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.
I never called you an anti-Semite, dude.
you set up "cause-and-effect" forumlation whereby the Jews brought pressure to bear and the University then sought to cover their asses.
I'd like to think that the University was merely waking up to the fact that inviting the anti-American leader of a country that has been in a cold war with us since 1979 and who openly promotes the destruction of a UN member state which also happens to be a close US ally could, you know, like, maybe be viewed as insensitive.
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.
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.
at least that's my understanding.
Now I know where you're coming from. I think maybe the reason he was applauded was not that the audience suddenly believed that Iran was a faultless victim championing the rights of an oppressed people but that he articulated some saner points in a way that showed his perspective in a rational way, different from all the 'madman' characterizations of him that people have gotten used to. You have to at least respect your enemy to tussle with him on a political level, and maybe he gained enough respect to be characterized as a politician rather than a ruthless dictator. The media is of course erasing all evidence of civility and political solid ground Ahmadinejad stood out in order to back up the new economic sanctions we are putting on Iran, now, after Ahmadinejad's visit.
As far as Iran and other Muslim nations' ACTUAL treatment of Jews as opposed to Ahmadinejad's rosy painting of it, I don't claim to know that. I actually have to admit that I was in belief that Iran's Jewish population is treated fairly well.
As far as Columbia goes, they invited this dude to speak which I have no problem with.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
just want to get this straight: there's not anyone in here who thinks dude had some sort of "right" to speak at Columbia University, is there?
he absolutely had the right to do so. why not?
as weird as his positions sound and as weird as he actually is, his private mind garden is as consistent and absurd as the US foreign policy in the region. Letting him speak is a rare chance for a US audience to get some insight into parts of conservative Islamic ideology. People had the chance to comment and disagree. There is nothing wrong with that.
As far as Columbia goes, they invited this dude to speak which I have no problem with.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
Ummm...they just let a dude who believes in KILLING gay people to come on their campus and speak!!
But I agree that it's symbolic....not many Columbia students seem to be prime candidates for the Military
just want to get this straight: there's not anyone in here who thinks dude had some sort of "right" to speak at Columbia University, is there?
he absolutely had the right to do so. why not?
as weird as his positions sound and as weird as he actually is, his private mind garden is as consistent and absurd as the US foreign policy in the region. Letting him speak is a rare chance for a US audience to get some insight into parts of conservative Islamic ideology. People had the chance to comment and disagree. There is nothing wrong with that.
lol please to direct me from where derives the so-called "right" of a foreign leader to speak at Columbia.
As far as Columbia goes, they invited this dude to speak which I have no problem with.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
Ummm...they just let a dude who believes in KILLING gay people to come on their campus and speak!!
Classic Rockadelic.
This thing ain't that thing. I don't know how much more simply I can put it. I explained why the university used to ban military recruiters; I did not offer a justification for the Ahmadinejad invitation.
I take no position on whether or not he should have been invited or subsequently disinvited, since I don't know what the mechanics of that process were. I don't know if he was invited by a student group (and, if so, what the University's policy on interfering with student invitations is), or if he was invited by one of the schools or, more generally, by the university. I will say from a personal perspective that I see little value in the exercise, not because his views are objectionable, but because of the lack of intellectual rigor underlying them. The guy's simply a nutjob, and I don't think has much of anything of substance to say. It was pure spectacle, which Bollinger's behavior unfortunately added to.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
As far as Columbia goes, they invited this dude to speak which I have no problem with.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
Ummm...they just let a dude who believes in KILLING gay people to come on their campus and speak!!
Classic Rockadelic.
This thing ain't that thing. I don't know how much more simply I can put it. I explained why the university used to ban military recruiters; I did not offer a justification for the Ahmadinejad invitation.
I take no position on whether or not he should have been invited or subsequently disinvited, since I don't know what the mechanics of that process were. I don't know if he was invited by a student group (and, if so, what the University's policy on interfering with student invitations is), or if he was invited by one of the schools or, more generally, by the university. I will say from a personal perspective that I see little value in the exercise, not because his views are objectionable, but because of the lack of intellectual rigor underlying them. The guy's simply a nutjob, and I don't think has much of anything of substance to say. It was pure spectacle, which Bollinger's behavior unfortunately added to.
Can anyone name any world leaders who aren't "nutjobs"?
just want to get this straight: there's not anyone in here who thinks dude had some sort of "right" to speak at Columbia University, is there?
he absolutely had the right to do so. why not?
as weird as his positions sound and as weird as he actually is, his private mind garden is as consistent and absurd as the US foreign policy in the region. Letting him speak is a rare chance for a US audience to get some insight into parts of conservative Islamic ideology. People had the chance to comment and disagree. There is nothing wrong with that.
lol please to direct me from where derives the so-called "right" of a foreign leader to speak at Columbia.
um, he was invited ?
Usually, any university should be happy if high level politicians agree to hold a speech or participate in a discussion.
As far as Columbia goes, they invited this dude to speak which I have no problem with.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
Ummm...they just let a dude who believes in KILLING gay people to come on their campus and speak!!
Classic Rockadelic.
There's nothing more flattering than having your Internet persona become synonymous with common sense.
just want to get this straight: there's not anyone in here who thinks dude had some sort of "right" to speak at Columbia University, is there?
he absolutely had the right to do so. why not?
as weird as his positions sound and as weird as he actually is, his private mind garden is as consistent and absurd as the US foreign policy in the region. Letting him speak is a rare chance for a US audience to get some insight into parts of conservative Islamic ideology. People had the chance to comment and disagree. There is nothing wrong with that.
lol please to direct me from where derives the so-called "right" of a foreign leader to speak at Columbia.
um, he was invited ?
Usually, any university should be happy if high level politicians agree to hold a speech or participate in a discussion.
this is a stupid argument we are having here. all I was saying is this: folls in here seemed to be suggesting this was a free speech issue. free speech is a specific right guaranteed to specific people by a specific document.
this guy had no "right" to speak anywhere, unless some sort of contractual right was created by his invitation to speak at Columbia, which would be wholly dependent on the nature of the invitation extended.
but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day this asshole was given a prominent perch from which to spin his dubious foreign and domestic policy aims for a willing, gullible public eager to see a human face put on a guy that the current unpopular US administration has deemed an adversary. and he was able to do so largely unchallenged and with huge media exposure.
in spite of all the pesky Jewish protesters (perhaps in small part thanks to them), he clearly benefited immensely from this circus.
As far as Columbia goes, they invited this dude to speak which I have no problem with.
The fact that they BAN Military Recruiters from coming on to their campus to speak is disturbing.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
Ummm...they just let a dude who believes in KILLING gay people to come on their campus and speak!!
Classic Rockadelic.
There's nothing more flattering than having your Internet persona become synonymous with common sense.
"Common Sense" = the rallying cry of those lacking in intellectual nuance
but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day this asshole was given a prominent perch from which to spin his dubious foreign and domestic policy aims for a willing, gullible public eager to see a human face put on a guy that the current unpopular US administration has deemed an adversary. and he was able to do so largely unchallenged and with huge media exposure.
in spite of all the pesky Jewish protesters (perhaps in small part thanks to them), he clearly benefited immensely from this circus.
you are talking out of your ass a little here. first, if there has ever been a speech that was challenged, it was this one. the mainstream media tore him a new asshole last night and in today's paper. second, "he clearly benefited"? what about the rest of the world. please tell me how his speech DID NOT further diplomacy with the US? bush loves to paint this guy as some evil cartoon character. and without giving Ahmadinejad too much credit, i think most people walked away from his speech thinking that, at the very least, the guy isn't on a crusade to nuke the world. finally, yesterday's speech was Ahmadinejad on the DEFENSIVE. its not like he walked up there and started telling people the holocaust is a myth and gays should be executed. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BUSH GET GRILLED IN AN OPEN FORUM IN IRAQ!!! Lets compare notes after that.
but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day this asshole was given a prominent perch from which to spin his dubious foreign and domestic policy aims for a willing, gullible public
sounds like bush
you mean like when Iran's gov't allowed Bush to give a high-profile speech in Teheran whitewashing US foreign and domestic policy?
i think most people walked away from his speech thinking that, at the very least, the guy isn't on a crusade to nuke the world.
where is our disagreement on this point?
Look...if the guy REALLY was denying the Holocaust or had dreams of blowing Israel and then the rest of the West off the map he would have come out and said it.
He didn't.
He proved, with an amazing amount of intellectual nuance, that he's not the dangerous guy that Retard Bush makes him out to be.
finally, yesterday's speech was Ahmadinejad on the DEFENSIVE. its not like he walked up there and started telling people the holocaust is a myth and gays should be executed.
well he's not an idiot. he knows he can't say what he really thinks to a room full of Americans. what he can do is get up there and lie about his foreign and domestic policy aims and paint himself as the victim of a cruel smear campaign. which he did. mission accomplished. I think the net result of his appearance, from an Ahmadinejad perspective, was positive.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BUSH GET GRILLED IN AN OPEN FORUM IN IRAQ!!! Lets compare notes after that.
i think most people walked away from his speech thinking that, at the very least, the guy isn't on a crusade to nuke the world.
where is our disagreement on this point?
Look...if the guy REALLY was denying the Holocaust or had dreams of blowing Israel and then the rest of the West off the map he would have come out and said it.
He didn't.
He proved, with an amazing amount of intellectual nuance, that he's not the dangerous guy that Retard Bush makes him out to be.
true historical side FACTS relevant to this discussion
the iranian shah was a cia created and controlled puppet he was overthrown because his secret police force trained by the CIA was literally burning mullahs alive on specially designed racks FOR DECADES
"Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicleSthe extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks." [1]
Iranian scholar Reza Baraheni states that SAVAK's aim was to "spread a deep sense of fear, suspicion, disbelief and apathy throughout the country."
the mullahs are now in control and ahmadinejad was part of the student effort at the first hostage grab in 79
is dude a tweeked religious fanatic/moron?
yes
is our own idiot leader a born again tweed religious fanatic/moron? yes
does iran sponsor terrorism? yes
does the cia and america sponsoe terrorism/"democracy"? yes
finally, yesterday's speech was Ahmadinejad on the DEFENSIVE. its not like he walked up there and started telling people the holocaust is a myth and gays should be executed.
well he's not an idiot. he knows he can't say what he really thinks to a room full of Americans. what he can do is get up there and lie about his foreign and domestic policy aims and paint himself as the victim of a cruel smear campaign. which he did. mission accomplished. I think the net result of his appearance, from an Ahmadinejad perspective, was positive.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BUSH GET GRILLED IN AN OPEN FORUM IN IRAQ!!! Lets compare notes after that.
why are you changing the subject?
first, he is the victim of a smear campaign. where is the evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes?
second, what did he lie about? he might be wrong about A LOT, but how did he contradict himself? the guy has outrageous opinions. and i bring bush into the equation because you need to put things in perspective. i mean, there are a ton of educated people out there who would think bush denying evolution is on par if not worse than Ahmadinejad saying "we don't have gays in Iran like in the US".
first, he is the victim of a smear campaign. where is the evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes?
second, what did he lie about? he might be wrong about A LOT, but how did he contradict himself? the guy has outrageous opinions. and i bring bush into the equation because you need to put things in perspective. i mean, there are a ton of educated people out there who would think bush denying evolution is on par if not worse than Ahmadinejad saying "we don't have gays in Iran like in the US".
I heard that Bush is going to start executing everyone who doesn't believe in Creationism.
That way when he is asked about it, he can say..."We don't have any Evolutionists in the U.S."
Do you think that MAYBE stating that Iran doesn't have any gay people is a LIE???
first, he is the victim of a smear campaign. where is the evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes?
second, what did he lie about? he might be wrong about A LOT, but how did he contradict himself? the guy has outrageous opinions. and i bring bush into the equation because you need to put things in perspective. i mean, there are a ton of educated people out there who would think bush denying evolution is on par if not worse than Ahmadinejad saying "we don't have gays in Iran like in the US".
I heard that Bush is going to start executing everyone who doesn't believe in Creationism.
That way when he is asked about it, he can say..."We don't have any Evolutionists in the U.S."
Do you think that MAYBE stating that Iran doesn't have any gay people is a LIE???
Ahmadinejad isn't the one deciding that gays should be executed. He has no say, talk to the Ayatollah. Gays would be treated the same if some other shmo was in office. On the other hand, Bush has a lot to do with the unconstitutional laws that have been passed and the right wing, civil-right depriving judges that have been appointed.
Comments
I never called you an anti-Semite, dude.
you set up "cause-and-effect" forumlation whereby the Jews brought pressure to bear and the University then sought to cover their asses.
I'd like to think that the University was merely waking up to the fact that inviting the anti-American leader of a country that has been in a cold war with us since 1979 and who openly promotes the destruction of a UN member state which also happens to be a close US ally could, you know, like, maybe be viewed as insensitive.
you're prolly right.
Now I know where you're coming from. I think maybe the reason he was applauded was not that the audience suddenly believed that Iran was a faultless victim championing the rights of an oppressed people but that he articulated some saner points in a way that showed his perspective in a rational way, different from all the 'madman' characterizations of him that people have gotten used to. You have to at least respect your enemy to tussle with him on a political level, and maybe he gained enough respect to be characterized as a politician rather than a ruthless dictator. The media is of course erasing all evidence of civility and political solid ground Ahmadinejad stood out in order to back up the new economic sanctions we are putting on Iran, now, after Ahmadinejad's visit.
As far as Iran and other Muslim nations' ACTUAL treatment of Jews as opposed to Ahmadinejad's rosy painting of it, I don't claim to know that. I actually have to admit that I was in belief that Iran's Jewish population is treated fairly well.
They have a policy against allowing employers that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation to recruit on campus. If the military higher-ups would move past their shameful hypocritical bigotry, it wouldn't be an issue. Regardless, Columbia started permitting military recruiters about two years ago when the government threatened to pull all funding, research dollars, etc. from the university. It's largely symbolic, anyway--realistically, not many people coming out of Columbia are interested in joining the military.
he absolutely had the right to do so. why not?
as weird as his positions sound and as weird as he actually is, his private mind garden is as consistent and absurd as the US foreign policy in the region. Letting him speak is a rare chance for a US audience to get some insight into parts of conservative Islamic ideology. People had the chance to comment and disagree. There is nothing wrong with that.
Ummm...they just let a dude who believes in KILLING gay people to come on their campus and speak!!
But I agree that it's symbolic....not many Columbia students seem to be prime candidates for the Military
lol please to direct me from where derives the so-called "right" of a foreign leader to speak at Columbia.
Classic Rockadelic.
This thing ain't that thing. I don't know how much more simply I can put it. I explained why the university used to ban military recruiters; I did not offer a justification for the Ahmadinejad invitation.
I take no position on whether or not he should have been invited or subsequently disinvited, since I don't know what the mechanics of that process were. I don't know if he was invited by a student group (and, if so, what the University's policy on interfering with student invitations is), or if he was invited by one of the schools or, more generally, by the university. I will say from a personal perspective that I see little value in the exercise, not because his views are objectionable, but because of the lack of intellectual rigor underlying them. The guy's simply a nutjob, and I don't think has much of anything of substance to say. It was pure spectacle, which Bollinger's behavior unfortunately added to.
Can anyone name any world leaders who aren't "nutjobs"?
um, he was invited ?
Usually, any university should be happy if high level politicians agree to hold a speech or participate in a discussion.
There's nothing more flattering than having your Internet persona become synonymous with common sense.
this is a stupid argument we are having here. all I was saying is this: folls in here seemed to be suggesting this was a free speech issue. free speech is a specific right guaranteed to specific people by a specific document.
this guy had no "right" to speak anywhere, unless some sort of contractual right was created by his invitation to speak at Columbia, which would be wholly dependent on the nature of the invitation extended.
but the fact of the matter is that at the end of the day this asshole was given a prominent perch from which to spin his dubious foreign and domestic policy aims for a willing, gullible public eager to see a human face put on a guy that the current unpopular US administration has deemed an adversary. and he was able to do so largely unchallenged and with huge media exposure.
in spite of all the pesky Jewish protesters (perhaps in small part thanks to them), he clearly benefited immensely from this circus.
"Common Sense" = the rallying cry of those lacking in intellectual nuance
you are talking out of your ass a little here. first, if there has ever been a speech that was challenged, it was this one. the mainstream media tore him a new asshole last night and in today's paper. second, "he clearly benefited"? what about the rest of the world. please tell me how his speech DID NOT further diplomacy with the US? bush loves to paint this guy as some evil cartoon character. and without giving Ahmadinejad too much credit, i think most people walked away from his speech thinking that, at the very least, the guy isn't on a crusade to nuke the world. finally, yesterday's speech was Ahmadinejad on the DEFENSIVE. its not like he walked up there and started telling people the holocaust is a myth and gays should be executed. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BUSH GET GRILLED IN AN OPEN FORUM IN IRAQ!!! Lets compare notes after that.
Me:
You:
where is our disagreement on this point?
you mean like when Iran's gov't allowed Bush to give a high-profile speech in Teheran whitewashing US foreign and domestic policy?
Look...if the guy REALLY was denying the Holocaust or had dreams of blowing Israel and then the rest of the West off the map he would have come out and said it.
He didn't.
He proved, with an amazing amount of intellectual nuance, that he's not the dangerous guy that Retard Bush makes him out to be.
well he's not an idiot. he knows he can't say what he really thinks to a room full of Americans. what he can do is get up there and lie about his foreign and domestic policy aims and paint himself as the victim of a cruel smear campaign. which he did. mission accomplished. I think the net result of his appearance, from an Ahmadinejad perspective, was positive.
why are you changing the subject?
PS did you really consider his speech "an open forum"?
the iranian shah was a cia created and controlled puppet
he was overthrown because his secret police force trained by the CIA was literally burning mullahs alive on specially designed racks FOR DECADES
"Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK's torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicleSthe extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks." [1]
Iranian scholar Reza Baraheni states that SAVAK's aim was to "spread a deep sense of fear, suspicion, disbelief and apathy throughout the country."
the mullahs are now in control and ahmadinejad was part of the student effort at the first hostage grab in 79
is dude a tweeked religious fanatic/moron?
yes
is our own idiot leader a born again tweed religious fanatic/moron?
yes
does iran sponsor terrorism?
yes
does the cia and america sponsoe terrorism/"democracy"?
yes
first, he is the victim of a smear campaign. where is the evidence that Iran is trying to build nukes?
second, what did he lie about? he might be wrong about A LOT, but how did he contradict himself? the guy has outrageous opinions. and i bring bush into the equation because you need to put things in perspective. i mean, there are a ton of educated people out there who would think bush denying evolution is on par if not worse than Ahmadinejad saying "we don't have gays in Iran like in the US".
I'm the last person to wholeheartedly believe the media, but come the fuck on now.
I heard that Bush is going to start executing everyone who doesn't believe in Creationism.
That way when he is asked about it, he can say..."We don't have any Evolutionists in the U.S."
Do you think that MAYBE stating that Iran doesn't have any gay people is a LIE???
And I believe that you truly believe this.
saying dude. there's a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.
Dude.......you should start buying guns and barricade yourself in your house NOW if you are one of those evil Evolutionists.
HURRY!!!!!
dude's a liar:
just last month Ahmadinejad promised to place Iran's nuclear technology "at the service of those who are determined to confront the bullying powers and aggressors [i.e., the Western countries, headed by the U.S.]...".
then at Columbia talmbout it's for peaceful purposes. GTFOHWTBS.
Ahmadinejad isn't the one deciding that gays should be executed. He has no say, talk to the Ayatollah. Gays would be treated the same if some other shmo was in office. On the other hand, Bush has a lot to do with the unconstitutional laws that have been passed and the right wing, civil-right depriving judges that have been appointed.
If you truly believed that your President would have you executed for your religious beliefs or non-beliefs you'd be in fear.
Only a fool wouldn't be.