RoR: Forum

Post 0

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 2:21pm

Link

Edit

I had all of A-jad's arguments skewered and ... the flippin' website had auto-logged me out (and I lost it all)!

Maybe I'll skewer him later (too frustrated, now) ...

Ed

Post 1

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 3:29pm

Link

Edit

I think the killer-clown's words speak for themselves:

"We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people,"

"There�s nothing known as absolute,"

"In Iran we don�t have homosexuals like in your country."

Post 2

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 3:52pm

Link

Edit

Wow! What a flipping sting from Lee Bollinger! Well done, sir. Very well done! The opening introduction is worth the price of admission.

Thanks so much, Ed.

I don't have the stomach to listen to the dirty looking guy.

Post 3

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 4:52pm

Link

Edit

You don't think Bollinger was just trying to cover his ass after taking flak for even inviting A-jad? I was not impressed... (but of course I am not defending that thug from Iran)!

Post 4

Monday, September 24, 2007 - 5:01pm

Link

Edit

A better condemnation would've been to tell him that he isn't welcome on Columbia's campus.

Post 5

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 3:03am

Link

Edit

It was a satisfying roast, that's all I'm gonna say. Seemed too well thought out to be a "cover my ass" speech.

Of course you're free to think the worst, as usual, Jonathan. : p

Post 6

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 6:09am

Link

Edit

Sorry, but Bollinger got his ass kicked here. The creep evaded his questions and spouted propoganda and Bollinger just move on. He sanctioned evil by allowing it an outlet. He was made a complete, pathetic fool.

Post 7

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 7:26am

Link

Edit

I consider that Columbia University President Lee Bollinger made a very clever move by inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at his University, for where else could he have had the chance to tell this dictator that he's a scum and totally unworthy to exist among HUMAN beings? At the United Nations? No chance. Practically all of their members are enemies of the United States and open or hidden friends of all dictators, besides selling them the means which arm them to prepare the destruction of the West. Through the media, filled with commies and sundry leftwingers who only have scorn and contempt in store for the American nation and use every opportunity to heap praise on criminals of all sorts like this Ahmawhat? No chance. Bush himself made too many mistakes and, thus, lost every moral right to confront Iran's target of annihilating the human race. He's as much a promoter of fundamentalism as this Ahmadinejad is (that both belong to two separate religions makes no difference, as Nick Gisburne very wisely proved already in his "The Atheists are Revolting!").
So it remained for Bollinger to take up the lonely stand of defending Western culture. As he himself stated: the fact that he gave Ahmadinejad the chance to freely speak up in a country that despises him, while free speech is prohibited in Iran itself, proves up and beyond infinity (if such were possible) the strength and validity of freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.
(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 9/25, 7:29am)

Post 8

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 9:15am

Link

Edit

Another comment is crucial here - Listen to the ACTUAL audio of this, and NOT this nicely re-worded article. This attempts to paint a picture that isn't there - he asked questions and acted like he was accusing, but then when wacko responded, he let it slide, which means that in essence he was agreeing to wacko's rebuttal.

No, the reality is that this guy thought he was "being tough" but the reality is he was a pompous fool that let a wackjob get the best of him.

Post 9

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 9:40am

Link

Edit

Front Page Mag Jacob Laskin on Ahmed-squiqqle's speech
"But grant the genocidal maniac this: he knows how to make the most of an occasion. Surrounded by running cameras and a rapt audience, Ahmadinejad delivered a memorably opposite-world rendition of Iran�s political activities. Typical in its sinister absurdity was his lofty judgment that in 'a university environment we must allow people to make up their own mind.' Coming from the head of a regime that has launched vicious crackdowns on universities, students, human-rights activists and political dissidents, the statement might almost be amusing, were it not tragic. Ahmadinejad seemed all too aware of the fact, and throughout his remarks he wore a sly grin that seemed to say, 'Can you believe I�m getting away with this?'"

I couldn't have said it better.

Post 10

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 12:49pm

Link

Edit

I agree with Kurt and Jeff, Christopher Hitchens would have gutted him. This was, so tragic, a missed opportunity and we're all going to see the repercusions of this.

Post 11

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 3:43pm

Link

Edit

This attempts to paint a picture that isn't there - he asked questions and acted like he was accusing, but then when wacko responded, he let it slide, which means that in essence he was agreeing to wacko's rebuttal.

Kurt, I totally disagree with this, and see Bollinger's lack of argument (which he gave in full in the beginning) as a way to access the lunatic to all of the rope he needed to hang himself. The guy was left twisting in the breeze, if you ask me.

One can construe silence as agreement, but not in this case. Not by a long shot.

Post 12

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 4:17pm

Link

Edit

I agree with Teresa.

Reasonable folks will get the picture that A-jad slithered like a snake under scrutiny. In just the short news clip here, he utilized logical fallacies more than a half-dozen times in order to "answer" without "answering." I'll highlight these soon.

Ed

Post 13

Tuesday, September 25, 2007 - 7:32pm

Link

Edit

I was at the New Intellectual page, when I found mention of a site call zombietime.com.
Curious, I check it out. It was sort of a Photojournalistic expose on lefty, commie, marxist activists on the west coast. It rattled me. These people were extremely passionate about defending their fallacies and they were large in number. One of the protest's highlighted was in support of "Tookie" Williams !! We all know about the apologist liberals numbers. That podium demanded follow through too the nth degree and came across lukewarm to me. (stammering, breathlessness)Watch these delusional people take this as a (sick and twisted) victory.( They already are)
I really liked his proposal to give a Free Speech lecture and I'm glad he did say what he said in the introduction. I believe it was a smart move to have had him there.

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 9/25, 9:14pm)

Post 14

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 6:12am

Link

Edit

Regardless of the details, it was still sanctioning evil to even have such a discussion, as if such could be rationally discussed.

Post 15

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 7:22am

Link

Edit

Superb New York Post editorial on Bollinger's words and deeds.

A Squalid Mistake
"The left in this country concluded long ago that this is not a war between Islamic extremist fascism and Western civilization, but a fight between Islamic 'militants' and President Bush. The events of 9/11 never changed the left/liberal view that the real menace to world peace is the Bush administration and what Sen. J. William Fulbright used to call 'the arrogance of American power' - much as British leftists in the early '30s assumed that the real cause of war wasn't men like Hitler or Mussolini, but capitalism and arms merchants.

"One of the signs outside yesterday's events summed this view up nicely: 'We refuse to choose between Islamic fundamentalism and American imperialism.'"

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/26, 7:33am)

Post 16

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 8:25am

Link

Edit

Granted. I was hoping it would be a standing together and condemnation until I was enlighten by that zombietime site. I admit to being stunned at the lack of sense that exists. Just call me the "girl in the bubble". I am doing what I can to slash away at my own naive misconceptions. That being said and his now having been hosted, I, like Theresa, hope that the rope of fallicies he exposed in this highly visible format will bring people to their senses. Though.... ? : (

(Edited by Gigi P Morton on 9/26, 9:41am)

Post 17

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - 4:32pm

Link

Edit

I can not agree with you, Mr. Eichert (Post#14). Giving evil a chance to express its views does not sanction it. Sanction does not occur unless one agrees with it. The only way to defeat evil is first to expose it, and then refute it. In this way, the world is brought to knowlege and if this knowledge is preserved evil is defeated for all time to come. One could fight Islam by burning all copies of the Koran, but this would not stop it. It will only be stopped when everyone understands its tenets and knows that they are wrong. Giving Ahmadinejad a chance to express his views is the right thing to do.
I would have to certainly agree you, Mr. Fauth (Post #3). Bollinger was merely trying to save face by insulting Ahmadinejad. If he wanted to properly justify his decision to let him speak at Columbia, he should have presented the preceeding paragraph as his reason, and then told that audience of rowdy, half-wits to shut up and listen like their lives depended on it.
Reading the 60 minutes transcript of Ahmadinejad's interview will Pelley, I am very concerned. Ahmadinejad's statements are unending strings of evasions and outright denials of reality. If he really believes what he's saying, he has completely broken contact with reality. If he is trying to deceive the American public, he has grossly underestimated their gullibility, and must be judged as completely lost in his own wishful thinking. (For example, no one will believe that Iran is the "friend of the Jewish people", when he has previously stated that he wants Isreal "wiped of the map.") For him to carry on this way in front of the American Nation, knowing further that his statements will be taken to the international forum as well, leaves him in either case, completely beyond the reach of reason. From this interview I would have to conclude that war with Iran is virtually assured.

(Edited by Robert E. Milenberg on 9/26, 4:40pm)

Post 18

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 12:10am

Link

Edit

Giving evil a chance to express its views does not sanction it. Sanction does not occur unless one agrees with it.

What about helping evil? Columbia gained nothing and Ahmadinejad gained a great deal.

Post 19

Thursday, September 27, 2007 - 3:23am

Link

Edit

Jordan -

I'm having a hard time figuring out what Ahmadinejad gained by this. What gains could he have made? Perhaps he appealed to a few weak minds out there, but other than that, I can't think of anything positive.

Is there such a thing as "protectionism" within the realm of ideas? Don't give bad ideas a voice! Don't expose evil! Let someone else expose it! Only allow expressions that are acceptable!

This action by Columbia and it's president is history making. It will be referred to again and again as ammunition against Iran's president. There can't be enough intellectual ammunition against the guy.

At what point does an Objectivist, or anyone, say "we have enough information."?

Granted, Iran's president never should have been allowed to travel to the US or place one step on her soil. But he was, and he did. We gained more insight and resolve. He gained nothing.