# Iran Fights - Obama Slights



## Sinatra

As Iranians face yet another government crackdown over the weekend Obama once again gives scant attention, bookending brief comments on the Iranian situation with comments regarding the attempted terrorist attack that took place three days prior...
___

_*...Embarrassingly for Washington, even many European leaders showed more backbone in condemning the Iranian regimes brutal suppression of protestors, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton humiliatingly outflanked by her French and German counterparts, who had no qualms about speaking out swiftly and firmly against the election result and the actions of the Iranian government.

In the six months that have followed, Barack Obamas high-risk engagement strategy has simply encouraged more repression from the Mullahs, as well as ever greater levels of defiance over Irans nuclear weapons programme. 

...Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protesters shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is deafening silence from the Commander-in-Chief as well as his Secretary of State. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recuperating from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American public and without a shred of bipartisan support.*_

_____

Iranian protesters are dying for freedom â where is Barack Obama? &#8211; Telegraph Blogs


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Iran's fight is not our fight.


----------



## Sinatra

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Iran's fight is not our fight.




You fail to see the forest for the trees.

And sadly, within a few months - or perhaps even weeks, you may wish to reconsider...


----------



## Sinatra

*At least 5 killed in Iran protests*

_*TEHRAN, Iran &#8211; Iranian security forces fired on stone-throwing protesters in the center of the capital Sunday in one of the bloodiest confrontations in months, opposition Web sites and witnesses said. At least five people were killed.

Some accounts of the violence in Tehran were vivid and detailed, but they could not be independently confirmed because of government restrictions on media coverage. Police, who denied using firearms, said dozens of officers were injured and more than 300 protesters were arrested.

The dead included a nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, according to Mousavi's Web site, Kaleme.ir. The clashes were sure to deepen antagonism between the government and a reform movement that has shown resilience in the face of repeated crackdowns.

The street chaos coincided with commemorations of Shiite Islam's most important observance, Ashoura, fueling protesters' defiance with its message of sacrifice and dignity in the face of coercion.*_


Full article here:


At least 5 killed in Iran protests - Yahoo! News


----------



## Nevadamedic

It's a shame that we don't have a President that is against crimes against humanity.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Nevadamedic said:


> It's a shame that we don't have a President that is against crimes against humanity.





Don't say that now.. Our President is all about Humanity.


----------



## Sinatra

Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...


----------



## saveliberty

Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.


----------



## Sinatra

saveliberty said:


> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.



___

Agreed - but we can always give them assurances of supporting them fully when that time comes, such as Reagan did during the Cold War.

Real hope - not the manufactured Obama campaign version, could prove an incredibly powerful component of another Iranian revolution that throws the religious extremist Mullahs out on their collective ass...


----------



## Xenophon

Barry is an assclown, but he cannot influence happenings in Iran.

They allowed the Mullahs to take over, and only they can remove them.


----------



## Sinatra

Xenophon said:


> Barry is an assclown, but he cannot influence happenings in Iran.
> 
> They allowed the Mullahs to take over, and only they can remove them.



____

Ultimately, that is correct...


----------



## MaggieMae

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Iran's fight is not our fight.



Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...



Sure sure. Dream on, pal.


----------



## Claudette

Sinatra said:


> Xenophon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barry is an assclown, but he cannot influence happenings in Iran.
> 
> They allowed the Mullahs to take over, and only they can remove them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____
> 
> Ultimately, that is correct...
Click to expand...



I agree. Its up to the people to remove those they put in power. We can offer moral support but doubt seriously BO will offer anything more than that.

Of course one never knows what goes on behind the scenes.


----------



## MaggieMae

saveliberty said:


> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.



Another correct response. I'm glad to see some sensibility here today.


----------



## MaggieMae

Sinatra said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> Agreed - but we can always give them assurances of supporting them fully when that time comes, such as Reagan did during the Cold War.
> 
> Real hope - not the manufactured Obama campaign version, could prove an incredibly powerful component of another Iranian revolution that throws the religious extremist Mullahs out on their collective ass...
Click to expand...




So which "side" should we sell some weapons to? Or maybe we should send a few brigades in and get in the middle of another pending civil war on foreign soil.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Sinatra said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> And sadly, within a few months - or perhaps even weeks, you may wish to reconsider...
Click to expand...


Had we not been dragged into Iraq there might be a will to do something about the regime in Iran, but the American people are tired of constant warmongering and plunging our country further into debt due to foreign nation building.  Our soldiers are tired and they aren't getting taken care of properly.

The Middle East has been at war since the beginning of time and it hasn't changed.


----------



## Dr Grump

Sinatra said:


> Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...



Are you on crystal meth? The world loves Obama. He is perceived to represent what America is always saying it is - for freedom etc etc - not what that totalitarian puppet who previously occupied the WH was all about..

..as for Iran - keep you nose out. Last time the US interfered Ollie North ended up in a Senate hearing.....


----------



## JScott

Sinatra said:


> As Iranians face yet another government crackdown over the weekend Obama once again gives scant attention, bookending brief comments on the Iranian situation with comments regarding the attempted terrorist attack that took place three days prior...
> ___
> 
> _*...Embarrassingly for Washington, even many European leaders showed more backbone in condemning the Iranian regimes brutal suppression of protestors, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton humiliatingly outflanked by her French and German counterparts, who had no qualms about speaking out swiftly and firmly against the election result and the actions of the Iranian government.
> 
> In the six months that have followed, Barack Obamas high-risk engagement strategy has simply encouraged more repression from the Mullahs, as well as ever greater levels of defiance over Irans nuclear weapons programme.
> 
> ...Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protesters shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is deafening silence from the Commander-in-Chief as well as his Secretary of State. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recuperating from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American public and without a shred of bipartisan support.*_
> 
> _____
> 
> Iranian protesters are dying for freedom â where is Barack Obama?  Telegraph Blogs



What would you like him to do?


----------



## Annie

saveliberty said:


> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.



They have been paying the price. Scores have been killed. May I suggest you check out Twitter?


----------



## Maple

MaggieMae said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.
Click to expand...


You sneak them in a few guns and ammunition.,Hopefully a portion of Iran's military will side with the people and if they do that this could turn out to be a civil war. With Iran very near having a nuke and our President tooooooooooooo busy on a golf course to even address the near successful attack from a terrorist on a flight over Detroit, took him 3 whole days to say anything, anything could happen here.

Israel is going to have to take out those Nuke plants, they can't rely on Obama for support, he is an extremely weak President, very incompetent and in reality could care less about the safety and security of the world let alone American citizens. 

In fact, he looked pretty pissed off that he was taken away from his golf game to say anything concerning the attempted terrorist attack. He treats his job of POTUS as a regular job when it's not. He doesn't seem to be aware that he is on call 24/7 and it's pretty damn clear he resents that fact.


----------



## Sinatra

America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.

At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime.  We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.

Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Sinatra said:


> America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.


As much as I agree with the uprising in Iran, there's nothing that we MUST do. We're not the police of the world.


> At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime.  We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.


Or, we go in there, and inspire thousands of new jihadists.


> Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...


I'm fairly certain that attacking Iran will provoke quite a bit more than staying out of it will.

Why must we be the world's police? Why is it our responsibility?


----------



## PoliticalChic

saveliberty said:


> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.



My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised, Heed his insight.

Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...

This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
"I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shiite scholars way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government. 


 March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.

"Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. By Islamic government, nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control. Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shahs overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."

The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009

Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.


----------



## EriktheRed

Sinatra said:


> Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...



Tell us how how the world is mocking him.


----------



## Sinatra

PoliticalChic said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and redefined role of religion in their nation, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :
> 
> "Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised, Heed his insight.
> 
> Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...
> 
> This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
> "I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shiite scholars way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.
> 
> 
> March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.
> 
> "Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. By Islamic government, nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control. Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shahs overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."
> 
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.
Click to expand...



There is truth to what you say - but in this situation, the Iranian youth have been "westernized" whereas the youth of 1979 were anti-west religious zealots.

It is this teeming youth in Iran who hold the power of their future as by sheer numbers they represent the greatest segment of the population.  Mousavi would be but a vehicle of this youth movement.  If he fails to represent them, he would be cast aside - and he likely knows that.  It is their support only that keeps him alive today.

And make no mistake, the Saudis do not wish to see the Iranian youth rise up successfully, for much the same could take place in their own nation.  

Obama's near silence on the issue shows a lack of understanding in the remarkable opportunity for dramatic change in Iran.  He lacks both the intellect and the heart to fully assimilate the conditions of that nation - and its potential near-term future...


----------



## saveliberty

Sinatra said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's best chance lies with its people.  When they are willing to pay the price for a new government and *redefined role of religion in their nation*, real change will happen.  The leaders that emerge from the struggle will have legitimate power borne of sacrifice.  Otherwise they will be viewed as puppets of the west.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :
> 
> "Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised, Heed his insight.
> 
> Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...
> 
> This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
> "I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shiite scholars way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.
> 
> 
> March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.
> 
> "Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. By Islamic government, nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control. Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shahs overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."
> 
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is truth to what you say - but in this situation, the Iranian youth have been "westernized" whereas the youth of 1979 were anti-west religious zealots.
> 
> It is this teeming youth in Iran who hold the power of their future as by sheer numbers they represent the greatest segment of the population.  Mousavi would be but a vehicle of this youth movement.  If he fails to represent them, he would be cast aside - and he likely knows that.  It is their support only that keeps him alive today.
> 
> And make no mistake, the Saudis do not wish to see the Iranian youth rise up successfully, for much the same could take place in their own nation.
> 
> Obama's near silence on the issue shows a lack of understanding in the remarkable opportunity for dramatic change in Iran.  He lacks both the intellect and the heart to fully assimilate the conditions of that nation - and its potential near-term future...
Click to expand...


I included the bold part for a reason.


----------



## PoliticalChic

saveliberty said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> My friend, while I believe that President Obama has missed an opportunity to support a change in regime in Iran, he correctly stated the situation as :
> 
> "Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised, Heed his insight.
> 
> Recall the grave errors and miscalculations of the left when anticipating the demise of the Shah...
> 
> This from Mother Jone's Magazine, 1979:
> "I believe that, when Khomeini speaks of an Islamic state for Iran, it is a Shiite scholars way of saying that he wants a good state in Iran. His concept of a good state includes democratic reforms, freedom for political prisoners, an end to the astronomical waste of huge arms purchases, and a constitutional government.
> 
> 
> March 31, 1979 issue of The Nation that there is every reason to believe that the still unpublished [Iranian] Constitution will include all the elements of a liberal democratic system.
> 
> "Michel Foucault in the fall of 1978. By Islamic government, nobody in Iran means a political regime in which the clerics would have a role of supervision or control. Foucault was horribly remiss in his uncritical assessment of Islamism. From his conversations in Iran, and in Paris with exiles such as the Ayatollah Khomeini, Foucault was not, unlike other Western intellectuals, deluded into believing that the shahs overthrow would result in a secular government familiar to Westerners."
> 
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> Let's not make the same mistakes that the left made in the '70's. President Obama is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is truth to what you say - but in this situation, the Iranian youth have been "westernized" whereas the youth of 1979 were anti-west religious zealots.
> 
> It is this teeming youth in Iran who hold the power of their future as by sheer numbers they represent the greatest segment of the population.  Mousavi would be but a vehicle of this youth movement.  If he fails to represent them, he would be cast aside - and he likely knows that.  It is their support only that keeps him alive today.
> 
> And make no mistake, the Saudis do not wish to see the Iranian youth rise up successfully, for much the same could take place in their own nation.
> 
> Obama's near silence on the issue shows a lack of understanding in the remarkable opportunity for dramatic change in Iran.  He lacks both the intellect and the heart to fully assimilate the conditions of that nation - and its potential near-term future...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I included the bold part for a reason.
Click to expand...


You are such an idealist, hoping for the best of outcomes...sadly your heart will be broken if you believe that such will occur.

On the one hand, this generation of Iran is probably the most pro-American in the region, they are not steeped in Western traditions.

Again, from Flynn:
"This is Iran, after all, and even the opposition candidate despises Israel, aggressively pushes for a nuclear Iran, and has heretofore shown little interest during his long political career in transitioning from government by ayatollahs and mullahs to government by the people."

And, I hope that you don't believe that modern-day Persia will not be Islamic.


----------



## saveliberty

I would expect a gradual change.  Less of a theocracy with a more moderate agenda.  Do I think it can be a Jordan?  No.


----------



## Old Rocks

No, they are not pro-American, they are pro-Iran, and pro-modern life. They are neutral to the US in spite of the teaching of people like Mad Hatter. We would easily change that by sticking our nose into this situation.

Political Chic, people of your persuasion backed Bush's idiocy in Iraq. How has that turned out? And why was not Bin Laden taken out before the new year of 2002? That man murdered 3000 American on American soil, and Bush had the audacity to state only six months later that "Bin Laden is not a concern of mine!". And this is the man you supported. And we are to take you advice on anything in the future?

I think not!


----------



## Old Rocks

saveliberty said:


> I would expect a gradual change.  Less of a theocracy with a more moderate agenda.  Do I think it can be a Jordan?  No.



Really hard to see what will come of this situation. But I think the worst possible thing we could do is to stick our nose in to the extent that they feel that they must unite against a common threat.


----------



## Toronado3800

> America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.
> 
> At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.
> 
> Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...


I think we can all agree Iran sucks.  For lack of a more eloquent term.

What assurances would you like to give them?  That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st?  That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's?  Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?  

As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either.  Just a limit to our military power.

I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea.  Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power.  So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds.  Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east.  Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.

What do you think Obama should do?


----------



## saveliberty

If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat.  Leave Iran alone.  The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US.  Let the internal unrest work for you.


----------



## The T

saveliberty said:


> If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat. Leave Iran alone. The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US. Let the internal unrest work for you.


 
Yep. And a _mere statement_ from the POTUS siding with LIBERTY of those with grievences against the _weird beards [Mullahs], _ could bolster even foster a stronger fight. But what is Bam-bam doing? Anyone? _Bueller? Frye?_


----------



## Toronado3800

Does that mean we should do something like use cruise missiles on their pipelines, air bases, and command centers?  In their mind it will be the equivalent of a suicide bomber attack on one of our airplanes.


----------



## The T

Sinatra said:


> America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.
> 
> At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.
> 
> Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...


 

Yep. Obama seems to be siding with the Dictators of the world rather than fosters the _call to LIBERTY._ His PC ways prohibit him from doing what is right, and just for the sole cause of Human Liberty.


----------



## Sinatra

The T said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat. Leave Iran alone. The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US. Let the internal unrest work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep. And a mere statement from the POTUS siding with LIBERTY of those with grievences against the weird beards [Mullahs],  could bolster even foster a stronger fight. But what is Bam-bam doing? Anyone? Bueller? Frye?*
Click to expand...


___



There you go.  Obama has said nary a word against the Mullahs.  And so, the spirit of the youth-led revolution falters, uncertain as to the position of the once-shining example of the free world.  The Iranian youth are westernized via the Internet and an affinity for western popular culture.  

Obama appears entirely uncertain as to what note to strike regarding this opportunity for Iranian regime change.  A leader who fears his own shadow casts a very slight one upon the world, and Obama's diminishes with each example of his inexperience, ignorance, arrogance, and inablity to grasp the import of the position he now holds...


----------



## Sunni Man

What happens in Iran is none of our business.

The protesters are just a bunch of malcontents and criminals.

The Iranian government has every right to lock these people up for rioting.


----------



## The T

Sunni Man said:


> What happens in Iran is none of our business.
> 
> The protesters are just a bunch of malcontents and criminals.
> 
> The Iranian government has every right to lock these people up for rioting.


 
King George III..._Is that you?_


----------



## Sunni Man

If protesters in America were doing the same things the protesters in Iran are doing.

The riot police would be call out and the protesters would be arrested.

And most Americans would support our governments actions.


----------



## Sinatra

+



Sinatra said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you must strike, do so where the enemy is clearest and of the most immediate threat. Leave Iran alone. The nuclear threat is being used to unite factions within Iran against the US. Let the internal unrest work for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Yep. And a mere statement from the POTUS siding with LIBERTY of those with grievences against the weird beards [Mullahs],  could bolster even foster a stronger fight. But what is Bam-bam doing? Anyone? Bueller? Frye?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 
> There you go.  Obama has said nary a word against the Mullahs.  And so, the spirit of the youth-led revolution falters, uncertain as to the position of the once-shining example of the free world.  The Iranian youth are westernized via the Internet and an affinity for western popular culture.
> 
> Obama appears entirely uncertain as to what note to strike regarding this opportunity for Iranian regime change.  A leader who fears his own shadow casts a very slight one upon the world, and Obama's diminishes with each example of his inexperience, ignorance, arrogance, and inablity to grasp the import of the position he now holds...
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

Sunni, the young people in Iran are fighting for their human rights. You are looking at the situation through religious glasses. And the young people will win, if not today, then in the near future. 

Every day, communication becomes easier and cheaper. To undermine a dictatorial regime such as that the Mad Hatter is trying to establish in Iran may only require getting cheap and unblockable forms of communications to most of the people in Iran, or any other nation in that situation.


----------



## Sunni Man

Old Rocks said:


> Sunni, the young people in Iran are fighting for their human rights. You are looking at the situation through religious glasses. And the young people will win, if not today, then in the near future.
> 
> Every day, communication becomes easier and cheaper. To undermine a dictatorial regime such as that the Mad Hatter is trying to establish in Iran may only require getting cheap and unblockable forms of communications to most of the people in Iran, or any other nation in that situation.


This has nothing to do with religion on my part.

I am totally opposed to Shia Islam and view it as a heritical cult.

But I like the way Iran pokes her finger in the eye of Israel.

In reality, the majority of Iranians support the current government.

I believe that CIA and Mossad agents are funding the current unrest.


----------



## Sinatra

Old Rocks said:


> Sunni, the young people in Iran are fighting for their human rights. You are looking at the situation through religious glasses. And the young people will win, if not today, then in the near future.
> 
> Every day, communication becomes easier and cheaper. To undermine a dictatorial regime such as that the Mad Hatter is trying to establish in Iran may only require getting cheap and unblockable forms of communications to most of the people in Iran, or any other nation in that situation.



___

Well said!


----------



## Toronado3800

> I believe that CIA and Mossad agents are funding the current unrest.


I really can't say I'd be surprised if this turns out to be true 20 years from now.

Then again I'd be equally unsurprised if I found out Iran gave aid to Al-Qaeda so I suppose what goes around comes around.

(I'm leaving political support or distaste for the Iranian government out of the reply on purpose)


----------



## Sunni Man

Huge pro government crowds rallied in Tehran today in support of the existing government.


----------



## Sinatra

Sunni Man said:


> Huge pro government crowds rallied in Tehran today in support of the existing government.


----------



## Sunni Man

Sinatra said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huge pro government crowds rallied in Tehran today in support of the existing government.
Click to expand...


Just turn on your TV and it's all over the news.

The majority of Iranians are feed up with the criminal actions of the protesters.


----------



## Godboy

Sunni Man said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huge pro government crowds rallied in Tehran today in support of the existing government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just turn on your TV and it's all over the news.
> 
> The majority of Iranians are feed up with the criminal actions of the protesters.
Click to expand...


Either you werent watching close enough, or you are conveniently leaving out important facts about that protest. Dont you think its important to mention that almost all government employees that were told to take the day off and go protest? 

Why do muslims like Sunni always lie? Isnt it bad enough that muslims stink and worship a false god?


----------



## Sunni Man

Godboy said:


> Either you werent watching close enough, or you are conveniently leaving out important facts about that protest. Dont you think its important to mention that those are state paid employees that were told to take the day off and go protest?



The liberal anti-government people are basically the same type of people no matter what country they live. Whether it is Iran or America.

They usually are young, spoiled, unemployed, and trying to over throw the estabilishment.

So protesting is their full time occupation.


While pro government people are usually conservative and actually have a job.

So naturally the government had to give them the day off to protest.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Old Rocks said:


> No, they are not pro-American, they are pro-Iran, and pro-modern life. They are neutral to the US in spite of the teaching of people like Mad Hatter. We would easily change that by sticking our nose into this situation.
> 
> Political Chic, people of your persuasion backed Bush's idiocy in Iraq. How has that turned out? And why was not Bin Laden taken out before the new year of 2002? That man murdered 3000 American on American soil, and Bush had the audacity to state only six months later that "Bin Laden is not a concern of mine!". And this is the man you supported. And we are to take you advice on anything in the future?
> 
> I think not!



You know, you almost sound rational since you have been cured of the 'global warming' neurosis.  Congratulations.


"No, they are not pro-American, they are pro-Iran, ..."


Roger Cohen of the NYTimes reporting from the protest over fixed elictions in Iran:
A man holds his mobile phone up to me: footage of a man with his head blown off last Monday. A man, 28, whispers: The government will use more violence, but some of us have to make the sacrifice. 
Another whisper: Where are you from? When I say the United States, he says: Please give our regards to freedom. 
The president has been right to tread carefully, given poisonous American-Iranian history, but has erred on the side of caution. He sounds like a man rehearsing prepared lines rather than the leader of the free world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20iht-edcohen.html

"IRANIAN REGIME WORRIED BY PEOPLES PRO-AMERICANISM"
IRANIAN REGIME WORRIED BY PEOPLES PRO-AMERICANISM

"Everywhere I've gone in Iran, with one exception, people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the United States, and often for President Bush as well."
THE IRANIAN: friendly Iranians, NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

"It might startle some Americans to realize that Iran has one of the most pro-American populations in the Middle East. Iranians have adored America for nearly three decades, ..."
Stars (and Stripes) in Their Eyes - washingtonpost.com


With the new year arriving, let me offer some friendly advice that would help you to appear...shall we say, a bit more 'normal,'- try to actually know something about the subject on which you choose to post.


And now the time has come to speak of many things, of shoes and ships, of sealing wax, and whether pigs have wings...but first: who is the 'mad hatter' to which you refer?


Further, and stylistically, I kind of like that "I think not" sign off. Very good.


----------



## Sunni Man

Iranian people love the American people.

But they hate the American government.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.
> 
> At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.
> 
> Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree Iran sucks.  For lack of a more eloquent term.
> 
> What assurances would you like to give them?  That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st?  That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's?  Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?
> 
> As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either.  Just a limit to our military power.
> 
> I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea.  Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power.  So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds.  Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east.  Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.
> 
> What do you think Obama should do?
Click to expand...


Did you see this from October?

"The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week. 


The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran

Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?


"President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009


----------



## Godboy

Sunni Man said:


> Iranian people love the American people.
> 
> But they hate the American government.



Thats fine. We hate their governemnt too. Luckily for us, we arent held back by the muslim religion, therefore we have power, while they have dirty robes and unkempt beards.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> Does that mean we should do something like use cruise missiles on their pipelines, air bases, and command centers?  In their mind it will be the equivalent of a suicide bomber attack on one of our airplanes.



Here is what it means: Iran has oil, but not the ability to crack it down to gasoline, so...

"The amendment to the 2010 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill would prohibit taxpayer dollars from going to guarantee, insure or extend credit to any company that supplies gasonline to Iran. The congressmen noted that the U.S. Export-Import Bank, in both 2007 and 2008, approved two separate loan guarantee totaling $900 million to expand a refinery owned by Reliance Industries Limited. an Indian company that provides about a third of Iran's daily imports of gasoline."
Cutting off Iran&#8217;s gasoline | Capital J | JTA - Jewish & Israel News

I believe that this may have passed.


"New Delhi: Reliance Industries Ltd (RIL) has since April stopped selling gasoline and gas oil to Iran in an apparent bid to escape sanctions by the US, where it is eyeing an acquisition.

RIL till last year sold mostly gasoline to Iran but has since April this year completely stopped shipments from..."
RIL stops gas by-product sales to Iran - Silobreaker


----------



## rdean

I don't know if Iranians are all that dangerous.  For one, if they are as crappy at science as our own conservatives are, then we don't have a heckafalot to be worried about.

The Iranian people just want religion OUT of government.  Can you blame them?  Next thing you know, political parties made up of the religious will be starting wars and invading countries they don&#8217;t like.  Can you imagine how frightening such a country 
would be?


----------



## Sinatra

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.
> 
> At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.
> 
> Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree Iran sucks.  For lack of a more eloquent term.
> 
> What assurances would you like to give them?  That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st?  That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's?  Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?
> 
> As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either.  Just a limit to our military power.
> 
> I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea.  Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power.  So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds.  Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east.  Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.
> 
> What do you think Obama should do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
Click to expand...




If that is true...Good Lord!!!!

This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...


----------



## noose4

Sinatra said:


> As Iranians face yet another government crackdown over the weekend Obama once again gives scant attention, bookending brief comments on the Iranian situation with comments regarding the attempted terrorist attack that took place three days prior...
> ___
> 
> _*...Embarrassingly for Washington, even many European leaders showed more backbone in condemning the Iranian regimes brutal suppression of protestors, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton humiliatingly outflanked by her French and German counterparts, who had no qualms about speaking out swiftly and firmly against the election result and the actions of the Iranian government.
> 
> In the six months that have followed, Barack Obamas high-risk engagement strategy has simply encouraged more repression from the Mullahs, as well as ever greater levels of defiance over Irans nuclear weapons programme.
> 
> ...Now once again huge street protests have flared up on the streets of Tehran and a number of other major cities, with several protesters shot dead this weekend by the security forces and Revolutionary Guards, reportedly including the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and dozens seriously injured. And again there is deafening silence from the Commander-in-Chief as well as his Secretary of State. And where is the president? On vacation in Hawaii, no doubt recuperating from his exertions driving forward the monstrous health care reform bill against the overwhelming will of the American public and without a shred of bipartisan support.*_
> 
> _____
> 
> Iranian protesters are dying for freedom â where is Barack Obama?  Telegraph Blogs



Best way to aid the Iranian opposition is to do nothing at all, make it appear that " the great satan America" is meddling with Iran and you give the Iranian powers that be a great propaganda weapon to use against the opposition.


----------



## Godboy

rdean said:


> I don't know if Iranians are all that dangerous.  For one, if they are as crappy at science as our own conservatives are, then we don't have a heckafalot to be worried about.
> 
> The Iranian people just want religion OUT of government.  Can you blame them?  Next thing you know, political parties made up of the religious will be starting wars and invading countries they dont like.  Can you imagine how frightening such a country
> would be?



As long as they are invading the bad guys (Iraq, Afghanistan), im down.


----------



## noose4

Sunni Man said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you werent watching close enough, or you are conveniently leaving out important facts about that protest. Dont you think its important to mention that those are state paid employees that were told to take the day off and go protest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal anti-government people are basically the same type of people no matter what country they live. Whether it is Iran or America.
> 
> They usually are young, spoiled, unemployed, and trying to over throw the estabilishment.
> 
> So protesting is their full time occupation.
> 
> 
> While pro government people are usually conservative and actually have a job.
> 
> So naturally the government had to give them the day off to protest.
Click to expand...


Yeah conservatives are the pro government people!!!!!


----------



## rdean

Sinatra said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree Iran sucks.  For lack of a more eloquent term.
> 
> What assurances would you like to give them?  That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st?  That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's?  Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?
> 
> As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either.  Just a limit to our military power.
> 
> I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea.  Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power.  So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds.  Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east.  Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.
> 
> What do you think Obama should do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
Click to expand...


So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?


----------



## Sinatra

Godboy said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just turn on your TV and it's all over the news.
> 
> The majority of Iranians are feed up with the criminal actions of the protesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you werent watching close enough, or you are conveniently leaving out important facts about that protest. Dont you think its important to mention that almost all government employees that were told to take the day off and go protest?
> 
> Why do muslims like Sunni always lie? Isnt it bad enough that muslims stink and worship a false god?
Click to expand...




Iranian astro turf...


----------



## Godboy

rdean said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
Click to expand...


Yes. One is more important that the other. Weve gotten along just fine without universal health care, but ignoring Iran has had disastrous repurcussions, but you wouldnt understand that because you have no idea how things outside our country effect us. You should read more.


----------



## Sinatra

Godboy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. One is more important that the other. Weve gotten along just fine without universal health care, but ignoring Iran has had disastrous repurcussions, but you wouldnt understand that because you have no idea how things outside our country effect us. You should read more.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mike458877

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Iran's fight is not our fight.





Not until a nuke splatters Israel all over the middle east, then you be the first on the transport over, we did our time!

Mike


----------



## noose4

Godboy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. One is more important that the other. Weve gotten along just fine without universal health care, but ignoring Iran has had disastrous repurcussions, but you wouldnt understand that because you have no idea how things outside our country effect us. You should read more.
Click to expand...


Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.


----------



## noose4

Mike458877 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not until a nuke splatters Israel all over the middle east, then you be the first on the transport over, we did our time!
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


If Iran nukes Israel it would be mutually assured destruction, Israel has nukes, and also we should not be Israel's attack dog, any problem they have with Iran is their problem not ours.


----------



## Godboy

noose4 said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. One is more important that the other. Weve gotten along just fine without universal health care, but ignoring Iran has had disastrous repurcussions, but you wouldnt understand that because you have no idea how things outside our country effect us. You should read more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.
Click to expand...


I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.


----------



## Sinatra

Godboy said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. One is more important that the other. Weve gotten along just fine without universal health care, but ignoring Iran has had disastrous repurcussions, but you wouldnt understand that because you have no idea how things outside our country effect us. You should read more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
Click to expand...



Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...


----------



## Godboy

Sinatra said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
Click to expand...


This is a really good point and im pissed you thought of it before me.


----------



## noose4

Sinatra said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
Click to expand...


YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.


----------



## Sinatra

Godboy said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a really good point and im pissed you thought of it before me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Godboy

noose4 said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.
Click to expand...


Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.


----------



## rdean

Godboy said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. One is more important that the other. Weve gotten along just fine without universal health care, but ignoring Iran has had disastrous repurcussions, but you wouldnt understand that because you have no idea how things outside our country effect us. You should read more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure Iran is even close to getting a nuke.  

There is the likelyhood that Iran, if it used a nuke, would use it on Arabia, home of the 9/11 bombers, home of Bush's kissing buddy (hands so soft, imagine what the lips are like).

Maybe Obama knows more about Iran's nuclear program than he lets on?  Maybe that's why the US suddenly knows so much about it?

TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Iran accused Saudi Arabia today of handing over to the United States an Iranian nuclear scientist missing since June, the semi-official Mehr news agency said.

Iran Says Saudis Handed Missing Scientist To U.S. - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009

Personally, I wonder if Iran can even develop a nuclear bomb.  After all, it's the religious who control the country and we know from here, that they are not into science.

In the meantime, 40,000 Americans a year die from lack of health care.  I can't go, "ho hum, so what" like Republicans.  That bothers me.


----------



## Godboy

rdean said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah tell that to the American who have died because they were uninsured or have had certain treatments denied to them by their health care insurance provider, meanwhile I keep awaiting the Iranian higgins boats to land at Coney Island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure Iran is even close to getting a nuke.
> 
> There is the likelyhood that Iran, if it used a nuke, would use it on Arabia, home of the 9/11 bombers, home of Bush's kissing buddy (hands so soft, imagine what the lips are like).
> 
> Maybe Obama knows more about Iran's nuclear program than he lets on?  Maybe that's why the US suddenly knows so much about it?
> 
> TEHRAN (Reuters) -- Iran accused Saudi Arabia today of handing over to the United States an Iranian nuclear scientist missing since June, the semi-official Mehr news agency said.
> 
> Iran Says Saudis Handed Missing Scientist To U.S. - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009
> 
> Personally, I wonder if Iran can even develop a nuclear bomb.  After all, it's the religious who control the country and we know from here, that they are not into science.
Click to expand...


So then you are saying universal health care is more important than preventing millions of people from being incinerated by a nuke? Please, share more of these pearls of wisdom with us. Its quite entertaining.


----------



## PoliticalChic

rdean said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
Click to expand...


The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.

Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!

If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.

On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as 
'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.


----------



## K9Buck

Dr Grump said:


> The world loves Obama.



Not quite.  Regardless, what tangible benefit has his supposed popularity garnered the U.S.?


----------



## Sinatra

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _*The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.
> 
> Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!
> 
> If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.
> 
> On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
> 'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.[/*_QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Ouch!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## noose4

Godboy said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.
Click to expand...


Yes health care is best when acquired through visits to the Emergency room.


----------



## mudwhistle

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.
> 
> Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!
> 
> If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.
> 
> On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
> 'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.
Click to expand...


Damn....I am so hot now.

To think that a woman this smart exists!!!!


----------



## Sinatra

mudwhistle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.
> 
> Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!
> 
> If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.
> 
> On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
> 'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn....I am so hot now.
> 
> To think that a woman this smart exists!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## L.K.Eder

sinatra will use anything to slam obama, so he can get a job in the future palin administration.

shitty spam-shill.


----------



## mudwhistle

L.K.Eder said:


> sinatra will use anything to slam obama, so he can get a job in the future palin administration.
> 
> shitty spam-shill.



I think Obama is showing that he has some tightening up to do.

So consider it a bit of gloating and allow him that if you have that capacity.


----------



## Toronado3800

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.
> 
> Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!
> 
> If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.
> 
> On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
> 'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.
Click to expand...


I will translate this as "Political Chic things you're stupid for either having a different opinion or comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" and remove the random personal attack.


----------



## jeffrockit

Dr Grump said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crystal meth? The world loves Obama. He is perceived to represent what America is always saying it is - for freedom etc etc - not what that totalitarian puppet who previously occupied the WH was all about..
> 
> ..as for Iran - keep you nose out. Last time the US interfered Ollie North ended up in a Senate hearing.....
Click to expand...


That is true because when polled, it showed that 58 percent of Europeans want the United States to be weakened. They want a weaker America and that is what the Obama administration represents to them. That is a popularity we should not want or be happy about.


----------



## jeffrockit

Godboy said:


> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.
Click to expand...


The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.


----------



## noose4

jeffrockit said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.
Click to expand...


Yeah screw Americans lets go help the Iranians with our financial resources

Study: Uninsured Don't Get Needed Health Care; Delayed Diagnoses, Premature Deaths Result - The Body



> The lack of health insurance in America leads to delayed diagnoses, life-threatening complications and, ultimately, 18,000 premature deaths each year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Institute of Medicine. In the first comprehensive study of the medical consequences of going without insurance, researchers commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found that "being uninsured for even a year appears to diminish a person's general health."


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.
> 
> Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!
> 
> If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.
> 
> On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
> 'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will translate this as "Political Chic things you're stupid for either having a different opinion or comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" and remove the random personal attack.
Click to expand...


1. By what ordination have you become the official 'translator'?  Other than, of course, a feeble attempt at self aggrandizement.

2. What makes you think that Deanie is so...to use your coarse term, 'stupid,' that he was unable to divine my meaning?

3. You would appear more intelligent if you were to restrict your posts to words that you are able to define. The word 'random,' as in "random personal attack," is defined as "Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective." 
Since you yourself have identified the " purpose, or objective" of my 'attack,' the reference makes you appear somewhat the dolt. Or is that a 'random personal attack'?

4. My ability to articulate has rarely required 'translation,' and when it does, I don't think, based on the erudition of your post, it is your services that will be called upon.

5. Now, let's consider your real purpose in interposing youself. You have been aboard long enough to calculate that I don't  "things you're stupid for either having a different opinion..."   [thinks...not things]. Since the 'different opinion' is not the operative explanation, you must be stating that a) you have a different opinion than I do, and/or b) your defense of deanie is a transparent attempt to innoculate yourself from my 'random personal attacks.'

Don't be obtuse, or fearful...step up to the plate. Bring it on.

6. And, further, your inane and uninformed "comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" speaks volumes.  And, is what engendered my original post.
The ignorance that one exposes by comparing the costs of Radio Farda, versus the healthcare boondoggle reveals the emptiness of both your position and your mind.

How much does it cost to support sending messges of democracy?

Since you have no clue, as, I am sure, is true of many of your firmly held positions, I will help inform you: ObamaCare is on the order of one million times more expensive.

A millon times.

Not an 'order of magnitude'... a million times!

"and the U.S. administration's request for $75 million for democracy promotion in Iran."
Iran: U.S. Senator Discusses Democracy-Promotion Efforts - Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty © 2009

Based on this new knowledge, would you like to retract any suggestion that there is a comparison beween spending, in more common parlance, a penny and ten thousand dollars?

I challenge you to to continue that defense.


So, let's review"
1. Your ability to 'translate' is sorely in question.

2. The necessity of translation is less than obvious.

3. If the topic required translation, one would probably address the need with one who understood the problem.  That leaves you out.

4. In suggesting that you have some knowledge re: "comparing the two potential monetary expenditures" you have opened yourself to a charge of prevarication.

I hope that you have learned something.


That was fun. Now, don't be a stranger.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America must give the Iranian uprising assurances of our support and our collective hope that they prove successful.
> 
> At present, this administration continues to tippy toe around the Mullah regime. We grow increasingly inept and weak in the eyes of the world.
> 
> Weakness provokes - and that is exactly what we are doing via Obama Inc...
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree Iran sucks.  For lack of a more eloquent term.
> 
> What assurances would you like to give them?  That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st?  That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's?  Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?
> 
> As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either.  Just a limit to our military power.
> 
> I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea.  Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power.  So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds.  Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east.  Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.
> 
> What do you think Obama should do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
Click to expand...


Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.


BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition

20 October 2009 11:06 UK

US cuts funding to Iran opposition

By Bahman Kalbasi
BBC News, Washington

In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.

While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.

The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
NGOs.

*While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative.*

*Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran:*

"The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
government of being American spies because a few groups in America
used these funds."

The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
government.

Human rights abuses

Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.

It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
U Senator Joe Lieberman

He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."

Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.

The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
circumstances.

Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
these brave investigations are needed most.''

*'National security threat'

Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
the fund should be cut.

In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
means.

Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
Iran.

Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.

The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
severe crackdown on Iranian civil society. 
*


----------



## MaggieMae

Godboy said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if Iranians are all that dangerous.  For one, if they are as crappy at science as our own conservatives are, then we don't have a heckafalot to be worried about.
> 
> The Iranian people just want religion OUT of government.  Can you blame them?  Next thing you know, political parties made up of the religious will be starting wars and invading countries they dont like.  Can you imagine how frightening such a country
> would be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as they are invading the bad guys (Iraq, Afghanistan), im down.
Click to expand...


So what would we invade Iran with? The Boy Scouts? Our military is just now starting to catch up from the losses in Iraq, both in lives, permanent disabilities, and equipment.


----------



## MaggieMae

noose4 said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldnt go throwing it in their face, but it doesnt change the fact that universal health care is FAR less important than stopping Iran from getting a nuke, for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Universal health care would actually prove far more destructive to the US than Iranian nukes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.
Click to expand...


And then we could look forward to even greater expansion of VA benefits. Oh dear, a government health care program needing billions more in funding because of yet another war of choice.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true...Good Lord!!!!
> 
> This administration continues to be a marvel of anti-Americanism while holding its highest office...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the right wants to cut health care here but spend money on Iran?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The wheel is turning, but the hamster is definitely dead.
> 
> Deanie, when I chose you as "least likely to complete finger painting class," I had no idea how prescient I was!
> 
> If you were even of normal intelligence, I might engage you on why changing the best healthcare in the world is a good idea, or question exactly what bowl of alphabet soup informed you that "the right wants to cut health care," but considering you disabilities, I'll continue cosseting.
> 
> On the bright side, I don't see anyone on the board challenging you for your position as
> 'poster who subtracts from the sum of human knowledge merely by opening his mouth'.
Click to expand...


It must really piss you off that RDean speaks with simplicity what millions of us also believe. Otherwise, you wouldn't inject an articulate non-sequitur, which amounts to nothing more than opinionated mumbo-jumbo.


----------



## MaggieMae

K9Buck said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> The world loves Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite.  Regardless, what tangible benefit has his supposed popularity garnered the U.S.?
Click to expand...


Better cooperation from our allies, for one. If we ever did need to go to war again, at least we could rely on serious coalitition forces to help out, rather than rag-tag armies from Moldavia, etc. 

The war on terror is also GLOBAL, and the time has come when all nations need to find common ground, merge their intelligence gathering into a single database and fully cooperate as allies in this. That's not possible if the US continues to arrogantly proclaim that it knows best, so just get out of the way.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we can all agree Iran sucks.  For lack of a more eloquent term.
> 
> What assurances would you like to give them?  That if they take over 100 blocks of Tehran we'll drop the 101st?  That if they take over this or that we'll air drop M-16's?  Would you like our military to walk on over from Iraq?
> 
> As much as I disagree with the "strong" "manly" options I understand the motivations for either.  Just a limit to our military power.
> 
> I'll side with us COVERTLY supporting any destabilizing of Iran by less anti-western factions is probably a good idea.  Unless analysts think even more hard America haters will take power.  So effectively I'd say sneak the opposition some funds.  Give them more cell phones and maybe make sure western satellite tv is available in every corner of the middle east.  Anything to drag them into even the 20th century.
> 
> What do you think Obama should do?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition
> 
> 20 October 2009 11:06 UK
> 
> US cuts funding to Iran opposition
> 
> By Bahman Kalbasi
> BBC News, Washington
> 
> In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
> regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
> House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.
> 
> While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
> has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.
> 
> The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
> an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
> NGOs.
> 
> *While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
> were overwhelmingly negative.*
> 
> *Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
> maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
> the hardline government in Iran:*
> 
> "The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
> human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
> interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
> government of being American spies because a few groups in America
> used these funds."
> 
> The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
> remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
> groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
> accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
> government.
> 
> Human rights abuses
> 
> Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
> spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
> by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.
> 
> It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
> precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
> U Senator Joe Lieberman
> 
> He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
> who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
> Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
> end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."
> 
> Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
> needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
> government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.
> 
> The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
> US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
> Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
> circumstances.
> 
> Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
> State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
> these brave investigations are needed most.''
> 
> *'National security threat'
> 
> Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
> Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
> the fund should be cut.
> 
> In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
> advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
> they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
> defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
> means.
> 
> Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
> Iran.
> 
> Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
> Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
> a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.
> 
> The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
> regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
> regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
> severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.
> *
Click to expand...


Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!

1. Are you suggesting that Washington funds programs based on how successful them are? If so, please explain public education.

2. Programs such as Radio Liberty were considered encouraging by Solidarity in their fight for freedom against the 'Evil Empire.'

3. If you read my previous post, you would note that the amount in question is a mere pittance. Clearly, ending the program was political, not financial.

4. "While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US..." Doesn't this put the bias of the BBC in perspective? Stick in 'neoconservative' and you lefties think the case is made, kind of like the nonsense speeches from beauty contestants.

5. "...reactions in Iran to the program
were overwhelmingly negative."
and 
"the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
the hardline government in Iran"

So, if the government of Iran was moved to react so strongly against the broadcasts, doesn't this cast the prior quote somewhat of a lie?  Put on your thinking cap.

6. Since there can, obviously, be no costs to America, in broadcasting 'the whole world is watching' kind of broadcasts, your post seems more along the lines of left-wing talking points than legitimite objections.

You should get out more.


----------



## MaggieMae

jeffrockit said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Dithers n Withers while the world mocks him for the empty suit he now so clearly is - and always has been...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crystal meth? The world loves Obama. He is perceived to represent what America is always saying it is - for freedom etc etc - not what that totalitarian puppet who previously occupied the WH was all about..
> 
> ..as for Iran - keep you nose out. Last time the US interfered Ollie North ended up in a Senate hearing.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true because when polled, it showed that 58 percent of Europeans want the United States to be weakened. They want a weaker America and that is what the Obama administration represents to them. That is a popularity we should not want or be happy about.
Click to expand...


Don't you mean that's Neal Boortz's OPINION????

Euros want weaker America, and thus support Obama « Crush Liberalism

I find it intriguing that his comments include a link to the Gallop poll (which says_ nothing_ about a weaker America), but not to this alleged Pew poll, which I frankly can't find anywhere.


----------



## MaggieMae

jeffrockit said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noose4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!!! We must prevent Americans from being able to go to the doctor!!!!! Lets attack Iran instead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.
Click to expand...


Great. Let's leave the whole thing in File 13 (again). I hope you and yours enjoy your rising private health insurance premiums, on average 10% a year.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you see this from October?
> 
> "The Obama administration has cut funding for pro-democracy and human rights programs in Iran, reversing years of efforts during the Bush administration to help develop a civil society, congressional sources told Newsmax this week.
> 
> 
> The move is apparently intended to please Irans rulers after they criticized President Obama and the State Department for allegedly seeking to fund a velvet revolution during the June presidential elections in Iran."
> Can-You-Hear-Us-Now!: Obama Cuts Pro-Democracy Funds for Iran
> 
> Would you consider this a step in the right, no pun intended, direction?
> 
> 
> "President Obama, who undermines his credibility by vacillating between remaining strategically outside of the fray and inserting himself in it by telling Iranians that the whole world is watching, ..."
> The Fire Last Time by Daniel J. Flynn, City Journal 24 June 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition
> 
> 20 October 2009 11:06 UK
> 
> US cuts funding to Iran opposition
> 
> By Bahman Kalbasi
> BBC News, Washington
> 
> In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
> regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
> House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.
> 
> While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
> has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.
> 
> The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
> an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
> NGOs.
> 
> *While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
> were overwhelmingly negative.*
> 
> *Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
> maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
> the hardline government in Iran:*
> 
> "The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
> human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
> interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
> government of being American spies because a few groups in America
> used these funds."
> 
> The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
> remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
> groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
> accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
> government.
> 
> Human rights abuses
> 
> Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
> spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
> by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.
> 
> It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
> precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
> U Senator Joe Lieberman
> 
> He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
> who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
> Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
> end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."
> 
> Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
> needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
> government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.
> 
> The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
> US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
> Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
> circumstances.
> 
> Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
> State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
> these brave investigations are needed most.''
> 
> *'National security threat'
> 
> Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
> Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
> the fund should be cut.
> 
> In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
> advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
> they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
> defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
> means.
> 
> Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
> Iran.
> 
> Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
> Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
> a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.
> 
> The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
> regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
> regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
> severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!
> 
> 1. Are you suggesting that Washington funds programs based on how successful them are? If so, please explain public education.
> 
> 2. Programs such as Radio Liberty were considered encouraging by Solidarity in their fight for freedom against the 'Evil Empire.'
> 
> 3. If you read my previous post, you would note that the amount in question is a mere pittance. Clearly, ending the program was political, not financial.
> 
> 4. "While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US..." Doesn't this put the bias of the BBC in perspective? Stick in 'neoconservative' and you lefties think the case is made, kind of like the nonsense speeches from beauty contestants.
> 
> 5. "...reactions in Iran to the program
> were overwhelmingly negative."
> and
> "the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
> the hardline government in Iran"
> 
> So, if the government of Iran was moved to react so strongly against the broadcasts, doesn't this cast the prior quote somewhat of a lie?  Put on your thinking cap.
> 
> 6. Since there can, obviously, be no costs to America, in broadcasting 'the whole world is watching' kind of broadcasts, your post seems more along the lines of left-wing talking points than legitimite objections.
> 
> You should get out more.
Click to expand...


Nice try. Simply because you were proven WRONG, you attempt to go off on separate tangents incorporating government funding in general and the validity of neoconism. And oh yes, I* do* "get out" more by not keeping my nose stuck in obviously biased "information sources" and quoting as gospel such as far right pages as NewsMax.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only Washington neocons thought those programs were "successful." They were far from it.
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Middle East | US cuts funding to Iran opposition
> 
> 20 October 2009 11:06 UK
> 
> US cuts funding to Iran opposition
> 
> By Bahman Kalbasi
> BBC News, Washington
> 
> In an apparent shift from the Bush administration's efforts to foster
> regime change in Iran by financing opposition groups, the Obama White
> House has all but dismantled the Iran Democracy Fund.
> 
> While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US, it
> has been welcomed by Iranian human rights and pro-democracy activists.
> 
> The controversial program was initiated by the Bush administration in
> an effort to topple the clerical regime in Tehran by financing Iranian
> NGOs.
> 
> *While heralded by some in Washington, reactions in Iran to the program
> were overwhelmingly negative.*
> 
> *Critics like Iranian dissident and journalist Akbar Ganji have
> maintained that the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
> the hardline government in Iran:*
> 
> "The US democracy fund was severely counterproductive. None of the
> human right activists and members of opposition in Iran had any
> interest in using such funds, but we were all accused by Iran's
> government of being American spies because a few groups in America
> used these funds."
> 
> The secretiveness around the program - the recipients of the funds
> remain classified - has added to the dilemma, Iranian human rights
> groups maintain. They say it has enabled the Iranian authorities to
> accuse any Iranian NGO of having received funds from the US
> government.
> 
> Human rights abuses
> 
> Abdolfattah Soltani is a well-known Iranian human rights lawyer, and
> spokesman for the Defenders of Human Rights Center, which was founded
> by the Nobel Peace Prize-winner Shirin Ebadi.
> 
> It is disturbing that the State Department would cut off funding at
> precisely the moment when these brave investigations are needed most
> U Senator Joe Lieberman
> 
> He welcomes the change in policy: "These US funds are going to people
> who have very little to do with the real struggle for democracy in
> Iran and our civil society activists never received such funds. The
> end to this program will have no impact on our activities whatsoever."
> 
> Critics of the Obama administration have accused him of cutting much
> needed funds for human rights activists at a time when the Iranian
> government's human rights abuses have sharply increased.
> 
> The director of one benefactor of the Iran Democracy Fund, the
> US-based Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center, told the Boston
> Globe that they never expected their funding to be cut under these
> circumstances.
> 
> Senator Joe Lieberman said in a statement: "It is disturbing that the
> State Department would cut off funding at precisely the moment when
> these brave investigations are needed most.''
> 
> *'National security threat'
> 
> Human rights defenders in Iran, however, point to the Iranian Human
> Rights Documentation Center's activities as an example of exactly why
> the fund should be cut.
> 
> In 2005, the centre organised a seminar in Dubai. Though it was
> advertised as a human rights seminar, participants tell the BBC that
> they soon realised that the aim was to train Iranian human rights
> defenders on how to overthrow the Iranian regime through non-violent
> means.
> 
> Several of the participants were subsequently arrested and jailed in
> Iran.
> 
> Today, they bitterly complain that the Human Rights Documentation
> Center knowingly put them under immense risk by luring them to Dubai -
> a hub for Iranian intelligence services - under false pretences.
> 
> The episode is believed to have focused the attention of the Iranian
> regime on NGOs and political activists. The authorities began to
> regard them a as a potential national security threat, prompting a
> severe crackdown on Iranian civil society.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!
> 
> 1. Are you suggesting that Washington funds programs based on how successful them are? If so, please explain public education.
> 
> 2. Programs such as Radio Liberty were considered encouraging by Solidarity in their fight for freedom against the 'Evil Empire.'
> 
> 3. If you read my previous post, you would note that the amount in question is a mere pittance. Clearly, ending the program was political, not financial.
> 
> 4. "While the move has been criticised by neo-conservatives in the US..." Doesn't this put the bias of the BBC in perspective? Stick in 'neoconservative' and you lefties think the case is made, kind of like the nonsense speeches from beauty contestants.
> 
> 5. "...reactions in Iran to the program
> were overwhelmingly negative."
> and
> "the program made virtually all Iranian NGOs targets of
> the hardline government in Iran"
> 
> So, if the government of Iran was moved to react so strongly against the broadcasts, doesn't this cast the prior quote somewhat of a lie?  Put on your thinking cap.
> 
> 6. Since there can, obviously, be no costs to America, in broadcasting 'the whole world is watching' kind of broadcasts, your post seems more along the lines of left-wing talking points than legitimite objections.
> 
> You should get out more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try. Simply because you were proven WRONG, you attempt to go off on separate tangents incorporating government funding in general and the validity of neoconism. And oh yes, I* do* "get out" more by not keeping my nose stuck in obviously biased "information sources" and quoting as gospel such as far right pages as NewsMax.
Click to expand...


1. Well, it must have been more than a 'try,' judging from your response.

It seems that I hurt your feelings with the 'get out more' comment, and I admit it may have been a bit flip...so I apologize.

But, if you care to discuss the topic in a more substantive manner, answer 
the following...

2. Exactly where was I proven wrong?
a) US should support for the protesters in Iran, as President Reagan did in Poland?
b) That the cost of this support would be minimal?
c) We have not discoursed on " validity of neoconism"...and, in fact your were the one who injected same.  But I'm game.
d) That BBC is left wing?


----------



## MaggieMae

PC -- I'm not in the mood to get into an ideological battle of words today. I'm up and I want to stay that way. If you would like to debate the pros/cons of neoconservatism/conservatism/socialism/liberalism in a new thread, I'll be better equipped (less tired) to discuss next week and you should start a new thread.

Happy New Year!!


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PC -- I'm not in the mood to get into an ideological battle of words today. I'm up and I want to stay that way. If you would like to debate the pros/cons of neoconservatism/conservatism/socialism/liberalism in a new thread, I'll be better equipped (less tired) to discuss next week and you should start a new thread.
> 
> Happy New Year!!



The same.

Take care.


----------



## jeffrockit

MaggieMae said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on crystal meth? The world loves Obama. He is perceived to represent what America is always saying it is - for freedom etc etc - not what that totalitarian puppet who previously occupied the WH was all about..
> 
> ..as for Iran - keep you nose out. Last time the US interfered Ollie North ended up in a Senate hearing.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true because when polled, it showed that 58 percent of Europeans want the United States to be weakened. They want a weaker America and that is what the Obama administration represents to them. That is a popularity we should not want or be happy about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you mean that's Neal Boortz's OPINION????
> 
> Nope, this is based on the Pew Research poll conducted in Europe in 2008. That poll showed that nearly 60% of Europeans wanted the United States to be weaker.
> I Googled it...you can too as it's not that difficult.
Click to expand...


----------



## jeffrockit

MaggieMae said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone can go to the doctor any time they want, even if they dont have money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great. Let's leave the whole thing in File 13 (again). I hope you and yours enjoy your rising private health insurance premiums, on average 10% a year.
Click to expand...


I have said many times that we need an overhaul of health care, just not by the govt. Can you not see that with the govt involved, it has nothing to do with how much they care about us and everything to do with increasing their political power. Do you honestly believe that the politicians are pushing this bill because of us and how much they care?
In the many times I have asked that question, I never get a straight answer. Care to change that?


----------



## MaggieMae

jeffrockit said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true because when polled, it showed that 58 percent of Europeans want the United States to be weakened. They want a weaker America and that is what the Obama administration represents to them. That is a popularity we should not want or be happy about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean that's Neal Boortz's OPINION????
> 
> Nope, this is based on the Pew Research poll conducted in Europe in 2008. That poll showed that nearly 60% of Europeans wanted the United States to be weaker.
> I Googled it...you can too as it's not that difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you took the time to Google it, then why not post the link?
Click to expand...


----------



## MaggieMae

jeffrockit said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The libs don't get that. They continue with that lie because they are ok with the govt. taking control of 17% of our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Let's leave the whole thing in File 13 (again). I hope you and yours enjoy your rising private health insurance premiums, on average 10% a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have said many times that we need an overhaul of health care, just not by the govt. Can you not see that with the govt involved, it has nothing to do with how much they care about us and everything to do with increasing their political power. Do you honestly believe that the politicians are pushing this bill because of us and how much they care?
> In the many times I have asked that question, I never get a straight answer. Care to change that?
Click to expand...


The health care industry will NOT police itself. That's become evident and that's why the issue is front/center (again). I'm actually more in favor of the trigger option, which is really nothing more than a threat that if they continue with their monopolistic, discriminatory practices, within a certain timeframe a public option WILL be instituted.


----------



## Toronado3800

> Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!



Ouch, calling someone silly now.  You speak well and should know making someone angry with a poorly chosen initial statement only entrenches them in their thoughts.  Rush isn't one to learn from.



> 4. My ability to articulate has rarely required 'translation,' and when it does, I don't think, based on the erudition of your post, it is your services that will be called upon.


Instead of privately suggesting something to you I chose to do it in a public and equally silly way to your post.

I am honestly confused by the math.


> "and the U.S. administration's request for $75 million for democracy promotion in Iran."


If health care costs America 1 billion dollars this year than that's 13.3 times as much as the 75 million right?  If somehow healthcare costs 1 trillion dollars additional a year then its 13,333 times as much.  I just don't think that many additional procedures are going to be performed.  

For Obama care to be a million times more expensive it would have to cost America 75 trillion bucks over the same amount of time.  Even if it does that is just money largely recirculating our economy since most folks get in country medical care.....

how to equate.... I go to McDonalds for a burger.  It cost me a dollar.  Does it cost America a dollar?  Not really since I just gave my buck to a different American.  If I get an MRI does it cost America $800?  Not really since my American insurance company just paid my American hospital the money.  In both cases I'm out the buck or 800 bucks but the doctor or someone at McDonalds should in theory have my money to recirculate at my place of employment.

My views on healthcare seem unusual.  I've seen folks with no insurance get surgeries performed then almost walk away from the bill entirely.  The cost those procedures is then spread out to the tax payers and those who show up for treatment the next day.  No one gets thrown out of the hospital when even something like Gallbladder surgery is absolutely necessary.  Sure it gets put off but I feel thanks to this we already have "universal coverage".

If I'm paying $150 a month for private healthcare now and end up paying $160 a month for equal "universal" healthcare it costs me $10 a month more when initially tracking the money.  If go an additional step and add in the costs we're already paying for items like the surgeries performed on those w/o insurance though I believe SOME if not all of that $10 a month will be recovered.

Political Chick, perhaps I just give you a difficult time because you do make very good points while I give others who cuss each other out less trouble just because I somehow expect less from them.  My apologies.


----------



## jeffrockit

MaggieMae said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Let's leave the whole thing in File 13 (again). I hope you and yours enjoy your rising private health insurance premiums, on average 10% a year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have said many times that we need an overhaul of health care, just not by the govt. Can you not see that with the govt involved, it has nothing to do with how much they care about us and everything to do with increasing their political power. Do you honestly believe that the politicians are pushing this bill because of us and how much they care?
> In the many times I have asked that question, I never get a straight answer. Care to change that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The health care industry will NOT police itself. That's become evident and that's why the issue is front/center (again). I'm actually more in favor of the trigger option, which is really nothing more than a threat that if they continue with their monopolistic, discriminatory practices, within a certain timeframe a public option WILL be instituted.
Click to expand...


Again, no answer to my question:
Do you honestly believe that the politicians are pushing this bill because of us and how much they care about us?


----------



## MaggieMae

jeffrockit said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have said many times that we need an overhaul of health care, just not by the govt. Can you not see that with the govt involved, it has nothing to do with how much they care about us and everything to do with increasing their political power. Do you honestly believe that the politicians are pushing this bill because of us and how much they care?
> In the many times I have asked that question, I never get a straight answer. Care to change that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The health care industry will NOT police itself. That's become evident and that's why the issue is front/center (again). I'm actually more in favor of the trigger option, which is really nothing more than a threat that if they continue with their monopolistic, discriminatory practices, within a certain timeframe a public option WILL be instituted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, no answer to my question:
> Do you honestly believe that the politicians are pushing this bill because of us and how much they care about us?
Click to expand...


Some do, some don't. A better question is whose pockets did over $6 million in lobbying against this bill go into?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Toronado3800 said:


> Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch, calling someone silly now.  You speak well and should know making someone angry with a poorly chosen initial statement only entrenches them in their thoughts.  Rush isn't one to learn from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. My ability to articulate has rarely required 'translation,' and when it does, I don't think, based on the erudition of your post, it is your services that will be called upon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Instead of privately suggesting something to you I chose to do it in a public and equally silly way to your post.
> 
> I am honestly confused by the math.
> 
> 
> 
> "and the U.S. administration's request for $75 million for democracy promotion in Iran."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If health care costs America 1 billion dollars this year than that's 13.3 times as much as the 75 million right?  If somehow healthcare costs 1 trillion dollars additional a year then its 13,333 times as much.  I just don't think that many additional procedures are going to be performed.
> 
> For Obama care to be a million times more expensive it would have to cost America 75 trillion bucks over the same amount of time.  Even if it does that is just money largely recirculating our economy since most folks get in country medical care.....
> 
> how to equate.... I go to McDonalds for a burger.  It cost me a dollar.  Does it cost America a dollar?  Not really since I just gave my buck to a different American.  If I get an MRI does it cost America $800?  Not really since my American insurance company just paid my American hospital the money.  In both cases I'm out the buck or 800 bucks but the doctor or someone at McDonalds should in theory have my money to recirculate at my place of employment.
> 
> My views on healthcare seem unusual.  I've seen folks with no insurance get surgeries performed then almost walk away from the bill entirely.  The cost those procedures is then spread out to the tax payers and those who show up for treatment the next day.  No one gets thrown out of the hospital when even something like Gallbladder surgery is absolutely necessary.  Sure it gets put off but I feel thanks to this we already have "universal coverage".
> 
> If I'm paying $150 a month for private healthcare now and end up paying $160 a month for equal "universal" healthcare it costs me $10 a month more when initially tracking the money.  If go an additional step and add in the costs we're already paying for items like the surgeries performed on those w/o insurance though I believe SOME if not all of that $10 a month will be recovered.
> 
> Political Chick, perhaps I just give you a difficult time because you do make very good points while I give others who cuss each other out less trouble just because I somehow expect less from them.  My apologies.
Click to expand...


No, no, no- my bad!
1) I missed the math due to hyperbole!  75 million compared to 1 trillion (healthcare), then we are not talking a million times more, but 10,000 times more. So, the comparison is a pair of happy meals vs. a new Lexus,
2) I missed the humor of your post.

And I really appreciate that neither of us resorts to the 'cussing.'

Am I correct that, reading the above post, you are not in favor of ObamaCare? 
If so, we are on the same page.

And, if so, you will appreciate this from Mark Steyn:

". In the end, there&#8217;s no such thing as an independent Canadian economy. It remains a branch plant for the U.S. Over 80 percent of Canadian exports come to America.  So when people talk about the Canadian model as something that should be emulated, they forget that it only works because it&#8217;s next to the American model. Canadian dependence on the United States is particularly true in health care, the most eminent Canadian idea looming in the American context. That is, public health care in Canada depends on private health care in the U.S. A small news story from last month illustrates this:

A Canadian woman has given birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets. The four girls were born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units. Autumn, Brook, Calissa, and Dahlia are in good condition at Benefice Hospital in Great Falls, Montana. Health officials said they checked every other neonatal intensive care unit in Canada, but none had space. The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician were flown 500 kilometers to the Montana hospital, the closest in the U.S., where the quadruplets were born on Sunday.

Canadian health care in a nutshell. After all, you can&#8217;t expect a G-7 economy of only 30 million people to be able to offer the same level of neonatal intensive care coverage as a town of 50,000 in remote, rural Montana. And let&#8217;s face it, there&#8217;s nothing an expectant mom likes more on the day of delivery than 300 miles in a bumpy twin prop over the Rockies. Everyone knows that socialized health care means you wait and wait and wait&#8212;six months for an MRI, a year for a hip replacement, and so on. But here is the absolute logical reductio of a government monopoly in health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward."

https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01

Be well.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sister, I'm surprised at your silliness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch, calling someone silly now.  You speak well and should know making someone angry with a poorly chosen initial statement only entrenches them in their thoughts.  Rush isn't one to learn from.
> 
> 
> Instead of privately suggesting something to you I chose to do it in a public and equally silly way to your post.
> 
> I am honestly confused by the math.
> 
> 
> 
> "and the U.S. administration's request for $75 million for democracy promotion in Iran."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If health care costs America 1 billion dollars this year than that's 13.3 times as much as the 75 million right?  If somehow healthcare costs 1 trillion dollars additional a year then its 13,333 times as much.  I just don't think that many additional procedures are going to be performed.
> 
> For Obama care to be a million times more expensive it would have to cost America 75 trillion bucks over the same amount of time.  Even if it does that is just money largely recirculating our economy since most folks get in country medical care.....
> 
> how to equate.... I go to McDonalds for a burger.  It cost me a dollar.  Does it cost America a dollar?  Not really since I just gave my buck to a different American.  If I get an MRI does it cost America $800?  Not really since my American insurance company just paid my American hospital the money.  In both cases I'm out the buck or 800 bucks but the doctor or someone at McDonalds should in theory have my money to recirculate at my place of employment.
> 
> My views on healthcare seem unusual.  I've seen folks with no insurance get surgeries performed then almost walk away from the bill entirely.  The cost those procedures is then spread out to the tax payers and those who show up for treatment the next day.  No one gets thrown out of the hospital when even something like Gallbladder surgery is absolutely necessary.  Sure it gets put off but I feel thanks to this we already have "universal coverage".
> 
> If I'm paying $150 a month for private healthcare now and end up paying $160 a month for equal "universal" healthcare it costs me $10 a month more when initially tracking the money.  If go an additional step and add in the costs we're already paying for items like the surgeries performed on those w/o insurance though I believe SOME if not all of that $10 a month will be recovered.
> 
> Political Chick, perhaps I just give you a difficult time because you do make very good points while I give others who cuss each other out less trouble just because I somehow expect less from them.  My apologies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, no, no- my bad!
> 1) I missed the math due to hyperbole!  75 million compared to 1 trillion (healthcare), then we are not talking a million times more, but 10,000 times more. So, the comparison is a pair of happy meals vs. a new Lexus,
> 2) I missed the humor of your post.
> 
> And I really appreciate that neither of us resorts to the 'cussing.'
> 
> Am I correct that, reading the above post, you are not in favor of ObamaCare?
> If so, we are on the same page.
> 
> And, if so, you will appreciate this from Mark Steyn:
> 
> ". In the end, there&#8217;s no such thing as an independent Canadian economy. It remains a branch plant for the U.S. Over 80 percent of Canadian exports come to America.  So when people talk about the Canadian model as something that should be emulated, they forget that it only works because it&#8217;s next to the American model. Canadian dependence on the United States is particularly true in health care, the most eminent Canadian idea looming in the American context. That is, public health care in Canada depends on private health care in the U.S. A small news story from last month illustrates this:
> 
> A Canadian woman has given birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets. The four girls were born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units. Autumn, Brook, Calissa, and Dahlia are in good condition at Benefice Hospital in Great Falls, Montana. Health officials said they checked every other neonatal intensive care unit in Canada, but none had space. The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician were flown 500 kilometers to the Montana hospital, the closest in the U.S., where the quadruplets were born on Sunday.
> 
> Canadian health care in a nutshell. After all, you can&#8217;t expect a G-7 economy of only 30 million people to be able to offer the same level of neonatal intensive care coverage as a town of 50,000 in remote, rural Montana. And let&#8217;s face it, there&#8217;s nothing an expectant mom likes more on the day of delivery than 300 miles in a bumpy twin prop over the Rockies. Everyone knows that socialized health care means you wait and wait and wait&#8212;six months for an MRI, a year for a hip replacement, and so on. But here is the absolute logical reductio of a government monopoly in health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward."
> 
> https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01
> 
> Be well.
Click to expand...


But PC, you're talking about health CARE, while the issue at hand is *availability* of health CARE to all Americans who need it without eventually bankrupting those hospitals like the one in Montana that must provide it "free" if one cannot pay because he has no insurance . No one is disputing that the USA doesn't have the best, just the worst way of distributing it. And private health care insurers currently dictate who will get insurance and who won't.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ouch, calling someone silly now.  You speak well and should know making someone angry with a poorly chosen initial statement only entrenches them in their thoughts.  Rush isn't one to learn from.
> 
> 
> Instead of privately suggesting something to you I chose to do it in a public and equally silly way to your post.
> 
> I am honestly confused by the math.
> 
> If health care costs America 1 billion dollars this year than that's 13.3 times as much as the 75 million right?  If somehow healthcare costs 1 trillion dollars additional a year then its 13,333 times as much.  I just don't think that many additional procedures are going to be performed.
> 
> For Obama care to be a million times more expensive it would have to cost America 75 trillion bucks over the same amount of time.  Even if it does that is just money largely recirculating our economy since most folks get in country medical care.....
> 
> how to equate.... I go to McDonalds for a burger.  It cost me a dollar.  Does it cost America a dollar?  Not really since I just gave my buck to a different American.  If I get an MRI does it cost America $800?  Not really since my American insurance company just paid my American hospital the money.  In both cases I'm out the buck or 800 bucks but the doctor or someone at McDonalds should in theory have my money to recirculate at my place of employment.
> 
> My views on healthcare seem unusual.  I've seen folks with no insurance get surgeries performed then almost walk away from the bill entirely.  The cost those procedures is then spread out to the tax payers and those who show up for treatment the next day.  No one gets thrown out of the hospital when even something like Gallbladder surgery is absolutely necessary.  Sure it gets put off but I feel thanks to this we already have "universal coverage".
> 
> If I'm paying $150 a month for private healthcare now and end up paying $160 a month for equal "universal" healthcare it costs me $10 a month more when initially tracking the money.  If go an additional step and add in the costs we're already paying for items like the surgeries performed on those w/o insurance though I believe SOME if not all of that $10 a month will be recovered.
> 
> Political Chick, perhaps I just give you a difficult time because you do make very good points while I give others who cuss each other out less trouble just because I somehow expect less from them.  My apologies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, no- my bad!
> 1) I missed the math due to hyperbole!  75 million compared to 1 trillion (healthcare), then we are not talking a million times more, but 10,000 times more. So, the comparison is a pair of happy meals vs. a new Lexus,
> 2) I missed the humor of your post.
> 
> And I really appreciate that neither of us resorts to the 'cussing.'
> 
> Am I correct that, reading the above post, you are not in favor of ObamaCare?
> If so, we are on the same page.
> 
> And, if so, you will appreciate this from Mark Steyn:
> 
> ". In the end, theres no such thing as an independent Canadian economy. It remains a branch plant for the U.S. Over 80 percent of Canadian exports come to America.  So when people talk about the Canadian model as something that should be emulated, they forget that it only works because its next to the American model. Canadian dependence on the United States is particularly true in health care, the most eminent Canadian idea looming in the American context. That is, public health care in Canada depends on private health care in the U.S. A small news story from last month illustrates this:
> 
> A Canadian woman has given birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets. The four girls were born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units. Autumn, Brook, Calissa, and Dahlia are in good condition at Benefice Hospital in Great Falls, Montana. Health officials said they checked every other neonatal intensive care unit in Canada, but none had space. The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician were flown 500 kilometers to the Montana hospital, the closest in the U.S., where the quadruplets were born on Sunday.
> 
> Canadian health care in a nutshell. After all, you cant expect a G-7 economy of only 30 million people to be able to offer the same level of neonatal intensive care coverage as a town of 50,000 in remote, rural Montana. And lets face it, theres nothing an expectant mom likes more on the day of delivery than 300 miles in a bumpy twin prop over the Rockies. Everyone knows that socialized health care means you wait and wait and waitsix months for an MRI, a year for a hip replacement, and so on. But here is the absolute logical reductio of a government monopoly in health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward."
> 
> https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01
> 
> Be well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But PC, you're talking about health CARE, while the issue at hand is *availability* of health CARE to all Americans who need it without eventually bankrupting those hospitals like the one in Montana that must provide it "free" if one cannot pay because he has no insurance . No one is disputing that the USA doesn't have the best, just the worst way of distributing it. And private health care insurers currently dictate who will get insurance and who won't.
Click to expand...


Interesting.

1. Universal Health Care means rationing. Limiting avaiability.

2. If one wishes to indemnify said hospitals, why not simply accept bills for payment by federal government, rather than a trillion dollar plan that is unwanted and unwarrented.

3. "Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
http://defendyourhealthcare.us/downgradinghealthcare.html


----------



## midcan5

If we want to counter terrorism as it exists today, we need to stop interfering in the politics of other nations. We make our nation the focus of the crazies.


----------



## PoliticalChic

midcan5 said:


> If we want to counter terrorism as it exists today, we need to stop interfering in the politics of other nations. We make our nation the focus of the crazies.



Good way for a lib to begin the new year, and get those street creds: Blame America for terrorism!

What consistency!


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, no, no- my bad!
> 1) I missed the math due to hyperbole!  75 million compared to 1 trillion (healthcare), then we are not talking a million times more, but 10,000 times more. So, the comparison is a pair of happy meals vs. a new Lexus,
> 2) I missed the humor of your post.
> 
> And I really appreciate that neither of us resorts to the 'cussing.'
> 
> Am I correct that, reading the above post, you are not in favor of ObamaCare?
> If so, we are on the same page.
> 
> And, if so, you will appreciate this from Mark Steyn:
> 
> ". In the end, theres no such thing as an independent Canadian economy. It remains a branch plant for the U.S. Over 80 percent of Canadian exports come to America.  So when people talk about the Canadian model as something that should be emulated, they forget that it only works because its next to the American model. Canadian dependence on the United States is particularly true in health care, the most eminent Canadian idea looming in the American context. That is, public health care in Canada depends on private health care in the U.S. A small news story from last month illustrates this:
> 
> A Canadian woman has given birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets. The four girls were born at a U.S. hospital because there was no space available at Canadian neonatal intensive care units. Autumn, Brook, Calissa, and Dahlia are in good condition at Benefice Hospital in Great Falls, Montana. Health officials said they checked every other neonatal intensive care unit in Canada, but none had space. The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician were flown 500 kilometers to the Montana hospital, the closest in the U.S., where the quadruplets were born on Sunday.
> 
> Canadian health care in a nutshell. After all, you cant expect a G-7 economy of only 30 million people to be able to offer the same level of neonatal intensive care coverage as a town of 50,000 in remote, rural Montana. And lets face it, theres nothing an expectant mom likes more on the day of delivery than 300 miles in a bumpy twin prop over the Rockies. Everyone knows that socialized health care means you wait and wait and waitsix months for an MRI, a year for a hip replacement, and so on. But here is the absolute logical reductio of a government monopoly in health care: the ten month waiting list for the maternity ward."
> 
> https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=01
> 
> Be well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But PC, you're talking about health CARE, while the issue at hand is *availability* of health CARE to all Americans who need it without eventually bankrupting those hospitals like the one in Montana that must provide it "free" if one cannot pay because he has no insurance . No one is disputing that the USA doesn't have the best, just the worst way of distributing it. And private health care insurers currently dictate who will get insurance and who won't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 1. Universal Health Care means rationing. Limiting avaiability.
> 
> 2. If one wishes to indemnify said hospitals, why not simply accept bills for payment by federal government, rather than a trillion dollar plan that is unwanted and unwarrented.
> 
> 3. "Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
> http://defendyourhealthcare.us/downgradinghealthcare.html
Click to expand...


Are you advocating a single payer system (which most folks can't distinguish between a "universal" system, but are in fact, totally different)? Frankly, I often wondered whatever happened to that idea. But I think Obama's intent was to keep the private insurers in business, so single-payer was out.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> But PC, you're talking about health CARE, while the issue at hand is *availability* of health CARE to all Americans who need it without eventually bankrupting those hospitals like the one in Montana that must provide it "free" if one cannot pay because he has no insurance . No one is disputing that the USA doesn't have the best, just the worst way of distributing it. And private health care insurers currently dictate who will get insurance and who won't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 1. Universal Health Care means rationing. Limiting avaiability.
> 
> 2. If one wishes to indemnify said hospitals, why not simply accept bills for payment by federal government, rather than a trillion dollar plan that is unwanted and unwarrented.
> 
> 3. "Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
> http://defendyourhealthcare.us/downgradinghealthcare.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you advocating a single payer system (which most folks can't distinguish between a "universal" system, but are in fact, totally different)? Frankly, I often wondered whatever happened to that idea. But I think Obama's intent was to keep the private insurers in business, so single-payer was out.
Click to expand...


Not at all.

I'm advocating keeping government out of free market solutions to health care

...except for legislation that accomplished the following:

1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more professionals into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.


The above is based upon the following:
1. The United States has the best healthcare in the world, based on life expectancy.

2. The principle of liberty puts each of us in control of making the decisions that will affect our lives, for better of for worse. Thomas Jefferson put it like this: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods of no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.


Whenever there is a 2000 page bill, the sotto voce purpose is to make sure that no one can know what is in it.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 1. Universal Health Care means rationing. Limiting avaiability.
> 
> 2. If one wishes to indemnify said hospitals, why not simply accept bills for payment by federal government, rather than a trillion dollar plan that is unwanted and unwarrented.
> 
> 3. "Food debit cards help 27 million people buy food, similar to the number who need help buying health coverage. In all fifty states, debit card technology has transformed the federal food stamp program, which used to be notorious for fraud and abuse. (Only 2 percent of card users are found to be ineligible, according to the General Accounting Office.) Cards are loaded with a specific dollar amount monthly, depending on family size and income, and allow cardholders to shop anywhere. The same strategy could be adapted to provide purchasing power to families who need help buying high-deductible health coverage. It's what all Americans used to buy (see chart 5), and it's all that's needed for families with moderate incomes, who can afford a routine doctor visit. "
> http://defendyourhealthcare.us/downgradinghealthcare.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating a single payer system (which most folks can't distinguish between a "universal" system, but are in fact, totally different)? Frankly, I often wondered whatever happened to that idea. But I think Obama's intent was to keep the private insurers in business, so single-payer was out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> I'm advocating keeping government out of free market solutions to health care
> 
> ...except for legislation that accomplished the following:
> 
> 1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
> 2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
> 3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
> 4. Use the tax system to incentivize more professionals into the medical field.
> 5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
> 
> 
> The above is based upon the following:
> 1. The United States has the best healthcare in the world, based on life expectancy.
> 
> 2. The principle of liberty puts each of us in control of making the decisions that will affect our lives, for better of for worse. Thomas Jefferson put it like this: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods of no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
> 
> 
> Whenever there is a 2000 page bill, the sotto voce purpose is to make sure that no one can know what is in it.
Click to expand...


Ah yes, so simple. How come the Republican Party has never taken the initiative on those points, but instead wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats? This could all be history revisited by now. Instead, the health care industry was allowed to become a monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans. Enter a dramatic solution by the Democrats. And so here we are.


----------



## hylandrdet

Sinatra said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fail to see the forest for the trees.
> 
> And sadly, within a few months - or perhaps even weeks, you may wish to reconsider...
Click to expand...


No everything's fine. 

If there was one lesson we'd learned from Vietnam, it is this. Let the people handle their own country's problems. 

Since military action is out of the question, and with no real global support for sanctions, there's nothing we can do but to monitor the situation. My attention is now focused on Yemen. Food for thought.


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating a single payer system (which most folks can't distinguish between a "universal" system, but are in fact, totally different)? Frankly, I often wondered whatever happened to that idea. But I think Obama's intent was to keep the private insurers in business, so single-payer was out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> I'm advocating keeping government out of free market solutions to health care
> 
> ...except for legislation that accomplished the following:
> 
> 1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
> 2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
> 3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
> 4. Use the tax system to incentivize more professionals into the medical field.
> 5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
> 
> 
> The above is based upon the following:
> 1. The United States has the best healthcare in the world, based on life expectancy.
> 
> 2. The principle of liberty puts each of us in control of making the decisions that will affect our lives, for better of for worse. Thomas Jefferson put it like this: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods of no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
> 
> 
> Whenever there is a 2000 page bill, the sotto voce purpose is to make sure that no one can know what is in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes, so simple. How come the Republican Party has never taken the initiative on those points, but instead wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats? This could all be history revisited by now. Instead, the health care industry was allowed to become a monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans. Enter a dramatic solution by the Democrats. And so here we are.
Click to expand...


Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.

My specification has always been as a conservative.  So, I do not answer as a Republican.

But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.

"...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.

while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. 
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase


The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Healthcare

"dramatic solution by the Democrats"
Bogus.

Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.

And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?

No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.

The agenda is politcal, not medical.

And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.


----------



## rdean

During the Bush years, Iran presented a solid, unified front against the US.  Now, when Obama is president, they are fracturing.  

Right wing neocons in this country say we could be doing something to help.  But seriously, who do they want to "help"?  

The government of Iran is an extreme right wing government which is against the teaching of evolution, promotes prayer in public schools, and advocates a national religion.  

Considering what Republicans did to the middle class here, I'm not even sure which side they are on in Iran.


----------



## saveliberty

rdean said:


> During the Bush years, Iran presented a solid, unified front against the US.  Now, when Obama is president, they are fracturing.
> 
> Right wing neocons in this country say we could be doing something to help.  But seriously, who do they want to "help"?
> 
> The government of Iran is an extreme right wing government which is against the teaching of evolution, promotes prayer in public schools, and advocates a national religion.
> 
> Considering what Republicans did to the middle class here, I'm not even sure which side they are on in Iran.



So you quickly claim any residual Bush effect as your own when the results are favorable, but deny any negatives when it suits you.  Once again proving your partisan hackery.


----------



## rdean

saveliberty said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the Bush years, Iran presented a solid, unified front against the US.  Now, when Obama is president, they are fracturing.
> 
> Right wing neocons in this country say we could be doing something to help.  But seriously, who do they want to "help"?
> 
> The government of Iran is an extreme right wing government which is against the teaching of evolution, promotes prayer in public schools, and advocates a national religion.
> 
> Considering what Republicans did to the middle class here, I'm not even sure which side they are on in Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you quickly claim any residual Bush effect as your own when the results are favorable, but deny any negatives when it suits you.  Once again proving your partisan hackery.
Click to expand...


Come on, you have to agree, Bush unified Iran.  The constant threats of bombs and invasion.  How can you not see that?
You see that, right?


----------



## saveliberty

rdean said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the Bush years, Iran presented a solid, unified front against the US.  Now, when Obama is president, they are fracturing.
> 
> Right wing neocons in this country say we could be doing something to help.  But seriously, who do they want to "help"?
> 
> The government of Iran is an extreme right wing government which is against the teaching of evolution, promotes prayer in public schools, and advocates a national religion.
> 
> Considering what Republicans did to the middle class here, I'm not even sure which side they are on in Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you quickly claim any residual Bush effect as your own when the results are favorable, but deny any negatives when it suits you.  Once again proving your partisan hackery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come on, you have to agree, Bush unified Iran.  The constant threats of bombs and invasion.  How can you not see that?
> You see that, right?
Click to expand...


I see an Iranian leader who increasingly cracked down on radicals within his borders.  I see a restrictive religious leadership, which didn't see the youth of the country wanting change.  That didn't happen in the last twelve months alone.


----------



## midcan5

PoliticalChic said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we want to counter terrorism as it exists today, we need to stop interfering in the politics of other nations. We make our nation the focus of the crazies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good way for a lib to begin the new year, and get those street creds: Blame America for terrorism!
Click to expand...


So you think if America were being occupied by a foreign power we would not retaliate? Terrorism is often in the eye of the beholder, surely you are read enough to recognize that fact. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-and-jihadi-revolving-doors.html#post1861142


"The difference between political terror and ordinary crime becomes clear during the change of regimes, in which former terrorists become well-regarded representatives of their country." Jurgen Habermas

"I consider Bush's decision to call for a war against terrorism a serious mistake. He is elevating these criminals to the status of war enemies, and one cannot lead a war against a network if the term war is to retain any definite meaning." Jurgen Habermas


*PS  How in the heck did healthcare get twisted into Iran?*


----------



## saveliberty

Terrorists are going to do what they do because they thrive on imposing their will on others.  It is merely a matter of degree to which they target us.  We need to define more precisely what we consider a threat severe enough to invade a foreign country.

Yemen could be an important turning point for us.  It appears Yemen is stepping up to deal with the problem.  We should respect them enough to let them continue without invading, as long as progress is being made.  Meeting our objectives without a war would be a good example for future problems like this.  Countries can decide for themselves whether they want a Yemen or Iraq response from the US.


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> I'm advocating keeping government out of free market solutions to health care
> 
> ...except for legislation that accomplished the following:
> 
> 1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
> 2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
> 3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
> 4. Use the tax system to incentivize more professionals into the medical field.
> 5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
> 
> 
> The above is based upon the following:
> 1. The United States has the best healthcare in the world, based on life expectancy.
> 
> 2. The principle of liberty puts each of us in control of making the decisions that will affect our lives, for better of for worse. Thomas Jefferson put it like this: It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods of no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
> 
> 
> Whenever there is a 2000 page bill, the sotto voce purpose is to make sure that no one can know what is in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, so simple. How come the Republican Party has never taken the initiative on those points, but instead wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats? This could all be history revisited by now. Instead, the health care industry was allowed to become a monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans. Enter a dramatic solution by the Democrats. And so here we are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.
> 
> My specification has always been as a conservative.  So, I do not answer as a Republican.
> 
> But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.
> 
> "...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
> I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.
> 
> while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
> Health Beat: The Quality Question
> 
> Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
> ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase
> 
> 
> The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
> 
> They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
> Defend Your Healthcare
> 
> "dramatic solution by the Democrats"
> Bogus.
> 
> Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.
> 
> And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?
> 
> No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.
> 
> The agenda is politcal, not medical.
> 
> And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.
Click to expand...


Your first link is a year and a half old. Your second ABC poll has some pretty dismal numbers by those same people, I presume. (Or a different set answering questions about health care in general?) Thank you for at least not posting the usual Rasmussen information, which generally results in conservative viewpoints to the extent that his polling is always distorted.

Frankly, you're missing the basic point. Sure, if you've got employer coverage with only a nominal amount of the premium paid by you, who wouldn't be happy with their insurance coverage? The problem is that as rates for those employers continue to skyrocket (and they ARE), and benefits within chosen policies begin to diminish, employers must opt to either require employees to contribute more or their wages will remain stagnant to cover the increased cost. Those are all recent historic facts produced by a variety of intensive research, not the least of which is the Kaiser Foundation.


----------



## MaggieMae

PC -- Check out Gallup's polling (all of it), including and up to today.

Healthcare System


----------



## PoliticalChic

MaggieMae said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes, so simple. How come the Republican Party has never taken the initiative on those points, but instead wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats? This could all be history revisited by now. Instead, the health care industry was allowed to become a monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans. Enter a dramatic solution by the Democrats. And so here we are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.
> 
> My specification has always been as a conservative.  So, I do not answer as a Republican.
> 
> But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.
> 
> "...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
> I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.
> 
> while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
> Health Beat: The Quality Question
> 
> Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
> ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase
> 
> 
> The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
> 
> They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
> Defend Your Healthcare
> 
> "dramatic solution by the Democrats"
> Bogus.
> 
> Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.
> 
> And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?
> 
> No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.
> 
> The agenda is politcal, not medical.
> 
> And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your first link is a year and a half old. Your second ABC poll has some pretty dismal numbers by those same people, I presume. (Or a different set answering questions about health care in general?) Thank you for at least not posting the usual Rasmussen information, which generally results in conservative viewpoints to the extent that his polling is always distorted.
> 
> Frankly, you're missing the basic point. Sure, if you've got employer coverage with only a nominal amount of the premium paid by you, who wouldn't be happy with their insurance coverage? The problem is that as rates for those employers continue to skyrocket (and they ARE), and benefits within chosen policies begin to diminish, employers must opt to either require employees to contribute more or their wages will remain stagnant to cover the increased cost. Those are all recent historic facts produced by a variety of intensive research, not the least of which is the Kaiser Foundation.
Click to expand...


No, they are not 'skyrocketing.'

The rate is actually falling, and the benefits are increasing, as in life expectancy.

The rate of education costs is skyrocketing, and we are getting less and less for the money.

Good work getting that poll.

Please pick a specific aspect of the poll and I'll give my 'spin,' you give the other.


----------



## jeffrockit

hylandrdet said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there was one lesson we'd learned from Vietnam, it is this. Let the people handle their own country's problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does that include all of the money we send to Africa and other 3rd world countries for charity? It is always odd to see some advocate we help other countries in need until our help is to liberate them from genocidal dictators. Then it is usually that "we should mind our own business".
Click to expand...


----------



## noose4

jeffrockit said:


> hylandrdet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there was one lesson we'd learned from Vietnam, it is this. Let the people handle their own country's problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that include all of the money we send to Africa and other 3rd world countries for charity? It is always odd to see some advocate we help other countries in need until our help is to liberate them from genocidal dictators. Then it is usually that "we should mind our own business".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Though I  mostly oppose our tax money going to aid other nations our relief efforts do not result in thousands of dead and injured U.S. service personnel like "liberating" a nation does.
Click to expand...


----------



## MaggieMae

PoliticalChic said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, friend Mag, I don't think you can find any post where I have included myself as a Republican- or a Democrat.
> 
> My specification has always been as a conservative.  So, I do not answer as a Republican.
> 
> But as to why did they " wait until health care becomes front and center by Democrats," it is because the issue has been thrust upon them as a wedge issue by the Democrats and their lap dogs of the Fourth Estate.
> 
> "...monopolistic behemoth beyond the reach of average Americans..."
> I think this is known as 'begging the question' in logic. It is clearly untrue, as almost 90% of the folks respond as satisfied with their health care.
> 
> while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
> Health Beat: The Quality Question
> 
> Among insured Americans, 82 percent rate their health coverage positively. Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage.
> ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase
> 
> 
> The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that 83 percent of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and 81 percent are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.
> 
> They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
> Defend Your Healthcare
> 
> "dramatic solution by the Democrats"
> Bogus.
> 
> Since my post is, as you say, "Ah yes, so simple," we should apply Occam's razor, and see whether any of the 'problems' with healthcare raised by the Democrats is not easily solved using my 5-step solution.
> 
> And consider this, if as is claimed, millions more are covered, why is there not a strong push to increase the number of doctors?
> 
> No, this bill is not about healthcare, and I suspect that you are far too intelligent to have been fooled...you've allowed your bias to blind you.
> 
> The agenda is politcal, not medical.
> 
> And, yes here we are: having been given the government of the United States, the Democrats will pass this bill, and if it survivews to consumation, most- because they will not be exposed to very serious illness, will not notice that care is more difficult to come by, and a bit more expensive, and for most, they will accept as the folks in Orwell's 1984 did the changes in enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first link is a year and a half old. Your second ABC poll has some pretty dismal numbers by those same people, I presume. (Or a different set answering questions about health care in general?) Thank you for at least not posting the usual Rasmussen information, which generally results in conservative viewpoints to the extent that his polling is always distorted.
> 
> Frankly, you're missing the basic point. Sure, if you've got employer coverage with only a nominal amount of the premium paid by you, who wouldn't be happy with their insurance coverage? The problem is that as rates for those employers continue to skyrocket (and they ARE), and benefits within chosen policies begin to diminish, employers must opt to either require employees to contribute more or their wages will remain stagnant to cover the increased cost. Those are all recent historic facts produced by a variety of intensive research, not the least of which is the Kaiser Foundation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are not 'skyrocketing.'
> 
> The rate is actually falling, and the benefits are increasing, as in life expectancy.
> 
> The rate of education costs is skyrocketing, and we are getting less and less for the money.
> 
> Good work getting that poll.
> 
> Please pick a specific aspect of the poll and I'll give my 'spin,' you give the other.
Click to expand...


I don't think it's fair for anyone to discuss the ramifications of the costs of health care based on polling data. The most extensive report was done by the Kaiser Foundation. See page 9 of the report regarding employer costs to maintain insurance for employees.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7670_02.pdf

I agree with your assessment on education.


----------



## rhodescholar

MaggieMae said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.
Click to expand...


You bought the media-driven propaganda; there never was a mullah-controlled government.  It was simply a front the IRGC manufactured to bestow legitimacy through religion as a facade.

The iranian government IS the IRGC, AN, khameini, etc., are merely figureheads.


----------



## American Horse

MaggieMae said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran's fight is not our fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Until THEY determine their own leadership, there's no one to talk to anyway. What kind of intervention would the US do? It's looking more and more like the IRG is trying to usurp the power of the mullas, so it would be stupid to jump into that fray now.
Click to expand...


We (the president) could ASK all insurance companies (including LLoyds of London - notwithstanding the brusque treatment GB has gotten from the administration)  to rescind all liability or risk insurance on ships and shipping in Iranian waters and ports.


----------

