the Israelis have been very consistent over the last couple of decades in their view that Iran represents the real threat.
I read an interesting notion not too long ago that while Iran certainly is a worry, the biggest threat right now is Pakistan because they already have nukes, they aren't exactly Al Qaida's enemy, and the government there is a somewhat precarious dictatorship--all it takes is good ol' fashioned coup, and those nukes are in the hands of some not-fucking-around extremists.
It was food for thought, at any rate.
Don't hold your breath, Iran is still on the hot seat. Give 'em a couple of months and a few MORE fuck-ups in the administration to merit a drive to confuse Americans and then we can start cranking out "Bart Simpson kicking Musharaff in the ass" t-shirts.
Give 'em a couple of months and a few MORE fuck-ups in the administration to merit a drive to confuse Americans and then we can start cranking out "Bart Simpson kicking Musharaff in the ass" t-shirts.
Sweet. This means I can go dig my "Ayatollah Assholah" shirts out of the attic.
Give 'em a couple of months and a few MORE fuck-ups in the administration to merit a drive to confuse Americans and then we can start cranking out "Bart Simpson kicking Musharaff in the ass" t-shirts.
Sweet. This means I can go dig my "Ayatollah Assholah" shirts out of the attic.
You can certainly argue that Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of free speech as defined by the US Constitution
no you can't.
Cosign.
what are you guys talking about? I'll say it before and I'll say it again: dude had no right to even enter the US much less the right to a speaking tour. are you guys serious? this has nothing to do with hearing unpopular points of view.
now if dude magically found himself teleported from Iran to a street corner in Manhattan, then no, there isn't much he could say that would get him lawfully thrown in jail (hence freedom of speech).
but the idea that I was specifically addressing was this hair-brained notion that US univerisities have some sort of duty to invite foreign leaders over to explain themselves. like he has a right to be heard by Americans.
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
Sadly, I think at least half of the American public thinks that "freedom of speech" refers not to constraints on the government's ability to restrict speech but instead to some imaginary obligation that the rest of us have to enable the objectionable speech of others by giving them a platform or refraining from challenging them, etc.
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
Sadly, I think at least half of the American public thinks that "freedom of speech" refers not to constraints on the government's ability to restrict speech but instead to some imaginary obligation that the rest of us have to enable the objectionable speech of others by giving them a platform or refraining from challenging them, etc.
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
Sadly, I think at least half of the American public thinks that "freedom of speech" refers not to constraints on the government's ability to restrict speech but instead to some imaginary obligation that the rest of us have to enable the objectionable speech of others by giving them a platform or refraining from challenging them, etc.
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
I think we're also getting tripped up in semantics, though in this case, rather important distinctions.
If the powers of be decided, "you know what? This sounds like a really stupid idea, we're not going to invite him," there's no abrogation of free speech.
However, if the State dept. or some other higher-powers-that-be had stepped in, after a legitimate invitation (and who knows what that might mean) had been extended, then I think that's problematic. Whether it constitutes a legal denial of "freedom of speech" or not is for legal scholars to parse but in terms of violating the spirit of the law, I think it would have.
So again, at the point that Columbia University (however their hierarchy of command works) decided to invite him, short of arguing dude was a safety risk, I think the freedom to speak is implicit there. But there was absolutely no obligation to let him speak just for the sake of it except, perhaps, on a street corner where he could have rapped to anyone/anyone without fear of being tased, bro.
"Ahmadinejad, not being a US citizen, isn't entitled to the same provision of demand the right to free speech as defined by the US Constitution his constitutional right".
Hopefully that makes more sense?
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
I think we're also getting tripped up in semantics, though in this case, rather important distinctions.
If the powers of be decided, "you know what? This sounds like a really stupid idea, we're not going to invite him," there's no abrogation of free speech.
However, if the State dept. or some other higher-powers-that-be had stepped in, after a legitimate invitation (and who knows what that might mean) had been extended, then I think that's problematic. Whether it constitutes a legal denial of "freedom of speech" or not is for legal scholars to parse but in terms of violating the spirit of the law, I think it would have.
So again, at the point that Columbia University (however their hierarchy of command works) decided to invite him, short of arguing dude was a safety risk, I think the freedom to speak is implicit there. But there was absolutely no obligation to let him speak just for the sake of it except, perhaps, on a street corner where he could have rapped to anyone/anyone without fear of being tased, bro.
I am honored that the one Spanky Illson chose for once to place his text below that of the poster to which he was responding, and that said poster was yours truly. I am speechless.
i'm feeling the Islamist-White Supremacist alliance. that shit is the past
But, there's fanatics on all sides, it's just as well they hate each other. Now if they could only just learn to get along, they might just get somewhere.
Comments
http://blogsbyiranians.com/
Don't hold your breath, Iran is still on the hot seat. Give 'em a couple of months and a few MORE fuck-ups in the administration to merit a drive to confuse Americans and then we can start cranking out "Bart Simpson kicking Musharaff in the ass" t-shirts.
and yo
El
Sweet. This means I can go dig my "Ayatollah Assholah" shirts out of the attic.
And it works with any Ayatollah....[/b]
what are you guys talking about? I'll say it before and I'll say it again: dude had no right to even enter the US much less the right to a speaking tour. are you guys serious? this has nothing to do with hearing unpopular points of view.
now if dude magically found himself teleported from Iran to a street corner in Manhattan, then no, there isn't much he could say that would get him lawfully thrown in jail (hence freedom of speech).
but the idea that I was specifically addressing was this hair-brained notion that US univerisities have some sort of duty to invite foreign leaders over to explain themselves. like he has a right to be heard by Americans.
he doesn't.
right.
exactly. I just got the feeling that some peopl in here really felt that to deny this guy an invitation to fly over from Iran and speak at Columbia was some sort of violation. it wouldn't have been, obviously.
Sadly, I think at least half of the American public thinks that "freedom of speech" refers not to constraints on the government's ability to restrict speech but instead to some imaginary obligation that the rest of us have to enable the objectionable speech of others by giving them a platform or refraining from challenging them, etc.
Can I read this as a "state of the strut" post?
hahahahahahahahahaha
I think we're also getting tripped up in semantics, though in this case, rather important distinctions.
If the powers of be decided, "you know what? This sounds like a really stupid idea, we're not going to invite him," there's no abrogation of free speech.
However, if the State dept. or some other higher-powers-that-be had stepped in, after a legitimate invitation (and who knows what that might mean) had been extended, then I think that's problematic. Whether it constitutes a legal denial of "freedom of speech" or not is for legal scholars to parse but in terms of violating the spirit of the law, I think it would have.
So again, at the point that Columbia University (however their hierarchy of command works) decided to invite him, short of arguing dude was a safety risk, I think the freedom to speak is implicit there. But there was absolutely no obligation to let him speak just for the sake of it except, perhaps, on a street corner where he could have rapped to anyone/anyone without fear of being tased, bro.
I am honored that the one Spanky Illson chose for once to place his text below that of the poster to which he was responding, and that said poster was yours truly. I am speechless.
Elijah Muhammed was cozy with white supremacists half a century ago.
While his worldview actually had very little too with Islam, aspects of it did also dovetail nicely with that of the KKK.
I know I've seen it. plus its got a long history .
But, there's fanatics on all sides, it's just as well they hate each other.
Now if they could only just learn to get along, they might just get somewhere.