[url=http://youtube.com/watch?v=tACSopIZVdk]Columbia President Lee Bollinger's Introduction[/url]
You can watch Ahmadinejad's responses to the questions of students and faculty from Columbia, for quite a good laugh. The guy is obviously just saying what he thinks people want to hear, even though a lot of it is pure fabrication.
I wonder if citizens of Iran would be allowed to ask these questions if they felt inclined...
This whole thing is messy. I don't agree with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the current Bush administration, but I'm afriad this hatred for President Ahmadinejad will be a tool in the next election and will birth a whole bunch of patriotism bull ****. Anyone that doesn't openly insult Ahmadinejad's opinion will now be against Americans. That idea of patriotism garbage (for people to all agree apon and feel proud) just becomes a huge distraction. I hate blunt patriotism more than american criticism since the media makes patriotism look stupid.
Sooo, how's that war in Iraq?
I, too, worry about Ahmadinejad's effect on the US People. Will people grow to hate Iran as a result of this guy's words? And if so, will that effect the next election? And will it serve as a reason to invade Iran?
if people are smart, which they're not, they will realize that a nation's leader does not reflect the stance of the country. . . crap
That's the sad bit, really. Your average Iranian isn't bat**** insane like Ahmadinejad is.
Doesn't Iran elect their leaders? Or is their democracy like the one that unanimously elected Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for several consecutive terms?
And it doesn't matter if the people of Iran are smarter than Ahmadinejad, because he'll be the one making decisions regarding their nuclear program and other military issues.
The average Iraqi probably wasn't much like Saddam Hussein, but apparently he was still enough of a threat that we had to get involved.
I'm just saying that if they're a democracy, then they must like enough to have elected him. If they don't like him, he won't be in office for long, depending on how long their presidential terms are.
But we did vote for him, at least the second time. And the first time, he didn't win the popular vote, but our system placed him in office anyway.
Look at our legislature in the US. During last year's midterms, we ended up voting in a majority of legislators from the Democratic Party, as a result of our displeasure with George W. Bush's performance as President.
I'd be willing to say that in '08, we'll probably not elect another Republican, mostly because of what Bush has done to the party's public appearance.
As I said, Bush won't be President for long. He may have served two terms, but he has also become one of the least popular American Presidents in this century, mostly during this last term. If a candidate is running in '08 and claims to continue doing things the way Bush has done them, he'll almost certainly lose.
Ahmadinejad may have been elected by his people, and at this point, they may not like him much, but I'd imagine that his term will end at some point, and they'll elect someone they like more. Unless Iran is one of the rigged democracies like Iraq was under Saddam Hussein.
Didn't read most of that, but I was just sayin', people may not like him but that didn't stop Bush from going his full two terms.
blame the christian right people for ALWAYS voting, same with the elderly. Also blame the mainstream American for not giving enough **** about the government to vote. It's asif everyone figures out how to vote at age 60 if they hadn't allready.
blame the Christian right for exercising their right to vote and the apathetic moderates and stoners for not doing so. I hold no ill will towards people who voted according to their preferences. that's how democracy WORKS. Can i think that they're wrong? Sure, I can. mainstream america not giving a ****? Vote or DIE? P. Diddy? Mtv? All those mock elections on television? Fox news/CNN/MSNBC's ad nauseum coverage of elections, politics, etc? Radio's use of political advertising? Smear campaigning? Lobbying? Are you SERIOUS about mainstream America not giving a **** about elections? SERIOUSLY SERIOUS? Do you live under a rock?
I blame morons for being morons.
I chose not to vote this year because of a moral dilemma, and I probably won't vote this next year either. I don't find solace in "voting for the lesser evil."
And that's how democracy works Bj, yeah. But that's not how a representative democracy works - further more it assumes that it is devoid of corruption. Based on this country's record this past century, I'd wager we walk a fine line. Whatever your opinion is on that line, is up to you, but I haven't formulated a full opinion on it - and thus I won't make decisions based on my own ineducation. Politics isn't an honorable game, some of its players may have standards, but its unlikely you'll reach the top in a game like that without climbing on the bodies of people you've ****ed, or people that ****ed them for you. Action and inaction are both inexcusable in their respective examples.
Even if I believed in someone, chances are more against me than for me, that they are a charlatan with a silver tongue.
[/rant]
lol. I didn't turn it into an attack on Christians, you effing tit. I pointed out that it's silly to "blame" anyone because they vote and the others don't. Simply put. It's like saying "You know, I really wanted the Bears to win the Super Bowl, but they didn't because the Colts were so much better and the Bears didn't give it their all. I blame the Colts for doing so! Bad Colts! Not letting the Bears win!" [PS screw the colts] I only pointed out ONCE that it was the Christian right, and I did so to directly quote YOU. Then I pointed out that the mainstream media DOES cover elections and politics. You claimed that they did not. Sure, NOW you can say that they cover it in a way in which you feel isn't proper, but the post I was referencing made NO such justification. Your percentages are irrelevent. I was disagreeing with the statement that the media didn't cover politics, not that the people were disinterested (except when I said that apathetic people and stoners don't vote. . . which is probably untrue, stoners vote). If they're disinterested, as you happened to rant about excessively, then I guess the media needs to promote EVEN MORE the necessity to vote. That or Americans need to quit being lazy phucks. One or the other. And your opinion about what warrants "politics" is horribly naive and grossly subjective, to say the least. I eagerly await your complete knee-jerk, oversimplified and FALSE deduction of what I have said in this post. Eagerly.
Sol:
That is your right. You, by no means, are required to vote. I just ask, that next time elections do arise, you go and vote. Write in "Steve Perry" as president, or do not vote on president/vp at all. There are many, many other positions on that ballot that you vote for aside from strictly "President of the United States of America." I may be underestimating you, but I have a feeling you didn't research every candidate for governor/senator/whateverelseicantremember is on the ballot before you decided to be a consiencious objector. But even if you did, complete abstinance to vote is your right, by all means. I frankly feel people can vote or they cannot vote. If you're apathetic. . . I think that's really lame, but hell, different strokes, ya know? I really like Gregorian Chant, but that's proably lame to a great many folks, ya know? Doesn't mean that I can't say "50 Cent is crap" whenever he releases another album. That's a vague analogy, but my point is that vote or not, criticize or not, have an opinion or not, you're entitled to either or. Just PLEASE don't say that the media doesn't cover the elections and political process enough, because I feel that is INCORRECT (no sol, I'm not referring to you).
[url=http://quakeragitator.wordpress.com/2007/09/25/no-thanks-ill-think-for-myself/]Here's a person with the correct opinion here:[/url]
[quote]Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may, as he’s being portrayed in the Corporate Media, indeed be an unstable madman in a cheesy golf jacket. He may be doing bad things to make the war in Iraq worse. He may pose the single biggest security threat our country faces in the world today (other than the Bush/Cheney regime). His ideas about Jews and the Holocaust may be ignorant, reprehensible, hate-filled, and disgusting. They may fly in the face of reality, what we lovingly call “facts.” But he is also the leader of a country with which we may soon find ourselves at war. Our sons and daughters may sometime within the next year be sent off to kill the sons and daughters (and mothers and fathers) of Iran. In spite of the slobbering, insensitive, absurd, and ridiculous nature of his rantings, I want to hear what he has to say. And I have the right to hear it.
And I resent having people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and the editorial and headline writers at The New York Daily News - the same people who are pushing us towards war with Iran - telling me that I can’t. Because if we do go to war with this man’s country, it’ll be my sons and my nephews and my students who will be drafted to fight it.
I respect the people who travelled to New York City yesterday to stand outside the United Nations and the hall at Columbia where Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke, to loudly voice their opposition to his views. I respect those in the hall at Columbia who hooted and hissed when he made some of his more ridiculous comments. And it was fine by me that the president of Columbia, who the invitation in the first place, gave the Iranian president a little slice of his mind before he let the man speak. He had that right as well. If I’d been in the hall, I might have even stood up and turned my back on the man while he spoke, as we once did to war criminal Henry Kissinger.
But I would have let him speak. And I still would have listened.
Because I am an American. And THAT is supposed to mean I can.
lol. I called you a tit once, and then broke down the fallacies in your rediculous statement, and you follow up with some pity-rant about how I'm being a jerk to you. You're such a victim! I am sorry I ganged up on you! I know the word "tit" is so horrendous and such an insult! I am sorry! FROWNY FACE----> :( Seriously dude, quit being such a rag. You put words in my mouth and railed me for things I didn't say, and then when i called you out on it, you get on the defensive and act like I'm picking on a little kid or something. If you make stupid statements, expect BJ's massive phallus of pwnage to come down upon you.
Arwon, i really enjoyed that article, and feel that it is very true. I think that regardless of future wars (though that is a very good reason to defend ones desire to hear him speak) the simple fact that he can come here and speak freely warrants a harassment-free speech, unless the harassment is done through patient and concise questioning of his rhetoric, hence my hatred of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
Words in your mouth?
ah, yes, I do concede. You said "Mainstream America", not "Mainstream American media." My mistake. Touche, salesman. I apologize for my speed reading.
I would like to say though, that my criticizing you for "blaming" people, regardless of who they are (I seriously don't care if you were in fact attacking Christian right wingers or whatever. I was upset that you acted like anyone voting for who they think is the right candidate is wrong) was completely founded. You acted upset and "blamed" someone because of the election results. The person you blamed. . . voted. Why do that? Wasn't it still a successful election? Wasn't someone elected? Isn't that the point of an election? It's not a football game. An election doesn't "lose" because this or that candidate is elected. It undermines itself to assume so. If you want to "blame" anyone, blame those who didn't vote. Also. . . criticizing the elderly for voting? What kinda fascist thing is that? Next thing you'll criticize them for driving and taking up your air? I didn't address that because I figured it was a slipup on your side and you couldn't have been serious. I think mainstream America does care about voting and elections. I'm assuming that, by "mainstream" you mean the middle-class. It's a very. . . odd word to use to describe a entire section of citizens, you know. I think the poorer, lower-middle and impovershed classes really didn't turn out at the polls. I think the "mainstream" did so at least upwards of what could be construed as a "majority" of them.
I would also like to point out that spellcheck WOULD help your spelling, which is distracting a bit. Not a jab, just an honest statement.
Either way, I admit I was wrong and concede from this argument. We got way too off topic and I take the friggen LSAT tomorrow AM and need to look over stuff.