Hot Air has the video.
Obvious follow-up question: Is this a scientific anomaly based on some sort of Persian resistance to chemical differences in the brain? Or were, like, stones involved?
****
update: Students applaud and cheer; Dean Coatsworth shakes Mahmoud’s hand.
Like I said he would.
Next up, stuffed shrimp and a bit of hobnobbing with the earnest chin-rubbers from the cultural studies and English departments.
All in all, a PR coup for Mahmoud, and the legitimizing of a Persian eliminationist. Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh would be proud.
****
update 2: My prescience, it dazzles!:
Ahmamadjihadi has got his international headlines. Well done Columbia!
And to think, some people thought all that black tar heroin I was doing in the 80s would blunt my acumen.
Squares.
See how it works?
The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized.
Yeah. Nobody knew where Iran stood on gay issues until he was granted a speaking engagement at Columbia.
My eyes, they have been OPENED!
I’m not sure I get you. Keith Olbermann has like a daily show.
That was @ Semanticleo.
I think Dinnerjacket is going with the “choice” theory of homosexuality with his commentary. You know, if you choose to be a homeosexual in Iran, you will be killed. That’s why they don’t have homosexuals in Iran.
It’s not that hard folks.
“#
Comment by Semanticleo on 9/24 @ 1:18 pm #
See how it works?
The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized.”
And the more you speak……
Iranian gays are pretty damn circumspect the world over I’d bet. It’s an always take the weather with you thing I think.
If I recall, Prof. Caric is not sure if Protein Wisdom is less homophobic than Ahmadinejad…
But then, well, there are no gays in Iran…so how could he be homophobic! Viola!
I am certain it is a difficult concept for ya’ll to comprehend, but I have the same response to the outrage over Coulter and O’Reilly.
Same smell.
Let ’em sqeek. The mouse that roared is still a mouse.
“My eyes, they have been OPENED!”
BTW; JG, it’s still not about you.
Hey, Cleo: tell us again how Communism was just a “bogeyman”.
Psycho.
Just in case someone doesn’t have video capability at their fingertips, here’s what the translator said he said: “In Iran, we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. We don’t have that in our country. In Iran, we don’t have this phenomenon. I don’t know who told you we have that.”
And in case someone does have video capability and wants to watch a pretty good documentary about gays in Iran, here’s a link: http://www.homanla.org/New/outiniran.htm
Sementic has a point though. How can a person who pretends to support gay/lesbian/bi/transgender/etc. rights support the Iranian government when MadMan ArmageddonJihad says this stuff?
I want that little exchange up on YouTube so that we can link to it every time someone who opposes Rs for their stand on gay marriage opens their pie holes.
Uh, they knew his stance before he spoke. It’s no secret, is it?
They will do what the feminists have done and ignore abuses of women as “cultural differences” and go right on hearing what they want to hear.
The more he talks the stupider he looks.
Protest but for gods sake dont stop him from talking.
No, I understand relativism pretty well. But, murderous thugs are not the same thing as powerless commentators.
Outrage over one is justified. Outrage over the other, not so much.
But surely you can understand my confusion, it being posted in response to a post by me on my site. Right?
“But surely you can understand my confusion, it being posted in response to a post by me on my site. Right?’
Hmmmm……………………..
“Yeah. Nobody knew where Iran stood on gay issues until he was granted a speaking engagement at Columbia
My eyes, they have been OPENED!”
I believe there might have been others who are less informed, hence it seemed a little, shall we say, narcissistic to suggest that informing the uninformed is beside the point.
Don’t you?
No.
Because you did it here, where no one is uninformed about where Iran stands with respect to gays.
Semen is a vile hate filled maggot, suffering from PRE traumatic stress disorder.
I believe there might have been others who are less informed
Considering that you don’t seem to know that the communist slave states murdered well over a hundred million people, I hardly think you’re in a position to judge the percipience of others.
“Because you did it here, where no one is uninformed about where Iran stands with respect to gays.”
Ahmad made his statement to the public at large. Does everyone regularly populate PW, thereby making it common knowledge?
Caution:
your answer may contain grains of narcissism closely related to Ahmad’s homophobia and denialism.
semen – When one finds oneself standing in a hole holding a shovel, the common advise is to stop digging. In your case, I would suggest digging until you reach the core, and then, come back and tell us about it, or melt.
Fuckin A, Ackmedinnerjad hasn’t ever liked homos before?
My TV’s bin busted
Shucks… I bin tryin to fix that old dish out in the pasture, but ever since dumbshit cousin Earl shot the sumbitch thinkin it was an elk the reception bin fuzzy.
Course I voted for Bush because he’s a rancher and all and he’s gettin them I rak ees back fer the 911 sneak attacks.
Good thing thar’s folks smarter’n me to tell me about the news and shit. My GED was in animal husbandry and before that I din’t know that I was husband to my cows and chickens. My wife is jealous
Uh, no. But the regulars who regularly populate PW populate PW. So who, precisely, were you speaking to, do you think?
Caution: Your answer isn’t likely to help you out a bit, so you might want to just sit the rest of this one out.
Christ you’re a tedious one today, Semanticleo. The little brown gay other is filled with despair that America has accorded Ahmadinejad’s’s views a respectful airing. Which views include the rather startling notion that his little gay brown other self doesn’t exist. Something also of a chilling effect on his little gay brown other freedom of speech, I would guess. Point being, nothing Ahmadinejad said today will marginalize him in Iran, or the Middle East more broadly I bet. But little gay brown other, he is feeling more marginalized than anyone I can really imagine, at least today.
C’mon, admit it.
You can’t really stand the fact that your Feeders got you committed to parroting; “Ahmad at Columbia is a freaking outrage!!” and the sad truth of the matter is that hearing him speak is a good thing.
crickets****
‘Sunshine is the best antiseptic’ ring a bell?
>try again>
‘No Gays in Iran’ says the fool.
OK, try this;
mar·gin·al·ize (märj-n-lz)
tr.v. mar·gin·al·ized, mar·gin·al·iz·ing, mar·gin·al·iz·es
To relegate or confine to a lower or outer limit or edge, as of social standing.
So your ranting about the ‘outrage’ sounds silly when placed next to the negative images of Iran’s Leadership. He is accomplishing more by his public statements than a thousand blogs could ever do. But maybe that’s the nasty Narcissus splashing his pond image, hyperventilating his gasping words….’It’s not about me, after all’.
He spoke? Did the world end? Has the U.S. surrendered yet to our Persian overmasters? Or, is this just one more silly outrage in the latest string of silly outrages.
Don’t answer. I’ll take the last 15 posts as per se proof of the point.
I can’t belive he spoke and the world hasn’t ended….
No, he didn’t. He was speaking at a university. You know, a place of education, a place supposedly populated by the educated. And it wasn’t some cow-college or a place the left can caricature as a theocratic backwater — it was the 9th ranked university in the middle of what is supposedly the most cosmopolitan city in the US.
If a college student went into that talk without being aware of how Iran treats gays and women, then that person should never have been given a high school diploma.
I’m sure they enjoyed their little rally.
Odd that no one pied Ahmadenijad, though. Or rushed the stage, knocking over tables and chairs. I bet the signs announcing his talk were left where they were posted.
Odd.
Are we talking about Semanticleo, or Ahmadinejad? I guess it applies equally well, either way.
Didn’t he get swapped back into sports, making the worst football show evarrr just a little bit differently bad?
SemenKKKleo – How many blogs did you post that exact same comment on?
Strange that Ahmadinejad had to go to Columbia University for the world to hear him, that the sunshine of Columbia was necessary. Considering that he is President of Iran I would have thought that his views and words were already well-covered. And he has spoken twice at the UN.
So Columbia really needed to provide him with a stage?
So, again, everyone who thinks it’s fine and dandy that Ahmadinejad was hosted at Columbia:
What do you make of the students and faculty who protest against appearances by Larry Summers, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Dick Cheney, and Larry Gilchrist? About students at Columbia — possibly some of the same ones cheering and laughing for Ahmadinejad — charging the stage when Gilchrist was speaking?
If you’re pissed over our outrage, the outrage over the warm welcome given to the head of a government that executes women for being raped, then why the hell aren’t you outraged over the treatment those people have gotten?
No, the world didn’t end. It just got a lot closer to the war you assholes think we’re all gung-ho to start.
And, by the way, sunshine is NOT the best antiseptic, unless applied at very close range.
Hard for germ atoms to bind electrons, never mind other atoms, at 6000K.
“I can’t belive he spoke and the world hasn’t ended….”
I wonder if you said the same thing when Gilchrist from the Minutemen spoke at Columbia. Oh, wait, he was shouted down by the same mob who licked the freaky little terrorist’s sack today.
Nevermind.
Typical progressive response: “Is this a trick question?”
Semiconscious, why are you referring to yourself in the third person all of a sudden?
No, the world hasn’t ended today. But big kudos to Columbia for giving a scum-sucking, terrorist megalomaniac a platform for further his anti-Israel and anti-US propaganda and, very possibly, emboldening his fellow travelers.
Exit question: Who faxed Mahmoud his talking points? MoveOn.org or Harry Reid’s office?
It’s worse than that. One of the Kos Kidz is a Jewish lesbian who is well aware of Iran’s positions on Jews and lesbians, but she has a crush on Dinner Jacket anyway, because of teh BDS.
There should have been an exit poll asking attendees how they thought Ahmadinijad’s speech compared to Bush’s September 13 speech, cause I’m betting they kind of aren’t much in the habit of listening to those ones.
Yep. It trumps everything.
So this is supposed to be the result of most media following his every move? Or inviting him to speak at both Columbia University AND the National Press Club? To move him to the outer edge? Because it seems to me that he would be much more effectively marginalized if he were just given a soapbox on a street corner in Hoboken than in either of those places.
But that isn’t what you were advocating and defending, is it?
I think that by not giving him taxpayer-funded protection, and not allowing him to speak at taxpayer-funded universities (given that he is the head of a government that is killing our soldiers in a war zone) is an affront to both the military forces, and the taxpayers who are paying for the respective items.
Especially when he will not be speaking what he sees as the truth (what with the start of every political and religious meeting in Iran being repeated chants of “Death to America!”), for no other reason than because he knows there will be Useful Idiots here in the US who will defend his every word as “worth hearing”.
And lo, there you are. Right on schedule.
(And, for the record, “pervasive” does not equal “marginal”.)
The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized.
What Drumwaster said.
And if he’s so marginalized, why did people show up to hear him? Did they walk out in disgust halfway through? Did they toss rotted vegetables? Did they regale him with Boo and Hiss?
The man is being feted, not marginalized. But maybe you can’t tell the difference, cleo. Maybe you have utterly lost that power of discernment.
dicentra – Semen has not lost the ability to discern, he/she/it never had it. That results in the inanity you see he/she/it post.
Drumwaster – Good points. Note how he tried to avoid the whole wiping Israel off of the face of the earth position today. Had to show the nice reasonable guy position in front of the world, even if his nice reasonable position likely involves wiping Israel off of the face of the earth.
cleo-
So you contend that there is some significant number of people who were until today unaware of Ahmadinejad’s “marginal” positions?
And that is because a) the major media have not conveyed those positions or (b) those people have been apathetic about the subject or (c) some combination of the two, correct?
But those heretofore uninterested, uninformed persons will now be riveted by a speech at Columbia or reports about it?
Are you daft?
Viewing both left sites’ posts and some comments on right wing sites, does anyone else get the feeling that today, September 24, is a very special day for the Left?
There’s a foul voice on the wind, and it is clear-cut who is applauding and who is appalled.
Well, at least this highlights one of the reasons for the “strange bedfellows” psuedo-alliance between the left and the Islamists – it’s not like they can tick each other off for the constant lying, whining, manipulative blather.
Cleo’s a walking, talking, projectile vomiting logical fallacy, with a neon sign and everything.
Oh, and edavis? The world just ended for some Iranian kid so unfortunate as to have been brutalized by a pack of feral “men,” and she was brutalized again before she was tortured to death to ensure she didn’t “go to paradise.”
Stick that in your pipe and light yourself on fire. Hey, Buddhists do it, Hindus do it, why don’t you do it?
I’m beyond sick of parasitical, oppositional-defiant spoiled brats who think that wit equals reason, and possess the capacity for neither.
Bollinger’s speech reflected his priorities I think. We’ll never know how many alumni called last week, but I’m pretty sure Lee got a pretty clear idea that his own personal free speech might be very, very costly, compounding the damage already underway from extending the invitation in the first place. So he made lemonade. If you think about this aspect, it’s clear enough that today was all about empowering Lee Bollinger’s fundraising message, not about condemning the man he put on a pedestal today.
jkrank – the last few years have been rife with such moments. One has to wonder whether it is cyclical, or progressive, or whether it is building toward some kind of denouement…
Cleo
Oh big whoop…. Ahmadiwackjob got laughed at due to his “gays? what gays?” statement…
NO ONE IN ISLAMIST COUNTRIES IS GOING TO HEAR IT. Ya think any of ’em are going to hear Bollinger’s intro?
What they WILL hear is the applause he got for his ‘final solution to the 60 year problem’ in “Palestine”. They will hear Dinnerjack pwning the questioner about the Holocaust (“oh as academics we must never close the book on any research”) because the question was so boneheaded in construction.
This petty puppet of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was honored by Columbia, and the stain and shame belongs to all those at that damaged institution who supported the “invitation”.
I wonder, sometimes, if there’s anyone on the left horrified by what’s happening. If there’s someone who realizes they’re riding the tiger?
“So you contend that there is some significant number of people who were until today unaware of Ahmadinejad’s “marginal†positions?”
Simply saying there’s nothing to fear. I am not saying you are afraid of the man. Just suggesting there is a fear the American public might
not rally around the war drums if they sense Iran is a paper tiger.
Ahmad certainly has an agenda, but he is so insulated within his
patriarchy that he is unprepared for publicly exhibited discourse.
Who fears dressing down the verifiable threat from Iran?
On the off-chance there are some who might be curious enough to question the same strategy which Madison-Avenued the Iraq War, and the good folks who predicted peaches and creamery from that ‘slam dunk’;
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26726,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26421,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.26441,filter.all/pub_detail.asp
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/906386.html
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/24/simple_error_my_ass
So, it’s safe to say you answer mocking with non-sequitors, Merovign?
Would preventing him from speaking at an American college magically freed his country of theocrats? Of course not, so I guess your question should only be examined in an absurdist light? Certainly, it makes no rebuttal to either Cleo or edavis.
His government was despotic before he went to Columbia, whether he went to Columbia, and now after he went to Columbia. If you think those kids who cheered did so for any other reason than to put a stick in the eye of the Right wing, then you have forgotten what youth is. Then again, you’re calling the trolls “brats”, so maybe you are some old crank, who still fondly remembers Westmoreland testifying to Congress.
Who knows?
What is sure is that the worldview you are carrying is so full of cognitive dissonance (how does this make sense: someone from a country I don’t like speaks, anyone who defends his right to talk must support his policies?), it is bound to collapse under the weight of its own foolishness the next time George Bush appears with Maliki (supported by the Iranians and the US!!).
Oh, the horror….
Does any one know if Mahmoud was allowed to video record any of the speech with his own crew or to have access to Columbia’s tapes? If so, it wouldn’t be very hard to cut his speech so it appeared that the Columbia students approved of everything he had to say.
Mahmoud, “there are no gays in Iranâ€Â.
Cut to: out-of-context shot of the students cheering.
It would be a great propaganda piece showing that the young American Elite love him.
Oh, and though it would be a fantasy world, I wish right after the speech a teacher could inform the studens of this fact. Followed by, “Now ends the lesson in “useful idiotâ€Â.
JAYSUS H KEEERIST!!
This isn’t about “preventing” him, it was about NOT HONORING THE MENDACIOUS MIDGET MENACE!
Columbia’s stage gave him credibility and it showed the moslems that there are a lot of Americans who are so invested in being “citizens of the world” they have no stomach for American morals and American virtues.
The scrubbed version of Moudy’s Big American Adventure will make any oppressed Iranian citizen who hopes for the end of the totalitarian theocracy despair.
GROW UP, asswipe.
Have I ever mentioned that you’re completely full of shit, ‘cleo?
The left is striking a triumphal note today. They were all about not foreshadowing that, huh?
ChrisS:
When you’re done with that strawman, please address how legitimizing the genocidal fuckhead by granting him press time (devoid of serious challenges) and podium time (carefully scripted and freed from protest) does anything but strengthen the evil shit, increase his standing and embolden the jelly-brains who parrot (and presumably believe) his lies.
Also give us a little insight into how Columbia’s admins are anything but shallow, hypocritical weasels for denying people like Summers (who dared observe that men and women are not interchangeable) or Connerly (who dared believe in racial equality) the “right to be heard” while honoring MonkeyJihad with a controlled environment to propagandize from.
If Columbia suppresses SOME speech, that means they are choosing which speech to allow. They CHOSE Monkeyjihad.
You aren’t defending the right to free speech, and you aren’t fooling anyone into believing you are.
And if you want to get pedantic, I didn’t answer mocking with non-sequiturs, I answered a non-sequitur with a “fuck you, bitch.”
I’m kind of through giving people more respect than they offer. Maybe it’s just a phase, we’ll see.
I don’t think I did all that badly…
Regards,
Ric
“You mean like honoring him with a speaking engagement.â€Â
“No. Like throwing a snitfit over his speech as though we feared it.”
Pablo;
Your OCD is showing. Or are you a stalker? I realize now that I have gone too far in humiliating you. Forgive me. Bless you, my child.
you called it
“Maybe it’s just a phase,”
Hope so, ’cause I’m really starting to FEEL your respect.
KKKleo – You appear to be quite scared of AEI, haaretz, and the Joooooooooooooos. I had never read any of those sites until you started linking to them, OCD style.
“Insulated within his patriarchy” … typed with a complete lack of awareness.
Darleen – Enough talk about midgets.
ChrisS – troll, and not a very good one at that.
KKKleo – I will only speak for myself and say that I would sooner crawl across miles of broken glass to buy tix to see a clown show starring naked demon dwarf clown stripperss suffering from PRE traumatic stress disorder, line dancing to the tunes of Billy Ray Cyrus, with Its a Small World as their encore, than I would respect you. Respect is earned, and you have done nothing other than to prove that you are unworthy of same.
No, ‘cleo. Your bullshit is showing, in your own words.
I’m stalking you? At PW? Take your fucking meds, sweetheart. You’re too far off the rails.
If not for the humiliation, I could not have remembered yesterday.
Which is precisely what I, apparently rightly, accused you of in the previous lengthy thread you squatted over, babbling about speech and fear or some other quasi-intellectual drek. You lack the perspective>/i> befitting normal freeminded, cogent, principled, honorable, supportive Americans, the kind of souls who simply do not cotton to freaks, knowing them by their efforts and words and results to be freaks.
Because you’re “simply saying there’s nothing to fear” when in fact, fear is not the motivator here. To be
sure, fear has it’s place, bidden or otherwise. But this isn’t one of them. What’s going on at Columbia is not even about not fearing this petty little imposter.
Consider Columbia’s damnable record. Would you? And why not? Why have you avoided the issue of free speech, Semanticleo?
So free speech cannot be the issue here. The issue must be perspective. Political war for hearts and minds. Per-freaking-spective.
And in the absence of a complete, objective, balanced treatment of these facts, you obviously seem to lack that perspective.
Mahmoud, he does as he pleases.
All of his life his master’s toys, and deep in his heart he’s just,
he’s just a boy.
Living his life one day at a time, he’s showing himself a pretty good time.
He’s laughing about the way they want him to be.
When you get caught between Mahmoud and New York City…
“Yeah. Nobody knew where Iran stood on gay issues until he was granted a speaking engagement at Columbia.”
I don’t know about “nobody,” But I searched foxnews.com for “gay iran” and it didn’t really answer the question. Cnn.com at least had links to some outside sites.
But overall, this was total Larry Craig. Who knows though, maybe nobody quite has gays like we have gays. PRIDE!
Cleo, you don’t know what respect is.
Yup, Andy. Stoning gays to death and voting against same sex marriage are quite similar.
Merovign – I think KKKleo envisions respect in the manner in which it is used in pop culture, rather than its traditional meaning.
Again, do you say the same thing about the following list of people: Larry Summers, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Dick Cheney, and Larry Gilchrist?
One part of the outrage over Columbia’s feting Ahmadinejad is the sheer hypocrisy — no, never mind, there is no hypocrisy. The college left, the supposed intelligentsia, cheers and laughs for the front man of a murderous dictatorship, but refuses to even let Americans speak.
Another part is the fact that the so-called “reality-based community” exposes an ignorance of history that’s breath-taking. We’ve seen Ahmadinejad’s act before. We’ve seen it over and over. We’ve not only seen that act, we’ve seen the other side’s act, too — the willingness to believe anything said by the dictator while declaring everything the free world says to be lies, the accusations that the voices speaking out against the dictators are “warmongers”, that if we just give them what they want, the world will have everlasting peace.
Cleo, you’ve even said that if the world had paid more attention to Mein Kampf, maybe Hitler would have been stopped sooner. Something you may not have known — the Nazis paid for a US, English-language version of Mein Kampf, with the stuff that would inflame the Americans edited out. A US group, knowing the real contents, published an accurate translation and handed it out for free.
And yet still no one caught on. The same voices — the isolationists, the Bundists, the plain-old anti-Semites — drowned out the accurate message of what Hitler was about. The “progressives” of the day admired Hitler; his state-directed economy and eugenics program were right in with their beliefs. The Communists — the supposed “anti-fascists” — clamored for peace under Moscow’s direction, in order to protect the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
We’ve seen all this before. The same damned act. We know damned well that a speech in front of an audience that disapproved only once is not going to enlighten people who have ignored the events of the last six — let alone the last thirty — years.
Ahmadinejad didn’t need to speak at Columbia to expose himself and the regime he represents. Anyone paying attention and possessing the least shred of integrity already knew that.
How many “Free Tibet” bumper stickers does it take to actually free Tibet? If they just can’t do the job, then why should anyone ever buy one?
happyfeet:
Brilliant!
To be fair, both of them later contributed massively to the war effort. Lindbergh even flow combat missions, albeit against the Japanese.
Daily Kos: 45% Want Ahmadinejad As US President
It’s actually 36% at this moment. So, the lesson here is that the US Armed Forces recruiting at Columbia is bad because they don’t believe in hiring people who fly their gay flags. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recruiting at Columbia is OK, despite the fact that his regime kills gays for being gay.
Got it?
Pablo – Anything greater than zero percent is a disturbing figure for that poll.
Analogy and profanity are all you bring to the table Merovign?
Momma must be so proud.
Your point is yet another non-sequitor and not even original, i.e. if someone supports the right of a foreign dignitary to speak (and here I’m remembering all the right wing rage at the demonstrators President Bush has every time he ventures from the US and wondering…goose/gander?), then one SUPPORT all of Columbia’s decisions OR denounce the behavior of Columbia’s students OR denounce the practice of an entirely other school 3000 miles away “dis-inviting” another person.
See, those three things have nothing to do with allowing him to speak, which he already has and has not resulted in Iranian hegemony over the Middle East.
In increasing order of absurdity: It is too bad the students shouted down the Minutemen guy. He’s loathsome, but every speaker deserves respect. There is a youtube video of Bill Kristol getting shouted down at a college and the way he handles it shows he might be wrong about…well, almost everything, but unless he doesn’t find it necessary to curse his opponents. He’s what one would call gentleman (you can search for it, after your little profane rant, I’m not doing your legwork).
#2) I don’t control the Columbia speakers bureau, but, if they do not present a balanced plate, then they should. If I were in charge, I would.
#3) Imagine a group of right wingers championing Larry Summers…must come as a shock to him. In any event, it is bad form and rude to invite and then dis-invite any speaker. It is patently wrong-headed to deny your students the chance to hear Dr. Summers speak. He’s an expert on economics and how to balance a budget (sorely needed in this world at present) and his gaffe at Harvard could be addressed in a Q and A session. As one who has listened intently to the insane ramblings of John Yoo without shouting, hissing, or boing, I must confess it can be difficult to be polite when presented with sheer idiocy masquerading as learned discourse. Similarly, I hope I was bale to be polite to you; an invitation I noticed you avoided.
“Got it?”
Bush leads that poll?
He isn’t running again, is he?
Odd. I’ve never heard anyone say those idiots don’t have a right to protest. Call them idiots, question their sanity, sure, but as cleo’s so anxious to point out, at least they make it clear who they are.
And there’s a bit of a difference between the elected head of a free nation and the appointed head of a terrorist dictatorship. If you can’t comprehend that, then maybe that’s the problem.
The left continues its descent into madness… I have no words.
Did anyone prophesize this speech? Only the Clash…
All over people changing their votes
Along with their overcoats
If Adolf Hitler flew in today
They’d send a limousine anyway
(Shamelessly stolen from James Taranto.)
Chris,
Where, exactly, is that “right” codified?
Ya’ll seem to be missing what da man said. They ain’t no gay’s in Iran. Well that’s a gimee, in Iran they are called “Targets”.
Bird
Myself, I’d roll the dice and put ChrisS in charge of the Columbia speakers bureau.
Why is the USA great? Because you can have the president of Iran, your biggest enemy, for dinner and not be adversely affected. By all rights, he should never be free again. Charged with kidnapping the American hostages in 1979, you could put on a great show trial for the world, should you be more like them.
Fear not. Ahmanidjit cannot hurt the USA with words.
Yes, anything that registers is madness. I’m afraid to see how Bush would do against Chavez or Castro. From people who will hope to elect Hillary.
Chris S
BBBBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTT. Wrong answer. Egomaniacal, terrorist supporting, enemies of the US who call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth should not be afforded any respect.
I know that the Left has been trying to extend the bill of rights to enemy combatants, so it should come as no surprise that you would extend the freedom of speech to this nutjob, who is decidedly not an American citizen.
Bird – In Iran they are called stone dead.
Columbia shouted down the Minutemen as being racist. Denied Summers because he was sexist. Denies the US military because they are homophobic. However, find a leader that subjugates women, murders gays, and vows to exterminate the Joooooooooooooooos, and Columbia spreads their ass cheeks wider than Sen. Craig’s stance. The ChrisS and Semens of the world have to be intentionally stupid to not understand the problem with this.
Why the helll is freedom of speech even an issue here? Last I checked, there was no type of governmental action keeping this from happening.
He needn’t be concerned, ChrisS, nor should you.
What you do need to concern yourself with is destroying your own thesis. I, for one, don’t “champion” Larry Summers. What I do is point out that if (1) you (and your like-minded cohorts) refuse to let Larry Summers speak but (2) claim yourself to be guardians of “free speech”, you’re a liar. What you and the rest of the Left have done is to define a range of permitted speech, with yourselves as Guardians and Arbiters of what is permitted and what is beyond the Pale. It therefore behooves us to observe your behavior, so that we can determine just where the line is drawn.
Larry Summers is Beyond the Pale. Gilchrist is Beyond the Pale. Donald Rumsfeld is so far Beyond the Pale you have to define a new Pale. In fact, as we observe who gets shouted down, who gets cheered, who gets invited, who gets rejected, and who gets thoroughly dissed, we build a picture. It looks like this: Anyone who disagrees with your Doctrine is beyond the Pale. Anyone suggests that America is a force for Good in the World is Anathema. And, as we observe Mahmoud Amadinejad speaking at Columbia, we add, Anyone calling for the destruction of America is to be invited, encouraged, and féted.
Because the question was never about what Ahmadinejad would say. The question is what Columbia would say — and that question is now answered: they, like Ahmadinejad, want to kill or enslave me and mine. It’s good to know that. I mean, it ain’t particularly good that it’s true, but if it is it’s nice to have it out in the open.
Because ‘cleo is right, she’s just looking at the wrong speaker. It was never about the sock-puppet for a gang of theocrats. He can say whatever he’s programmed to say. We aren’t listening to him. We’re listening to Columbia — and to you.
Regards,
Ric
This position, I thought, nicely sums up the current Leftist position. But it lacks one thing … they only afford respect to those that they agree with. Get off the hymnal, and you will get pie, PIE I tell you, thrown at you, you will be shouted down, called every name under the sun, and be scorned in the academy. There are many positions that are wholely unworthy of respect, and this feel good bullshit that you profess to respect every speaker is just that, bullshit. Should we respect the KKK? Hell no. Should we respect Al Sharpton? Hell no. Should we respect the Nazis? Nope. Should we respect Cynthia McKinney? Not a chance. Should we respect a state supporter of terrorism whose arms are being used in the fight against our service men and women. I can unequivocably say, if you respect Ahmadinutjob then you are objectively un-American.
You’re remarkable- you really are
You’re the only one like you
There isn’t another in the whole wide world
Who can do the things you do
Because you are special- special
Everyone is special
Everyone in his or her own way
Yes you’re special -special
Everyone is special
Everyone in his or her own way!
Ric – Why do you have to go and be all nice in your rhetorical bitch-slappin’? Yeah, I went there, ChrisS. Ric bitch slapped you. That had to leave a mark. You have one giant mushroom bruise on your forehead, and another one on each cheeck.
See, those three things have nothing to do with allowing him to speak, which he already has and has not resulted in Iranian hegemony over the Middle East.
Because we were all over here at PW the past couple of days predicting that on Sept. 24, 2007, seven-and-a-half minutes after Dinner Jacket stopped speaking, the entire Middle East would become the New Persian Caliphate.
Just like that!
Nice hat on that strawman, though. You have got to be in college.
but also every speaker deserves respect*
ChrisS:
Would that you had approached the subject (and me) honestly and forthrightly, you would deserve politesse. You did not, you do not.
Your very first words here to me misrepresented me and my positions in the form of snark. After this, you don’t get to play it like I’m the one who attacked you. I do not and will not play along with your passive-aggressive victim game.
Momma would be horrified if I allowed a dissembler to think their behavior was acceptable.
Your moral equivocation between Bush and Ahmadinejad marks you as the kind of person who is either incapable of drawing or unwilling to draw moral distinctions, but still willing to abuse the language or morality to “score points.”
Which puts you on the same level as Semanticleo. I think you know what I think of Cleo. You managed to get there quicker, bravo.
“Which puts you on the same level as Semanticleo. I think you know what I think of Cleo. You managed to get there quicker, bravo.”
Savor the flavor, ChrisS. Praise from Caesar.
ChrisS – For the parts of you that were not sporting mushroom bruises previously, Merovign just corrected that oversight for you.
> Savor the flavor, ChrisS. Praise from Caesar.
The more he/she/it speaks, the more he/she/it is marginalized.
Do continue.
” He can say whatever he’s programmed to say. We aren’t listening to him. We’re listening to Columbia  and to you. ”
Nicely put .
Man. Let one terrorist leader speak at a first rate University, and the moonbats come out in swarms.
Cleo – How is that PRE Traumatic Stress Syndrome doing?
What will these maroons do when Dubya leaves office???
Semanticleo; ChrisS.
You are both beyond the pale. You ally, willingly, with no appreciable gain to yourselves, with the representative of a misogynistic, theocratic, homophobic – sorry – homocidic, regime. You both are enemies of anyone who has a shred of common decency left in their fabric. Your morals are as flexible as a spring in hurricane. You adhere to nothing but a blind visceral hatred of true liberalism and the USA, and anyone, no matter how vile that person is, who opposes both the liberal enlightenment and the USA is just peachy-keen to you.
Jeff, they have spoken, we have heard them. Our ears are filled with the bile they have spewed here. They are the advocates of evil and they do not need to speak here any longer. I have taken their measure, others, better commenters than I have taken their measure. I do not speak for the others but for myself, but I would be shocked if the others did not agree with the motion I propose.
Ban the bastards.
[…] to Mad Mahmoud’s claim of a gay-free Iran, Jeff Goldstein delivers the question of the week: Is this a scientific anomaly based on some sort of Persian resistance to chemical differences in […]
The problem here is that people point at him and giggle, what a silly little man, what a goofball. The problem is he’s a goofball like the Unabomber, and he’s trying to get nukes on his hands. You want Ted Kaszinski with nukes?
In Re: My Motion, supra.
We have had a-bot, m-bot, and others too many to count. We’ll find another ‘bot when Cleo and Co. are gone.
MikeyNTH – Tough break on that field goal. That had to hurt.
You reminded me of one of my favorite movie lines.
Miss Cleo, you have been weighed, measured, and been found to be wanting. Good DAY, sir/ma’am/it
The astute and lovable Btit – JOM regular — PeteUk says:
JD, it didn’t hurt in the least. The effort involved was that required to grip the sprayer on a garden hose and wash something foul down the gutter and into the sewer.
And, for me? It felt real good to deal with real waste, as it deserved. (Thanks for that opportunity, Jeff!)
did the timesonline.co.uk site just go down? I hit refresh and the article was gone.
No, Mikey.
It’s not that I’m agreeing with the notion of transparency — anybody who says “sunlight is the best disinfectant” has never cleaned a horse trough after a Texas summer day. But it’s as well to have them make their program clear.
Semanticleo in particular is an Internet eminence gris. You can always count on Semanticleo to point out the important issues — whatever Semanticleo tries to wave you away from requires close attention.
Regards,
Ric
MikeyNTH – I was a Browns fan for the day in the shootout against Cincinnati, and knew when the kicker had to kick it over yesterday, that the outcome would not be good. Certainly they are showing signs of life, which is a drastic improvement.
is back now
Ric – I love it that I always seem to have to google a word or phrase in almost every one of your comments.
Oh! You mean that had to hurt them!
No, it didn’t. The respect of good men and women is something Cleo and Co. don’t value, so they do not miss it when it is withdrawn.
To be blunt, It is an honor for me to have the opposition of the likes of Cleo and Co.
uh – yeah Cleo. Nice try.
Notice the liberals new fangled – we really, really hate these facist women-gay hating nukified terrorists just as much as you do, only our new brand of “let the Devil” speak so everyone can KNOW what a fascist women/gay hating nuke welding piece of shit he IS and just allowing that brings about a magical diplomacy mystery tour!
What. a. load. of. crap. Cleo. – in fact i can’t honestly believe you bleive in your new line of crap. You liberals can’t even keep your Townhouse stay on message messages straight anymore.
Why should he be marginalized? You don’t condemn him on myriad of human abuses, you liken him a better “person” than Bush, and you don’t trust the media and intelligence he’s acquiring nukes, so WHAT exactly should he be marginalized for? Hmmm?
Ric – I have emptied garbage cans into a packer after the cans and the water in them have had a few days to ferment in the July sun. I have cleaned outhouses. But nothing I did there have been as nauseating as Cleo and Co. supporting the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “uncle ben’s moving rice” notwithstanding.
from PeteUK’s link:
Weird that you can’t substitute “eat whatever” for “invite who.” I tried.
Jesus Christ is it possible to disagree with the majority opinion here anymore and expect a civil response? Later posts aside, what Semanticleo said in post#1 is a perfectly legitimate point and I don’t see how anyone can think that he meant ‘more marginalized in the eyes of Jeff Goldstein” from the way in which he said it. What Ahmadinejad is like may be obvious to the people who devour news and blogs on a regular basis but its just a fact that a large portion of the public (even the college-going public) has no idea what the policies of Iran are like.
I have a cousin who goes to NYU, she’s from Venezuela and, yeah sure, maybe some of the professors know what Chavez is like and they support him anyway, but the students in their classes generally have no idea and having someone like her there to actually tell them the things he’s said and things he’d done helps. In the same way, the more guys like Chavez and Ahmadinejad open their mouths the worse off they are, they simply can’t hide from anyone what utter jackasses they are.
Did you see the update?
semm – try working this phrase into your consciousness: You are known by the company you keep.
Why the devil would you want to keep the company of those who support Ahmadinejad, considering what he supports? Why would you not want to thrust them away? No one’s free speech is being trampled, just those who are more nauseating than a full garbage truck in July are being told to find a forum more fitting to their beliefs.
Like, say, Kos or Stormfront or DU. I’m not that particular about where they go, just that they go.
So ChrisS doesn’t like curse words? Fuck you ya little pussy! I’m the base one.
But seriously, nobody here fears ahmadinejad. No one. His views are well known to everybody that has been paying any bit of attention these last few years. We just find it odd that the left has no problem affording a speaking venue for a person, whose views they say they oppose. But I’m guessing he’s cool since he’s on the correct side of hating McChimpy. Strange bedfellows and all. On the other hand, the left will not give venues to people who actually do have first amendment protections to evil conservatives. You people are fucked. End of story.
I’m not sure who this Ric fellow is, but, either he cannot read or he likes to accuse people he does not know of being guilty for beliefs they just condemned. Listen, you old codger, I made it very clear that I do not support restrictions of viewpoints. Maybe since you had that great case to make re: Texas and horses you decided to go for broke and accuse me of holding beliefs I do not hold? I guess it helps to have a bunch of google happy sycophants to pat you on the back after that particular sad display, but I remain unmoved. It is nor WRONG, nor are there serious consequences for a leader of a foreign country to speak to a college. Jesus, should we tell Andrea Markel to stay at home? Putin? Gordon Brown? Does the right wing and its Texas horse contingent desire a say if President Musharraf comes to town? He’s a dictator! He’s even Muslim. How about Islom Karimov, the dictator of Uzbekistan.He boils people in oil. I suppose that’s okay, because VP Cheney and Michael Ledeen haven’t declared him an enemy.
Jesus, you people are all emotion and no reason.
Speaking of which:
You silly little man, I was trying to draw your attention to the fact that they are both sovereigns of their countries, thus making them equals. I wasn’t trying to equate George Bush with that kook from Iran.
Look, I thought this be more fun and less abusive. From reading a few of these threads, you people don’t discuss politics; you discuss how your hate this person or that and wait for someone to disagree so you can jump him. It’s blogging by bullies and it sounds fun at first to poke the hive, but eventually watching all of you run around in circles, screaming enemy becomes less fun.
I think I’ll check back in another time. Don’t let that stop you from slandering me while I’m gone, Ric! Hell, make up some story about parched throats at the end of a long ride and how that’s just like them libs.
Kind wishes,
Chris
You know, the majority of college students probably don’t know who Noriega is, either, but that doesn’t mean we should be propping him up at a lecturn at Columbia.
Perhaps if teachers were doing their jobs, semm — or were the media doing theirs (after all, haven’t we heard about how the right is beating the drums of war against Iran? Seems that the press would be interested in getting out info about why we should or should not) — we wouldn’t need to give a holocaust denier and a man who on several occasions has talked about wiping out an entire country respectability by agreeing to hear his “ideas,” which everyone knows will be tailored to his audience.
So spare me. Start publishing news stories about Iran’s human rights abuses. But don’t legitimize this guy by inviting him to speak and shaking his fucking hand — even as you deny the same privilege to Summers or Gilchrist, etc.
semm – Of course it’s possible. We’ve had many productive discussions with the unlike-minded.
But post #1 of this thread is neither the beginning of the topic nor the beginning of our “relationship” with Cleo.
Context – it’s what’s for dinner!
The past has taught us well that since we can’t have rational discussions with that ilk, we might as well poke them with sticks and laugh as they jump. It passes the time.
Is the BTK killer still alive? I think Columbia should invite him to speak. Let us get into the mind of a serial killer.
Then afterwards, handshakes and cocktails, and clapping ourselves on the back for having the bravery to allow evil to speak to us!
How strong we are!
Yawn.
This is not about anything other than lending dignity and gravitas to a man who has stated his desire to wipe an entire country off the map. A man who is the nominal head of a country sending personnel and weapons to kill our soldiers even as a Dean at Columbia was shaking his hand, and some students were being charmed by his Farsi Otherness.
Your arguments don’t persuade, because they aren’t arguments against the reasons for our outrage.
But that won’t stop you from doing precisely what Columbia has done: declare yourself brave for having ventured into the website of “bullies” and put up a fight for FREEDOM!
Thing is, it’s as much a crock when you do it.
Who cares about some school in Columbia? What do they teach, cocaine distribution? And, yeah, Iran has no gays–they killed them.
There are no homosexuals in Iran in the same way there would be no Jews in Israel.
–I made it very clear that I do not support restrictions of viewpoints.
Is the BTK killer still alive? I–
OMGawd, I love you Jeff!
–Then afterwards, handshakes and cocktails, and clapping ourselves on the back for having the bravery to allow evil to speak to us!–
Exactly right Jeff.
Bollinger reminded me of a surreal SNL skit where in the moderator Columbia president Harry Carry reads,/i> the hard hitting questions and then evil shit bag pontificates like Barbara Boxer or any other blowhard Senator, and then?
Does the robotic dummy moderator, you know like really speak truth to power and challenge the shit bag on his bullshit? What do we get?
Applause. Harry Carry: Next question.
“I suppose that’s okay, because VP Cheney and Michael Ledeen haven’t declared him an enemy.”
Whoops sweet lips, your bias is showing.
PETE UK!
We should keep in mind that the Left does not actually care about ahmadinejad. This whole thing is an attempt to lash out, to hurt, without responsibility or concern for the future. To witness pain in others, to have brought that on, that’s power.
They embrace ahmadinejad’s visit because they believe it hurts those they hate here, those who oppose them on a variety of issues. They are not deeply invested in freedom of speech (utilitarian at best, especially for academia) nor has the Left had Sudden Enlightenment about ahmadinejad now that he spoke at Columbia.
The ultimate triumph would be ahmadinejad visiting Ground Zero, because it would be a slap in the face to so many people. There would be tears: deep, wracking sobs from those who feel betrayed not only by their own country, but by their fellow countrymen…perhaps the first time they have ever truly been hurt so profoundly, and in such a way. Such anguish would be deeply, deeply satisfying, just like voting for ahmadinejad over Bush in the juvenile DailyKos “presidential poll” and enjoying the truly stunned response from the Right.
Mikey NTH (in #101) mentions that the Left has nothing to gain with supporting ahmadinejad; I think he’s missing the point. In Russia, there was an old joke that one farmer with withering crops and dying livestock was visited by an angel. This angel was compassionate and granted the farmer one wish. So the farmer spied his neighbor’s healthy animals and plentiful fields and turned to the angel and requested she…
…smite his neighbor.
I saw this comment at Patterico’s, and found it to be insightful and interesting. Your mileage may vary.
The left have always believed the end justifies the means,that is why they could view the genocide perpetrated by Lenin,Stalin with equanimity,Mao and Pol Pot.The evils of the Castro and Chavez regimes are given a pass.
Ahmamadjihadi used the leftist talking points,he played the poor schmucks like a cheap fiddle.
The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized? Is that how you could say something like this, cleo:
“Let ‘em sqeek. The mouse that roared is still a mouse.”
About a savage that routinely buries teenage girls in the ground and hurls baseball size rocks at their heads until they are lifeless, bloody pulps?
What kind of a black-hearted piece of shit are you? How can you say this is marginal? How could you fucking wish it to be so?
You will have to forgive Septicleo,she thinks she is commenting on Pre-Teen Wisdom.
BTW The hall Ahmamadjihadi spoke in was funded by a Jewish philanthropist.
Jewish Lesbian leftist twit Before Ahmadenijad’s speech:
I have a little crush on him
After the speech:
…
Before the speech I was like… bomb Iran? That might be ok, whatever. Let’s maybe wait and see on these sanction thingies. After the speech I’m really enthusiastic about bombing the shit out of this regime. And maybe rebombing the shit out of anyone in Iraq what don’t like it. That’s not very temperate, I guess.
uh, can someone sort this one out for me? They aren’t equals but they are?
Hitler and FDR? Equals.
Thus, hounding Hitler into suicide? A hate crime.
Bad form, greatest generation. For shame.
As long as we have no more restrictions of viewpoints.
Unless that viewpoint is making fun of Chris, that is. Those are right out.
For a dictator to say “we have no homosexuals” is paramount to an order to begin a genocide. If it were Jews, that would be more clear I guess.
Hey, that’s funny. I completely missed #121 from the ChrisssSsSss?s?
So, not equating, just stating they’re equal. Heh. Teh stoopid, heh.
I especially liked the part where it declared victory during retreat, hauling out the victim card one last time. Classic troll.
Too bad, so sad, now it’s leaving, aren’t you glad?
semm expressed confusion and frustration in a straightforward fashion without misrepresenting anyone, and was responded to directly. I think the worst response was “so spare me.”
That’s what happens when you’re honest.
ChrisSy waded in with attacks and played victim, thus earning the justfied wrath of the peanut gallery for being a complete wanker.
That’s what happens when you’re dishonest.
Or, at the other end of the spectrum, when you’re so philosophically damaged that not only can’t you tell different things apart, but you can’t even understand what the word “equal” means.
I mean, ChrisS stated that it wasn’t equating GW and Monkey, just saying they were equal (WTF?), then went on to say that GW, Monkey, Merkel, Howard, Musharraf and Putin are all equal.
“I didn’t mean equal meaning equal, I meant equal meaning not equal!”
Try running those paragraphs by some friends and see if they can help you understand exactly where you went wrong. This will not be easy for you, but if you pursue it, it will be worthwhile.
It may not help the whiny victim thing, but maybe you’ll be able to hold a rational conversation, which would help a LOT.
As usual:
And from Prager:
Oops, busted link: That first quote is from VDH
What jkrank said in #131. Which, of course, requires a fully authentic human perspective.
Free speech? We still standing around watching that canard steam away on the floor? If this had a dime’s to do with free speech, our resident leftists and brave guardians of the highest form of patriotism would answer questions about Columbia’s full scope of policies regarding who says what where. Or they’d deal with Shrew Clinton, the Pathological Candidate, leveraging Esquire this year to suppress negative press.
Or they’d deal honestly with Hilary Clinton, their Pathological Candidate, while running for arguably the most important job on earth, suppressing the Press.
Nah, never happen. Liars. Frauds.
Said it before, will say it again. You need perspective to understand honor.
Maggie;
ChrisS appears to be one of those people Evan Sayet was talking about, a person whose greatest fear is judgement, and who has so attacked and abandoned judgement that, despite using the words of judgement, the process is a complete mystery to them.
Someone who accepted the fact that somethings (and people) can be better or worse than others would never have constructed a sentence like that. It’s unintelligible IF you actually know what the words mean.
But if the words are meaningless, then suddenly the sentence means whatever ChrisS wants it to mean… evidently something like:
“I want the rhetorical benefits of equating GW to Ahmadinejad without the moral downside of the comparison, please, with large fries and a Tasty Beverage to wash that down.”
In this case, the nearly solipsist narcissism and philosophical vacuum that lead to this particular outburst distilled the DESIRE so fully that the rhetoric hiding it disappeared and we ended up with a bland request to IGNORE THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN and accept the impossibility of two completely opposite statements.
The “silly little man” thing was a nice touch, though unoriginal.
As trolls go, I give ChrisS a 4. Uses big words, but trips over them. Passive-aggressive, declared victory upon retreat, morally confused yet self-superior, you can’t dance to it and I really expected more Wikipedia linkage.
Ahmamadjihadi went down well with the home crowd
JeffG
As a lot of us have said all throughout the day that none of the negatives would be reported in Iranian news …
We were right
eek… flubbed the link tab
We were right
I wanna speak at Columbia – that would be resume hgh
All in all, I’m happy things went as they did at Columbia. I’m happy Bollinger did what he did, because even when I try really hard I can’t think of any other American who has said such things to his face. I can’t think of another audience that would laugh derisively at him.
Surely the journalists I’ve seen haven’t pressed him. They’ve been too afraid they’d never get another big scoop from another despot.
Let the guy hear what Americans have to say to him, for heaven’s sake.
“The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized.”
I wish to be so honored with the oppurtunity to marginalize myself on a regular basis. Can you arrange for me to have many speaking oppurtunities? Perhaps you can arrange for me a tour of major American universities and a regular editorial column in the NY Times. After that, I’m no doubt going to be completely marginalized, don’t you think?
Are you sure that word means what you think it means?
MayBee
Ok, emotionally satisfying but the result is a black mark against Columbia and Americans.
Read my link in #149.
“The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized.â€Â
You notice how no gay Iranians were invited to speak? You notice how no Iranian dissidents were ever given such a prestigious podium at Columbia university? You notice how no Sudanese rape survivors were invited to speak?
I’m quite sure that the same voices in the world that are truly marginalized are still truly marginalized. Whereas, the President of Iran is not a marginalized voice. He can always find a soap box. He doesn’t need help finding a voice.
Columbia has no real interest in helping people that really have no voice. This wasn’t about free speach. This was a quasi-religious spectecle of self-righteous onanism. Columbia gets to honor a holocaust denier and they get to outrage the right, and by booing a few times they get to think of themselves as heroes standing up for what is right.
But it isn’t really the voiceless they want to hear from.
The idea that Ahmadinejad “marginalized” himself with his speech at Columbia is completely laughable on its face. And Bollinger’s ham-handed attack on him during his introduction actually made things worse, by giving Ahmadinjad his perfect video clip for domestic consumption in Iran with the audience cheering his reposte about being insulted by his hosts. Smooth move, Bollinger, not.
Given the standards preached by ChrisS, there would be no reasonable excuse for Columbia to use to deny celebrim the right to address the students. All points of view should be respected, free speech, and all that other blather, right ChrisS?
Frankly, I would not have a problem with this clown speaking in this manner, provided he was fucking honest. If he got up there and denied the Holocaust like he has done, if he got up there and restated his position that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, and outlined clearly their views and punishment on homosexuality, or being the victim of rape, then at least he would be honest. That is expecting too much, and he was allowed to walk away from his truly vile positions by giving the media that cute little soundbite about how there are no gays in his country.
Ahmamadjihadi – Get up there and preach the vile, Death to American and Death to the Zionists that you do at home. At least then we could consider you a straight shooting terrorist, rather than the lying mendacious crap weasel that you are.
“See how it works?
The more he speaks, the more he is marginalized.”
Which explains why Semanticleo hasn’t been banned.
I dunno MayBee, if the big shun from State and our continuing attempts to get UN sanctions aren’t enough to make an impact do you really think an audience of college kids will have an effect?
To any and all, including those supposedly on my side:
If you are trying to make this about whether or not Ahmadinejad should be allowed to speak, you are either mistaken or lying out your ass.
It’s about YOU. There’s a world full of people out there, and a world of different things they want to say, and what you choose to listen to says a lot about you whether or not you claim to agree with it — as does what you choose to suppress; and if you choose to suppress anything you can no longer claim support of “free speech”. The rubric doesn’t matter. “Hate speech”, “offensive to xxx“, or whatever, if you shout it down you’re different only in degree, not kind, from any common book-burner, and if you won’t defend to the death the right to say it your claim to “liberal” as a designation is meritless and insulting to those who deserve it. More important, if you suppress anything your choice of what not to suppress becomes highly significant. Actions speak louder than words, and if A may not speak while B is permitted to do so you have endorsed B and deprecated A, whatever other statements you may make about it — and if C is invited to speak where A is not permitted, the endorsement becomes more obvious.
If you had not shouted down Gilchrist of the Minutemen and suppressed his speech by violence, if you had not dismissed Summers for “hate speech”, if you had not attempted to squelch Rumsfeld on grounds of distaste for his views, if you had not engaged in any of the multitude of acts of censorship you loudly brag about as resulting from “sensitivity” to “nuance” and “feelings”, we could accept your choice of speakers as resulting from endorsement of “free speech”. Since you have done all those things and more, and claimed them as evidence of virtue, you have made it clear that your claim to support free speech is a lie — and, more important, you have made it clear that the views expressed in the speech you do permit accord with your own.
Regards,
Ric
Ok. So no genocide. I can’t find anyone in Iran that takes him seriously. I got tired of clicking, but if you want to try – the bold ones are the recently updated ones. This is representative. Like this. And here.
Americans seem to take him for super cereal though. I read this whole thing twice to make sure he was really really cereal. I didn’t even pull out the best stuff really.
You might remember how this can go.
Another central point, JD. You’re on fire (and I’m not just saying so because of #96, though, you know, the old ego thanks you)!
Ahmadinejad’s voice was NOT heard… deliberate and mendacious propaganda was.
Free speech wasn’t honored, but free ad space, by the millions, was given to a terrorist.
Bra-fucking-vo, capital-every-letter DUMBASSES.
I can’t wait for Ahmadinejad T-shirts to start cropping up on college campuses. I mean, what the fuck, Che was a blood-greedy mass murderer, why the Hell shouldn’t the monkey be the new campus hero?
There’s a reason for that, feets.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a fully autonomous individual. He is an output device, somewhat more sophisticated than an iPod Shuffle; his programming comes from the Supreme Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, that is, the mullahs who run the place. You might as well talk about whether or not an MP3 player should be taken seriously as a musician.
Regards,
Ric
I kind of knew that, but I guess I didn’t know they knew that. How can people of a country born of violent revolution become so pliant in just a few decades is what I’m left wondering.
Darleen-
good point.
It’s true that this was used to propagandize him. That’s a travesty.
Having lived on the outskirts of China for 2 years, though, I can tell you it doesn’t take anything real for these guys to get their propagandized article fluffers. There can be a kernel of truth to it or not, but in the end the story will be written as planned.
The problem is, really, that there are so many in the US and Europe that are able to hear the good and the bad about Ahamadinejad, and still come to the conclusion that GWB is the worse of the two. Or that the US is the more evil. This appearance wasn’t going to change that.
But at least HE heard how people responded. He heard an American say something negative to him about him. He heard that his trite answer about gays wasn’t going to work.
I guess what I’m saying is, let the propagandists propagate (this time). Ahamadinejad heard that not everyone is ready to believe him. For once his American contact wasn’t Sean Penn.
Some dissident in Iran will hear about it too, and take heart. I do think it meant something for unhappy Iranians to hear someone talk to him that way, even if it doesn’t make the official Iranian press.
A bit late, but holy crap,
Sovereigns? Good God, how uneducated can you be.
We’ll ignore for the moment the likelihood that Ahmalangadingdong is merely a dancing puppet of the ruling Mullahs so hardly sovereign of anything and instead stick with documented facts.
While the United States of America is a sovereign state the President is in no way a sovereign. He is the chief of the executive branch of the government and head of State, but his powers and authority are limited in scope and nature and he is at all times subservient to the Constitution. See Article II, section 2 for further details.
Now go to bed Junior, tomorrow is a school day.
maggie:I dunno MayBee, if the big shun from State and our continuing attempts to get UN sanctions aren’t enough to make an impact do you really think an audience of college kids will have an effect?
I don’t know, Miss Maggie. I keep thinking back to Saddam, after his (last?) softball interview with Dan Rather, where Dan was left trying to explain that despite the negatives in the press against Bush, the American people really did think Saddam was bad and we really did support a war.
I keep think of Diane Sawyer, being so deferential to Ahamadinejad when she interviewed him.
I think our press does a good job separating themselves from any criticisms of Iran (in the name of objectivity), and I think they do an excellent job of criticizing Bush (ditto). All in all, it leaves the impression that Bush has no support and our opinion on Iran is at best neutral– therefore the Bush government is entirely separate from the people. I think he thought that speaking at an American University would be a chance to speak to the American People, and they would be eating out of the palm of his hand.
That didn’t happen, and he can’t blame it on Bush. It won’t change a thing, I’m sure.
An atomic weapon is a great way to un-marginalize youself.
The mouse with a nuke that roared, is still a mouse (with a nuke).
– One thing people leave out of his profile and agenda. He absolutely must engage the “devil” in an ongoing pissing contest, and propeganda war through the more biased media outlets or perish if too much time goes by. Iran knows the old rule that you are only as inportant as your most important advisary, so without America Moo-mad-Mo slips below the radar, and the Mulla’s dump him faster than a week old meatloaf.
If you’re not gonna eat it you should freeze it before it gets that old.
from reports I’m seeing, I think it’s debatable that the audience wasn’t generally accepting of most of what he said. maybe I’ll make myself watch it tomorrow. today was “short attention span” day for me. (hours of audition waiting/being around obnoxious actors will do that to me ;D)
Though I’m also thinking that someone that could deny the Holocaust also wouldn’t have a hard time coming up with some crazy reason to discount any negative reaction he received. probably involving yet more Joooooooos! It is New York after all.
You probably won’t have to wait too long, though the shirts would probably show up faster had he worn a fashionable beret. I guess that’s what Photoshop is for.
Me, I’m waiting for the inevitable “Queers for Iran” groups to crop up. BDS is a strong force, after all. Overpowers cognitive dissonance just about every time.
[…] they will look the other way while Iranian gays are hung and Iranian women are stoned to death. Anything for the cause, I […]
Ric, your mind is so wide open your brain just fell out. Are you aware you’re pushing an absolute? Oh, the humanity!
I have no problem supporting free speech and also supressing speech calling for the violent overthrow of my elected government. Of course, I haven’t called myself a liberal since I became a Republican over 30 years ago.
No wait. Now that I count it was only 20 years ago.
Sorry for the error.
ChrisS:
“It is nor(sic) WRONG, nor are there serious consequences for a leader of a foreign country to speak to a college.”
Well, maybe if it you’re talking about Churchill giving his “Iron Curtain” speech at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri…..
Oh…
Wait…..
That was the kickoff for a 50 year long World War against agressive, expansionist reactionary communism.
My bad.
– The dickless Left needed an “All Ur narrative R belong to Us” moment. They took a massive hit last week with the Betray us gaffe, while busily setting their own candidates up for total PR desaster.
– I question the timing. (…and short, hairy, little meatloafs that look like they just got off the spechul boat from Istanbul. If this is what passes for academia in Iran, they’re in even worse shape than we are…)
I think I understand the crush the left has for people like Ahmadinejad. They feel about him just this way:
See the way he walks down the street
Watch the way he shuffles his feet
My, he holds his head up high
When he goes walking by
He’s my guy
When he holds my hand I’m so proud
‘Cause he’s not just one of the crowd
My baby, oh he’s the one
To try the things they’ve never done
Just because of that they say
He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be understood
And just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why I can’t give him all my love
He is always good to me, always treats me tenderly
‘Cause he’s not a rebel, no no no
He’s not a rebel, no no no, to me
If they don’t like him that way,
They won’t like me after today
I’ll be standing right by his side, when they say
He’s a rebel and he’ll never ever be any good
He’s a rebel ’cause he never ever does what he should
And just because he doesn’t do what everybody else does
That’s no reason why we can’t share a love
He is always good to me, good to him I’ll try to be
‘Cause he’s not a rebel, no no no
He’s not a rebel, no no no, to me
(He’s not a rebel, no no no
He’s not a rebel, no no no
He’s not a rebel, no no no
He’s not a rebel, no no no)
I am sooo going to hell for that one.
Compare and contrast the left’s treatment of Ayan Hirsi Ali to their treatment of Ahmadinejad.
Compare and contrast the weight and attention they give the statements of each of those two.
All I know is Donald Trump was on Foxnews this morning and I thought “Man! That hair makes him look like an idiot.” Then he started talking and it removed all doubt.
A bit off topic, but what a blow hard!
klrtzl, my cranium is comfortably intact :-)
And yes, I’m a trifle of an absolutist on that subject. I’m very dubious about the “fire in a crowded theater” exception, for instance — but that’s because I think of “free” as “lacking restraint”, not “avoiding consequences”. A person who shouts “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire owes compensation to the people who were cheated of the remainder of the performance, let alone those who were injured in the crush for the exits, but (in my mind) is perfectly free to assume that obligation if he/she cares to do so. And yes, I’m aware that that argument has lost the debate. I just think that’s a mistake.
As evidence that it’s a mistake, observe that those restricting “hate speech” are doing so precisely on those grounds — the audience, hearing the “hate speech”, will respond in ways that are damaging to themselves and the society; therefore the speech must be restricted. Disagreeing with the results while endorsing the rationale is not a good way to oppose.
As for advocating the overthrow, etc., the Framers put free speech in the Constitution for a reason. People can advocate the overthrow of the United States all day long with special sermons on Friday night, and it pisses me off but does not (because cannot) rise to anything sanctionable. When they pick up weapons and start implementing their notions, shoot them out of hand. Fortunately the present bunch have defined themselves beforehand as pusillanimous blowhards, so the only time they’re in the least deserving of attention is situations like this one, where they’re trying to recruit outside forces to do their dirty work for them whilst maintaining a facade of “pacifism”.
Regards,
Ric
[…] he gets to stand apart from the crowd as The Man Who Stared Down A Tyrant and probably rake in some alumni dough. (In light of this, his assurances that Columbia would have invited Hitler to speak in a similar […]
– Ric – The “fire in s theater” metsphore has alwyas been a strained analogy for freedom of speech. A case of “freedom of speech” mis-applied to what is clearly an act of inciting a riot, and wreckless endangerment.
– It seems a more apropos example would be the British idea’s of hate speech/grafitti, which they legislate against.
– As far as pacifism, they kid not anyone if they think people whom are interested in such things, are unaware its simply cover until they can weild the whip. Tears for fears put it better than I can. Its the Lefts version of the 800 pound gorilla in the political tent.
[…] he gets to stand apart from the crowd as The Man Who Stared Down A Tyrant and probably rake in some alumni dough. (In light of this, his assurances that Columbia would have invited Hitler to speak in a similar […]
** Breaking ***
– FOXnews Sources are reporting that Ahmadinejad has cancelled his UN appearence scheduled for today.
– President Bush is presently addressing the UN general assembly.
True enough, BB, but as I said I’m something of an absolutist. I don’t consider “inciting a riot” a crime — I think the crime is responding to the incitement. Speech isn’t criminal. Poking people with pitchforks is, and breaking windows (or heads) with thrown stones and brickbats is not appropriate in most venues.
Goals and intentions are a separate matter. A self-described “pacifist” who also calls for laws against this and that is a lying fuckweasel. The policeman’s gun and billyclub are not fashion accessories, and the root of “enforcement” is a big hairy goon beating up on people. Soi-disant “pacifists” are by and large elitists who want the beatings handed out regularly, but consider that dirtying their hands by actually doing the beating is a social demotion — Ah hahr thet dun.
Regards,
Ric
Ric,
To take your ideal of free speech to its logical dead endz, conspiracy to commit a crime would be protected speech, telling military secrets to the enemy during a war would be protected speech, since burning the flag is protected speech so would a pie in the face be protected and a beating like the Jena 6 gave that white boy too, and by the way so would threats be protected speech. Is that the world in which you prefer to live? If all the power of the government can be called upon to protect free speech, shouldn’t those of us who vote in this democracy have something to say about it? Why do you want to protect us voters from the consequences of our choice to limit the speech our government protects? You’re not my mommie! (May God rest her soul.)
Absolutes are fine in religion. In politics, let us humans use our human judgement.
Three things: when Ric Locke says it and says it well, he is feted. Nice work, Mr. Locke, you are dead on.
Jeff, what would be so vile about hearing the thoughts of the church elder who is the BTK killer. Are you afraid that if you heard him, you would become a serial killer? In the end, your argument is a reductio adsurdum, yet I am an absolutist when it comes to free speech.
Lastly,
Really, Thomas? Apparently, you need to keep reading past Article II and into the common law: “Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a type of immunity that in common law jurisdictions traces its origins from early English law. Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or government cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution; hence the saying, the king (or queen) can do no wrong.”
You can look it up, otherwise, Cindy Sheehan would have dragged President Bush into Court a long time ago. I guess his sovereign immunity trumps her “absolute moral authority.” But, shhhh, don’t tell Katie Couric.
As for Merovign, who just can’t read, the President of Iran and the President of the US hold the same position in International law, thus making them sovereigns. That does not make them morally equivalent, just legally.
But, I think you knew that and were just being disingenuous. Then, again, maybe distinctions aren’t your thing.
Well, that should stir the hive up for a few more hours. Some time around noon, I hear there is going to be something new for us all to be outraged about!
Ric, I hope you don’t take my agreement with you as a sign to back away from what was a Jeffersonian defense of liberty (Columbia’s, not the kook from Iran). That really was well done.
fIIranian gay are so innocent, it’s terrible how they are treated in their own country.
PLIt is up to the rest of the world to stand up and do something for them. PLEASE SET THEM FREE …..PLEASE LET THEM LIVE
Re: the ‘absolutist’ free speech discussion, RAW had the following to say in his introduction to ‘Wilhelm Reich in Hell’:
Which, given that as Rob Crawford can helpfully point out that RAW is a writer of fiction, and he developed a raging case of BDS in his quixotic old age, shouldn’t imply that I endorse his entire worldview. But hey, I think this is a great quotation.
Ric Locke — So if some media mouth or evangelist or blogger of whatever political stripe calls for, say, the assassination of a president, and some member of his audience takes him up on it, said opinion-giver should face no consequences.
I think I’d hate to have you in the jury for a racketeering trial. “Guido never said he would burn down the restaurant. He only said it would be a shame if the restaurant had a fire…”
I was sitting at the bar the other night beside a cute little hippy chick with a Che shirt on. I could have pointed out to her what an evil bastard Che really was, but instead opted for small talk about music. While I would never attempt to suppress her right to make a fool of herself, I certainly wasn’t going to invite it.
ChrisS says:
and then with his face hanging out goes on to say:
You do recognize that Jeff is making the same suggestion about the feting, right? Maybe you’re just being disengenuous?
I’d like to try to frame the issue using a more mundane example. Why is it that, say, the Journal of Applied Physics doesn’t accept papers which claim to explain, oh I don’t know, the mechanics of dragon flight? Is it because they fear the contents of the claim? Or is it just because it is not apposite and in fact diametrically opposed to their purpose? Would not such a publication (April 1 editions notwithstanding) be essentially a feting of material that does not deserve it?
I don’t think anyone here is afraid of the Iranian leader’s commentary qua commentary so much as they are afraid of the consequences of debasing our august institutions in this manner and the way in which it lends him political capital around the world.
No, I’m not “afraid,” and once again, you seem either to miss the argument or else ignore it so that you can swerve your Hummer into the gallery of straw men that you must believe populate this place.
This has nothing to do with “fear.” It has to do with legitimization, and with rewarding atrocious behavior. I would have no problem reading a sociological study based on interviews with the BTK killer were I interested in how the mind of a sociopath functions. But I would have a problem with his being given a lecturn at Columbia and an audience with the NPC. I would recoil when the Dean of a supposedly august institution shook his hand. And I would place all the proceeding — the acceptance, the “professional” gladhanding and respect — in context, and juxtapose it with the kinds of people who the faculty and student body wish to keep silent: Larry Summers, Donald Rumsfeld, Michael Gilchrist, Ward Connerly, etc.
If you think my argument is reductio [sic] absurdum (reductio AD absurdum, is what you were going for) you simply have no idea what that is, and so you might want to strike it from your vocabulary when you find yourself among those who do.
Similarly, this has nothing whatever to do with free speech. It has instead to do with appealing to free speech as a shield to justify dignifying a Mullah’s puppet, even as you would deny that same “free speech” (which, incidentally, has to do with government and law, not with deciding who and who not you invite to give a speech; so let’s not pretend this is a Constitutional problem) to those countrymen with whom you disagree politically (or, in the case of Summers or, say, Ward Connerly, those who have inadvertently wandered off the political plantation).
Mahmoud represents a country where women are subjugated and where homosexuals are put to death. He represents a country that funds Hezbollah, and is involved in an insurgency that is killing our troops even as I write this. He represents a country that is seeking nuclear weapons, and he has said that the aim is to wipe Israel off the map.
Giving him forum to spew his propaganda (see the post from this morning to get an idea how this is playing in Tehran) is despicable — particularly where protesting was not allowed, the questions were scrutinized, and the event was closed to the public.
So again, stop pretending you are a champion of free speech. You are not. Else you’d be on the side of intellectual consistency wondering why Ahmadenijad was given a forum, but ROTC is banned from campus (supposedly for their “anti-gay” stance). Instead, you are content with self-righteous bromides emanating like a bit of pale light from your shallow intellectual core.
But I’m not one who is shamed easily, so save your “free speech absolutist” talk for someone who might be cowed by the suggestion that he is in favor of curtailing speech.
Because of the two of us, I suspect that I’m the more protective of free speech. Whereas you are more protective of a worldview that has shown itself again and again to be so inconsistent as to be intellectually bankrupt.
Unless, of course, you grant yourself leave to work outside Enlightenment paradigms. In which case, you can justify anything you wish.
Bollinger did not blindside Ahmadinijad with some choice free speech, he negotiated an “exchange of views” to mutual benefit. Win-win. (If the negotiation had been about aerospace technology, Bollinger would be in jail.)
That’s the heart of the matter right there. The whole charade was predicated on this essential proposition of moral equivalence. It has nothing to do with free speech. That argument, in fact, obscures what Bollinger and Ahmadinijad achieved yesterday, and it’s that achievement that is where the focus of this conversation properly belongs.
Oh. What Jeff said, really.
Thinking things through just isn’t your style is it?
As I said, the US of A is a sovereign state. So yes, sovereign immunity would apply to acts of The State But the POTUS is not the State nor a sovereign else, by your logic he too could not commit a ‘legal wrong’ and would be ‘immune from civil or criminal prosecution.’
Thankfully the authors of the Constitution had a bit more wattage upstairs than you, or do you really want to argue that the POTUS is beyond the reach of the law?
Oh, and by the way, in our country the Constitution trumps common law each and every time.
Yeah, no sane attorney would allow me on the jury at a trial for “racketeering”.
What klrtz1 and GMG are advocating, whether they realize it or not, is a justification for the abandonment of individualism. If some nutcase stands up and advocates assassinating the President, and nutcase #2 goes and implements that suggestion, they want to put no. 1 in jail or worse — but by arguing that they are claiming that #2 is helpless, incapable of withstanding the spellbinding suggestions of #1. Bullshit. The person with his or her hand on the trigger is guilty. Bystanders who either enable the gunsel or fail to interfere with what’s going down when they are able to do so are accessories, by longstanding doctrine equally guilty. The asshole who made the speech? An asshole, no doubt about it, but he’s done nothing but flap his gums. It was the perp who made the moral decision to commit a crime, and excusing him by saying the speaker robbed him of the ability to make that moral decision is an abomination.
As for racketeering, threats are a hard problem, and hard cases make bad law. The current set are what amounts to short cuts that make it easier to establish that the threat exists. As such they should always be questioned, not taken for granted as part of the body of established law.
Regards,
Ric
Seems to me the laws against libel also abridge speech. Are you sure flapping gums can’t never cause no harm, Mr. Locke, Sir?
So a guy is standing there with a gun in his hand. He points it at you and pulls the trigger. You have to wait to see if a bullet hits you, the harm, before you shoot back?
he, this straw man stuff is easy! No wonder there’s so much of it.
JD sez I can unequivocably say, if you respect Ahmadinutjob then you are objectively un-American.
I concur. And, I trump all lefties with my Utter Moral Authority Card of a year of being shot at in Iraq. Neener neener.
As I said, the US of A is a sovereign state. So yes, sovereign immunity would apply to acts of The State But the POTUS is not the State nor a sovereign else, by your logic he too could not commit a ‘legal wrong’ and would be ‘immune from civil or criminal prosecution.’
Thankfully the authors of the Constitution had a bit more wattage upstairs than you, or do you really want to argue that the POTUS is beyond the reach of the law?
Oh, and by the way, in our country the Constitution trumps common law each and every time.
You cannot charge the President with crimes he undertook in his official capacity. Visiting another State or the UN is recogninzed as official capacity. Look it up
If crimes are being committed, he’s acting outside of his official capacity. If he goes to Switzerland for a G8 conference and shoots a couple of pedestrians in the head for sport, he’s getting charged.
Terroristic threats statute:
Ric, I’m having a problem finding much fault in this statute, which has been around for many years. They had to amend it in the late 90’s after Colombine to include internet threats. I have a difficult time equating threats of injury/death with intent to terrorize as covered within the Founders’ concept of free speech.
Sovereign immunity does not protect government or its employees from everything. Criminal acts are clearly not protected. Federal and state laws vary from one another in what sovereign immunity (governmental immunity applies. The general governmental immunity statute in Michigan is MCL 691.1401 set seq. and governmental agencies are immune from tort liability if engaged in a governmental function. The exceptions to governmental immunity in Michigan are defective highways, defective buildings, negligent operation of a motor vehicle, a hospital (not a prison hospital) and proprietary activities.
Note that this immunity and exceptions are to tort liability, civil lawsuits. This does not extend to criminal activities. Governmental agencies (and thus their employees) are responsible for their criminal activities.
In the example given of the POTUS shooting at people in switzerland, he may not be chargable under Swiss law due to diplomatic immunity, but he sure as heck would be chargeable under US law.
Nor does the conference of sovereign immunity make one a ‘sovereign.’ Hell, at various times I’ve been a County or Federal employee and was likewise shielded to some extent by sovereign immunity. But at no time have I ever been considered soveign of anything extending beyond my own epidermis.
The President of the United States is not a sovereign.
Have you ever even read the Constitution?
Or are you just one of Blumenthals’s homonculi laying the groundwork for Lord Hildebeast’s bid for absolute power?
Keep going Chris, keep going, you’ll make it to the antipode! Say hello to the Earth’s core when you pass by!
The problem is, Chris doesn’t understand certain key concepts, which is where the expression “talking to a telephone pole” came from.
Mind you, in reality, it’s not that they’re dumb. That’s certainly not the case. The Left and The Rest Of Us chare a common vocabulary, but not a common language.
Which is one of the reasons why every left/right discussion is plagued by “misunderstandings” and accusations of disingenuousness.
Mind you, the inability of ChrisS to address any substantive issues (like legitimization) is a personal moral failure, but the whole inability to understand (or our inability to communicate using, if you prefer) words that start with “equ” is a by-product of the “language barrier.”
Comment by ChrisS on 9/25 @ 11:22 am #
Oh, and by the way, in our country the Constitution trumps common law each and every time.
Gun owners in Chicago will be glad to know this.
Rusty, you clown, I didn’t say that, ThomasD did and he’s on your side.
He’s right, but do try to keep track.
Debating Sovereign immunity with the crowd who believes the President has the right to imprison American citizens, because we’re at war is the height of irony.
‘Cause, ThomasD, if you think this President is not a sovereign, then you a) don’t know what you’re talking about, and b) haven’t gone drinking with David Addington.
Have you gone drinking with David Addington?
David Addison was the guy Bruce Willis played on Moonlighting, which would be altogether different I guess.
uh, looks to me like some jerk needs to at least learn to use quotation marks.
Object lesson for the day: Don’t buy your strawmen at the 99-cent store.
I don’t even think there’s any real straw in that.
{poke, poke}
It’s probably plastic.
The absolutely hilarious thing is, I think Monkeyjihad would be an intensely interesting person to have an extended interview with, if not for the fact that he’s just lie about everything anyway.
Oh, and I’d want a gun, ’cause after all the dude was known as Tir Khalas Zan at Evin Prison.
I would like to know whether he’s just a soulles bureaucrat, or fanatically committed to his faith, or whether there’s something more complex going on.
Every so often, someone catches him with a camera when he’s not “playing,” and the look on his face in those moments screams “man who is overwhelmed by the terror, delivered and received, but doesn’t think there’s any way out but through.” When he’s giving a speech, he’s a used car salesman. Caught across a street waiting for his limo, he looks haunted.
Then again, we all have this desire to believe that monsters are tragic figures, because we all want to believe in redemption. Doesn’t mean he don’t need killin’, as the Texans say, but that’s not incompatible with tragedy.
Debating Sovereign immunity with the crowd who believes the President has the right to imprison American citizens, because we’re at war is the height of irony.
Abe Lincoln would be ………………………….oh fergitit. You’re too thick anyway.
ahmadinejad’s propaganda “coup” [SEK]…
Australians think he was flattened:
Today, after his brutal and unexpected denunciation of Ahmadinejad as a cruel and ridiculous tyrant, the Columbia president has suddenly gone from a leftie pariah to a rolled-gold American hero.
Carried live on cable…
No gays in Iran: Ahmadinejad
Visit: http://gay.orq.ir
[…] those of you who missed it… check these two clips […]
Its a nice post about online shopping because Online shopping is fast becoming the most preferred mode of shopping whereby shoppers can reap the advantages of Internet shopping from the luxury of their homes.
It a nice site collecting all info about Coupon.
I use to buy some of these coupon and i need this information.
Thanks for your time to post this article.
This is a nice post about variety of Socks and its a very needed information.
Thanks for such an important post.
Thanks
very intresting
i love her
Thanks for the valuable information!
Craftsman High Quality Clear Liquid Car Wax Case Pack 18…
??????? by— 2008/ 12/ 16 ???@ 18: 48:…