Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Palin on Ahmadinejad

The New York Sun runs the text of a speech Sarah Palin was scheduled to deliver today at a rally against Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s scheduled appearance tomorrow in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza. Unfortunately, her invitation to speak was deemed too "partisan" by some of the rally organizers and so it was rescinded. Of course, rally organizers are certainly free to invite and dis-invite whom they will and they are free to do as they think fit in order to advance their cause . . . but it is still a strange and ironic thing that the likes of Ahmadinejad will be permitted to speak on a spot where a Vice Presidential candidate was not.

Discussions - 9 Comments

I know you guys are going to flip out when I say this, but *gasp* Iran's not really that big of a deal. Give me a break. Could the Republicans use fear-mongering anymore? I mean, seriously. So Iran wants nukes. Oh no. We've got nukes. And we've actually used them. But the world isn't condemning us (I wonder if that's because we've got so much cash).



She talks for a bit about how oppressive the Iranian government is toward women. This is true. But many other countries are much more oppressive (anyone ever heard of Female Genital Mutilation?). Why doesn't she talk about those? Oh, that's right - it's not politically advantageous to her. At least women can VOTE in Iran. That's not allowed in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or the Vatican. But we can't criticize those places because they control our oil and our Jesus.



You guys are so bent on Palin being this great woman of integrity, honor, and blah blah blah. She's just another politician who picks what she says to get the most votes and forgets about the crap she doesn't need (regardless of how much WORSE it might be than, say, the oppressive Iranian regime).

Could the Republicans use fear-mongering anymore?

This, from the party which describes Palin as "the Taliban" and tells seniors that the Rethuglicans will take away their social security checks!

Those are the wack jobs - not the candidates running on the party's platform. Big difference.

No, the whack jobs are the Democrats running on the party platform, and spokespeople for the party in the media. We're not talking about some anonymous internet blog commenters here.


If I stuck with blog commenters I might mention certain people who act as if the Vatican is as big a threat as Iran. What's with that?


IIRC, the Soviet Union had elections too, after a fashion. I suppose that explains the lefts love affair with communism.

That's not allowed in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, or the Vatican. But we can't criticize those places because they control our oil and our Jesus.

Maybe you know some left wing people from an alternate universe because the ones in this universe won't shut up about their dislike for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the Vatican.

Not too long ago (pre-2000) they could not shut up about their dislike for Saddam Hussein, whom they regarded as an "American puppet". This was before he became a symbol to them as a heroic leader of an indigenous people bravely resisting the American hegemon.

certain people who act as if the Vatican is as big a threat as Iran. What's with that?



Oh, is that what I did? Or are you just taking what I said out of context? I thought I said that women couldn't vote in Vatican City and that they could in Iran. In that sense, Iran is a bit more progressive than the Vatican. Not true?



For your comment 5 - once again, John, you are not taking my words in context. I was clearly critiquing Palin's speech and how she only uses examples she finds politically advantageous.



I'd love to waste more time here with you. It's so special. But I need to go bow down to my liberal altar to Osama bin Laden. He's all we have left now that our Lord and Christ Hussein is gone. Praise Gee-sauce.

Or are you just taking what I said out of context?

Hey, I'm just talking to you in your own idiom. You people seem to think that taking stuff out of context is the norm. I want you to feel at home, is all.

In that sense, Iran is a bit more progressive than the Vatican. Not true?

Sure. Iran is more "progressive", in the sense of being a brutal tyranny, which is after all what "progressive" means. Iran is the sort of place where women get put to death for not wearing a headscarf. Yeah, "progressive" is the right word for it. But the important thing is for you to sneer at the Vatican, right? Those stupid Christianists!


I was clearly critiquing Palin's speech and how she only uses examples she finds politically advantageous.


I understood what you were doing. You were suggesting that Palin should pretend, as "progressives" do, that Iran is something other than what it is. And that she should have spared some critical remarks for those places that are the lefts shit-list. Like the Vatican.

It goes without saying that that list does not and never will contain the really bad places on Earth.

I need to go bow down to my liberal altar to Osama bin Laden.

What did Micheal Moore call him? The George Washington of his people?

The speech is an appeal to moderate jewish swing voters, albeit not the ones who live in NYC, since NY is hopeless of repubs. But it is an appeal built on solid moral principles, and it contains a PROMISE: "Never again will we risk another Holocaust. And this is not a wish, a request, or a plea to Israel's enemies. This is a promise..." Good for McCain to make such a promise. Translation: no Iranian nukes, not one, and we WILL go to war to make sure it is so, even if we are not sure. Will Obama second such a promise?

Matt has his head in the sand big-time. The only possible relevance the Vatican has here is the observation that it could be destroyed with one tactical nuke.

We should also be talking about the Pakistani nukes...a time may regrettably come, and soon, when we have to swallow the denunication that will follow and do what we can to take those out. Yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am intolerant: nukes in the hands of Hindu nationalists are perhaps tolerable, but we have little evidence that they can be in the hands of largely Islamic nations.

We WILL go to war to prevent war, even if we are not sure that the other party is going to war. Just the slightest possibility of the war taking place means that it has already taken place. In your head, in your head, you're still fighting, zombie, zombie.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field
 

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://nlt.ashbrook.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/12921