DCramer Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 whats the answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 black is the new black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackers Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 because that was the deal columbia made with ahmedinejad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 darth vader style Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 black is the new black  Not according to Jesse Jackson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 That is a sorry-assed limp-wristed thing to do. Â I'm having difficulty understanding the outrage at having Imakabob speak at Columbia. He isn't an international criminal. He isn't actively at war against the US. He openly criticizes the US and thinks that our administration is fucking things up. So what. Â This country was founded on disagreement and now we choke on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archenemy Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He also insists that the Holocaust never happened. I love individualists; especially when they are unencumbered with fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Truth spreads faster than lies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He also insists that the Holocaust never happened. I love individualists; especially when they are unencumbered with fact. Â If ignorance was a reason to blacklist a person... Â I still like that he has the chutzpah to stand up to the US. The best part was when he asked to visit Ground Zero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He also insists that the Holocaust never happened. I love individualists; especially when they are unencumbered with fact. Â If ignorance was a reason to blacklist a person... Â I still like that he has the chutzpah to stand up to the US. The best part was when he asked to visit Ground Zero. Â He's deposed bin Laden as head of al-Qaeda now? WOW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
builder206 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 (edited) Truth spreads faster than lies  What planet are you on? Exactly the opposite is the case. Even Mark Twain said "a lie can travel around the world before the truth can put its shoes on." Edited September 24, 2007 by builder206 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He also insists that the Holocaust never happened. I love individualists; especially when they are unencumbered with fact. Â If ignorance was a reason to blacklist a person... Â I still like that he has the chutzpah to stand up to the US. The best part was when he asked to visit Ground Zero. Â He's deposed bin Laden as head of al-Qaeda now? WOW! Â Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClimbingPanther Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 dru, i'd love to believe you were joking, but you've got a 100% record of always saying what you mean. get real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 What exactly is the connection between the Iranian president and 9-11 now? Especially since Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He also insists that the Holocaust never happened. I love individualists; especially when they are unencumbered with fact.  If ignorance was a reason to blacklist a person...  I still like that he has the chutzpah to stand up to the US. The best part was when he asked to visit Ground Zero.  I don't think it's chutzpah so much as active contempt.  He's clearly concluded that they can play hardball in Iraq and elsewhere, toy with nuclear inpsectors indefinitely, openly call for the destruction of Israel, crank up the repression within Iran, etc - so long as he reads from the right script when addressing a Western audience, within which there's a substantial bloc who will be prepared to overlook these minor indiscretions if he does so.  Exhibit A:  "Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by sallykohn Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:50:02 AM PDT  I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...  Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…  I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding...."  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735  It would appear that his contempt is well founded.  As far as free speech is concerned - Mr. Ahmedinejad, unlike his countrymen - is free to say whatever he wishes in Iran. Even if there were no institutions in the US willing to host him, neither his freedom to do so or his ability to extend his message to any audience of his choosing would be compromised in the least.  If some institution chooses to host him, as Columbia has done - I have no problem with them doing so, but any such institution that does so should recognize that the freedom of speech which they are ostensibly promoting also extends to those who are critical of their decision to provide a venue for Ahmedinejad, what he represents, and the opportunity that such an appearance presents for him to further political aspirations that are fundamentally at odds with both the freedoms the values which are encoded in the First Amendment.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 What exactly is the connection between the Iranian president and 9-11 now? Especially since Americans believe that Iraq was responsible for 9-11? Â That's why I thought it funny. NY, NY said security was the issue, but I'm sure it's more to do with the fact that he is openly hostile to the US. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 He also insists that the Holocaust never happened. I love individualists; especially when they are unencumbered with fact.  If ignorance was a reason to blacklist a person...  I still like that he has the chutzpah to stand up to the US. The best part was when he asked to visit Ground Zero.  I don't think it's chutzpah so much as active contempt.  He's clearly concluded that they can play hardball in Iraq and elsewhere, toy with nuclear inpsectors indefinitely, openly call for the destruction of Israel, crank up the repression within Iran, etc - so long as he reads from the right script when addressing a Western audience, within which there's a substantial bloc who will be prepared to overlook these minor indiscretions if he does so.  Exhibit A:  "Why I Have A Little Crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by sallykohn Sun Sep 23, 2007 at 05:50:02 AM PDT  I know I'm a Jewish lesbian and he'd probably have me killed. But still, the guy speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon...  Okay, I admit it. Part of it is that he just looks cuddly. Possibly cuddly enough to turn me straight. I think he kind of looks like Kermit the Frog. Sort of. With smaller eyes. But that’s not all…  I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor — locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can’t help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding...."  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735  It would appear that his contempt is well founded.  As far as free speech is concerned - Mr. Ahmedinejad, unlike his countrymen - is free to say whatever he wishes in Iran. Even if there were no institutions in the US willing to host him, neither his freedom to do so or his ability to extend his message to any audience of his choosing would be compromised in the least.  If some institution chooses to host him, as Columbia has done - I have no problem with them doing so, but any such institution that does so should recognize that the freedom of speech which they are ostensibly promoting also extends to those who are critical of their decision to provide a venue for Ahmedinejad, what he represents, and the platform that such an appearance presents for him to further political aspirations that are fundamentally at odds with both the freedoms the values which are encoded in the First Amendment.  I don't think he is a nice guy. But neither is Putin, the Saudi royal family, or any number of current international leaders. Why single Ahmadinejad out when many others are recieved with open arms?  It's because of a perceived link to the 9-11 attacks. It's because our administration doesn't like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 I don't think he is a nice guy. But neither is Putin, the Saudi royal family, or any number of current international leaders. Why single Ahmadinejad out when many others are recieved with open arms? Â It certainly can't be because of contempt for free speach, democracy or the free market. Â Ahmadinejad is a loon but is rhetoric plays to his hometown audience. Ours doesn't and we don't get why they don't listen to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 I don't think he is a nice guy. But neither is Putin, the Saudi royal family, or any number of current international leaders. Why single Ahmadinejad out when many others are recieved with open arms? Â It certainly can't be because of contempt for free speach, democracy or the free market. Â Are you talking about Putin, or Ahmadinejad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Also, the reports that he supports and implements the influx of many instruments of destruction of servicemen in Iraq (the components for IEDs, arms, as well as fighters) does little to endear him to many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 "I don't think he is a nice guy. But neither is Putin, the Saudi royal family, or any number of current international leaders. Why single Ahmadinejad out when many others are recieved with open arms? Â It's because of a perceived link to the 9-11 attacks. It's because our administration doesn't like him." Â Â Received with open arms by whom? He was addressing the UN, and giving an address at a private institution in New York City, not making a state visit for the purposes of furthering some mutual state-interest. Â If the head of either Saudi Arabia or Russia engaged in the same rhetoric, and oversaw a state that was sponsoring the same initiatives as the regime which Ahmedinejad is - I can hardly imagine circumstances where a university in the US could invite them to give an address without being criticized for doing so. Â The freedom to engage in a particular action does not entail freedom from criticism after taking the said action. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The freedom to engage in a particular action does not entail freedom from criticism after taking the said action. Sorry. Â Everyone is free to criticize. I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's the way that he has been singled out as a bad guy that I think is silly. He is no worse than other people the US is on good terms with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 But Dick Cheney has not instructed the usual suspects to start drumming up support for a war with the other people's nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The freedom to engage in a particular action does not entail freedom from criticism after taking the said action. Sorry. Â Everyone is free to criticize. I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's the way that he has been singled out as a bad guy that I think is silly. He is no worse than other people the US is on good terms with. Â An idealist might argue that we should not support repressive regimes even when they are on our side and doing so is in our national interests. Â A realist might argue that we should support repressive regimes because they are on our side and doing so is in our national interests. Â I'm not sure what the term is, though, for someone who argues that we should support repressive regimes even when they are not on our side, and doing so is contrary - if not detrimental - to our national interests. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.