I participate in other political discussion forums. One in particular is replete with venom-spewers. Sometimes one of the reasonable people will get fed up with a "snake" and ask that he be banned. I am quick to oppose that suggestion. "All opinions must be heard" I argue. You must hear your opponent's perspective and understand it, whether you agree with it or not. It does little good to surround yourself with comfortable cronies (we do that here to a large extent). We have to know who the loons are, and what they are thinking, in order to have a reasonable appraisal of their position. How do you fight a position you know nothing about?

I am probably going to get ridiculed by Libertarians, but I think we never should've let him into the country.
I have read that at least one of the hostages from 1979 recognized him as one of those responsible.
He should've been arrested instead of listened to.
He is our ENEMY, why don't you understand that?
You should never allow your enemy to roam freely on your own soil.

Andrew, I'd have to agree with you on this; ol' Mahmoud was spoofing himself at his trip to Colombia University. I think that the enviromentalists, leftists, conspiracy theorists, right-wingers, etc. should read this and learn that all opinions are essential to debate.

Dave, I also have to agree that this man is dangerous and that the Iranians should boot him and all of his toadies out as soon as possible.

All of this is being caused by the Military Industrial Complex- they are doing anything to divert the public's attention from the upcoming monetary crisis. immigration is the other major disinformation issue used.

These wars, executed by unconstitutional means, make our troops pawns of a regime determined to abuse fear of terrorism to grab as much power for the Executive Branch as possible as prelude to an American Corporate Fascism.

Please note, Republicrats, etcetercrats, the fraudulent nature of 'the media'..for example we'll hear HOURS AND HOURS about what Rush stinking Limbaugh, Bill stinking O'Rielly, etc. stinking Republicrat mouth organs think about 'A-jad' and his visit..they'll near-constantly play little 5 second soundbites translated by another stinking Republicrat organ and then ridicule 'A-jad' and hand-wring about 'war with Iran' for HOURS UPON HOURS..

..WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more time is alloted the stinking Republicrat "cheerleaders and announcers" than to actually air the whole interview by the 'player,' 'A-jad,' himself!..

What a stinking fraud!

..But, after all, what else can we expect from your? stinking Republicrats?

Look at 'our own' election "debates/competitions" here in America!..where the stinking announcers and cheerleaders are front and center in 'the media coverage' whilst the actual players/candidates are much secondary to the phony, stinking, Republicrat event!

For example, it seems Ron Paul, an actual player/competitor, gets 5 stinking minutes on air for every thousand on-air hours of stinking Republicrat announcers/cheerleaders berating him, lying about him, mischaracterizing him, etc.!

GET TO THE ROOTS, REPUBLICRATS!..Political reportage in America is a stinking fraud! Virtually all of it!..

It seems those of you with ANY faith in ANY of this Republicrattery affirm PT Barnum: 'There's a (Republicrat) born every minute!'.. >;o)

Clark, your presentation is unique, but your point is well taken. I agree whole heartedly. This is nothing new though. I remember as an 7-year-old boy my grandfather said EXACTLY the same thing about the Nixon-McGovern debate in 72. "We listen to the candidates for half an hour, then we listen to the reporters for an hour telling us what the candidates just said. Then we listen to more news opinionists for 2 hours debating how accurate the first reporters had to say."

I learned a lot from Grandpa; if he were alive today I'm sure he would be a Libertarian.

What did A-Jad really mean when he said that there were no gays in Iran?

1. "I have read that at least one of the hostages from 1979 recognized him as one of those responsible." Ask any policeman, they'll tell you that if you have 50 eyewitnesses, you'll have AT LEAST 30 *different* accounts of an event.

2. Was he 'allowed to roam freely'? Somehow I doubt it. While his movements may not have been interfered with, I bet he had an escort, and I bet the gov't knew down to within 10 feet where he was at any time.

3. "Know your enemy." - Douglas MacArthur

Sam

Dave,
Not ridicule, but...
A few victims thought he was involved in the hostage crisis, but the CIA experts said that it wasn't him based on a photo of the guy involved in the hostage crisis.

He's not really an enemy, is he? I wouldn't call him a friend either, but shouldn't we as a country try to warm up to other countries? Especially a country that is poised to become much more powerful figure in the mideast region.

I doubt Iran would ever be real close friends, but I'd rather be uneasy friends that certain enemies. We need to stop radicalizing everyone (or further radicalizing radicals ;)

" The second was a trip to Ground Zero to "pay respect" to those lives lost in the 9/11 terror attacks."

It occurs to me that "those who lost their lives" that he wanted to "pay respect" to may have been the hijackers.

I've got a copy of the picture of A-Jad with the hostages back in '79, he was one of the hostage takers.

We have the open society, they do not. We *Know* what he says over there. We know what they reported over there. We know what they left out for their public to know.

We didn't need him here to learn. They needed him here so they could write the "news" they did over there, spun, twisted, and propagandized.

He got what he wanted out of this trip and we got the short stick thanks to that Uni.

If he would have been able to visit ground zero... I'm sorry, the Crescent that faces Mecca, and say his prayers there it would have been Invaluable propaganda for him.

We know his opinions. They don't have the phenomena of homosexuality (they die) and the Iranians will never know the question was even asked far as I can tell.

It was a mistake by Columbia to invite A-jad to speak. First, we have no more to learn from him speaking here than him speaking in Iran. Second, he comes off looking even better to his own people because he came to the heart of the Great Satan and attempted to enlighten us. Instead, all he got was ridicule. We came off looking like a jerk. A-jad was right when he said Columbia had no manners. I am not a fan of A-jad by any stretch of the imagination, but you don't invite someone to your house and then proceed to tear them apart. That is just poor taste.

I'm sure even a few Republicrats have at least thought a little about 'the translator' from whom they 'know' what they 'know'..

..Republicrats, please share with me what you 'know' about ?Farsi..the ?Farsi-English translator, etc..

If, as I suspect, you 'know' very little to nothing here, well, at least we have assessed the value of your opinions here!.. >;o)

(hint: It seems most Republicrats are ignorant of even the English in, for example, their 'own' US Constitution!..So buffaloing these nitwits as to ?Farsi ought to be easy!) >;o)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/12/cia.iranpresident/index.html

I think this holds a little more water than "I've got a copy of the picture of A-Jad with the hostages back in '79, he was one of the hostage takers."

If he was a participant, don't you think the Bush administration would capitalize on it like nobody's business?

Thanks for the link, it reinforces my position.

No, I don't think Bush would necessarily capitalize on it. He has different info and may have good reason not to, from his perspective.

Clark, good to know you've never read a translated book And you're fluent in Farsi. What other languages do you mindlessly mouth-fart in?

My understanding is that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad original intentions was to "pay respect to the 9/11 victims at the world trade center, and to offer what he believed was the underlying reasons for the attack".

Personally, I'm glad he never got the opportunity to visit the site.

THOMAS PAINE WROTE: "The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language, which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of wilful alteration, are of themselves evidences that human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of [truth]"

It's been my experience that MANY Republicans and Democrats, 'Independents' and even some faux "Libertarians" (Republicrats all) have been deluded as to "Iran"..in many ways..

One is the stinking Republicrat notion that, "We're going to have to go to war with Iran." Promulgated by many a god-damned Republicrat fool..

..As I try to explain to the god-damned Republicrat fools who mindlessly parrot this crap,...WE ARE ALREADY "AT WAR" WITH "IRAN"..

If some of you Republicrat dopes have a hard time with this claim I offer as evidence that:..

"YOUR" MILITARY HAS APPARENTLY ASSEMBLED DEADLY FIREPOWER REAL CLOSE TO THEIR SHORES..AND IS ACTING AGGRESSIVELY AS WOULD SOME STINKING HIGH SCHOOL BULLY WALKING DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE HALLWAY FACILITATING THE INEVITABLE 'CONTACT' WHEREBY THE STINKING BULLY MIGHT "RETALIATE"...(ask yourselves, Republicrat dummies, were 'they' doing this to 'us' would that be an 'act of war?!')

CELUMNAZ SPUTTERED: "Clark, good to know you've never read a translated book And you're fluent in Farsi." (END)

Please provide evidence to support these asinine claims!..

Look Republicrats, it's not CLARK making any claims about 'Iran'..or 'A-jad'..It seems to me it's you miserable, brainwashed, Republicrat weasel skinners doing so!..

SO it would appear it's YOUR responsibility to prove YOUR stinking Republicrat warmongering claims.. (i know, i know, you saw it all on teevee, right?)

And you ought to be thorough,..as in case some Republicrat dopes haven't figured out yet: WAR IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.. (good bu$ine$$ too!)

OFF TOPIC

Hillary, the Geolibertarian candidate?

Hillary must have read Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" essay, proposing that every baby born gets a $5000 bond so that they can buy a 40 acres and a mule or pay in-state college tuition for 2 years.

JEEPNDESERT: "Hillary must have read Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" essay, proposing that every baby born gets a $5000 bond so that they can buy a 40 acres and a mule or pay in-state college tuition for 2 years." (end)

Ah, the subject of 'money' is never far off topic..

..I believe I can honestly say, as one of relatively VERY few people who has ever done any honest inquiry into 'monetary realism'..'paine's way' of 'money issuance' is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more just/harmonious than the way it's done now..

But of course most/all Republicrats are worse than merely ignorant as to the way 'it's done now'..so this $ubject is worse than lost on the hordes of Republicrat fools!.. >;o)

"What did A-Jad really mean when he said that there were no gays in Iran?"

I suppose he meant that they have killed all of them.

"...(ask yourselves, Republicrat dummies, were 'they' doing this to 'us' would that be an 'act of war?!'

I think if someone was doing this to us and I had been under a dictator like Saddam Hussein I'd be happy about it and join the people who were trying to help me.

Does anyone here ever offer suggestions as to what should be done and follow up with insight as to the after effects of their recommendations or is there just hindsight critisim?

Clark.. I am an independent thinker.. I belong to no organized party or religion.

Jerry

JERRY WROTE: "I think if someone was doing this to us and I had been under a dictator like Saddam Hussein I'd be happy about it and join the people who were trying to help me." (END)

What if 'a dictator like Saddam Hussein' had worked hand-in-hand with 'the (FOREIGN and very stoooooopid/criminal Republicrat) people who were trying to help' you? Would you then 'be happy about it and join' the Republicrat people who, btw, appear more interested in Dancing With the Stars, Big Brother 59, Nascar, etc. foolery galore, than 'the Iraqi people?'

THINK ABOUT IT! THERE COMES A TIME WHEN ALL CREDIBILITY IS LOST!

(hint for Republicrats, etc. miserable, warmongering fools: ..imagine how you would feel were you a member of the ?Goldman family and OJ was constantly in your face claiming, "I want to help you" as he killed even more of your family!)

..some common sense..

http://www.antiwar.com/reese/

September 29, 2007
US Politicians, Not Ahmadinejad, Have Blood on Their Hands

by Charley Reese
Ernest Hemingway explained the problem many years ago. The first thing politicians do to hide their mismanagement, he said, is inflate the currency; the second thing they do is go to war.

Our currency has been inflated and we are at war. The demonization of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which you saw take place in New York City and on American television, is just the first step in preparing the country for a third war.

The president of Columbia, Lee Bollinger, disgraced himself. Instead of introducing his invited guest speaker, he launched a tirade of abuse and insults. Obviously, he was in hot water with some of Columbia's big donors for inviting Ahmadinejad and chose that petty, shabby way of trying to ingratiate himself to the school's angry sugar daddies. All Bollinger succeeded in doing was making Ahmadinejad look good in comparison with him.

Whether you agree with Iran's president or not, he's the wrong guy to try to demonize. First of all, he is not a dictator. He is an elected president with very little power. He has to get past the legislature, and the real power rests with the senior cleric, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Khamenei controls foreign policy and is commander in chief of all of Iran's armed forces. The legislature rejected nearly all of Ahmadinejad's recommendations for ministers. When he tried to allow women to attend soccer games, the clerics overruled him.

The claims that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust and has called for the destruction of Israel are false. He has called for regime change, which is something American politicians do every time they find a country whose policies they disagree with. Regime change is a change of government, not genocide. As for the Holocaust, he said it raised two questions: Why put people in prison who question details of the official version, which is what several European countries do. Why should the Palestinians be made to pay for it? Both are good questions.

How American politicians can call Iran a dangerous country and claim that it poses a threat to the U.S. is a mystery. On second thought, it is not a mystery. It just tells you that the politicians think you and I are so stupid that we will fall for the exact same parade of lies and exaggerations that was used to justify the war against Iraq.

Think for yourself. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its military is designed for defense. It has no offensive capability – no air force, no navy to speak of. Israel, on the other hand, is usually ranked as the fifth most powerful military state on the planet. It has more than 200 nuclear weapons and a superb air force.

Iran has said it has no desire to attack Israel or any other country. It has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and that it has no desire for a nuclear weapon. The head cleric has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. And there is not one shred of evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Just remember the lies told to you before Iraq: that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear weapon; that he had enormous stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. The only thing he really had was oil. That's why we went to war, and that's why the administration wants to go to war with Iran.

I've heard some politicians say that Ahmadinejad has "blood on his hands." Well, our $40 billion worth of intelligence cannot even determine if he was involved in the taking of the American embassy back in 1979. As for blood, American politicians have far more Iranian blood on their hands. We overthrew Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and his secret police. We sided with and assisted Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran. Tens of thousands of Iranians are dead because of America's foreign policy.

We truly have a corrupt and incompetent government in Washington.

"Claims" which are "Republicratic" goofiness.
I doubt ne uv u sew called Librarians kan even tell me watt a "dollar" i$!!! >:)
$oupy $heep collect $ea $hells in ex-"change" four federal re$erve token$.
Watt am I talking about? I have know clue but, I sure are clever and nobody EVER getz tyred uv me!

Actually Farc, most of us are tired of Clark. But I have pretty much decided he just feeds off of the responses he gets for being such an ass and uses them to pump up his own ego and sense of superiority. He lives in his own little world.

But he does provide a little amusement for us from time to time.

And I am sure I can look forward to his response to this, since I am just an ignorant Republicrat.

Yep, FARC. There's at least one on every board. We got Clark. Guess it could have been worse.

RE: Complaints about 'Clark'
-FARC at October 1, 2007 10:34 AM
-Matt at October 1, 2007 01:06 PM
-James R. at October 1, 2007 01:39 PM

I sure wish the LP would switch to a blog format like the one used by Ron Paul

http://blog.ronpaul2008.com/

advantages:
1) the comments are subject to being rated (Digg)
2) the 'censorship' is done by the public
3) the 'censorship' can be reviewed by an individual

As it is right now, Andrew Davis puts his credibility on the line each time he publishes a blog entry, but 'Clark' rides for free.

A very good read is W. Patrick Lang's post
on his blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis:
September 27, 2007: What Ahmadinajad said at Columbia
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/09/what-ahmadinaja.html

Who is W. Patrick Lang, and why should his analysis matter? Colonel W. Patrick Lang (Ret-USArmy) is a former Special Forces and Military Intelligence officer. He is a highly decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, and other conflicts. Lang was educated by the Army as a Mid East Specialist, and was West Point's first Professor of the Arabic Language. His DIA service included being Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism, and first Director of the Defense Humint Service.

After 911, the Bush Administration should have gone to individuals like W. Patrick Lang, but instead many NeoCons implied that his background made his point of view suspect, and attempted to paint the term "Arabist" as a derogation.

Any critiques of Ahmadinejad's statement about gays, should be contrasted with the May 3, 2007 statement of Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN), who speaking as chairman for the House Republican Conservative Caucus, the Republican Study Group, framed his opposition to the latest hate-crimes legislation, as being a violation of the 1st Amendment's Religious establishment clause because it added to the list of hate crimes, violent acts in which the victim was chosen solely for sexual orientation or gender identity. That legislation is H.R. 1592: The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

I am not fond of hate-crimes legislation, but that is because it tends to doubly criminalize one action. For the same reason, I believe that placing environmental radicals' acts of property damage in the class of "terroristic" is wrong, and feel that RICO statutes offer great incentives for state prosecutorial abuse.

This is hardly a violation of the establishment clause though, because religious affiliation does not immunize a person from criminal actions, and that includes conspiracy.

The claim also provides bright illumination into The Faith of Our Conservatives, as well as being an indicator that their claims of adherence to Christianity is a lie. Think I am wrong? Explain Matthew 7:1-6 to me then, and while you're at it; Romans 12:17-21 too.

Pence's statement was also surprising in that he cited Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" phrase found in his letter to the Danbury Baptists as if it were true original intent. I heartily agree, but this is a brand new assertion for Contemporary Conservatives.

Pence's May 3, 2007 statement on the House Floor can be read in the Congressional Daily Record. A direct link to a Government Printing Office text file of it is available here:
http://tinyurl.com/2ls6cp

Isn't A-Jad waiting for the 12th Imamn to come out of the well and rule the earth, once a holocaust has occurred? Doesn't he see it as his duty to promulgate such a holocaust in order for the mythical Mahdi Army to reappear and rule the earth and establish Sharia Law? (or something close to that). In any case, maybe we should have shot his plane down over the Atlantic Ocean?

"Had he been willing to live a hypocrite, he would have been respectable, he at least could have died surrounded by other hypocrites, and at his death there would have been an imposing funeral, with miles of carriages, filled with hypocrites, and above his hypocritical dust there would have been a hypocritical monument covered with lies."
-- (Robert Green Ingersoll on Thomas Paine, in "Our Infidels")

Btw, it appears some whine-snot Republicrats aren't happy with their MANY stinking "Freeping" websites where they all get together and parrot what they heard on their favorite Republicrat teevee shows!.. >;o)

TIM CROWLEY WROTE: "Doesn't he see it as his duty to promulgate such a holocaust in order for the mythical Mahdi Army to reappear and rule the earth and establish Sharia Law?"

That reminds me, are any Republicrats here familiar with "Christian End Times philosophy?"

Perhaps before Republicrats hand-wring about religious nuts/gd fools running other countries they might concern themselves with their own home-grown 'religious' gd Republicrat fools! >;o)

Clark barfed: "That reminds me, are any Republicrats here familiar with "Christian End Times philosophy?"

Ooga booga, Clark, ooga booga.

The more I read Clark's postings, the more I don't mind. I'm sure we are all reacting to his overuse of "Republicrat fools" but is that any worse than our compliant/sterile sentence structure? His thoughts are that of due consideration, even if some of us don't arrive at the same conclusion.

Oh, and pssst...
the emperor has no clothes!

Re-reading my post, I see it is not as clear as I intended.

The last comment about the emperor's lack of clothes was supposed to imply that it takes a nutcase to expose the most obvious authoritarian bumble. Clark wonderfully fills that role.

Almost seems he's a chronic habitual polemicist. 1st impression was he was a Democrat operative sent to scare honest people away from the Libertarian Party.

Is there a Libertarian Forum somewhere we can discuss Ideas and Actions or is this the only place online to have discussions in this direction?

This is awesome and all, but there's alot of topics out there I'd love to hear more Libertarian views on as things happen.

I find it amusing when Republicrats, etcetercrats, hiss and sputter at CLARK, (apparently because of CLARK'S style..because even the most deluded Republicrat will have to admit CLARK has HOSED them as to SUBSTANCE..particularly with regard to their mo$t de$ired of thing$..but I digress..or do I?)

..when the hyperbole I use is certainly no more 'boorish' than that of their favorite stinking Republicrat radio 'polemicists!'..while CLARK'S ideas are--as even you might discern were CLARK and your favorite Republicrat to honestly engage in debate--infinitely better, more consistent, more reasonable, etc..

(For better or worse we here at 'The CLARK Institute of Monetary Reality' have discerned that 'Boorishness works'..as it appears undeniable many people listen to and enjoy loud, boorish, stinking, Rush Limbaugh-style, huckish, stoooooooopid, etc. 'politics'..

...so we here at TCIOMR are apparently just giving Republicrats what they want as to style!..)

Btw, COACH JIM, thanks for the readership!..I believe you'll find I truly am the hardest nutcase Republicrats will never crack!

..believe it or not, if there were some truly open, honest 'competition of ideas about government' there might be lots of Republicrat in CLARK'S teeth!.. >;o)

Clark,
If you posted coherently, you may not catch so much flak. Also, referring to yourself in the third person makes Clark seem like a collossal douche. ROFFLE$

Michael:
anyone who is the leader of a country or religion that chants "Death to America" IS OUR ENEMY.
Get it through your thick skull.
Islam is our enemy.

Dave,
Not all Muslims hate America. In fact, it might amaze you that Muslims happen to live in the U.S.
Just as whack jobs like Pat Robertson can distort religion to their own purpose in the name Christianity, others can do in the name of other religions.

With such an ignorant sweeping generalization such as "Islam is our enemy", I think it is you who has the thick skull and are probably short a few brain cells.

RE: chanting ...Post by: Dave J .. 12:34 PM

"...that chants "Death to America" IS OUR ENEMY.
..thick skull ...Islam is our enemy."

I do not get into a 'tizzy' when people chant.
I do not choose my enemies by their religion.
My skull is thick, I plan to keep it that way.

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/09/depravity-of-empire.html

"...I will comment further on the Senate's actions in a moment, but I first want to consider a broader issue. One of the more viciously dishonest aspects of empire and colonialism is this: after interfering with and attempting to impose their will on numerous countries for decade after decade, colonial powers will occasionally withdraw, at least to some extent. The withdrawal is never complete, for the interference continues via economic and trade policy -- by the use, for example, of punitive sanctions which do nothing to dislodge disfavored regimes but cause untold hardship for the general populace, and which almost inevitably lead to further war, as we saw with Iraq and are now seeing again with Iran, and by various other methods. The endless years of occupation had prevented the victimized countries from developing in their own manner and on their own schedule -- but after they withdraw, and if the exploited nations do not immediately reshape themselves into what the colonial powers consider to be a "civilized" country, those powers condemn the same nations they had earlier destroyed.

Thus, we have the repellent Hillary Clinton saying it's the Iraqis' fault that they didn't avail themselves of the wonderful opportunity we provided to them. The same line is peddled by many other Democrats, and by Republicans as well. To describe this perspective as monstrously and brutally immoral and inhumane does not begin to capture its hideousness. The West has pursued this general pattern in Southeast Asia, in most of Africa and, of course, in the Middle East. As the earlier post discussed, an especially primitive and unforgivable racism is a necessary part of the dynamic involved, and this racism is an inextricable part of the American national myth.

I realize that most Americans' conception of history extends, at best, to the Vietnam war or, if we are contemplating once again the Eternal Virtue and Axiomatic Nobility of America the Great, World War II -- which, as Allesandra Stanley notes about Ken Burns' latest exercise in myth-building, was apparently all about us. (Since I don't have television, I'm not watching the Burns series, so I have no opinion about it myself. But narcissism of this kind is endemic to mainstream American culture; for a very different view of World War II and what we failed to learn from it, see "Let Us All Become Cowards.") Nonetheless, I will ask you to travel farther back in time, to the aftermath of World War I. Since the Senate has now endorsed restructuring the Middle East by means of brutal violence still another time -- which violence is, of course, to be directed by the United States -- we should try to appreciate how long the Western powers have been engaged in this deadly exercise. The following is from David Fromkin's book, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (also excerpted in my essay, "Narcissism and Paternalism as Foreign Policy"):
As you will see when you read the book, Middle Eastern personalities, circumstances, and political cultures do not figure a great deal in the narrative that follows, except when I suggest the outlines and dimensions of what European politicians were ignoring when they made their decisions. This is a book about the decision-making process, and in the 1914-22 period, Europeans and Americans were the only ones seated around the table when the decisions were made.

It was an era in which Middle Eastern countries and frontiers were fabricated in Europe. Iraq and what we now call Jordan, for example, were British inventions, lines drawn on an empty map by British politicians after the First World War; while the boundaries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq were established by a British civil servant in 1922, and the frontiers between Moslems and Christians were drawn by France in Syria-Lebanon and by Russia on the borders of Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan..." (End)

I recently had a conversation at the local watering hole with the resident Republicrat goof..You may be familiar with his type: He claims to be 'libertarian on some things'..But he's truly a fathead of a Republican cheerleader..a knee-jerk defender of the baboon Bush and this cretinous, murderous, phony, 'War on Terror'..he constantly bitches about 'taxes' etc. as he drinks his federal reserve token$ he acquires from government-school contracting..

A real pain at times..He dominates the teevee, pesters the waitresses, and has taken to 'fist-touching' in the manner of 'Deal or No Deal's Howie Mandell..near-always working his nacho chute!

But other than that, he doesn't appear to be a bad guy..Just a normal, regular Republican..

I've tried to talk 'politics' with him but..well..'thick as a brick' doesn't do him justice..

Any ideas on how to get through to these poor Republicrat anal sphincters?

PS Dave J, you may want to take your Republicrat brainwash over to 'Free Republic' where many stooooooopid Republicants might make you feel right at home!.. >;0)

Geez Clark, that is by far the most coherent thing I have seen you write. Impressive and well said.

Hey Clark,

Why is it that no matter what is said.. your comments always seem to only express your hatred for America. I think your writings cheat on the truth. I disagree with almost everything our federal government does but I don't hate America. Every country on this planet has bad things about it. If you made a list of the good things and the bad things that each country does.. America would come out pretty good. I'd like to see you (just once) write an article as though you lived in Iran and were writing about the things your country was doing that you disagreed with.

JERRY LIMBAUGHED: "Why is it that no matter what is said.. your comments always seem to only express your hatred for America."

Actually JERRY, I am very, very fond of America...American people..American hills, rivers, lakes...etc..

You, apparently like many brainwashed Republicrat richardheads, have confused 'the promise and beauty of America' with its stinking, and I mean STINKING, REPUBLICRAT POLITICAL CLASS, etceterats..who appear to me as mostly assorted gd puppets, ignoramusses, crooks, etc.. >;o)

Perhaps I could be a bit more direct.

Clark, you DO have a habit of saying things in such a way that most people can't/don't understand them. We are lost in your "style." When you DO post concisely, I tend to see your point, but I have to agree with the others here in that 3/4 times I CAN'T follow you (though I may still be amused by it).

For a time, I actually thought your posting was machine-generated.

The best point I think you have made is how banks "create" money just by using a computer to add numbers to a particular account. I'm waiting to hear what you have to say about Greenspan's replacement, whenever it officially happens.

Oh, and Andrew - it's been 10 days since the last topic. We're starving here, THROW US SOMETHING.

I love the style people on this board use for quotes.
I.E. Michael Sputtered, Barfed, Limbaughed, etc.
Everyone at work is wondering what I'm laughing at. I think Barfed is my favorite so far.
And yes, a new topic would be nice.

I have to agree with the Coach. Clark, you likely have good points or observations, but your style of communication makes it very difficult to comprehend what you're trying to say.

RE: style
post -Michael at October 5, 09:38 AM
"I love the style people on this board use for quotes."

I like the 'Digg' style format for blog comments.

I started using it for this LP comment section.

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Coming_to_America_8

I don't think 'Clark' will be getting a lot of positive Diggs with all those insults. Who knows?

With regards to communication style, I recommend studying the style of communication perfected by Harry Browne. Mr. Browne could present the uncompromising truth respectfully and persuasively. I dream of being able to match his communicative skill.

Mr. J writes, "You should never allow your enemy to roam freely on your own soil."

Ah, but I do not own any soil, Mr. J, and therefore cannot possibly disallow my enemy/-ies from roaming on my soil. If I owned soil, then it would be possible, and well within my right, to disallow my enemy/-ies from roaming on it. Either way, I have no right to prevent my neighbour(s) from allowing whomever he/she/they wish(es) to roam on his/her/their soil. For me to impose such arbitrary control on whom may or may not roam on the soil of my neighbour(s) would be theft, the unjust appropriation of my neighbour's/-s' soil to myself.

Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak

It's been 2 weeks.

Do we need a new blog-meister?

I interpreted what Ahmadinejad said as him trying to say that while homosexuality exists in Iran, it isn't as wide-open in his country as it is in the United States. Not surprisingly, the media twisted his words.

Keep in mind:
Ahmadinejad said once, "The regime currently occupying Jerusalem should be wiped from the pages of time". The media then twisted his words and made it seem like he said that he wanted Israel wiped from the face of the earth.

Also, this is the same media that tried to twist Ron Paul's words by claiming he stated that the U.S. deserved to be attacked on 9-11. What Ron Paul really said was that our foreign policy of meddling in the Mid-East resulted in the blowback attacks that occurred in the U.S. on 9-11.

Maybe we shouldn't have meddled in the affairs of Japan after WW2. Maybe they'd be better off if they still worshiped Hirohito with heads bowed. I believe we acted honorable to Japan.

Iraq is a mess but it was an honorable attempt to help an oppressed people at first. It was an attempt to help start some freedom in an area of religious fanaticism.

Maybe we should put in a foot washing station for "Clark"?

I agree with Stan.

I also agree with Stan. I must say, the name calling shows a weakness within ones intellect to any subject. A forum of ideas is what makes positive change possible. The partisan bickering tactics that are used to get the 15 second sound bite are very negative. The media has promoted this technique for ratings and advertising dollars much to the destruction of a good sound dialogue. I applaud all who have the courage to stand up and be heard. It would be wise to consider how the receiver of the communication will interpret the information before you send your communication. I hope everyone can understand what I am saying.
Was I concise?

Is Clark actually Ramsey Clark?

At the next National LP Convention, will there be time set aside for Islamic Prayer? Surely we should discuss this important issue. It will give us something constructive to do between now and the day when a dirty bomb is set off in one of our major cities. At that time, the authorities will tell us that there is nothing to worry about and that we should all face eastward and pray, as a gesture of respect for our Moslem brothers. I can hardly wait.