If You Voted Democrat, the Ayatollah Khameini is Proud of You

| | Comments (49) | TrackBacks (0)

If this means you, congratulations on your new alliance with Iran.

The condemning excerpt:

Ayatollah Khamenei moreover said the failure of the American President party in the latest Congress elections proved that America's war waging policies are not approved within the country, adding the event was not just an American internal affair rather it was the defeat of Bush's war mongering policies.

The IR Leader pointed to American President's late admission to the defeat, adding since Washington had shown hostility and war waging always towards the Iranian nation, the defeat of the policies actually translated into the convincing victory of the Iranian nation in this political phase. [That emphasis is mine.]


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: If You Voted Democrat, the Ayatollah Khameini is Proud of You.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/745

49 Comments

Kevin said:

and so is the rest of the world, practically. That's ok, I'm sure Mr. Haggard and Mr. Foley are proud of you! ;) See, we all (on both sides) have people who are proud of us. Yay us!!

No Relation said:

Kevin,

The rest of the world? Who cares? I'm American.

Foley=bad man. I've never defended him. Haggard, too. I hope they both spend a long time to forever in prison. Way to try and change the subject. But if you equate those two with the Ayatollah...in my opinion, the second most evil man in the entire world...you ought to reconsider your values.

zimzo said:

It's exactly this kind of thing that caused the Republicans to lose the election and will make you continue to lose. People who have genuine disagreements with the Bush Administration about the war in Iraq and how the war on terror is being fought, which now consists of a majority of the American people are disgusted with being called traitors and being likened to terrorists. It's Un-American and smacks of the tactics used in totalitarian countries by dictators to stir up people against their political foes. It ends up demeaning you more than the people you attack.

No Relation said:

Zimzo

Totalitarianism = mass slaughter of those who disagree with the government. Watch your metaphors. We're in America.

Disagree with the Iraq conflict all you want...we are there now. Do you want America to be succesful, or not?

zimzo said:

Do you not even know the definition of a simple English word? Do you really believe that anything short of "mass slaughter" is not totalitarian?

1to·tal·i·tar·i·an
Pronunciation: (")tO-"ta-l&-'ter-E-&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Italian totalitario, from totalità totality
1 a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : AUTHORITARIAN, DICTATORIAL; especially : DESPOTIC b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2 a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency c : exercising autocratic powers : tending toward monopoly

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/totalitarian

Here's your F*&#ing Patriot Act!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyvrqcxNIFs&eurl=

No Relation said:

As I said: Watch your metaphors. We're in America.

zimzo said:

My metaphor was apt. Watch the video. That is not the America I know.

No Relation said:

Wow., Zim. You are truly the master of changing the subject. I’m talking about US foreign policy, and you show me a video of a guy being tazed for unauthorized entry into a University library, and resisting arrest. What the hell does that have to do with my topic?

But since you don’t seem to know anything about law enforcement weapons…tazers, while painful, are a non-lethal, and for the most part, harmless use of force.

To get back to the subject I was talking about…That guy would have immediately had his throat cut in Iran.

As for totalitarianism…do you really want to debate the theoretical vs. practical definitions of the word? OK…you can read a dictionary and tell me what it means. Give me an historical example of when it has been practiced without mass slaughter and I will concede my point.

Which brings me back to the question I asked before, which you failed to address….Do you want America to be successful…or not?

No Relation said:

In Iraq, that is.

zimzo said:

Tazers are a harmless use of force? I guess this goes along with the myth that "waterboarding is not torture." I honestly don't see how a human being could not be appalled by what happened in that video. (And for the record the person tazered was a student, a Muslim and black. He had not entered the library "unauthorized." He was asked to produce ID in a "random" check. Here is the story: http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960)

The point, which you seem determined to avoid, is that the attitude that "you're either with us or with the terrorists" which you so thoughtlessly subscribe to is the same attitude that totalitarian states subscribe to: All those who do not support the state are enemies of the state. That is what is so dangerous about your rhetoric.

Your statement about totalitarianism is ridiculous. First of all I never said the U.S. was totalitarian. I said your tactics and some of the tactics used by the Bush Administration were similar to tactics used by totalitarian regimes, namely depicting opponents as enemies of the state. That they haven't engaged in mass slaughter of people is something we can all be grateful for but it certainly isn't the only tactic used by totalitarian regimes. There are many other ways of suppressing dissent including censorship, throwing people in jail without trials and use of non-lethal force in situations where it is not justified.

Your question "Do you want America to be successful" is atupid one. Of course, I do. Do you? Then why do you want to pursue and unsuccessful policy in Iraq and an unsuccessful war on terror which hasn't even succeeded in capturing Osama Bin Laden?

No Relation said:

Zim…you really know how to mess up my beer and Braveheart night. I disagree with you on everything so far, but you are a good guy. (I refuse to say “I love you man.”) I do appreciate the discussion, though.

Your link doesn’t work. Sorry dude, the story I know is the guy was asked to produce ID, failed to do so, and then was asked to leave. He refused to comply, and then got belligerent with the police. Is any part of that incorrect?

Tazers ARE harmless. Except in cases of pre-existing medical conditions, I’ve never heard of a tazer killing or causing long-term damage to a person. Getting hit with a club is much worse in any situation, which is what would have happened before tazers existed.

Anyway…what does that have to do with my post? Why even bring it up? That’s a separate discussion.

You are correct: you never stated the US was totalitarian…you merely implied it with your statements and that unrelated video.

Well…are you with us or with the terrorists? I’m with US. I have never stated I wanted to pursue unsuccessful policy, although I think you are unfit to determine whether the current policy has been successful (I think, slowly but surely, it has). BUT...if the current policy is not working, the only other option is escalation. You did say you wanted America to succeed, right?

zimzo said:

Here's the link again:
________________________
http://dailybruin.com/news/articles.asp?id=38960

You write: "I think you are unfit to determine whether the current policy has been successful (I think, slowly but surely, it has). BUT...if the current policy is not working, the only other option is escalation"

I hope you are not a stockbroker: "I know your stock is rapidly going down but I think slowly but surely it's actually a successful stock. Instead of cutting your losses, I advise you to buy more stock!"

Although it would be better if you were a stockbroker losing clients' money than the commander-in-chief losing people's lives.

When you wake up from your dreamworld of beer and Braveheart (are you having an anti-Semitic director film festival?) you will discover that there is no longer any question of achieving success in Iraq only of how to fail less badly. I'm sure that after the Baker Commission releases its report and the Bush Administration announces we are "cutting and running" from Iraq after all, you'll find some way to blame the incompetent prosecution of this disastrous war on the liberals.

No Relation said:

Sorry dude, but war and the stock market are not a good analogy. I doubt you would understand the war part of it, just as I won't totally understand the stocks part of it.

Consult a history book for a better understanding of how wars work. Other than experiencing it firsthand, this is the best I can recommend for you.

As for your last paragraph, I hope your magic 8-ball is more accurate than mine.

What a discussion! Wish I'd gotten here earlier. Not sure why tazers ended up in this thread, but I know a bit about this and NR is correct. If someone refuses to obey an LE officer it's actually tremendously humane for the LE to have the option of tazering the person rather than clubbing or shooting them.

Regarding the note about "escalation," have you seen the Ralph Peters column? It really seems dead on. Claiming the moral high ground has nothing to do with winning a war.

http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/11152006/postopinion/opedcolumnists/arabian_nightmares_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

oh come on, N.R. that's dumb, man.

the dem-loving iranian says the results of the election show that, "America's war waging policies are not approved within the country"

dude, CNN, FOX, and the rest of the US media are saying the same damned thing, give me a break. you're getting dangerously close to paranoid conspiracy theory-land.

Kevin said:

NR, it's that "who cares?" attitude that's got us into this problem in the first place, my friend, don't forget.

Yeah the Ay is a bad dude, ok. Not sure about the second most evil dude in the world (I've definitely met more evil). But really, the whole post was pretty silly (before the comments). I thought my first comment was in kind. And accurate.

zimzo said:

I'm sorry, Joe, but just because your friend the immigrant-hating sherrif let you hold his gun once, that doesn't make you an expert in law enforcement.
First of all every policeman knows that a gun should never be used to subdue a suspect who refuses to obey an officer. Tazers were adopted as an alternative to occasions when deadly force might be necessary not as a routine means of restraining a noncompliant suspect, which is unfortunately how they are being used more and more. They should never be used on a handcuffed suspect as they were in the incident in the video. And when police repeatedly asked him to get up, he was most likely unable to because Tasers render a person immobile. Clearly, these officers were badly trained. And No Relation is also incorrect about their safety since at least 73 deaths in the U.S. have been attributed to Tasers. Here is an in-depth article about the problematic use of Tasers:

http://www.azcentral.com/specials/special43/articles/1107tasermain07.html

It certainly is strange how "conservatives" who complain of the government taking away people's guns and interfering in their lives, now react in a knee-jerk way to creeping authoritarianism. They now have no problem with provisions of the Patriot Act that compel libraries to tell the government what books we read and they seem to be all in favor of Tasering Muslims in libraries.

By the way if we are going to blame Democrats because an Ayatollah hates Bush, too, shouldn't we blame fans of Ann Coulter for Chad Castagana, the right-wing nut accused of sending white powder to media figures, who like Joe, "idolizes" Coulter and also agrees with Joe on the subject of immigrants learning English?

A case could certainly be made that Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham encourage nutcases like this with their irresponsible rantings and Castagana's Free Republic profile sounds like it could have been written by people on this blog:

"I am a lifelong Conservative Republican .

I have an Associates Degree in the Science of Electronics .

Ann Coulter is a Goddess and I worship Laura Ingraham and Michele Malkin .

English is the langauge of the United States of America- - our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are written in the langauge that expresses our civilized freedoms .

Spanish is the language of Banana Republics, beyond that it belongs in a European country."

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/11/other-kind-of-terror.html

No Relation said:

C'mon, poof. Read the full thing. I even underlined the sentence you seemed to have skipped.

The fact is, like it or not, the Ayatollah is pleased with the election results, believing them to be in the best interest of Iran.

Kevin says, "Well, bad people are Republicans, too." So what? The people you mentioned aren't working on nuclear weapons for killing all the Jews in the Middle East.

I put the Ayatollah at #2 because of the power he has, not just because of how evil he is. Maybe "dangerous" would have been a better descriptor.

And Zim is once again trying to change the subject and I just won't bite this time. Iran and North Korea are OUR worst enemies. Doesn't it bother you that America has voted the way the Ayatollah wants?

Kevin said:

"Kevin says, 'Well, bad people are Republicans, too.'"

Did I say that? I guess you can quote me as saying that if you want, I suppose it's in the proximity of what I was implying, which, I agree with you on this, is not a fair comparison. Of course the Ay is in a much more prominent position of power. . .I guess when it comes to nukes.

I just think it's silly to read too much into his little piece of propaganda and regardless, if your position is "Who cares? I'm an American?" then what's your freakin point? What do you care what the Ay thinks? Or anyone for that matter? You're an American. That in and of itself gives you the God given right to not care about what anyone thinks and so you can just behave like a buffoon waging war on countries at will without any support. You can say "What do I care what those bitches think, I'm an American" and stand tall and stand proud, chest puffed out and all. And then you can wait and see who comes running to help you when your plan begins to fail miserably, your troops get picked off one by one, you dump loads of cash into the effort only to find that they're doing what they said they'd do (engage you in a long protracted war and bleed the cash out of you like they did to Russia until you lose the support of your people) and. . .

I mean the list just goes on. So that's good. Be an American (which is not a bad thing to be by the way) but be the kind of American that doesn't care what anybody else thinks, and then go and do whatever you feel like doing. Label the people who get pissed off at your callousness and arrogance enemies and then you can really get down to business.

Haha. What a silly post.

zimzo said:

You're right, NR. We should let our enemies determine who we should vote for by asking them who they prefer and then voting the opposite. How could I have been so stupid not to realize that?

Zimzo, I hope you found your meds because I can't imagine how the rest of your day went if you were in that state at 11:30 this morning. My friend the immigrant-hating Sheriff? Chad Castagana? Huh?

If I had the energy I'd riff this into something about you, the Khmer Rouge and eco-terrorism ... but it's been a brutal week and I'm beat. Too beat to blog.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

yeah, what Kevin and Zimzo said!

Ok Zimzo, nevermind, I see what you're doing.

Everyone, here is what Zimzo is doing in the course of bringing up topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with this post. 1) his usual baffle them with b--- s--- bit.

2) Promoting the meme that conservative voices are DANGEROUS. What really burns the Khmer Rouge progressives is that conservative ideas are blatantly promulgated in the media without being immediately shouted down. Limbaugh, Ingraham, Coulter, Malkin, et al are not only allowed to speak, but they have an audience.

The real Khmer Rouge smashed their opponents skulls in with a hammer, by the millions.

To be fair, today's KR progressives don't want to kill conservatives, they just want them off the air.

Part of the means to accomplishing this is to spread the notion that conservative opinion makers fuel violence and otherwise cause bad things to happen and should be silenced.

Some discussion of this idea is here:

http://newsbusters.org/node/9121

I think there will be a great deal more in the coming months.

Back in the 80s I think there was some legislation called something like "Fairness in Media" which for many years kept conservatives off the air by requiring that media outlets offer equal time to opposing political ideologies.

In order to offer 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh, a radio station would also have to offer 3 hours of Al Franken. Obviously, any station that did this would lose their asses because no one listens to Al Franken and thus part of the revenue-producing part of the day would be hosed.

When the "Fairness" rule went away, we got Rush, Hannity, and all the others. It's one of the disadvantages of being a conservative voice, that the vast majority of listeners prefer to listen to you.

My guess is there will be some push to try and reinstitute the "Fairness" requirement and this idea that conservative talkers are dangerous is a first step to laying the groundwork.

Sorry for no links but the first draft of history has no such obligation. Also I'm very, very lazy tonight. This would make a good full length post at some point in the future.

It will be interesting to see how it all develops.

Kevin said:

it would make a good post, please do. "Fairness" laws seem to be sort of bs, if you ask me. Radio stations are businesses, true? Can't they do whatever they want as long as millions of dollars are coming from somewhere (like special interest groups) to pay for programming? Conservative talkers aren't dangerous, they're money makers and opportunists. Except for the present company, that is. You guys are dangerous ;).

Besides, it's not that "the vast majority of listeners prefer to listen to you". Seriously. Except maybe in your state. At any rate, the vast majority, in general, are blithering idiots, democrat and republican alike.

By "listen to you" I did not, obviously, mean "me." I was just referring to the professionals who are conservative who dominate the airwaves.

The vast majority who listen to me are imaginary people in my subconscious who also tend to cheer a lot and goad me on.

The vast majority in reality ... I can't say I'm as cynical as you. Well, I'm pretty cynical. PlayStation 3? What the hell is that about? Don't these people have families or lives? And who likes those "fat head" commercials? I hope those people are not allowed to vote, I really do.

I will grant you we here are dangerous, but at the same time we are powerless. So the danger aspect is sort of charming.

No Relation said:

Good idea, Zim. See, some of us already know the difference between right and wrong. However, if you are handicapped in this area, and you want to do the right thing, by all means consult with the worst people on the planet and then go the opposite way.

zimzo said:

Why on Earth would we want Rush Limbaugh off the air when he helped give Democrats control of the Senate?

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

NoRe, it's sort of funny that in defending that insane little tart, you're taking the, "liberals want to censor conservative voices" line, since Ann Coulter herself once said,

"They [democrats] are always accusing us of repressing their speech, I say let's do it. Let's repress them. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php

seems a little paradoxical, no?

On a different note, your "consult with the worst people on the planet and then go the opposite way" strategy would, in effect, give power over our government to those 'worst people' There's no real difference between, "We do the opposite of whatever they want us to" and "We do whatever they want us to" because either way, we're allowing 'them' to make our choices for us.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

oops, seems like I imported the Ann Coulter discussion into this thread. That's what happens when you cross the streams: "total protonic reversal"

Everything converges. Signs of the last days.

No Relation said:

Wow, Poof. Way to get all philosophical on a joke. Punchline killer.

You guys can excuse it all you want. Khameini feels safer now that Democrats are in power.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

...and we want him to feel unsafe? We want him to think that an American attack on Iran is imminent so he can use that to whip the people up into some violent, anti-American frenzy, because somehow that's going to keep the peace, and benefit America's interests?

but you were just joking, right? the premise of this thread, that people who voted democratic were somehow doing the bidding of Khameini, is laughable indeed!

No Relation said:

No, the premise of the thread was sincere. The part about doing the opposite of bad people was a joke.

As for Khameini, I don't just want him to feel unsafe, I want him to know fear. I want him to understand he doesn't have a chance and the only way he could possibly survive is to give up his evil regime. As long as people like him exist, there will be terrorism in the world.

zimzo said:

Henry Kissinger has joined your very long list of "people who don't want America to succeed."

"Military victory is no longer possible in Iraq, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a television interview broadcast Sunday.

Kissinger presented a bleak vision of Iraq, saying the U.S. government must enter into dialogue with Iraq's regional neighbors - including Iran - if progress is to be made in the region.

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible," he told the British Broadcasting Corp."
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20061119/D8LGB0P00.html

And you are wrong, No Relation. Your original post was a joke.

No Relation said:

Uh, sorry dude. We were talking about Iran.

I know the one letter difference could throw you off, 'cause I'm sure you weren't trying to change the subject or anything, but that's a whole different country.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

see, we're not so different, us and them:

"I don't just want him to feel unsafe, I want him to know fear"

oh, you mean you want us to terrorize people who we see as enemies? ok, that sounds like a good idea. What should we call this new strategy? I know, how about "terrorism"

...it's a small world after all!

maybe you can go into a little detail about how you think making the iranian leadership feel like a cornered animal would defuse the situation?

kevin said:

Didn't Iran help us take out the Taliban? Like, I thought they provided us much help. . . ? That's just what I heard though.

kevin said:

From 2005. You should probably make up your own mind though __________http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-09-iran-taliban_x.htm
__________http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy

zimzo said:

Who's mixed up? Here's what you said, No Relation:

Which brings me back to the question I asked before, which you failed to address….Do you want America to be successful…or not?

Posted by: No Relation | November 17, 2006 8:49 PM

In Iraq, that is.

Posted by: No Relation | November 17, 2006 8:51 PM

No Relation said:

I'm mixed up. Zimzo, you are truly the Hannibal Lector of the blog world. I think you've pulled off a quadruple subject change in this thread. Just when I though I was back to the original topic, you got me to change the subject on my own. I'll be back after I eat my own face.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

so now you got something against cannibals, NR?

;)

Jack said:

Puffy:

Why does your smiley have no nose? :-)

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

cannibals, I suppose. you give 'em an inch, and the next thing you know...

.)

zimzo said:

Puffy you are one funny guy. I mean intentionally. And please don't construe anything gay about my complimenting you. We don't have all the protections aginst gayness Virginia has where I come from so we're all a little less secure here sexually but don't get the wrong idea.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

don't worry, zimzo. I get the picture...

(xoxoxoxoxo)

'Please don't think I'm gay,' is something we rarely seem to say in Virginia. But I understand how in more progressive parts of the U.S. that would become a typical greeting.

So please don't think I'm gay, Zimzo, but I would love to share a twelve pack with you sometime and discuss the great questions. I guarantee if you, me, Jack, Jacob and NR could get together on one of your pilgrimages back to the homeland, you'd have a good time.

zimzo said:

Actually, we don't say "please don't think I'm gay" around here because most people think it's really cool to be gay now. It's actually a compliment if someone thinks you're gay so we all try to seem as gay as possible.

I just may take you up on your offer to share a 12-pack next time I'm down there, but I can tell you right now we're going to need more beer.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM