"He’s [Ron Paul] saying that our troops kill and torture innocent Iraqis routinely."
Does he really?
I would disagree here. And so for such a statement, I disregard this whole mind-set.
I disagree with Ron Paul, and yet he does make a point that America can come off as being "Almighty". The people in our nation can be sinful and arrogant for sure. But overall, it's not our fault these etrrorists killed innocent people. I disagree with Paul's mind-set here.
We may have some overlapping agreements, but I stand against some of what he thinks.
At the same time, he would be a better President then George W. was, in my opinion, Because he would help us to stop spemning like money grows on trees, and we can just print money up as much as we want; and we tax people like crazy and still tell the people we are going to lower taxes.
I'll take Paul over any of the others. That's for sure. They all have their problems, and so do all of us. But the best man for what this nation needs is Paul with all his Flaws.
"and yet he does make a point that America can come off as being 'Almighty. The people in our nation can be sinful and arrogant for sure."
I suppose that could be true. At the same time, nations like Iran come off rather haughty as well.
Speaking for myself, it seems less the case America comes off as "arrogant" and more the caes other nations are envious of our success.
"At the same time, he would be a better President then George W. was, in my opinion, Because he would help us to stop spemning like money grows on trees, and we can just print money up as much as we want; and we tax people like crazy and still tell the people we are going to lower taxes."
I'm sorry to say but I find this a bit of an unfair comparison. G.W. Bush's presidency has already taken place and is set in stone, while Ron Paul's presidency is merely theoretical at this point. It's a bit unfair to compare what Bush did do or didn't do with what Paul theoretically would do or wouldn't do. It's arguably fairly easy to make Paul (or anyone else) come off much better in hypotheticals.
Anyway, yeah, it's easy enough to criticize Bush with the benefit of hindsight. Maybe Bush should've spent less than he did. Maybe he shouldn't have expanded the gov't as much as he did (e.g. creating Homeland Security). And so on and so forth. But let's wait to compare once the next POTUS is elected and has to actually deal with the pressing issues of the day. Once he has at least started if not finished his term(s).
Also, our economy is doubtless the central issue today (while it wasn't so central in Bush's presidency, at least not until the end of his second term). Maybe this is unduly coloring your view on Ron Paul in contrast to Bush?
Maybe Ron Paul can fix the economy. But his solutions will cost us in a lot of other ways.
"They all have their problems, and so do all of us."
Hm, I'm not sure what we have to do with it? After all, we're not running for POTUS.
I am amused with this comment that you made above:
"I suppose that could be true. At the same time, nations like Iran come off rather haughty as well."
I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you have been to Iran, you have inside information about this nation and an understanding about what makes them, as a people, "tick"?
I can speak to some of that in that I have had direct contact with the very elite of Iran in the past.
When I read comments like the one I highlighted, yours, I think that way, wondering if you are just speaking from a point of view gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization with a point of view about that country and culture; or, you are speaking from one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it?
"It's arguably fairly easy to make Paul (or anyone else) come off much better in hypotheticals."
I wuld say Romney and Newt would be the sameol same old as Bush was, and "spend".
Ron has a record of being Constitutional way back with Reagan. He would be the best bet for someone who would lead in a way that the government would not become bigger, and most likely become smaller, if the 2 houses would agree, which they don't; but they might. If that makes any sense. i hate politics in a way, and yet it's part of life isn't it.
Ron Paul is a fraud. He puts in earmarks in bills he knows will pass but votes against those bills. He brings the bacon home to his district while maintaining a fraudulent image of being a fiscal conservative. You Paulestinians who defend his every deed will no doubt justify his earmarks.
"I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you have been to Iran, you have inside information about this nation and an understanding about what makes them, as a people, 'tick'?"
I gather you must be another clandestine agent. Otherwise I don't know how you could have inferred from my comment that I have, indeed, "been to Iran" and that I do, indeed, "have inside information about this nation."
(Or perhaps I'm not as good a spy as I thought I was. My methods and techniques must be getting sloppy. Alas, I fear I may have given the game away! Perhaps it's my poker tell. Sigh.)
In any case, yes, I confess I've been to Iran. I admit I was in Iran on a secret mission to gather some intel.
Now, was this a physical presence in the manner of a spy conducting espionage or was this infiltrating by way of hacking thru various networks? Both? Moreover, who am I? Where was I? What do I know? With whom did I speak? For whom do I work? I'd choose my cyanide pill over revealing these secrets.
But it shouldn't come to that. I advise we meet and discuss further as fellow agents. You know what I'm talking about. Same time, same place.
"I can speak to some of that in that I have had direct contact with the very elite of Iran in the past."
Hm, but have you had direct contact with the non-elites?
And among the elites, have you spoken with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei? From my contact with Iranians, neither is very popular among most Iranians. They want him overthrown. Among other things, agents such as myself are here to accommodate and facilitate such requests. We are of the people and we work by the people and for the people.
"When I read comments like the one I highlighted, yours, I think that way, wondering if you are just speaking from a point of view gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization with a point of view about that country and culture; or, you are speaking from one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it? Which is it, if I may ask?"
Obviously the latter.
Also, I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you don't trust the media - media outlets, journals, etc. If so, then I agree, we can never trust them. Indeed, don't accept what they say about Ron Paul either. Currently the media reports he is polling in double digits. Don't buy it. That's not what the majority of true Americans think. Remember, we are of the people and we work by the people and for the people. I'm in the know. Think of me as Uncle Sam's faithful nephew. Besides rockwithhawk I'm also known as jamwithsam.
Plus journals and the like suggest Ron Paul has a lot of support. Don't buy this either. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret. Ron Paul doesn't exist. It's all a set up. There are sound stages. Cameras. Fake crowds. Special effects. CGI. "Ron Paul" is just an actor. In fact, he's multiple look-alike actors. Indeed his whole campaign is set up by the Obama administration to undermine the other GOP candidates. It's part and parcel of Operation Beast. Let's just say if we don't stop him in time and Obama gets his way, he'll be there longer than the Constitution allows.
It gets worse. Romney isn't who he says he is. He's certainly not a Mormon. Instead think of another five letter religion which starts with the letter M.
I'd better not say more at this point. Besides, if you're likewise an agent, then you know the protocol. We'll have to meet and discuss this in another venue. You know the place.
One last thing. You brought up "some organization with a point of view about that country and culture." This is an astute observation. I concur: we can never trust any "organization with a point of view." Especially not an organization with a point of view about Iran. All organizations with points of views let alone points of views about Iran are colluding with, well, someone or other. To paraphase the trenchant Peter Pike, blame Obama. Point is, never have a point of view! Especially if you are an organization or an organization with views about Iran.
Instead just trust me. I'm the only one who's telling the truth.
Anyway rendez-vous at chez tournesol? Again, you know the place.
I'm also known as V in some quarters. V for vendetta.
In Italy I'm known as B. B for bruschetta.
I support all movements of the people, by the people, for the people.
On the face of it, Ron Paul would seem to be in line with this philosophy. But dig a little deeper beneath the surface and you'll discover he's a counterfeit. A cunning counterfeit from a cunning creator. After all, like counterfeit currency, the best lies closely resemble the truth.
Paul is a fraud. He puts on this image of being a hardcore constitutionalist but he is one of the people who puts the most earmarks in bills for his district. How about you address his shenanigans in putting earmarks in bills knowing the bills will pass while voting against those bills? His strident condemnation of govt spending while being one of its prime enablers makes him a fraud of epic proprotions.
Even his claims that the US created the taliban and jihadis are ahistorical. He has made several inaccurate and simplistic statements about our involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s. You Paulestinians emulate your master and just parrot his cliches without thinking through the claims.
"I do acknowledge your rants. Thanks for making my point!"
Well, since satire doesn't seemed to have worked, please allow me to respond seriously then.
"I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you have been to Iran, you have inside information about this nation and an understanding about what makes them, as a people, 'tick'? I can speak to some of that in that I have had direct contact with the very elite of Iran in the past. When I read comments like the one I highlighted, yours, I think that way, wondering if you are just speaking from a point of view gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization with a point of view about that country and culture; or, you are speaking from one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it? Which is it, if I may ask?"
1. Let's remember the context.
Donsands said Ron Paul makes the point "that America can come off as being 'Almighty. The people in our nation can be sinful and arrogant for sure."
My response was: "I suppose that could be true. At the same time, nations like Iran come off rather haughty as well. Speaking for myself, it seems less the case America comes off as 'arrogant' and more the caes other nations are envious of our success."
One of the things I was trying to do was to blunt the common canard among Ron Paul and many of his supporters that America is "sinful and arrogant" and its implication that we're therefore to blame for other nations hating us as well as many of our own woes. (Although to be fair donsands did immediately follow this to say: "it's not our fault these etrrorists killed innocent people.")
2. Now, I don't doubt there is a grain of truth to the accusation. Sure, we could be a bit more humble in many of our dealings with other nations. Just like other nations could be a bit more humble in their dealings with other nations.
3. Also, this isn't the whole picture. Sure, it's true we could be more humble (again like everyone else). But let's say we were indeed more humble. Would this necessarily stop other nations from hating us? No, not necessarily.
4. Instead, we live in a fallen world. The new heavens and the new earth are still to come. We have yet to trade in our swords for ploughshares. So long as our hearts are sinful, and our nature unredeemed, so long as citizens of a nation and its leaders alike are unregenerate, then sin and arrogance can't be avoided. (Of course this isn't to say we should let sin run its course or anything like that. In fact, our system of gov't has things like the three branches of gov't with their checks and balances as well as the electoral college system to attempt to keep sin at bay, among other things.)
5. So, even if it's true we're "sinful and arrogant" to some degree, I'd be more inclined to think we're doing a pretty darn good job overall in contrast to nations like Iran.
6. As for your specific allegations, I'm afraid you're setting up a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or scenario. It's not either one can only speak from the point of view of "gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization" or one can only speak from "one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it." For example, it's possible to do both.
7. Not to mention you said you've had "direct contact with the very elite of Iran." But why should the "very elite," in and of themselves, be representative of "what makes [Iranians], as a people, 'tick'"? I would think it's more to fair some "elites" could be represenative, while others might not. "Elite" is a very fuzzy word.
8. Of course, your allegation cuts against you as well. How much of your info do you gather from the "very elite of Iran"? How do you know the "very elite" aren't falsely coloring your views?
9. My comment doesn't imply I've been to Iran. But why should one need to travel to Iran and speak with its people to know what Iran is all about?
10. I'm hardly the first one to trust the media in everything they say. But at the same time, does this mean everything they say about Iran is false?
11. One benefit of the media is there's a lot of diversity. Liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. Many people report many things. The mainstream media does seem to me to be quite liberal. But I'm aware of conservative media and other avenues of information as well.
12. Actually I grew up with a couple of friends from Iran. And since I interact regularly with internationals, I know and interact with several Iranians as well. A few of them are first generation immigrants from Iran. Many of them grew up here from families that immigrated, if I'm not mistaken, around the time the Shah fell and fundamentalist Islam took over. So either expats or children of expats, immigrants or children of immigrants.
Are they representative of the people in Iran? Maybe, maybe not.
They had the means to flee from Iran whereas most Iranians didn't. Usually, though not always, this means some form of wealth and/or connections.
I don't know how representative their thinking is of Iranians as a whole. All of them tell me most Iranians dislike and do not support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei though. Is this true? Wouldn't most people fleeing from a country undergoing a regime change have a low opinion of the regime in power?
To cut a long story short, from what I can tell, coupled with relatively still current events like the attempted Facebook Revolution, it sounds like it is true that many if not most Iranians dislike Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. But again I'm open to correction.
13. In any case, I think it's fair enough to judge the current regime in Iran by, well, the current regime's own comments. After all, whether or not the people support them, they're the ones still in power. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei have made enough public statements to know what they really think and intend and so forth.
Having followed the link and after a bit of imagining, here's something to consider, if you are so inclined, Rocking? God is alive and well and working non-stop, 24/7 and doesn't need our help in what He intends to accomplish in the world.
He has made some promises.
These promises are not nearly as vetted as they should be?
There are many brethren who are sitting in darkness in a multitude of nations, including Iran, simply because the promises of God are not nearly as vetted as they should be through the Church, which God doesn't need to accomplish what He intends on accomplishing in the world.
Here is what God is up too, even in Iran:
Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. Php 3:15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. Php 3:16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained. Php 3:17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. Php 3:18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. Php 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Php 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
A couple more things and I will quit commenting:
Here is the mystery revealed that God intends on accomplishing with or without our cooperation:
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
And while God is summing up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth, even in Iran, AND, Christ is transforming the lowly body of His people, we, His people, now and yet to be His people, after hearing about the promises of God, can count on God destroying both Satan and "all" adversaries of our Soul:
Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
Psa 143:11 For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble! Psa 143:12 And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant.
So, and doubtful, whether Ron Paul is elected to the Presidency or not, I am praying for the current President, who I did not vote for and I will be praying for the next President, who I may have voted for.
"He’s [Ron Paul] saying that our troops kill and torture innocent Iraqis routinely."
ReplyDeleteDoes he really?
I would disagree here. And so for such a statement, I disregard this whole mind-set.
I disagree with Ron Paul, and yet he does make a point that America can come off as being "Almighty". The people in our nation can be sinful and arrogant for sure. But overall, it's not our fault these etrrorists killed innocent people. I disagree with Paul's mind-set here.
We may have some overlapping agreements, but I stand against some of what he thinks.
At the same time, he would be a better President then George W. was, in my opinion, Because he would help us to stop spemning like money grows on trees, and we can just print money up as much as we want; and we tax people like crazy and still tell the people we are going to lower taxes.
I'll take Paul over any of the others. That's for sure. They all have their problems, and so do all of us. But the best man for what this nation needs is Paul with all his Flaws.
Hi donsands,
ReplyDeleteIf I might please weigh in on your comments, sir.
"and yet he does make a point that America can come off as being 'Almighty. The people in our nation can be sinful and arrogant for sure."
I suppose that could be true. At the same time, nations like Iran come off rather haughty as well.
Speaking for myself, it seems less the case America comes off as "arrogant" and more the caes other nations are envious of our success.
"At the same time, he would be a better President then George W. was, in my opinion, Because he would help us to stop spemning like money grows on trees, and we can just print money up as much as we want; and we tax people like crazy and still tell the people we are going to lower taxes."
I'm sorry to say but I find this a bit of an unfair comparison. G.W. Bush's presidency has already taken place and is set in stone, while Ron Paul's presidency is merely theoretical at this point. It's a bit unfair to compare what Bush did do or didn't do with what Paul theoretically would do or wouldn't do. It's arguably fairly easy to make Paul (or anyone else) come off much better in hypotheticals.
Anyway, yeah, it's easy enough to criticize Bush with the benefit of hindsight. Maybe Bush should've spent less than he did. Maybe he shouldn't have expanded the gov't as much as he did (e.g. creating Homeland Security). And so on and so forth. But let's wait to compare once the next POTUS is elected and has to actually deal with the pressing issues of the day. Once he has at least started if not finished his term(s).
Also, our economy is doubtless the central issue today (while it wasn't so central in Bush's presidency, at least not until the end of his second term). Maybe this is unduly coloring your view on Ron Paul in contrast to Bush?
Maybe Ron Paul can fix the economy. But his solutions will cost us in a lot of other ways.
"They all have their problems, and so do all of us."
Hm, I'm not sure what we have to do with it? After all, we're not running for POTUS.
Rocking,
ReplyDeleteI am amused with this comment that you made above:
"I suppose that could be true. At the same time, nations like Iran come off rather haughty as well."
I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you have been to Iran, you have inside information about this nation and an understanding about what makes them, as a people, "tick"?
I can speak to some of that in that I have had direct contact with the very elite of Iran in the past.
When I read comments like the one I highlighted, yours, I think that way, wondering if you are just speaking from a point of view gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization with a point of view about that country and culture; or, you are speaking from one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it?
Which is it, if I may ask?
"It's arguably fairly easy to make Paul (or anyone else) come off much better in hypotheticals."
ReplyDeleteI wuld say Romney and Newt would be the sameol same old as Bush was, and "spend".
Ron has a record of being Constitutional way back with Reagan.
He would be the best bet for someone who would lead in a way that the government would not become bigger, and most likely become smaller, if the 2 houses would agree, which they don't; but they might.
If that makes any sense.
i hate politics in a way, and yet it's part of life isn't it.
Ron Paul is a fraud. He puts in earmarks in bills he knows will pass but votes against those bills. He brings the bacon home to his district while maintaining a fraudulent image of being a fiscal conservative. You Paulestinians who defend his every deed will no doubt justify his earmarks.
ReplyDelete"I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you have been to Iran, you have inside information about this nation and an understanding about what makes them, as a people, 'tick'?"
ReplyDeleteI gather you must be another clandestine agent. Otherwise I don't know how you could have inferred from my comment that I have, indeed, "been to Iran" and that I do, indeed, "have inside information about this nation."
(Or perhaps I'm not as good a spy as I thought I was. My methods and techniques must be getting sloppy. Alas, I fear I may have given the game away! Perhaps it's my poker tell. Sigh.)
In any case, yes, I confess I've been to Iran. I admit I was in Iran on a secret mission to gather some intel.
Now, was this a physical presence in the manner of a spy conducting espionage or was this infiltrating by way of hacking thru various networks? Both? Moreover, who am I? Where was I? What do I know? With whom did I speak? For whom do I work? I'd choose my cyanide pill over revealing these secrets.
But it shouldn't come to that. I advise we meet and discuss further as fellow agents. You know what I'm talking about. Same time, same place.
"I can speak to some of that in that I have had direct contact with the very elite of Iran in the past."
Hm, but have you had direct contact with the non-elites?
And among the elites, have you spoken with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei? From my contact with Iranians, neither is very popular among most Iranians. They want him overthrown. Among other things, agents such as myself are here to accommodate and facilitate such requests. We are of the people and we work by the people and for the people.
"When I read comments like the one I highlighted, yours, I think that way, wondering if you are just speaking from a point of view gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization with a point of view about that country and culture; or, you are speaking from one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it? Which is it, if I may ask?"
ReplyDeleteObviously the latter.
Also, I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you don't trust the media - media outlets, journals, etc. If so, then I agree, we can never trust them. Indeed, don't accept what they say about Ron Paul either. Currently the media reports he is polling in double digits. Don't buy it. That's not what the majority of true Americans think. Remember, we are of the people and we work by the people and for the people. I'm in the know. Think of me as Uncle Sam's faithful nephew. Besides rockwithhawk I'm also known as jamwithsam.
Plus journals and the like suggest Ron Paul has a lot of support. Don't buy this either. In fact, I'll let you in on a little secret. Ron Paul doesn't exist. It's all a set up. There are sound stages. Cameras. Fake crowds. Special effects. CGI. "Ron Paul" is just an actor. In fact, he's multiple look-alike actors. Indeed his whole campaign is set up by the Obama administration to undermine the other GOP candidates. It's part and parcel of Operation Beast. Let's just say if we don't stop him in time and Obama gets his way, he'll be there longer than the Constitution allows.
It gets worse. Romney isn't who he says he is. He's certainly not a Mormon. Instead think of another five letter religion which starts with the letter M.
I'd better not say more at this point. Besides, if you're likewise an agent, then you know the protocol. We'll have to meet and discuss this in another venue. You know the place.
One last thing. You brought up "some organization with a point of view about that country and culture." This is an astute observation. I concur: we can never trust any "organization with a point of view." Especially not an organization with a point of view about Iran. All organizations with points of views let alone points of views about Iran are colluding with, well, someone or other. To paraphase the trenchant Peter Pike, blame Obama. Point is, never have a point of view! Especially if you are an organization or an organization with views about Iran.
Instead just trust me. I'm the only one who's telling the truth.
Anyway rendez-vous at chez tournesol? Again, you know the place.
I'm also known as V in some quarters. V for vendetta.
ReplyDeleteIn Italy I'm known as B. B for bruschetta.
I support all movements of the people, by the people, for the people.
On the face of it, Ron Paul would seem to be in line with this philosophy. But dig a little deeper beneath the surface and you'll discover he's a counterfeit. A cunning counterfeit from a cunning creator. After all, like counterfeit currency, the best lies closely resemble the truth.
"Ron Paul is a fraud."-APK
ReplyDeleteThat's quite a statement. He is a liar you say.
Are there any truthful politicians you can suggest?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletedonsands,
ReplyDeletePaul is a fraud. He puts on this image of being a hardcore constitutionalist but he is one of the people who puts the most earmarks in bills for his district. How about you address his shenanigans in putting earmarks in bills knowing the bills will pass while voting against those bills? His strident condemnation of govt spending while being one of its prime enablers makes him a fraud of epic proprotions.
Even his claims that the US created the taliban and jihadis are ahistorical. He has made several inaccurate and simplistic statements about our involvement in Afghanistan in the 1980s. You Paulestinians emulate your master and just parrot his cliches without thinking through the claims.
Who are those who are not frauds?
ReplyDeleteRocking,
ReplyDeleteI do acknowledge your rants. Thanks for making my point!
Natamllc said:
ReplyDelete"I do acknowledge your rants. Thanks for making my point!"
Well, since satire doesn't seemed to have worked, please allow me to respond seriously then.
"I find that an interesting comment in that it implies you have been to Iran, you have inside information about this nation and an understanding about what makes them, as a people, 'tick'? I can speak to some of that in that I have had direct contact with the very elite of Iran in the past. When I read comments like the one I highlighted, yours, I think that way, wondering if you are just speaking from a point of view gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization with a point of view about that country and culture; or, you are speaking from one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it? Which is it, if I may ask?"
1. Let's remember the context.
Donsands said Ron Paul makes the point "that America can come off as being 'Almighty. The people in our nation can be sinful and arrogant for sure."
My response was: "I suppose that could be true. At the same time, nations like Iran come off rather haughty as well. Speaking for myself, it seems less the case America comes off as 'arrogant' and more the caes other nations are envious of our success."
One of the things I was trying to do was to blunt the common canard among Ron Paul and many of his supporters that America is "sinful and arrogant" and its implication that we're therefore to blame for other nations hating us as well as many of our own woes. (Although to be fair donsands did immediately follow this to say: "it's not our fault these etrrorists killed innocent people.")
2. Now, I don't doubt there is a grain of truth to the accusation. Sure, we could be a bit more humble in many of our dealings with other nations. Just like other nations could be a bit more humble in their dealings with other nations.
3. Also, this isn't the whole picture. Sure, it's true we could be more humble (again like everyone else). But let's say we were indeed more humble. Would this necessarily stop other nations from hating us? No, not necessarily.
4. Instead, we live in a fallen world. The new heavens and the new earth are still to come. We have yet to trade in our swords for ploughshares. So long as our hearts are sinful, and our nature unredeemed, so long as citizens of a nation and its leaders alike are unregenerate, then sin and arrogance can't be avoided. (Of course this isn't to say we should let sin run its course or anything like that. In fact, our system of gov't has things like the three branches of gov't with their checks and balances as well as the electoral college system to attempt to keep sin at bay, among other things.)
5. So, even if it's true we're "sinful and arrogant" to some degree, I'd be more inclined to think we're doing a pretty darn good job overall in contrast to nations like Iran.
6. As for your specific allegations, I'm afraid you're setting up a false dichotomy. It's not an either/or scenario. It's not either one can only speak from the point of view of "gathered from media outlets, journals or some organization" or one can only speak from "one who has had real dealings with this people, the Iranians, with their personal lives and ways and deal with the present government being affected by it." For example, it's possible to do both.
ReplyDelete7. Not to mention you said you've had "direct contact with the very elite of Iran." But why should the "very elite," in and of themselves, be representative of "what makes [Iranians], as a people, 'tick'"? I would think it's more to fair some "elites" could be represenative, while others might not. "Elite" is a very fuzzy word.
8. Of course, your allegation cuts against you as well. How much of your info do you gather from the "very elite of Iran"? How do you know the "very elite" aren't falsely coloring your views?
9. My comment doesn't imply I've been to Iran. But why should one need to travel to Iran and speak with its people to know what Iran is all about?
10. I'm hardly the first one to trust the media in everything they say. But at the same time, does this mean everything they say about Iran is false?
11. One benefit of the media is there's a lot of diversity. Liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. Many people report many things. The mainstream media does seem to me to be quite liberal. But I'm aware of conservative media and other avenues of information as well.
12. Actually I grew up with a couple of friends from Iran. And since I interact regularly with internationals, I know and interact with several Iranians as well. A few of them are first generation immigrants from Iran. Many of them grew up here from families that immigrated, if I'm not mistaken, around the time the Shah fell and fundamentalist Islam took over. So either expats or children of expats, immigrants or children of immigrants.
Are they representative of the people in Iran? Maybe, maybe not.
They had the means to flee from Iran whereas most Iranians didn't. Usually, though not always, this means some form of wealth and/or connections.
I don't know how representative their thinking is of Iranians as a whole. All of them tell me most Iranians dislike and do not support Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei though. Is this true? Wouldn't most people fleeing from a country undergoing a regime change have a low opinion of the regime in power?
To cut a long story short, from what I can tell, coupled with relatively still current events like the attempted Facebook Revolution, it sounds like it is true that many if not most Iranians dislike Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. But again I'm open to correction.
13. In any case, I think it's fair enough to judge the current regime in Iran by, well, the current regime's own comments. After all, whether or not the people support them, they're the ones still in power. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei have made enough public statements to know what they really think and intend and so forth.
Having followed the link and after a bit of imagining, here's something to consider, if you are so inclined, Rocking? God is alive and well and working non-stop, 24/7 and doesn't need our help in what He intends to accomplish in the world.
ReplyDeleteHe has made some promises.
These promises are not nearly as vetted as they should be?
There are many brethren who are sitting in darkness in a multitude of nations, including Iran, simply because the promises of God are not nearly as vetted as they should be through the Church, which God doesn't need to accomplish what He intends on accomplishing in the world.
Here is what God is up too, even in Iran:
Php 3:14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Php 3:15 Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you.
Php 3:16 Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
Php 3:17 Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us.
Php 3:18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ.
Php 3:19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.
Php 3:20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
Php 3:21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.
A couple more things and I will quit commenting:
Here is the mystery revealed that God intends on accomplishing with or without our cooperation:
Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,
Eph 1:8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight
Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
And while God is summing up all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth, even in Iran, AND, Christ is transforming the lowly body of His people, we, His people, now and yet to be His people, after hearing about the promises of God, can count on God destroying both Satan and "all" adversaries of our Soul:
Heb 2:14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,
Heb 2:15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
Psa 143:11 For your name's sake, O LORD, preserve my life! In your righteousness bring my soul out of trouble!
Psa 143:12 And in your steadfast love you will cut off my enemies, and you will destroy all the adversaries of my soul, for I am your servant.
So, and doubtful, whether Ron Paul is elected to the Presidency or not, I am praying for the current President, who I did not vote for and I will be praying for the next President, who I may have voted for.