Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday, saying
he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme Leader. When
Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he replaced it with one
of Neville Chamberlain.

lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history
with that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under their
then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime minister
and government nationalized the British oil interests in their country.
As a result, the Shah became an absolute ruler/dictator. We supported
the Shah. In the late 1970s, we were still supporting the Shah against
the wishes of most of the Iranian people. And we supported Iraq in its
war against Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved in
the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country
would once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the
ayatollah, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?






--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist, ranking turd, and close friend
of all the right-wing scumbags who pollute the newsgroup.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's
restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history with
that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under their
then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime minister and
government nationalized the British oil interests in their country. As a
result, the Shah became an absolute ruler/dictator. We supported the Shah.
In the late 1970s, we were still supporting the Shah against the wishes of
most of the Iranian people. And we supported Iraq in its war against Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved in
the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country would
once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the ayatollah,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?


You just don't get political humor at all, do you? Argus Hamilton, whom I
quoted above has been syndicated for many years across the country, and is
noted for his barbs aimed at politicians of all stripes. BTW, where did you
copy and paste that last retort?

I came back to this forum because I missed your maniacal rants. I now
realize I was wrong. You are an idiot, and to continue to respond to you
diminishes me. I regret I lowered myself to your level.

Good bye and good luck, you pathetic creature.

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:27:24 -0400, "lupowell" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
om...
lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's
restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history with
that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under their
then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime minister and
government nationalized the British oil interests in their country. As a
result, the Shah became an absolute ruler/dictator. We supported the Shah.
In the late 1970s, we were still supporting the Shah against the wishes of
most of the Iranian people. And we supported Iraq in its war against Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved in
the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country would
once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the ayatollah,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?


You just don't get political humor at all, do you? Argus Hamilton, whom I
quoted above has been syndicated for many years across the country, and is
noted for his barbs aimed at politicians of all stripes. BTW, where did you
copy and paste that last retort?

I came back to this forum because I missed your maniacal rants. I now
realize I was wrong. You are an idiot, and to continue to respond to you
diminishes me. I regret I lowered myself to your level.

Good bye and good luck, you pathetic creature.

Great course of action, but don't leave. His is quite an act and
you'll get a *lot* of laughs.
--
John H

"HONK - if I'm paying your mortgage!"

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:27:24 -0400, "lupowell" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
news:Xr6dnd6dM_3MOafXnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@earthlink. com...
lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's
restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history
with
that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under their
then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime minister
and
government nationalized the British oil interests in their country. As a
result, the Shah became an absolute ruler/dictator. We supported the
Shah.
In the late 1970s, we were still supporting the Shah against the wishes
of
most of the Iranian people. And we supported Iraq in its war against
Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved in
the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country
would
once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the
ayatollah,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?


You just don't get political humor at all, do you? Argus Hamilton, whom I
quoted above has been syndicated for many years across the country, and is
noted for his barbs aimed at politicians of all stripes. BTW, where did
you
copy and paste that last retort?

I came back to this forum because I missed your maniacal rants. I now
realize I was wrong. You are an idiot, and to continue to respond to you
diminishes me. I regret I lowered myself to your level.

Good bye and good luck, you pathetic creature.

Great course of action, but don't leave. His is quite an act and
you'll get a *lot* of laughs.
--
John H

"HONK - if I'm paying your mortgage!"

Thanks, but I have too many other things going on and this is just a
distraction.

lupowell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's
restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history
with that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under
their then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime
minister and government nationalized the British oil interests in
their country. As a result, the Shah became an absolute
ruler/dictator. We supported the Shah. In the late 1970s, we were
still supporting the Shah against the wishes of most of the Iranian
people. And we supported Iraq in its war against Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved
in the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country
would once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the
ayatollah, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of
Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?


You just don't get political humor at all, do you? Argus Hamilton, whom
I quoted above has been syndicated for many years across the country,
and is noted for his barbs aimed at politicians of all stripes. BTW,
where did you copy and paste that last retort?

I came back to this forum because I missed your maniacal rants. I now
realize I was wrong. You are an idiot, and to continue to respond to you
diminishes me. I regret I lowered myself to your level.

Good bye and good luck, you pathetic creature.



Oh, I get political humor. The problem here is that you are entirely
ignorant of Iranian history and why most Iranians don't like our
government, even if they like Americans personally.

What is it that you know, Lu?


--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist.

lupowell wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:27:24 -0400, "lupowell" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
m...
lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.




Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's
restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable
history with
that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under
their
then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime
minister and
government nationalized the British oil interests in their country.
As a
result, the Shah became an absolute ruler/dictator. We supported the
Shah.
In the late 1970s, we were still supporting the Shah against the
wishes of
most of the Iranian people. And we supported Iraq in its war against
Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved in
the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country
would
once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the
ayatollah,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. BTW, just what is that?


You just don't get political humor at all, do you? Argus Hamilton,
whom I
quoted above has been syndicated for many years across the country,
and is
noted for his barbs aimed at politicians of all stripes. BTW, where
did you
copy and paste that last retort?

I came back to this forum because I missed your maniacal rants. I now
realize I was wrong. You are an idiot, and to continue to respond to you
diminishes me. I regret I lowered myself to your level.

Good bye and good luck, you pathetic creature.

Great course of action, but don't leave. His is quite an act and
you'll get a *lot* of laughs.
--
John H

"HONK - if I'm paying your mortgage!"

Thanks, but I have too many other things going on and this is just a
distraction.


Herring probably is the appropriate intellectual match for you here; in
matters of history and politics, he is as dumb as a post. He's also a
racist, but I don't know that you are.


--
"John H" wrote in message
...

Please note that Interstate 90 will be closed this weekend across
South Dakota. This closure will allow the Federal Government free
access to haul a 200 ton piece of coal to Mt. Rushmore so that
President Obama can be added to the Presidents on the monument.
--
John H

--

John Herring, rec.boat's resident racist.

On Jun 18, 5:51*pm, HK wrote:
lupowell wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
om...
lupowell wrote:
Just for you-know who....

President Obama refused to criticize Iran's bloody crackdown Tuesday,
saying he won't interfere. He referred to the Ayatollah as Supreme
Leader. When Barack Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill he
replaced it with one of Neville Chamberlain.

Those who actually know something about Iran are praising Obama's
restraint.

U.S. involvement and commentary on Iran is not taken graciously by
Iranians of any stripe. We have a long and not very favorable history
with that country, knowledge of which certainly has escaped you.

In 1953, for example, Iranians were fighting for a democracy under
their then prime minister. We helped defeat that because the prime
minister and government nationalized the British oil interests in
their country. As a result, the Shah became an absolute
ruler/dictator. We supported the Shah. In the late 1970s, we were
still supporting the Shah against the wishes of most of the Iranian
people. And we supported Iraq in its war against Iran.

So, please explain how it would help the Iranian dissidents or the
interests of the United States to once again get too deeply involved
in the affairs of Iran. If we did, the mullahs who control the country
would once again point to the U.S. as agents of the devil. Oh... the
ayatollah, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei? He is indeed the Supreme Leader of
Iran.

Stick to what you know, Lu. *BTW, just what is that?

You just don't get political humor at all, do you? Argus Hamilton, whom
I quoted above has been syndicated for many years across the country,
and is noted for his barbs aimed at politicians of all stripes. BTW,
where did you copy and paste that last retort?

I came back to this forum because I missed your maniacal rants. I now
realize I was wrong. You are an idiot, and to continue to respond to you
diminishes me. I regret I lowered myself to your level.

Good bye and good luck, you pathetic creature.

Oh, I get political humor. The problem here is that you are entirely
ignorant of Iranian history and why most Iranians don't like our
government, even if they like Americans personally.

What is it that you know, Lu?


Apparently quite a bit, he's got you pegged........"pathetic creature".