Red meat = plays to a certain audience hungry for a certain message.
Obama's speech at the Democratic convention is considered a red meat speech. Many political speeches filled with brash rhetoric are considered red meat speeches.
that kinda blanketly reduces a poignant speech/message to an unfair negative. A better qualification would be to give a speech to an audience that is hungry for it, while the speech giver is not at all invested in that speech/message.
i would say Obama was actually invested in his speech, but id seconded guess Ahmadinejad (out of sheer ignorance).
All that aside though, mofo is ELOQUENT! No wonder bush did not accept his offer to a public debate.
Man, this guy is clearly invested in this speech. Yeah, there are some good points in there, but I have a hard time taking this guy seriously when he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He either has a hand in helping to aid people killing our troops or he has no control over the people in his administration who are. Either way, the guy has balls of brass to be speechifying to Americans like this.
Man, this guy is clearly invested in this speech. Yeah, there are some good points in there, but I have a hard time taking this guy seriously when he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He either has a hand in helping to aid people killing our troops or he has no control over the people in his administration who are. Either way, the guy has balls of brass to be speechifying to Americans like this.
, i would only second guess his quasi-secular and "american people are amazing but bush sucks" rhetoric. in the end all, this is a tool to further divide america => troop withdrawl => iraq OFFICIALLY in the iranian pocket which is in his best interest.
the earnest-sounding bullshit is over the top in this letter
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.
this guy must be on mushrooms. could he possibly be serious? I mean, I know we got some dumb-asses in the US, but does he really expect folls to buy this shit?
Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society.
Translation: after years of political kidnappings and intimidation, much of the educated class of my country fled the authoritarian theocracy of which I am the current figurehead.
Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death.
You know, as far as I'm concerned, good governance often starts with declaring religious rule, taking an embassy hostage, and liquidating competing political factions.
I'm not a fan of the demonization of Iran - I've got a lot of Persian friends, all of whom have relatives back home - but this is just condescending and offensive.
Ahmadinejad's got another thing coming if he thinks he can seduce the left into overlooking the homo hanging, slut stoning and genocidal aspirations of his regime by flattering their ideological preconcpetions with florid rhetoric. He'll need to introduce free healthcare or at least some form of wealth redistrubtion to do that.
the earnest-sounding bullshit is over the top in this letter
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.
this guy must be on mushrooms. could he possibly be serious? I mean, I know we got some dumb-asses in the US, but does he really expect folls to buy this shit?
I don't really think we are his intended audience.
You know, as far as I'm concerned, good governance often starts with declaring religious rule, taking an embassy hostage, and liquidating competing political factions.
I'm not a fan of the demonization of Iran - I've got a lot of Persian friends, all of whom have relatives back home - but this is just condescending and offensive.
First off, the Embassy seige was nearly 30 years ago under Khomeini. We don't still hold Bush responsible for Nixon's fuck ups so what's with bringing up the siege? Secondly, the American constitution, although ostensibly secular, is also based on religious principles as is the UK model of government. Lastly, however you take the message, there is no doubt that most of the world feels that the US president is out of step with the wishes and/or interests of his people with his Middle East policy. That's largely what this letter is about and on that score I suspect he got it right.
First off, the Embassy seige was nearly 30 years ago under Khomeini. We don't still hold Bush responsible for Nixon's fuck ups so what's with bringing up the siege?
Terry Anderson has (I believe) has identified Ahmadinejad as one of his captors from 1979. Ahmadinejad is also not going to Austria anytime soon because he is wanted for his part in the assassination of a foreign national in Vienna. So I think the Embassy siege is mildly relevant here when he is theoretically one of the main perpetrators.
First off, the Embassy seige was nearly 30 years ago under Khomeini. We don't still hold Bush responsible for Nixon's fuck ups so what's with bringing up the siege?
Because the same people are still in power in Iran. Khamenei was intimately involved in the revolution, was elected president in '81, and has been supreme leader for 17 years. He personally oversaw the purge of Iran's political class in the early 1980s. If Reagan was still president we'd surely be talking about him.
So far as I can tell, the whole thing about Ahmadinejad being one of the embassy commandos is apocryphal. But his political lineage goes straight back to the revolution as well - he was politically active in the Tehran universities at the time they were providing the mullahs' foot soldiers.
And shit, now that Bush is bringing Kissinger back, I think we can definitely hold him responsible for a few Nixon-era war strategies.
Secondly, the American constitution, although ostensibly secular, is also based on religious principles as is the UK model of government.
'Ostensibly secular'? Neither the UK nor the US is ruled by a supreme religious leader. Candidates don't have to be vetted by a council of clerics before they stand for election. And the courts don't operate on religious law. Do you really think that the difference is in name only?
Lastly, however you take the message, there is no doubt that most of the world feels that the US president is out of step with the wishes and/or interests of his people with his Middle East policy. That's largely what this letter is about and on that score I suspect he got it right.
This is clearly true. Unfortunately, it's a message that people are so eager to hear that they will embrace some very questionable messengers.
I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is really all that eloquent. I understand that Persian is a naturally 'poetic' language, and that what we English speakers consider 'flowery' is relatively mundane for Persian. That is, it's a feature of the language as usually spoken, and not necessarily the speaker. The translation was very good, though. < /meta >
Grab a beer and chair.
Comments
Obama's speech at the Democratic convention is considered a red meat speech. Many political speeches filled with brash rhetoric are considered red meat speeches.
i would say Obama was actually invested in his speech, but id seconded guess Ahmadinejad (out of sheer ignorance).
All that aside though, mofo is ELOQUENT! No wonder bush did not accept his offer to a public debate.
that's what you say about a retarded kid that can talk. THIS IS A GROWN ASS MAN!
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world.
*[/b] these ideals are not meant to imply in any way that Jews or the state of Israel deserve to exist
Translation: after years of political kidnappings and intimidation, much of the educated class of my country fled the authoritarian theocracy of which I am the current figurehead.
As opposed to Zahra Kazemi, or these guys.
You know, as far as I'm concerned, good governance often starts with declaring religious rule, taking an embassy hostage, and liquidating competing political factions.
I'm not a fan of the demonization of Iran - I've got a lot of Persian friends, all of whom have relatives back home - but this is just condescending and offensive.
I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations[/b] of the world with dignity and success.
I don't really think we are his intended audience.
First off, the Embassy seige was nearly 30 years ago under Khomeini. We don't still hold Bush responsible for Nixon's fuck ups so what's with bringing up the siege? Secondly, the American constitution, although ostensibly secular, is also based on religious principles as is the UK model of government. Lastly, however you take the message, there is no doubt that most of the world feels that the US president is out of step with the wishes and/or interests of his people with his Middle East policy. That's largely what this letter is about and on that score I suspect he got it right.
Terry Anderson has (I believe) has identified Ahmadinejad as one of his captors from 1979. Ahmadinejad is also not going to Austria anytime soon because he is wanted for his part in the assassination of a foreign national in Vienna. So I think the Embassy siege is mildly relevant here when he is theoretically one of the main perpetrators.
Because the same people are still in power in Iran. Khamenei was intimately involved in the revolution, was elected president in '81, and has been supreme leader for 17 years. He personally oversaw the purge of Iran's political class in the early 1980s. If Reagan was still president we'd surely be talking about him.
So far as I can tell, the whole thing about Ahmadinejad being one of the embassy commandos is apocryphal. But his political lineage goes straight back to the revolution as well - he was politically active in the Tehran universities at the time they were providing the mullahs' foot soldiers.
And shit, now that Bush is bringing Kissinger back, I think we can definitely hold him responsible for a few Nixon-era war strategies.
'Ostensibly secular'? Neither the UK nor the US is ruled by a supreme religious leader. Candidates don't have to be vetted by a council of clerics before they stand for election. And the courts don't operate on religious law. Do you really think that the difference is in name only?
This is clearly true. Unfortunately, it's a message that people are so eager to hear that they will embrace some very questionable messengers.
p.s. Please pay no attention to the white powder in this envelope. I was, um, baking some cookies.
"See Ya! TTFN"
I'm not sure that Ahmadinejad is really all that eloquent. I understand that Persian is a naturally 'poetic' language, and that what we English speakers consider 'flowery' is relatively mundane for Persian. That is, it's a feature of the language as usually spoken, and not necessarily the speaker. The translation was very good, though. < /meta >