With all due respect Masoud jon, as I recall vividly, you forgot the biggest Akhund regime of them all, that of GW Bush who, amongst other things, is single handedly responsible most for shifting this country towards Christian Akhundism; the like of which had not been seen since the Salem Witch Burning days of late 17th century.
As I recall correctly, you were a BIG supporter of the Akhund-in-Chief then, were you not?! We had some pretty lively "discussions" in regards to your support of the Republican Akhund at the time!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-26-2010/i-have-a-scheme
As I recall correctly, you were a BIG supporter of the Akhund-in-Chief then, were you not?! We had some pretty lively "discussions" in regards to your support of the Republican Akhund at the time!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-26-2010/i-have-a-scheme
Last edited:
long but great article about people behind teabaggers
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
PN - I was also a supporter of Hakha - let's not forget that what is your point? Why are you tagging instead of arguing specific points? Bush can be an akhoond just as well as Obama can - what is the point?
We all have stances that can be "Conservative" or "Liberal" depending on the subject. In fact I will start a new thread to further explain and make the younger members think and discuss their positions.
We all have stances that can be "Conservative" or "Liberal" depending on the subject. In fact I will start a new thread to further explain and make the younger members think and discuss their positions.
The point, doosteh aziz, is that let’s be honest with what it is we are really saying. You say you are against Akhunds and Mullahs and I say more power to you. But, your history of opinions does not bear witness to that.
An akhund is an akhund is an akhund. It makes no difference if they wear ties around their necks or diapers on their heads. It seems that you would agree with that, seeing that you criticize Al Sharpton as you would the Mullahs in Iran. Great!
But, then when you come back and try to pass Glenn the-clown Beck as something other than an akhund (never mind that the man is an insane demagogue), one might wonder about your sincerity.
Could it be that all akhunds are bad except those siding with the far right in America?
BTW, one of the original characters of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul – who has since rather distanced himself from the racist crowd -- has a lot more in common with my views in his stance on being anti-war and pro-personal choice than he would with the likes of this Beck character.
My point is, are you really against the akhunds or just the ones with whom you politically disagree?
An akhund is an akhund is an akhund. It makes no difference if they wear ties around their necks or diapers on their heads. It seems that you would agree with that, seeing that you criticize Al Sharpton as you would the Mullahs in Iran. Great!
But, then when you come back and try to pass Glenn the-clown Beck as something other than an akhund (never mind that the man is an insane demagogue), one might wonder about your sincerity.
Could it be that all akhunds are bad except those siding with the far right in America?
BTW, one of the original characters of the Tea Party movement, Ron Paul – who has since rather distanced himself from the racist crowd -- has a lot more in common with my views in his stance on being anti-war and pro-personal choice than he would with the likes of this Beck character.
My point is, are you really against the akhunds or just the ones with whom you politically disagree?
Masoud,
At some point you have to directly response to the threads asking you questions about the logics involved. PN has good points which you're either trying to avoid or just don't have answers for. You have some intellectual answers and when you don't, you insult the questionare. It's becoming a trend.
Id give Alaska to Canada, in appreciation of all the wonderful comedians theyve given us over the years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_comedians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_comedians
Dooste Azi PN
I am not sure if you realize how wrong is to discredit a post based on post history. I am quiet proud of my past stances here on ISP - in fact considering where we are today - I am one of the few who does not have to eat his past words.......having said that - Me or you can change our opinion - must not be discredited based on our past, or better yet, I may have come across to you as wrong on one issue, or many issues, but still can be correct on others - what kind of cyber attitude is that?
As for ADC - all I can say is pathetic.
I am not sure if you realize how wrong is to discredit a post based on post history. I am quiet proud of my past stances here on ISP - in fact considering where we are today - I am one of the few who does not have to eat his past words.......having said that - Me or you can change our opinion - must not be discredited based on our past, or better yet, I may have come across to you as wrong on one issue, or many issues, but still can be correct on others - what kind of cyber attitude is that?
As for ADC - all I can say is pathetic.
I'm not. I'm merely observing that, as in the past, one type of Akhund seems to be OK in your book whereas the other is not. There is little difference between A$$ahollahs Khomeini and Khamaenei, Al Sharpton, George Bush, or Glenn Back.
Really? So, are you still a big advocate of an American military strike on Iran?
No one is discrediting you based on your past postings, whatever they were. What I (and seemingly now others) are observing is that you are still at it with your support of anything (American) Republican, regardless of how ludicrous the message or dangerous and incendiary the messenger.
Additionally, as much as I have tried not to respond to your well-known support of anything pro-Republican post Obama, as an old timer who had had extensive back-and-forth with you in the past, I can see that you are really singing the same old tune as before. You just seem a lot more angry now...
Really? So, are you still a big advocate of an American military strike on Iran?
No one is discrediting you based on your past postings, whatever they were. What I (and seemingly now others) are observing is that you are still at it with your support of anything (American) Republican, regardless of how ludicrous the message or dangerous and incendiary the messenger.
Additionally, as much as I have tried not to respond to your well-known support of anything pro-Republican post Obama, as an old timer who had had extensive back-and-forth with you in the past, I can see that you are really singing the same old tune as before. You just seem a lot more angry now...
there is one...
Al Sharpton is a non-figure not even blacks give a damn about. He is one of the figures everyone makes fun of(watch Boondocks) and younger blacks tell to shut up because he is just buggin. Al Sharpton is a non-factor, he is not a thread, he has nothing to say.
All of the others have something to say and Glenn Beck has TOO MUCH to say and to much influence. That guy is an actual danger to society.
Al Sharpton is a non-figure not even blacks give a damn about. He is one of the figures everyone makes fun of(watch Boondocks) and younger blacks tell to shut up because he is just buggin. Al Sharpton is a non-factor, he is not a thread, he has nothing to say.
All of the others have something to say and Glenn Beck has TOO MUCH to say and to much influence. That guy is an actual danger to society.