| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Iran: Being on the side of the people
Submitted by Soren Dayton on Wed, 06/24/2009 - 06:21
I am watching MSNBC's Morning Joe. Joe Scarborough is going off the rails by mischaracterizing John McCain's statement to the Huffington Post. McCain said:
"I know what side I'm on," McCain cut in. "I'm on the side of the people. I'm not on Ahmadinejad's side or Mousavi. I'm on the side of the Iranian people and I'm on the right side of history. And I'm not going to walk on the other side of the street while people are being killed and beaten in the streets of Iran."
This seems clearly the right answer. There is plenty of evidence that Mousavi is a thug. It is clear that Ahmadinajad is ... bad.
But you can be on the side of a process that empowers the people with honest elections.
McCain's point is that President Barack Obama called people getting beaten up and killed in the streets an "robust" "debate". Obama has no instinctual interest in defending human rights. This fundamental problem for Obama and much of the left was nicely characterized by EJ Dionne earlier this week in the Post.
That's something to be outraged about. Both sides are going off the rails on this issue.
(2 votes)
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
TaylorD
0 comments
FMeekins
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
cringinghere
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Recent comments
-
Joseph Hertzlinger
-
samuelajanaku
-
Robin1
-
OzarkGuru
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
Let the Cake Bake
I didn't like EJ's column . . . the whipped up left/right dualism. I'm a total media junky and yes the left supports the people as much as the right. The US as a country is on point here. Don't interfere, engage the Iranian government (not as support but as way to take an old prop away to legitimize abuse).
McCain is right to support the people and not the slimmy rulers over there, but outside of that he should shut up. He sounded old and feeble on C-Span.
The U.S. as a country has done a tremenous job already for the Iranian people: youtube, twitter an other technologies are making it hard for the iranian goverment to justify it's actions. They can't say 'we beat and killed you because of the US'. When you see the people, the blood and the beatings . . . it's like TV in the civil right era here. All of a sudden, it was difficult to look away from racism.
Debate is a good thing. The best answer to a problem is better when its your own. However, it takes time. It doesn't fit into the news/pundit cycle, or election drama. Iran, the dictatorship, is unlikely to fold, but the authoritarian regimes of the middle east hopefully will start to weaken.
As a point of debate, I'm surprised that Obama is doing so well internationally and seems to be tripping domestically.
fighting terrorism the hard way?
twitter that, bitches.
America's scientists, entrepreneurs and hackers are far more agile at striking back at the forces of darkness... with sunlight.
Three cheers for America, be glad our gov't is letting us get the job done ourselves, and our prayers for our comrades in Iran. They are the ones in gulags, not us.
But let the world see, and remember this. Our Hungary, our Krishtalnacht.
nice try....
obama made those comments june 12....on the day of the election and long before the recent violence. if you are going to take a quote out of context, it's best not to provide a link to an article with the date that has no mention of the actions you apply the quote to.
everybody supports the people of iran, but the point is, it is their election and their freedom. most iranians want to fight on their own...they are using youtube and twitter to let the world know what is going on, but how many videos or message have you seen saying "obama please save us!" or "usa, please take a side in this election so we dont have to protest"? so far, most messages have said obama is taking the right approach. the media in the us is obsessed with turning this into a domestic political battle for ratings.
maybe something will have to happen if the government increases its use of force, or if the protests go on for months, but for now you condemn the violence and dont take sides, because, as you pointed out, there is no evidence that either victor would represent a huge shift in politics. the main issue is giving the people power.
The 2 Joes (Scarpi & Klein) aren't the only 1s getting it wrong.
You do it as well, Soren, when you twist McCain's and Obama's statement to contend "McCain's point is that President Barack Obama called people getting beaten up and killed in the streets an "robust" "debate". "
Piss-posh. McCain said nothing of the sort. Obama used those phrases nearly 2 weeks ago before the election, before the protests, before the violence. McCain was responding to the WH's tepid and less-than-meaningful press statements about the escalating violence in Iran and the Rule of the Iron Fist -not the robust debate line.
It's decidedly NOT McCain's point at all --it's your attempt at a cheap shot from the peanut gallery. And you get it wrong, in the process of pointing out how others are getting it wrong and going off the rails.
Obama's entire diplomatic "tactic" ('cause it ain't no strategy) to date has been to offer hugs and kisses and nearly beg the Iranians and North Koreans and alQaeda terrorists to stop being so mean, meet someplace without preconditions, do some hugging and talking --like diplomacy now equals a spot on The View or Oprah or something.
McCain is right to point out that for America to just stand by and let the violence, the repression and the vote fraud continue in Iran is immoral. Of course, vote fraud is probably not immoral to Obama or the Democrats, since that's the way they got into power... but that's another issue.
Soren, for you to contend that both sides are "going off the rails" and then deliberately mischaracterize McCain's point is, well, nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. I'd prefer you and other bloggers would work harder to get it right --or else find something else for fodder.
Frankly, you should have left McCain's quote as it is, skipped the balance of your post and taken some time for personal grooming. It would have been more useful to all.
Rediculous
So "we can't stand by?" Errrr, what should we do? Sanctions, done that. Tough statements, done that. Tell them again we disagree with them, done that. Really, really tell them, done that. Pull our diplomats . . . oh, we don't have any. Stop buying their oil . . . em, like cheap gas.
INVADE or bomb . . . oh, we can't because we're already in two wars and looking at hostile actions against N. Korea. And that would send gas prices up. That wouldn't help the economy.
I GOT IT ! ... go on the media circuit and denounce Obama . . . for anything. That'll discredit America and the perception of it as a powerful country. The leadership in Tehran will have to stop calling us a demon because everyone will really think we're a joke. Since they can't demonize us anymore, they'll have to give into the protesters demands and viola . . . freedom in the middle east.
Ridiculous?
Why do you think the Iranian people have taken to the streets? Because of Obama's Cairo speech? Hell no. Its because they have been isolated by the international community due to the the bad behavior of their government. The people of Iran know that it is their government, not the U.S.A. , that is at the root of their problems. They are not burning American flags in the streets. THEY GET IT.
The pressure that has been brought to bear by the Bush administration is beginning to get results. These people, the citizens of Iran, are tired of being outcasts in the international community due to the actions of their governmnet.
If you quit drinking the liberal Kool Aide for a minute, you would see that the protesters, the people who are now driving change in Iran, are NOT BLAMING THE U.S. They are reacting to the isolation the U.S. has brought to their country through the international community.They have correctly placed the blame on their government, and that is where they are focusing their activity.
While I agree that international pressure may have helped,
I wouldn't get too zealous in your feelings that the Bush administration really did much. For every citizen that got upset at their government over the sanctions, another was convinced that their government was the only thing that could save them from the American's who would invade from their war fronts on both the east (Afghanistan) and the west (Iraq). We may know this is not true, but what we know doesn't matter. The government has clearly used this to their advantage.
I distinctly remember talking to some first generation Iranian-American's in late 1998 or early 1999 (my freshman year in college) about the situation there. As US born citizens who frequently visited Iran with their parents (who were born there), they saw a huge political swing in the younger generation (we were around 18 at the time). They told me then that it was only a matter of time before the younger cohort became large enough and there would be a real political swing toward more freedom and democracy. Many teens and 20-somethings were rejecting the government and the strict religious rules (if not religion altogether). I have little doubt that this is exactly what we are seeing now. Keep in mind that Bush wasn't even in office yet when we had this conversation, but the wheels were already turning there. Don't be so egotistical and thing it's all about us Americans. It isn't. This is an Iranian issue that will be solved by the Iranians, one way or another. Bush had little to do with it, Clinton had little to do with it and Americans in general had little to do with it. Our biggest influence, along with Europe, Australia, Japan and much of the rest of the Americas was showing them that there is another way. The United States is only a small piece of that. I'm guessing my Iranian-American acquaintances had more influence than the president.
there was also....
a large women's movement building below the radar for a very long time. as globalization continues, and women in other cultures are exposed to the rights we enjoy here, they are going to want to be treated as equals. i believe there was a petition started in 2005 in iran for women's rights, along with several protests at universities. all that has slowly led to what you see today- women in the streets fighting for their rights.
in america, sufferage was a political stunt.
in britain, there were bombings and force feedings. women rock the house!
Not convinced
First of all, I didn't say that Obama's speach had anything to do with anything. I would even go so far as too say . . . it probably didn't do anything. However, Bush didn't do squat . . . pressure? Exactly what was that pressure? An slight incremental notch on top of big measures that had been put into place long before him. We haven't had any signigicant Iranian action in thirty years.
It's almost the same as the USSR, and of course Republicans take credit for it via Reagan. Iran like USSR is screwing itself by mismanaging the economy. Reagan definitly hastened the fall of the USSR, but they were on a path towards failing anyway. Iranians are starting to see what was one of the best countries in the middle east being outclassed by Dubai and Egypt. I don't know every American thinks that every other country in the world rises or falls by some U.S. proclimation or sanction, by either party.
Most likely, this has nothing to do with us. It has to do with them. And I still haven't heard what McCain would do, or Republicans would do or anyone else. So Germany is talking tougher than the U.S. Wow. Big whoopy fucking do. Watch out, McCain is on a verbal tear, getting tough . . . just . . . very . . . very . . . slowly.
----
When either party has a criticism and no alternative solution, its politics. Again, what would you have Obama do?
What did Bush do?
Bush didn't do squat? How can you say that? I mean you can disagree with strategy and results, but you really can't say he did nothing.
He called them a part of the "axis of evil" (they are).
He refused to meet with them without preconditions.
He classified the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists
Carrots and sticks. . . remember?
See more here.
I would have had Obama speak out earlier oand more forcefully in favor of the Iranian people. He should realize that regardless of what his actions are, Iran's dictators will blame the west anyway. Great op-ed piece in the Chicago Tribune today:
I agree. Whatever the outcome of the current turmoil, Ahmadinejad has blood on his hands. And we do not want to legitimize him by sitting down and negotiating with him.
again and again and again
What did he do?
1. Called them a name.
2. Didn't meet with them, which we weren't doing anyway.
3. Called them another name.
All from the article titled, "Sanctions are to prevent war, aides say". There's evidence. And five months in Obama is sticking hard to his strategy which is engagement. Yes, they're not coming to the table. It's not about the Iranian leadership. Like the Republicans with Obama, their going not going to come to the table. It's not in their interest.
For diplomacy its the offer that counts. By offering we take their rhetoric away. By threatening, we're still the same U.S., Obama is just another tough talking president.
---------------------------------
Got any advice on Cuba?
On Cuba
Obama has it exactly right.
Shine a light, build the resorts, and let the tourism dollars flow in. Castro is easy, we've been getting it wrong for years. We've made it easy for him to isolate his people and make the US a scapegoat. Free travel means free flow of communication and that means castro can't control the dialogue.
I say he can't open up Cuba fast enough. Did you notice the Castro boys fumling all over themselves? It was great.
Iran is different because you are dealing with a religious ideology. Castro is a Westerner and has many of the same interests that we do.
It was a joke
but I guess dealing with a religious ideology is far different than a political one.
uhuh. then why is england their number one enemy?
Islam is merely the trappings of a Divine Rights Monarch (with a constitutional monarchy).
axis of evil? iran? fucking persia?
no, no no... i'm sorry, you don't seem to understand. Iran is ENEMIES with Iraq.
I don't know what hole you crawled out of to not know that, but axis of evil is utterly incorrect.
North Korea is allied with China
Iran is allied with Russia
China and Russia do not get along so hot...
There is no axis of evil, just rogue states supported by bigger states that bush didn't have the balls to call out.
You want to sanction Russia? You want to sanction China? That would be fucking fantastic, man! We could inflate our currency by 100%! Ain't that gonna turn out great?
(Gen'l Clark had some interesting things to say about classifying the Rev. Guard as terrorists, on kos. check it out).
fyi
is the price worth it? we could have captured bin Laden with Iran's help...
also, they are burning effigies of Uncle Sam. In Iran, this means something.
cr's gotta get a new act...
on this jewel of diplomatic tactics: "So "we can't stand by?" Errrr, what should we do?"
You, cr, should get some help with spelling and grammar. That'd help a lot with your reputation and capacity to communicate effectively.
What should the US do? Strongly denounce the escalating violence in Iran. Work with our UN allies --especially the French and Spanish who still have wet butts from all the ass-kissing that Barack Obama did as candidate and President-- to issue human rights denunciations on the appalling Iranian secret police attacks. Use the farLeft blog-osphere to trumpet hi and low the human rights component of the issue. Let others inside the US and Congress speak out in more forceful terms --like McCain is wisely doing. In fact, McCain sounds more like a hybrid JimmineyCricketCarter and RonaldMagnusReagan than a McBushie. Human rights; he has it correct.
I mean, no one can think that Obama can argue for protecting the integrity of the vote ANYWHERE when his own election was won with fraud, illegalities, willful deceit of the voters and improper campaign contributions.
All your President Obama --and unfortunately the US by default of his leadership-- has left is a human rights argument. After all, when the candidate cum president-elect cum president is begging for an unconditional-no-preconditions high level talk with the despot regime of Iran, it's kind of hard to demand a precondition like "end the violence" or "pull back the secret police thugs" or I won't meet with you.
Stupid first gambit in an international crisis. No wait, the 1st stupid gambit was thinking that a hug could replace real diplomatic efforts and tactics.
I gotta admit, I long for the good ol' days when the Shah was in control of Iran. His son hits the right note here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zv5VMShOyk
One thing is very, very true about Iran. JimmineyCricketCarter made a huge mistake when he cut Iran off from the US and allowed the rioters and future terrorists and fundamentalist Islamism strangle the once prosperous, once mighty, once-pro-American Iran.
Thanks JimmineyCricket: it's a gift that keeps on giving --like the energizer bunny. I think Obama may end up making JimmineyCricket look good in comparison.
I'm at work so . . .
Piss off. This is a blog.
Talk, talk and more talk. And references to Acorn and Carter. And talk about 'hugs'. Let's threaten them or 'I won't talk to you anymore!' speeches. Talk about needing a new act.
And yes, Carter did screw it up, but that's neither here nor there. He's also not the one that gave the Iraqis nerve gas to kill the Iranians en masse. That was a smart move that worked out in our favor years later.
Our diplimatic effort in the middle east have been a text book example of what NOT to do, both Rep and Dem.
Obama kicking back and letting the Iranians deal with Iran, I'm all for it. And no I don't want Obama to get them a hug. I want him do something other than knee-jerk diplomacy.
"I'm at work"??? Maybe your employer should mandate...
spelling classes for you and your peers. Put down the hamburger flipper, step back from the french fryer and think for a second... "Our diplimatic effort in the middle east", as you call it, have been a text book example of what not to do?
I guess confronting the Taliban in Afghanistan was another "example of what not to do"?
I guess freeing 28+ million people in Iraq from a despotic, murdering, terrorist-promoting psychopath was another "example of what not to do"?
I guess sending aid to displaced people in the Middle East, torn by war, is another "example of what not to do".
I guess working tirelessly and deliberately with the UN to enforce sanctions against ME regimes is another "example of what not to do"?
I guess standing by Israel, the ONLY democracy in the region and a life-time ally of the US, is another "example of what not to do"?
I guess stabilizing Lebanon and containing Syria's aggression is another "example of what not to do"?
Afterall, all we really need is to give 'em all a great big hug! And unconditionally meet with them. And worship at the Blame America First altar, like Obama did in Cairo.
Actually
I shouldn't even be here. I don't have burgers to flip, but I do have code to write.
Afganistan: letting the Taliban getting hold of the country after the Soviet union was a mistake.
Iraq: not supporting a dictator in the first place would have been a good idea. And no, 4,000 dead and tens of thasands of wounded Americans to free Iraqis isn't what I call smart.
Aid: it is always said that the most expenise aid operation is cheaper than the least expensive military one. I'm all in favor of giving more. Maybe supplying Pakistan and other middle east country with more aid that civilians can use rather than arms for quasi-religions nut jobs might turn the public opinion of Amerca around.
U.N.: I'm pro U.N., but sanctions are limited if all countries aren't on board. Take Russia with Iran for example. Without Russia Iran's nuclear capability is pretty much sunk. And even though I'm pro-UN, 'Oil-for-food' was a huge disaster.
Isreal: yeah, big decision to stand by the ONLY friend we have there. Brilliant.
Lebanon: like Iran, we had little effect. Lebonese had to stand up to Syria.
And yes, you don't hug, but you do meet unconditionally. If only for the effect of not being villified. Meeting doesn't cost you a dime. Embassies give you information and presence. And yes, American's need not blame but accept responsibility. We haven't been worried about democracy in the middle east, we've been engineering the free flow of oil for decades.
They know it, when do you?
I knew it 30 yrs ago... the big ? is when will YOU get it. cr
You seem to think that diplomacy's aim should be the Era of Good Feelings it might engender rather than advancing world peace, geo-political stability, American or even Free World interest abroad or humanitarian rights. Obama has reduced the US diplomacy tactics to the 1990s bumper sticker mentality of "Arms are for Hugging". No wonder Sec of State Clinton busted her arm --probably from punching out a State Dept wall when she heard Obama was back at it again... after she pounded his butt in the debates on this very, special, pointed issue.
No one "meets unconditionally" --except the weakest with the most to gain. Did you ever learn anything about world history post 1500AD? Each example of a sovereign nation-state meeting unconditionally with another peer has led to devastation and world chaos... does Neville Chamberlain and the 1938 Munich Accord with Nazi Germany ring a bell, cr?
And let's be frank... once candidate and pres-elect Obama announced to the world he'd meet unilaterally, unconditionally and was only interested in "talks" and a hug and a photo-op to appease the farLeft Democrat fringe, he set the stage for those targeted enemies to demand significant conditions from the U.S. before THEY WOULD meet with Obama... like more aid, direct payments, access to shipping lanes, food stuffs, IMF funds, the opportunity to divert large sums of money to the Swiss accounts, etc.
That's why the majority of the retired Secys of State pointed out a few months ago that to meet with a world leader or representative of a rouge regime we consider our enemy is both naive and dangerous. It sets aside conventional and wise counsel for the short term political benefit of a perceived "win" by Obama in the press.
Chavez, Castro, Ortega, binLaden, Ahmadinejad and others will exact whatever concession our weak, naive President affords them in his quest to do a fly-by talk. Frankly, it'd be cheaper and less dangerous if he'd just have the kids do another fly-by joy ride in Air Force 1 of each capital than actually meet with the leaders.
So, when are you going to "get it", cr? How many people have to die before you and Obama will renounce the stupidty of his pledge to meet with America's enemies unilaterally, unconditionally, without exception?
Roosevelt-Stalin, 19
Yes, Chamberlain met Hitler, and the result was disaster. A few years later, FDR was meeting with Stalin, a man every bit as monstrous as Hitler - and the results were a net positive for our country. Who is to say which of these had "preconditions" and which did not? Nixon met with Mao, who was also a monster; JFK met with Kruschev, Reagan met with Gorby, and on, and on, and on.
As an Arizona resident,
I've got to say that John McCain needs to stop flapping his lips and get to work for us. We have some serious issues in this state that need to be taken care of. These are more important that pot shots at Obama. At the very least, if he doesn't want to do his job in Washington, he should come to Arizona, because I think his party could use his guidance since the Republican governor and the Republican legislature can't agree on a budget together and there are only 6 days left in the fiscal year. He had his chance to be a national leader and he lost, so it's time he gets back to his job as a political leader in Arizona and stop being a sore loser in front of the whole nation.
because
Midterms are coming up so the republican leadership has any member with any kind of name recognition telling anyone who will listen how Obama craps the wrong way.
cr, so now it's a vast right wing, GOP-led conspiracy??
Right, you go with that... it worked so well in explaining why then-1st Lady Hillary Clinton was lashing out at the critics of then-President Clinton's leacherous, libelous, typical-liberal antics, right? Screwing women in the Oval Office; pushing himself on females who were there for business; taking advantage of college interns. Lying under oath in a sworn deposition. Then trying to cover it up, defelct attention with some failed little bombing mission on an aspirin factory in the Middle East.
Vast right wing conspiracy --it's the Republicans, I tell ya. They're responsible for everything bad that sticks to our new Teflon president!
Ya, you go with that answer, cr. The rest of us will continue a responsible conversation.
Not a conspiracy . . . party politics.
Both sides do it. That why the indepent party is the fastest growing party.
And as for Clinton, it was a private matter . . . sort of. Bill was a dumbass and had it coming, but the Reps only really cared becaused they hated Clinton. Why did Bill have to even testify about doinking some intern. She was of age.
Big scandel there in DC. First time that ever happened.
3 strikes and even you're out, cr... or should be
with these perfect gems of stupidity:
1) "...why the indepent party is the fastest growing party". How do we get in touch with this new, unannounced "indepent party", cr? Tell me, where was their convention? Who was their candidate in the last election? Do they have a webpage? Stupid is your color, dude.
2) "Why did Bill have to even testify about doinking some intern".... Hmmm, it's called a lawsuit. It's called a deposition. He tried to avoid answering those questions and took the issue up to the Supreme Court. He tried to thwart the Special Prosecutor. He then answered deceitfully and illegally and perjured himself. You may see it as just a matter of the President of the United States "doinking some intern"... of course, you've been quick to discount immoral behavior in the past, too. She was a college intern, cr. She was under the WH's mentorship. They and SlickWilly had an obligation to help her maximize her internship --not use her for some fast sex. Stupid is your color, dude.
3) "Big scandel (sic) there in DC. First time that ever happened." I'm guessing that you're usual excuse of "they did it before us, we get to do it now" logic would have some appeal if you could actually spell scandal, cr. Well, stupid was your color... now it's your motto.
whatever .
1. http://www.aipca.org/
2. So there was a special prosecuter for the president's sex life? I'm not agreeing with what he did, just disagreeing with the response. She didn't claim abuse nor did she initiate a lawsuit. I think it cheap politics to bring frivolous lawsuites against the president. If Monica had a problem, then more power to her. She didn't. College student or not, she's was an adult.
3. It's not my place to excuse him. He's not my husband nor my lover. Basically, it's not my business where the president sticks his dick as long as it's legal. Maybe it's not, maybe it violates some workplace no-hanky-panky rule. But I think you're pretty pathetic to go looking where no one's asking you to look.
You should have stopped with just 3 strikes, cr...
because the comments above only serve to underscore what passes for acceptable behavior in your end of the shallow gene pool.
BTW, the lawsuit that nabbed SlickWilly in a perjury charge WAS filed by a woman he victimized and abused. No, I don't mean Mrs Clinton. Look it up and learn something beyond your immature perspective.
you mis-reprsent me.
I've never said it was acceptable. Stop sniffing Lysol, and maybe you'd read better. The matter was a running lawsuit drummed up by republicans to find ANYTHING to smear the Clintons. Nothing was every made of travel gate, white water and all the other suites. Paula Jones ended up being the winner. Probably republican lawyers were trawling the streets of Arkansas looking for a burned ex-affair. The matter at hand was put in by Linda Trip a disgruntled (sounds like most republicans I know) employee who found her trip to fame and . . . well things didn't end up so well for her. Taping a confession of a 'friend'? No matter what you think of Clinton . .. a known womanizer even before elected . . . no one likes a disgruntled tattle-tale.
I'm not a fan of womanizers, but I don't like tortorers, liers and idiots either. I'd rather have someone with an advanced degree, who can utter a coherant thought on a subject, someone with a stable family life, someone like . ..
I'm not a republican, I'm not a democrat, but one thing I'm definitely not is one sided. I don't need perfection, just consideration.
People like you, however, feel the need to demonize one group or other. Why? You're pathetic probably. Bad life, bad relationships, or bad job. Frustrated with your sex life, who knows. Maybe even you don't. I would say have a drink and chill out, but maybe you're having one to many as it is.
Oh, and it seems like THAT kind of behavior is acceptable is acceptable on your side of the gene pool to . . . if not more. Funny, no gay sex scandels in the Dems yet. I've heard Reps setup registration in park bathrooms during elections.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/24/south.carolina.governor/index.htm... is it that Dems are going to pick up seat in the midterms, or Reps are going literally fuck themselves out of a job?
Life is short. Better start smelling the roses before you die.
cr, like we said: "Three strikes and you're out", dude.
Give it a rest muddle-mouth. You can't spell. You can't complete a simple coherent sentence. You can't construct an insightful paragraph if it'd save your life. And your renditions of history, politics and diplomacy are as bad as Sandy-stuff-u-r-pants-Berger's attempt to whitewaterwash the Clinton Administrations' mismanagement of various terrorist threats leading up to 9-11.
Give it a rest, muddle-mouth. It's time for you to go back to flipping burgers and frying da' tats.
schadenfreude is a bitch.
and scaife had his own two-bit whore of a lover.
how's that for the leader of the vast right wing conspiracy?
what, you think we can't track money?
as they say in the biz (that's auditing) show me the money!
talkswitch
talkswitch
nice try!
Obama said that he strongly condemn these unjust actions, and he join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost. We do know that violence against innocent civilians anywhere that takes place. And these can’t be easily controlled. We do praise the timeless dignity of Iranians who have marched, and singled out courageous women who've stood up to brutality and threats. Do you know Neda Soltani? She is a victim of a terrible atrocity, committed in the name of oppressing political freedom. At a recent protest, it is suspected that either Iranian Revolutionary Guard or Basij (paramilitary volunteer police – the Iranian equivalent of the S.S.) personnel opened fire into the crowd, fatally wounding the 26 years, and a university student, hardly a threat worth using quick cash or deadly force to quash. Her pictures and video of the event have been posted to the internet of the event and she has become a martyr and symbol for the struggle in Iran for political freedom. Payday loans won't bring Neda Soldani back, or anyone else killed in the name of perpetuating authoritarian regimes.