Iran demands justice for Trayvon

Idiots are the same the world over... They're just looking for something to shout about, to release the dopamine in their brain and feel better about their empty meaningless lives.

Facts make no difference to them.
It is a smart political move, many Americans would feel ashamed when they think Iran would do better justice then them. It decreased the numbers of Americans who wants to bomb Iran. Unless you said I am the Idiot because that would almost be true I am a borderline troll:)
 
Last edited:
I don't want to bomb anybody. I want to build a swarm of smart nanobots that reproduces in the atmosphere, spreads throughout the planet, finds people who want to lower economic freedom, enters their bodies, attaches to their nervous system and brain, and makes them wish they were bombed! Ah, anger releasing adrenaline, epinephrine, yes, nonepinephrine, dopamine, yes, yes, YES, WOOO HOOO!

</self-satire>
 
Well considering our country toppled their democratically elected administration and installed the Shah, it's possible that their state-run media is still an arm of ours. :rolleyes: On a side note, when somebody in one country has an opinion on something happening politically in another country, it doesn't necessarily mean they are automatically correct or there is a greater sense of urgency because they have heard of it. Pussy Riot in Russia comes to mind.
 
Last edited:
See how different the repubs and dems are!? The dems, Obama the peacenik, and Iran :eek: hold the same view about Martin while the repubs side with Zimmerman!

Oh my gosh!

I was just starting to think the dems and repubs might be the same! My bad! Thanks for the heads-up MSM!
 
I cant even figure out what the justice for Trayvon thing is? Didnt Zimmerman get tried? Didnt the prosecution have a say in the jury selection? I remember being shocked when OJ got off but pretty much had to accept the verdict and then after that he lost in the civil suit.

...

Justice for Ron Goldman! Let's break windows and set fires! Yippee! :toady:
 
They are just trying to cause problems for the USA which is understandable since we are causing them so many problems. If Trayvon would have been in Iran, he would have been executed by the state for stealing jewelry from people's houses before he ever had a chance to attack a stranger following him.

He didn't steal anything.
 
Yeah, let's loot our own communities and set our whole city on fire. That'll show them Washington punks. It reminds me of something we experienced here in Arizona when we passed SB1070 which was an attempt to crack down on the hiring of illegal aliens, various work activities, documentation, etc.... In some misguided sense of retaliation, some people went down to the state Capitol building and smeared refried bean swastikas on the windows. Regardless of the question, defacing and burning your own community is never the answer.
 
exonerating the US security guard


I stopped here. I'd rather not permanently kill my good brain cells reading this shit.
 
Last edited:
Well considering our country toppled their democratically elected administration and installed the Shah, it's possible that their state-run media is still an arm of ours. :rolleyes:

You're relaying socialist propaganda. "Democratically elected" is a meaningless religious-babble. A popular tyranny is still tyranny. It was good that the Shah replaced a worse government with a better less-socialist one. It's all about Economic Freedom. Often the progress of history can only advance from a greater evil to a lesser evil.

[...] Pussy Riot in Russia comes to mind.

Another socialist position. Pussy Riot violated Property Rights. How would you feel if people who disagreed with your eating habits came to your house for dinner and protested in the middle of your dining room? (But that's a discussion for a separate thread.)
 
You're relaying socialist propaganda. "Democratically elected" is a meaningless religious-babble. A popular tyranny is still tyranny. It was good that the Shah replaced a worse government with a better less-socialist one. It's all about Economic Freedom. Often the progress of history can only advance from a greater evil to a lesser evil.

Not true. The Shah was a repressive POS.

We over threw Mossedegh because he was turning the oil industries over to the people of Iran and making them public. Britain could NOT have that happening so we helped them in the Iranian coup.
 
Last edited:
LMAO ... I think Iran would be asking justice for Obama's drone strikes, killing their own kids.

News media, such a joke.
 
You're relaying socialist propaganda. "Democratically elected" is a meaningless religious-babble. A popular tyranny is still tyranny. It was good that the Shah replaced a worse government with a better less-socialist one. It's all about Economic Freedom. Often the progress of history can only advance from a greater evil to a lesser evil.



Another socialist position. Pussy Riot violated Property Rights. How would you feel if people who disagreed with your eating habits came to your house for dinner and protested in the middle of your dining room? (But that's a discussion for a separate thread.)

Then I'm guilty of relaying socialist propoganda Ron Paul style. Are you really saying that what we did with MI6 in Iran in 1953 was actually a good thing? You might want to reference Ron's interview with O'Reilly on 9/10/2007 and his books on the subject. Do you even understand the point I was making in regards to the Pussy Riot comment? I'm not flaming you for disagreeing with me but I really don't understand your position at all here.
 
Last edited:
Not true. The Shah was a repressive POS.

All government is "repressive piece of S". But some is more repressive than others. And some commie aggressors should indeed be "repressed". Self-defense.


We over threw Mossedegh because he was turning the oil industries over to the people of Iran and making them public. Britain could NOT have that happening so we helped them in the Iranian coup.

That's socialist-talk for he was stealing Private Property to fund his power.
 
Then I'm guilty of relaying socialist propoganda Ron Paul style. Are you really saying that what we did with MI6 in Iran in 1953 was actually a good thing? You might want to reference Ron's interview with O'Reilly on 9/10/2007 and his books on the subject.

Mosaddegh being overthrown is a good thing. Mosaddegh being overthrown at US tax-victims' expense and with their return address is a bad thing. And it backfired.

Ron Paul was a major Cold War hawk. He's a non-interventionist not because he likes commie thugs like Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He's a non-interventionist because Trillion-dollar wars is not the best way to overthrow them - such wars actually help the socialists by squandering the profits of the relatively free nations on all the inefficiencies of government-managed war.

We need massive non-profit NGOs, armed if necessary, going where governments can't, adapting, winning hearts and minds, explaining the realities of the modern world, letting the locals set their own path toward peace, freedom, and free markets - for their own good.
 
All government is "repressive piece of S". But some is more repressive than others. And some commie aggressors should indeed be "repressed". Self-defense.




That's socialist-talk for he was stealing Private Property to fund his power.

Private property that was stolen by the Brits...right.

Suggest you read "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"- might open your eyes a bit.
 
Back
Top