Isn’t it funny that when I’m forced to be absent for a short period, and I leave notice that I’ll be absent, and I will return, that’s labeled as “declaring victory and fleeing the field”, but when Keltoi just arbitrarily decides to leave for the night (with my first and primary challenge still unanswered), that’s just fine and dandy.

Don’t worry, Keltoi. As I said earlier, I’ll be giving you all the opportunities you require to answer my challenge.

don’t worry folks, after next fall, we won’t have to bother with the smug attempts at wit from the righty crowd – they’ll all slink back into the holes they inhabited prior to the reign of the cheerleader prince.

Declare victory and flee the field. Nice technique. Reminds me of some other group….

Sorry, Keltoi…some of us have jobs and commutes. I told you I had to go, and I told you I’d be back. I also told you I’d be waiting for either a substantiation or retraction.

Well, here I am…no “fleeing the field” here. But you’ve had almost three hours to provide either a substantiation or a retraction, and what do I find?

Substantiation of What? That there ISN”T a conspiracy afoot to make Bush President for Life? That is going to be a bit tough, don’t you think?

Oh, COME ON, Keltoi…you can’t possibly be this thick. Deliberate obtuseness is one of the last refuges of the intellectually bankrupt, and one of my pet peeves.

Substantiation of what? Substantiation of the assertion you made all the way back in post #73…I quote:

Iran is working on nukes.

I challenged you to prove this statement way back in post #75, and you’ve been desperately evading the question ever since.

Now that I’ve refreshed your allegedly faulty memory, I’ll issue my challenge anew. Substantiate the claim or retract it. Your choice.

(BTW, who mentioned Chimpy as President for life? I don’t recall doing that, and a quick scroll up confirms my recollection. You might want to see a physician about that memory problem…)

Yes, I think AQ attacked us on 9-11 and not our own government. If you think that is “grinding my head in the sand” I suggest YOUR head is stuck in a dark, moist, unpleasant place it should not be.

Again we see evidence of that crippling memory problem of yours. It’s sad, really…

My comment about your head in the sand was in regards to your reply to my reference to Rex 84. I was even good enough to supply you with a link on the subject, and here was your reply:

Rex84, Roswell57…..

Again, just what are you attempting to insinuate, Keltoi? Or is your strategy just to be vague and dismissive enough to discourage me from taking you to task?

But I do so with love! Have a nice evening.

Reminds me of something I heard earlier…

Declare victory and flee the field. Nice technique.

Now where did I hear that…

Just so you know, Keltoi, I’m still waiting for your substantiation or retraction of your claim that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. I’ll be bringing it up on every thread I see you on until I get an answer, so it’s in your best interests to be honest enough to give me one or the other ASAP.

but let me make THIS clear – i am not absolving ahmadinejad
of anything… at least i don’t mean to sound that way…

your last sentence is insightful and profound…
and sad…
…

p.s.@ 98 – I kinda figured that’s what he meant. Nonetheless, it amounts to him saying “we don’t let our gays get all uppity and public (and when they do, we kill them), so it doesn’t really absolve him of anything.

We should be supporting the numerous Human Rights and Student Democratic movements in Iran, which are, by degree, dragging their own country forward on the road of progress. The people of Iran, though oppressed, really do lean Western in a lot of ways, and killing them with airstrikes is about the only guaranteed way to halt that progress and send them backward.

More and more, I can only conclude that righty military-industrial-pseudo-intellectuals see the proliferation of terrorism and jihadism as job security for themselves, and that’s as craven a motive as human beings are capable of harboring.

honestly, i understand all the reasons given for why ahmadinejad meant, literally, what was translated and is repeated constantly…
and i wondered myself, why “scrub” those words?, why not clarify?
if it was a matter of miscomunication…
those are valid and obvious reasons…

but something gnaws at me about this, is all… just like the mistaken words repeated adnauseum about israel and the map…
i just have this instinct that this is not a stupid man and that he didn’t really say what we are being TOLD he said…

and when juan @15 commented that i may have a point, i figured i couldn’t be too far gone if one our finest minds also sees a point…
thanks juan :-)

sooooo… i went to THE premier source for middle-east studies…
if ANYone would know, JUAN COLE would know…
i’m surprised that there wasn’t more about this at his site, and what HE had to say was rather condemning, without much explanation…
in part:

…Ahmadinejad’s bigotted statement that there are no homosexuals in Iran derived from his rightwing religious commitments. What he said is very serious. He erased gays right out of existence. The ultimate in denying people their rights is to deny they even exist (the nonexistent obviously have no rights.)
[...]It would be nice for the US Right to have us forget that they pull the Ahmadinejad act with regard to gays every day. Denying gays the right to marry is a way of erasing them from civil society. It is a way of denying that they really love one another, as straights do. It is a way of asserting that they do not exist.

the COMMENTS that followed his piece are also enlightening, and offer some vindication to MY position and reasoning…

The problem is you didn’t get to hear what he said. What he actually said was “Iran does not have homosexuality like you (in America) do”. In Farsi, he said “enya Shoma”, which translates to “in the manner in which you do”.

His point, and I think it’s reasonable, is that nature of homosexual identity in Iran is different then the nature of homosexual identity in the United states. I’d say that the nature of homosexual identity is different in the United States then it was, say, 40 years ago. I’d say the same thing about straight identity.

thank you, coolhappymax… yea, what he said…
read more here:
http://www.juancole.com/2007/09/there-are-no-homosexuals-in-more-common.html#comments

excuse the length… read it all…
.

I’ve got news for you. That’s not libertarianism, that’s hypocrisy.

Comment by gummitch — September 26, 2007 @ 3:19 pm

NO – it is OK for our government to help people in other countries become free of their governments ability to dictate to them.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you were a gay Iranian, would you favor the US deposing the Theocracy that threatens your life?

Declare victory and flee the field. Nice technique. Reminds me of some other group….

Substantiation of What? That there ISN”T a conspiracy afoot to make Bush President for Life? That is going to be a bit tough, don’t you think?

Conspiracies are wonderful because by their very nature they cannot be disproved.

Yes, I think AQ attacked us on 9-11 and not our own government. If you think that is “grinding my head in the sand” I suggest YOUR head is stuck in a dark, moist, unpleasant place it should not be.

But I do so with love! Have a nice evening.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 26, 2007 @ 1:43 pm

Log Cabin Republicans are welcome because, for the most part, they have money to contribute. They are willing to be in the big tent because they are conservatives who just happen to be gay. Heck, if I agreed with the Repubs on all but one issue, I might be in their tent, too.

But you’ll notice the LCR presence in this tent is all but invisible. They’re welcome, as long as they stay in the closet in the corner. It’s a rare Repub candidate who will actually meet with them, and several Repub candidates have returned LCR contributions once others in the tent (evangelical Christians, for example) bring those contributions to light.

He definitely said ee-RAQ . Admittedly the translator could have mis-translated.

So to deny he said it makes him look even more ludicrous.

I’ll be looking for either your substantiation or your retraction later tonight, Keltoi. Please don’t disappoint me (again).

And Bush did it, right? Please, please tell me you don’t think that…

And 19 guys with box cutters, led by a guy suffering from terminal renal failure, operating out of a cave, managed to outwit and circumvent the defense capability of the most powerful nation on the planet for hours? Please, please, tell me you don’t think that…

No, they haven’t. Bush is so diabolical he can blow up WTC, blame the whole thing on non-existant terrorists, co-opt the entirety of the opposition party into his nefarious plot, but when he goes to “annex” countries the best he can do is what we have in Afg and Iraq?

Chimpy and his cronies have accomplished exactly what they were after: a perpetual state of war in the M.E., justifying the need for a permanent military presence.

How many?

I’m not sure why that question is even relevant, but it is a good question nevertheless. Unfortunately, I can’t provide you with an answer, as that information is classified. The only way you find out if you’re on the no-fly list is if you show up and can’t board the plane.

Epidemic is a big word. Can you document this statement?

Certainly. Here’s just one source.

Anti-Muslim violence is REALLY epidemic in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is just being done by other Muslims.

Yeah…civil war is a real b!tch, isn’t it? Of course, you leave out all the violence to muslims being done to them in Iraq by non-muslims (U.S. forces and “contractors” (mercs)), as well as all the future violence that will be visited on them by our indiscriminate use of DU in their country, but that would spoil your trite little truism, wouldn’t it?

Point, remind me to Google more, but comparing Nazi policy toward Jews in ANY year to the US in 2007 is erroneous

Funny…I seem to recall laying out an argument that illustrated that the comparison was quite valid. If you want to refute that argument, go ahead…but don’t claim you have until you’ve done it.

Read the whole argument, not feeling like these “en masse” roundups you speak of are in the offing. Assuming they have broken ground on it, the facility can house 5,000. It seemed pretty clear to me it was aimed at illegal immigration. Henry Waxman, the most zealous Bush investigator on the Hill, had only one complaint about the facility – it is being built by Haliburton.

So…your refutation is based on a “gut feeling”? You must really admire Chertoff…

Rex84, Roswell57…..

And what exactly is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to insinuate that Rex 84 is fictitious?

If all you’re going to do is grind your head even deeper into the sand, Keltoi, feel free, but in that case, there’s really no need to respond to my posts.

The thing I find amusing is you seem to think it is more likely that we attacked ourselves on 9-11 and are facing totalitarianism tomorrow than it is that Iran wants nukes.

Oh…now we’re down to Iran “wanting” nukes”, are we? Way to move the goalposts, Keltoi.

I never claimed that Iran didn’t “want” nukes. I’m not going to make wild speculations about the possible desires of a foreign country. I didn’t even say that Iran wasn’t trying to acquire nukes. All I did is challenge you to prove your assertion that they are…an assertion that, despite the torrential volume of words from you since, you have yet to either substantiate or retract.

One or the other. Make up your mind.

To get in, just check with Larry Craig, Mark Foley or Ted Haggard.
(Just be sure the ‘big tent’ isn’t in their pants.)

I will take that for a “No, I can’t prove they are not seeking nukes”.

Close…it’s “No, I don’t have to prove they are not seeking nukes”. I’m not the one who claimed Iran was seeking nukes…you’re the one who claimed they were. Try to keep up.

Besides, I made the assertion to illustrate an entirely different point and you jumped all over it.

And that point was…?

Aha! The United States and Iran are moral equivalents!

I know you’re trying to make a point here, but it’s pretty vague. Try a little harder.

When have I defended India?

When have I said you had? Again, do try to keep up.

This is, to use your term, “retarded”.

Sorry for using such a pejorative term, but nothing else does some of your ‘arguments’ sufficient justice.

There need is NOT irrelevant.

Yes, it is irrelevant. They have the right. Period. (Unless, of course, you’re contesting that right.)

It is a very expensive, difficult technology which has had mixed success in producing power. If you don’t NEED it, why develop it when you have all the power you need right in your own country?

You claim that it is very expensive and difficult, but in the same breath, you admit that they have vast wealth in the form of petrochemicals. Again, make up your mind.

The by-product of nuclear enrichment is the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, c’mon! If it were biofuel or solar or whatever it wouldn’t matter, but we are talking nuclear weapons here.

And with this passage, you have demonstrated conclusively that you have no clue as to the difference between fuel-grade and weapons-grade fissile material. Thanks for playing.

Is it as stupid as the Syrians having received shipments of a POSSIBLY (no, I can’t PROVE what was in the buildings Israel hit last week, you don’t know either) nuclear nature from North Korea?

No, you can’t prove what was in those buildings, and neither can I. So let’s speculate wildly about it.

Again, Keltoi, retarded. No other adjective fits.

Can it really be so hard to connect the dots between a N. Korea with nukes, an Iran that wants nukes, a common hate of the US and the chance they might help each other out?

Here’s two questions, genius:

1) How exactly do you suppose the Iranians are going to deliver this mythical nuclear warhead to us?

2) Assuming a nuclear warhead does detonate on U.S. soil, exactly how many minutes do you think it will take for the U.S counterattack to turn the entire country of Iran into a plain of radioactive glass? Do you really think the Iranians are stupid enough to give Chimpy that chance?

You seem a little cranky, today, Trip. Maybe I should say something about America being a force for good and you can get a good belly laugh out of it like you did last week.

Sloppy thinking like yours always seems to irritate me.

Comment by Keltoi — September 26, 2007 @ 2:07 pm

In other words, you do not want our government dictating your behavior but it’s OK for our government to dictate the behavior of people in other countries.

I’ve got news for you. That’s not libertarianism, that’s hypocrisy.

Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 26, 2007 @ 1:41 pm

Funny. That’s what “conservatives” say now about Bush. For the previous six years “conservatives” thought Bush walked on water. Now they’re attempting to distance themselves from what they themselves have labeled a conservative administration because it’s clear to everyone that it’s been a disaster.

If you want to make ridiculous claims like this, you need to point to all the pundits who have disgreed with Bush 50% of the time since January 2001. Good luck with that.

The rest of your claims about Bush’s success are your absurd assertions and have no more legitimacy (or less) than liberals who “blame Bush” for the state of the country.

And Bush did it, right? Please, please tell me you don’t think that….

>>Iraq and Afghanistan have been annexed.

No, they haven’t. Bush is so diabolical he can blow up WTC, blame the whole thing on non-existant terrorists, co-opt the entirety of the opposition party into his nefarious plot, but when he goes to “annex” countries the best he can do is what we have in Afg and Iraq?

>>Muslims and liberal protesters are on the “no fly” list, among others.

How many?

>>Anti-Muslim violence is epidemic in this country, and, for the most part, ignored by the complicit media.

Epidemic is a big word. Can you document this statement? Anti-Muslim violence is REALLY epidemic in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is just being done by other Muslims.

>>(BTW, the Nazis didn’t order the Jews to wear the yellow stars until 1941.

Point, remind me to Google more, but comparing Nazi policy toward Jews in ANY year to the US in 2007 is erroneous

>>How do you know about these secret plans to round up dissidents and ship them off to detainment camps, BTW?
From the New York Times, February 4, 2006:
“The Army Corps of Engineers has awarded a contract worth up to $385 million for building temporary immigration detention centers

Read the whole argument, not feeling like these “en masse” roundups you speak of are in the offing. Assuming they have broken ground on it, the facility can house 5,000. It seemed pretty clear to me it was aimed at illegal immigration. Henry Waxman, the most zealous Bush investigator on the Hill, had only one complaint about the facility – it is being built by Haliburton.

Add this to directives that are known to have existed, like Rex 84..
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 26, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

Rex84, Roswell57…..

The thing I find amusing is you seem to think it is more likely that we attacked ourselves on 9-11 and are facing totalitarianism tomorow than it is that Iran wants nukes.

Bush? Ahmadinejhad?

Ahmadinejhad? Bush?

Hell, I can’t tell the difference. They’re BOTH batshit crazy thugs and wannabe dictators – who need to be LOCKED UP.