Letting dude come and speak demonstrates our maturity that I'm not used to in this country.. We aren't threatened by freedom of speech.
People saying stupid things opens up debate on topics that may otherwise not be talked about.
People in control that want to censor ideas and images are guilty of being un American and must have something to hide.
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror mullah's front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Columbia in 1977 had invited PW Botha to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what the please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But holocaust denying terror supporting fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races or inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says the holocaust never happened, whose country produces miniseries reviving the protocols of the elders of zion, who wages a proxy war on Iraqi civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon etc. ...
Ahmadinejad deserves to be humiliated. He should be forced to wear an orange jumpsuit and ankle bracelets for his stay in new york. That said, I have to say I loved Bollinger's rebuke. It was like a thousand gasfaces.
Letting dude come and speak demonstrates our maturity that I'm not used to in this country.. We aren't threatened by freedom of speech.
People saying stupid things opens up debate on topics that may otherwise not be talked about.
People in control that want to censor ideas and images are guilty of being un American and must have something to hide.
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror mullah's front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Columbia in 1977 had invited PW Botha to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what the please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But holocaust denying terror supporting fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races or inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says the holocaust never happened, whose country produces miniseries reviving the protocols of the elders of zion, who wages a proxy war on Iraqi civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon etc. ...
Ahmadinejad deserves to be humiliated. He should be forced to wear an orange jumpsuit and ankle bracelets for his stay in new york. That said, I have to say I loved Bollinger's rebuke. It was like a thousand gasfaces.
1. I don't think letting somebody speak is "honoring" them. I mean, it's not like they gave him the Medal of Honor for fucking up royally or something like that.
2. Whatever you think of Ahmadinejad, he is a vastly important person in the world right now. A good deal of our own foreign policy depends on what he does. Insult and malign him all you want, you'll get no argument from me, but to think that he's not worth talking to simply because you don't like him is a real disservice. He's not just some lone crackpot screaming at passing traffic, he's a major world figure.
3. He was humilaited. He was given a platform to espouse his views, and everybody got to see what a raving loon he is. He basically offered himself up as a rhetorical pinata. Sounds pretty humilating to me.
4. As for this:
We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races or inferior to others
I would make some snark-on-the creationists "teach the controversy!" remark, but I'd rather not get into that right now.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror enablers' front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Howard in 2007 had invited George W. Bush to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what they please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein arming fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races are inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says that 9/11 was carried out by average joe's proven to not even know how to fly a small plane, let alone a commercial jet at the same time that they are holding off 200+ passengers with mere boxcutters, whose country produces Inside Edition and lopsided prison statistics, who wages a proxy war on US civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon for anyone with the funding to purchase one, etc. ...
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror enablers' front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Howard in 2007 had invited George W. Bush to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what they please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein arming fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races are inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says that 9/11 was carried out by average joe's proven to not even know how to fly a small plane, let alone a commercial jet at the same time that they are holding off 200+ passengers with mere boxcutters, whose country produces Inside Edition and lopsided prison statistics, who wages a proxy war on US civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon for anyone with the funding to purchase one, etc. ...
You're right Bush is Hitler, we don't know the truth of 9-11, Amerikkka sucks. When will the world ever listen?
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror enablers' front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Howard in 2007 had invited George W. Bush to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what they please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein arming fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races are inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says that 9/11 was carried out by average joe's proven to not even know how to fly a small plane, let alone a commercial jet at the same time that they are holding off 200+ passengers with mere boxcutters, whose country produces Inside Edition and lopsided prison statistics, who wages a proxy war on US civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon for anyone with the funding to purchase one, etc. ...
You're right Bush is Hitler, we don't know the truth of 9-11, Amerikkka sucks. When will the world ever listen?
And you just compared Ahmadinejad to PW Botha (at the height of apartheid, no less).
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror enablers' front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Howard in 2007 had invited George W. Bush to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what they please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein arming fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races are inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says that 9/11 was carried out by average joe's proven to not even know how to fly a small plane, let alone a commercial jet at the same time that they are holding off 200+ passengers with mere boxcutters, whose country produces Inside Edition and lopsided prison statistics, who wages a proxy war on US civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon for anyone with the funding to purchase one, etc. ...
You're right Bush is Hitler, we don't know the truth of 9-11, Amerikkka sucks. When will the world ever listen?
The point of me editing your text like that was that free speech shouldn't be dependent on perspective.
And for at the very least educational purposes, we should want to hear from all pertinent perspectives, not just our favored ones.
Why not. It's interesting to hear what he has to say. We are obsessed with murder and drama. We watch interviews on TV with child rapists and mass murderers all the time.
Letting him speak does not equal supporting his dogma.
dude, you posted a few links. its not like you sat down and wrote a dissertation for everyone on soulstrut and our collective response was "hated it".
as for Ahmainjad having a "right" to speak at columbia? what do you mean by that. like the same right that we as us citizens have to barge into a private university and takeover the auditorium?
as for Ahmainjad having a "right" to speak at columbia? what do you mean by that. like the same right that we as us citizens have to barge into a private university and takeover the auditorium?
I'm saying. people in here talmbout denying this foreign leader a platform at a prestigious private Anerican university is somehow a violation of his rights or something. GTFOHWTBS.
dude, you posted a few links. its not like you sat down and wrote a dissertation for everyone on soulstrut and our collective response was "hated it".
as for Ahmainjad having a "right" to speak at columbia? what do you mean by that. like the same right that we as us citizens have to barge into a private university and takeover the auditorium?
I don't think everybody's response was "hated it". Maybe half the people here, maybe most. Homeboy responded to the articles without even a sentence of argument. That's cool, I'm just curious what the response was based on is all. Genuinely curious, not in a asshole type of way.
As far as having the right... what did the rootlesscosmo mean by that? he was the one who originally said it and I had the same question about what "Right" and "freedom of speech" had to do with any of it. Columbia invited him, Bush OK'd it, and it happened. What about what he said.
as for Ahmainjad having a "right" to speak at columbia? what do you mean by that. like the same right that we as us citizens have to barge into a private university and takeover the auditorium?
I'm saying. people in here talmbout denying this foreign leader a platform at a prestigious private Anerican university is somehow a violation of his rights or something. GTFOHWTBS.
DOG! If they denied him, none of this would have happened and I would not give a shit. That's not the real issue at hand. Please stop harping on this same point. It's ridiculous.
Columbia invited him as an act of academic intellectual masturbation, were excoriated by their Jewish population and the Jewish population of New York, tried to cover their own asses by giving him a proper scolding in his introduction, and still nothing was accomplished.
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror enablers' front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Howard in 2007 had invited George W. Bush to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what they please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein arming fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races are inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says that 9/11 was carried out by average joe's proven to not even know how to fly a small plane, let alone a commercial jet at the same time that they are holding off 200+ passengers with mere boxcutters, whose country produces Inside Edition and lopsided prison statistics, who wages a proxy war on US civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon for anyone with the funding to purchase one, etc. ...
You're right Bush is Hitler, we don't know the truth of 9-11, Amerikkka sucks. When will the world ever listen?
And you just compared Ahmadinejad to PW Botha (at the height of apartheid, no less).
You're not really in a position to pull cards.
Um Dub, you don't think Ahmadinejad is comparable to Botha? I mean just in terms of moral depravity. Yes Apartheid south africa is different than Islamic Republic of Iran, but listen to Iranian dissidents like Akbar Ganji. I would argue there is a gender apartheid in Iran, insofar as women are considered one half a man's testimony in court and that women can't really own property. And also both monstrous regimes practices similar tactics of repression. Kurds in 2005 after A-jad's ascendancy were crushed with 24 hour curfews, dissapearings, the whole lot. Also, the conditions of Evin prison and the other torture rooms in Iran are comparable to South Africa. I sometimes think that the left gives Ahmadienjad a pass because he too is against zionism, and now he too is against Bush. That's letting your adversaries do your thinking for you.
Columbia invited him as an act of academic intellectual masturbation, were excoriated by their Jewish population and the Jewish population of New York[/b] , tried to cover their own asses by giving him a proper scolding in his introduction, and still nothing was accomplished.
well you pretty much showed your ass there. thanks for the insight.
"the Jews; the JEWS!!! if only they would keep their heads down and let the dude speak!!!"
He was invited. He came. He was scolded and laughed at.
I want to address this point specifically. P*te also mentioned that the speech was an opportunity to show what a dumbass he was and that he was discredited, etc.
I may have read inaccurate coverage of the event, but it was my understanding that his speech was met with sustained applause. In fact I'm told that the only time the audience expressed any collective disapproval at all is when he asserted that no gay people lived in Iran, which I think even the die-hard Islamic Republic-riders sorta have to roll their eyes at.
otherwise his support for rethinking whether the Holocaust occurred, his claim that Iran has no desire for nuclear arms, his contention that Palestinians and Arabs in general are hapless victims with no responsibility for the wars that have ravaged the Middle East, his fantastical claim that Jews lived peacefully as equal citizens under Arab and Muslim governments and that the Arab and Islamic worlds had no part whatsoever to play in the presecution of Jews prior to the establishment of the State of Israel....these dubious pronouncements were largely accepted by the audience.
Columbia invited him as an act of academic intellectual masturbation, were excoriated by their Jewish population and the Jewish population of New York[/b] , tried to cover their own asses by giving him a proper scolding in his introduction, and still nothing was accomplished.
well you pretty much showed your ass there. thanks for the insight.
"the Jews; the JEWS!!! if only they would keep their heads down and let the dude speak!!!"
Don't turn me into an anti-semite because I noted that the loudest voices in NY opposing Ahmadinejad's speech were from the Jewish community.
what does "largely accepted by the audience" mean? that they weren't booing and throwing tomatoes? who knows or even gives a shit what was going through the heads of the what, few hundred? people that were in the audience. i'd bet ahmadinejad is checking to see what the nyt, wash post and mainstream media is saying about his speech, or at least more so than the pimple faced 18 year olds who camped out for tickets.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
why? they "recruited" me when i was in school by calling me up on a biweekly basis and asking me why i was "wasting my time" going to college. they are annoying as f*ck and if i owned a private university i wouldn't let military recruiters step foot on my campus, especially since their goal is to lure you out of school.
Comments
this whole thing has nothing to do with free speech. Nobody has suggested the federal government prohibit Columbia from inviting the terror mullah's front man. Rather it's the question of judgment. Why in the world would a university honor someone like this? Think of it like this. If Columbia in 1977 had invited PW Botha to speak at their world leaders forum, would those of you on the left have been playing the free speech card? I doubt it. americans have the right to say or write what the please, so long as it doesn't incite a riot or cause a panic. But holocaust denying terror supporting fascists don't have a right to speak at a university. We don't debate whether the world is flat, whether or not some races or inferior to others, etc... Why should we offer to debate a guy who says the holocaust never happened, whose country produces miniseries reviving the protocols of the elders of zion, who wages a proxy war on Iraqi civilians and american soldiers, who is defying the united nations and building a nuclear weapon etc. ...
Ahmadinejad deserves to be humiliated. He should be forced to wear an orange jumpsuit and ankle bracelets for his stay in new york. That said, I have to say I loved Bollinger's rebuke. It was like a thousand gasfaces.
1. I don't think letting somebody speak is "honoring" them. I mean, it's not like they gave him the Medal of Honor for fucking up royally or something like that.
2. Whatever you think of Ahmadinejad, he is a vastly important person in the world right now. A good deal of our own foreign policy depends on what he does. Insult and malign him all you want, you'll get no argument from me, but to think that he's not worth talking to simply because you don't like him is a real disservice. He's not just some lone crackpot screaming at passing traffic, he's a major world figure.
3. He was humilaited. He was given a platform to espouse his views, and everybody got to see what a raving loon he is. He basically offered himself up as a rhetorical pinata. Sounds pretty humilating to me.
4. As for this:
I would make some snark-on-the creationists "teach the controversy!" remark, but I'd rather not get into that right now.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c...icle%2FShowFull
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/09/25/18449643.php
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hEZ0y2MP0TPRAtqUV_gR8VT7X0KQ
Absolutely correct--funny, then, that your man W framed it in those terms.
You're right Bush is Hitler, we don't know the truth of 9-11, Amerikkka sucks. When will the world ever listen?
And you just compared Ahmadinejad to PW Botha (at the height of apartheid, no less).
You're not really in a position to pull cards.
The point of me editing your text like that was that free speech shouldn't be dependent on perspective.
And for at the very least educational purposes, we should want to hear from all pertinent perspectives, not just our favored ones.
Let me answer your question with a question...
Letting him speak does not equal supporting his dogma.
He was invited. He came. He was scolded and laughed at.
What did you not like about those articles I posted??
That they conflict with 80% of the other stories out there?
Can you do more than that?
dude, you posted a few links. its not like you sat down and wrote a dissertation for everyone on soulstrut and our collective response was "hated it".
as for Ahmainjad having a "right" to speak at columbia? what do you mean by that. like the same right that we as us citizens have to barge into a private university and takeover the auditorium?
I'm saying. people in here talmbout denying this foreign leader a platform at a prestigious private Anerican university is somehow a violation of his rights or something. GTFOHWTBS.
dont tase me bro.
I don't think everybody's response was "hated it". Maybe half the people here, maybe most. Homeboy responded to the articles without even a sentence of argument. That's cool, I'm just curious what the response was based on is all. Genuinely curious, not in a asshole type of way.
As far as having the right... what did the rootlesscosmo mean by that? he was the one who originally said it and I had the same question about what "Right" and "freedom of speech" had to do with any of it. Columbia invited him, Bush OK'd it, and it happened. What about what he said.
DOG! If they denied him, none of this would have happened and I would not give a shit. That's not the real issue at hand. Please stop harping on this same point. It's ridiculous.
Columbia invited him as an act of academic intellectual masturbation, were excoriated by their Jewish population and the Jewish population of New York, tried to cover their own asses by giving him a proper scolding in his introduction, and still nothing was accomplished.
bush didn't have to okay anything. what are you talking about?
Um Dub, you don't think Ahmadinejad is comparable to Botha? I mean just in terms of moral depravity. Yes Apartheid south africa is different than Islamic Republic of Iran, but listen to Iranian dissidents like Akbar Ganji. I would argue there is a gender apartheid in Iran, insofar as women are considered one half a man's testimony in court and that women can't really own property. And also both monstrous regimes practices similar tactics of repression. Kurds in 2005 after A-jad's ascendancy were crushed with 24 hour curfews, dissapearings, the whole lot. Also, the conditions of Evin prison and the other torture rooms in Iran are comparable to South Africa. I sometimes think that the left gives Ahmadienjad a pass because he too is against zionism, and now he too is against Bush. That's letting your adversaries do your thinking for you.
well you pretty much showed your ass there. thanks for the insight.
"the Jews; the JEWS!!! if only they would keep their heads down and let the dude speak!!!"
I want to address this point specifically. P*te also mentioned that the speech was an opportunity to show what a dumbass he was and that he was discredited, etc.
I may have read inaccurate coverage of the event, but it was my understanding that his speech was met with sustained applause. In fact I'm told that the only time the audience expressed any collective disapproval at all is when he asserted that no gay people lived in Iran, which I think even the die-hard Islamic Republic-riders sorta have to roll their eyes at.
otherwise his support for rethinking whether the Holocaust occurred, his claim that Iran has no desire for nuclear arms, his contention that Palestinians and Arabs in general are hapless victims with no responsibility for the wars that have ravaged the Middle East, his fantastical claim that Jews lived peacefully as equal citizens under Arab and Muslim governments and that the Arab and Islamic worlds had no part whatsoever to play in the presecution of Jews prior to the establishment of the State of Israel....these dubious pronouncements were largely accepted by the audience.
at least that's my understanding.
Don't turn me into an anti-semite because I noted that the loudest voices in NY opposing Ahmadinejad's speech were from the Jewish community.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
why? they "recruited" me when i was in school by calling me up on a biweekly basis and asking me why i was "wasting my time" going to college. they are annoying as f*ck and if i owned a private university i wouldn't let military recruiters step foot on my campus, especially since their goal is to lure you out of school.