Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Kos: Who would you rather have lead, Bush or Ahmadinejad?

More odd Ahmadinejad posts over at Kos. At least Bush is winning now but did they really need to poll their readers on it?

via LGF


Anonymous said...

It's a joke, Bill.

You do know what a joke is, don't you?

Bill Baar said...

read the comments on it from the jokers.

Bill Baar said...

A joke?

Some kossacks have to deliberate because the choice problematic.

As hard as it is to "vote" for Bush, I have to say that Ahmendinajad is worse. He says human rights are ok in his country, but what criteria is he using?

He leads an Islamic theocracy, where there is a death penalty for homosexuals. Women are required to wear certain clothes and their freedoms are limited. Conversion from Islam to another religion is punishable by death. State schools are open on Saturdays, so Jewish kids cannot observe Shabbat.

This is all problematic.

Anonymous said...

I know how much pleasure you get out of your feelings of moral indignation. And I know that the Right is making much sport of selecting letters from readers and claiming that they represent liberal opinion. But the poll is a joke and anyone who takes individual responses as indicators of anything other than the thinking of individual responders is being rather silly.

Look at some of the posts you get, for example.

Bill Baar said...

Look at Sally Kohn's defense of Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

My point was never to defend Ahmadinejad nor cannonize him. My point, my only point (trying to use humor as a hook --- sheesh!) was that we should be thinking for ourselves and not simply buying whole hog the Bush Administration's smear campaign against Ahmadinejad --- the same smear campaign it has waged against others when it wants to silence their critique. We have, for instance, completely bought into the build up of fear around Iran --- a fear that feeds the Right wing agenda to keep the public docile, now that Iraq can no longer serve as the threat --- and that maybe we shouldn't be so passive.

It was a piece of political satire with a point. I appreciate those who read it as such.

She claims to write satire to reveal a deeper truth of a US Gov smear campaign against Ahmadinejad.

It's the deeper truth she sees, not her satire, that appalls.

Anonymous said...

The US is trying to smear Iran in order to create the argument that we should invade it. That is the context of her article and somehow I think you know it.

Everyone knows that the mullah's are repressive and this figurehead clown of a president they have is a bad man. But Bush and Cheney want to start shooting. THAT's what this is all about.

And we have no business, no national interest, and no ethical or moral reason or right to attack Iran.

Bill Baar said...

I certainly do know it. I think she should have avoided the satire and made her point as forthrightly as you have here.

I think the satire was just a way to sugar coat an assertion you've presented clearly.