When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
It might be easier to hack the portable teleprompter:
Matthew H
14 years ago
Good job Ace. Love the blog. Keeep up the good work. Remember, just becuase we don’t comment doesn’t mean we aren’t reading!
philly_nj
14 years ago
“*We need the voice of a leader at this moment of hope in Iran!
That is so true but that voice has to speak with sincerity, sympathy, love of fellow human beings, justice and basic human rights, people need to believe the voice truly cares what happens to them and be a voice that speaks up for truth and justice not just an opportunist sitting on the sidelines waiting to cozy up to whomever steals folks futures, with or without the teleprompter that voice isn’t going to be President Obama’s there is no sincerity in him (unless he is talking community organizing) the rest is all smoke and mirrors.
Just read exerpts of Reagan’s statement made when the Polish Government committed the same acts against their people. Powerline posted exerpts this morning. What a stark contrast to the manchild who sits in the Oval Office today.
The target of this depression [repression] is the Solidarity Movement, but in attacking Solidarity its enemies attack an entire people. Ten million of Poland’s 36 million citizens are members of Solidarity. Taken together with their families, they account for the overwhelming majority of the Polish nation. By persecuting Solidarity the Polish Government wages war against its own people.
I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.
I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct “business as usual” with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.
@Missy: Excellent find Missy. I posted Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech last week on the 22nd anniversary as another example.
Look at what being honest, forthright, unapologetic and frank achieves.
JustAl
14 years ago
His “O”lliness will never speak out against a repressive muslim theocracy.
philly_nj
14 years ago
@Missy:
Thank you for posting that Missy it truly highlights the difference between a leader who stands for something (President Reagan) and a wait and see follower (President Obama)
.
The Iranian government used the time tested method of keeping their people in line by convincing them that the motherland faced an external enemy.
In Obama’s brilliant speech to the Iranian people, he convinced them that the USA is not their enemy. He trash canned the “axis of evil.”
If you don’t think that the current internal revolt against authoritarianism in Iran was not substantially fostered by Obama’s diplomacy, you are simply wrong.
All that George W Bush saber rattling accomplished NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING — in either Iran or North Korea.
The George W Bush rhetorical bluster was all a big BLUFF — everyone knew that. Neither Iran nor North Korea had anything to fear; the Iraq experience showed the world the limits of US military power. We had no resources to start new wars.
How exactly did North Korea get the fissionable material to make their bombs? What did George W Bush ever do which did anything at all regarding Iran, except to remove Iran’s mortal enemy (Saddam Hussein) and give the Mullahs all the evidence they needed to convince the Iranian people that the USA was their new mortal enemy?
Remove the USA as the sworn enemy of Iran and let the Iranian people focus on their internal problems. We are now vastly closer to regime change in Iran than we ever would have been, given a continuation of the former Bush policies and diplomatic tone.
Larry, the Iranian youth, very westernized and pro capitalism and USA, never needed convincing…. Obama has nothing to do with it. They’ve been that way for over a decade, slowly rising in numbers and attitude.
But thanks for the laugh. How’s that prozac taken? Ingested or injected?
Did Reagan become the sworn enemy of the Soviet Union when he called them an “evil empire?”
Did the Soviets stop negotiating when he told them to “TEAR DOWN THIS WALL?”
Did the Polish people turn against us because we stood up strongly in support of the labor union Solidarity?
Do you have ANY historical context into which you can say Obama’s “brilliant speech” has shown results before?
Think again Larry.
Being an Obama cheerleader is not becoming to you.
philly_nj
14 years ago
“*In Obama’s brilliant speech to the Iranian people, he convinced them that the USA is not their enemy. He trash canned the “axis of evil.”
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did Obama in his brilliant speech to the Iranian people convince the Mullahs that no matter what he will congratulate, accept and negotiate with the designated winner of their election ?
I’m just askin cause from where I’m standing it doesn’t look to me like Obama’s teleprompter is going to offer any support to the folk in Iran who feel their vote didn’t count.
.
Disturber
14 years ago
Larry, I beg to differ with you.
There was nothing brilliant about Obama’s speech and in fact, it was naïve and terribly risky. His entreaties to the Mullahs in his Cairo speech amounted to an ratification of their legitimacy, which is ultimately at stake now in the streets. His granting of “permission” for Iran to become nuclear without limiting that to power generation undercuts the possibility of negotiated end to their weapons program. But most importantly, he effectively chose sides in the then upcoming election where there was ample pre-election evidence that Ahmadinejad was not popular and there was a good possibility that he might not be legitimately elected for a second term. One assumes that Obama pays attention during his intelligence briefings. When it publically began to appear that Ahmadinejad was on the defensive and could lose, Obama followed up with his “hope and change” mantra and celebrated the “vigorous debate” among young Iranians over the merits of the candidates. He made it absolutely clear that he intended to take credit when such change materialized as he has done with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a demonstrably false claim, by the way.
I believe Obama’s precocious claim was simply too much for the Mullahs and was the major impetus in their stealing the election. After all there is nothing in Mousavi’s background to suggest that he was any great liberal or that he was less favored by the Mullahs who after all, allowed him to run. Notwithstanding his electioneering positions suggesting better relationships with the rest of the world, it was not likely that he would take on the Supreme Ruler until now and Obama could never have foreseen that. What is key here is once the Mullahs saw that Obama was effectively rooting for Mousavi and prepared to take credit for his election, there was no way they were going to let a President of the Great Satan influence their election.
Now, with the opposition to Ahmadinejad so pervasive, another foreign policy challenge arises. If Ahmadinejad ends up as president, he will never be perceived as legitimate and little more than a puppet. Negotiations with a puppet are not promising. The most likely outcome now is that Mousavi will ultimately be the president as that is the only way the Mullahs can quiet the unrest short of mass murder. If that materializes, Mousavi will be under tremendous pressure to liberalize as much as is possible and to carry out his promise to open up to the world. Now is the time for Obama to step up and support the Iranian people. It is risk free, for Ahmadinejad is finished. But Obama is not a bold leader. He doesn’t cherish American values and cannot bring himself to act with a moral purpose. Here is the incredible opportunity to build a bridge to the next Iranian president and he is blowing it.
The Iranians are protesting the theft of the election. They want whatever democracy they can get and they are rioting in the streets, getting shot at and beaten. I have read frequently that young Iranians crave contact with the West. There are comments in the Tweets that the regime’s enforcers are imported Arabs and possibly Venezuelans sent by Chavez. There are rumors that the army has refused to attack their own people. The regime is taking a very hard line stance and Obama sits it out, waiting for the outcome so that he can craft a response that curries favor with the Mullahs. This is a complete abdication of leadership. He should be out in front, condemning the use of force and urging Iran to confirm the legitimacy of the election to the rest of the world.
But, as I have said before, democracy is not among his core values and his reaction here sheds light on his attitude toward Israel, which is after all a thriving democracy and which Obama could just as easily do without. No, he won’t meddle in Iranian politics but when it comes to Israel he acts like it is the 58th state. Hold onto your seats folks, there is going to be lots of excitement from the Middle East, and it may not be very nice.
Hard Right
14 years ago
Mata, I think larry has been freebasing clozapine.
artofmine
14 years ago
Obama’s pattern of behavior, both as president and/or in his prior roles, reveals the following:
1. Obama has never been, nor ever will be, a loyal American patriot.
2. The above statement extends to the American people. To put it bluntly, Obama couldn’t care less about us.
3. Of the three monotheistic religions, Obama favors Islam. This is in spite of the fact he professes to be Christian. His preferred mode of Christianity, as evidenced by 20 years under the auspices of Reverend Wright, more closely resembles a store-front operation that prioritizes hatred and revenge over love and forgiveness.
4. Obama does not intend to reengineer America into a Western European-style political model. His values and beliefs more closely align with Latin American dictators and radical Muslim rulers.
5. The 2010 and 2012 elections will likely entail some creative number-crunching.
6. Obama may target additional “colonies” for Gitmo detainees. Of the former Crown colonies, Bermuda is located closest to the continental United States.
7. His objective is to emasculate America via a weakened, relativistic morality; pot-holed economic base; and diminished military/intelligence machine. IF YOU KEEP THIS IN MIND, EVERY ACTION MAKES SENSE.
8. Obama intends to spread America’s wealth not simply within the U.S. — but to favored groups and regions outside of our borders
9. His bottom-line desire? “King of the world.”
It might be easier to hack the portable teleprompter:
Good job Ace. Love the blog. Keeep up the good work. Remember, just becuase we don’t comment doesn’t mean we aren’t reading!
“*We need the voice of a leader at this moment of hope in Iran!
That is so true but that voice has to speak with sincerity, sympathy, love of fellow human beings, justice and basic human rights, people need to believe the voice truly cares what happens to them and be a voice that speaks up for truth and justice not just an opportunist sitting on the sidelines waiting to cozy up to whomever steals folks futures, with or without the teleprompter that voice isn’t going to be President Obama’s there is no sincerity in him (unless he is talking community organizing) the rest is all smoke and mirrors.
Times like this I truly miss President Reagan.
.
@philly_nj:
Just read exerpts of Reagan’s statement made when the Polish Government committed the same acts against their people. Powerline posted exerpts this morning. What a stark contrast to the manchild who sits in the Oval Office today.
@Missy: Excellent find Missy. I posted Reagan’s Berlin Wall speech last week on the 22nd anniversary as another example.
Look at what being honest, forthright, unapologetic and frank achieves.
His “O”lliness will never speak out against a repressive muslim theocracy.
@Missy:
Thank you for posting that Missy it truly highlights the difference between a leader who stands for something (President Reagan) and a wait and see follower (President Obama)
.
The Iranian government used the time tested method of keeping their people in line by convincing them that the motherland faced an external enemy.
In Obama’s brilliant speech to the Iranian people, he convinced them that the USA is not their enemy. He trash canned the “axis of evil.”
If you don’t think that the current internal revolt against authoritarianism in Iran was not substantially fostered by Obama’s diplomacy, you are simply wrong.
All that George W Bush saber rattling accomplished NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING — in either Iran or North Korea.
The George W Bush rhetorical bluster was all a big BLUFF — everyone knew that. Neither Iran nor North Korea had anything to fear; the Iraq experience showed the world the limits of US military power. We had no resources to start new wars.
How exactly did North Korea get the fissionable material to make their bombs? What did George W Bush ever do which did anything at all regarding Iran, except to remove Iran’s mortal enemy (Saddam Hussein) and give the Mullahs all the evidence they needed to convince the Iranian people that the USA was their new mortal enemy?
Remove the USA as the sworn enemy of Iran and let the Iranian people focus on their internal problems. We are now vastly closer to regime change in Iran than we ever would have been, given a continuation of the former Bush policies and diplomatic tone.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, the Iranian youth, very westernized and pro capitalism and USA, never needed convincing…. Obama has nothing to do with it. They’ve been that way for over a decade, slowly rising in numbers and attitude.
But thanks for the laugh. How’s that prozac taken? Ingested or injected?
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: “In Obama’s brilliant speech to the Iranian people. ”
Larry: When did you start doing stand up comedy?
Did Reagan become the sworn enemy of the Soviet Union when he called them an “evil empire?”
Did the Soviets stop negotiating when he told them to “TEAR DOWN THIS WALL?”
Did the Polish people turn against us because we stood up strongly in support of the labor union Solidarity?
Do you have ANY historical context into which you can say Obama’s “brilliant speech” has shown results before?
Think again Larry.
Being an Obama cheerleader is not becoming to you.
“*In Obama’s brilliant speech to the Iranian people, he convinced them that the USA is not their enemy. He trash canned the “axis of evil.”
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Did Obama in his brilliant speech to the Iranian people convince the Mullahs that no matter what he will congratulate, accept and negotiate with the designated winner of their election ?
I’m just askin cause from where I’m standing it doesn’t look to me like Obama’s teleprompter is going to offer any support to the folk in Iran who feel their vote didn’t count.
.
Larry, I beg to differ with you.
There was nothing brilliant about Obama’s speech and in fact, it was naïve and terribly risky. His entreaties to the Mullahs in his Cairo speech amounted to an ratification of their legitimacy, which is ultimately at stake now in the streets. His granting of “permission” for Iran to become nuclear without limiting that to power generation undercuts the possibility of negotiated end to their weapons program. But most importantly, he effectively chose sides in the then upcoming election where there was ample pre-election evidence that Ahmadinejad was not popular and there was a good possibility that he might not be legitimately elected for a second term. One assumes that Obama pays attention during his intelligence briefings. When it publically began to appear that Ahmadinejad was on the defensive and could lose, Obama followed up with his “hope and change” mantra and celebrated the “vigorous debate” among young Iranians over the merits of the candidates. He made it absolutely clear that he intended to take credit when such change materialized as he has done with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon, a demonstrably false claim, by the way.
I believe Obama’s precocious claim was simply too much for the Mullahs and was the major impetus in their stealing the election. After all there is nothing in Mousavi’s background to suggest that he was any great liberal or that he was less favored by the Mullahs who after all, allowed him to run. Notwithstanding his electioneering positions suggesting better relationships with the rest of the world, it was not likely that he would take on the Supreme Ruler until now and Obama could never have foreseen that. What is key here is once the Mullahs saw that Obama was effectively rooting for Mousavi and prepared to take credit for his election, there was no way they were going to let a President of the Great Satan influence their election.
Now, with the opposition to Ahmadinejad so pervasive, another foreign policy challenge arises. If Ahmadinejad ends up as president, he will never be perceived as legitimate and little more than a puppet. Negotiations with a puppet are not promising. The most likely outcome now is that Mousavi will ultimately be the president as that is the only way the Mullahs can quiet the unrest short of mass murder. If that materializes, Mousavi will be under tremendous pressure to liberalize as much as is possible and to carry out his promise to open up to the world. Now is the time for Obama to step up and support the Iranian people. It is risk free, for Ahmadinejad is finished. But Obama is not a bold leader. He doesn’t cherish American values and cannot bring himself to act with a moral purpose. Here is the incredible opportunity to build a bridge to the next Iranian president and he is blowing it.
The Iranians are protesting the theft of the election. They want whatever democracy they can get and they are rioting in the streets, getting shot at and beaten. I have read frequently that young Iranians crave contact with the West. There are comments in the Tweets that the regime’s enforcers are imported Arabs and possibly Venezuelans sent by Chavez. There are rumors that the army has refused to attack their own people. The regime is taking a very hard line stance and Obama sits it out, waiting for the outcome so that he can craft a response that curries favor with the Mullahs. This is a complete abdication of leadership. He should be out in front, condemning the use of force and urging Iran to confirm the legitimacy of the election to the rest of the world.
But, as I have said before, democracy is not among his core values and his reaction here sheds light on his attitude toward Israel, which is after all a thriving democracy and which Obama could just as easily do without. No, he won’t meddle in Iranian politics but when it comes to Israel he acts like it is the 58th state. Hold onto your seats folks, there is going to be lots of excitement from the Middle East, and it may not be very nice.
Mata, I think larry has been freebasing clozapine.
Obama’s pattern of behavior, both as president and/or in his prior roles, reveals the following:
1. Obama has never been, nor ever will be, a loyal American patriot.
2. The above statement extends to the American people. To put it bluntly, Obama couldn’t care less about us.
3. Of the three monotheistic religions, Obama favors Islam. This is in spite of the fact he professes to be Christian. His preferred mode of Christianity, as evidenced by 20 years under the auspices of Reverend Wright, more closely resembles a store-front operation that prioritizes hatred and revenge over love and forgiveness.
4. Obama does not intend to reengineer America into a Western European-style political model. His values and beliefs more closely align with Latin American dictators and radical Muslim rulers.
5. The 2010 and 2012 elections will likely entail some creative number-crunching.
6. Obama may target additional “colonies” for Gitmo detainees. Of the former Crown colonies, Bermuda is located closest to the continental United States.
7. His objective is to emasculate America via a weakened, relativistic morality; pot-holed economic base; and diminished military/intelligence machine. IF YOU KEEP THIS IN MIND, EVERY ACTION MAKES SENSE.
8. Obama intends to spread America’s wealth not simply within the U.S. — but to favored groups and regions outside of our borders
9. His bottom-line desire? “King of the world.”