Change...Change and Hope.
> Yup...that should about do it.
> Now go vote!!!!



Umm, what?

Obamas responsible for what exactly?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...I thought it was explained to me several times. You mean you can't show to me where it was explained how they were consistent? So you mean your a lying shitbag? Say it ain't so Dive...say it ain't so
> 
> 
> 
> you are such a fucking moronic asshole
> there is no need to explain beyond the original posts because there was ZERO inconsistancy
> you cant possibly be more stupid than chric/bobo, but it sure seems like you are trying very hard to show you are
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait...theres zero need to explain?  I thought you said it had been explained several times now?
> 
> Man this is just too fucking easy.
Click to expand...

you are too fucking moronic


----------



## DiveCon

Sinatra said:


> The Mullahs are cracking down now.
> 
> It was the youth who brought them into power - and now it's (some) of the youth who want them out of power.
> 
> Sadly, my money is on the Mullahs.
> 
> The Obama administration's arrogance is to blame for much of this.
> 
> And if you can't figure that one out - you ain't looking hard enough kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope and Change...Change and Hope.
> Yup...that should about do it.
> Now go vote!!!!


how is Obama responsible for the mess the Iranians got themselves into?

sorry, it wasnt Bush's fault and its not Obama's fault


----------



## oreo

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The election was stolen and the Iranian people know it.
> 
> Obama's election is helping to lead to the destruction of the Iranian government.
> 
> It is disintegrating before our very eyes.
Click to expand...



Criss--give it up will ya?  60% of the population voted to keep the current government.  There is not a shread of proof that voter fraud happened.  All we have is a bunch of opposition voters that are very angry right now--  That's it.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are such a fucking moronic asshole
> there is no need to explain beyond the original posts because there was ZERO inconsistancy
> you cant possibly be more stupid than chric/bobo, but it sure seems like you are trying very hard to show you are
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...theres zero need to explain?  I thought you said it had been explained several times now?
> 
> Man this is just too fucking easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too fucking moronic
Click to expand...


Does that count as an argument where you come from, sonny?


----------



## Sinatra

How's that 'hope and change' working out for ya Iran?


----------



## elvis

DiveCon said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Mullahs are cracking down now.
> 
> It was the youth who brought them into power - and now it's (some) of the youth who want them out of power.
> 
> Sadly, my money is on the Mullahs.
> 
> The Obama administration's arrogance is to blame for much of this.
> 
> And if you can't figure that one out - you ain't looking hard enough kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope and Change...Change and Hope.
> Yup...that should about do it.
> Now go vote!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> how is Obama responsible for the mess the Iranians got themselves into?
> 
> sorry, it wasnt Bush's fault and its not Obama's fault
Click to expand...


what a concept.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The election was stolen and the Iranian people know it.
> 
> Obama's election is helping to lead to the destruction of the Iranian government.
> 
> It is disintegrating before our very eyes.
Click to expand...


Then you wake up and wipe yourself off.


----------



## oreo

Sinatra said:


> The Mullahs are cracking down now.
> 
> It was the youth who brought them into power - and now it's (some) of the youth who want them out of power.
> 
> Sadly, my money is on the Mullahs.
> 
> The Obama administration's arrogance is to blame for much of this.
> 
> And if you can't figure that one out - you ain't looking hard enough kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope and Change...Change and Hope.
> Yup...that should about do it.
> Now go vote!!!!




The youth did not bring the Mullahs into power--where did you come up with that one?  The youth of Iran has "always" wanted a more moderate government--that is friendly to the west.  Unfortunately--the youth in Iran are only 30% of the entire population.  The only way they get change is for the older hard-liners to die off.


----------



## Nik

oreo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The election was stolen and the Iranian people know it.
> 
> Obama's election is helping to lead to the destruction of the Iranian government.
> 
> It is disintegrating before our very eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criss--give it up will ya?  60% of the population voted to keep the current government.  There is not a shread of proof that voter fraud happened.  All we have is a bunch of opposition voters that are very angry right now--  That's it.
Click to expand...


Actually there is a shit ton of evidence that voter fraud happened.

Informed Comment: Stealing the Iranian Election

And if there was no fraud, why are all the social networking sites shut down?

If there was no fraud, why are random DOS attacks happening against Iranian expat sites?

If there was no fraud, why is Mousavi under house arrest?

Also there have been reports that Irans own election monitoring service has declared it fraudulent, and top clerics have asked for a revote.


----------



## Nik

Sinatra said:


> How's that 'hope and change' working out for ya Iran?



Wtf?  Do you think Obama is supposed to magically fix Iran?  What exactly do you think he should have done to prevent this?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that 'hope and change' working out for ya Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf?  Do you think Obama is supposed to magically fix Iran?  What exactly do you think he should have done to prevent this?
Click to expand...


Vote "Present"?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that 'hope and change' working out for ya Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wtf?  Do you think Obama is supposed to magically fix Iran?  What exactly do you think he should have done to prevent this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Vote "Present"?
Click to expand...


No answer, eh?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait...theres zero need to explain?  I thought you said it had been explained several times now?
> 
> Man this is just too fucking easy.
> 
> 
> 
> you are too fucking moronic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that count as an argument where you come from, sonny?
Click to expand...

no, it means i wont waste much time on you
you are too fucking stupid


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are too fucking moronic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that count as an argument where you come from, sonny?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, it means i wont waste much time on you
> you are too fucking stupid
Click to expand...


Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that count as an argument where you come from, sonny?
> 
> 
> 
> no, it means i wont waste much time on you
> you are too fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?
Click to expand...


He was just in another thread, you stupid fucking invalid.  I was actually going to engage in conversation with you, but now, I think not.  chris is around.  The two of you can have an Obama worship service together.  Enjoy.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does that count as an argument where you come from, sonny?
> 
> 
> 
> no, it means i wont waste much time on you
> you are too fucking stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?
Click to expand...

maybe i'm just bored enough to just keep responding to your stupidity, but not enough to actually research for you


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it means i wont waste much time on you
> you are too fucking stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was just in another thread, you stupid fucking invalid.  I was actually going to engage in conversation with you, but now, I think not.  chris is around.  The two of you can have an Obama worship service together.  Enjoy.
Click to expand...


Please don't, unless you are going to somehow, miraculously, say something that actually has some substance to it.  Otherwise, I really don't need to listen to a retarded ass uni student who thinks he knows something about the world.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, it means i wont waste much time on you
> you are too fucking stupid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> maybe i'm just bored enough to just keep responding to your stupidity, but not enough to actually research for you
Click to expand...


Nobody was asking you to research, dumbfuck.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was just in another thread, you stupid fucking invalid.  I was actually going to engage in conversation with you, but now, I think not.  chris is around.  The two of you can have an Obama worship service together.  Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please don't, unless you are going to somehow, miraculously, say something that actually has some substance to it.  Otherwise, I really don't need to listen to a retarded ass uni student who thinks he knows something about the world.
Click to expand...


amazing how you think you know everything about me.


----------



## 007

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Then why are you replying to everything I say and following me around like a little bitch?
> 
> 
> 
> maybe i'm just bored enough to just keep responding to your stupidity, but not enough to actually research for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody was asking you to research, dumbfuck.
Click to expand...


And you ruin every damn thread you're in. Your beginning to really stink up the board with your SHIT in all these threads.


----------



## Nik

Pale Rider said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe i'm just bored enough to just keep responding to your stupidity, but not enough to actually research for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody was asking you to research, dumbfuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you ruin every damn thread you're in. Your beginning to really stink up the board with your SHIT in all these threads.
Click to expand...


Look in the mirror, shitbreath.  The only difference between you and Publius is that, thankfully, your incoherent right-wing rants about shit you know nothing about is much shorter than his are.


----------



## Chris

oreo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could not help but chuckle at the naive implorations by a few in this forum declaring that Obama was altering the attitude of the Muslim world through a few speeches given in recent weeks.
> 
> It is that degree of naivety that is the now-crumbling foundation of the Obama administration.  They were elected on the power of speech, so they are now convinced they can actually govern by that same power - that words in essence, are more critical than actual results.
> 
> So, while Obama's personal popularity remains high, his job approval has fallen, particularly in the categories of handling the economy, government spending, and taxes.  The reality of the time is now in stark contrast to the lofty rhetoric of Obama's so often contradictory words.
> 
> And now with the overwhelming victory by Iranian Muslim hardliner President Ahmadinejad in Iran, re-elected by well over 60% of the population (a far more statistically significant victory than Obama's own victory in the United States last year) we see Obama's impotence with the American economy now extending to foreign policy.
> 
> The Obama White House is a place of increasing uncertainty.  The community organizer turned President struggles for a coherent message - particularly when removed from the safety of his teleprompted script.  The economy continues to stagnate, and a tide of opposition grows against his health care plan, where more moderate Democrats are now quietly backing away from the White House for fear of being attached to its quite possible legislative failure.
> 
> And so, this White House continues its campaign of words-words-words, but fewer and fewer and fewer care to listen, with a hint of fomenting contempt against this overly scripted and verbose President beginning to accumulate across America.
> 
> The vast majority of Iranian people are not impressed with Obama.
> 
> Perhaps it is that one thing which the Iranians and the American people wil sooner rather than later, have in common.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14iran.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The election was stolen and the Iranian people know it.
> 
> Obama's election is helping to lead to the destruction of the Iranian government.
> 
> It is disintegrating before our very eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Criss--give it up will ya?  60% of the population voted to keep the current government.  There is not a shread of proof that voter fraud happened.  All we have is a bunch of opposition voters that are very angry right now--  That's it.
Click to expand...


You might want to do a little reading.

The election was stolen.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was just in another thread, you stupid fucking invalid.  I was actually going to engage in conversation with you, but now, I think not.  chris is around.  The two of you can have an Obama worship service together.  Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't, unless you are going to somehow, miraculously, say something that actually has some substance to it.  Otherwise, I really don't need to listen to a retarded ass uni student who thinks he knows something about the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
Click to expand...


Wait, sort of how you went around proclaiming I worshiped Obama, without a shred of evidence?

Yeah, don't bitch when I play online psychologist right back at you, bitch.


----------



## DiveCon

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was just in another thread, you stupid fucking invalid.  I was actually going to engage in conversation with you, but now, I think not.  chris is around.  The two of you can have an Obama worship service together.  Enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't, unless you are going to somehow, miraculously, say something that actually has some substance to it.  Otherwise, I really don't need to listen to a retarded ass uni student who thinks he knows something about the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
Click to expand...

must be that liberal moonbat theology at work
remember, they always know whats best for you and how to best spend the money you earn


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't, unless you are going to somehow, miraculously, say something that actually has some substance to it.  Otherwise, I really don't need to listen to a retarded ass uni student who thinks he knows something about the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> must be that liberal moonbat theology at work
> remember, they always know whats best for you and how to best spend the money you earn
Click to expand...



amazing how you think you know everything about me.

Consistency fail...yet again.  Man...you really, really suck at this.


----------



## oreo

Nik said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> The election was stolen and the Iranian people know it.
> 
> Obama's election is helping to lead to the destruction of the Iranian government.
> 
> It is disintegrating before our very eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Criss--give it up will ya?  60% of the population voted to keep the current government.  There is not a shread of proof that voter fraud happened.  All we have is a bunch of opposition voters that are very angry right now--  That's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually there is a shit ton of evidence that voter fraud happened.
> 
> Informed Comment: Stealing the Iranian Election
> 
> And if there was no fraud, why are all the social networking sites shut down?
> 
> If there was no fraud, why are random DOS attacks happening against Iranian expat sites?
> 
> If there was no fraud, why is Mousavi under house arrest?
> 
> Also there have been reports that Irans own election monitoring service has declared it fraudulent, and top clerics have asked for a revote.
Click to expand...



The site you linked is nothing more than a pile of _"conjecture"_ written by a journalist.  I am no fan of Iran--& I would have certainly liked to have seen a more moderate government in charge that was willing to talk to the west--& stop all this continual threatening of our greatest allie in the region--Isreal.   Nothing Iran does--surprises me.  I lived through their first slap to our face--50 Americans held hostage for over 1-1/2 years during the Carter administration.  This is Iran.

The next question for you is "What are we going to do about it?"  On another board we have people calling for an all out invasion of Iran--to help the youth take control.  These same people hated Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq.  BTW--I was struck by a comment made years ago, after our invasion of Iraq. A group of young Iranians--were absolutely "gleeful" that we invaded Iraq & were asking a reporter when we planned on invading their country.  *They wanted to be next.*

*I would sure hate to invade Iran & find out later that the election results were correct.*  Could you imagine the consequences?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
> 
> 
> 
> must be that liberal moonbat theology at work
> remember, they always know whats best for you and how to best spend the money you earn
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
> 
> Consistency fail...yet again.  Man...you really, really suck at this.
Click to expand...

no, you suck at this
just where did i say i know anything about YOU in specific?
i didnt
thats why i see you as a fucking moron
you jump to conclusions not supported by what i said


----------



## DiveCon

oreo said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criss--give it up will ya?  60% of the population voted to keep the current government.  There is not a shread of proof that voter fraud happened.  All we have is a bunch of opposition voters that are very angry right now--  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is a shit ton of evidence that voter fraud happened.
> 
> Informed Comment: Stealing the Iranian Election
> 
> And if there was no fraud, why are all the social networking sites shut down?
> 
> If there was no fraud, why are random DOS attacks happening against Iranian expat sites?
> 
> If there was no fraud, why is Mousavi under house arrest?
> 
> Also there have been reports that Irans own election monitoring service has declared it fraudulent, and top clerics have asked for a revote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The site you linked is nothing more than a pile of _"conjecture"_ written by a journalist.  I am no fan of Iran--& I would have certainly liked to have seen a more moderate government in charge that was willing to talk to the west--& stop all this continual threatening of our greatest allie in the region--Isreal.   Nothing Iran does--surprises me.  I lived through their first slap to our face--50 Americans held hostage for over 1-1/2 years during the Carter administration.  This is Iran.
> 
> The next question for you is "What are we going to do about it?"  On another board we have people calling for an all out invasion of Iran--to help the youth take control.  These same people hated Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq.
> 
> *I would sure hate to invade Iran & find out later that the election results were correct.*  Could you imagine the consequences?
Click to expand...

no shit


----------



## L.K.Eder

oreo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does this mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is.  And we've been dealing with middle east problems since right after WW2 which was 1945!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, after reading your post, friend, i decided to give this thread another chance.
> 
> it is after all designed to give me a little history lesson the middle east.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great--I am glad to see you back.  I really don't know how old you are--but this has been going on for decades in the middle east.  I don't know if you remember this or not--but Bill Clinton spent his last weeks with the then prime--minister of Isreal & Arafat--trying to get to peace in the region.  Clinton & the prime minister of Isreal worked up an unbelievable deal for Arafat.  Even the political pundents--stated there would be no other better deal--it was put on a silver platter for Arafat--& he shocked everyone by turning it down FLAT.
> 
> G.W. Bush  got so ticked at Arafat for turning down the Clinton deal--that he wouldn't even acknowledge Arafat's presence in a room.  You probably remember the horrendous bombings in Isreal (after Arafat turned down Clinton's deal?)  Then Arafat dies during the Bush administration.  We're all HEY this is it--Palistians have got to be sick & tired of living in poverty--they've got to be sick & tired of war--they're going to elect the more moderate to run their country.  They SHOCKED the entire world by electing a terrorist organization (Hamas) to be in charge of the government of Palistine.
> 
> *This is the middle east. * If you have read any books on them--you will note that they have been warriors--barbarians in their culture for centuries.  If they're not fighting us they fight each other.  It's like they live for war.
> 
> We have been unsuccessful at changing that culture.  We have been sucessful with moderate Muslims--but the hard-liners--forget it.  _It's a waste of time, in my opinion._
> 
> The Mullahs in Iran really are the ones in control.  Unfortunately--we did not back the Shaw of Iran & they took over.  They have been there for decades now.  While the younger want change & have wanted change for a very long time--they've got a real uphill battle in front of them.
> 
> Every single President has tried to settle issues & bring a lasting peace to the region.  And every one of them have come up empty handed.
Click to expand...


I have no idea anymore, who is winding up who. My post was sarcastic, I thought this was obvious. if you did not get this, then i apologize, i feel bad now (no sarcasm).

If you took my post and threw it back in my face with even more sarcasm, then i applaud, well-played. 

If I needed a history lesson about the middle east the last place i'd look for info would be on an ultra-partisan US message board.


----------



## Bfgrn

Maple said:


> How true Sinatra, Kennedy was no mindless, weak kneeded leftist, he was conservative and passed one of the largest across the boards tax cuts in history. He tolerated no B.S from foriegn leaders and handled the Cuban Crisis with total strength and determination during the cold war.
> 
> So many democrats like to tout his name, but if they actually knew what a strong determined, tax cutting, pro business president he was, I wonder if they still would.
> 
> He was nothing like his brother Ted, they were related in blood only, otherwise they were total opposites in ideology.



Total fabricated BULL shit...

How many "tough" "pro business" conservatives would say THIS about the president of US Steel and other steel executives ???

"The American people will find it hard, as I do, to accept a situation in which a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility can show such utter contempt for the interests of 185 million Americans."

Kennedy handled the Cuban Missile Crisis AGAINST the relentless pressure by the Joint Chiefs and the military to, as General Curtis LeMay said, "fry" Cuba...

How many "strong" not weak- kneed conservatives would ever utter THESE words?

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."

How many conservatives strongly support the Arts and would talk like THIS?

"If sometimes our great artists have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist."


----------



## Bfgrn

oreo said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's blaming Obama for this?  I am not.  The point was we had a couple of you guys actually calling the election--2 days before it happened--& giving credit to Obama for a wishful thinking win.
> 
> Does this mean you should run away from this thread?  No--it's designed--to give you a little history lesson the middle east--instead of thinking that because a new President was elected 6 months ago--everything is going to change for the better.
> 
> Sorry friend--I have been around way to long to know that never happens in the middle east--regardless of who the POTUS is.  And we've been dealing with middle east problems since right after WW2 which was 1945!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok, after reading your post, friend, i decided to give this thread another chance.
> 
> it is after all designed to give me a little history lesson the middle east.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Great--I am glad to see you back.  I really don't know how old you are--but this has been going on for decades in the middle east.  I don't know if you remember this or not--but Bill Clinton spent his last weeks with the then prime--minister of Isreal & Arafat--trying to get to peace in the region.  Clinton & the prime minister of Isreal worked up an unbelievable deal for Arafat.  Even the political pundents--stated there would be no other better deal--it was put on a silver platter for Arafat--& he shocked everyone by turning it down FLAT.
> 
> G.W. Bush  got so ticked at Arafat for turning down the Clinton deal--that he wouldn't even acknowledge Arafat's presence in a room.  You probably remember the horrendous bombings in Isreal (after Arafat turned down Clinton's deal?)  Then Arafat dies during the Bush administration.  We're all HEY this is it--Palistians have got to be sick & tired of living in poverty--they've got to be sick & tired of war--they're going to elect the more moderate to run their country.  They SHOCKED the entire world by electing a terrorist organization (Hamas) to be in charge of the government of Palistine.
> 
> *This is the middle east. * If you have read any books on them--you will note that they have been warriors--barbarians in their culture for centuries.  If they're not fighting us they fight each other.  It's like they live for war.
> 
> We have been unsuccessful at changing that culture.  We have been sucessful with moderate Muslims--but the hard-liners--forget it.  _It's a waste of time, in my opinion._
> 
> The Mullahs in Iran really are the ones in control.  Unfortunately--we did not back the Shaw of Iran & they took over.  They have been there for decades now.  While the younger want change & have wanted change for a very long time--they've got a real uphill battle in front of them.
> 
> Every single President has tried to settle issues & bring a lasting peace to the region.  And every one of them have come up empty handed.
Click to expand...


I LOVE seeing right wing pea brains "school" us on the "parochial" version of history of places like PERSIA, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Egypt (place with those stone pointy things)...you know...the birth place of something called civilization, home of the first human rights charter in history, the Cyrus Cylinder...

Hey pea brain...study up on Operation Ajax...find out what happened to Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves...

Right wing pea brain "parochial" definition of *Nationalize*: STEAL a countries resources AWAY from their rightful owners...the British Empire and the Imperial Empire of America...


----------



## rayboyusmc

> TEHRAN, Iran  Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.



And the elephant you rode in on.  Want to bet there aren't votes to be counted?

Hmm, this is more and more like Florida 2000.   Aminidina learned well, grasshopper.


----------



## elvis

rayboyusmc said:


> TEHRAN, Iran  Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the elephant you rode in on.  Want to bet there aren't votes to be counted?
> 
> Hmm, this is more and more like Florida 2000.   Aminidina learned well, grasshopper.
Click to expand...


Did Katherine Harris fix this one, too?


----------



## Nik

oreo said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criss--give it up will ya?  60% of the population voted to keep the current government.  There is not a shread of proof that voter fraud happened.  All we have is a bunch of opposition voters that are very angry right now--  That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is a shit ton of evidence that voter fraud happened.
> 
> Informed Comment: Stealing the Iranian Election
> 
> And if there was no fraud, why are all the social networking sites shut down?
> 
> If there was no fraud, why are random DOS attacks happening against Iranian expat sites?
> 
> If there was no fraud, why is Mousavi under house arrest?
> 
> Also there have been reports that Irans own election monitoring service has declared it fraudulent, and top clerics have asked for a revote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The site you linked is nothing more than a pile of _"conjecture"_ written by a journalist.  I am no fan of Iran--& I would have certainly liked to have seen a more moderate government in charge that was willing to talk to the west--& stop all this continual threatening of our greatest allie in the region--Isreal.   Nothing Iran does--surprises me.  I lived through their first slap to our face--50 Americans held hostage for over 1-1/2 years during the Carter administration.  This is Iran.
> 
> The next question for you is "What are we going to do about it?"  On another board we have people calling for an all out invasion of Iran--to help the youth take control.  These same people hated Bush for doing the same thing in Iraq.  BTW--I was struck by a comment made years ago, after our invasion of Iraq. A group of young Iranians--were absolutely "gleeful" that we invaded Iraq & were asking a reporter when we planned on invading their country.  *They wanted to be next.*
> 
> *I would sure hate to invade Iran & find out later that the election results were correct.*  Could you imagine the consequences?
Click to expand...


Actually its a pile of evidence.  Oh, and you didn't answer my questions.  Add to the list, that Khamanei, after certifying the vote (twice), has now called for an independent council to examine whether their was fraud.   

I think what the Obama administration is doing about it is good.  Stay quiet, basically.  A lot of people over there hate us, and due to those unfortunate circumstances there is a very limited amount of good we could do.  Invading Iran will likely have all those youths turn against US forces.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> *must be that liberal moonbat theology at work*
> remember, *they always know whats best for you and how to best spend the money you earn*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
> 
> Consistency fail...yet again.  Man...you really, really suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, you suck at this
> just where did i say i know anything about YOU in specific?
> i didnt
> thats why i see you as a fucking moron
> you jump to conclusions not supported by what i said
Click to expand...


See the bolded parts, sonny.


----------



## rayboyusmc

> must be that liberal moonbat theology at work
> remember, they always know whats best for you and how to best spend the money you earn



Oh, conseravtives don't know what's best for all of US?  Hmmm,  could have sworn theyhave their own agenda to shove up our arses just like the far left.

Compassionate conservatism is a lie.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, unless it comes from Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh & Co., or one of their own right-wing blog sites, it must be a lie. Notice how gleefully the OP was citing the <gasp> New York Times!! And they try to tell us it's not about Obama when they can't WAIT to post information justifying that Obama made no difference in the Iran election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't watch Fox and don't listen to Limbaugh.  But this tool expects me to take something from huffington Post about republicans seriously.
Click to expand...


The Huffington Post has as much credibility as The Drudge Report.  Neither tells outright lies; they simply have different slants.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> You asked who did that.  I gave you an answer.  You should be convinced unless you are even more of a dishonest shithead than I previously thought.
> 
> And do tell what it being from the huffington post has to do with anything?
> 
> 
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> True - JFK was a NEOCON.
Click to expand...


Sure, forty years ago, before the term and the agenda was hijacked by the NEW "neocons." There are no Democrats among them now, and they most certainly ARE "right-wing" to the point that they pulled the strings of the Bush Administration.

You don't have to take Wikipedia's analysis; the same basic history of neoconservatism can be found in hundreds of other places.

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.

The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.' His ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". *Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century*._


----------



## MaggieMae

Bfgrn said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT, you will take seriously the lead article which identifies NO author or provides a link to a NYT article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
Click to expand...


If Iran were a true democracy, probably Mousavi wouldn't have been in the running. He was "chosen" as Achmedinijad's opposition by the Grand Ayatollah. But he's basically the lesser of two evils, which says volumes about Ach's popularity.


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said I took it seriously.  I said Obama has no impact on the final outcome of the election, and that anyone who thinks so is being silly,  and for that, I get accused of supporting our enemies.  doesn't fly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
Click to expand...


Why does any woman who opposes your simplistic opinions need to be called a **** or a whore? What do those definitions have to do with politics?


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  dumb fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...







Shall we continue this dance?


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra...JFK was NO neocon...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend Jim says otherwise...
> 
> American Thinker: JFK, neo-con.
Click to expand...


AMERICAN THINKER? And we get criticized for quoting from the Huffington Post? Please take note, _Elvis...._


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Agnapostate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Kennedy's actions went beyond traditional neoconservatism in that his campaign towards Cuba could legitimately be described as state terrorism. That's generally the basis behind the more radical and interventionist elements of the neoconservative agenda, *but it's actually surprising how many are unfamiliar with that legacy*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am repeatedly surprised as well - so many in here throw out "neoconservative" without any real understanding of the historical context of that term.
> 
> But alas, perhaps some are being educated this very moment!
Click to expand...


Oh please, the "neocon movement" evolved from its historic premises. Do you honestly believe that JFK would have endorsed the Project for a New American Century? Or Bush/Cheney's 2002 National Security Strategy which mirrored the PNAC, also known as the "Bush Doctrine"???


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually not, but thanks for stopping by.
> 
> Now I suggest you further your studies of your own nation's recent history, particularly the interesting links between JFK and the neoconservative movement...
> 
> 
> 
> of course, if you hadn't provided a link to anything, they would have just dismissed it off hand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True enough - and the fact I started off my comments by referencing this forum, and yet they assumed it was a NY Times column, well....that kind of stupid is too easy to mock, and so, I shall let it pass...
Click to expand...


I just read the words, and _assumed_ they were from the NYT. My bad. I keep forgetting that half-truths are what you guys do best.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> The fact is, JFK would have little place in today's Democrat Party.
> 
> Hell, some so-called Republicans would consider him too conservative.



Likewise, Reagan wouldn't recognize the GOP.


----------



## Bfgrn

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> that shows again, how fucking koronic and braindead you are
> 
> first off because NEOCONS are NOT right wing by any means
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True - JFK was a NEOCON.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, forty years ago, before the term and the agenda was hijacked by the NEW "neocons." There are no Democrats among them now, and they most certainly ARE "right-wing" to the point that they pulled the strings of the Bush Administration.
> 
> You don't have to take Wikipedia's analysis; the same basic history of neoconservatism can be found in hundreds of other places.
> 
> Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
> 
> The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.
> 
> The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.' His ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". *Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century*._
Click to expand...


The neocons are not moderate, they are extreme war hawks...

JFK was not a neocon...he was not a war hawk... the neocons were originally aligned with Henry "Scoop" Jackson... 

The Vietnam war tore the Democratic Party apart...they wanted nothing to do with the war drum beating neocons...as the Democrats jettisoned the neocons... Ronald Reagan welcomed these extremists into the GOP, where they hooked up with right wing extremist christian hawks... 

And what you see today is the culmination of Reagan's folly... a party dominated by extremists. Moderate Republicans, Goldwater conservatives and libertarians are being jettisoned to "purify" the party...the Nazis also wanted to "purify" their party...


----------



## MaggieMae

Maple said:


> How true Sinatra, Kennedy was no mindless, weak kneeded leftist, he was conservative and passed one of the largest across the boards tax cuts in history. He tolerated no B.S from foriegn leaders and handled the Cuban Crisis with total strength and determination during the cold war.
> 
> So many democrats like to tout his name, but if they actually knew what a strong determined, tax cutting, pro business president he was, I wonder if they still would.
> He was nothing like his brother Ted, they were related in blood only, otherwise they were total opposites in ideology.



Most Democrats have absolutely no problem with tax cuts, except when they're being done at the same time two wars are being fought and nation-building for both is not far off.


----------



## Meister

Bfgrn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> True - JFK was a NEOCON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, forty years ago, before the term and the agenda was hijacked by the NEW "neocons." There are no Democrats among them now, and they most certainly ARE "right-wing" to the point that they pulled the strings of the Bush Administration.
> 
> You don't have to take Wikipedia's analysis; the same basic history of neoconservatism can be found in hundreds of other places.
> 
> Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
> 
> The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.
> 
> The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.' His ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". *Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The neocons are not moderate, they are extreme war hawks...
> 
> JFK was not a neocon...he was not a war hawk... the neocons were originally aligned with Henry "Scoop" Jackson...
> 
> The Vietnam war tore the Democratic Party apart...they wanted nothing to do with the war drum beating neocons...as the Democrats jettisoned the neocons... Ronald Reagan welcomed these extremists into the GOP, where they hooked up with right wing extremist christian hawks...
> 
> And what you see today is the culmination of Reagan's folly... a party dominated by extremists. Moderate Republicans, Goldwater conservatives and libertarians are being jettisoned to "purify" the party...the Nazis also wanted to "purify" their party...
Click to expand...


Oh brother,  That's quite a yarn, BFGN


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> The Mullahs are cracking down now.
> 
> It was the youth who brought them into power - and now it's (some) of the youth who want them out of power.
> 
> Sadly, my money is on the Mullahs.
> 
> The Obama administration's arrogance is to blame for much of this.
> 
> And if you can't figure that one out - you ain't looking hard enough kid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope and Change...Change and Hope.
> Yup...that should about do it.
> Now go vote!!!!



You don't even seem to know the power structure of Iran. The president is simply a figurehead. The mulluhs run the whole show, which wouldn't be any different if GWB were still the president. The younger Iranians have been in a revolt-mood for a long time, and they finally have a reason to act out. Obama has nothing to do with it, except that he has removed the misconception that if they (Iranians) step out of line, the US will carpet bomb their country like it did Iraq.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> How's that 'hope and change' working out for ya Iran?



How is it working out? Like most everything else, a tad more time than 48 hours would be nice before an assessment such as your dumb blog entry. That said, when was the last time the Grand Ayatollah (Main Mulluh) of Iran intervened to investigate voter fraud?


----------



## MaggieMae

Pale Rider said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe i'm just bored enough to just keep responding to your stupidity, but not enough to actually research for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody was asking you to research, dumbfuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you ruin every damn thread you're in. Your beginning to really stink up the board with your SHIT in all these threads.
Click to expand...


But not Divecon, eh? Yeah, we get it. You people would just love to turn this entire board into an all right-wing membership, no dissention allowed, no profanity allowed except by YOU. Pretty soon you'd get so goddamned bored high-fiving everything, you'd search out other boards where opinions vary, and then try to ruin those too.


----------



## MaggieMae

Bfgrn said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> True - JFK was a NEOCON.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, forty years ago, before the term and the agenda was hijacked by the NEW "neocons." There are no Democrats among them now, and they most certainly ARE "right-wing" to the point that they pulled the strings of the Bush Administration.
> 
> You don't have to take Wikipedia's analysis; the same basic history of neoconservatism can be found in hundreds of other places.
> 
> Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
> 
> The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.
> 
> The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.' His ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". *Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century*._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The neocons are not moderate, they are extreme war hawks...
> 
> JFK was not a neocon...he was not a war hawk... the neocons were originally aligned with Henry "Scoop" Jackson...
> 
> The Vietnam war tore the Democratic Party apart...they wanted nothing to do with the war drum beating neocons...as the Democrats jettisoned the neocons... Ronald Reagan welcomed these extremists into the GOP, where they hooked up with right wing extremist christian hawks...
> 
> And what you see today is the culmination of Reagan's folly... a party dominated by extremists. Moderate Republicans, Goldwater conservatives and libertarians are being jettisoned to "purify" the party...the Nazis also wanted to "purify" their party...
Click to expand...


Hmm, I'm not sure I would blame Reagan who was himself once a Democrat. I don't think anyone loses all trace of former roots. The unintended consequences of the purge of moderate Republicans I believe began with the Bush Doctrine partnered with the Rove Doctrine of Christian fanaticism. I believe the "agenda" was for the two to balance each other and thus create a "Republicans For Life" national order, but it backfired. Thus, we have the holdovers from each trying still to make their mark, and the GOP is left in the dust.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> amazing how you think you know everything about me.
> 
> Consistency fail...yet again.  Man...you really, really suck at this.
> 
> 
> 
> no, you suck at this
> just where did i say i know anything about YOU in specific?
> i didnt
> thats why i see you as a fucking moron
> you jump to conclusions not supported by what i said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the bolded parts, sonny.
Click to expand...

which was not solely directed at YOU
learn to read asshole


----------



## Sinatra

Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!

What a dance of denial we have today!

JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.

Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.

And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.

Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody was asking you to research, dumbfuck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you ruin every damn thread you're in. Your beginning to really stink up the board with your SHIT in all these threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But not Divecon, eh? Yeah, we get it. You people would just love to turn this entire board into an all right-wing membership, no dissention allowed, no profanity allowed except by YOU. Pretty soon you'd get so goddamned board high-fiving everything, you'd search out other boards where opinions vary, and then try to ruin those too.
Click to expand...

you just dont like it that this board isn't totally a liberal wet dream


----------



## DiveCon

Sinatra said:


> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.


liberal morons, they know so much that just isnt true


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you suck at this
> just where did i say i know anything about YOU in specific?
> i didnt
> thats why i see you as a fucking moron
> you jump to conclusions not supported by what i said
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the bolded parts, sonny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which was not solely directed at YOU
> learn to read asshole
Click to expand...


Thats nice.  It did include me, did it not?  If it did, thats you making judgments about me.

As I said, consistency fail.


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.



,,,


----------



## Meister

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the bolded parts, sonny.
> 
> 
> 
> which was not solely directed at YOU
> learn to read asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats nice.  It did include me, did it not?  If it did, thats you making judgments about me.
> 
> As I said, consistency fail.
Click to expand...


Reading your posts, you should know all about "fail", Nickie.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> See the bolded parts, sonny.
> 
> 
> 
> which was not solely directed at YOU
> learn to read asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats nice. It did include me, did it not? If it did, thats you making judgments about me.
> 
> As I said, consistency fail.
Click to expand...

you are too fucking stupid for words
take some classes, you clearly need more than one


----------



## Nik

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> which was not solely directed at YOU
> learn to read asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats nice.  It did include me, did it not?  If it did, thats you making judgments about me.
> 
> As I said, consistency fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading your posts, you should know all about "fail", Nickie.
Click to expand...


What a surprise.  A rightwinger comes to another rightwingers defense, but still can't offer anything substantice.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> which was not solely directed at YOU
> learn to read asshole
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats nice. It did include me, did it not? If it did, thats you making judgments about me.
> 
> As I said, consistency fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are too fucking stupid for words
> take some classes, you clearly need more than one
Click to expand...


And yet again, you don't respond to the point.


----------



## Meister

Nik said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats nice.  It did include me, did it not?  If it did, thats you making judgments about me.
> 
> As I said, consistency fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts, you should know all about "fail", Nickie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a surprise.  A rightwinger comes to another rightwingers defense, but still can't offer anything substantice.
Click to expand...


Just stating the facts, Nickie, just stating the facts.


----------



## Nik

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading your posts, you should know all about "fail", Nickie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise.  A rightwinger comes to another rightwingers defense, but still can't offer anything substantice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts, Nickie, just stating the facts.
Click to expand...


That would be your opinion, son.  But its no surprise that you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
Click to expand...


,,,


----------



## Meister

Nik said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a surprise.  A rightwinger comes to another rightwingers defense, but still can't offer anything substantice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts, Nickie, just stating the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be your opinion, son.  But its no surprise that you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Click to expand...


What did I tell you, Dive....  He's so predictable


----------



## Nik

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts, Nickie, just stating the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your opinion, son.  But its no surprise that you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, Dive....  He's so predictable
Click to expand...


That I would respond to you pointing out how your retarded is predictable?  Thanks.  i take that as a compliment.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Nik said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your opinion, son.  But its no surprise that you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, Dive....  He's so predictable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That I would respond to you pointing out how your retarded is predictable?  Thanks.  i take that as a compliment.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that's just precious... and sorta sad...  But just absolutely  PRECIOUS...


----------



## DiveCon

Meister said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just stating the facts, Nickie, just stating the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be your opinion, son.  But its no surprise that you can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, Dive....  He's so predictable
Click to expand...

the irony is too damn thick on his post
liberals in general(not JUST you nik) have problems telling the difference between fact and opinion


----------



## DiveCon

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I tell you, Dive....  He's so predictable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That I would respond to you pointing out how your retarded is predictable?  Thanks.  i take that as a compliment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that's just precious... and sorta sad...  But just absolutely  PRECIOUS...
Click to expand...

no shit
the moron shows himself to be a moron over an over


----------



## WillowTree

DiveCon said:


> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> That I would respond to you pointing out how your retarded is predictable?  Thanks.  i take that as a compliment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that's just precious... and sorta sad...  But just absolutely  PRECIOUS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no shit
> the moron shows himself to be a moron over an over
Click to expand...




doesn't that make him a *"moreover" *


----------



## DiveCon

WillowTree said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PubliusInfinitum said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  Now that's just precious... and sorta sad...  But just absolutely  PRECIOUS...
> 
> 
> 
> no shit
> the moron shows himself to be a moron over an over
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't that make him a *"moreover" *
Click to expand...

no

maybe a moveon.moron


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to make shit up, eh?  It makes you look even *stupider *than you normally do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to commit blasphemy.  I apologize.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Retard.*
Click to expand...


ROFL... Oh GOD!  Now that's just PRECIOUS~!


----------



## Bfgrn

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, forty years ago, before the term and the agenda was hijacked by the NEW "neocons." There are no Democrats among them now, and they most certainly ARE "right-wing" to the point that they pulled the strings of the Bush Administration.
> 
> You don't have to take Wikipedia's analysis; the same basic history of neoconservatism can be found in hundreds of other places.
> 
> Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> _Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries. Unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are generally comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.
> 
> The term neoconservative, first coined at least as early as 1921, was used at one time as a criticism against liberals who had "moved to the right". Michael Harrington, a democratic socialist, coined the current sense of the term neoconservative in a 1973 Dissent magazine article concerning welfare policy. According to E. J. Dionne, the nascent neoconservatives were driven by "the notion that liberalism" had failed and "no longer knew what it was talking about." The term "neoconservative" was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.
> 
> The first major neoconservative to embrace the term, Irving Kristol, is considered a founder of the neoconservative movement. Kristol wrote of his neoconservative views in the 1979 article "Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed 'Neoconservative.' His ideas had been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine. Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled "The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan's Foreign Policy". *Kristol's son, William Kristol, founded the neoconservative Project for the New American Century*._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The neocons are not moderate, they are extreme war hawks...
> 
> JFK was not a neocon...he was not a war hawk... the neocons were originally aligned with Henry "Scoop" Jackson...
> 
> The Vietnam war tore the Democratic Party apart...they wanted nothing to do with the war drum beating neocons...as the Democrats jettisoned the neocons... Ronald Reagan welcomed these extremists into the GOP, where they hooked up with right wing extremist christian hawks...
> 
> And what you see today is the culmination of Reagan's folly... a party dominated by extremists. Moderate Republicans, Goldwater conservatives and libertarians are being jettisoned to "purify" the party...the Nazis also wanted to "purify" their party...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh brother,  That's quite a yarn, BFGN
Click to expand...


REALLY????????????????????????
*
The hijacked GOP*

Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...

Book Review:







*Invasion of the Party Snatchers*

By Victor Gold

After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.

As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.

Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.

Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.

Review:
"Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.

He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.

He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)

Synopsis:
The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold






Victor Gold


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The neocons are not moderate, they are extreme war hawks...
> 
> JFK was not a neocon...he was not a war hawk... the neocons were originally aligned with Henry "Scoop" Jackson...
> 
> The Vietnam war tore the Democratic Party apart...they wanted nothing to do with the war drum beating neocons...as the Democrats jettisoned the neocons... Ronald Reagan welcomed these extremists into the GOP, where they hooked up with right wing extremist christian hawks...
> 
> And what you see today is the culmination of Reagan's folly... a party dominated by extremists. Moderate Republicans, Goldwater conservatives and libertarians are being jettisoned to "purify" the party...the Nazis also wanted to "purify" their party...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother,  That's quite a yarn, BFGN
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REALLY????????????????????????
> *
> The hijacked GOP*
> 
> Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...
> 
> Book Review:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Invasion of the Party Snatchers*
> 
> By Victor Gold
> 
> After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.
> 
> As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.
> 
> Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.
> 
> Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.
> 
> Review:
> "Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.
> 
> He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.
> 
> He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)
> 
> Synopsis:
> The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
> Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victor Gold
Click to expand...

holy rollers?
LOL
what a crock
neocons, yes, i agree they have destroyed(or nearly) the GOP


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> liberal morons, they know so much that just isnt true
Click to expand...


His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem." 
President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961

When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
*John Kenneth Galbraith*


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> liberal morons, they know so much that just isnt true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!
> 
> "And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
> President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961
> 
> When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
> *John Kenneth Galbraith*
Click to expand...

maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> liberal morons, they know so much that just isnt true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!
> 
> "And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
> President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961
> 
> When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
> *John Kenneth Galbraith*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is
Click to expand...


OK, then explain what a neocon IS...simple solution...I will be waiting...


----------



## Nik

PubliusInfinitum said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't mean to commit blasphemy.  I apologize.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Retard.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFL... Oh GOD!  Now that's just PRECIOUS~!
Click to expand...


Lmao, you had to edit that?  Couldn't get it right the first time?

Oh you rightwingers.  Such a barrel of laughs.  Thanks for cheering me up on an otherwise pretty depressing day.


----------



## rhodescholar

This thread has pretty much lost any intrinsic value, is there a point to it?


----------



## elvis

MaggieMae said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you support our enemies...so address the person that accused you...
> 
> Neocon Daniel Pipe saying he would vote for Ahmadinejad at a Middle East Forum at the Heritage Foundation has nothing to do with the Huffington Post...
> 
> You being oblivious to WHO said it and WHERE he said it makes my accusation one of a lack of awareness...(a nice way of calling you a pea brain)
> 
> Mousavi ran on a platform of "change" and "hope". AND we've seen large public crowds of support absent in Iran for 30 years...
> 
> Hmmmmm....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why does any woman who opposes your simplistic opinions need to be called a **** or a whore? What do those definitions have to do with politics?
Click to expand...


Oh.  Sorry, bitch.


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!
> 
> "And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
> President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961
> 
> When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
> *John Kenneth Galbraith*
> 
> 
> 
> maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, then explain what a neocon IS...simple solution...I will be waiting...
Click to expand...

its been explained before and you rejected 

NEOCONs are former hawkish dems that didnt like the pacifist bend the democrats were going
but they were socially more liberal


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then explain what a neocon IS...simple solution...I will be waiting...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its been explained before and you rejected
> 
> NEOCONs are former hawkish dems that didnt like the pacifist bend the democrats were going
> but they were socially more liberal
Click to expand...


So are they still hawks?

Socially more liberal than WHOM?


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh brother,  That's quite a yarn, BFGN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY????????????????????????
> *
> The hijacked GOP*
> 
> Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...
> 
> Book Review:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Invasion of the Party Snatchers*
> 
> By Victor Gold
> 
> After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.
> 
> As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.
> 
> Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.
> 
> Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.
> 
> Review:
> "Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.
> 
> He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.
> 
> He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)
> 
> Synopsis:
> The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
> Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victor Gold
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> holy rollers?
> LOL
> what a crock
> neocons, yes, i agree they have destroyed(or nearly) the GOP
Click to expand...


The Moral Majority is nothing NEW






"If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress."

"I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!"

*Jerry Falwell*
"Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984








"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."

"Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
*
Adolf Hitler*
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then explain what a neocon IS...simple solution...I will be waiting...
> 
> 
> 
> its been explained before and you rejected
> 
> NEOCONs are former hawkish dems that didnt like the pacifist bend the democrats were going
> but they were socially more liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are they still hawks?
> 
> Socially more liberal than WHOM?
Click to expand...

than most republicans, at the time they joined the party


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY????????????????????????
> *
> The hijacked GOP*
> 
> Victor Gold, former speechwriter for George Herbert Walker Bush is a Goldwater conservative...his book explains how the GOP was hijacked away from conservatives by far right theocrats and far left neocons...starting in 1980...
> 
> Book Review:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Invasion of the Party Snatchers*
> 
> By Victor Gold
> 
> After four decades as a Republican insider, Victor Gold reveals how the holy-rollers and the Neo-Cons have destroyed the GOP. Now he's fighting to get his party back.
> 
> As a man who served as press aide to Barry Goldwater and speechwriter and senior advisor to George H. W. Bush (in addition to co-authoring his autobiography), Victor Gold is absolutely furious that the Neo-Cons and their strange bedfellows, the Evangelical Right, have stolen his party from him. Now he is bringing the fight to them.
> 
> Invasion of the Party Snatchers is a blistering critique not only of the Bush-Cheney administration but also of the Republican Congress. Gold is ready to tell all about the war being waged for the soul of the GOP, including the elder Bush's opinion of his sons work domestically and abroad, the significance of the newly elected Congress, and how Goldwater would have reacted to it all. Gold reveals, among other explosive disclosures, how George W. has been manipulated by his vice president and secretary of defense to become, in Lenin's famous phrase, a "useful idiot" for Neo-Conservative warmongers and Theo-Conservative religious fanatics.
> 
> Although there have been other books by dissident Republicans attacking the Bush-Cheney administrations betrayal of conservative principles, none have been by an insider whose political credentials include inner-circle status with Barry Goldwater and George H. W. Bush.
> 
> Review:
> "Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is 'a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay.' Gold looks to Goldwater, 'a straight-talking, freethinking maverick,' as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.
> 
> He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of 'a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.' The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, 'two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth.' In efficient prose, Gold scrutinizes a significant swath of recent GOP history, in particular Newt Gingrich's 104th Congress and the Bush II White House, without losing momentum.
> 
> He also has choice words for 'the Coulterization of Republican rhetoric,' the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, and 'sideshow' legislation like the Flag Protection Amendment. Gold sees a promising future for the Republican Party, but not until they lose some major elections and are able to keep down a slice of humble pie; for those disillusioned with the state of the GOP, this quick, uncompromising polemic provides substantial support, along with a large dose of cold comfort." Publishers Weekly (Starred Review) (Copyright Reed Business Information, Inc.)
> 
> Synopsis:
> The last real Goldwater conservative in America attacks the current state of his movement and his party.
> Powell's Books - Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP by Victor Gold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victor Gold
> 
> 
> 
> holy rollers?
> LOL
> what a crock
> neocons, yes, i agree they have destroyed(or nearly) the GOP
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress."
> 
> "I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!"
> 
> *Jerry Falwell*
> "Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> *
> Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
Click to expand...

yeah, where were those Fallwell death camps, i must have missed those


you fail and just because Fallwell was an asshole, it doesnt put him on the same level with Hitler
Godwins Law


----------



## Sinatra

Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.

Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.

As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.

In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> holy rollers?
> LOL
> what a crock
> neocons, yes, i agree they have destroyed(or nearly) the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress."
> 
> "I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!"
> 
> *Jerry Falwell*
> "Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> *
> Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah, where were those Fallwell death camps, i must have missed those
> 
> 
> you fail and just because Fallwell was an asshole, it doesnt put him on the same level with Hitler
> Godwins Law
Click to expand...


The ONLY difference between Falwell and Hitler is position and power...

The two men are interchangeable put in the others position...


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> holy rollers?
> LOL
> what a crock
> neocons, yes, i agree they have destroyed(or nearly) the GOP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress."
> 
> "I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!"
> 
> *Jerry Falwell*
> "Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> *
> Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah, where were those Fallwell death camps, i must have missed those
> 
> 
> you fail and just because Fallwell was an asshole, it doesnt put him on the same level with Hitler
> Godwins Law
Click to expand...


Weren't you there cheering Elvis on when he was calling me Hitler?  

Yeah, I thought so.  Shut the fuck up, hypocrite.


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress."
> 
> "I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!"
> 
> *Jerry Falwell*
> "Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> *
> Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, where were those Fallwell death camps, i must have missed those
> 
> 
> you fail and just because Fallwell was an asshole, it doesnt put him on the same level with Hitler
> Godwins Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ONLY difference between Falwell and Hitler is position and power...
> 
> The two men are interchangeable put in the others position...
Click to expand...

more bullshit
Fallwell was nothing like Hitler
it only makes you look like an ass to keep making that foolish claim


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Moral Majority is nothing NEW
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If we are going to save America and evangelize the world, we cannot accommodate secular philosophies that are diametrically opposed to Christian truth ... We need to pull out all the stops to recruit and train 25 million Americans to become informed pro-moral activists whose voices can be heard in the halls of Congress."
> 
> "I am convinced that America can be turned around if we will all get serious about the Master's business. It may be late, but it is never too late to do what is right. We need an old-fashioned, God-honoring, Christ-exalting revival to turn American back to God. America can be saved!"
> 
> *Jerry Falwell*
> "Moral Majority Report" for September, 1984
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
> 
> "Today Christians stand at the head of our country. I pledge that I will never tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit.... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past few years."
> *
> Adolf Hitler*
> The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, where were those Fallwell death camps, i must have missed those
> 
> 
> you fail and just because Fallwell was an asshole, it doesnt put him on the same level with Hitler
> Godwins Law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Weren't you there cheering Elvis on when he was calling me Hitler?
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.  Shut the fuck up, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

no, i wasnt
you are a fucking moron
i was laughing at him making fun of you
grow a brain


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, where were those Fallwell death camps, i must have missed those
> 
> 
> you fail and just because Fallwell was an asshole, it doesnt put him on the same level with Hitler
> Godwins Law
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you there cheering Elvis on when he was calling me Hitler?
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.  Shut the fuck up, hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, i wasnt
> you are a fucking moron
> i was laughing at him making fun of you
> grow a brain
Click to expand...


Yeah...thats exactly what I said.  Cheering him on when he was calling me Hitler.  

You just used different words for the same damn action.


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.



No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...

Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...

You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."

I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you there cheering Elvis on when he was calling me Hitler?
> 
> Yeah, I thought so.  Shut the fuck up, hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> no, i wasnt
> you are a fucking moron
> i was laughing at him making fun of you
> grow a brain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...thats exactly what I said.  Cheering him on when he was calling me Hitler.
> 
> You just used different words for the same damn action.
Click to expand...

you really are fucking stupid
keep showing it, i'm sure there are some that havent seen it yet


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...
> 
> Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...
Click to expand...

except Neocons are NOT extremists
they are moderate to liberal


----------



## MaggieMae

DiveCon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you ruin every damn thread you're in. Your beginning to really stink up the board with your SHIT in all these threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But not Divecon, eh? Yeah, we get it. You people would just love to turn this entire board into an all right-wing membership, no dissention allowed, no profanity allowed except by YOU. Pretty soon you'd get so goddamned board high-fiving everything, you'd search out other boards where opinions vary, and then try to ruin those too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you just dont like it that this board isn't totally a liberal wet dream
Click to expand...


I enjoy civil discourse--until it starts getting goofy. We are ALL capable of trading barbs, but there are other websites that cater to and encourage just that. I continue to hope this one doesn't turn into one of them. When one is personally attacked by a_ barage _of insults _as the sole response_, retaliation should be expected, however.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
Click to expand...


You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, _far_ to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, the scrambling to remove JFK from the neocon movement is amusing to watch!
> 
> What a dance of denial we have today!
> 
> JFK was imbedded in the neocon philosophy.  His allegiance to Robert McNamara is plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc.
> 
> Sorry kids, but JFK was a neocon.  That should not discredit him - it is simple historical fact.
> 
> And if you wish to further explore the links with neoconservatism and liberal internationalism, you will find that the philisophical threads greatly intertwine.  And while the modern version of neoconservatism is laid out on the unhealthy table of the Iraq War, one must recall that it also was laid out on the far more disastrous table of Vietnam - a table constructed in great part by the neoconservative hands of JFK and LBJ -and their shared Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara.
> 
> Don't deny your own history - work to understand it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, _far_ to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.
Click to expand...

maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
they are moderate to LIBERAL




*oxymoron


----------



## Soaring

MaggieMae said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not Divecon, eh? Yeah, we get it. You people would just love to turn this entire board into an all right-wing membership, no dissention allowed, no profanity allowed except by YOU. Pretty soon you'd get so goddamned board high-fiving everything, you'd search out other boards where opinions vary, and then try to ruin those too.
> 
> 
> 
> you just dont like it that this board isn't totally a liberal wet dream
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I enjoy civil discourse--until it starts getting goofy. We are ALL capable of trading barbs, but there are other websites that cater to and encourage just that. I continue to hope this one doesn't turn into one of them. When one is personally attacked by a_ barage _of insults _as the sole response_, retaliation should be expected, however.
Click to expand...


I agree MaggieMae.  I just left another political discussion site never to return because of this very thing.  It doesn't take a very intelligent person to throw barbs at another poster, but it does take some intelligence to stick with the subject and give an opinion of the subject and not another poster's personality.  Disagree with the opinion of the poster on the subject at hand and give reasons why you are disagreeing.  Calling them names and attacking them personally is childish.


----------



## MaggieMae

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> liberal morons, they know so much that just isnt true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!
> 
> "And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
> President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961
> 
> When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
> *John Kenneth Galbraith*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is
Click to expand...


I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:


----------



## MaggieMae

elvis3577 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has everything to do with the Huntington Post.  The headline in the H-post says that neocons are rooting for our enemies.  they back that up by saying that TWO count em TWO neocons made that statement.  So now that trash-whore Maggie says everyone who KNEW obama's speeches would have zero impact on the outcome of the election is supporting our enemies.
> Mousavi uses Obama's words, therefore Obama made a difference.  Obamabot (nice way of calling you Obama's bitch.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does any woman who opposes your simplistic opinions need to be called a **** or a whore? What do those definitions have to do with politics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh.  Sorry, bitch.
Click to expand...


An edit?


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> His allegiance to the former President of the Ford Motor Company is proof JFK was a neocon? W...O...W...!!!
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I challenge you to provide those words...if there are plenty, then it should be easy!
> 
> "And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."
> President John F. Kennedy - November 16, 1961
> 
> When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.
> *John Kenneth Galbraith*
> 
> 
> 
> maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:
Click to expand...

yeah, THATS not childish

such a hypocrite


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.



So that's conceding that "neocons" did indeed morph from conservative Democrats to right-wing ideologues, like Richard Perle. That tells me that the movement no way resembled what it was in the 1960's. So what exactly are you debating here? There exists no Democrat today, with the exception of Joe Lieberman who is a war hawk but a liberal Democrat in every other sense, who can remotely be considered a "neocon." Blue Dog Democrats are *fiscally* conservative.


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...
> 
> Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> except Neocons are NOT extremists
> they are moderate to liberal
Click to expand...


Trotskyists are NOT extremists?

Irving Kristol




Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party. 
wiki






Washington Post


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...
> 
> Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...
> 
> 
> 
> except Neocons are NOT extremists
> they are moderate to liberal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trotskyists are NOT extremists?
> 
> Irving Kristol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
> 
> Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
> wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington Post
Click to expand...

which proves MY point, not yours


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's conceding that "neocons" did indeed morph from conservative Democrats to right-wing ideologues, like Richard Perle. That tells me that the movement no way resembled what it was in the 1960's. So what exactly are you debating here? There exists no Democrat today, with the exception of Joe Lieberman who is a war hawk but a liberal Democrat in every other sense, who can remotely be considered a "neocon." Blue Dog Democrats are *fiscally* conservative.
Click to expand...

NO, they changed parties


----------



## Sinatra

Bfgrn said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...
> 
> Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...
Click to expand...


I suggest you go back and study the history of the 1960 presidential campaign.  JFK ran right of Nixon on foreign relations.  He was more a Hawk and interventionist than Nixon, deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union and communism in general.  (And ironically, both Kennedy brothers were killed by extremist examples that the neocons hated most - a Marxist and a Muslim extremist.  When JFK was killed, the neocons lost one of their own)  Kennedy campaigned on the need to close the missile gap between America and the Soviets - instilling fear in the electorate that America was in danger of becoming the lesser of the two superpowers.  This platform is a direct link to the neocon Democrat Scoop Jackson campaing in the 1970's - "Peace through Strength", which was later utilized by Republican Ronald Reagan - _*but originally forwared by John F Kennedy during a speech in 1956.*_  and continued to utilize during his run for President.

You see, while Irving Kristol defined the neocon philosophy in 1965, that philosophy was already a functioning political thread very much prospering during Kennedy's administration.  In fact, while rejecting LBJ's Great Society welfare state - neocons were traditional supporters of FDR's New Deal government.  (Shades of grey, eh?)

JFK was a neocon...


----------



## MaggieMae

DiveCon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> ,,,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, _far_ to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *oxymoron
Click to expand...


You need to stop digging a hole for yourself. Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's 2003 dissertation "NeoCONNED." Does any of this describe a "moderate" or a "liberal"?? Of course not. Perhaps you'll believe Ron Paul.

Neo-CONNED!
_

It is no secretespecially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraqhow they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf Warwhich still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. *They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.*

In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clintons personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.

*The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasnt too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an American greatness imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.*

The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powells State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire. 

Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: *Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad. This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.*

Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East._


----------



## MaggieMae

DiveCon said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe its more due to your lack of understanding of what a neocon actually is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah, THATS not childish
> 
> such a hypocrite
Click to expand...


Woman...talking...to...brick...wall... 
Woman=me...Wall=you...

Frustrating? Yes. Childish? No.


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, _far_ to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *oxymoron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to stop digging a hole for yourself. Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's 2003 dissertation "NeoCONNED." Does any of this describe a "moderate" or a "liberal"?? Of course not. Perhaps you'll believe Ron Paul.
> 
> Neo-CONNED!
> _
> 
> It is no secretespecially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraqhow they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf Warwhich still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. *They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.*
> 
> In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clintons personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
> 
> *The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasnt too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an American greatness imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.*
> 
> The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powells State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire.
> 
> Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: *Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad. This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.*
> 
> Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
> 
> At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East._
Click to expand...

yes, they are MODERATE to LIBERAL
sheeesh, what part of that is so fucking hard to understand'


----------



## DiveCon

MaggieMae said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's more like discussing this with you is like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, THATS not childish
> 
> such a hypocrite
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woman...talking...to...brick...wall...
> Woman=me...Wall=you...
> 
> Frustrating? Yes. Childish? No.
Click to expand...

excepot YOU are the fucking brick wall bitch


----------



## Soaring

MaggieMae said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must believe that echoed statement is very profound. I'm still waiting for someone to answer whether or not JFK would have embraced the NEW "neocon" (you know, those far, _far_ to the right) PNAC or Bush Doctrine agenda. Yes or no.
> 
> 
> 
> maggie, the Neocons(means NEW conservative*) are NOT far right at all
> they are moderate to LIBERAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *oxymoron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to stop digging a hole for yourself. Here are excerpts from Ron Paul's 2003 dissertation "NeoCONNED." Does any of this describe a "moderate" or a "liberal"?? Of course not. Perhaps you'll believe Ron Paul.
> 
> Neo-CONNED!
> _
> 
> It is no secretespecially after the rash of research and articles written about the neocons since our invasion of Iraqhow they gained influence and what organizations were used to promote their cause. Although for decades, they agitated for their beliefs through publications like The National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Public Interest, The Wall Street Journal, Commentary, and the New York Post, their views only gained momentum in the 1990s following the first Persian Gulf Warwhich still has not ended even with removal of Saddam Hussein. *They became convinced that a much more militant approach to resolving all the conflicts in the Middle East was an absolute necessity, and they were determined to implement that policy.*
> 
> In addition to publications, multiple think tanks and projects were created to promote their agenda. A product of the Bradley Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) led the neocon charge, but the real push for war came from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) another organization helped by the Bradley Foundation. This occurred in 1998 and was chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol. They urged early on for war against Iraq, but were disappointed with the Clinton administration, which never followed through with its periodic bombings.  Obviously, these bombings were motivated more by Clintons personal and political problems than a belief in the neocon agenda.
> 
> *The election of 2000 changed all that.  The Defense Policy Board, chaired by Richard Perle, played no small role in coordinating the various projects and think tanks, all determined to take us into war against Iraq. It wasnt too long before the dream of empire was brought closer to reality by the election of 2000 with Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld playing key roles in this accomplishment. The plan to promote an American greatness imperialistic foreign policy was now a distinct possibility. Iraq offered a great opportunity to prove their long-held theories. This opportunity was a consequence of the 9-11 disaster.*
> 
> The money and views of Rupert Murdoch also played a key role in promoting the neocon views, as well as rallying support by the general population, through his News Corporation, which owns Fox News Network, the New York Post, and Weekly Standard. This powerful and influential media empire did more to galvanize public support for the Iraqi invasion than one might imagine. This facilitated the Rumsfeld/Cheney policy as their plans to attack Iraq came to fruition. It would have been difficult for the neocons to usurp foreign policy from the restraints of Colin Powells State Department without the successful agitation of the Rupert Murdoch empire.
> 
> Max Boot was satisfied, as he explained: *Neoconservatives believe in using American might to promote American ideals abroad. This attitude is a far cry from the advice of the Founders, who advocated no entangling alliances and neutrality as the proper goal of American foreign policy.*
> 
> Let there be no doubt, those in the neocon camp had been anxious to go to war against Iraq for a decade. They justified the use of force to accomplish their goals, even if it required preemptive war. If anyone doubts this assertion, they need only to read of their strategy in A Clean Break: a New Strategy for Securing the Realm.
> 
> At the end of the Cold War, the neoconservatives realized a rearrangement of the world was occurring and that our superior economic and military power offered them a perfect opportunity to control the process of remaking the Middle East._
Click to expand...

If W is to be considered a neocon, then neocons are certainly middle to left swinging.  Ron Paul is a far right conservative, so wouldn't know a neocon if it hit him in the ass.


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gold was trying to sell books - and in this climate, that means linking neocons with a section of modern era Republicans as that is now the mainstream view of the term neocon - though historically innacurate.
> 
> Neocons were once a dominant player within the Democrat Party - particularly in the 60's and 70's - though the orignins date further back than that.
> 
> As the liberal wing of the Democrat Party grew in influence post-Vietnam era, the neocons / conservative Democrats began to merge within the Republican Party.
> 
> In essence, if you take JFK's political leanings and then place him in the mid-1970's, he would belong more to the Republican Party than the Democrat party.  The neocon influence is representative of Nixon as well - a socially moderate / liberal Republican with a more hawkish view on foreign relations.  In fact, the differences between post 1968 Nixon, and 1961 JFK are minimal - and both heavily influenced by neocon philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the neocons did not hold any meaningful positions in government until Reagan welcomed these extremists into the halls of government...
> 
> Yea, the aggressive militarist Trotsyists were shunned by the Democrats and welcomed with open arms by the GOP...
> 
> You SAY there is "plenty proof of that, as are his own words and stance regarding opposition to communism, American intervention, etc."
> 
> I'm waiting for JFK in his own words...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suggest you go back and study the history of the 1960 presidential campaign.  JFK ran right of Nixon on foreign relations.  He was more a Hawk and interventionist than Nixon, deeply suspicious of the Soviet Union and communism in general.  (And ironically, both Kennedy brothers were killed by extremist examples that the neocons hated most - a Marxist and a Muslim extremist.  When JFK was killed, the neocons lost one of their own)  Kennedy campaigned on the need to close the missile gap between America and the Soviets - instilling fear in the electorate that America was in danger of becoming the lesser of the two superpowers.  This platform is a direct link to the neocon Democrat Scoop Jackson campaing in the 1970's - "Peace through Strength", which was later utilized by Republican Ronald Reagan - _*but originally forwared by John F Kennedy during a speech in 1956.*_  and continued to utilize during his run for President.
> 
> You see, while Irving Kristol defined the neocon philosophy in 1965, that philosophy was already a functioning political thread very much prospering during Kennedy's administration.  In fact, while rejecting LBJ's Great Society welfare state - neocons were traditional supporters of FDR's New Deal government.  (Shades of grey, eh?)
> 
> JFK was a neocon...
Click to expand...


Neocons want war, Kennedy wanted peace...JFK was not a neocon...

Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their fatherto never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevensonthe high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Working with the newly elected President at the Kennedy family's Palm Beach villa in early January 1961, speechwriter Theodore Sorensen struggled to interweave the two sides of J.F.K. as the two men crafted the President-elect's Inaugural speech. Looking back, says Sorensen today, the most important line of that ringing address wasn't, "Ask not what your country can do for youask what you can do for your country." It was, "For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." *This peace-through-strength message "was the Kennedy policy in a nutshell,"* Sorensen observes.

But the Pentagon and CIA hard-liners who thrilled to the more robust strains of Kennedy's soaring Inaugural message wanted not only the massive arms buildup that the new President promised. They wanted also to employ this fearsome arsenal to push back communist advances around the world. And no enemy bastion was more nettlesome to these national-security officials than Castro's Cuba, less than 100 miles off U.S. shores. 
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634954-2,00.html


----------



## Bfgrn

DiveCon said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> except Neocons are NOT extremists
> they are moderate to liberal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trotskyists are NOT extremists?
> 
> Irving Kristol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
> 
> Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
> wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which proves MY point, not yours
Click to expand...


So...Trotsykism is NOT extremist, thank you Dive, now we know what you consider moderate...

Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trotskyists are NOT extremists?
> 
> Irving Kristol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Widely referred to as the "godfather" of neoconservatism, Mr. Kristol was part of the "New York Intellectuals," a group of critics mainly of Eastern European Jewish descent. In the late 1930s, he studied at City College of New York where he became a Trotskyist.
> http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/index.html
> 
> Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
> wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> which proves MY point, not yours
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...Trotsykism is NOT extremist, thank you Dive, now we know what you consider moderate...
> 
> Trotskyism is the theory of Marxism as advocated by Leon Trotsky. Trotsky considered himself an orthodox Marxist and Bolshevik-Leninist, arguing for the establishment of a vanguard party.
Click to expand...

LOL you are a fucking moron, since when is marxism a right wing idea?


----------



## rhodescholar

Neocons don't _ wan't _ war, they just realize that many times in recent histroy, the best solution for an intractable conflict was the use of military force.


----------



## Sinatra

JFK was a neocon - at the very least a participant in neocon practice.  (neocons tend to be Jewish after all...)

Kennedy's primary policy speechifier, Aurther Schlesinger, was himself linked to the neocon movement.  The Schlesinger branch of liberal anti-communism that began back in the Truman era saw the United States engaged in a world-wide struggle against communism - primarily the Soviet Union.  This is not to say Schlesinger himself was a neocon in the modern sense persay, but he certainly shared many a philisophical bent with the traditional social liberal neocons of his own time.  Much of Schlesinger's late-life disenchantment from the prevailing neocons was out of contempt for their influence - and the lack of his own.

JFK was a neocon...


----------



## Bfgrn

Sinatra said:


> JFK was a neocon - at the very least a participant in neocon practice.  (neocons tend to be Jewish after all...)
> 
> Kennedy's primary policy speechifier, Aurther Schlesinger, was himself linked to the neocon movement.  The Schlesinger branch of liberal anti-communism that began back in the Truman era saw the United States engaged in a world-wide struggle against communism - primarily the Soviet Union.  This is not to say Schlesinger himself was a neocon in the modern sense persay, but he certainly shared many a philisophical bent with the traditional social liberal neocons of his own time.  Much of Schlesinger's late-life disenchantment from the prevailing neocons was out of contempt for their influence - and the lack of his own.
> 
> JFK was a neocon...



Being anti-communism in the 50's and 60's was pretty much everyone in America...

The philosophies of neocons that set them apart is their strong belief in aggressive militarism, interventionism, unilateral military actions and disdain for multinational organizations like the UN...

JFK's beliefs are the antithesis to ALL of those beliefs...

I strongly suggest you get to know the Man, John Kennedy, before you make such ridiculous accusations...

Start HERE...

Commencement Address at American University

President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963

Excerpts:

I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.

First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.

Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."

Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal. 





And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 
*President John F. Kennedy*

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
*President John F. Kennedy*


----------

