Weekend Open Thread

Iran and nukes

Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 12:12pm.

So what's the take on Iran finally being exposed(the worst secret in the world, really) for working on making nuclear weapons?(I should note that when the news first broke out about Iran getting the centrifuges and claiming it was for peaceful reasons, many of us on here KNEW without a doubt it was to pursue weapons and we were right all along)

Anyone who understands Islam knows that Ahmadinnerjacket talks about peaceful use of nuclear energy just like the Koran would have him say it.  After all, as long as there are infidels, there's no peace, so they have to bring peace by killing the infidels. 

Let me put it another way:  If a Muslim talks about peace, and you're not of Islam, YOUR LIFE IS IN DANGER!  There is no other kind of peace with Muslims. (BTW, anyone hear about that stupid religious convention they had recently set up by the State Department?  What a PR disaster!)  For those of you in Rio Linda, you are a target for peace, infidels!  That includes liberals, gays, socialists, whatever you are, they don't care which way you go, if you're not a Muslim, you're ripe for killing.  Just keep in mind though, if it'll make you feel better, it's for peace!

So it's possible that Israel might attack Iran sometime in the next month, but to do that, they have to fly over Iraq.  I wonder how they will accomplish that if the threat by the US to blow them out of the sky is still there?(it has been suggested a good while back)

Add to the mix that Russia and China don't seem to mind Iran getting nukes, but I wonder how they will feel when it's done in the name of Islam if they have it used on them?  We know Russia and China are not Islamic countries(by and large anyway, there are pockets in there), to them, helping Iran was a business venture.

Thoughts and comments on this would be appreciated.

-Jon

• Login to post comments

This is beautiful! I understand that they are being sued.

Submitted by Newsbubba on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 12:46pm.

http://www.myspace.com/video/nate/come-on-down-to-the-farm/43367109

• Login to post comments

If anyone is interested in

Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 11/12/2011 - 8:57pm.

If anyone is interested in chatting about the GOP debate join us here:

http://us2.chatzy.com/289283718863

• Login to post comments

Romney on Iran

Submitted by GregE on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:00am.

In tonight's debate, he says with definitiveness, that if he is President, Iran will not get a nuke.

Who's he kiddin? That's not a claim that can be made, unless he's looking to do a preemptive military strike, which I HIGHLY doubt.

• Login to post comments

JayZ and Occupy

Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 10:18am.

Anyone catch the news that JayZ has designed and is selling an Occupy Wall Street t-shirt? Oh, and by the way, he's not giving them any of his profits. ROTFLMAO

These occupiers couldn't be much stupider.

• Login to post comments

R- Debate (11/9 & 13/11) “The Official Grump-Analysis”

Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 11:55am.

Source: “The Grumpy Center for Advanced Studies (GCAS)”
Motto of the GCAS: “A Paradigm is just 20 cents in coin.”

OVERVIEW: This so-called “analysis” primarily concerns the CBS Security Debate of Nov. 13th, but first a critique of the Nov 9th debate conducted by CNBC:

The decision by CNBC programmers to NOT allow the debate to be live-steamed over the internet was the most despicable insult to the American public’s “Right to Know” in broadcast history. By the time the debate was released to the general public via internet… the media had time to spin the story, highlight the candidates flaws, and provide their (medias) own skewed interpretations of that debate. Because the information was tainted before a personal impression was possible, there was no point in my posting a personal analysis.

The rest of this post will deal exclusively with the CBS debate.

THE MODERATOR/QUESTIONER: CBS’s Scott Pelly and National Journals Major Garrett did a fine job IMO.
Garrett did get taken down a notch by Newt when the former Speaker refused to criticize one of Romney’s ideas, but past that, he did a reasonable job of questioning.
IMO Pelly was very fair in keeping the candidates “in-check” by insisting on following the time-line and refusing to allow certain candidates from jumping-in with answers to questions they were not asked.

It may be a bit “off-topic but I seem to detect a “slight shift” back to the arena of actual journalism (vice running with the talking points) on the part of CBS lately. Maybe the powers that be in the CBS newsroom are finally realizing that they have been treated as useful idiots by the Dem’s and Obama’s admin and are beginning to realize that a reputation for honest journalism is worth more than just being a public relations tool for left wing imbecilic thought and methodologies.

PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS: (note: Since the debate was about “Security Issues” and most did reasonably well - the candidates will be listed into winners and losers with each listed alphabetically within each group.)

WINNERS:
1. Herman Cain – He kept it simple. IMO his answers revealed more of his “thought process” by emphasizing the need to adhere to sound decision-making principles, vice kneejerk and theoretical solutions to the security problems facing our nation. He left no doubt that he is willing to listen to the experts, and understands that not all situational decisions require a “snapshot” methodology to appease some particular group.

2. Newt Gingrich – Admittedly, I had written Newt off early on in these debates, but once again he proved his knowledge of history and culture and ability to get to the heart of the problem make him more and more appealing. As mentioned above, IMO his answer to Major Garrett (I wonder if Garrett will ever be promoted to Lt Col.?) refusing to become embroiled in a “personal argument” proves he knows how to look beyond the chaff and focus on the target.

3. Rick Perry – He really redeemed himself in this latest debate. IMO his clear answer about “zeroing-out” all foreign aid (and later on in the debate) all federal spending was masterful. Coming-across as a strong defender of America certainly helped. In many areas, Perry is a weak candidate who probably won’t get the nomination, but on this single issue he is absolutely correct! “Kudos” to Gov. Perry for standing by his convictions.

4. Mitt Romney – I hate to place this guy in the “winners circle” but he did have a relatively good night and by any honest appraisal he well deserves to be in the winners group... BUT, since this is a “Grump-analysis” we will dispense with the ‘honest-appraisal’ for the moment and simply say that I don’t trust this whiffle-waffling, smooth-talking, and excessively well groomed charm-school graduate, and Mega-RINO to be in charge of our nations future.

LOSERS’:
1. Michele Bachmann – Actually, if this were a “fair-analysis” Michele would be placed in the category of ‘Winner.’ Unfortunately she neither won nor lost the debate so she winds up here. The fact of the matter is that she was ignored for most of the evening and the relatively few times she was called upon gave answer that just seemed to echo the other more dynamic candidate’s answers. I like her and think she could do a reasonable job as President, but I think she should face the reality that her campaign is essentially running on an empty gas tank at this point.

2. Jon Huntsman – Well, he was a waste of about five-minutes of precious debate time. I wouldn’t trust this guy to be an "Alternate Assistant Caterer at a Street Vendor’s Hot Dog Cart" - much less be in the position of CINC.

3. Ron Paul – Understanding the reality of the world has never been his strong suite and he once again proved his inability to get past his own thinking is his greatest weakness – and greatest asset to the Paulbots. I have decided to promote him to the title of: “Colonel Curmudgeon.” The least said about his unrealistic and dangerous views on the role of the U.S. in world affairs – the better.

4. Rick Santorum – Supposedly, National Security was a subject where Santorum would shine… he didn’t. Once again he acted like a petulant child who spent more time complaining about his “lack-of-time” than he did about delivering a clear statement of how he would approach the overall-security of the nation. He did have some reasonable answers revolving around the Pakistan issue, but he failed to make his case on every other question asked. I like his stance’s on cultural and family values, and allow he has clear ideas about ‘security,’ but that is just not enough to make me consider him [anymore] as a viable candidate.

- Grump :o)

P.s.: A Blessed Veteran's Day weekend to all... let us resolve to never forget the sacrifices of those that gave their last full measure of devotion.

• Login to post comments

Newsweek discovers energy loans predominantly for Obama bundlers

Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 11/13/2011 - 12:07pm.

Ya think?

• Login to post comments