Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
/----/ When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger./-----/ Here numb nuts:/ââ/ âWhen was Carter the President of Iran?âCarter had nothing to do with one million demonstrators in Tehran in 1978.
âCrowds in excess of one million demonstrated in TehrÄn, proving the wide appeal of Khomeini, who arrived in Iran amid wild rejoicingâ
Cellblock2429, post: 23619577 When was Carter the President of Iran?
or how in the hell do you think Carter created Khomeini? He was in exile in France.
Iranian Revolution | Causes, Effects, & Facts
- During his exile, Khomeini coordinated this upsurge of oppositionâfirst from Iraqand after 1978 from Franceâdemanding the shahâs abdication. In January 1979, in what was officially described as a âvacation,â the shah and his family fled Iran. The Regency Council established to run the country during the shahâs absence proved unable to function, and Prime Minister Shahpur Bakhtiar, hastily appointed by the shah before his departure, was incapable of effecting compromise with either his former National Front colleagues or Khomeini. Crowds in excess of one million demonstrated in TehrÄn, proving the wide appeal of Khomeini, who arrived in Iran amid wild rejoicing on February 1. Ten days later, on February 11, Iranâs armed forces declared their neutrality, effectively ousting the shahâs regime. Bakhtiar went into hiding, eventually to find exile in France.
Aftermath
On April 1, following overwhelming support in a national referendum, Khomeini declared Iran an Islamic republic.
I never said he was.
How Jimmy Carter lost Iran - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/22/how-jimmy-carter-lost-iran/
Oct 22, 2017The politics behind Carter's biggest blunder. On Oct. 21, 1979, President Jimmy Carterauthorized the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment â with catastrophic consequences. Carter blundered because of vacillation, shortsighted thinking, a disregard for identified risk and inept implementation that included zero precautions to protect against disaster.
So why did you tell this lie in the first place?
âCarter, who had the brain fart to replace the Shaw of Iran with Ayatollah Khomeini,â
you lied when you said Carter replaced âthe Shaw of Iran with Ayatollah Khomeiniâ
Khomeini took over in February 1979.
You cite an opinion in the WAPO which is critical Carterâs decision to allow the deposed Iran come to the US. That happened in October 1979.
Carter did not repkace the Shah with Khomeini.
You lied or are ignorant. Take your pick.
https://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-ayatollah-khomeini-suckered-jimmy-carter/
New depths to Jimmy Carterâs fecklessness have emerged through the declassification of State Department cables relating to the fall of the Shah of Iran.
As reported by the BBC, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in January 1979, secretly sought Carterâs assistance in overcoming opposition from Iranâs military, still loyal to the shah. Khomeini promised that if he could return to Iran from exile in France, which the United States could facilitate, he would prevent a civil war, and his regime would not be hostile to Washington.
The soon-to-be Supreme Leader of Iran certainly knew a sucker when he saw one. What Carter did in response to Khomeiniâs pledge is not entirely clear from the newly declassified materials, but Khomeini did return; the military either fell into line or was ruthlessly purged; and Iran switched 180 degrees from being a strategic US ally to being one of our most implacable adversaries.
Carterâs unwillingness to back the shah, a staunch American ally, has long been well-known, despite constant protestations of support at the time. Khomeini could not then, however, have relied on that for certain. Within Carterâs administration, hostility to the shah over his human-rights record, a centerpiece of Carterâs policy, was certainly extensive.
Jesus dude. John Bolton? The five decade Iran warmonger is your source.
Carter has nothing to do with the million demonstrators in Tehran that wanted Khomeini to take over.
Forty years later you take the opinion of one of the top âinvade Iraqâ warmongers in 2003 who pretends and has suckered you into believing that Carter could have changed history by âbacking the Shahâ against a popular internal revolt somehow.
See how Boltonâs Iraq lie-based warmongering turned out. Can you imagine what would have
happened had Carter invaded Iran in 1979.
Jesus you TrumpOLanterns are dumb.
And the John Bolton admits heâs relying on conjecture anyway.
you posted this:
âWhat Carter did in response to Khomeiniâs pledge is not entirely clear from the newly declassified materials...ââ
You trust such a liar and warmongering idiot?
John Bolton? Really.
JIMMY CARTER: 'I Could Have Wiped Iran Off The ... .
/----/The only one spreading lies is you, pathetically trying to cover for the moronic peanut farmer. It must suck to be a Carter defender./----/ When you can't refute the message, attack the messenger./-----/ Here numb nuts:/ââ/ âWhen was Carter the President of Iran?â
I never said he was.
How Jimmy Carter lost Iran - The Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2017/10/22/how-jimmy-carter-lost-iran/
Oct 22, 2017The politics behind Carter's biggest blunder. On Oct. 21, 1979, President Jimmy Carterauthorized the deposed Shah of Iran to enter the United States for medical treatment â with catastrophic consequences. Carter blundered because of vacillation, shortsighted thinking, a disregard for identified risk and inept implementation that included zero precautions to protect against disaster.
So why did you tell this lie in the first place?
âCarter, who had the brain fart to replace the Shaw of Iran with Ayatollah Khomeini,â
you lied when you said Carter replaced âthe Shaw of Iran with Ayatollah Khomeiniâ
Khomeini took over in February 1979.
You cite an opinion in the WAPO which is critical Carterâs decision to allow the deposed Iran come to the US. That happened in October 1979.
Carter did not repkace the Shah with Khomeini.
You lied or are ignorant. Take your pick.
https://nypost.com/2016/06/04/how-ayatollah-khomeini-suckered-jimmy-carter/
New depths to Jimmy Carterâs fecklessness have emerged through the declassification of State Department cables relating to the fall of the Shah of Iran.
As reported by the BBC, the Ayatollah Khomeini, in January 1979, secretly sought Carterâs assistance in overcoming opposition from Iranâs military, still loyal to the shah. Khomeini promised that if he could return to Iran from exile in France, which the United States could facilitate, he would prevent a civil war, and his regime would not be hostile to Washington.
The soon-to-be Supreme Leader of Iran certainly knew a sucker when he saw one. What Carter did in response to Khomeiniâs pledge is not entirely clear from the newly declassified materials, but Khomeini did return; the military either fell into line or was ruthlessly purged; and Iran switched 180 degrees from being a strategic US ally to being one of our most implacable adversaries.
Carterâs unwillingness to back the shah, a staunch American ally, has long been well-known, despite constant protestations of support at the time. Khomeini could not then, however, have relied on that for certain. Within Carterâs administration, hostility to the shah over his human-rights record, a centerpiece of Carterâs policy, was certainly extensive.
Jesus dude. John Bolton? The five decade Iran warmonger is your source.
Carter has nothing to do with the million demonstrators in Tehran that wanted Khomeini to take over.
Forty years later you take the opinion of one of the top âinvade Iraqâ warmongers in 2003 who pretends and has suckered you into believing that Carter could have changed history by âbacking the Shahâ against a popular internal revolt somehow.
See how Boltonâs Iraq lie-based warmongering turned out. Can you imagine what would have
happened had Carter invaded Iran in 1979.
Jesus you TrumpOLanterns are dumb.
And the John Bolton admits heâs relying on conjecture anyway.
you posted this:
âWhat Carter did in response to Khomeiniâs pledge is not entirely clear from the newly declassified materials...ââ
You trust such a liar and warmongering idiot?
John Bolton? Really.
JIMMY CARTER: 'I Could Have Wiped Iran Off The ... .
I refuted your lie. Carter did not replace the Shah with Khomeini.
The Iranian people replaced the Shah with Khomeini.
Carter did not intervene militarily which you think was wrong. Carter was right.
you lied face it.
More good news for the economy.
This would have never happened under the Nazi emocrats
More good news for the economy.
This would have never happened under the Nazi Democrats
/â-/ It would have happened under Nazicrats because they want to destroy fossil fuels and have us living in the 1800s
/----/The only one spreading lies is you, pathetically trying to cover for the moronic peanut farmer. It must suck to be a Carter defender.
What lie are you alleging I told?.
So you never heard of Y2K and it's impact on economics? Bush did not kill America 9/11 did. The deficit spending on war along with the ensuing petroleum price increases put the economic downturn into gear. The lack of faith in the economy put housing into question and caused the banks to do some real stupid shit. Kinda like a republican ran them.The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.
Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.
Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.
Letâs do a little math here:
Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.
As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)
Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked? Simple: The Democrats took power. When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.
As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years
Stay tuned for Part Two.........
Good Bush economy attacked, bad Obama economy ignored by media
Obama didn't end the Great Recession that Bush didn't cause - AEI
Lets not forget this that the Dems are doing to the economy:
Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
.......Setting aside the legal and moral questions that shape immigration policy, there is a significant tax burden imposed on citizens and legal immigrants tied to a leaky border. President Trump made headlines last year for questioning the costs of illegal immigration. Our dutiful firefighters in the mainstream press fact checked each word and called his $250 billion figure an exaggeration. However, looking at the substance of his argument shows that he was likely on the mark.
The costs of illegal immigration are comprehensive. Even after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants, the 12.5 million of them living in the country results in a $116 billion burden on the economy and taxpayers each year. About two-thirds of this amount is absorbed by local and state taxpayers, who are often the least unable to share the costs.
One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.
A full half of noncitizens receive Medicaid, compared to 23 percent of native born citizens, while almost half of noncitizens are on food stamps. Of particular concern is that noncitizens who stay in the long term are more likely to use these programs than those who just arrived. Half of new noncitizens receive welfare, but the figure jumps to a stunning 70 percent among those who have been in the United States for more than 10 years.
The threat to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states becomes clearer when looking at the local costs of poor border policy. Apart from making Cher an immigration hawk, the proposal underlines states like California, which has the highest burden related to its large noncitizen population. Home to 2.2 million illegal immigrants as of 2016, a full 15 percent of students are undocumented or have parents who are.
The total costs of education due to immigration will nearly double in the state over the next 50 years. Californians are saddled with $23 billion in tax dollars for services relating to the illegal population, which makes up more than 10 percent of the state budget. Californians pay 11 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes already. The additional burden imposed by illegal immigrants is $600 in costs to each citizen annually.
The institutional burden of illegal immigration also includes a crime rate four times higher than that of citizens. Of all federal prisoners, 26 percent are noncitizens, two-thirds of whom are in the United States illegally. Considering it costs the federal government $32,000 annually for each prisoner, the approximately 25,000 noncitizens in our prison system amounts to nearly $1 billion in expenses annually, not to mention the expenses of state correctional facilities and immigration enforcement.
The overall figures for border enforcement have skyrocketed as well. The number of border patrol agents has increased by almost five times over the last 25 years, and nearly doubled in the last 15 years. Meanwhile, the costs of protecting the southern border with Mexico has increased by nearly tenfold in the same period of 25 years to almost $4 billion annually. This does not even factor in the 43 percent of illegal immigrants who fail to show up to their scheduled court hearings following their detentions.......
But the trump deficit spending dwarfs all of that. And the rich get all the tax breaks so the middle income people pay for his golf trips about 121 million dollars so far.Lets not forget this that the Dems are doing to the economy:
Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration
.......Setting aside the legal and moral questions that shape immigration policy, there is a significant tax burden imposed on citizens and legal immigrants tied to a leaky border. President Trump made headlines last year for questioning the costs of illegal immigration. Our dutiful firefighters in the mainstream press fact checked each word and called his $250 billion figure an exaggeration. However, looking at the substance of his argument shows that he was likely on the mark.
The costs of illegal immigration are comprehensive. Even after deducting the $19 billion in taxes paid by illegal immigrants, the 12.5 million of them living in the country results in a $116 billion burden on the economy and taxpayers each year. About two-thirds of this amount is absorbed by local and state taxpayers, who are often the least unable to share the costs.
One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.
A full half of noncitizens receive Medicaid, compared to 23 percent of native born citizens, while almost half of noncitizens are on food stamps. Of particular concern is that noncitizens who stay in the long term are more likely to use these programs than those who just arrived. Half of new noncitizens receive welfare, but the figure jumps to a stunning 70 percent among those who have been in the United States for more than 10 years.
The threat to send illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states becomes clearer when looking at the local costs of poor border policy. Apart from making Cher an immigration hawk, the proposal underlines states like California, which has the highest burden related to its large noncitizen population. Home to 2.2 million illegal immigrants as of 2016, a full 15 percent of students are undocumented or have parents who are.
The total costs of education due to immigration will nearly double in the state over the next 50 years. Californians are saddled with $23 billion in tax dollars for services relating to the illegal population, which makes up more than 10 percent of the state budget. Californians pay 11 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes already. The additional burden imposed by illegal immigrants is $600 in costs to each citizen annually.
The institutional burden of illegal immigration also includes a crime rate four times higher than that of citizens. Of all federal prisoners, 26 percent are noncitizens, two-thirds of whom are in the United States illegally. Considering it costs the federal government $32,000 annually for each prisoner, the approximately 25,000 noncitizens in our prison system amounts to nearly $1 billion in expenses annually, not to mention the expenses of state correctional facilities and immigration enforcement.
The overall figures for border enforcement have skyrocketed as well. The number of border patrol agents has increased by almost five times over the last 25 years, and nearly doubled in the last 15 years. Meanwhile, the costs of protecting the southern border with Mexico has increased by nearly tenfold in the same period of 25 years to almost $4 billion annually. This does not even factor in the 43 percent of illegal immigrants who fail to show up to their scheduled court hearings following their detentions.......
.....Bush did not kill America 9/11 did.......
What lie are you alleging I told?.
I am waiting for the first time you DON'T lie
/ââ/ In a totally unrelated topic: 312,000 Jobs Added In December, Manufacturing Growing 714% Faster Under Trump Than ObamaWhat lie are you alleging I told?.
I am waiting for the first time you DON'T lie
While you wait. You must have time to explain and define exactly what you think is at least one lie that I have told.
is this a lie? Is any one, or all three, or any part of the following three bullet points a lie?
If so what are they?
- President Donald Trump won over Rust Belt states in 2016 on pledges to revive American manufacturing.
- But the sector slipped deeper into a recession in November, with a key gauge of factory activity contracting for the fourth straight month.
- New orders and employment in the sector dropped at a faster pace last month. Trump pledged to revive the manufacturing sector. But it just fell deeper into a recession. | Markets Insider
/ââ/ In a totally unrelated topic: 312,000 Jobs Added In December, Manufacturing Growing 714% Faster Under Trump Than Obama
The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. He did not.
Before the Democrats took Congress in 2007 unemployment was 4.1%, gas was $1.70 a gallon, and the economy was expanding.
Then the Democrats took Congress in 2007 and promptly destroyed the economy. When Obama became president in 2009 he made it twice as bad.
Letâs do a little math here:
Bush was president for 8 years, from 2001 to 2009.
As I said, in 2007 unemployment was 4.1% and the economy was expanding. That is SIX years into the Bush presidency mind you - SIX OUT OF EIGHT. (And BTW: 4.1% is almost perfect since there is no such thing as a 0% rate.)
Now, can anyone explain to me why the first six years of the eight-year Bush presidency was just fine, and then magically, when the Democrats took over Congress, the economy tanked? Simple: The Democrats took power. When they took power they pushed their social engineering policy of trying to let minorities who wants to own a house own a house whether they could afford it or not. All the bad loans the banks made, they were browbeat into that by the Left. And THAT was the first domino in line to fall.
As I said: The biggest propaganda lie ever concocted and foisted upon the American people is the lie that Bush caused our economic crisis. In fact, Democrats did, with policies that can find their genesis in the Clinton years
Stay tuned for Part Two.........
Good Bush economy attacked, bad Obama economy ignored by media
Obama didn't end the Great Recession that Bush didn't cause - AEI
