I think Obama should follow Ron Paul's example and call for friendship with Iran

[Cali_Democrat]

I don't know if some of you have noticed, but there has been a lot of news about Iran recently as the IAEA is set to release a report on Iran's nuclear program on Monday. It's rumored that Iran is coming extremely close to nuclear capability and the Israelis are very nervous. There's talk of an impending Israeli attack and that is unfortunate:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/shimon-peres-says-attack-on-iran-more-and-more-likely/articleshow/10629989.cms

JERUSALEM: Israeli President Shimon Peres has warned that an attack on Iran was "more and more likely," days before a report by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear programme.

He told Israeli private television's second channel: "The intelligence services of the different countries that are keeping an eye on (Iran) are worried and putting pressure on their leaders to warn that Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon."

Obama has not discussed attacking Iran militarily, but he has called for tougher sanctions on Iran.

I'm not sure if tougher sanctions or even attacking Iran is actually the right approach here. That is a confrontational approach. It's time for a new way of thinking IMO.

Ron Paul is calling for friendship rather than sanctions:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-presidential-hopeful-ron-paul-friendship-is-best-way-to-deal-with-iran-1.394067

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul says "offering friendship" to Iran, not sanctions, would be a more fruitful way to deal with Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions.

The libertarian-leaning Texas congressman, a longshot in the presidential campaign, said Sunday that Iran's nuclear weapons program has been "blown out of proportion." He said tough sanctions are a mistake, because in the case of Iraq, they only hurt the local population and still paved a path to war.

This is definitely the right approach IMO. It's time for the US to think differently with the way we deal with countries like Iran. Rather than a confrontational approach of severe sanctions and even missiles and bombs, why not attempt to pursue friendship?

Sanctions only hurt the people of Iran will do nothing to rein in their nuclear program. Only the people end up suffering and we saw this in Iraq during the 1990's as hundreds of thousands died because of those cripling sanctions.

Iran feels threatened for a reason. The US military has them completely surrounded with military assets in the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Afghanistan. Israel, the US and NATO have been bombing and attacking country after country for decades. The same cannot be said for Iran. Perhaps Iran thinks they're next on the hit list and they feel like they should pursue self defense?

It's time for a new, fresh approach to foreign policy that focuses on diplomacy, cooperation and friendship. This is the approach Obama should adopt vis-a-vis Iran.

[bluestateguy]

1. Do that and Obama might as well write his concession speech right now

nt

[Pirate Smile]

8. +1

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Why?

Do we REALLY need another war?

[Enrique]

59. that's a myth, imo

Bush made peace with Libya, why can't Obama or some other president make peace with Iran?

It's one of those things that supposedly "can't" happen, up until the time when it does happen.

[stevenleser]

65. when you factor in that he already tried and Iran took advantage of his overtures

Making more overtures would make him look pretty stupid.

[MADem]

2. I think that racist crazy old fucker should go home and stop talking horseshit.

Iran is a beautiful country in the grip of a bunch of hyper-religious asshole-despots who think nothing of killing their own citizens willy-nilly in the streets. The people of Iran who support the Green Revolution "get" the sanctions, even if some here with a misguided sense of pity don't.

Iran's biggest problem? They can't refine GASOLINE because their infrastructure sucks. That's why they have rationing.

Obama doesn't need to follow the lead of a dumbfuck racist asshole, and that's the kind of crap I'm surprised to read on this board, frankly.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. Why is calling for friendship with Iran such a bad thing?

If Obama did that, I think it would be refreshing and it would give the US tremendous credibility. Right now, US credibility is very weak because of our approach to foreign policy the last 20 years.

I think it's time for a new approach.

[ProSense]

4. Hmmm?

Ron Paul "refreshing and it would give the US tremendous credibility...new approach"

The only word that comes to mind is crackpot!

Maybe instead of asking Obama to follow a dumbfuck racist asshole (to quote MADem), you could just vote for his "refreshing" ass!

[Cali_Democrat]

6. If Obama went with the friendship approach,

not only would it be refreshing, it would show the world that the US approach to foreign policy has changed and its not based on bellicose behavior/threats anymore. Sanctions on Iran clearly haven't worked, that much is obvious.

Obama could show the world that the US believes in diplomacy, cooperation and friendship rather than sanctions, missiles and bombs.

This is a positive thing and the US would increase its soft power.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cali_Democrat]

12. I agree with his statement that the US should pursue friendship with Iran

That's only one issue and it sure as hell doesn't mean I support him and his candidacy.

It simply means I agree with his statement that the US should pursue friendship.

[stevenleser]

45. 'The US' tried that in 2009 nt

[emilyg]

14. Didn't Obama in some speech say

that he would like to sit down and talk with those leaders? He sure has changed.

[stevenleser]

50. Well, he offered concessions and held out his hand in 2009, the Iranians slapped it.

That would tend to change one's outlook.

[ProSense]

54. No,

"He sure has changed."

....those of us who voted for the President and listened to him know his position on Iran

•Diplomacy: Barack Obama supports tough and direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to use the power of American diplomacy to pressure Iran to stop their illicit nuclear program, support for terrorism, and threats toward Israel. Obama and Biden will offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies and proceed with careful preparation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Whether it's John McCain or the lunatic Ron Paul, there is absolutely no reason for the President to follow the lead of morons.

It's a good thing he, and not the armchair quarterbacks, is the President.

[MNBrewer]

63. Instead, we should rattle our sabers some more

and threaten to bomb them out of the 14th Century, back to the First?

[MADem]

5. Because the present regime in Iran hangs gay kids from drott cranes, that's why.

They also hang rape victims in the same fashion--because it's "their fault," you see.

They murder children in Evin Prison and lie to their parents about how they died, and leave the bodies rotting for days before they notify the parents--if they even do. In some cases, they just bury them and tell the parents after the fact.

They kill young girls like Neda in the streets.

They deny women basic civil rights.

I think the present approach is just fine, and so do people who want a Green Revolution there. Rapprochement is not helpful--you don't encourage megalomaniacs.

If Obama did what you suggested, he'd be a one term president. Good thing you aren't on the National Security Council.

[woo me with science]

7. So what should we do about Saudi Arabia? nt

[MADem]

9. Find alternative sources of energy. NT

[woo me with science]

16. Well,

that's a good answer, actually.

That said, the recent sabre rattling re: Iran from both parties should have all of us extremely wary and cynical and ready to forcefully reject another attempt to shock doctrine us or anyone else into a war with Iran.

Our economy is wrecked. We have little real industry apart from the military industrial complex. The population is growing more restless and desperate.

People need to be clear-sighted and realize that the banks and corporations would find a new major war extremely useful right now. Besides being a distraction from OWS and a tremendous opportunity for profit, the threat of a new major war would offer the perfect trump card for rejecting any cuts to the military industrial complex AND for rejecting any serious reform to the banks. After all, we will desperately need their loans to prepare and defend ourselves against the threat of this new world conflagration.

[MADem]

19. There's no will for war. There's got to be a will for there to be a way.

I don't think Iran is going to come over the horizon in their pathetic little "Air Force Planes" (repurposed F-4s from the Shah era with crazy paint jobs) any time soon.

Our economy is not "wrecked." It's not in good shape right now, but it's repairable. It needs investment, to include investment in education for our young people.

Hyperbole like that isn't helpful. You want a wrecked economy? Look at North Korea.

"The banks" can't get "the little people" to keep their money in their shitty accounts that charge people to write a frigging check anymore. They are losing their clout, and the more people move their money to local enterprises, the less they'll have.

[woo me with science]

22. Au contraire.

You just described exactly why they would benefit so much from a new threat ("The banks" can't get "the little people" to keep their money in their shitty accounts that charge people to write a frigging check anymore. They are losing their clout.) OWS is threatening them in a way that they have never been threatened before.

*Absolutely* the economy is wrecked enough to necessitate something like this from their perspective. People are massing in the streets. They are angry, and they are focusing that anger squarely on Wall Street and the banks. What better way to divert from that, than to channel and focus that anger on the vague threat overseas? *Absolutely* they will look for a way to divert attention from what is happening at home. *Absolutely* they will look for justification to keep the MIC funded and the banks unreformed. And there is great "clout" in being absolutely indispensable to fund America's defense against a potentially devastating war.

They don't need direct conflict between the US and Iran. Not at all. All they need is to foment tensions between Iran and Syria (note the highly suspicious plot of a few weeks ago), or Iran and Israel, or Iran and anybody...that would make a world war possible. All they need is a credible, escalating threat. We are *already* seeing the drumbeat for that, from both parties.

The neocons are alive and well in our government. They work for the banks and the corporations, and they will do whatever it takes to ensure that their profit streams keep flowing...and that means protecting both the banks and the military industrial complex. The threat of a new major war would kill both birds with one stone.

[MADem]

28. Well, you hold that thought.

People are massing in the streets because yes, they're sick of the bank bullshit, but just as importantly, they want jobs. Secure jobs. Fair wages. Decent healthcare. A more humane society.

If there was full employment and fair wages, people would complain but would probably put up with those stupid debit card charges. They wouldn't be sleeping in parks at night, they'd be getting a good night's sleep to be ready for work the next day.

I can't see this Congress reactivating the draft. Sorry, it's just not working for me. Small unit shenanigans here and there, sure, but a full war footing? There's just no WILL, neocons or no neocons.

YMMV and probably does, but I won't be moved.

[woo me with science]

32. I never said a word about a draft.

I never even said a word about direct conflict between Iran and the US, although it could certainly come to that.

There is no full employment or good wages precisely because of the rank, thieving corruption of the banks. And right now the Obama administration is busily finalizing an unconscionable settlement that will let the criminal banks that crashed this economy and left millions in poverty off the hook for an outrageous, insulting 25 billion dollars.

OWS is the most serious recent threat the oligarchy has faced. Make no mistake about it; they will do anything and everything they need to do in order to maintain their power. And as Al Gore himself pointed out today, they own our government; they purchased it.

They may not have to go this particular route, but they will not hesitate to do it if they need to. And the highly profitable (for the few, anyway...) military industrial complex needs to grow...

I wish I were as sanguine as you. I don't see OWS backing down anytime soon, and I see very few options for the oligarchy that are as neatly tailored toward their goals as this one would be.

[MADem]

66. I don't think OWS should back down. That's what democracy looks like.

But at the same token, I think America has a wonderful future.

We are, at the end of the day, our population--and we've got some of the best people IN the world, from all over the world.

[MNBrewer]

64. So your support for gay kids is purely based on whether or not a country has oil?

[MADem]

68. No. I was asked a question and gave an answer.

The subject was Iran, NOT Saudi Arabia.

It's sheer ignorance to think that because these nations are "over there" (where it's hot, and they all pray with their butts in the air) that they are somehow interrelated.

Saudi Arabia is about as "like" Iran (both have oil) as Angola is like Russia (both have diamond mines). They aren't even in the same sphere. They don't speak the same language, they don't even share the same ethnic heritage. They have few if any cultural similarities. They don't wear the same clothes, watch the same TV, enjoy the same music, or even practice the same "brand" of Islam.

So why "lump" them? The answer has to do with (perhaps unwitting) bias in the question.

[Worship Money]

13. Yes

I hope people who are calling for friendship with the Iranian REGIME are advocating something that is against the will of the majority of actual Iranians.

We need a friendship with Iran the nation. But not with the totalitarian nightmare that is the Islamic Republic. There is NO future in that. None.

[MADem]

20. Iranian people are wonderful folks, by and large. They have a

long and rich history, a beautiful country with mountains, forests, deserts, and shore, and we shouldn't have any quarrel with them. The jerks who are holding them back with an iron fist, though--they need to go. I hope the people of Iran gather the will to toss every one of those fuckers out on their hateful, murdering asses. They should get the same treatment they've given to so many young people who have done nothing wrong save run afoul of nonsensical laws created by fearful cretins.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. Dialogue with the regime does not mean friendship with the regime.

Treating them like equal international players rather than thinking we have the right to spank them for being bad is NOT a radical idea.

But maybe we SHOULD bomb the crap out of them so those repressed majority of Iranians can greet us with flowers and kisses when we invade. Just like the Iraqis did.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. So lets nuke em to save em.

Haven't you learned a thing from 50 years of sanctions on Cuba? Sanctions HARDEN the target regime. Always have, always will.

If a country is already under heavy sanctions, they have nothing to gain by NOT cracking down on their dissidents.

Sanctions are only a prelude to war. And war is bad. Very unhealthy for everyone.

Where have you been the last 12 fucking years?

[MADem]

69. What orafice did you pull that conclusion from?

Nuke 'em? Really?

At least try to stay on the page--you make stuff up and get all dramatic to suit your need for confrontation.

Sanctions are only a prelude to war? In whose playbook?

Gee, we haven't nuked Cuba lately, now, have we?

Go bother someone else with your clumsily constructed "arguments."

[stevenleser]

73. The anti-Obama folks in this thread really love Red Herrings and Straw Man arguments

Actually, you can delete the "in this thread" part of my subject.

[MADem]

86. The absence of logic, or even basic reasoning skills, is pretty profound.

I think they intend it to be so. The goal is to raise a little hell. How unfortunate for them that their efforts reflect back on themselves, and poorly, too.

It's shit-stirring, plain and simple. Very unattractive, too--but sufficiently obvious to be used as an example to point to as a pattern in the future.

[krabigirl]

35. you really want yet another war? Sick...

[stevenleser]

37. I've read the person's post to whom you replied several times. They never said they wanted war nt

[MADem]

70. Learn to read--and stop with the FALSE ACCUSATIONS.

You shouldn't make up falsehoods about your fellow DUers. It makes you look like what you are.

[stevenleser]

75. I alerted on that post but apparently its ok to call someone sick but not to accurately describe

someones accusations as Red Herrings or Straw man arguments, hence my comments deleted downthread.

[MADem]

83. I don't understand intellectual dishonesty, particularly when it comes to the written word.

It's not like one can pretend one didn't say the stuff--it's right there!

I can only conclude that some folks are simply dull of comprehension, and don't realize what they're doing/saying. The only other alternative is that they're shit-stirring for the sake of trying to find meaning in an empty life by fighting over complete and total bullshit and falsehoods that they perpetrate themselves. It doesn't trouble me, too much. They're the ones who are to be pitied. Who'd want to live with that level of mental acuity and that barren an existence?

Some things, when it comes to some folks, cannot be fixed, I suppose!

[stevenleser]

87. I agree. When you use logical fallacies as the basis for your arguments, the entire discussion

becomes a silly waste of time.

[DallasNE]

11. Yesterday I Was Driving Down The Street

And came up behind a F150 pickup that was about 8-10 years old. It had Kansas plates. On the right side of the tailgate was a Confederate flag decal and on the left side was a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker. As I see it, you are judged by the company you keep. I don't keep company with people like this. While history does show us that the people are most hurt by the sanctions it also shows that turning the other cheek as Paul suggests doesn't get the desired results and in fact helps prop them up if anything. Case in point, Bush's reversal of policy regarding Gaddafi in Libya only helped to prop him up for a few more years.

[Harmony Blue]

15. The best approach is the hands off approach

Iran is not an enemy or a friend until they prove otherwise. This is one matter Obama should steer clear IMVHO. Toughest stance U.S. should take are sanctions as the French suggest.

[newfie11]

42. I agree

We need to stay out of this.

[whatchamacallit]

17. Forget it, he's a neocon

Iran is toast, and so are we...

[Inuca]

48. Obama is a neocon? Or Paul?

In either case, you should remember that using words indiscriminately make them lose their power and meaning.

[SidDithers]

53. Earn more sessions by sleeving...nt

Sid

[woo me with science]

18. "It's time for a new, fresh approach to foreign policy that focuses on diplomacy..."

I could not agree with you more.

However, it is all about the money. There is no way in hell that the PTB are going to willingly slow funding of the MIC. As documented in a post on GD (and predicted by many here), they are already discussing ways to protect Pentagon funding in the event that the trigger on the Super Theft Committee is activated.

IMO we need be extremely concerned that the banks and corporations (and their purchased politicians) have a war in mind as their trump card for preserving the Military Industrial Complex and dealing with the threat of Occupy Wall Street. It would not even have to be a war involving us initially. They may try to escalate tensions between Iran and Syria, or Iran and Israel. All they need is the threat of a major world conflict that could escalate into a world war, in order to justify even more funding of the MIC over human beings and to postpone any meaningful reform of Wall Street.

K&R for your post.

[Harmony Blue]

21. I am in favor of diplomacy as well

but Iran can not be considered a friend by any means currently.

[woo me with science]

24. I don't know that I would have chosen the word "friend," either...

but I think reaching out is critical. No way in hell that that will happen, though.

IMO Iran is in danger of being used here in the service of the MIC and the banks...and it is all about the money.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Any other "Republicans" he should follow? I thought that was a no-no around here.

:shrug:

[Cali_Democrat]

25. I said he should call for friendship with Iran.

Kucinich and others on the left have said similar things. Many on the left believe that a non confrontational approach is the best way forward. Are they all Republicans too?

[woo me with science]

26. It is VERY important never to copy a Republican.

Don't forget that Ron Paul also wants to bring all the troops home. Clearly that means Obama should keep them all there!

:rofl:

[Cali_Democrat]

27. It's clear that critical thinking is lacking in some cases on this board

Sad and not surprising. Wanting a non-confrontational approach to foreign policy, wanting to end the drone strikes and end interference in the middle east means you're voting Republican!

Oh lord. :rofl:

[stevenleser]

39. As are critical research skills to find out that Obama already tried what you are asking nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

61. God, I hope you have absolutely nothing to do with this country's foreign policy.

I don't even think, in your case, that it's naievete. I think it's just whatever Obama does, you're simply against it. There's a reason why Ron Paul, Kucinich, "and others on the left" are "unelectable", and Pres. Obama shouldn't take any lessons or advice from them when it comes to foreign policy. His foreign policy credentials have astounded even his critics.

Despite what polling might tell you, Americans will not turn the country over to a dove. They may not want their president starting pre-emptive wars, but they sure as hell don't want him to be timid when it comes to defense. By all accounts, Iran continues to be a nuclear threat. I think I'll take the State Dept's word over yours & Ron Paul's in this instance. ;)

[krabigirl]

36. johnson has similar ideas on foreign policy. Even huntsman I think is better on this issue.

[stevenleser]

40. Really? Did Johnson spend his entire first year offering concessions to the Vietnamese? nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

60. Then you guys should drop all pretense, and go with your hearts. Why keep posting here?

Johnson? You mean the Johnson that Glenn Greenwald is "taking a look at"? Ron Paul? Gary Johnson? Hmmmmmm......

[MADem]

71. So vote for Huntsman, then. Sure you're in the right place? nt

[dionysus]

77. this joint lately? you'll see everything....

:hi:

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. And then some. I think I'd prefer to see Ron Paul/Gary Johnson advocacy on a different board.

;)

[stevenleser]

82. Ahh, I see the mistake I made upthread. I thought that person meant Lyndon Johnson, not Gary Johnson

imagine that, me thinking that people would be advocating or discussing Democrats here, not Republicans with no path to the nomination.

:crazy:

[DevonRex]

84. Who the fuck is Gary Johnson anyway?

Some republican idiot?

[stevenleser]

85. Well, among those vying for the 'pug nomination, there's 1st tier, 2nd tier, third tier, and Johnson

If there is a resurgence of pneumonic plague, Johnson could have a shot.

[Tarheel_Dem]

88. You got it. He's anti-war & pro dope. But don't dig beneath that thin veneer, or

you'll get some huge surprises. He's not a racist like Ron Paul, but he's anti collective bargaining, and pro "free market" just like Paul. Who gives a shit if your house is washed away by Katrina? You're on your own. The banks screwed you out of your home? Let the market reach it's bottom, and then rich investors can swoop in and buy your house for a song, and rent it out. That's free market principles at play. You get the idea. ;)

[dionysus]

90. and where have you been, stranger?

:hi:

[stevenleser]

33. Obama actually did make some overtures in his first year.

Back in 2007, I wrote this article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_070206_democratic_president.htm that called for more peaceful overtures toward Iran and criticized the rhetoric of all (at the time) current Democratic Presidential candidates. It was reprinted in several Middle Eastern periodicals not the least of which was the Teheran Times: http://old.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=137072

In this article, I discuss how the Bush/Cheney administration rebuffed no less than two overtures that Iran made toward us. I think those were the final nail in the coffin of the relationship between our two countries. (I may write another article on that)

Obama has made several overtures toward Iran and these are talked about in these articles

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/world/middleeast/14diplo.html?scp=4&sq=iran&st=cse

http://stageorigin2.csmonitor.com/World/2009/0411/p06s01-wogn.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2009/0414/us-journalist-goes-on-trial-in-iran

I don't think the Iranians ever dealt with Obama or his overtures fairly, neither on Iran's nuclear problem, nor the other pressing problem the US has had with Iran. The problem is that Iran has all but openly opposed us in Iraq since that war started, and when Obama became POTUS and CINC, that became a problem for him. Iran refused to stop doing that and that ended any hope of detente between the two of us.

As I said, the opportunities for a rapproachment with Iran were missed during the Bush administration. Iran reached out to us twice and was rebuffed both times. I dont think anything can be recovered now. I am afraid we are heading for armed conflict.

[Enthusiast]

46. "I am afraid we are heading for armed conflict."

Well, I'm afraid I find that a completely unacceptable load of bullshit. Keep your fucking wars of profit.

[stevenleser]

49. Sorry ignored, cannot read your response to me.

Then again, I'm not sorry. People who are on my list usually aren't particularly logical with what they write.

[krabigirl]

34. I agree. It would kinda remind me of how Obama used to be. but noo, everyone just loves moar war!

[stevenleser]

38. Amazing how those critical of Obama here cant seem to do the research to see that he did in fact

make overtures to Iran for basically his entire first year in office. Iran did not reciprocate, if anything, they took advantage of those overtures and the President was roundly criticized by Republicans to boot.

[Oldenuff]

41. No offense,but

He isn't going to "make friends" with Iran.He has the Military machine to feed and the Oil companies to serve.If I'm not mistaken,the topic of Iran has been simmering for some time now.As long as Iran has oil,the Big Oil companies will be after it.The fact that the American people are paying for the war,then so much the better.There has to be a reason to start a "war"...and fear of nuclear bombs in crazy peoples hands is a great motivator.

Just hear the masses all say "save us from Iran" and nuclear holocaust at any cost!(especially if it includes giving up some more of our rights).

[stevenleser]

44. No offense but Obama spent his first year in office making overtures to Iran that were rebuffed nt

[harun]

43. He should but he won't.

[PragmaticLiberal]

47. Obama already did....but was rebuffed.

[harun]

51. I suppose he was "rebuffed" while trying to close Guantanamo Bay as well?

Funny how GW wasn't rebuffed for trying to go to WAR with a country that didn't even attack us, yet somehow he found a way.

[ProSense]

55. It's

"I suppose he was "rebuffed" while trying to close Guantanamo Bay as well?"

...funny to watch people jumping on a RW lunatic's bandwagon to make their point about something completely unrelated. Goes to show that this really isn't about anything other than an opportunity to take a potshot at the President, even if it means hyping crazy!

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

76. If that is what that person posted, it is a complete Red Herring and they should be ashamed. nt

[harun]

80. Do you think you are in a college writing class or in a discussion at DU?

Because I am beginning to think some of you are stuck in class.

Straw man,
Red herring,
Slippery slope,
Hyperbole...

Stop trying to prove something and discuss the real issue.

[stevenleser]

81. Sorry, ignored, can't read your response, or should I say 'latest red herring?" nt

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pisces]

58. I think Obama would be wise not to take advice from you.

[great white snark]

62. It's not even intended to be advice.

[MADem]

72. .....

Oh my!

How crude!

And how CLEVER!

:thumbsup:

You called it!

[great white snark]

89. ..

Since one has his or her neck in the trap, could the proper term be rodential autoerotic asphyxiation?

[MADem]

91. Yikes!

Poor bastards spending too much time around that dead Kung Fu guy....

[AtomicKitten]

67. Oh my, this is 'The Onion' material.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ3yZjb_O-M

[stevenleser]

74. Neither the OP nor any of the anti-Obama folks in this thread can address the fact that Obama

already made overtures toward Iran for a period that spanned an entire year in his first Presidency and was rebuffed.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.