"Barry" voted yea for "an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters."

I'll give him some credit, but also: Big Deal. He never would've come up with it on his own, and anyway, it's crap from both sides of the aisle. The 2nd Amendment already covers 'states of emergency'.

This is an unfortunate feature of nearly every politician. Even the conservatives haven't been very conservative during the course of my lifetime. I don't agree with this approach either, but that's not to say that throwing money at a problem doesn't get results sometimes. Counting this against him is not unlike accusing him of only having two arms. When a three-armed candidate surfaces, then I'll care that the other candidates only have two.

I agree with you. But conservatives failing to be conservative and liberals being liberals are still two different animals.

>> ^quantumushroom:
He uses accusations of "racism" whenever he loses an argument (tho not exclusively a Marxist principle).

I've seen these accusations before but I've not seen the evidence. Perhaps you can show some? I'll continue to consider it partisan nonsense in the meantime.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/17/obama_invokes_rush_limbaugh_in.html

Here's the latest kerfuffle, Obama's campaign rearranging Rush Limbaugh's parodies to make him sound like a racist. Partisan? Yeah, the party that freed the slaves versus the party of Je$$e Jack$on.

And let's not forget this, Obama speaking: The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

Poor-me racially-charged victimhood from a man who is an American success story by ANY standard.

>> ^quantumushroom:
I safely predict Orwellian hate crimes and hate speech laws will strengthen under his rule, the closest to outright banning free speech we'll have.

I don't see any basis for this statement except perhaps the idea that 'them Negroes is always conspirin' against us good white folk.' I did notice that Obama voted against a bill to amend the constitution to make "Flag Desecration" illegal. That's big free speech support right there if you ask me. [ref]

I have said nothing here that indicates Obama's race factors into whether or not he supports hate crime legislation. It's more a left-wing thing, not a race thing. Hate crime = thoughtcrime, and I don't see Barry or any other left-winger challenging the constitutionally-unsound hate crimes laws. The right, as usual, will just be accused of being racists by the left when they point out the emperor wears no clothes.


>> ^quantumushroom:
A question for Obama supporters: let's say he gets his way and increases taxes on only "the wealthy". Do the middle and lower classes really think they won't suffer any adverse effects by having their employers' earnings slammed?

That all depends on what is done with the money. Not waging a 100 year war with no goals would be a good start.

McCain wasn't referring to 100 years of war, it's a deliberate distortion. He meant something along the lines (I think) of North and South Korea, establishing a lasting military presence there. And yes, I like the idea of B-52s less than 10 minutes from Tehran.

"What is done" with the money, I think you already know, most of it will be pissed away by graft and corruption, bailouts, paying for ongoing failures like the Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and yes, even Terror. I don't see why the Fire Chief of Speckville, Indiana needs a million-dollar APC to defend against terrorists.

There is nothing magical that happens when you give your money to the government. You and I know the value of a dollar, and I trust a dollar in the hands of the average citizen will go much farther than it will in a politician's budget. That's the essence of libertarianism. BTW, it's YOUR dollar!


Obama is nearly a lifelong member of a "church" that promotes Black Liberation Theology. Few things lie closer to a believers' hearts than their faith, whatever it may be. How is it Barry has to disavow his church? Could it be because it's backwards and against not only basic Xtian principles but American principles?

Was a member of said church for less than half his life, actually. If you read up on Trinity United, you'll see they've promoted a number of different ideas about race interaction over the decades as the times and leadership have changed. So, too, has "Black Liberation Theology" changed its implications with time. I know you like to put -ism and -ist labels on everyone and everything, but sometimes it's not that simple and you need full sentences, paragraphs or even pages to explain something adequately.

You and others wish to blast Palin on the "Sambo' remark, which was a fabrication (aka a LIE). You've already decided she's a racist based on something that didn't even happen. Now you expect me and every other person who has a problem with Obama's radical, racist church to simply forget he was a member for over 2 decades and gave them 22K? I'm not saying Obama shares all of Wright's wacky beliefs, but then if McCain said "Bless You" when David Duke sneezed, we both know the level of liberal hysteria that would ensue.

Since you've not attributed this quote, I'm not going to address it. Without knowing if it's from a reliable source or just some conservapedia article, I've really got nothing to go on.

Fair enough. http://www.publicallies.org/site/c.liKUL3PNLvF/b.3960231/

Obama's relations to this organization.


>> ^quantumushroom:
What I'm addressing here has nothing to do with why people support Obama. Facts and logic are out the window, Obamites are electrified by these vague messages of "hope" and "change" or still part of the "Anybody but Bush" mindset.

There is some validity to what you say here. Obama is a charismatic and exciting guy and many people have not looked beyond that. It's important to acknowledge that this is the failing of those people and not of Obama, just as it is your failing to make so many false assumptions about him based on his party, race and background rather than documented facts.

You recognize that it is a failing of the people to not know their candidate. Yes, I will blame the American people if Obama is elected, just as you will blame the other half if McCain is elected.

Yes, I have some assumptions about Obama, but they're based on the many quotes he's made as well as the considerable information about his background, his (in)experience, the company he keeps and his voting record (to the left of Ted Kennedy). I personally don't give a damn about his racial background; if he supported conservative principles with the same thin resume, I'd have a serious choice to make whether he would be better than McCain.

Thanks to all who responded. Yes MINK, you're the Master of Europe and I am at your mercy. You and I have written enough to make a book.

The Bush administration is still working with Al Qaeda to destabilize Iran:

The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

The New Yorker

>> ^Lurch:
>> ^rougy:
Typical conservative.
When somebody says something you don't like, it's not enough to disagree, but you have to wish them bodily harm as well.
As if you could survive in the wilderness due to your native prowess....
Hypocrisy.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Ann-Coulter-talks-about-John-Edwards
"Why do peopel give that skanky old whore any face time at all? She is genuinely evil, and I'm going to party on the day she dies."
http://www.videosift.com/video/No-Nukes-for-You-A-history-o
f-LIES-about-Irans-nukes
"Hang them by the neck. Or fly a B-52 over Tehran and drop Lieberman, Bolton and any other cowardly piece of dirt neocon within arms reach of Washington. In fact, we should soften them up by dropping Grover Norquist and the rest of his...smaller government weenies into the Bay of Funday, just for practice."
Really... it seems so incredibly rare for me here on the sift to actually find a comment where you aren't wishing someone dead, spewing hatred and personal attacks, or pulling the nazi card. You might actually be a decent guy, but you'd never be able to tell from this place. All I see is constant anger, a lot of hate, and insults. But it's only typical conservatives, or "fat headed cons," that do that kindof thing to innocent liberals. Yup, couldn't possibly be you too.


Hey stop being so hateful.

>> ^rougy:

Typical conservative.
When somebody says something you don't like, it's not enough to disagree, but you have to wish them bodily harm as well.
As if you could survive in the wilderness due to your native prowess....

Hypocrisy.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Ann-Coulter-talks-about-John-Edwards
"Why do peopel give that skanky old whore any face time at all? She is genuinely evil, and I'm going to party on the day she dies."

http://www.videosift.com/video/No-Nukes-for-You-A-history-of-LIES-about-Irans-nukes
"Hang them by the neck. Or fly a B-52 over Tehran and drop Lieberman, Bolton and any other cowardly piece of dirt neocon within arms reach of Washington. In fact, we should soften them up by dropping Grover Norquist and the rest of his...smaller government weenies into the Bay of Funday, just for practice."

Really... it seems so incredibly rare for me here on the sift to actually find a comment where you *aren't* wishing someone dead, spewing hatred and personal attacks, or pulling the nazi card. You might actually be a decent guy, but you'd never be able to tell from this place. All I see is constant anger, a lot of hate, and insults. But it's only typical conservatives, or "fat headed cons," that do that kindof thing to innocent liberals. Yup, couldn't possibly be you too.

>> ^rougy:
Yeah - it has nothing to do with Israel and America threatening to bomb the shit out of Tehran for the past twenty years.
I don't recall Iran attacking any of its neighbors in recent memory, but I do recall Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanon, not to mention how it invades the airspace of its neighbors constantly to provoke a reaction.


Yes, let's bring up Israel going into Lebanon to chase out the Hezbollah fighters that Iran and Syria provided arms, funds and recruits to. Sorry, but Hezbollah is a direct example of Ahmadinejad making good on his calls for the destruction of Israel.

As for your other complaints about Israel, I won't even bother dignifying your points by refuting them. I'd instead ask what on earth that has to do with Ahmadinejad's statements from the clip rallying his people with cries for 'Death to Israel'? Are you in some sick, twisted manner justifying such talk?

Yeah - it has nothing to do with Israel and America threatening to bomb the shit out of Tehran for the past twenty years.

I don't recall Iran attacking any of its neighbors in recent memory, but I do recall Israel bombing the shit out of Lebanon, not to mention how it invades the airspace of its neighbors constantly to provoke a reaction.

I'm the one who's mislead?

Holocaust denial, 2005 "In a 14 December speech in the city of Zahedan in southeastern Sistan va Baluchistan Province, Ahmadinejad said that if the Holocaust took place in Europe and Europeans feel so guilty about it, then that is where Israel should be located, state television reported. "They have created a myth today and they call it the massacre of the Jews [the Holocaust],"
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to is Isreal, 2005 "This week, Hamas head Khalid Mish'al visited Tehran. Designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, Hamas advocates the destruction of Israel. "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it," ... Mish'al told Ahmadinejad on 12 December that Hamas appreciates Iran's stance against Israel generally and the president's "insistence on the illegitimate nature of Israel,""
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1063865.html

Threat to Isreal, 2005 and 2001 "Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world. He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel. ... Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Threat to Isreal, June 2nd 2008, Ahmadinejad "The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name [Khomeini], your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."

"Death to America" is still a very popular chant. Here it is at a recent rally http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUezKsBCRbk

Here's an article talking about its use in parliament recently
http://www.poe-news.com/stories.php?poeurlid=41572

Here's an article mentioning Ahmadinejad's use of the phrase recently
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/23/2007-09-23_irans_ahmadinejad_issues_new_threats_aga.html

I'm not condoning what the US and CIA did in Iran. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm saying that Iran might actually be dangerous.

6 Arabs who claimed to be from Khuzestan took 26 workers hostage in the Iranian embassy. Their demands were:

1. Autonomy for Arabistan
2. The release of 91 political prisoners held in Iran

The 91 political prisoners were executed on the first day of the seige.



This happened the year after Iranian students stormed the US embassy in Tehran after the Iranian people revolted against the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was put in power after a CIA funded coup.

The US military launched a rescue mission (Operation Eagle Claw) which failed killing 8 soliders. This led to Jimmy Carter loosing the election, and ended up strengthening the position of the Ayatollah Khomeini and radicalising anti-American forces in Iran.



This clip of the SAS storming the embassy in 1980 is unfortunately all that most people remember from those very scary times. We would do well to remember what is known historically as 'America's first war with militant Islam', with all the propaganda about Iranian nukes that is dribbling out of the evil frothing mouth of corporate American media these days.

“I think the most basic reason why the Americans should worry about Atomic Ayatollah’s is that they keep chanting ‘death to Omrika’ for more than 25 years” ... and haven’t attacked the US or any other western country in all those year, shows what exactly?

But of course, a proud and powerful people, living within the same borders for centuries, unaffected by western occupation and “protectoration” -- making it an older country than the US -- that would use insurgents and guerillas instead of contractors and, most of all, wouldn’t take a war waged on them lying down; well, seriously that is ridiculous and totally unacceptable.

Btw, anybody who’s ever seen one of those demo’s (I didn’t even know they still have one in Tehran every Friday, but the one I encountered in Masshad to celebrate Revolution Day must have been quite similar) knows they’re pretty lame.

I totally want to visit Tehran now. Maybe in 50 years I'll be able to.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'iran, tehran, documentary, life' to 'iran, tehran, documentary, life, rageh inside iran, bbc' - edited by fissionchips

^Biminim:^

Does that mean that the situation McCain is referring to was actually a problem solved by Jimmy Carter and not Reagan at all?

In reply to this comment by Biminim:
I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

Terrorists' pure fear of Republican presidents must be why Reagan had to sell weapons to Iran to free a new set of hostages in the Iran-Contra affair a couple of years after the Iran hostage crisis, and why the 9-11 attack occurred under Bush's presidency.

McCain:"[Reagan] didn't sit down and face negotiations with the religious extremists in Tehran." Seems like McCain is indeed not remembering things correctly.

I am not a McCain fan, but I have to respond to this. These are two DIFFERENT hostage situations. The one that McCain is referring to is the embassy hostage situation that was resolved the day Reagan took office in 1981. The Iran-Contra affair was about American hostages in Lebanon under the control of Hezbollah who were ransomed with weapons trans-shipped through Israel. Now, while there is deep speculation that the first hostage situation--our embassy staff taken in Tehran when Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. for cancer treatments--was resolved because of some back-channel dealings, including a rumor that George H.W. Bush went to Paris and met with Iranians to STALL the release of the hostages until after the U.S. election of 1980, these are two completely different situations. The first took place in 1981, the second in 1985/6. So McCain is technically right.

Yes... as much as I tire of QM and his constant calls for the annihilation of Tehran in battered Latin (you're not Cato and this is not the Senate dude, fucking let go of it!)... everyone on this site is, in fact, human (except the evil Siftbot ), so I don't think he should be automatically banned for this... but he should be reprimanded and possibly publicly shamed... because if there is one thing I cannot stand is passive aggressive bullshit like targeted downvotes.... soooooo 3rd grade.