NY Times Glowing Endorsement of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

[rtwngAvngr]

Having been properly chastized by a moderator, I will now attempt to not hurt anyone's feelings anymore. My deepest apologies.

You haven't seen moderator chastisement, son.

You're not hurting feelings, we just don't accept shitty debate here. Make a point or stfu.

 

[Said1]

You haven't seen moderator chastisement, son.

Yes. Kathianne is on strike. It's a free-for-all.

 

[jasendorf]

Had you agreed with the commentary, would you have bothered to look up the original article and question Bonnie's secret intentions?

PRE-FRIGGIN-CISELY!!!!!

Probably not. And, that's what's going on here. She knows she can get away with posting some rant from intellectualconservative.com and no one around here will ask the question, "uh, really?" Instead, they'll line up with, "Right On!!! Down with the MSM!!!"

 

[jasendorf]

How is it different? What did you do differently? Had you agreed with the commentary, would you have bothered to look up the original article and question Bonnie's secret intentions?

Try refutting something in the commentary based on something form the ORIGINAL article instead of worrying about the secret agenda of the Conservative Cult you have just joined.

I guess my thought was that giving people the article and allowing them to make a decision for themselves was the best bet.

But, I was evidently way off base to believe that letting people make their own decisions was a good idea. Once again I apologize for my insolence.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

PRE-FRIGGIN-CISELY!!!!!

Probably not. And, that's what's going on here. She knows she can get away with posting some rant from intellectualconservative.com and no one around here will ask the question, "uh, really?" Instead, they'll line up with, "Right On!!! Down with the MSM!!!"

You have yet to show how the editorial is an inaccurate portrayal of the article. Don't pretend said made your point for you. Quit being a jackass.

 

[Bonnie]

PRE-FRIGGIN-CISELY!!!!!

Probably not. And, that's what's going on here. She knows she can get away with posting some rant from intellectualconservative.com and no one around here will ask the question, "uh, really?" Instead, they'll line up with, "Right On!!! Down with the MSM!!!"

Well if you had used all the energy it takes to deny my right to post something I thought discussion worthy, and used that energy to illustrate exactly how and why you disagree with the post, we probably could have had a decent back and forth. Too bad!

 

[Said1]

PRE-FRIGGIN-CISELY!!!!!

Probably not. And, that's what's going on here. She knows she can get away with posting some rant from intellectualconservative.com and no one around here will ask the question, "uh, really?" Instead, they'll line up with, "Right On!!! Down with the MSM!!!"

No, that's not what's going on here. What's going on is someone posting something they agreed with. You are free to do with it what you will - like debate the points with points from the original article, which you haven't. You're just hot air - no offense. And, who's "they"?

 

[Said1]

I guess my thought was that giving people the article and allowing them to make a decision for themselves was the best bet.

But, I was evidently way off base to believe that letting people make their own decisions was a good idea. Once again I apologize for my insolence.

Go chase your wazzo - and that's not an insult, a wazzo is a bird.

 

[Bonnie]

Said1..And, who's "they"?

All my bitches of course

 

[Said1]

All my bitches of course

Biotches.


Sorry to correct you master. It won't happen again. And I'm sorry for speaking without permission. I remember what happened last time.

 

[deaddude]

Look this jasendorf fellow had a point, it is hard to agree/ disagree with a commentary without having formed an opinion on what the commentary is commenting on. Unfortunately his methods for conveying that point were somewhat obnoxious. So in short posting the original article was a good idea, antagonizing Bonnie was not.

 

[Bonnie]

Biotches.


Sorry to correct you master. It won't happen again. And I'm sorry for speaking without permission. I remember what happened last time.

Um yes right Biotches, they don't step out of line, I have incredible hypnotic powers.

 

[Said1]

Um yes right Biotches, they don't step out of line, I have incredible hypnotic powers.

The whip doesn't hurt either. Well, it does, but I think some of them like it.

 

[Bonnie]

Look this jasendorf fellow had a point, it is hard to agree/ disagree with a commentary without having formed an opinion on what the commentary is commenting on. Unfortunately his methods for conveying that point were somewhat obnoxious. So in short posting the original article was a good idea, antagonizing Bonnie was not.

Well here's my take on the authors commentary, the NY Times is making a ridiculous case in praise of the Iranian president and I agree. Anyone is free to disagree with me, the author, and I fully expected that. Jasendorf was right to post the original Times article, but he was so busy arguing with me that he neglected to post where he disagreed with the author? Kind of useless to a discussion.

 

[jasendorf]

OK, here's my take on the original article. The author is so completely and utterly caught up in his hatred for anything resembling moderation that he lashes out against the New York Times for presenting a reasonable story which neither diefies nor vilifies Ahmadinejad. And, since it didn't vilify Ahmadinejad, the author automatically assumes that somehow the Times has an article which praises him.

Warshawsky obviously doesn't like Ahmadinejad and probably doesn't like Iran in general. No problem, who does? I don't particularly care for either myself. But, to act as if a news story is supposed to be an editorial is ludicrous even if it is understandable in a day and age where FOX News and NewsMax.com are considered by many to be "news" as opposed to the editorialized, partisan dogmatic entertainment they actually are.

The Times article treated the subject in an objective light which is what news articles are supposed to do. If Mr. Warshawsky wants to pick an editorial and call it out, all the more power to him... but accusing the news of being, well, the news is about vilifying the press rather than actually presenting any real insight.

 

[jillian]

The article, actually, gives a fairly realistic picture of a complex situation.

TEHRAN, May 27 — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic, apparently with the tacit approval of Iran's supreme leader, according to government officials and political analysts here.

Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge this Image

Reuters
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become the voice of Iran's conservative government.

Readers’ Opinions
Forum: The Middle East


Behrouz Mehri/Agence France-Presse--Getty Images
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, has overshadowed chief cleric Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
That rare unity of elected and religious leadership at the highest levels offers the United States an opportunity to talk to a government, however combative, that has often spoken with multiple voices. But if Washington, which severed relations with Iran after the 1979 revolution, opened such a dialogue, it could lift the prestige of the Iranian president, who has pushed toward confrontation with the West.

Political analysts and people close to the government here say Mr. Ahmadinejad and his allies are trying to buttress a system of conservative clerical rule that has lost credibility with the public. Their strategy hinges on trying to win concessions from the West on Iran's nuclear program and opening direct, high-level talks with the United States, while easing social restrictions, cracking down on political dissent and building a new political class from outside the clergy.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is pressing far beyond the boundaries set by other presidents. For the first time since the revolution, a president has overshadowed the nation's chief cleric, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on both domestic and international affairs.

He has evicted the former president, Mohammad Khatami, from his offices, taken control of a crucial research organization away from another former president, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women and forced prominent academics out of the university system.

"Parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials," Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech before Parliament on Saturday that again appeared aimed at upending pillars of the status quo. "Wealthy people should not have influence over senior officials because of their wealth. They should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people."

In this theocratic system, where appointed religious leaders hold ultimate power, the presidency is a relatively weak position. In the multiple layers of power that obscure the governance of Iran, no one knows for certain where the ultimate decisions are being made. But many of those watching in near disbelief at the speed and aggression with which the president is seeking to accumulate power assume that he is operating with the full support of Ayatollah Khamenei.

"Usually the supreme leader would be the front-runner in all internal and external issues," said Hamidreza Taraghi, the political director of the strongly conservative Islamic Coalition Party. "Here we have the president out front on all these issues, and the supreme leader is supporting him."

Mr. Ahmadinejad is pursuing a risky strategy that could offer him a shot at long-term influence over the direction of the country — or ruin. He appears motivated at least in part by a recognition that relying on clerics to serve as the public face of the government has undermined the credibility of both, analysts here said.