# Massive pro-reform protest in Tehran, Iran



## Chris

In the biggest protest ever since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, hundreds of thousands of people showed up to support Mir Hossein Mousavi, the pro-reform candidate.  This is just two days before the election day.

The protestered walked towards the "Azadi" (Freedom) monument which has been a symbol of Tehran for a long time.  While one would see supporters of Ahmadi-nejad here and there (the last two photos), the whole scene was dominated by color green, which represents the "green movement" of reform - a symbolic gesture of Mousavi's supporters.

Massive pro-reform protest in Tehran, Iran - iReport.com


----------



## Agnapostate

The "Obama effect"? Ahmadinejad seemed just as willing to embrace Obama, or for that matter, Bush.


----------



## Chris

First Pakistan drives the Taliban out of the Swat Valley.

Then Hezbollah loses the election in Lebanon and now the hardliners are losing in Iran.

The extremists no longer have the cartoonish Bush-Cheney to rail against, and therefore are losing their political power.

This is the Obama Effect.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> First Pakistan drives the Taliban out of the Swat Valley.
> 
> Then Hezbollah loses the election in Lebanon and now the hardliners are losing in Iran.
> 
> The extremists no longer have the cartoonish Bush-Cheney to rail against, and therefore are losing their political power.
> 
> This is the Obama Effect.



yup all because Obama happens to be president.  you fucking douchebag.


----------



## oreo

Ha.Ha.--Ajmujenadad--has been in trouble in Iran for about 3 years now--& has lost much popularity with the population in general--as most Iranians are considered "moderate."  But no matter who wins--the extreme radical Mullahs still control Iran--Ajmujenadad is just a puppet--the next elected will be the same--if he doesn't win.  However, the latest poll I saw indicated that Ajmujendad will win the election.  We'll see.

*To add--the same author of this post is still talking about Lebanon*- -thinking that some kind of change happened there because they didn't vote in Hezbolah.  What the author of this post does not realise--is that Lebanon has been for many years run by an American favored coalition.  In fact, in would have been the extraordinary if Hezbolah won a majority in Parliment.  NO CHANGE HERE.

_I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for this poster?  He obviously is very new to it._

*Right now I am waiting for the author of this post to pop up with a story on how Obama parted the waters.*


----------



## elvis

oreo said:


> Ha.Ha.--Ajmujenadad--has been in trouble in Iran for about 3 years now--& has lost much popularity with the population in general--as most Iranians are considered "moderate."  But no matter who wins--the extreme radical Mullahs still control Iran--Ajmujenadad is just a puppet--the next elected will be the same.
> 
> As far as Obama--I wonder when the waters are going to part--LOL



are the mullahs more radical than a-jad?


----------



## Chris

oreo said:


> Ha.Ha.--Ajmujenadad--has been in trouble in Iran for about 3 years now--& has lost much popularity with the population in general--as most Iranians are considered "moderate."  But no matter who wins--the extreme radical Mullahs still control Iran--Ajmujenadad is just a puppet--the next elected will be the same--if he doesn't win.  However, the latest poll I saw indicated that Ajmujendad will win the election.  We'll see.
> 
> *To add--the same author of this post is still talking about Lebanon*- -thinking that some kind of change happened there because they didn't vote in Hezbolah.  What the author of this post does not realise--is that Lebanon has been for many years run by an American favored coalition.  In fact, in would have been the extraordinary if Hezbolah won a majority in Parliment.  NO CHANGE HERE.
> 
> _I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for this poster?  He obviously is very new to it._
> 
> *Right now I am waiting for the author of this post to pop up with a story on how Obama parted the waters.*



Amusing post. What the author of the above post doesn't realize is that Hezbollah was winning in the polls in Lebanon until Obama made his speech in Cairo. 

Likewise, it would have been impossible politically for the government of Pakistan to go after the Taliban, if Bush-Vader was still in power.

Not having a cartoonish cowboy opponent has weakened the extremists. Bush-Vader was the extremist's greatest recruiter. Now they are gone, and the extremists power will now crumble.

Words have power. 

I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for you, my friend.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

I love the fact that you right wing nuts can't stand it that Obama is destroying the extremist's power base.


----------



## Yurt

obama farted yesterday and there was a typhoon and an earthquake on the other side of the world


----------



## oreo

Chris said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.Ha.--Ajmujenadad--has been in trouble in Iran for about 3 years now--& has lost much popularity with the population in general--as most Iranians are considered "moderate."  But no matter who wins--the extreme radical Mullahs still control Iran--Ajmujenadad is just a puppet--the next elected will be the same--if he doesn't win.  However, the latest poll I saw indicated that Ajmujendad will win the election.  We'll see.
> 
> *To add--the same author of this post is still talking about Lebanon*- -thinking that some kind of change happened there because they didn't vote in Hezbolah.  What the author of this post does not realise--is that Lebanon has been for many years run by an American favored coalition.  In fact, in would have been the extraordinary if Hezbolah won a majority in Parliment.  NO CHANGE HERE.
> 
> _I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for this poster?  He obviously is very new to it._
> 
> *Right now I am waiting for the author of this post to pop up with a story on how Obama parted the waters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing post. What the author of the above post doesn't realize is that Hezbollah was winning in the polls in Lebanon until Obama made his speech in Cairo.
> 
> Likewise, it would have been impossible politically for the government of Pakistan to go after the Taliban, if Bush-Vader was still in power.
> 
> Not having a cartoonish cowboy opponent has weakened the extremists. Bush-Vader was the extremist's greatest recruiter. Now they are gone, and the extremists power will now crumble.
> 
> Words have power.
> 
> I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for you, my friend.
> 
> "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
> 
> I love the fact that you right wing nuts can't stand it that Obama is destroying the extremist's power base.
Click to expand...




*You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls?*  I would like to see that one.  The entire point is there was no *CHANGE* in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME.   Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.

Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years.  _Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls._  So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.  

As far as Pakistan.  The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers.  Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities.  The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear.  You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.

_You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now.  Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it.  And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances._


----------



## Ame®icano

Chris said:


> Likewise, it would have been impossible politically for the government of Pakistan to go after the Taliban, if Bush-Vader was still in power.



Why would be impossible?


----------



## Sinatra

oreo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.Ha.--Ajmujenadad--has been in trouble in Iran for about 3 years now--& has lost much popularity with the population in general--as most Iranians are considered "moderate."  But no matter who wins--the extreme radical Mullahs still control Iran--Ajmujenadad is just a puppet--the next elected will be the same--if he doesn't win.  However, the latest poll I saw indicated that Ajmujendad will win the election.  We'll see.
> 
> *To add--the same author of this post is still talking about Lebanon*- -thinking that some kind of change happened there because they didn't vote in Hezbolah.  What the author of this post does not realise--is that Lebanon has been for many years run by an American favored coalition.  In fact, in would have been the extraordinary if Hezbolah won a majority in Parliment.  NO CHANGE HERE.
> 
> _I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for this poster?  He obviously is very new to it._
> 
> *Right now I am waiting for the author of this post to pop up with a story on how Obama parted the waters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing post. What the author of the above post doesn't realize is that Hezbollah was winning in the polls in Lebanon until Obama made his speech in Cairo.
> 
> Likewise, it would have been impossible politically for the government of Pakistan to go after the Taliban, if Bush-Vader was still in power.
> 
> Not having a cartoonish cowboy opponent has weakened the extremists. Bush-Vader was the extremist's greatest recruiter. Now they are gone, and the extremists power will now crumble.
> 
> Words have power.
> 
> I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for you, my friend.
> 
> "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
> 
> I love the fact that you right wing nuts can't stand it that Obama is destroying the extremist's power base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls?*  I would like to see that one.  The entire point is there was no *CHANGE* in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME.   Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.
> 
> Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years.  _Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls._  So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.
> 
> As far as Pakistan.  The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers.  Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities.  The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear.  You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.
> 
> _You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now.  Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it.  And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances._
Click to expand...



Chris invents numbers.

He's a realtor...


----------



## Chris

Sinatra said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing post. What the author of the above post doesn't realize is that Hezbollah was winning in the polls in Lebanon until Obama made his speech in Cairo.
> 
> Likewise, it would have been impossible politically for the government of Pakistan to go after the Taliban, if Bush-Vader was still in power.
> 
> Not having a cartoonish cowboy opponent has weakened the extremists. Bush-Vader was the extremist's greatest recruiter. Now they are gone, and the extremists power will now crumble.
> 
> Words have power.
> 
> I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for you, my friend.
> 
> "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
> 
> I love the fact that you right wing nuts can't stand it that Obama is destroying the extremist's power base.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls?*  I would like to see that one.  The entire point is there was no *CHANGE* in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME.   Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.
> 
> Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years.  _Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls._  So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.
> 
> As far as Pakistan.  The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers.  Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities.  The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear.  You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.
> 
> _You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now.  Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it.  And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Chris invents numbers.
> 
> He's a realtor...
Click to expand...


I love the personal attacks.

It means you have nothing else. 

How sad for you.


----------



## Sinatra

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls?*  I would like to see that one.  The entire point is there was no *CHANGE* in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME.   Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.
> 
> Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years.  _Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls._  So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.
> 
> As far as Pakistan.  The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers.  Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities.  The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear.  You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.
> 
> _You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now.  Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it.  And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris invents numbers.
> 
> He's a realtor...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
Click to expand...


Ah c'mon Chris - just playin' a bit.  You're not so bad.

At any rate, if Obama's actions are able to so quickly make him responsible for whatever gains in the Middle East, does not that same logic dictate then he is now far more responsible for the stagnant economy than Bush?  

So this economy is now the Obama recession, right?


----------



## Chris

oreo said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha.Ha.--Ajmujenadad--has been in trouble in Iran for about 3 years now--& has lost much popularity with the population in general--as most Iranians are considered "moderate."  But no matter who wins--the extreme radical Mullahs still control Iran--Ajmujenadad is just a puppet--the next elected will be the same--if he doesn't win.  However, the latest poll I saw indicated that Ajmujendad will win the election.  We'll see.
> 
> *To add--the same author of this post is still talking about Lebanon*- -thinking that some kind of change happened there because they didn't vote in Hezbolah.  What the author of this post does not realise--is that Lebanon has been for many years run by an American favored coalition.  In fact, in would have been the extraordinary if Hezbolah won a majority in Parliment.  NO CHANGE HERE.
> 
> _I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for this poster?  He obviously is very new to it._
> 
> *Right now I am waiting for the author of this post to pop up with a story on how Obama parted the waters.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing post. What the author of the above post doesn't realize is that Hezbollah was winning in the polls in Lebanon until Obama made his speech in Cairo.
> 
> Likewise, it would have been impossible politically for the government of Pakistan to go after the Taliban, if Bush-Vader was still in power.
> 
> Not having a cartoonish cowboy opponent has weakened the extremists. Bush-Vader was the extremist's greatest recruiter. Now they are gone, and the extremists power will now crumble.
> 
> Words have power.
> 
> I think a little foreign history lesson is in order for you, my friend.
> 
> "Speak softly and carry a big stick."
> 
> I love the fact that you right wing nuts can't stand it that Obama is destroying the extremist's power base.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls?*  I would like to see that one.  The entire point is there was no *CHANGE* in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME.   Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.
> 
> Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years.  _Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls._  So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.
> 
> As far as Pakistan.  The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers.  Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities.  The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear.  You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.
> 
> _You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now.  Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it.  And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances._
Click to expand...


BEIRUT, Lebanon &#8212; An American-backed alliance appeared to retain control of the Lebanese Parliament on Sunday in a hotly contested election that had been billed as a showdown between Tehran and Washington for influence in the Middle East.

Preliminary results reported on Lebanese television showed the alliance, known as the March 14 coalition, had managed to preserve its majority in Parliament. If those results are confirmed, they would represent a significant and unexpected defeat for Hezbollah and its allies, Iran and Syria. *Most polls had showed a tight race, but one in which the Hezbollah-led group would win.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/08/world/middleeast/08lebanon.html?_r=1


----------



## Sinatra

Sinatra said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris invents numbers.
> 
> He's a realtor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah c'mon Chris - just playin' a bit.  You're not so bad.
> 
> At any rate, if Obama's actions are able to so quickly make him responsible for whatever gains in the Middle East, does not that same logic dictate then he is now far more responsible for the stagnant economy than Bush?
> 
> So this economy is now the Obama recession, right?
Click to expand...



,,,


----------



## Chris

Sinatra said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chris invents numbers.
> 
> He's a realtor...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah c'mon Chris - just playin' a bit.  You're not so bad.
> 
> At any rate, if Obama's actions are able to so quickly make him responsible for whatever gains in the Middle East, does not that same logic dictate then he is now far more responsible for the stagnant economy than Bush?
> 
> So this economy is now the Obama recession, right?
Click to expand...


When you have nothing you resort to personal attacks and changing the subject.

I love it!

Why don't you just admit you are wrong?


----------



## Chris

Washington - The verdict is in: Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world last week has already had an impact, specifically in the surprise victory Sunday of a pro-Western coalition in legislative elections in Lebanon. 


With the unexpected defeat of Lebanon's Hizbullah-led coalition, some regional analysts are wondering if Mr. Obama's approach &#8211; a respectful stance towards Islam, coupled with a firm rejection of the kind of violent extremism that has attracted some Muslims &#8211; might also have an impact in Friday's presidential elections in Iran. 


Signs of an early impact don't stop there. Consider Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hastily called policy speech this Sunday, which some experts in Israeli affairs say would not be happening expect for the new American president's approach to the region &#8211; and many Israelis' attraction to it. 

You might call it the Obama Effect.


"The Lebanese elections came out the way they did because of the Obama speech," says Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and member of the advisory council of the Israel Policy Forum, a group that advocates for Mideast peace. "The impact was particularly swift and strong in the Arab world." 

Wildcard in Iran election: Obama | csmonitor.com


----------



## DiveCon

Chris said:


> Washington - The verdict is in: Barack Obama's speech to the Muslim world last week has already had an impact, specifically in the surprise victory Sunday of a pro-Western coalition in legislative elections in Lebanon.
> 
> 
> With the unexpected defeat of Lebanon's Hizbullah-led coalition, some regional analysts are wondering if Mr. Obama's approach &#8211; a respectful stance towards Islam, coupled with a firm rejection of the kind of violent extremism that has attracted some Muslims &#8211; might also have an impact in Friday's presidential elections in Iran.
> 
> 
> Signs of an early impact don't stop there. Consider Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's hastily called policy speech this Sunday, which some experts in Israeli affairs say would not be happening expect for the new American president's approach to the region &#8211; and many Israelis' attraction to it.
> 
> You might call it the Obama Effect.
> 
> 
> "The Lebanese elections came out the way they did because of the Obama speech," says Edward Walker, a former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs and member of the advisory council of the Israel Policy Forum, a group that advocates for Mideast peace. "The impact was particularly swift and strong in the Arab world."
> 
> Wildcard in Iran election: Obama | csmonitor.com


LOL yeah, the csmonitor has been in obamas ass for over a year

they've been fighting YOU to see who can get further up inside


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Iranian elections are a weirdness.   You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs.  The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.

Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart.  Who would you vote for?  (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)

That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting.  Similar things have happened elsewhere.  The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election.  It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.

Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years.  As noted up topic, they have  military power over the south given them by Syria.  They bribe for votes wholesale.    Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much.  There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war.  So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say.  It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.

And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on  Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too.  So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.  

I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave.  quite the reverse.   To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood.  There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron.   The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.


----------



## driveby

Chris said:


> In the biggest protest ever since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, hundreds of thousands of people showed up to support Mir Hossein Mousavi, the pro-reform candidate.  This is just two days before the election day.
> 
> The protestered walked towards the "Azadi" (Freedom) monument which has been a symbol of Tehran for a long time.  While one would see supporters of Ahmadi-nejad here and there (the last two photos), the whole scene was dominated by color green, which represents the "green movement" of reform - a symbolic gesture of Mousavi's supporters.
> 
> Massive pro-reform protest in Tehran, Iran - iReport.com



You're right, in fact the only difference between god and obama is, god does not think he's obama ..........


----------



## editec

I suspect that people in the Islamic world are simple getting sick of the Taliban types blowing shit up and telling them what to do.

If Obama's existence has anything to do with it, fine, but I suspect that this turn of events would have happened anyway.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Baruch Menachem said:


> Iranian elections are a weirdness.   You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs.  *The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.*
> 
> Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart.  Who would you vote for?  (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)
> 
> That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting.  Similar things have happened elsewhere.  The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election.  It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.
> 
> Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years.  As noted up topic, they have  military power over the south given them by Syria.  They bribe for votes wholesale.    Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much.  There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war.  So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say.  It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.
> 
> And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on  Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too.  So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.
> 
> I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave.  quite the reverse.   To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood.  There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron.   The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.



Khatami did not run for re-election in 2005 because an Iranian president can only serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, like the US president. Unlike the US president, the Iranian 2-term president can seek reelection later. Khatami decided to run for reelection this time before he reconsidered and endorsed Mousavi.

For the OP, it is idiotic to call what happens in Iran the Obama effect.
Guess what, Iranians don't need outside supervision and advice to know that they live in an oppressive regime. They have their own problems, mainly economic. Ahmadinejad like every politician promised the Iranians a lot of stuff and the voters will decide if they think he kept his promise.

You think the Iranians are little misbehaving children who need Papa Obama's fatherly advice, or Papa Bush's whip and then they will grow up to be obedient subjects worshipping American values, whatever those may be.

Fuck that.


----------



## editec

Like Elder and Menachem, I'm of the opinion that Obama's speeches aren't having all that much influence on the current Iranian political elections.

The Iranian people have their own internal issues to decide.

Oh, I know that some of you folks think everything in the world that happens is somehow based on what America does or does not do, but that is a silly Americ-o-centric outlook on how the world works.

We're informed that the current Iranian economy depends on the price of oil being $93 a barrel or the government doesn't have enough money to keep things going in that nation.

Given the rise and fall of the price of oil, any government that has been running Iran would be in trouble, right now.

I know many of you find this hard to believe, but Iran is a modern state and its many of its peopleare  much more political informed that most of the morons who post in this place will ever be.

I have hope that the current economy downturn will put a more moderate (read modern foreward thinking) government in place.

It might help if the USA stopped giving the radical Islamicists in that nation something to point at as a threat to Iran.

But the warmongers in every nation serve to keep warmongers in every other nation in power, don't they?

Fear and ignorance are their best allies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oreo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You got a link to Hezbollah EVER being ahead in the polls?*  I would like to see that one.  The entire point is there was no *CHANGE* in the government of Lebanon--for the past many years the government of Lebanon was & has been the SAME.   Yet you want to give Obama credit for it. Hezbollah has never been in control of the government of Lebanon--they only act as terrorist guerilla occupation of Lebanon-- because they have a much stronger militia than the government of Lebanon & are backed by Syria & Iran.
> 
> Again--Ajmajenadad--has been in trouble for several years.  _Yet, a news report out shows that he is still leading in the polls._  So now you're trying to give credit to Obama before the election has even been held.
> 
> As far as Pakistan.  The military in Pakistan is filled with Taliban sympathizers.  Al Queda & the Taliban as before during the Bush years--once the military envaded their terrority--the swat zone--they started bombing civilian areas in large cities.  The government of Pakistan backed off out of fear.  You're way to soon here--to give Obama credit for that--especially after a horrendous terrorist bombing over the weekend.
> 
> _You may believe that because we have a President whose name is Barack Husien Obama--that everyone in the world is just going to walk through the park holding hands now.  Or you possibly believe that he is "some kind of GOD"--but I don't believe it.  And I am certainly not going to let someone like you try & take certain COMMON incidents & shove them down my throat through ignorant--uninformed statements trying to make me believe that just because Obama is now our 6 month President-- that he had something to do with these COMMON instances._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris invents numbers.
> 
> He's a realtor...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
Click to expand...


Ohh good, does that mean we were right in ignoring all your previous posts because you attacked anyone that disagreed with you as a right winger nut job?

Thanks for agreeing with us.


----------



## Nik

L.K.Eder said:


> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian elections are a weirdness.   You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs.  *The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.*
> 
> Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart.  Who would you vote for?  (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)
> 
> That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting.  Similar things have happened elsewhere.  The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election.  It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.
> 
> Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years.  As noted up topic, they have  military power over the south given them by Syria.  They bribe for votes wholesale.    Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much.  There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war.  So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say.  It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.
> 
> And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on  Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too.  So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.
> 
> I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave.  quite the reverse.   To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood.  There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron.   The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Khatami did not run for re-election in 2005 because an Iranian president can only serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, like the US president. Unlike the US president, the Iranian 2-term president can seek reelection later. Khatami decided to run for reelection this time before he reconsidered and endorsed Mousavi.
> 
> For the OP, it is idiotic to call what happens in Iran the Obama effect.
> Guess what, Iranians don't need outside supervision and advice to know that they live in an oppressive regime. They have their own problems, mainly economic. Ahmadinejad like every politician promised the Iranians a lot of stuff and the voters will decide if they think he kept his promise.
> 
> You think the Iranians are little misbehaving children who need Papa Obama's fatherly advice, or Papa Bush's whip and then they will grow up to be obedient subjects worshipping American values, whatever those may be.
> 
> Fuck that.
Click to expand...



Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues.  But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically.  When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner.  Now?  Lesss so.

The Obama effect is real, but its marginal.  Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes.  This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Nik said:


> Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues.  But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically.  When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner.  Now?  Lesss so.
> 
> The Obama effect is real, but its marginal.  Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes.  This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.



I can agree with your post, but yours is totally different from the original claim by the original poster. 

Well, someone changed the title. shrug.

_____________________________________________________-

The election is taking place right now. No one knows the results.

Two different interpretations for myopic US partisans:

Ahmadinejad loses: Obama effect! Ladila, followed by oops they still have their own agenda, pout pout

Ahmadinejad wins: Obama's approach fails, nuke em!

Both schools of thought, hehehe, are already visible on this subforum.

Apparently, it is hard to understand that non-american people vote with non-american priorities.

Sarkozy did not win because he likes Bush.

Schröder did not lose because he did not like Bush.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baruch Menachem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iranian elections are a weirdness.   You have a very restricted list of candidates, which are vetted and approved by the maddest of the mullahs.  *The previous president of Iran, who was an Ayatollah, for Christ's sake, was not allowed to run for re election because he was not bat-5hi7 enough.*
> 
> Anyway, this election, like all others in Iran is reduced to a choice between Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart.  Who would you vote for?  (Jimmy had more style is my choice.)
> 
> That the average Iranian is disgusted and annoyed by the state of affairs is a given. This protest is kind of interesting.  Similar things have happened elsewhere.  The end result will be there will be a goofball as president of Iran after the election.  It may be a different goofball, which might be progress, and it might not.
> 
> Hezballah has been in the government coalition for years.  As noted up topic, they have  military power over the south given them by Syria.  They bribe for votes wholesale.    Lebanon is pretty much under Syria's thumb, but they don't like it much.  There have been wide scale protests off and on for several years, but the post civil war deal is seen as fragile, and no one wants to break it, and bring on another round of the kind of misery they had back in the 70's where 15% of the population was killed in the civil war.  So Hezballah will not loose authority no matter what the election returns say.  It is neat that there is some kind of resistance to goofiness over there, but unless things really change, there isn't yet cause for cellebration.
> 
> And one might argue that since the terrorists are loosing in Iraq, and Iraq, while creaky, is functioning as an almost free state with elections that do matter, this might be putting pressure on  Syria and Iran to pull their horns in, because Democracy might infect those places too.  So one could also argue that the Bush/Rice policy is finally paying dividends.
> 
> I don't believe a speech appeasing the bad guys is actually going to make them behave.  quite the reverse.   To paraphrase Bismark, change does not happen though words, but by iron and blood.  There has been quite a lot of both over the last six years, and maybe we are seeing the results of the iron.   The death rate among the bad guys has been huge, so they may be running out of blood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Khatami did not run for re-election in 2005 because an Iranian president can only serve a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, like the US president. Unlike the US president, the Iranian 2-term president can seek reelection later. Khatami decided to run for reelection this time before he reconsidered and endorsed Mousavi.
> 
> For the OP, it is idiotic to call what happens in Iran the Obama effect.
> Guess what, Iranians don't need outside supervision and advice to know that they live in an oppressive regime. They have their own problems, mainly economic. Ahmadinejad like every politician promised the Iranians a lot of stuff and the voters will decide if they think he kept his promise.
> 
> You think the Iranians are little misbehaving children who need Papa Obama's fatherly advice, or Papa Bush's whip and then they will grow up to be obedient subjects worshipping American values, whatever those may be.
> 
> Fuck that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues.  But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically.  When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner.  Now?  Lesss so.
> 
> The Obama effect is real, but its marginal.  Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes.  This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
Click to expand...

chris is a total moron, what a shock to see you agree with him


----------



## Toro

I do think that Obama's speech in Cairo is positive, and was well received in the Arab world.  However, I highly doubt it has had much of an effect in the internal politics of those countries, especially in the military offensive in Pakistan which was an existential threat to the government.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

L.K.Eder said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues.  But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically.  When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner.  Now?  Lesss so.
> 
> The Obama effect is real, but its marginal.  Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes.  This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with your post, but yours is totally different from the original claim by the original poster.
> 
> Well, someone changed the title. shrug.
> 
> _____________________________________________________-
> 
> The election is taking place right now. No one knows the results.
> 
> Two different interpretations for myopic US partisans:
> 
> Ahmadinejad loses: Obama effect! Ladila, followed by oops they still have their own agenda, pout pout
> 
> Ahmadinejad wins: Obama's approach fails, nuke em!
> 
> Both schools of thought, hehehe, are already visible on this subforum.
> 
> _Apparently, it is hard to understand that non-american people vote with non-american priorities._
> 
> Sarkozy did not win because he likes Bush.
> 
> Schröder did not lose because he did not like Bush.
Click to expand...



I made some emphasis changes on things I liked in the above posts.


First, all elections are local, and the Iranian elections will be decided on issues that matter to Iranians.  Let us not forget that they have a restricted choice and even more restricted access to information.  

Second, speeches don't make for much in the world.  Especially 0bama speeches, tales told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.   What matters is what he does that actually matters in areas that affect things.  I do think his attempts at appeasement are actually a bad thing.   But his attempts to show that he understands the arab world's frustration and is willing to accommodate any reasonable movement on their part is good. (But that has been US policy vis a vis the issue since May of 1948.   It is the arabs who have not moved off the dime)

As to the other issue.... While I personally wish that the whole world saw things the way I do, I can't expect that to happen.  And from personal experience having people from outside lecture me on how to vote so as to make them happy makes me very angry.   We get a lot of that every election, worse as each cycle goes through.  I don't like it and I don't think the Iranians do either.

So, I hope they vote for the free market guy who is willing to improve Iran internally, rather than spend all their money on a toy that if they use it, ends Iran forever.  Since they don't have that choice, I hope they make the best choice they can.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> Sinatra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah c'mon Chris - just playin' a bit.  You're not so bad.
> 
> At any rate, if Obama's actions are able to so quickly make him responsible for whatever gains in the Middle East, does not that same logic dictate then he is now far more responsible for the stagnant economy than Bush?
> 
> So this economy is now the Obama recession, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you have nothing you resort to personal attacks and changing the subject.
> 
> I love it!
> 
> Why don't you just admit you are wrong?
Click to expand...

why don't you admit you're a fucking idiot who thinks the world operates like this:  dem good no matter what
repub bad.  no matter what.
you stupid ****.


----------



## Nik

Baruch Menachem said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously the large majority of what Iranians are going to vote for is going to be Iranian issues.  But one of those Iranian issues is how to treat the western world, and the US specifically.  When the western world, and the US, was being so belligerent and threatening it was more tempting to be threatening and belligerent back and vote for a hard liner.  Now?  Lesss so.
> 
> The Obama effect is real, but its marginal.  Obama isn't going to cause some seismic shift in middle eastern elections, but it is going to cause some slight changes.  This isn't Iranians looking at "father Obama" or some shit like that, its the rational reaction to how a foreign country is acting and choosing an appropriate foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with your post, but yours is totally different from the original claim by the original poster.
> 
> Well, someone changed the title. shrug.
> 
> _____________________________________________________-
> 
> The election is taking place right now. No one knows the results.
> 
> Two different interpretations for myopic US partisans:
> 
> Ahmadinejad loses: Obama effect! Ladila, followed by oops they still have their own agenda, pout pout
> 
> Ahmadinejad wins: Obama's approach fails, nuke em!
> 
> Both schools of thought, hehehe, are already visible on this subforum.
> 
> _Apparently, it is hard to understand that non-american people vote with non-american priorities._
> 
> Sarkozy did not win because he likes Bush.
> 
> Schröder did not lose because he did not like Bush.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made some emphasis changes on things I liked in the above posts.
> 
> 
> First, all elections are local, and the Iranian elections will be decided on issues that matter to Iranians.  Let us not forget that they have a restricted choice and even more restricted access to information.
Click to expand...


Their access to information isn't actually that restricted.  The internets done amazing things.  But yes, the election is local and apparently one of the big issues is going to be the economy.  



> Second, speeches don't make for much in the world.  Especially 0bama speeches, tales told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.   What matters is what he does that actually matters in areas that affect things.  I do think his attempts at appeasement are actually a bad thing.   But his attempts to show that he understands the arab world's frustration and is willing to accommodate any reasonable movement on their part is good. (But that has been US policy vis a vis the issue since May of 1948.   It is the arabs who have not moved off the dime)



Actually speeches mean a lot.  Actions matter as well, but half of the whole kerfluffle over Iran and the US lately was the US's overly belligerent speech.  After you tell someone they are a complete fuckwad, its somewhat hard to come to a reasonable consensus.  People aren't just cold, rational actors they have emotions as well and you can massage those emotions to suit your own interests.  There was a lot of talk and bluster on the right about how Obamas speeches don't mean anything, they are just words, blah, blah, blah.  But the thing is that speeches can inspire people.  MLK didn't have any power, he was just some guy.  But people listened, and got inspired, and things happened because of the words he chose and how he was able to deliver them, and Obama has a similar talent.  

That being said, obviously, speeches aren't a cure all.  As I said I think Obama has changed the election results, but only marginally.  



> As to the other issue.... While I personally wish that the whole world saw things the way I do, I can't expect that to happen.  And from personal experience having people from outside lecture me on how to vote so as to make them happy makes me very angry.   We get a lot of that every election, worse as each cycle goes through.  I don't like it and I don't think the Iranians do either.



Which is why, if you noticed, Obama never advocated one candidate over the other in the Iranian elections.  Although its pretty obvious who he prefers.


----------



## rhodescholar

Chris said:


> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.



Since you offer nothing of substance, the only available conversation with you is personal attacks.


----------



## L.K.Eder

right now, both candidates claim an election victory.


----------



## Nik

L.K.Eder said:


> right now, both candidates claim an election victory.



Haha, yeah.  Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering.  Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote.  Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.  

They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.


----------



## rhodescholar

Nik said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, yeah.  Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering.  Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote.  Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
> 
> They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
Click to expand...


I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..." 

With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can _ TALK _ to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.

Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...


----------



## DiveCon

rhodescholar said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, yeah.  Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering.  Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote.  Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
> 
> They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."
> 
> With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can _ TALK _ to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.
> 
> Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...
Click to expand...

it would also blow the hell out of the OP's premise

which would be more fun


----------



## Toro

So far, the election is in dispute as it appears to be close.

The conservative, rural vote is voting for President A.  They are worried that the election might be stolen out there.


----------



## L.K.Eder

rhodescholar said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> right now, both candidates claim an election victory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, yeah.  Its sort of hilarious if there wasn't such a danger of election tampering.  Apparently "election officials" are saying that with 19% of the vote in, Ahmadinejad is winning 69% of the vote.  Not a great beginning, but apparently its mostly from rural areas...so we'll see.
> 
> They also kept voting open until Midnight Iranian time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."
> 
> With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can _ TALK _ to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.
> 
> Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...
Click to expand...



your idiocy is duly noted. now fuck off. play strategic war games with your pals in the sandbox.


----------



## DiveCon

Toro said:


> So far, the election is in dispute as it appears to be close.
> 
> The conservative, rural vote is voting for President A. They are worried that the election might be stolen out there.


actually, who they elect will have little difference to the US
the Mullahs still run the country


----------



## rhodescholar

L.K.Eder said:


> your idiocy is duly noted. now fuck off. play strategic war games with your pals in the sandbox.



I guess you are not bright enough to have understood my post, so like a little moron you screech out at what you don't/can't understand.

I feel so sorry for little sissies like you with no brains nor future, you little fucking turd.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm rooting for Adminiejihadist, so there is no veneer for the european idiots to hide behind and say: "but we need to negotiate more..."
> 
> With Moussavi, the Left can say: "But but but we now have a person we can _ TALK _ to, as if the iranian pres has any real power, which they do NOT.
> 
> Electing the little monkey to another term would allow the realists and intelligent to come out clean and give the US/Israel plenty of cover in which to light the iranian fascists up like the animals they are...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your idiocy is duly noted. now fuck off. play strategic war games with your pals in the sandbox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually, who they elect will have little difference to the US
> the Mullahs still run the country
Click to expand...


Of course...before it was all "ahmadinejad is evil, etc, etc", but now that he might be out of power its "well, the president doesn't matter anyway".  

How terrible predictable...


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> your idiocy is duly noted. now fuck off. play strategic war games with your pals in the sandbox.
> 
> 
> 
> actually, who they elect will have little difference to the US
> the Mullahs still run the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course...before it was all "ahmadinejad is evil, etc, etc", but now that he might be out of power its "well, the president doesn't matter anyway".
> 
> How terrible predictable...
Click to expand...


a-jad is evil.  and he has limited power.  Always been the case.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> actually, who they elect will have little difference to the US
> the Mullahs still run the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course...before it was all "ahmadinejad is evil, etc, etc", but now that he might be out of power its "well, the president doesn't matter anyway".
> 
> How terrible predictable...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a-jad is evil.  and he has limited power.  Always been the case.
Click to expand...


If he has limited power, than why was the focus on him so much?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course...before it was all "ahmadinejad is evil, etc, etc", but now that he might be out of power its "well, the president doesn't matter anyway".
> 
> How terrible predictable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a-jad is evil.  and he has limited power.  Always been the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If he has limited power, than why was the focus on him so much?
Click to expand...


because of his rhetoric.  Rhetoric can be dangerous.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> 
> your idiocy is duly noted. now fuck off. play strategic war games with your pals in the sandbox.
> 
> 
> 
> actually, who they elect will have little difference to the US
> the Mullahs still run the country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course...before it was all "ahmadinejad is evil, etc, etc", but now that he might be out of power its "well, the president doesn't matter anyway".
> 
> How terrible predictable...
Click to expand...

what's sad and pathetic is you dont get it

there is no change in my position, the Mullahs run that country and they have since 1979


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> a-jad is evil.  and he has limited power.  Always been the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has limited power, than why was the focus on him so much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> because of his rhetoric.  Rhetoric can be dangerous.
Click to expand...


And yet...



> actually, who they elect will have little difference to the US



Is what I was originally responding too.


----------



## Chris

rhodescholar said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you offer nothing of substance, the only available conversation with you is personal attacks.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Given the huge voter turnout, and the conditions the voters went through to turn out (standing in 115 degree heat for an hour to get to your place at the ballot box from one news report I read) I don't believe they will try anything stupid.

Elections matter.  The mullahs have tremendous power, it is true, but they have created the Iranian republic, and now they have to play by their own rules.   The electorate has spoken, and they will have to pull their horns in.

And really, what it comes down to is also a referendum on the the Iranian version of the Manhattan project.   I don't know enough about it to make any kind of guess, but I remember from my reading that getting enough material for the bombs we used consumed huge amounts of resources (Most of the power from the TVA went to the original Manhattan project, and the reason Hanford was where it was is because it is pretty much desert, but close to Bonneville. )   They are blowing all their resources on stupid toys they dare not use, and the population is tired of it.   How many schools are not being built, hospitals doing without, even just the fact that they have to pay huge taxes when all that oil money comes in and goes right down the nuclear rat hole.

Even if he is a goof (I am not sure, I don't know much about him) he has to be a better goof than the current one.

That is the trouble with letting the people speak.  what they say may surprise you.


----------



## DavidS

Iran Election Results: Ahmadinejad Declared Winner By Govt

What a fucking joke!


----------



## del

Chris said:


> First Pakistan drives the Taliban out of the Swat Valley.
> 
> Then Hezbollah loses the election in Lebanon and now the hardliners are losing in Iran.
> 
> The extremists no longer have the cartoonish Bush-Cheney to rail against, and therefore are losing their political power.
> 
> This is the Obama Effect.



pretty damn effective there, kirky.



what a maroon


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Well, the Sha went in for this kind of stupidity too.  And look what happened to him!


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> First Pakistan drives the Taliban out of the Swat Valley.
> 
> Then Hezbollah loses the election in Lebanon and now the hardliners are losing in Iran.
> 
> The extremists no longer have the cartoonish Bush-Cheney to rail against, and therefore are losing their political power.
> 
> This is the Obama Effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pretty damn effective there, kirky.
> 
> 
> 
> what a maroon
Click to expand...


Only if the actual vote is counted.


----------



## elvis

Chris said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love the personal attacks.
> 
> It means you have nothing else.
> 
> How sad for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you offer nothing of substance, the only available conversation with you is personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you offer nothing of substance, the only available conversation with you is personal attacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
Click to expand...


The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.


----------



## driveby

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
Click to expand...


----------



## dilloduck

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
Click to expand...


no shit sherlock


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
Click to expand...


Since Obama is the Messiah, He should have been capable of making it a fair election.


----------



## Nik

dilloduck said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no shit sherlock
Click to expand...


*shrug* Not my fault I have to point out the blindingly obvious to elvis.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no shit sherlock
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *shrug* Not my fault I have to point out the blindingly obvious to elvis.
Click to expand...


what that you worship Obama?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since Obama is the Messiah, He should have been capable of making it a fair election.
Click to expand...


Uhh, no.  Nice try making bullshit up to defend your failed argument, but you fail.  The Obama effect is a specific description of a particular effect and being the "messiah" or being able to pull a fair election out of his ass have nothing to do with it.  Better luck next time.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> 
> no shit sherlock
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug* Not my fault I have to point out the blindingly obvious to elvis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what that you worship Obama?
Click to expand...


No.  That, as I said, the Obama effect is predicated on free and fair elections.  Are you really this stupid or are you trying to be such a dumbass?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug* Not my fault I have to point out the blindingly obvious to elvis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what that you worship Obama?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  That, as I said, the Obama effect is predicated on free and fair elections.  Are you really this stupid or are you trying to be such a dumbass?
Click to expand...


the fact you think there would be an "Obama effect" on Iran's or any other country's election show how gullible you are.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what that you worship Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That, as I said, the Obama effect is predicated on free and fair elections.  Are you really this stupid or are you trying to be such a dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the fact you think there would be an "Obama effect" on Iran's or any other country's election show how gullible you are.
Click to expand...


Oh?  And why is that?  You don't think foreign policy plays into an election at all?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That, as I said, the Obama effect is predicated on free and fair elections.  Are you really this stupid or are you trying to be such a dumbass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the fact you think there would be an "Obama effect" on Iran's or any other country's election show how gullible you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh?  And why is that?  You don't think foreign policy plays into an election at all?
Click to expand...


You thought Obama would save Iran.  I bet you were one of the ones fainting at his rallies.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, which may not have happened here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Obama is the Messiah, He should have been capable of making it a fair election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uhh, no. Nice try making bullshit up to defend your failed argument, but you fail. The Obama effect is a specific description of a particular effect and being the "messiah" or being able to pull a fair election out of his ass have nothing to do with it. Better luck next time.
Click to expand...

sorry, doofus, its Chris' argument that has failed
you lack reading skills, take a class


----------



## del

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A-jad is declared the winner.  Does this mean you'll take Obama's dick out of your mouth, or is this the "Obama effect" you were hoping for?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Obama effect is predicated on a fair, free, and open election, *which may not have happened here*.
Click to expand...


how very astute of you.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact you think there would be an "Obama effect" on Iran's or any other country's election show how gullible you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  And why is that?  You don't think foreign policy plays into an election at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You thought Obama would save Iran.  I bet you were one of the ones fainting at his rallies.
Click to expand...


I did?  Where did I say that Obama would save Iran?  Please link to that.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since Obama is the Messiah, He should have been capable of making it a fair election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, no. Nice try making bullshit up to defend your failed argument, but you fail. The Obama effect is a specific description of a particular effect and being the "messiah" or being able to pull a fair election out of his ass have nothing to do with it. Better luck next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry, doofus, its Chris' argument that has failed
> you lack reading skills, take a class
Click to expand...


No, its not.  And that has nothing to do with reading skills, it has to do with logic skills, which you apparently severely lack.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uhh, no. Nice try making bullshit up to defend your failed argument, but you fail. The Obama effect is a specific description of a particular effect and being the "messiah" or being able to pull a fair election out of his ass have nothing to do with it. Better luck next time.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, doofus, its Chris' argument that has failed
> you lack reading skills, take a class
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, its not. And that has nothing to do with reading skills, it has to do with logic skills, which you apparently severely lack.
Click to expand...

wrong, this thread was opened with the premise that Obama has international coattails
and you are here defending that OP

you lack more than just logic


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> sorry, doofus, its Chris' argument that has failed
> you lack reading skills, take a class
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not. And that has nothing to do with reading skills, it has to do with logic skills, which you apparently severely lack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong, this thread was opened with the premise that Obama has international coattails
> and you are here defending that OP
> 
> you lack more than just logic
Click to expand...


And the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?


----------



## Nik

Speaking of which...it appears that Irans own election monitors have declared the election a fraud, so I think its safe to say that it was fraudulent.


----------



## rhodescholar

Chris said:


> Thanks for proving my point.



You had one?


----------



## DiveCon

rhodescholar said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had one?
Click to expand...

only on the top of his head


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> Speaking of which...it appears that Irans own election monitors have declared the election a fraud, so I think its safe to say that it was fraudulent.


link?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, its not. And that has nothing to do with reading skills, it has to do with logic skills, which you apparently severely lack.
> 
> 
> 
> wrong, this thread was opened with the premise that Obama has international coattails
> and you are here defending that OP
> 
> you lack more than just logic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?
Click to expand...

people dont vote based on another countries leaders
they tend to vote on internal issues


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which...it appears that Irans own election monitors have declared the election a fraud, so I think its safe to say that it was fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
Click to expand...


The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong, this thread was opened with the premise that Obama has international coattails
> and you are here defending that OP
> 
> you lack more than just logic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> people dont vote based on another countries leaders
> they tend to vote on internal issues
Click to expand...


I'm sorry...the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?

Try answering the question.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> people dont vote based on another countries leaders
> they tend to vote on internal issues
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry...the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?
> 
> Try answering the question.
Click to expand...

WOW, you are really trying to take over the dumbest poster on USMB title from chris


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of which...it appears that Irans own election monitors have declared the election a fraud, so I think its safe to say that it was fraudulent.
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
Click to expand...

thanks for the link
its to a blog, and then the link on the blog is to a Moussavi's website 
not exactly a credible story

unless you think linking to Norm Coleman's site settles that election


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> people dont vote based on another countries leaders
> they tend to vote on internal issues
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry...the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?
> 
> Try answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW, you are really trying to take over the dumbest poster on USMB title from chris
Click to expand...


If I'm so dumb, then please steer me right of brilliant and wise DC.  Surely it can't be hard, yes?


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thanks for the link
> its to a blog, and then the link on the blog is to a Moussavi's website
> not exactly a credible story
> 
> unless you think linking to Norm Coleman's site settles that election
Click to expand...


Umm, no.

The original link is to a blog, but a very well respected blogger.  The link from his site goes to Peykeiran.com which is an Iranian news site.  The translation was done by a US servicemember.


----------



## del

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the link
> its to a blog, and then the link on the blog is to a Moussavi's website
> not exactly a credible story
> 
> unless you think linking to Norm Coleman's site settles that election
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
> 
> The original link is to a blog, but a *very well respected blogger*.  The link from his site goes to Peykeiran.com which is an Iranian news site.  The translation was done by a US servicemember.
Click to expand...


oxymoron alert


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry...the Iranian election being stolen refutes that premise how, exactly?
> 
> Try answering the question.
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you are really trying to take over the dumbest poster on USMB title from chris
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I'm so dumb, then please steer me right of brilliant and wise DC.  Surely it can't be hard, yes?
Click to expand...

for people like you and chris, the dumb is just too thick


----------



## DiveCon

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the link
> its to a blog, and then the link on the blog is to a Moussavi's website
> not exactly a credible story
> 
> unless you think linking to Norm Coleman's site settles that election
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
> 
> The original link is to a blog, but a *very well respected blogger*.  The link from his site goes to Peykeiran.com which is an Iranian news site.  The translation was done by a US servicemember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oxymoron alert
Click to expand...

no shit, Andrew Sullivan is NOT "well respected"


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> thanks for the link
> its to a blog, and then the link on the blog is to a Moussavi's website
> not exactly a credible story
> 
> unless you think linking to Norm Coleman's site settles that election
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
> 
> The original link is to a blog, but a *very well respected blogger*.  The link from his site goes to Peykeiran.com which is an Iranian news site.  The translation was done by a US servicemember.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oxymoron alert
Click to expand...


Incorrect.  But nice try.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you are really trying to take over the dumbest poster on USMB title from chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm so dumb, then please steer me right of brilliant and wise DC.  Surely it can't be hard, yes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> for people like you and chris, the dumb is just too thick
Click to expand...


Yeah, can't find any can you?  Thanks for admitting your just another rightwing lying piece of shit


----------



## del

Nik said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
> 
> The original link is to a blog, but a *very well respected blogger*.  The link from his site goes to Peykeiran.com which is an Iranian news site.  The translation was done by a US servicemember.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oxymoron alert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  But nice try.
Click to expand...


i'll take your word for it; you being a well respected blogger and all.....


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.
> 
> The original link is to a blog, but a *very well respected blogger*.  The link from his site goes to Peykeiran.com which is an Iranian news site.  The translation was done by a US servicemember.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oxymoron alert
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no shit, Andrew Sullivan is NOT "well respected"
Click to expand...


Perhaps not by idiots like you who don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but in circles of people where reality matters, he is.


----------



## Nik

del said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> oxymoron alert
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect.  But nice try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i'll take your word for it; you being a well respected blogger and all.....
Click to expand...


I'm really not.  Since you think he is so untrustworthy, what sources do you read, Del?


----------



## driveby

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> oxymoron alert
> 
> 
> 
> no shit, Andrew Sullivan is NOT "well respected"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps not by idiots like you who don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but in circles of people where reality matters, he is.
Click to expand...


I'm sure he is well respected.......























By left wing kool aid drinking hacks........


----------



## Nik

driveby said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no shit, Andrew Sullivan is NOT "well respected"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not by idiots like you who don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but in circles of people where reality matters, he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure he is well respected.......
> 
> 
> By left wing kool aid drinking hacks........
Click to expand...


Actually very a very long time he was considered a right-winger.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I'm so dumb, then please steer me right of brilliant and wise DC.  Surely it can't be hard, yes?
> 
> 
> 
> for people like you and chris, the dumb is just too thick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, can't find any can you?  Thanks for admitting your just another rightwing lying piece of shit
Click to expand...

only to left wing moonbat lying pieces of shit
so, i guess that puts you in that group


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not by idiots like you who don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, but in circles of people where reality matters, he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he is well respected.......
> 
> 
> By left wing kool aid drinking hacks........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually very a very long time he was considered a right-winger.
Click to expand...

ROFL

only by leftwing moonbat morons like YOU


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> driveby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure he is well respected.......
> 
> 
> By left wing kool aid drinking hacks........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually very a very long time he was considered a right-winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROFL
> 
> only by leftwing moonbat morons like YOU
Click to expand...


So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually very a very long time he was considered a right-winger.
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> only by leftwing moonbat morons like YOU
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?
Click to expand...


1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
2. catholic who championed the iraq war:  See John Kerry.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> only by leftwing moonbat morons like YOU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war:  See John Kerry.
Click to expand...


Staunch catholics are generally right wing.  Abortion much?  

John kerry supported George Bush in 2000 for election and worked at TNR?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> only by leftwing moonbat morons like YOU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war:  See John Kerry.
Click to expand...


A bit more of his views from Wiki:



> He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as publicly-funded health care.



Sound like a left-winger to you?


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war:  See John Kerry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Staunch catholics are generally right wing.  Abortion much?
> 
> John kerry supported George Bush in 2000 for election and worked at TNR?
Click to expand...


No. he championed the Iraq War, along with most of the people currently on Obama's staff.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war:  See John Kerry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit more of his views from Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as publicly-funded health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound like a left-winger to you?
Click to expand...


Oh, wikipedia says so.  I'm convinced now.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't think a staunch catholic who championed the Iraq war, supported George W Bush, and worked for TNR counts as a right-winger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war: See John Kerry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bit more of his views from Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as publicly-funded health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound like a left-winger to you?
Click to expand...

so, in your world there are only right wingers and left wingers?


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war:  See John Kerry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit more of his views from Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as publicly-funded health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound like a left-winger to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, wikipedia says so.  I'm convinced now.
Click to expand...


Do you think Wikipedia is lying?  If you care to find evidence those things aren't true, go for it.  But attacking the source is a very poor form of argumentation.


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. catholics are generally NOT right wing.
> 2. catholic who championed the iraq war: See John Kerry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A bit more of his views from Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He favors a flat tax, limited government, privatization of social security, and a strong military, and he opposes welfare state programs such as publicly-funded health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sound like a left-winger to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so, in your world there are only right wingers and left wingers?
Click to expand...


Nope.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> A bit more of his views from Wiki:
> 
> 
> 
> Sound like a left-winger to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, wikipedia says so.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you think Wikipedia is lying?  If you care to find evidence those things aren't true, go for it.  But attacking the source is a very poor form of argumentation.
Click to expand...

based on the liberal definition of "lie"
example: Bush lied us i to war

YES


based on the real definition of Lie
example: to knowingly tell an untruth

NO

but, not being a lie does not mean it is the truth
one can just be wrong without lying


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, wikipedia says so.  I'm convinced now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Wikipedia is lying?  If you care to find evidence those things aren't true, go for it.  But attacking the source is a very poor form of argumentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> based on the liberal definition of "lie"
> example: Bush lied us i to war
> 
> YES
> 
> 
> based on the real definition of Lie
> example: to knowingly tell an untruth
> 
> NO
> 
> but, not being a lie does not mean it is the truth
> one can just be wrong without lying
Click to expand...


So you think Wikipedia is wrong then.  Please cite the evidence that you have that its wrong.


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think Wikipedia is lying?  If you care to find evidence those things aren't true, go for it.  But attacking the source is a very poor form of argumentation.
> 
> 
> 
> based on the liberal definition of "lie"
> example: Bush lied us i to war
> 
> YES
> 
> 
> based on the real definition of Lie
> example: to knowingly tell an untruth
> 
> NO
> 
> but, not being a lie does not mean it is the truth
> one can just be wrong without lying
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Wikipedia is wrong then.  Please cite the evidence that you have that its wrong.
Click to expand...


Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.


----------



## Maple

Yeah, suuuuurrrrrrreee!!!


----------



## Maple

You gotta be kiddin me, Obama is destroying anything???? He is nothing more than a community organisor trying to kiss up to terrorists, hoping that this will change their views of America and the west. 

The only thing that will change these terrorists views of America is if we all radically denounce that we are a Christian and Jewish nation and that we sign on for radical Islam, that's it buddy and that's what they are after. We are considered INFIDELS and infidels deserve to die in their view.


----------



## DiveCon

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> based on the liberal definition of "lie"
> example: Bush lied us i to war
> 
> YES
> 
> 
> based on the real definition of Lie
> example: to knowingly tell an untruth
> 
> NO
> 
> but, not being a lie does not mean it is the truth
> one can just be wrong without lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Wikipedia is wrong then.  Please cite the evidence that you have that its wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
Click to expand...

hell, just ask the founder
LOL
even HE says its not a reliable source
it can be helpful to FIND a reliable source though


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> based on the liberal definition of "lie"
> example: Bush lied us i to war
> 
> YES
> 
> 
> based on the real definition of Lie
> example: to knowingly tell an untruth
> 
> NO
> 
> but, not being a lie does not mean it is the truth
> one can just be wrong without lying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Wikipedia is wrong then.  Please cite the evidence that you have that its wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
Click to expand...


Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004)

Apparently you know jack shit about research, fuckwit.  Did you even go to a university?  

By the way...you missed this.  Please cite the evidence that Wikipedia is wrong.  Or do you not have any?


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Wikipedia is wrong then.  Please cite the evidence that you have that its wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hell, just ask the founder
> LOL
> even HE says its not a reliable source
> it can be helpful to FIND a reliable source though
Click to expand...


Nothing is 100% reliable, dipshit.


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> hell, just ask the founder
> LOL
> even HE says its not a reliable source
> it can be helpful to FIND a reliable source though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing is 100% reliable, dipshit.
Click to expand...

you are the only dipshit asshole


----------



## elvis

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think Wikipedia is wrong then.  Please cite the evidence that you have that its wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004)
> 
> Apparently you know jack shit about research, fuckwit.  Did you even go to a university?
> 
> By the way...you missed this.  Please cite the evidence that Wikipedia is wrong.  Or do you not have any?
Click to expand...


yes, idiot, I do attend a university.  They will FAIL your fucking ass if you cite them in your bibliography.  Why?  because anyone can submit information to it.  I'm not going to debate you about wikipedia, so quit fucking trying.  you want to cite real sources, apart from Arianna and wiki, we'll talk.  until then, chris is waiting for you with the Crisco, so go enjoy yourselves.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004)
> 
> Apparently you know jack shit about research, fuckwit.  Did you even go to a university?
> 
> By the way...you missed this.  Please cite the evidence that Wikipedia is wrong.  Or do you not have any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, idiot, I do attend a university.  They will FAIL your fucking ass if you cite them in your bibliography.  Why?  because anyone can submit information to it.  I'm not going to debate you about wikipedia, so quit fucking trying.  you want to cite real sources, apart from Arianna and wiki, we'll talk.  until then, chris is waiting for you with the Crisco, so go enjoy yourselves.
Click to expand...


Michigan Supreme Court> whatever pissant university you go too.  I actually do research that has real effect, and Wikipedia is an extremely valuable source.  It, as anything, is not 100% perfect.  But just discounting it as invalid is really quite stupid.


----------



## Nik

elvis3577 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try turning in a paper to a professor at a university (not that you'd get in) citing wikipedia.  You will FAIL the paper even worse than you're failing in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004)
> 
> Apparently you know jack shit about research, fuckwit.  Did you even go to a university?
> 
> By the way...you missed this.  Please cite the evidence that Wikipedia is wrong.  Or do you not have any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, idiot, I do attend a university.  They will FAIL your fucking ass if you cite them in your bibliography.  Why?  because anyone can submit information to it.  I'm not going to debate you about wikipedia, so quit fucking trying.  you want to cite real sources, apart from Arianna and wiki, we'll talk.  until then, chris is waiting for you with the Crisco, so go enjoy yourselves.
Click to expand...


By the way...a friendly piece of advice.  Take an intro to logic class.  It will make you a much better debater, and perhaps you can avoid ad hominem arguments in the future.


----------



## elvis

I'm sorry, did you say something?


----------



## DiveCon

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004)
> 
> Apparently you know jack shit about research, fuckwit.  Did you even go to a university?
> 
> By the way...you missed this.  Please cite the evidence that Wikipedia is wrong.  Or do you not have any?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, idiot, I do attend a university.  They will FAIL your fucking ass if you cite them in your bibliography.  Why?  because anyone can submit information to it.  I'm not going to debate you about wikipedia, so quit fucking trying.  you want to cite real sources, apart from Arianna and wiki, we'll talk.  until then, chris is waiting for you with the Crisco, so go enjoy yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way...a friendly piece of advice.  Take an intro to logic class.  It will make you a much better debater, and perhaps you can avoid ad hominem arguments in the future.
Click to expand...

btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source

so you FAIL yet again


----------



## jreeves

Chris said:


> First Pakistan drives the Taliban out of the Swat Valley.
> 
> Then Hezbollah loses the election in Lebanon and now the hardliners are losing in Iran.
> 
> The extremists no longer have the cartoonish Bush-Cheney to rail against, and therefore are losing their political power.
> 
> This is the Obama Effect.



You do realize when you make brainwashed posts like this one, you lose all credibility with people correct?
Of course that is assuming that you had credibility to begin with, my bad....


----------



## del

Nik said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., 471 Mich. 411 (2004)
> 
> Apparently you know jack shit about research, fuckwit.  Did you even go to a university?
> 
> By the way...you missed this.  Please cite the evidence that Wikipedia is wrong.  Or do you not have any?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, idiot, I do attend a university.  They will FAIL your fucking ass if you cite them in your bibliography.  Why?  because anyone can submit information to it.  I'm not going to debate you about wikipedia, so quit fucking trying.  you want to cite real sources, apart from Arianna and wiki, we'll talk.  until then, chris is waiting for you with the Crisco, so go enjoy yourselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way...a friendly piece of advice.  Take an intro to logic class.  It will make you a much better debater, and perhaps you can avoid ad hominem arguments in the future.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nik

DiveCon said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> 
> yes, idiot, I do attend a university.  They will FAIL your fucking ass if you cite them in your bibliography.  Why?  because anyone can submit information to it.  I'm not going to debate you about wikipedia, so quit fucking trying.  you want to cite real sources, apart from Arianna and wiki, we'll talk.  until then, chris is waiting for you with the Crisco, so go enjoy yourselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way...a friendly piece of advice.  Take an intro to logic class.  It will make you a much better debater, and perhaps you can avoid ad hominem arguments in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source
> 
> so you FAIL yet again
Click to expand...


Actually it depends on the college, dipshit.  I am in a field where research matters a TON.  And hey, people use Wiki.  

As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable.  But its generally pretty damn good.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way...a friendly piece of advice.  Take an intro to logic class.  It will make you a much better debater, and perhaps you can avoid ad hominem arguments in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source
> 
> so you FAIL yet again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it depends on the college, dipshit.  I am in a field where research matters a TON.  And hey, people use Wiki.
> 
> As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable.  But its generally pretty damn good.
Click to expand...


Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source
> 
> so you FAIL yet again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it depends on the college, dipshit.  I am in a field where research matters a TON.  And hey, people use Wiki.
> 
> As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable.  But its generally pretty damn good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
Click to expand...


Actually wiki has been increasingly cited in legal briefs.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw, moron, your cite of that case does not change the fact that in college you will FAIL if you use wiki as a source
> 
> so you FAIL yet again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it depends on the college, dipshit.  I am in a field where research matters a TON.  And hey, people use Wiki.
> 
> As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable.  But its generally pretty damn good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
Click to expand...


Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:

2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)

Or this one:

2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.) 

Or this one:

2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.) 

Or this one:

2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1) 

Or this one:

2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.) 

There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it depends on the college, dipshit.  I am in a field where research matters a TON.  And hey, people use Wiki.
> 
> As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable.  But its generally pretty damn good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
Click to expand...


I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...

Not that I don't trust you or anything....


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it depends on the college, dipshit.  I am in a field where research matters a TON.  And hey, people use Wiki.
> 
> As I said, it (like everything else) isn't 100% reliable.  But its generally pretty damn good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
Click to expand...


Yep and here is the result...
Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.

In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:

    "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."

*I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *


That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
Click to expand...


Furthermore...
Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.

The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.

The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum. 

*Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.*

*That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"

Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification. *


----------



## jreeves

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore...
> Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
> References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.
> 
> The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.
> 
> The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.
> 
> *Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.*
> 
> *That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"
> 
> Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification. *
Click to expand...


Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?


----------



## DiveCon

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...
> Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
> References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.
> 
> The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.
> 
> The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.
> 
> *Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.*
> 
> *That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"
> 
> Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?
Click to expand...

hell, it will likely happen, they've used foreign law as a basis of a ruling


----------



## jreeves

DiveCon said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...
> Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
> References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.
> 
> The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.
> 
> The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.
> 
> *Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.*
> 
> *That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"
> 
> Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hell, it will likely happen, they've used foreign law as a basis of a ruling
Click to expand...


Not a snow balls chance in hell...
Its an unreliable source of information(wiki), most courts have higher standards than wiki....
Especially the highest court in the land..


----------



## DiveCon

jreeves said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?
> 
> 
> 
> hell, it will likely happen, they've used foreign law as a basis of a ruling
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a snow balls chance in hell...
> Its an unreliable source of information(wiki), most courts have higher standards than wiki....
> Especially the highest court in the land..
Click to expand...

one would hope so

but when they can use FOREIGN LAW as a basis of a ruling, then no holds are barred


----------



## jillian

DiveCon said:


> one would hope so
> 
> but when they can use FOREIGN LAW as a basis of a ruling, then no holds are barred



they didn't use foreign law as the "basis of a ruling". they looked at how foreign law addressed a particular, relevant issue for which we had no particular precedent and examined it as part of the larger case.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...
> 
> Not that I don't trust you or anything....
Click to expand...


I thought you were an attorney?


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give a legal brief based on wiki sources and a judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
Click to expand...


Yes, Volokh has worries.  But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense.  Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts.  And these aren't in the court of first instance, either.  Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...
> Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
> References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.
> 
> The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.
> 
> The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.
> 
> *Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.*
> 
> *That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"
> 
> Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?
Click to expand...


Hasn't happened yet.  It has, however, happened that several state supreme courts have relied on Wiki.  Or is the Michigan Supreme Court not a prestigious enough institution for you?


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...
> 
> Not that I don't trust you or anything....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought you were an attorney?
Click to expand...


I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore...
> Appeals court smacks down judge for relying on Wikipedia - Ars Technica
> References to information at Wikipedia have shown up in various inappropriate places, from homework assignments to college term papers. But there's one place that it seems everyone can agree that it doesn't belong: the US court system. The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, ruling in an immigration case, has agreed with the Board of Immigration Appeals in finding that a reliance on information in Wikipedia is insufficient grounds for a ruling. Nevertheless, it sent the case back to the Board, requesting that it clarify its decision.
> 
> The decision, filed late last week, stems from a case where an individual entered the country using a forged passport, and then applied for asylum based on the threat of torture if she were returned to her place of origin. Her application for asylum, and the processing of her case by the immigration courts, hinge on a personal identification document called a laissez-passer issued by the Ethiopian government.
> 
> The Department of Homeland Security, wishing to deny the asylum claim, argued that the laissez-passer was insufficient as a form of identification. Excerpts from Wikipedia apparently provided at least some of the information used by the DHS position to support its position. An immigration judge ruled in favor of the DHS, finding that the individual, Lamilem Badasa, had not established her identity, and could not be granted asylum.
> 
> *Basada appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which concluded that it couldn't "condone or encourage the use of resources such as Wikipedia.com in reaching pivotal decisions in immigration proceedings." Nevertheless, it determined that the evidence from sources other than the wisdom of the crowds was sufficient to support the immigration judge's decision; it denied Basada's appeal, setting up the ruling by the 8th Circuit.*
> 
> *That ruling goes well beyond the "condone or encourage" language used by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and quotes extensively from Wikipedia's own self-description pages. The ruling accurately recognizes that Wikipedia promises nothing more than that it's likely to get things right in the long run but, at any minute, the information it contains might be wrong or badly biased. It quotes an earlier decision as stating that, "a review of the Wikipedia website 'reveals a pervasive and, for our purposes, disturbing set of disclaimers.'"
> 
> Even if the District Court's language is stronger than that of the Board of Immigration Appeals, the two bodies are generally in agreement: judicial decisions should not be based on the ephemeral and potentially questionable information taken from a Wikipedia entry. As a result, the case has been sent back to the Board of Immigration Appeals for clarification. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if possible show me one opinion rendered by SCOTUS that relies on Wiki?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hasn't happened yet.  It has, however, happened that several state supreme courts have relied on Wiki.  Or is the Michigan Supreme Court not a prestigious enough institution for you?
Click to expand...


Yep and the 8th circuit remanded a case based on wiki.


----------



## Sunni Man

Chris said:


> In the biggest protest ever since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago, hundreds of thousands of people showed up to support Mir Hossein Mousavi, the pro-reform candidate.  This is just two days before the election day.
> 
> The protestered walked towards the "Azadi" (Freedom) monument which has been a symbol of Tehran for a long time.  While one would see supporters of Ahmadi-nejad here and there (the last two photos), the whole scene was dominated by color green, which represents the "green movement" of reform - a symbolic gesture of Mousavi's supporters.
> 
> Massive pro-reform protest in Tehran, Iran - iReport.com


What the western media is not reporting.

Is that the pro Ahamdinejad rallys are several times larger than the reform protests.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Want to show me where in the opinion they laughed them out of the courtroom for this brief:
> 
> 2009 WL 1090377 (U.S.) (Appellate Brief)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1498873 (C.A.Fed.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1465046 (Hawai'i App.)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 1348375 (Ariz.App. Div. 1)
> 
> Or this one:
> 
> 2009 WL 889562 (C.A.D.C.)
> 
> There are hundreds of other cases I could cite.  By the way, those are Appellate briefs.  I can cite court opinions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Volokh has worries.  But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense.  Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts.  And these aren't in the court of first instance, either.  Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.
Click to expand...


You can use it sure but is a judge going to give it must credence?


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be interested in seeing the actual case citations please? Since I don't subscribe to Westlaw...
> 
> Not that I don't trust you or anything....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were an attorney?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.
Click to expand...


Those aren't cases, they are briefs.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and here is the result...
> Is Wikipedia Reliable Enough for the U.S. Courts to Use? | Profy | Internet news and commentary
> The Volokh Conspiracy notes that courts have cited Wikipedia in decisions over 300 times. That's three hundred times that the user-created encyclopedia has been used in documents that become part of the public record. And while Eugene Volokh doesn't usually see a problem with this, one particular use by the Seventh Circuit demonstrates just how questionable the practice may be, depending on your view of user-generated content.
> 
> In the decision for Rickher v. Home Depot, Inc., the Seventh Circuit uses the Wikipedia definition of "wear and tear" over the definition given by Webster's II New College Dictionary and Random House Webster's Collge Dictionary:
> 
> "Although it is true that dictionary definitions of 'wear and tear' often employ the word 'damage,'that does not mean that damage and 'wear and tear' are synonymous. Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that connotes the expected, often gradual, depreciation of an item. See Wear and Tear, Wear and tear - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, last visited May 30, 2008."
> 
> *I may be old-fashioned, but the idea of using a fluid document like Wikipedia is a frightening one. Forget the fact that Wikipedia is user-created by many anonymous users, and forget that entries aren't vetted by any sort of expert or governing body other than community consensus. How can a document that can be changed at any moment be used as a basis for a decision? What would stop an unethical party from editing an entry pertaining to a case with information favorable to the case? The decision referenced a last visited date, but not a last edit date, nor did it include a list of those who had edited the article used. *
> 
> 
> That's the reason most competent lawyers don't use wiki as a source. But you go ahead you'll fit right in with the 300 or so that have....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Volokh has worries.  But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense.  Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts.  And these aren't in the court of first instance, either.  Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can use it sure but is a judge going to give it must credence?
Click to expand...


Some are, some aren't.  Judges who have cited it probably will give it credence.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you were an attorney?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't cases, they are briefs.
Click to expand...


You had said opinions also correct? The briefs are part of cases correct?


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Volokh has worries.  But the ridiculous assertion by you that using it would get one laughed out of court is nonsense.  Numerous lawyers have used it, as have numerous courts.  And these aren't in the court of first instance, either.  Those 300 cases were at the appellate level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can use it sure but is a judge going to give it must credence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some are, some aren't.  Judges who have cited it probably will give it credence.
Click to expand...


Yep like the 8th circuit


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can be an attorney and not subscribe to westlaw. As I thought though you won't provide the case citations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't cases, they are briefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had said opinions also correct? The briefs are part of cases correct?
Click to expand...


Notice the 2009 next to most of them?  That means most of them don't have opinions yet.

You said lawyers would be laughed out of the court room if they did such a thing.  I proved you wrong.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can use it sure but is a judge going to give it must credence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are, some aren't.  Judges who have cited it probably will give it credence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep like the 8th circuit
Click to expand...


Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't cases, they are briefs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had said opinions also correct? The briefs are part of cases correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice the 2009 next to most of them?  That means most of them don't have opinions yet.
> 
> You said lawyers would be laughed out of the court room if they did such a thing.  I proved you wrong.
Click to expand...


You proved nothing...

The 8th circuit did laugh it out of court....


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some are, some aren't.  Judges who have cited it probably will give it credence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep like the 8th circuit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.
Click to expand...


a link would be nice.....


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep like the 8th circuit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a link would be nice.....
Click to expand...


I used your link 

Did you even read the shit you posted?


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had said opinions also correct? The briefs are part of cases correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice the 2009 next to most of them?  That means most of them don't have opinions yet.
> 
> You said lawyers would be laughed out of the court room if they did such a thing.  I proved you wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You proved nothing...
> 
> The 8th circuit did laugh it out of court....
Click to expand...


And its been cited in numerous other circuit decisions.  So, yes, I proved something as much as you, surely, will continue to deny it.


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a link would be nice.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used your link
> 
> Did you even read the shit you posted?
Click to expand...


So the WL citations was from my link...that's what I was asking links for....

You know even cases that are active, can be identified by 'such and such vs. such and such'? Of course I don't expect this from you...


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some are, some aren't.  Judges who have cited it probably will give it credence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep like the 8th circuit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, btw....

Here's how the 7th circuit used the wiki....

"Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that *connotes* the expected,
often gradual, depreciation of an item."

proffered definition | Dictionary.com
connotes - 1. 	to signify or* suggest* (certain meanings, ideas, etc.) in addition to the explicit or primary meaning: The word fireplace often connotes hospitality, warm comfort, etc.


So the wiki link in the ruling wasn't proffered as proof but only as a suggestion of how the meaning of *wear and tear* could be interpreted.


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> a link would be nice.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used your link
> 
> Did you even read the shit you posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the WL citations was from my link...that's what I was asking links for....
> 
> You know even cases that are active, can be identified by 'such and such vs. such and such'? Of course I don't expect this from you...
Click to expand...


Really?  You were asking for links to a WL citation?  I thought you didn't get westlaw, how would a link to a Westlaw citation be helpful?  

And you asked for the Opinions, which don't exist yet.  

And do tell, if you were asking for a link for the WL citations, why did you quote me saying



> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.



Riddle me that, eh?


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep like the 8th circuit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, btw....
> 
> Here's how the 7th circuit used the wiki....
> 
> "Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that *connotes* the expected,
> often gradual, depreciation of an item."
> 
> proffered definition | Dictionary.com
> connotes - 1. 	to signify or* suggest* (certain meanings, ideas, etc.) in addition to the explicit or primary meaning: The word fireplace often connotes hospitality, warm comfort, etc.
> 
> 
> So the wiki link in the ruling wasn't proffered as proof but only as a suggestion of how the meaning of *wear and tear* could be interpreted.
Click to expand...


And?  

By the way...since when are message boards courtrooms?


----------



## jreeves

Nik said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or the 7th, which recently cited Wiki themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, btw....
> 
> Here's how the 7th circuit used the wiki....
> 
> "Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that *connotes* the expected,
> often gradual, depreciation of an item."
> 
> proffered definition | Dictionary.com
> connotes - 1. 	to signify or* suggest* (certain meanings, ideas, etc.) in addition to the explicit or primary meaning: The word fireplace often connotes hospitality, warm comfort, etc.
> 
> 
> So the wiki link in the ruling wasn't proffered as proof but only as a suggestion of how the meaning of *wear and tear* could be interpreted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> By the way...since when are message boards courtrooms?
Click to expand...


This is the post of yours I was responding to...

"I am in a* field* where research matters a TON"

You are in law school right?


----------



## Nik

jreeves said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, btw....
> 
> Here's how the 7th circuit used the wiki....
> 
> "Wear and tear is a more specific phrase that *connotes* the expected,
> often gradual, depreciation of an item."
> 
> proffered definition | Dictionary.com
> connotes - 1. 	to signify or* suggest* (certain meanings, ideas, etc.) in addition to the explicit or primary meaning: The word fireplace often connotes hospitality, warm comfort, etc.
> 
> 
> So the wiki link in the ruling wasn't proffered as proof but only as a suggestion of how the meaning of *wear and tear* could be interpreted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> By the way...since when are message boards courtrooms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the post of yours I was responding to...
> 
> "I am in a* field* where research matters a TON"
> 
> You are in law school right?
Click to expand...


Thats correct.


----------



## Devin

Just FYI though. This is Iran. The 'reform movement' does not mean chicks running around the streets in miniskirts, with all sorts of new freedoms for the people. It's all relevant. "reform" there means not
extreme right supressive. Their version of reform is definitely not liberal, just a bit more moderate.
Hopefully the reformists will succeed to bring about a bit more social freedoms which are sorely lacking.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Very true, but incremental is better than revolutionary anyway.  

And since the contest was between two guys who were, to us, undistinguishable, does not mean that since Tweedledumb stole the election from Tweedledee there is no real interest anymore.  The Iranian people expressed a desire for Tweedledee, and we should put all the pressure can can to make sure the people's voice is respected.


----------

