Lucky...

The poll is more rhetorical, addess the issue. Convince me that teh Iranians didn't care of the swwetheart deal, but were afraid of Reagan as all small countries were/are, but then we have been atatcked regardless of who is in office. Well the rhetorical and completely bias poll is still leaning towards 'yes.' Fail. So then, yes, people are foolish? 21 votes, sounds scientific to me

I think that covers 80% of it. The remaining 20% could be whatever, including the long running conspiracy that they made a deal with Reagan. The October Surprise theory. Yea, I think it was more of a way to win one of the so-called Great Satan, I don't percieve a lot of anti-Carter sentiment.

There's definitely the fuck-you-Carter factor, too, which I almost mentioned above, but didn't want my post to get too long. (There's other semi-recent historical precedent for that kind of thing, too. For example, the North Vietnamese hated LBJ's guts with a passion; and I don't think it's a simple coincidence that they tentatively agreed to a peace agreement with the US almost immediately after LBJ died, which was while Nixon was president. I remember some punditry speculation at the time to the effect that the NVs wouldn't give Johnson the satisfaction of signing a peace deal as long as the SOB was still alive.) I just don't think Carter gave the Iranian students/Iranian gov any reason to do the fuck you thing.

The poll is more rhetorical, addess the issue. Convince me that teh Iranians didn't care of the swwetheart deal, but were afraid of Reagan as all small countries were/are, but then we have been atatcked regardless of who is in office. Let me ask you this...have you ever on dz.com been convinced you were wrong? Have you ever been stuck on an issue and not resorted to ad hominem rather than address the issue? (rhetorical ?)

I think it's just a deal too sweet to pass up. And understand that I'm not against Carter, but certainly the Iranian students had been screwing with him and vice versa for a very long time. I think the timing just worked out in such a way that the students could end the conflict and finally get on with their lives but wanted to hold out for that moment to give Carter one final fuck you. There are probably a lot of reasons that culminate why the hostages were released, as well a lot of diff factions within Iran that had different reasons and felt a sense of victory for several reasons. But this was a qusai-government, quasi-revolutionary student action, at least after the embassy was taken over, allegedly Khomeini didn't know of the attack, but after it was done he backed it all the way. So was this about revolutionary students or a revolutionary political leader, or both? In reality I believe Khomeini knew of the attack beforhand. Other than the fact that Carter ws the sitting preseient of, to them, the Great Satan, Carter was the most Arab-friendly president in a long time, so I don't think that was the main reason. Of course Reagan was more abrasive in ways, he was willing to provide the Iranians arms via Iran-Contra and the October Surprise Theory. Your claim of 'hold out' could easily fall in line with this as well. So as with most things, the answer is, "all of the above" but I attribute the majority of the reason for the release to just getting a victory over the US, and release of funds and promise to not engage in their business, a promise we have reneged upon, but at the time a win against the Great Satan.

It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed. ....says the guy who just claimed my word is no good. Now, back to the regularly scheduled argument.

Where is the "kick him in the nuts" option? Come on; manlaw, there are certain things off-limits that women don't acknowledge

I think it's just a deal too sweet to pass up.

The poll is more rhetorical, addess the issue. Convince me that teh Iranians didn't care of the swwetheart deal, but were afraid of Reagan as all small countries were/are, but then we have been atatcked regardless of who is in office.

I have been meaning to post this for a while, I didn't just read it butthat's interesting, I'd like to read it if ya can find it. It was a sweetheart deal considering what the fucks did, their only motivation were the goods, complete exoneration, fiscal and criminal and then their goodies back. They didn't give a rat's ass about Reagan. The rescue failed so Carter probably didn't want to pass off his mess to Reagan, so he gave in. The timing made all the RW nuts run around claiming fear from Reagan, and it would be easy to fall into if you weren't aware of the accord, I felt that way for years.

No but it goes to the fear of Reagan issue; they weren't. No one is afraid of us, not the Saudis, not anyone. Looka t Chavez, is he afraid? Could we go snatch him like Noriga? Sure, he says FO US, go ahead and the M.E. folks in 81 didn't care either. With that said we could continue to wipe up a lot of small countries, but they are just not afraid evenif they should be. As for more motivation for signing the accord, how about absolution for all debts and criminal charges related to the Iranian Hostage Crisis more. Basically we surrendered and forgave and they gave over the booty, why would they want to go further? They won, how is Reagan a factor? These guys live for Johad anyway. I just laugh when I hear people talking as if other nations or radiccal groups, esp ME nations or groups give a fuck as to our politics. They attacked under Reagan, just as Clinton took office for GHWB's Gulf War and the biggy under GWB; they just don't care who's in office and might even be more motivated to attck under whichever party is more aggressive to incite a Jihad.

His profile says Zimbabwe. I can only take him at his word. Not a very good return on your investment then. What took so long to slither off to ad hominem? Hell, rush was there an hour ago.

So how do people describe a social disaster where you're from? Does Mugabe even allow people to talk about it? Everything doesn't come back to Mugabee. Sad that that is your only out. As for a social disaster, we elect a Dem to solve those.

You missd one: Go outside, the sky isn't actually falling.

Oh yea, there will be waves of mortgage hits. Unemp is still on teh rise, it just slowed considerably. IOW's the truck that is running thru your ass just slowed to 30 from 80 before he hit you. We're not there, but the relief is waaaay quicker than it was supposed to be.

That's an opinion, not anything substantive to the issue. Opinions are nice, but like assholes, we just sit on em most of the day. See, my opinion is diff, I think in times likethis all we have is the gov to fix things.

Gee, ya think? 10 pts of GDP in 2 Q's.... sorry, I can see your despair in that my guy is fixing your guys mess. OMG, what's that I felt? Part of the sky just fell in my yard.

I'm reading the objective data. GDP = sweet, market = sweet. Unemp = needs work but the bleeding is starting to stop. Do you have otehr economic indicators? Pls, let's hear it. My thread was: The recession is over, but.... Go to that thread, I posted and article from mainstream media saying the same thing; teh recession is technically over, but unemp lags. And as I said, your turd can throw us in teh 2nd worst fiscal mess in US history and if the good guys don't unfuck it for free in 2 weeks then we're allegedly all fucked up. Keep believin and don't change, I like my party in office.

I'm not petty and ridiculous. Furthermore I actually have a point to make, not one to run from, so I don't want the distraction. The ultimate ad hominem as distraction. Lawrocket makes almost as many typos as I do, and I disagree with most of what he claims, but he has very substantive args most of the time. I'm sure he would agree that being petty is just that, running from an issue is just that. Yes, we just went thru this, get on to the points and quit misdirecting. You haven't answerd one point in this thread - show me. I just did, you don't like it, but I will repost it and you can address it. This is what I wrote: That's because we have to coddle our billionaires so instead of drastically raising taxes we just deficit spend and let the billionaires hang on to their cash - you have to do one or the other, or a combo of both. Understand? You have choices in horrible eco times: - Let another 12 million die - Tax the rich and redistribute - Deficit spend You can also cut taxes and do other idiotic things, but I'm talking positive recovery, which requires spending money. Where you get the money is the choice of who's in power, either take from the rich or tack it on to the tab - it's ultimately the same thing from the front of cash acquisition. Is that simple enough? Here's also what I wrote and you cherry-pickjed away from: We raised taxes then, we deficit spend now, that is the truth, let's hear your answer to that. Amazing at the timing of the cessation of the 12 mill dead Americans and others behind them that would have died but for Hoover's late action and FDR's actions. Can youtry to pull more rabbits out of your hat to explain how we taxed our way out of hell then and we just deficit spend now, which really are the same thing in a lot of ways, or just more grrammeeer corrections from the guy who has no answer?

Umm...so is $787 Billion I'd like to say the mess your boy left my guy was unprecedented but it's not, it happened almost 80 years ago too. So you say 787B is unprecedented, yet yoor genius took a descent economy and ran it into the ground and it only cost 5 trillion to do so, and yu call 787B unprecedented? Here, your math must not be good, let me point you to a website: http://www.calculateforfree.com/

Stupid people think the bars going downward are good, smart people think the upward reaching bars are good: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdp_glance.htm I know which I am. -6.4 to +3.5 in 2 Q's is virtually unprecedented if not actully unprecedented. Smart people think the little line going up is good, dumb people think the line going down is good; I know which I am. http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#symbol=%5EDJI;range=1y 6500 to 10k in 10 months is unprecedented. Now just keep calling people stupid while the relevant party fixes the other party's mess....again.

It's funny to watch you throw posts together and make typos, then call others on it. Your bretheren above wrote "god" instead of "good" where your [SIC]? Again, when you run out of substance, you try to discredit the other's points by way of typographical errors. Desperate. And when taxes are cut and overspending ensues that cycle returns at just that time. Amazing how the timing is so coincedental. You party ran this country into the ground, you wanna call it random chance, enjoy, 69M to 59M votres called it FU'd management and history agrees. You wanna wag your pseudo education around? Good, show me 1 major tax cut that lead to overall health forteh economy. Didn't think so. That's because we have to coddle our billionaires so instead of drastically raising taxes we just deficit spend and let the billionaires hang on to their cash - you have to do one or the other, or a combo of both. We raised taxes then, we deficit spend now, that is the truth, let's hear your answer to that. Amazing at the timing of the cessation of the 12 mill dead Americans and others behind them that would have died but for Hoover's late action and FDR's actions. Can youtry to pull more rabbits out of your hat to explain how we taxed our way out of hell then and we just deficit spend now, which really are the same thing in a lot of ways, or just more grrammeeer corrections from the guy who has no answer?

At this point; YES. What do you expect under this economy, really?

The Algiers Accord was signed the day before Reagan was inaugurated, this is the 100% reason why the hostages were released, not some fear of Reagan. The Beirut Barracks bombing is evidence of that. Here's a long read of the agreement: http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf And a short read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algiers_Accords

1) post a link 2) is there a point?