"I strongly condemn President Ahmadinejad’s outrageous remarks at the United Nations, and am disappointed that he had a platform to air his hateful and anti-Semitic views."

Hmm...

(Waiting for the irony to strike Ron in 5...4...3...)

Why are we in the UN again?

Since Ron's not able to understand the irony, here it is: he thinks the UN shouldn't give him this platform, yet Obama himself said he would meet with him anytime, anywhere. What do you think would attract more attention - Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN, or Obama's visit with Ahmadinejad in Tehran???

so, is the issue "platform" or is it "attention"? would obama just do an interview? is that what you are saying?

::gets popcorn::

Ok Ron, go put the popcorn down and square this circle please.

Obama stating what he has about Achmadinejad is not political maneuvering, but McCain responding to an economic crisis of indefinite proportions, you know like he was elected to do and already has direct prior experience with (Fannie/Freddie legislation) is political maneuvering. Pure Ronsense.

Insistence on the original scheduling of a foreign policy debate in the face of an economic crisis of indefinite proportions is putting his country first but McCain responding to an economic crisis of indefinite proportions, you know like he was elected to do and already has direct prior experience with (Fannie/Freddie legislation) is political maneuvering. Pure Ronsense.

Still waiting - popcorn not ready?

but seriously, , how is a 2-way discussion the same as a speech at the un?

edited to remove unnecessary slurs

I didn't say it was the same, I asked, "which would attract more attention?" And then straw clarified that to be, "which could be used as a greater platform by Ahmadinejad?" You have yet to answer - are you still too scared now that it's been asked a fourth time?

i still am answering "how is a discussion the same as a platform/speech at the un (aka, telepromptered 1 way dialogue)".

oh i get it, you just think "if we ignore it, it will go away".

Hmmm. Was Obama referring to the UN, or Larry King?

i caught parts of that larry king interview while i was writing a paper and he did seem to challenge him on his comments.

I guess you've never seen what happens in a foreign country when the President of the United States visits. Generally, there's quite a bit of attention. Kind of like when Ahmadinejad shows up at the UN, multiplied by about 20.


Yeah, Ron, that's exactly what I've always advocated w/r/t Iran. Ingoring it.

Tell you what - just forget it. Some small vindictive corner of my mind actually wants Obama to win, just to show you what an empty suit he is. But then, I have kids to think about.

so basically he has to be assassinated. j, the us will dominate the meeting.


then why not talk to him? this is the 21st century, bro.



fixed

You know Ron, you complain about anyone who points the truth out to you "fearmongering". Do you realize how much moronmongering you do on a daily basis? Don't worry folks, we don't need to be informed about Obama. We shouldn't read his books. We shouldn't read his policy ideas and compare them to reality. We should simply do as Ron does, and smoke a joint and pretend that magic "change" will come if Obama is elected, and it will be good change...

thank you, truf. i did deserve that. i'm sorry.

philosopher-in-training?:

"the truth" "...to reality"

I'd rather be a philosopher than a completely clueless individual who stubbornly refuses to do any research on his own candidate, instead simply accepting him as the profit of change... Oops, maybe that should be prophet. Naw... He'll profit from "change".

nice.[/golfclap]

What I have gathered from the sad quotes. Ron thought it was a great idea to provide a platorm for Iran because the One would sit and talk with him.

Ron agrees with the One that it is a bad idea to provide a platform to Iran.

/confused

Here is the ronlogic. It is terrible to provide a platform to the Iranian President because of his despicable views, but it is ok to sit down and talk with him because there is no prestige, legitimacy, or attention bestowed upon someone when the POTUS meets with them.

strawman, thanks for your thoughts. seriously, if we ignore him, he will just go away.

(or should we go the "invade iran[/saber-rattle]" route?)

No we should bestow legitimacy on him and his beliefs.

well, he is legitimately the executive head of the iranian state. perhaps part of the problem is that we don't treat him as such. secondly, i don't know how you make the leap that meeting with him is legitimizing his beliefs; his beliefs are what they are. are you implying that we are going to agree with them?