“Uh huh huh. Smell my hands! huh huh!”

(overhead in the background is Jeff Gannon yelling…”Dude! Shut up!)

As with the prior quote, Ahmadinejad is referring to the “regime”, meaning the government of Israel.

He also said this: “Referring to worldwide celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel’s foundation, he said that “it would be futile to hold a birthday ceremony for something which is already dead.”

“As far as the regional countries are concerned, this regime does not exist,” Ahmadinejad added.

Parsing his words doesn’t mask the fact that hates Israel and wants Israel to cease to exist as a political entity. And these are his public statements! If you are saying this in public, what are you thinking in private?

Personally, I think a lot of people in Israel would be happy to see their government swept away. They don’t pay any more attention to the will of the people than does our government. Something like 64% of the people in Israel favor peace talks over aggressive violent action against the Palestinians.

Swept away to be replaced by what? Hamas? Fatah? I am really not sure that is what the people of Israel are looking for.

I find it hard to believe anyone gave TP an award considering the fact that this site has virtually ignored the present Democratic presidential race. It’s not that they think it is not news, it’s that they don’t want to set up a forum where “their girl” might be criticized. All that has done is to drive away intelligent posters who prefer to spend time at a site that covers all the news, not just the Republican side of the news.

Her thesis is not that elections will be cancelled and the Bush regime will remain in power forever. It is that the system of democracy and freedom we have will gradually be replaced with a system that looks free and looks democratic, but is not. To an extent, a lot of this has already happened.

I don’t completely reject this point as far as it goes; since WWII the so-called Imperial Presidency has expanded Presidential authority in ways the founders would not have recognized. But when she continually draws parallels with Bush to Hitler, Stalin and Pinochet, it is hard not draw the conclusion that she believes a fascist state is right around the corner.

A little light on the reading comprehension there Keltoi. Here’s what that article says:

“This terrorist and criminal state is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians,” Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in Tehran.

As with the prior quote, Ahmadinejad is referring to the “regime”, meaning the government of Israel. Personally, I think a lot of people in Israel would be happy to see their government swept away. They don’t pay any more attention to the will of the people than does our government. Something like 64% of the people in Israel favor peace talks over aggressive violent action against the Palestinians.

Some of the climate change propositions (cap and trade, Kyoto, etc) are geared towards penalizing polluters and benefitting non-polluters (or less significant polluters).

If this is the case, would we be penalizing Western (or U.S.) polluters (that we can easily moniter and regulate) and benefitting, for example, Chinese companies that claim to be less polluting (which would be more difficult to moniter and regulate)?

What is to prevent us from taxing Western or American products at the expense of Chinese products based on only the claim that they are more environmentally friendly? How would determination be validated in a relatively closed society?

If we restrict Western or American economies in favor of Chinese economies – won’t we be giving them an economic advantage? With the economic advantage – won’t they have an advantage in promoting their ideologies? Won’t they have more of an advantage militarily? (Better GDP, better ability to fund a stronger military)? Wouldn’t that but the West at a disadvantage?

All I’m saying is this: Focus on environmentalism (and addressing climate change) may be the right path for us to follow. But, it will have a cost.

And, it very well could subjugate what is important to us (ie. freedoms, human rights) – to what is important to other governments that could be the beneficiaries of climate change policies that are currently under consideration.

Since when do you get something for nothing? Or that focusing on environmental policy won’t have an economic cost?

If progressives want to highlight the impact we are having on the environment and promote policies that are more environmentally friendly, I get it.

But, I think there is a disconnect when I see progressives lament climate change on the one hand and our economy on the other.

If you think the way forward is for us to make sacrifices to help the environment, I respect that. But, to do that, it’s going to make operations at our corporations more expensive. If it’s more expensive for our corporations to produce their products, they’ll have to pass along the costs to us, to remain profitable.

So, what do you want? A better environment that will reduce harmful climate change? Or better economic conditions?

It is a choice – that many don’t seem to recognize.

May 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
_____

Her thesis is not that elections will be cancelled and the Bush regime will remain in power forever. It is that the system of democracy and freedom we have will gradually be replaced with a system that looks free and looks democratic, but is not. To an extent, a lot of this has already happened.

Impressive! ;-)

I would hope during a Democratic administration that progressives don’t sink to the same level as the “Clinton did it too” crowd has for the past eight years.

There are a couple of things that I fervently hope for (yes, I know I’m an incurable idealist):

1) That during an Obama presidency, Bush and Cheney get blamed only for what problems genuinely occured on their watch or as a direct result of their policies. They are leaving such a huge mess to clean up that there will be plenty of that — one shouldn’t need to use them as straw men for anything else.

2) That during an Obama presidency, any wrongdoing is condemned and NOT excused with a “Bush (or Cheney) did it too.” Hopefully, we’ll be better than that — although I will probably even succumb to that temptation if I find myself responding to someone who wants to string up Obama on some triviality after defending Bush and Cheney for eight years.

That said, I imagine there will still be some who will mimic the behavior of the Bush apologists, and show they are no better.

right..the proper phrase is actually “where be all the white womenz”?

otnay ellway utbay i ancay ivegay it a ogay.

ushbay is a urderermay

“Where’s all the white women”? will be tolerated..?

Hmm.. for the first time ever, my comment is in moderation. I called Bush a murderer, is this enough to land me in moderation town?

Really? I see lots of stuff worse than that, Bush being called a murderer is just another day at the office at TP. Weird.