What Passes for First-Rate Cognitive Ability...
For THIS Democrat, at least!
NOT that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons, but that another nation might try to stop them! Sheesh! Let's all give thanks to God that this man has a near ZERO percent chance of winning the Oval Office.
"...Perhaps the greatest short-term threat to world peace is the possibility that Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities."
--Presidential Hopeful, John Edwards
NOT that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons, but that another nation might try to stop them! Sheesh! Let's all give thanks to God that this man has a near ZERO percent chance of winning the Oval Office.
from the mind of... Eric | 3:24 PM
15 Comments:
The president of Iran has much less actual power than the title suggests. The real leader of the country is kholemini and his cadre. However if Israel were to bomb iran's nuclear processing facilities ahmidinejhad would get a lot of support. Sort of like GW got a lot of support just after 9/11. And of course this ignores the entire question of whether the rest of the world would be happy to see a second regional conflict start in the middle-east.
In the real world where facts prevail. Israel bombing Iran is the greatest short-term threat to world peace.
In the real world where FACTS prevail, Ahmadinejad has stated publically his desire to see Israel wiped off the map. In the real world where FACTS prevail, Ahmadinejad has stated publically that "very soon Israel will be destroyed." In the real world where FACTS prevail Iran is close to building and possessing nuclear weaponry.
It what real world, where FACTS prevail, should Israel NOT fear for her future and that of her people?
In what real world, where FACTS prevail, is Israel more of a threat to world peace than Iran?
OHHHhhhhh, that's right! In a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT world where FACTS are interchangeable with the deceitful ramblings of lunatics!
Suffice it to say, we disagree. And that's as testy as I intend to get.
In the real world. Ahmidhinajhad is a weak president. He couldn't order the bombing of Israel if he wanted to. In the real world Israel so out-guns all her enemies, that it is ridiculous. 4 years ago 25% of muslim identified themselves as muslim first, before their cultural or national identity. Today that number is 45% What do you think caused that jump?
Everytime the US and israel up their rhetoric about iran, ahmidienajhad gets a jump in the pols. That's the real world.
In the real world it's also more likely to be 6-7 years before Iran has a workable nuclear devise.
Forgive me if I choose not to accept your word that Ahmadinejad can't order a nuclear strike should he have the means to do so. You have no way of knowing what Ahmadinejad can or cannot do. I think you err greatly by assuming the political atmosphere that surrounds Ahmadinejad, the Mullahs, and the Iranian people even remotely reflects that of OUR OWN current political climate. You don't see the Mullahs and the average Iranian Joe, publically castigating and verbally excoriating THEIR president, as the hypocritical, "unbiased" Media and power-mad masters in Congress routinely do.
Why? Because they're all on the same page Ideologically.
The last I read, it was not at all clear that Edwards had said this. Do you have a legitimate source?
"Everytime the US and israel up their rhetoric about iran, ahmidienajhad gets a jump in the pols. That's the real world. "
Yeah...we know. Pols like you, BenT.
Pols like you who (according to your body of comments)look for anything and everything to condemn this president and this nation for (along with anyone who holds sacred scripture dear). Pols like you whose anger is 180 freaking degrees out of phase with reality.
Mom2-- Thanks for that. How very true.
Daddio-- Uhhhhh. You DO realize BenT meant 'Polls', right? For clarification, what do YOU mean by Pols?
mom2 said:
"I've about decided that it is useless to try to debate with liberals, their eyes are so on this world and their hopes seem to be in some liberal politician that can tell "beautiful" lies."
Umm, you DO know the reason that at least we progressive Christians feel the way we do is because of our trust in God, NOT politicians?
We Christian pacifists, for instance, are willing to put our faith in God and trust in God for our defense.
Disagree with us if you wish, but don't suggest it's because WE'RE trusting wordly politicians when religious conservatives are the ones wanting to remove hindrances to corporations (another human institutions) to "save" us and a huge military to "defend" us.
I repeat:
Umm, you DO know the reason that at least we progressive Christians feel the way we do is because of our trust in God, NOT politicians?
We Christian pacifists, for instance, are willing to put our faith in God and trust in God for our defense.
Disagree with us if you wish, but don't suggest it's because WE'RE trusting wordly politicians when religious conservatives are the ones wanting to remove hindrances to corporations (another human institutions) to "save" us and a huge military to "defend" us.
"I will vote for the person that best represents Christ's values. As a former Democrat, that is not them."
As a former Republican, it's certainly not them either. In fact, there's not a party around about which I could even say "best represents Christ's values."
I'm just hoping to find the candidates who are least offensive to my Christian and American and human ideals. Those who'll do the least harm.
I was a Pro-Life Reagan Republican in the conservative Christian vein until Reagan's crimes chased me away from the Republican party.
And it's not so much that I want you to hear my opinion as it is that I'm pointing out that you're criticizing us for one thing (depending upon politicians instead of God) and then, when I point out that I'm NOT depending upon politicians and I AM depending upon God, instead of apologizing for the mistake you wenton to try to change the subject and criticize me for something else.
Peace, sister.
It is hard for me to believe that anyone could make a stupid statement like that, let alone a man who's party seriously considered running for President.
That has to be about the stupidest statement I've ever heard from a "serious" politician.
Oh, but that's only because I don't listen to anything AlGore says about Gorebal Whining.
Mark said:
"That has to be about the stupidest statement I've ever heard from a "serious" politician."
I'll repeat what I said earlier: All I've read has said that this is just a rumor, not verified that Edwards actually said this. Let's not make assumptions.
I'd think that anyone talking about "pre-emptive" bombings is a threat (maybe not the biggest threat, but a threat nonetheless), but I don't know that Edwards actually stated this.
Let's not make arguments where none exist.
It is "reported" that John Edwards said this. There is no transcript or media pick-up of the story (it's not likely they would pick something like that up). Yet, John Edwards, to my knowledge, has not issued a denial.
But Dan err's greatly when he says,
"Let's not make arguments where none exist"
The argument DOES exist... much like evolution. Evolution has not proven itself, and neither has John Edwards.
Post a Comment
<< Home