The Smiley Smile Message Board

Click Pic To Watch History!!!
Benjamin Netanyahu's historic speech to Congress, literally attempting to save Western Civilization from annihilation -- from Obama's TURDISH attempt to give Iran THE BOMB!!!  
(http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/1425402001_10001501+1CONGRESS+NETANYAHU+9.JPG) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRf1cdw4IAY')

Wow how pathetic

I know.  I agree, Obama looks so freakin' pathetic!

Go Bean Bag!

Go BiBi !

But Bean Bag - Do we have to call him that ?  ;)

 :-D

Yeah, it was an amazing speech.  It was such a stark STARK contrast from the bumbling, boring, divisive and meaningless pap spewed in that chamber everytime our weak, lousy "President" gets up in there and blows a bunch a partisan poo-gas out of his mouth.  The flies know.

(http://pamelageller.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Obama_fly_2010_2461812c.jpg)

This is pathetic...

http://www.c-span.org/video/standalone/?324646-1/house-democrats-response-prime-minister-netanyahu-address-congress

Don't watch it unless you like to feel yucky and shameful and wimpy.  It's a gaggle of bow-tie wearing, old-biddy House Democraps gathered to "enlighten us" as to their feelings on Bibi's historic speech.

In case you're too scared to actually watch Bibi's speech, like these lying, sad-sack Democraps were. I'll boil it down for ya.  In a nutshell, Bibi said -- Obama's deal is BAD.  It's not worth risking the future of civilization on the HOPE that Iran will be nice and change its ways.  It's stupid.  Obama paves the path for Iran to get the bomb.

But decide for yourselves... watch the speech and the response.  No giant evil news corporation mergers controlling the planet here.  ::)   :lol   Just the facts.

The speech of course is predictable. The United States have been carrying out massive violence and overtly supporting oppression throughout the region in question for decades. The opposition to negotiations with Iran is simple. It is predicated on one basic belief: no country in the world has the right to defend themselves against Western violence, aggression, and terrorism. It was the same scenario that went on with Nicaragua in the 1980s, Vietnam in the 50s and 60s, and so on. As a representative of a U.S. proxy, Netanyahu has a vested interest in continuing to stoke the fires of fear in order to reinforce what is the ultimate desire of the West and its proxies, which is to completely dominate the region.

Bean Bag - maybe people who want to blame the US for everything should find an old colonial empire map. Spreads the blame around. Many local leaders in respective countries were complicit and sold their own people.  Today is today. 

It was shameful that the US did not march in unity in Paris after the Kosher market massacre. 

Actions speak louder than words.

I’m talking about today. I mean, yes, obviously, if you understand anything about the current situation in the Middle East, you can easily see how particular actions from years ago continue to reverberate throughout the region. The fact is that the world is a complex place and some actions have different levels of consequence and you can understand those consequences better by actually looking at the history. But, of course, those of us who wish to ignore our own complicity in the world’s instability would prefer us to ignore this history.

But we also prefer to actually ignore what’s going on today. It is the standard convention of powerful oppressive states to focus attention on others, and force others to adhere to a standard that we refuse to apply to ourselves. The biggest terrorist campaign in the world right now is the global assassinations that are carried out by US drones. This terrorism, incidentally, is doing more to harm US internal security than anything. As Akbar Ahmed recently pointed out, "Every act of violence in these tribal societies provokes a counterattack: the harder the attacks on the tribesmen, the more vicious and bloody the counterattacks." Furthermore, under the Obama Administration, the US sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan, threatened the break-up of Pakistan, supported the repressive and violent dictatorship in Egypt, and vetoed a security council resolution calling for an end to illegal settlements and settlement expansion in Israel/Palestine.

The ongoing sentiment regarding the US remains the same throughout the Middle East as it did in both the 1950s and then again in the early 2000s. According to a National Security Council report from 1958, during a staff discussion, President Eisenhower asked why in the Middle East there was a "campaign of hatred against us, not by the government but by the people." After researching, the National Security Council reported back that it was because the United States typically supported tyrannical regimes in the region, blocked democratic movements, prevented development in attempts to gain control of their territory. After receiving the report, according to the NSC, the Eisenhower Administration confirmed that this perception was correct and that this strategy would continue. Incidentally, this knowledge continues to this day. Around October of 2004, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board (which is composed of some of the top military and intelligence figures) issued a report stating that the resentment from the Islamic world towards the United States did not come from a hatred of Western values, but rather from an awareness of U.S. support towards dictatorships and a lack of support of democracy.

And this trend continues today. We have had and continue to have the monopoly of violence in the world and the ongoing opposition to Iran’s deterrence programs is evident of the equally pervasive belief that no one in the world has the right to defend themselves from this violence and that it is us, and only us, who can use violence.

Netanyahu is a real leader?  The same Netanyahu who's turning Israel into an apartheid state?   Yeah, I don't think so.

Well, in this speech, he's a professional fear monger.

Yup, it's so pathetic.  This Administration has a bass-ackwards mental problem.  They love to act all big n' tuff (grrrr!) against Americans Citizens.  Cops, Republicans, Tea-Party, white-hispanics! -- you name it.  Yet when it comes to actual bullies .... John Kerry sends James Taylor over to Paris to sing "You Got A Friend."  Fcking embarrassing!   :o

These ding-dongs can't even call'em islamic terrorists.  It's work-place violence or something stupid.  They just have no nuts.  Bibi's speech was so damn refreshing.

(http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2080793!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/france-shooting-kerry.jpg)

Yeah.  He's defending his country.  What a concept!  :lol  Real Leaders actually do stuff like that, Rock.

Netanyahu came here to warn us.  To make a plea -- "Hey America!  Hey all you congressional numbnuts!!  WAKE UP!!  Your douche-bag President is about to sell you the fck out!"

It's embarrassing to me (as the red-blooded, Beach Boy-playing American that I am) that it came to this.  But hey... here we are.  Are we not?  Are we not here??   :-\

It's sad how stupid people want to appear to be.  We used to be a great nation.  Lead and defended the world.  But all the Leftwing (and softie middle-types) are more scared of their fcking shadows now, then they are of actual, murderous fascism.  Fcking global warming?  Are you serious?!!  :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol  Oh no!  Global warming!  Ahhhh.

Many Americans, many in Congress -- and apparently everybody down at 1600 Penn Ave -- have their heads up their a%s.  While they're driving the bus.  Stupid sht like that is gonna get us all killed.

I wouldn't call genocidal war crimes defending a country.

Your either a satire of a typical gun-toting redneck idiot American stereotype or your gun-toting redneck idiot American.

There are some important things that need to be said about the Netanyahu speech. The basic point that Netanyahu raises is that Iran is an imminent threat. It is worth noting that this is not the first time that Netanyahu has made that claim. According to Netanyahu in a speech given to Congress 23 years ago, Iran was “three to five years away” from being able to launch a nuclear weapon; 20 years ago, he used the same number of “three to five years” in his book Fighting Terrorism, even though the original three year deadline that he posed had passed.

19 years ago, Netanyahu gave another Congressional speech in which he suggested that the “deadline” for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and causing “catastrophic consequences” was “extremely close”; the threat changed in 2002, when Netanyahu made a speech to Congress where he testified that it was Iraq who was advancing quickly in their nuclear weapons program – a program that a year later we discovered, never existed. Six years ago, Netanyahu reverted back to Iran, noting that they were “one or two years away” from being able to develop nuclear weapons; five years ago, he erroneously argued that Iran were in the midst of “controlling atomic bombs”; three years ago, he stated in the press that Iran was “months away” from acquiring nuclear weapons while at the UN he changed his number to a year.

In other words, according to Netanyahu Iran has been an imminent threat of being a few years away from acquiring nuclear bombs for over twenty years. He is essentially the political equivalent of the doomsday cult leader who continuously re-sets the end of the world date when the previous day that he claimed would be the end of the world has come and gone. We treat that as the farce that it is, but when Netanyahu does the same thing we are meant to take it seriously.

But it’s not just hysterical lunacy; it’s also dedicated fraud. In 2012, a crucial report concluded that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons” noting how a bomb required 90% enrichment, and Iran had enriched to 20%, a number itself that Iran reduced in 2013. Several weeks before the report was released but after it was written, Netanyahu stood before the UN General Assembly, making familial pronouncements that it would only be a matter of several months before Iran would “get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb” – a point that was completely false according to the studies that were done. Whether Netanyahu was making up the facts out of thin air, didn't bother to carry out a study or read an available one, or simply chose to ignore the facts that he had, the simple truth was he was flat-out lying. And given how his ongoing pronouncements conflict with all the studies that are done on Iran, he continues to lie.

Again, the issue is simply one of hypocrisy. The idea is that we have the right to wield violence in the area and no one else does. When we commit the overwhelming amount of violence and call for more violence, we call it defense – when someone begins to consider defending themselves from this violence (non-violently, I might add), we call it a threat to our security. But this is just the usual propaganda. There was a time when Grenada, a country with a population, at the time, of less than 100,000 people, were called a threat to US security. It's a self-evident farce and, unfortunately, there are a lot of dutiful people willing to buy into it.

Ouch. You're a charmer!  :-D

I see you went to the Obama School of providing logical choices.  As in, how he says it's either his way -- his Iran deal -- or war.   :lol

Exactly.  Neither would I.  What's ironic about what you said is, Obama's deal actually gets us closer to Iran and evil terrorists being able to wage that genocidal war.  I wouldn't call that defending a country and neither would you.  Therefore, your statement is truer than you thought. Bizarro world, Rock. I'm tellin' ya!   :p

Hey bean turd , if you really want to do something to help your country you should enlist. Put your ass where your mouth is. By the way your hero Bibi has his own problems in Isreal, he just might lose the election. So tell me, what's in it for Obama in terms of letting Iran develop a nuclear weapon? What is your reasoning or logic here? I mean why would Obama want to go down in history as the president who allowed Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?

The fact that you'd rather have a leader who aggressively pursues a war rather than one who tries to avoid one tells a lot about you as a person.

Almost got this one right. Except that it's me who's trying to avoid war and Obama and Democraps (and perhaps you?) that are leading us to a situational hell. Another Cold War at best, nuclear annihilation at worst.

Why am I not surprised that you want me to put my a5s where my mouth is?  Personally, I find it easier to think with my head NOT up my butt, but to each his own. Ha!  Ok, let's get serious...

Why does Obama want this?  Great question.  Bibi mentioned this in his thoroughly brilliant speech. In a nutshell, Obama thinks Iran will change (which is naïve) OR he thinks the alternative to this deal is worse. As in, Iran is going to get the bomb anyway.  This is also wrong and quite defeatist.  And dangerous.

Personally, I'm not convinced Obama and the Far Left cares if they get nukes. They're the folks that talk about "who are we, why should we have a bomb and not Iran?"  Suicidal sickos like that, aren't worth debating.

Oh, by the way, it's "Bean Bag."  I understand that liberal Democraps probably aren't familiar with that part of the human anatomy.  Hehehehe.  Just kidding!   :p

Not all Democrats are in agreement. He is just the poster boy..

But some alarming things are happening.

1 - Hillary uses personal Internet servers and gmail so we don't have full access to her work in behalf of the govt. This is the arrogant above-the-law administration. No oversight.  Benghazi is a disgrace. She won't be president, in my opinion.  Foundation donations "for good?"  No, for "future access."

2 - US ambassador to Korea is sliced in the face. 

3 - Iran is not to be trusted, by the U.S., still commits mass genocide, disrespects women.  That country kept US hostages in the late 1970's until the eve of Reagan's inauguration.  Obama has the same level of international respect as Carter did; none.  And they want to wipe Israel out of existence. That is intolerant.  Obama dispatched workers to Israel for BiBi's opponent.  He interfered actively in this election.  No wonder Obama didn't want to meet with BiBi.

Not that others haven't intefered with elections, either, but now everyone knows.  That is the difference.  If you know, there is a duty to act or at least shine sunlight on it.  BiBi acts, he doesn't talk, and walked in unity with his political enemies in Paris last month after the massacre. What were they thinking in the WH?

And, still, with all its flaws the US is still the greatest and most generous humanitarian country in the world. Our citizen voters who are free, get to fire him in the voting booth.  That is the difference.  I'd rather be an American, and fight within the system if I think it is wrong or unjust and use my free exerise of religion and speech, etc.  That is the difference. 

 

Here, here!!  Well said!

Do they? Please give an example of this "mass genocide."


Which is terrible, but what are you suggesting? The vast majority of US foreign aid goes to countries that actively participate in torture and have massive human rights violations on a scale far higher than disrespecting women, which is horrible enough. If we came up with sanctions for countries who treat their citizens poorly, we'd have to sanction the world, including ourselves.


The United States is in favour of keeping hostages when it is the right hostages - namely, the people we don't like. Obviously, if one is to be morally consistent they would find all hostage taking deplorable, which it is. But also let's look at the context - here we had Iranians keeping US hostages after overthrowing the US backed dictatorship which had been in control of the country for roughly 25 years. In that case, the Shah didn't take hostages - rather, he carried out political executions in vast quantities, 300 alone in the early 1970s, thousands more before that, all with decisive U.S. support.


The United States in general does not have international respect, no matter who is president.


No they don't. And who is they?

The fact is that this is an often repeated fabrication that is borne out of one particular quotation, largely distorted by Western media. The quotation was from Ahmadinejad who was himself quoting Khomeini who made a statement when there was a close relationship between Israel and Iran and Israel didn't object to the quote, which was that in the end of time the country will disappear. Obviously I don't support the statement, but it is certainly not the same thing as saying "wipe Israel out of existence" as many Westerners have been misinformed about. Important to note is that several days later, Ahmadinejad was publicly reprimanded by his boss, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, who went on record as saying that he supported the Arab League proposal which is essentially a peace settlement with Israel. This was the official statement of Iran on the matter, and it was ignored in favour of the distorted quotation, largely because it didn't suit the narrative that the West was constructing regarding Iran at the time.


Everyone always knew - look back on the historical record and you can always find papers and analysis given on these historical incidents. What the difference is is that when the United States was interfering in Iran or Guatelama or Haiti or El Salvador or Nicaragua or Indonesia or Panama or Grenada and so on and on and on, it was supposed to be a good thing. Incidentally, most of these interferences were accompanied by massive violence, again well documented and well known at the time. And they continue to be - the US was actively interfering with the systems of both Haiti and Venezuela in the contemporary era, but we're supposed to be in favour of that. Now, to be perfectly honest, I would love to see a document that suggests that Obama's interference was even remotely on a scale like the other examples I named. I really would like to see the evidence on that.


In fact, he talks quite a bit. And the things he says are demonstrably lies. He's a dedicated fraud and he's been perpetuating the same fabrications for decades, each time making predictions that counter the documentary record and are proven false almost immediately.


In fact, nineteen other countries give a higher percentage of their gross national income to foreign aid than the United States does. And as said above, most of the US aid goes towards supporting countries with deplorable human rights violations, in order to keep their systems steady.

Furthermore, the United States continues to be the top contributor to global instability in the world and continues to carry out and support higher levels of terrorism than any other country.


Many countries hold free democratic elections, but this is by no means a measure of how free citizens are. In the United States, an entire political wing has been politically disenfranchised after decades of massive repression and violence. As such an entirely political voice has been eliminated from political reality; now, both parties represent the same ruling ideology. Furthermore, a country is only democratic insofar as their citizens are able to directly contribute to the daily political decisions of the country.

Thanks Bean Bag!

One for you! :beer

Stay the course... :love

I heard Hill-dawg set up that email address on like day-one or something :lol  You just gotta love the Clin-tons.  Obviously she didn't want anyone finding out what she was planning while serving as our dishonorable "Secrecy of State."  From day one.  She's a total fraud.  Benghazi... don't get me started.  Disgusting!!!  I think some poor YouTuber is still in prison, covering the lie that this wasn't a terrorist attack but rather -- a spontaneous reaction to a fcking YouTube Video.  Nixon on steroids, times a million.

I agree, she ain't gonna win.  There's just so many ways to slice that turkey.  I hate to put predictions in writing -- stranger things always happened.  But, I just never thought she had anything likable about her.  Both Bill and Barrack presented a likability that just alludes her.  Besides -- I don't think her Party wants her.  The moment Obama showed up in '08, they and their media -- changed their tune and dissed her like yesterday's spam.  War on Women - right there!!   :lol

(http://im.rediff.com/news/2013/jan/24ss1.jpg)

I am. Angry.  Look. At. Me. Pound.  My. Fists. [pound fists in up and down motion].

Some old style Nikita Khrushchev fist pounding.  The private email says a lot. Wall St. Journal says that the "House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and the Select Committee on Benghazi" are probing the matter and it seems that the State Department should have been on this.  The press is not going to let up on this one.  Her image could be remedied; you never know who will get the party "nod."

There wasn't just one email address on the server but many according to Big Bad Wolf Fox News.  They named some of the email addresses last night. It just seems so weird that with an official post such as Secretary of State that all those rules for working conditions would not include an official email address that is part of the office infrastructure. 

And, in fairness, she should have been the party nominee in 2008. It was her "turn." You gotta give the devil her due. They had to give her some high profile job, as a consolation prize, to get her support for the party ticket. 

Well, Obama just gave a beautiful speech in Selma to mark the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday.  Watching that, I felt proud to have him as a leader.

Not engaging a dangerous conflict won't prevent a war.  World War II comes to mind...

Netanyahu is already engaged in a dangerous conflict.  Look at all that's going on between Israel and Palestine.  It's an incredibly violent mess, one that is killing innocent civilians and continues to get worse.  Why should we take his advice when it comes to military intervention?

Israel/Palestine is mess --- can I explain?  Here it is Rock -- a war only ends when there's a winner and a loser.  And I don't want to get hyper-intellectual about "does anybody win a war" -- but, YES... we should take Netanyahu's advice.  Why?

Israel has been taking OUR advice.  That is the problem.  Israel has been holding back.  Either by us or their own liberals.  Oil, politics -- who the flunk knows.  Lot's a sht at play.  Money is usually the big one.  I'm just saying that FINALLY a guy like Netanyahu comes along -- who cuts through the bullsht.

Let's think for a minute.  Let me axe you -- when is the last time a foreign ally came to the nation's capitol and spoke to one branch about how the other branch was about the FCK the WORLD?

(http://sosleadership.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/111783-Wake-Up-Call-.gif)

Correct.  If the aggression isn't threatening -- ignoring a bully can sometimes be a wonderful act of engagement.  So can sanctions, if they're a little more dangerous (as in:  stop stealing lunch money or we'll cut off your food).  

There's lots of ways to engage.  But bringing the bully to the Principal's office and saying "We're going to allow you to continue as you are -- but let us check your pockets at the end of each day and count the money.  If there's a nickel more than your mom gave you... why then.  We'll... let's just hope there's not, m'kay?

(http://users.atw.hu/wandy/wandyyy/southpark/mr_mackey....jpg)

Nerds can sleep easy tonight.  :lol

Ghandi's passive resistance to the British Empire also comes to my mind.

Also, I'm having a very difficult time figuring out how you believe WWII started and why countries got involved in it.

No knocks against Ghandi, but passive resistance didn't stop the Nazi's, nor will it do the same for ISIS. 

There's a case to be made that the 1930s and 40s Nazis were more powerful than the British Empire, but ISIS? More powerful than an Empire? Brutal, horrific, dangerous, deplorable, yes. But more powerful?

Again, though, do you believe that WWII began because people didn't engage?

Not everyone chooses or is capable (or intellectually honest enough) to comprehend varying degrees of severity.  It's the "one-size-fits-all" simplistic world-view that Liberals/Leftist/Statists share.

Nevertheless, it's why they always respond to life's problems with the same answer.  Usually a one-size-fits-all knuckle-dragging Federal solution (see ObamaCare).  You can set your watch to it.  No matter the topic, they'll just shoehorn everything into their one available stupid, ill-fitting solution (and call it equality!).  It's a limited playbook -- whatever the scenario.  Funny in theory... but scary in real life.

(https://ewpopwatch.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/geico_l.jpg)

Some days I swear Bean Bag is a troll.

You seem to like the word "turd" a great deal.

Jenkem's a hell of drug.

Parents should be aware that kids are calling Bean Bag by it's more popular street term "BEan Bag". Excuse me.... Butt Hash .I meant to say Butthash .

And on the other days -- what am I?  Seriously -- I can't be both. ;D

The topic of politics is weird Alex.  And I really am trying to get people to think about this stuff in a different way.  The discourse of politics today is trolling.  Sadly.  Anyone who has a strong opinion these days against the establishment, the media, the powerful, the progressive Statists -- is labelled BY trolls as racist, hating women.  Hating gays.  Hating minorities.  Right?

Of course I'm right.

It made an impression on some, perhaps?

BIG, BIG win for Benjamin Netanyahu.  And another big loss for Obama "The Turd" President.  Or as Dick Cheney poignantly puts it "the worst President in my lifetime."

But Bibi's electoral smack down of Barrack Hussein (mmm-mmm-good) Obama's attempt to unseat the Leader of Israel is most importantly -- and above politics -- a victory for the forces trying to save Western Civilization -- your civilization, mind you.  And a HUGE defeat of the forces against a Western Civilization (liberalism, communism, radical-islamicism)

Rejoice!!  Or continue to act like nothing's going on.   ;)  Whichever you prefer.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/PlayboyLogo.svg/851px-PlayboyLogo.svg.png)

dick cheney's interview in playboy (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0318/Dick-Cheney-s-Playboy-interview-5-things-to-know)

Kelly File on Big Bad Wolf Fox News has an an interview with BiBi tonight!  ;)