Obviously the protestors, which is why Obama is NOT taking the course of action that the government (and you) want him to take.
And everyone is laughing at them instead of rallying behind them because they all know it's not true.
The protestors. And representatives of Iranian groups are all happy the US is not involved, unlike you and your miscellaneous far-right blog sources who think it's more important to make noise and act like you're helping people as opposed to actually taking actions that might help them.
Obviously because Micheal Jackson's death has caused Obama's perception of life to be fundamentally changed. How does this change anything? I don't know and I have a good idea that you don't either.
give him time to consult his anti-obama playbook. it's like those old pick a scenario books. he has to turn to page 76 now to find what he should say when obama does this. so be patient since we know reading comprehension isn't the strong point of his ilk.
and why do you wish to give them credibilty? Basso you have posted on this topic a lot. I think it's time for you to give us an explanation as to why your loyalties lie with the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinajad.
I always found it interesting that Basso posts in 1 line questions for every post. He is certainly an inquisitive fellow.
LOL, maybe Obama should talk to this one dude directly. if these threads were excel spreadsheets, you'd get a fail, circular thread arguments
The protesters are much more important than the Iranian govt. That's why I wonder why you are advocating the types of things that the ruling regime in Iran wants Obama to pursue. Why are you doing that basso? You have a real problem answering questions such as this. You've never done it. I'm sure you won't now. But I will ask anyway, to better illustrate your tactics and lack of understanding of the situation. furthermore, Obama has been consistent against violence on the demonstrators in Iran from day 1. I posted an easy to follow youtube video for you that clearly shows that. As usual you failed to respond to that too. Maybe you started this new thread on the exact same subject so that you wouldn't be reminded of the questions that you refuse to answer? MAybe you hope if folks read about it, where the questions aren't right in front of them, they will forget that you ran away from them? I don't know, but it's interesting stuff.
Since when is quoting one random person conclusive of anything? Here, quote me. "I think Obama is doing the right thing." Can I now be used as a source to be "fail-linked"? Or do I have to be interviewed by the notoriously "liberal" media?
Let's look at what the Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner had to say. "Shirin Ebadi Supports Obama Approach on Iran" “What happens in Iran regards the people themselves, and it is up to them to make their voices heard,” she said in a telephone interview from Geneva. “I respect his comments on all the events in Iran, but I think it is sufficient." http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/shirin-ebadi-supports-obama-approach-on-iran.php Let's see who else supports Obama's approach. Why it's none other than W's own ambassador to Iran. http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/d...assador-lauds-obamas-handling-of-iran-crisis/ Anyone else? Why yes there is. http://washingtonindependent.com/47...akbar-ganji-on-the-iranian-uprising-and-obama Who wants Obama to make stronger statements against the Iranian regime? Well as Ganji pointed out, doing that has strengthened Iran already. So certainly Khamanei would want Obama to appear to have a strong meddling hand. Who else? Ahmadinejad And the other person who wants the U.S. to have the appearance of meddling is basso.
A *clear* victory to FranchiseBlade in the appeal to authority department. basso, there is a Casablanca cab driver with a facebook status update that you haven't read yet. It may very seriously *bolster* your cause.
basso: fighting to keep the neoconservative viewpoint in the spotlight since November 2008. Thanks for contributing.
