0
   

Should Ahmadinejad be Allowed to Speak at Columbia?

 
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:51 am
Mr Nice wrote:
He should be allowed to speak. That's the essence of the freedom of speech.


Never said he should not be allowed to speak. Only that Columbia should never have invited him to speak. A subtle difference which is probably lost on many of you.

And I stand by the view.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 05:59 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Mr Nice wrote:
He should be allowed to speak. That's the essence of the freedom of speech.


Never said he should not be allowed to speak. Only that Columbia should never have invited him to speak. A subtle difference which is probably lost on many of you.

And I stand by the view.


Free speech is a right provided to American Citizens.

Yet, I disagree with Coastal on this.

Let these currupt leaders speak in a open forum so long as tey are challenged on their views. Columbia President did a good job in exposing this "wakajob" for the slimbag he is.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 07:50 am
CoastalRat wrote:
But of course it seems my liberal friends here think otherwise. It just seems to me to be enough hatred in this world without giving a platform to someone who openly wishes for the destruction of our country.




Do you live in Israel?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 07:54 am
woiyo wrote:



Free speech is a right provided to American Citizens.

0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 09:58 am
Wo wrote:
Wo wrote:

Quote:
Let these currupt leaders speak in a open forum so long as tey are challenged on their views. Columbia President did a good job in exposing this "wakajob" for the slimbag he is.


I don't care if he speaks or not but the president of Columbia showed himself for the coward that he is. When the representative of the Minutemen came to campus he was prevented from speaking by being physically attacked. The university refused to do anything to the perpetrators (even though it was all caught on tape) and the speech never went off. Then the Iranian president is invited to speak, the president of the university says he is for free speech and should be allowed (unlike the american citizen mentioned above). Then when people showed their contempt and he feels the wind blow the other way he gets up to introduce the Iranian president and goess into his hatchet job. If this isn't the definition of a coward (I am for whatever the present mob wants) I sure don't know what is.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:10 am
TheCorrectResponse wrote:
.... he gets up to introduce the Iranian president and goess into his hatchet job. If this isn't the definition of a coward (I am for whatever the present mob wants) I sure don't know what is.


I thought that was a bit rich, too.
To invite a person to speak, then introduce them in such a rude manner.
The point of the exercise was surely not to hear the views of the president of Columbia university. Pretty tacky.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:43 am
I would remind some of you that the question in the title of the thread is 'should Ahm. be allowed to speak at Columbia?' For which the answer is obviously yes, though many here seemed to bristle at that.

Here:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/ahmadinejad-get.html

There's a video of Ahm. being laughed at during his speech; and it's a powerful moment, you can see in his face that he wasn't expecting it.

From the link:

Quote:


The Bush administration has long upheld that our best weapons against Iran are our unwillingness to speak with them and the threat of bombing. They've failed. But our willingness to expose Ahmadinejad to the risks of free ands public speech, combined with YouTube, may prove to be far more potent.


There's no possible way to view his speech as anything other then a media victory for the US.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 10:51 am
CoastalRat wrote:
Mr Nice wrote:
He should be allowed to speak. That's the essence of the freedom of speech.


Never said he should not be allowed to speak. Only that Columbia should never have invited him to speak. A subtle difference which is probably lost on many of you.

And I stand by the view.
And, I think you have every right to your opinion just as the student body of Columbia have a right to theirs.
0 Replies
 
TheCorrectResponse
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 11:02 am
msolga:
I am glad I'm not the only one to think that was rather incredible.

But
Quote:
The point of the exercise was surely not to hear the views of the president of Columbia university


Unfortunately the president of Columbia doesn't know what his views are until he gets them from the mob du jure.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 11:07 am
I don't know why Columbia shouldn't have invited him to speak...

You are your own walking advertisement...

The Iranian President advertised himself very well.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 12:32 pm
woiyo wrote:
Let these currupt leaders speak in a open forum so long as tey are challenged on their views.

i agree with you on this part.

for me, the whole point of giving public figures face time is to get them on record in as many ways as possible. it's the only way for us, as citizens of the world, to hold them to accounts when their deeds don't match their words.


Columbia President did a good job in exposing this "wakajob" for the slimbag he is.

on this, i'm more of the opinion that he blew it. like others, i believe his main interest was to cover his own tail than anything else.

and in that way, he actually diminished the impact of our country being philosophically secure enough to unemotionally provide a forum for someone with bizarre views to express them to millions at a time.

it would have been a much more powerful statement to simply come to the stage, greet the audience and dispassionately introduce ahmadinejad. it's not like the guy needed help establishing his creds as a total jack*ff. Laughing

frankly, the couple of times that his comments were met with peels of laughter said a lot more about his credibility than anything that bollinger tossed out during his filibuster.

to me, it seems like good policy to keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 04:21 pm
Yes, he should have been allowed to speak there.
But,I dont think anyone should have attended his speech.

After all,this isnt a "free speech" issue.
Everyone has that right,but there is no "right to be heard".
That means that nobody has to listen to what you or anyone else is saying.

Personally, I dont think he should have been allowed in the country, but since he was he has the right to speak.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 07:07 pm
If the Dean of Columbia University, John Coatsworth is representative of American academia I pity those who pass through that institution, he has brought further shame on the US and the American people with his rudeness, he ranks alongside George Bush who believes you spread democracy at the point of a gun.
What message is that fool sending the rest of the world, his performance just demonstrated his ignorance; you don't invite a prominent person to speak at your university just so you can deride him; if I was an American citizen I would be truly embarrassed.
0 Replies
 
CerealKiller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Sep, 2007 11:52 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
Mr Nice wrote:
He should be allowed to speak. That's the essence of the freedom of speech.


Never said he should not be allowed to speak. Only that Columbia should never have invited him to speak. A subtle difference which is probably lost on many of you.

And I stand by the view.


I agree.

And it was a great treat to see him get booed, jeered, and laughed at...all part of free speech.
0 Replies
 
Mr Nice
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 07:24 am
I think that's a good starting moment for both leaders, Mr Bush and Ahmad, to get closer to each other so that they can resolve the problem in a win-win solution for both parties and for the rest of the world.

This "Bush-Ahmad issue" has been being manipulated by several leaders to take advantage of the situation.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 10:14 am
As Glenn Greenwald points out, this exchange is worth noting. It is criminal how unsual such an exchange is in the american media and how needed it is. Bravo to both these guys.

Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/26/various_items/
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 10:26 am
I saw this exchange live, I was astounded. Chris Matthews seems to have had an epiphany.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 03:33 pm
Once again, the American right is going about things all wrong. Ahmadinejad is their best tool. Rather than working to shut him down, they should sit back and let him speak. Here's why: Sound bites from Ahmadinejad's Columbia appearance will inevitably produce more "evidence" the administration and its hawks can use to push the need for this regime's elimination -- like his incendiary remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations last year. It is Ahmadinejad's words the administration consistently cites as supporting evidence for its cause. If Ahmadinejad wasn't afforded the opportunity to speak, and to offer up more inflammatory remarks, then the right would be without this easy ammunition in its ongoing campaign to invade Iran.

As leading campus free speech and first amendment scholar Robert O'Neil rightly notes: "If you suppress a viewpoint by disallowing or barring a controversial speaker, you make the speaker a martyr."

While all eyes are on Manhattan, precious few are watching what's happening in Washington. On Thursday, Senators Jon Kyl and Joseph Lieberman filed an amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Bill that would make it official U.S. policy to "combat, contain and roll back" Iran and its surrogates in Iraq. Section 5 calls for the United States to formally designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. If passed, this amendment would open the door even wider for military action against Iran.

Why hasn't this bit of news sparked similar debate?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/azadeh-ensha/ahmadinejad-why-the-righ_b_65519.html
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 05:20 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
I saw this exchange live, I was astounded. Chris Matthews seems to have had an epiphany.


i saw this too. there are any number of things that i disagree with buchanan about, but when it comes to geo-politics he really is one of the few who not only gets it, but is pretty honest about owning up to the occassions when america is responsible for a lot of it's own problems.

just like a real adult.

to me, it seems like a lot of the trouble we have in the middle east is due to meddling by the c.i.a. and some other alphabet agencies.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 12:14:49