Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on September 25, 2007, 09:37:27 AM
-
Did anyone see or hear how the Columbia University President skewered Akmuddinnerjacket? Kinda runs counter to the general assumptions in here about Ivory Tower libs and all. I just like pointing out stuff like this...
Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAM5S4lhMGw)
-
wow...ya ..what a skewering..are you that blind? ..or is it ..are you that biased?
The guy should of been HAMMERED for what he has said..and what he has DONE
Same goes for the Bush...he should of Skewered The little man with the dirty beard from the 7th century during UN speech
-
I am only a professor, who is also a university president, and today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for," University president Lee Bollinger said to Ahmadinejad. "I only wish I could do better."
"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator."
The destruction of Israel, 12 days ago, you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel should be wiped off the map.
Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the U.N. nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable?
I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will, in itself, be meaningful to us.
Yeah, I'm biased. I guess I'm biased toward the facts. They are right there for you to read.
-
The Koran allows for lying to desive ones enemy. He will go home and claim victory over the infidels and be praised a hero for his deceptions.
They were still wrong for allowing him to speak.
-
Know thine enemy.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
Shoot, it would be stupid not to allow an enemy to speak.
-
I think he did fine job of berating Amadmanjihad. I also think his refusal to give the minutemen a forum is the vilest censorship.
-
Don't let him speak? Threaten to remove Columbia's funding because they let him talk? What country are we in again?
When he's Over There, he can pick and choose what he answers. The european media isn't exactly super tough on him either, it's only when he came here that he got the hard questions.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Refusing to allow him to talk plays into his hands and serves the interests of those internationally who would see our country harmed, because they can tell whatever story they want without risk of being contradicted.
-
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/280118411.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/280118411.jpg)
LOL awesome.
-
Yes The liberal scum lets him speak..but the Founder of Minutemen ..banned? Rumsfeld..banned?
Ya..funny thing is limp wristed lovers will be squealing about gheys...but complelty overlooked is the stoning and beating of women over there...
Isreal shoudl just now say we love Gheys..Make a big Ghey camp ..maybe the Liberlas wouldnt call them the Evil of the world anymore?..bunch of racists hypocreatens...the lot of them all
Yes..they sure were tuff on him
The linguini spines are not so boiled now?..al dente?..lmfao
Its nice that you MT found ONE THING OVER THE PAST DECADE!!!! Thats shows..ANY remote sense of a strong back that the Liberals have
You run in here with glee..LOOK LOOK !!! We do have a strong side..I guess that is like the Leather Lesbian side of your party..lolo
-
BigBMAW you sound like you are just one step away from forming an insurgency and attacking the U.S. Government. People of low education are prone to brainwashing, as the president of Columbia pointed out.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
BigBMAW you sound like you are just one step away from forming an insurgency and attacking the U.S. Government. People of low education are prone to brainwashing, as the president of Columbia pointed out.
(http://members.airsoftcanada.com/digital_assasin/Forum%20Stuff/Misc/oh_snap.gif)
-
At least you learned how to spell linguini.
-
Originally posted by AquaShrimp
People of low education are prone to brainwashing, as the president of Columbia pointed out.
i think the president of Columbia was referring to his students. :lol
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yeah, I'm biased. I guess I'm biased toward the facts. They are right there for you to read.
What were the answers to all of those question or statements you posted?
Was there any followup to his repornses?
NO.
As a matter of fact the crack pot didn't even really answer the questions...he just spewed some crap. And your guy just moved on to the next question. The only thing skewered was the opportunity to really press this idiot for some realy answers.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Don't let him speak? Threaten to remove Columbia's funding because they let him talk? What country are we in again?
When he's Over There, he can pick and choose what he answers. The european media isn't exactly super tough on him either, it's only when he came here that he got the hard questions.
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Refusing to allow him to talk plays into his hands and serves the interests of those internationally who would see our country harmed, because they can tell whatever story they want without risk of being contradicted.
Is our military allowed to recruit on this campus?
-
Forbidding recruiters from campus is dumb too for the same reason, silly.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/280118411.jpg)
LOL
Free speech?
Where is Amadmanjihad given the "right" to free speech in this country?
He has no "right" to free speech. The guy holding the sign is an idiot.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Is our military allowed to recruit on this campus?
sorry, "war mongers" are not allowed to speak in this bastion of free speech. :rolleyes:
-
So they let this nut case speak and do not let our military on campus for recruting?
In that case the gov should pull any funding...period.
-
typical..your replies are just like the Dirty bearded little man...from the 7 century
Yes your brothers are like Rambo now..!!! they showed the dirty beard man!!
Once a decade..pretty good..Almost as tough as the Peanut farmer that pretended to be president
-
The best way to discredit an idiot is to let him discredit himself through open speech.
That principal holds in the global arena just as it does in the O Club.
Letting him speak was the right thing to do.
-
Got to go with the socialists on this one... No reason to not let the guy speak.
I would show slides of the nazi camps on a giant screen behind the guy while he spoke tho.
As for the students? they are mush heads in any case. They are too young to even know what they think... most are dumb enough to think they have original thought and came to their conclusions on their own. Which... oddly enough... match their proffs... who woulda thought? great minds think alike eh? course.. so do brainwashed drones but...
lazs
-
That an East Coast liberal university would be tough on a Holocaust denier who has called for the destruction of Israel is just plain shocking. Particularly since they would feel absolutely no pressure to appear balanced with such a high profile and controversial speaking engagement.
As pointed out though, they certainly had no problem allowing the student body to shout down and assault the "racist" Minuteman speakers (some of whom were minorities themselves). And to think, their J students get a fast track into the major market news organizations of America.
Charon
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Got to go with the socialists on this one... No reason to not let the guy speak.
I disagree. Did he say anything that we haven't already heard? No. I'm happy that he was berated, but what else came out of this?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The Columbia University President should be skewered. Ignorant Ivory Tower libs inviting all their middle eastern buddies to the U.S. I just like pointing out stuff like this...
Fixed :aok
-
fb... well... free speech is not worth much if I am not allowed to hear whatever I want.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
I can't think of anything to write, I wish i could but I just write in other people's names to try and sound clever. I'm pretty sure this is funny cause I've seen other people do it all the time. I hope they laugh, I hope they like me ....Fixed :aok
fixizzled.
-
lazs....its not that you can't hear him.....just turn on MSNBC or CNN, or perhaps BBC....you'll hear all you want. My point is, he should have never been given a podium on U.S. soil to blather from.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
lazs....its not that you can't hear him.....just turn on MSNBC or CNN, or perhaps BBC....you'll hear all you want. My point is, he should have never been given a podium on U.S. soil to blather from.
You must also realize, then, sir, to NOT have given him such a podium from which to speak, would have thrown asunder our core value of free speech for ALL regardless of creed or color. By not letting him speak, you show those morons back in the persian gulf that we really are JUST as hypocritical and ignorant as we seem to be.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You must also realize, then, sir, to NOT have given him such a podium from which to speak, would have thrown asunder our core value of free speech for ALL regardless of creed or color.
Free speech for CITIZENS of the United States of America. The constitution does not provide the right of free speech in this country to just anyone.
So your statement is a moot point.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
You must also realize, then, sir, to NOT have given him such a podium from which to speak, would have thrown asunder our core value of free speech for ALL regardless of creed or color. By not letting him speak, you show those morons back in the persian gulf that we really are JUST as hypocritical and ignorant as we seem to be.
Yep, and I'm sure they have all changed their minds now and just love us.:rolleyes: My point has nothing to do with creed or color, you threw those in on your own. My point is you shouldn't give someone who is hostile to our country a podium in our country. Just because he has something to say doesn't mean we have to provide him a forum. Let him talk, just let it be somewhere else. Whats so hard about that?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Free speech for CITIZENS of the United States of America. The constitution does not provide the right of free speech in this country to just anyone.
So your statement is a moot point.
More like an invalid point to pick a nit.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
More like an invalid point to pick a nit.
Agreed.
-
He got 19 standing O's, was booed ONE time, when he dissed gays. I worry for the future of our country:confused:
-
Originally posted by bj229r
He got 19 standing O's, was booed ONE time, when he dissed gays. I worry for the future of our country:confused:
No kidding? What a bunch of fools.
-
Originally posted by FBBone
Yep, and I'm sure they have all changed their minds now and just love us.:rolleyes: My point has nothing to do with creed or color, you threw those in on your own. My point is you shouldn't give someone who is hostile to our country a podium in our country. Just because he has something to say doesn't mean we have to provide him a forum. Let him talk, just let it be somewhere else. Whats so hard about that?
Actually, most Iranians are Pro- united states already. They were the only nation in the persian gulf to protest the 9-11 attacks, and the public staged mass vigils in the streets of Tehran, as well as all over the country supporting OUR side.
Just because their president is a *******, doesn't mean the rest of the country is. I sure hope the rest of the world looks at this country in that same way, especially after Bush's addition to his "bushisms" today...
And I quote..
"Childrens do not learn...." I get the feeling he was left behind.
And we have a little document that states... "All men are created equal." Don't crap on it just because the guy is a bit off the deep end.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Free speech for CITIZENS of the United States of America. The constitution does not provide the right of free speech in this country to just anyone.
So your statement is a moot point.
Actually, the constitution permits free speech to EVERYONE...within our borders. What occurs outside our borders is not our issue. You do not need to be a citizen of this nation to enjoy the right of free speech.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Free speech for CITIZENS of the United States of America. The constitution does not provide the right of free speech in this country to just anyone.
So your statement is a moot point.
From "The U.S. Constitution online" Web Page.
This is a multi-part question pertaining to the "Nanny Trial" in Fall, 1997.
Q25. "As a British national, what constitutional rights, if any, is Louise Woodward entitled to?"
A. This question is more one of U.S. law than of the U.S. Constitution. However, it is an interesting one:
Woodward could have been summarily deported back to the U.K.; or she could be tried under the normal rules of law. If you are tried in a U.S. criminal court, you are entitled to all rights enjoyed by citizens in the court, even if you are not a citizen. There may also have been an agreement in effect that she, as an au pair contracted with the United States Government, agreed to be subject to its laws.
Generally speaking, anyone physically in the U.S. will be treated as a citizen, with all rights guaranteed a citizen. There are some exceptions to this general rule. For example, while entering the United States (and physically in the United States), a foreign national can be detained and expelled. In some cases, detention is for an unlimited amount of time, and some illegal immigrants have been held for years on end.
-
Nothing wrong with letting him speak, what was wrong was letting his plane leave without it the Vincennes sending a going away gift.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Actually, the constitution permits free speech to EVERYONE...within our borders. What occurs outside our borders is not our issue. You do not need to be a citizen of this nation to enjoy the right of free speech.
So using your logic...it would have been ok for this wacko to take his thumb drive with an anti-American document on it down to Kinko's and run off thousands of copies and hand them out anywhere he pleased in the USA?
Why?
-
Why not?
It would probably be a benefit; anyone reading his BS would see what a whackjob he really is.
-
Why?
Because that is the elegance of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments. Ideals are not frightened by the words of men. Concepts do not cower and cover their ears. The principles endure and are strengthened by their vigorous use. They are stronger than weak men who cannot comprehend the power of freedom, or who try to silence anything they don't understand or want to hear.
You are completely wrong about the rights and ideals of the United States of America, yet you are free to speak your mind. We are free to correct you or ignore you if you persist in ignorance. It is such a simple concept and disappointing that any adult has passed through the US education system without that fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Why?
Because that is the elegance of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments. Ideals are not frightened by the words of men. Concepts do not cower and cover their ears. The principles endure and are strengthened by their vigorous use. They are stronger than weak men who cannot comprehend the power of freedom, or who try to silence anything they don't understand or want to hear.
You are completely wrong about the rights and ideals of the United States of America, yet you are free to speak your mind. We are free to correct you or ignore you if you persist in ignorance. It is such a simple concept and disappointing that any adult has passed through the US education system without that fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
:huh
-
he wanted to poke the neo-cons in the eye with an iranian stick.
i'm guessing he thought it was smart until those late night phones calls about donations going elsewhere and then he realized the faux pas.
so... he calls him a few names and didn't debate them either.... what a knob.
i'd say let the loonies float their balloons in a free forum for all to see, it seems both have.
-
sorry... still gonna have to go with the liberal socialists here on this one.
He does not have any rights.. it is not his right to speak that I care about.
I have a right to hear him tho and citizens have a right to bring him here and pay him to speak.
You have a right to speak against him or to ignore him.
I am not at all afraid of what he has to say. I figure he will simply make an bellybutton out of himself anyway...
to put it simply... more free speech is better than less.
That does not mean he has the right to come here and shout on the street corner.. he is not a citizen and there are ordinances to obey... If someone wants to host him.. if people want to attend... if the newspapers and media want to cover it.
That is fine. If that makes you drop a subscription or a contribution... that is fine too.
I guess this is just one obvious place where conservatives and I part ways (there are many).
I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't be exposed to so far as free speech.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Why?
Because that is the elegance of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments. Ideals are not frightened by the words of men. Concepts do not cower and cover their ears. The principles endure and are strengthened by their vigorous use. They are stronger than weak men who cannot comprehend the power of freedom, or who try to silence anything they don't understand or want to hear.
You are completely wrong about the rights and ideals of the United States of America, yet you are free to speak your mind. We are free to correct you or ignore you if you persist in ignorance. It is such a simple concept and disappointing that any adult has passed through the US education system without that fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Where in the Constitution does it say that someone such as this guy has "freedom of speech" in our country? Is he a citizen? Is he living here?
The university is backing their decision to let him speak with "freedom of speech". This guy is afforded no such right in this country.
I understand and agree with what you have said about the elegance of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments. The problem I have with this whole situation is the university crying about "freedom of speech" when this guy has no such right here in America. They should have just come out and stated that they wanted him to speak because they believe in what he has to say...not because he has the "right" to.
Remember, this is the same university that has "allowed" protestors to dissrupt speaking engagements by others who did not "fit" into their mode of thinking.
-
I agree that letting him speak was the proper thing to do. Restricting him from the 9-11 site was also proper given the sensitivity of the site and the Nation in general about it.
Columbia University was certainly in their rights to invite him. I disagree with their some of their choices to date but they have the right to restrict their own property / podium.
It's also absolutely essential that this guy be allowed to leave the country safe and sound. We may not like him or what he stands for or even his country for that matter but that is not grounds for eliminating him absent a war situation.
Now that we have given this guy a "podium" to speak from and demonstrated our generosity to those who are opposites to our nations interests, do you think that Iran would reciprocate? Do you think one of their large Universities would invite either Cheney or Rice to speak there?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Actually, most Iranians are Pro- united states already. They were the only nation in the persian gulf to protest the 9-11 attacks, and the public staged mass vigils in the streets of Tehran, as well as all over the country supporting OUR side.
We're not talking about "most" Iranians here, are we? No, we're talking about one in particular, and he's not pro-U.S.
Originally posted by MORAY37
Just because their president is a *******, doesn't mean the rest of the country is. I sure hope the rest of the world looks at this country in that same way, especially after Bush's addition to his "bushisms" today...
And I quote..
"Childrens do not learn...." I get the feeling he was left behind.
With the bad punctuation in this post from you, I don't think you have any room to criticize the President:
You must also realize, then, sir, to NOT have given him such a podium from which to speak, would have thrown asunder our core value of free speech for ALL regardless of creed or color. By not letting him speak, you show those morons back in the persian gulf that we really are JUST as hypocritical and ignorant as we seem to be.
A bit of an over use of the comma key, sir. My God man, if you pause that much while speaking someone is likely to mistake it for a stuttering problem.
But, as usual from you, any chance to jab at Bush is a good one.
Originally posted by MORAY37
And we have a little document that states... "All men are created equal." Don't crap on it just because the guy is a bit off the deep end.
How, exactly, does this come into play here? Not giving a radical foreign dictator a podium from which to bash us is now equal to craping on the Constitution? He has a venue in our country, that is also hostile to our country, from which he can thumb his nose at the U.S. and the rest of the world. It's called the U.N., let him speak from there. By the way, I never said to silence the man, how you may have inferred that I'll never know. I'm simply suggesting that, when someone is trying to bash us, we neither hand him the clubs nor a safe place from which to swing.
-
lazs, I really do get your point. I've never said to silence the little man. I believe he has enough forums worldwide, including the U.N., form which to speak that the U.S. really doesn't need to provide him with another. I think it's poor form that, in a time of war, a foreign dictator would be given such a forum. But, not once did I say that not be able to speak at all.
Let him talk, he'll continue to make a fool of himself to people with a little common sense and an education. While he's talking, tune your t.v. to any of the major news stations and I'm sure you'll hear his drivel just the same.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
are you that biased?
Mac, you need to buff the tarnish on your pot.
-
From today's New York Times:
To the Editor:
Lee C. Bollinger's "introduction" of the president of Iran was outrageous. There's a lot to be said about Mideast politics and the Iranian and United States entanglements there.
Certainly, as a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany and as a historian of German history, I find Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's approach to the Holocaust execrable.
However, if we wish to take the high moral road on grounds of freedom of speech, we fail by insulting an officially invited guest speaker before he has even spoken. This does not do credit to the principle of free speech.
Renate Bridenthal
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Why?
Because that is the elegance of the Constitution and the first 10 amendments. Ideals are not frightened by the words of men. Concepts do not cower and cover their ears. The principles endure and are strengthened by their vigorous use. They are stronger than weak men who cannot comprehend the power of freedom, or who try to silence anything they don't understand or want to hear.
You are completely wrong about the rights and ideals of the United States of America, yet you are free to speak your mind. We are free to correct you or ignore you if you persist in ignorance. It is such a simple concept and disappointing that any adult has passed through the US education system without that fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Spot on. Well said Rolex. It is sad some Americans do not understand this. :mad:
-
Originally posted by FBBone
lazs....its not that you can't hear him.....just turn on MSNBC or CNN, or perhaps BBC....you'll hear all you want. My point is, he should have never been given a podium on U.S. soil to blather from.
Why not Bone? Then all the world can observe him showing his true colors. Let him prove the character of his person.
On another note, I'd vote to let him go toe to toe with Isreal.:rofl
Then put it on pay per view:aok
-
This exchange by Sam Johnson and dinner guests is apt:
JOHNSON. ‘Every society has a right to preserve publick peace and order, and therefore has a good right to prohibit the propagation of opinions which have a dangerous tendency. To say the MAGISTRATE has this right, is using an inadequate word: it is the SOCIETY for which the magistrate is agent. He may be morally or theologically wrong in restraining the propagation of opinions which he thinks dangerous, but he is politically right.’
MAYO. ‘I am of opinion, Sir, that every man is entitled to liberty of conscience in religion; and that the magistrate cannot restrain that right.’
JOHNSON. ‘Sir, I agree with you. Every man has a right to liberty of conscience, and with that the magistrate cannot interfere. People confound liberty of thinking with liberty of talking; nay, with liberty of preaching. Every man has a physical right to think as he pleases; for it cannot be discovered how he thinks. He has not a moral right, for he ought to inform himself, and think justly. But, Sir, no member of a society has a right to TEACH any doctrine contrary to what the society holds to be true. The magistrate, I say, may be wrong in what he thinks: but while he thinks himself right, he may and ought to enforce what he thinks.’
MAYO. ‘Then, Sir, we are to remain always in errour, and truth never can prevail; and the magistrate was right in persecuting the first Christians.’
JOHNSON. ‘Sir, the only method by which religious truth can be established is by martyrdom. The magistrate has a right to enforce what he thinks; and he who is conscious of the truth has a right to suffer. I am afraid there is no other way of ascertaining the truth, but by persecution on the one hand and enduring it on the other.’
GOLDSMITH. ‘But how is a man to act, Sir? Though firmly convinced of the truth of his doctrine, may he not think it wrong to expose himself to persecution? Has he a right to do so? Is it not, as it were, committing voluntary suicide?’
JOHNSON. ‘Sir, as to voluntary suicide, as you call it, there are twenty thousand men in an army who will go without scruple to be shot at, and mount a breach for five-pence a day.’
GOLDSMITH. ‘But have they a moral right to do this?’
JOHNSON. ‘Nay, Sir, if you will not take the universal opinion of mankind, I have nothing to say. If mankind cannot defend their own way of thinking, I cannot defend it. Sir, if a man is in doubt whether it would be better for him to expose himself to martyrdom or not, he should not do it. He must be convinced that he has a delegation from heaven.’
GOLDSMITH. ‘I would consider whether there is the greater chance of good or evil upon the whole. If I see a man who had fallen into a well, I would wish to help him out; but if there is a greater probability that he shall pull me in, than that I shall pull him out, I would not attempt it. So were I to go to Turkey, I might wish to convert the Grand Signor to the Christian faith; but when I considered that I should probably be put to death without effectuating my purpose in any degree, I should keep myself quiet.’
JOHNSON. ‘Sir, you must consider that we have perfect and imperfect obligations. Perfect obligations, which are generally not to do something, are clear and positive; as, “thou shalt not kill?’ But charity, for instance, is not definable by limits. It is a duty to give to the poor; but no man can say how much another should give to the poor, or when a man has given too little to save his soul. In the same manner it is a duty to instruct the ignorant, and of consequence to convert infidels to Christianity; but no man in the common course of things is obliged to carry this to such a degree as to incur the danger of martyrdom, as no man is obliged to strip himself to the shirt in order to give charity. I have said, that a man must be persuaded that he has a particular delegation from heaven.’
GOLDSMITH. ‘How is this to be known? Our first reformers, who were burnt for not believing bread and wine to be CHRIST’—
JOHNSON. (interrupting him,) ‘Sir, they were not burnt for not believing bread and wine to be CHRIST, but for insulting those who did believe it. And, Sir, when the first reformers began, they did not intend to be martyred: as many of them ran away as could.’
BOSWELL. ‘But, Sir, there was your countryman, Elwal, who you told me challenged King George with his black-guards, and his red-guards.’
JOHNSON. ‘My countryman, Elwal, Sir, should have been put in the stocks; a proper pulpit for him; and he’d have had a numerous audience. A man who preaches in the stocks will always have hearers enough.’
BOSWELL. ‘But Elwal thought himself in the right.’
JOHNSON. ‘We are not providing for mad people; there are places for them in the neighbourhood.’ (meaning moorfields.)
MAYO. ‘But, Sir, is it not very hard that I should not be allowed to teach my children what I really believe to be the truth?’
JOHNSON. ‘Why, Sir, you might contrive to teach your children extra scandalum; but, Sir, the magistrate, if he knows it, has a right to restrain you. Suppose you teach your children to be thieves?’
MAYO. ‘This is making a joke of the subject.’
JOHNSON. ‘Nay, Sir, take it thus:—that you teach them the community of goods; for which there are as many plausible arguments as for most erroneous doctrines. You teach them that all things at first were in common, and that no man had a right to any thing but as he laid his hands upon it; and that this still is, or ought to be, the rule amongst mankind. Here, Sir, you sap a great principle in society,—property. And don’t you think the magistrate would have a right to prevent you? Or, suppose you should teach your children the notion of the Adamites, and they should run naked into the streets, would not the magistrate have a right to flog ’em into their doublets?’ MAYO. ‘I think the magistrate has no right to interfere till there is some overt act.’
BOSWELL. ‘So, Sir, though he sees an enemy to the state charging a blunderbuss, he is not to interfere till it is fired off?’
MAYO. ‘He must be sure of its direction against the state.’
JOHNSON. ‘The magistrate is to judge of that.—He has no right to restrain your thinking, because the evil centers in yourself. If a man were sitting at this table, and chopping off his fingers, the magistrate, as guardian of the community, has no authority to restrain him, however he might do it from kindness as a parent.— Though, indeed, upon more consideration, I think he may; as it is probable, that he who is chopping off his own fingers, may soon proceed to chop off those of other people. If I think it right to steal Mr. Dilly’s plate, I am a bad man; but he can say nothing to me. If I make an open declaration that I think so, he will keep me out of his house. If I put forth my hand, I shall be sent to Newgate. This is the gradation of thinking, preaching, and acting: if a man thinks erroneously, he may keep his thoughts to himself, and nobody will trouble him; if he preaches erroneous doctrine, society may expel him; if he acts in consequence of it, the law takes place, and he is hanged.’
MAYO. ‘But, Sir, ought not Christians to have liberty of conscience?’
JOHNSON. ‘I have already told you so, Sir. You are coming back to where you were.’
BOSWELL. ‘Dr. Mayo is always taking a return post-chaise, and going the stage over again. He has it at half price.’
JOHNSON. ‘Dr. Mayo, like other champions for unlimited toleration, has got a set of words. Sir, it is no matter, politically, whether the magistrate be right or wrong. Suppose a club were to be formed, to drink confusion to King George the Third, and a happy restoration to Charles the Third, this would be very bad with respect to the State; but every member of that club must either conform to its rules, or be turned out of it. Old Baxter, I remember, maintains, that the magistrate should “tolerate all things that are tolerable.” This is no good definition of toleration upon any principle; but it shows that he thought some things were not tolerable.’
TOPLADY. ‘Sir, you have untwisted this difficult subject with great dexterity.’
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Free speech for CITIZENS of the United States of America. The constitution does not provide the right of free speech in this country to just anyone.
So your statement is a moot point.
You'll have to post the part of the Constitution that says free speech only for US citizens....
The 1st ammendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
More to the point:
The Constitution does protect the freedom of speech of every citizen, and even of non-citizens — but only from restriction by the Congress (and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, by state legislatures, too).
-
Originally posted by VonMessa
Why not Bone? Then all the world can observe him showing his true colors. Let him prove the character of his person.
On another note, I'd vote to let him go toe to toe with Isreal.:rofl
Then put it on pay per view:aok
As I've stated before, he has plenty of forums worldwide in which he can spout his nonsense. It's not like we didn't know his true colors before he had his little Q & A session, right? I mean really, he's been running off at the mouth for quite a while. The things he said weren't new. We all knew the character of his person long before his appearance.
I'm NOT saying he should be silenced. I'm not arguing constitutional law, either. I'm saying that, in a time of war, maybe its not in our best interests to let an enemy of the state come here and talk us down. Let him do it somewhere else. That is all.
The bottom line is, he was an invited guest, and on that we can agree. In my opinion though, he should have never been invited. BTW, as was mentioned before, it was really classy for the moderator to attack and insult him before he even uttered a word. After all, who invited him there in the first place and for what reason?
-
We're at war with Iran?
-
Originally posted by Stringer
We're at war with Iran?
in a way, yes, Iran is sending arms and agents into Iraq.
-
A state of war exists between the US and Iran?
-
And they sank the Maine.
I didn't even know that the US declared war against Iraq or that Iraq was a territory of the US. When did all this happen?
-
Originally posted by FBBone
As I've stated before, he has plenty of forums worldwide in which he can spout his nonsense. It's not like we didn't know his true colors before he had his little Q & A session, right? I mean really, he's been running off at the mouth for quite a while. The things he said weren't new. We all knew the character of his person long before his appearance.
I'm NOT saying he should be silenced. I'm not arguing constitutional law, either. I'm saying that, in a time of war, maybe its not in our best interests to let an enemy of the state come here and talk us down. Let him do it somewhere else. That is all.
The bottom line is, he was an invited guest, and on that we can agree. In my opinion though, he should have never been invited. BTW, as was mentioned before, it was really classy for the moderator to attack and insult him before he even uttered a word. After all, who invited him there in the first place and for what reason?
Touche!
Point taken. But, maybe some folks still need to hear it to believe it(what other countries think) My personal observations are that a lot of Americans are WAY too content. Not much heart left. Has faded since 911. I remember then that you couldn't turn your head and not see Old Glory flyin'. Where are they all now? :noid
-
Originally posted by Stringer
You'll have to post the part of the Constitution that says free speech only for US citizens....
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The People.
From the preable:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There, that's where it is.
Free speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States of America for the People of the United States of America.
-
Donzo: How do you suggest this be enforced? Should people be required to prove citizenship before saying stuff? Should we carry our passports or birth certificates, for instance?
Oh, followup question: What specific law would be used to stop teh evul furriners from talking?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The People.
From the preable:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
There, that's where it is.
Free speech is protected by the Constitution in the United States of America for the People of the United States of America.
It's not there.
The people you mention is in regards to peaceably assemble....
Also, do resident aliens (legal aliens here on green cards) not have the right to free speech because they are not US Citizens?? Those resident aliens that pay taxes, put into social security, and (in my father in laws case) own and operate their own businesses??
You are wrong as wrong can be.....the First Ammendment does not make the Citizen distinction...it doesn't even use the word.
-
Actually, String, he is partially right.
The language "We the People" explains that the power and authority of the federal government of the United States does not come from the various states, or even from the peoples of the various states, but rather from the greater entity identified as the people of the United States of America. The Constitution thus serves as a compact or contract between the people of the United States, the several States, and a newly created entity: the federal government of the United States.
The Constitution is indeed a deal between the people of the US (citizens) and their government.
However, he also ignores that fact that the Supremes have repeatedly ruled that non-citizens have most of the rights of citizens.
In fact, only three constitutional rights—voting in elections, holding certain political offices, and the absolute ability to enter and remain in the country—are denied noncitizens outright. Otherwise, the Constitution grants to “the people” or “persons”—not just to citizens—the rights to due process and equal protection of the law, to freedom of speech and assembly, and to freedom from arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishments.
-
BTW, String.. how ya been? Doing any AH?
-
hey Toad...not bad...busy as heck!!...Been thinking about re-upping the AH sub.....how about you? How's the work load going with you?? I hope all is well!...
Gonna head out west during Thanksgiving to do some pheasant hunting. Might get out there for opening day, but I doubt it...especially since it's early like last year.
We need to do the BBQ thing in the near future!!
The Supreme Court and how the First Ammendment is applied on an every day routine is what I'm basing my opinion on, much as your Supremes quote illustrates.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Donzo: How do you suggest this be enforced? Should people be required to prove citizenship before saying stuff? Should we carry our passports or birth certificates, for instance?
Oh, followup question: What specific law would be used to stop teh evul furriners from talking?
Who said anything about enforcing anything?
As I said before, the whole thing stinks because the university is claiming "freedom of speech" as justification for invited him to speak. That's not justified, he has no such "right" on this soil. Does that make it wrong or illegal that he spoke at the university? No. But let's try to make some noble stand by saying that it's all freedom of speech.
-
Having some nobility is what separates men of quality. Just because someone else (a leader of country or the guy next door) is a handsomehunk, doesn't mean you have to be one too. ;)
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
That one is a citizen or not has nothing to do with the issue of Arzerbazaniidaddad talking at Columbia.
As Congress passed no law prohibiting his speech, his speech was protected from government interferance. He could have said anything he wanted, and not be thrown in jail. If Columbia had chosen to not let him speak, it would not have violated the 1st amendment, as Congress passed no law prohibiting his right to speak.
The 1st amendment does not say I can speak, it says congress cannot prohibit me from speaking. It limits the government, it does not limit me.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
That's not justified, he has no such "right" on this soil.
You would fail one of the US citizenship test questions since one of the questions is:
"What are two rights only for United States citizens?" (Note: underline not added by me)
They are only four rights granted exclusively to US citizens:
1. apply for a federal job
2. vote
3. run for office
4. carry a U.S. passport
-
Originally posted by Rolex
They are only four rights granted exclusively to US citizens:
More technically, rights are not granted by government: One founding document says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
More technically, rights are not granted by government: One founding document says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .
So would it be wrong for the US Gov to deny someone entry to US for the sole purpose of a speaking engagement?
-
quote:Originally posted by Holden McGroin
More technically, rights are not granted by government: One founding document says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. � That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .
Originally posted by Donzo
So would it be wrong for the US Gov to deny someone entry to US for the sole purpose of a speaking engagement?
The first amendment prohibits congress from preventing anyone from speaking in this country, however, there is nothing stating the unlawfulness of preventing an individual from entry to the county, to my knowledge.
-
Again... I have no problem with denying rights to people who are not citizens.. the right to enter the country for instance.
But... he was invited and came here legally and broke no laws.. we are not at war with him. I was not forced to attend or even know what he said... If I want to.. I can... win win.
What bothers me more is people shouting down others who are trying to speak... to me.. that is more of a violation of free speech than anything. To shout down a speaker is to deny the rest of us the right to hear them.
lazs
-
Agreed w/ Lazs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Again... I have no problem with denying rights to people who are not citizens.. the right to enter the country for instance.
But... he was invited and came here legally and broke no laws.. we are not at war with him. I was not forced to attend or even know what he said... If I want to.. I can... win win.
What bothers me more is people shouting down others who are trying to speak... to me.. that is more of a violation of free speech than anything. To shout down a speaker is to deny the rest of us the right to hear them.
lazs
Agreed. We have granted him addmittance to our land and now, that he is here by our permission, he should, indeed be given the right to speak.
#1 Because it does deny others the right to hear what he has to say.
#2 Because now, since he is here and and is covered under 1st amendment right to speak, as a guest of our country.
If we arbitrarily now deny him that right, what exactly is this saying about us? Do as I say and not as I do probably doesn't sit well in any culture or any language.
Please do not let me give the impression that I sympathize with the man. My feelings are quite to the contrary. We should not have taken him in as a guest in the first place, but since we did, we should follow our own rules rather than make ourselves out to be deceivers.
-
Ok... but.. that does not mean I will be swapping spit with the commies here on this board any more than with the republicans.
I only vote for the republicans because.. for me.. they will have less effect on my freedom than the democrats... by a factor of at least ten or more.
I am an individualist... a constitutionalist... pretty much a much less wimpy version of a libertarian. I realize that I will never have any political party to vote for so I make do with what comes up in front of me.
I also realize that bloody revolution would make me less free at least in the short term... likely for many decades... likely more restrictions on my freedom than even today.
The solution is to simply get away from people. rural means.... being forgotten about by my fellow busybody "Americans" Let them eat each other up with their whiney feel good laws and envy and self pity.
I am no martyr.
lazs
-
Again, Laz, agreed.
Point being though, somewhere along the line, someone let him in. That is the crux of the problem now. Indeed, quite irresponsible. I still believe that we should still walk the walk. so as to not contradict ourselves. It lends creedence to exactly this type of person and the anti-American agenda. I imagine the following type of statement: "Oh look, they allowed me here as a guest, and now are not following the rules of being a proper host, as dictated by their own laws. How can they try to regulate others in other contries when they have plenty of turds to polish at home?"
Let me state again that we should have left his filthy carcass out in the cold and never invited or allowed his presence to begin with.
-
VonMessa, one problem with that is that it's basically what the Soviet Union would have done. Unpopular opinion? Fine, then you can't get a visa. You're going to come over to be a missionary? Fine, then you can't get a visa.
The only countries that would keep someone out specifically because of what they were going to say are the ones that are afraid of what they'll hear. Allowing him in is a show of strength to the rest of the world. "We don't just talk the talk about liberty," to borrow your wording, "we walk the walk as well. Our country is founded on principles that no petty dictator can injure through his words."
-
Granted, what you say is truth, but why invite with the premeditated intent to belittle him in public. It does indeed show strength to invite him. I guess I could've been more specific. Don't invite a guest and then piss on his cornflakes right away. I mean this guy was lambasted preemptively, at the start by the "moderator" of all people. Who is the fool now. Doing that overshadows the whole inviting him as a guest notion. It also shows a degree of deceit.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
VonMessa, one problem with that is that it's basically what the Soviet Union would have done. Unpopular opinion? Fine, then you can't get a visa. You're going to come over to be a missionary? Fine, then you can't get a visa.
The only countries that would keep someone out specifically because of what they were going to say are the ones that are afraid of what they'll hear. Allowing him in is a show of strength to the rest of the world. "We don't just talk the talk about liberty," to borrow your wording, "we walk the walk as well. Our country is founded on principles that no petty dictator can injure through his words."
What about how and what is reported back in Iran about his speech? We gave him the stage and he dodged most questions and spewed things that the people back home would love to hear. I am sure that their media will take the parts that make him look good and cut out the rest...hell they probably won't even include the original questions, it will look like he was giving a speech. "Wow look at him, he is a leader on the world stage!"
Sure letting him speak may have been the noble thing to do, but at what long term cost? It's all going to go to propaganda that benefits him alone...we gain nothing by letting him come and speak. Yes, we did get to see what a nut job he is. But I think most of us knew that already...no need to show it again.
So yes, I agree that Our country is founded on principles that no petty dictator can injure through his words, but when those words are twisted and presented to another audience (not the USA), the outcome can injure us.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
What about how and what is reported back in Iran about his speech? We gave him the stage and he dodged most questions and spewed things that the people back home would love to hear. I am sure that their media will take the parts that make him look good and cut out the rest...hell they probably won't even include the original questions, it will look like he was giving a speech. "Wow look at him, he is a leader on the world stage!"
Sure letting him speak may have been the noble thing to do, but at what long term cost? It's all going to go to propaganda that benefits him alone...we gain nothing by letting him come and speak. Yes, we did get to see what a nut job he is. But I think most of us knew that already...no need to show it again.
So yes, I agree that Our country is founded on principles that no petty dictator can injure through his words, but when those words are twisted and presented to another audience (not the USA), the outcome can injure us.
Certainly by the old "see i told you they were the devil" idiom. It can certainly incite violence towards the U.S.
-
ya know what... I don't care what his media says about his visit.. the point will still get across that we let him speak... that we hated his guts but we let him speak.
That in America.. no matter how unpopular your view.. you won't get dragged off the street and sent to some hole for the rest of the current regime.
Maybe... just maybe.. they will wonder why Americans are not invited to their universities to speak.
lazs
-
lazs, I truly hope that you are right. I hope that what I think is proven to be false in this instance. Somehow, I'm confident that it won't. There are far too many over there that still believe in magical spells and the like for me to put a lot of confidence in them "seeing the light". Time will tell.
-
man... you guys never really get to know your adversaries...well until it's too late.
iranian universities are the epicenters of the democracy movement. i'd bet if it was aired they were all snickering throughout the hallways.
best you could do now is to send your village idiot over, at least then each would realize both leaders are babbling moronic idiots.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Again... I have no problem with denying rights to people who are not citizens.. the right to enter the country for instance.
But... he was invited and came here legally and broke no laws.. we are not at war with him. I was not forced to attend or even know what he said... If I want to.. I can... win win.
What bothers me more is people shouting down others who are trying to speak... to me.. that is more of a violation of free speech than anything. To shout down a speaker is to deny the rest of us the right to hear them.
lazs
I know it may be hard to believe, Laz, but we agree. Toast to you!
:0
-
Originally posted by FBBone
We're not talking about "most" Iranians here, are we? No, we're talking about one in particular, and he's not pro-U.S.
With the bad punctuation in this post from you, I don't think you have any room to criticize the President:
A bit of an over use of the comma key, sir. My God man, if you pause that much while speaking someone is likely to mistake it for a stuttering problem.
But, as usual from you, any chance to jab at Bush is a good one.
How, exactly, does this come into play here? Not giving a radical foreign dictator a podium from which to bash us is now equal to craping on the Constitution? He has a venue in our country, that is also hostile to our country, from which he can thumb his nose at the U.S. and the rest of the world. It's called the U.N., let him speak from there. By the way, I never said to silence the man, how you may have inferred that I'll never know. I'm simply suggesting that, when someone is trying to bash us, we neither hand him the clubs nor a safe place from which to swing.
Are you kidding me? My post was puntuated properly... grammatically correct, with a subject and predicate to every sentence. This is something which was quite the antithesis of your fragment laced tirade.
Any jab at Bush? The leader of our country actually said "childrens do not learn", without correction, and without comprehension of his gaffe. He used that statement as an ARGUMENT for his policy, as a keystone point, actually. You may defend him to your heart's content, the man is still a moron.
Also, sir, commas are intended for use to indicate natural pauses in reading, to prevent run on sentences, as well as limit the obvious malicious fragment.
You know, kinda like all those fragments you just typed up there.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Freedom of speech is not given to us by the Constitution, citizen or not, the Constitution prohibits government from trampling on the rights which are inborn .
A key point which bears frequent repetition. TY.
-
Torque,
I think hillary is perfectly welcome to go fill the village idiot position in iran, as long as she stays there.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
So would it be wrong for the US Gov to deny someone entry to US for the sole purpose of a speaking engagement?
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That all men are created equal... not all citizens, all men.
Due to the 1st amendment, the government does not have the authority to stifle descent.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Voltaire
so, yes.
-
moray... I do not find it in the least strange that we agree on this.. probly for different reasons... my reasons are clear and as stated tho.
If you find it strange that I have the view I do on this then it simply means that you lack reading comprehension. I am an individualist.. I am for individual freedom in the manner of the founding fathers. I accept very limited, necessary restrictions on said freedom.
Which means I accept a very limited form of government.. bare bones.
I don't want the republicans in my bedroom or at a roadblock and I don't want the democrats in every other part of my life.
I don't want your "free" stuff and I will risk my life in any manner I wish so long as it can't harm anyone else. I don't feel that I am entitled to anything anyone else owns and I don't think anyone is entitled to anything I own except what it takes to run the army and the courts.
I don't want to be told what I can see or hear and I don't want to have special people around me... ones who can't hear certain words (barring children of course) or who have to have special treatment based on some racial preference.. who are able to say words I am not.
I don't want money and freedom taken from me to combat some man made global warming scam where the math doesn't even add up.
lazs
-
Holden,
Based on that premise then anyone physically inside the USA would be able to vote in the elections. Would you like to revisit the concept that not ALL rights are granted to any person who just happens to be within the borders of the country?
While you are talking about the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" how would you consider that to apply to illegal aliens? Since they can be deported, it would seem your premise is somewhat flawed as deporting them is certainly likely to impair their "right" to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if that means staying in the country is what that means for them.
-
Maverick, time to re-read the 19th amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." or the 26th:
"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
In fact, in every amendment that defines suffrage, it explicitly says citizens, so... null program.
-
We the people of the United States
That's how the Constitution starts. Everything contained in it is a contract between "the people" (citizens) and the government.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray... I do not find it in the least strange that we agree on this.. probly for different reasons... my reasons are clear and as stated tho.
If you find it strange that I have the view I do on this then it simply means that you lack reading comprehension. I am an individualist.. I am for individual freedom in the manner of the founding fathers. I accept very limited, necessary restrictions on said freedom.
Which means I accept a very limited form of government.. bare bones.
I don't want the republicans in my bedroom or at a roadblock and I don't want the democrats in every other part of my life.
I don't want your "free" stuff and I will risk my life in any manner I wish so long as it can't harm anyone else. I don't feel that I am entitled to anything anyone else owns and I don't think anyone is entitled to anything I own except what it takes to run the army and the courts.
I don't want to be told what I can see or hear and I don't want to have special people around me... ones who can't hear certain words (barring children of course) or who have to have special treatment based on some racial preference.. who are able to say words I am not.
I don't want money and freedom taken from me to combat some man made global warming scam where the math doesn't even add up.
lazs
Well, Laz, it was not from lack of reading comprehension. It was more of an overall lighthearted poke that we have some points that each would not contest. Thanks for trying to turn it into something else...and the touch about bringing in global warming was.... just a tad bit off topic. I don't know why you deem me as some fanatic there, I do all of my work in the ocean.
This topic was on the rights of the Iranian president, on his speaking engagement at Columbia, and not on CO2 and global effects therein.
Any visiting citizen of any country is generally given all of the rights granted in ours. It is a question of law, not of the constitution.
-
The lack of true understanding on the Iranians is staggering, by most of the people posting here.
Iran is the epicenter of the middle east democratic movement. You all should do just a little more research on your own, without eating what any administration, particularly this one, shoves down your throat.
Second, Ahmadinejad, isn't even the real policy maker in the country. He is a talking head, and is almost as despised there as Bush is here. His popularity there has plummetted, due to his personal views and his retarded stance on things the as the holocaust and Israel. (Sidenote..there are quite a few scholars who think the translations on his views on Israel have been grossly mis-translated) What I am getting to, is that Ahmadinejad does not speak for the majority of Iran's citizenry, just as you must concede that President Bush does not speak for the majority here.
I am not defending him, I'm just an advocate for intellect to triumph over knee jerk reactions stemming from spoon fed media in this country. Critical thinking in our country is at an all time low, and most people need to be told how to feel, along with the 5 W's of standard journalism.
And third, don't forget that we sponsored a war between Iran and Iraq that cost Iran a very large amount of money and lives that lasted for 8 years, principally due to the conflagration that was the Shah of Iran. Study up on your history prior to believing your viewpoint is worth contributing.
-
on things SUCH as the holocaust and Israel
Corrected for grammar...because someone is watching my every spelling on here, and I was typing while watching a movie.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Any visiting citizen of any country is generally given all of the rights granted in ours. It is a question of law, not of the constitution.
"all" of the rights? please restate that.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Iran is the epicenter of the middle east democratic movement. You all should do just a little more research on your own, without eating what any administration, particularly this one, shoves down your throat.
The rank and file Iranians are said to be such...alas, THEY have naught to do with running their country, and there's prolly gonna be a mullah-smackdown in their future--rigidly enforced Sharia law is the norm there, with a military to back it up:
link (http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/women.html)
On August 10, 1994, in the city of Arak, a woman was sentenced to death by stoning. According to the ruling of the religious judge, her husband and two children were forced to attend the execution. The woman urged her husband to take the children away, but to no avail. A truck full of stones was brought in to be used during the stoning. In the middle of the stoning, although her eyes had been gouged out, the victim was able to escape from the ditch and started running away, but the regime's guards recaptured her and shot her to death.
link (http://www.ukgaynews.org.uk/Archive/2005july/2101.htm)
LONDON, July 21 – Two gay teenagers were publicly executed in Iran on 19 July 2005 for the ‘crime’ of homosexuality. The youths were hanged in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad, in north east Iran. They were sentenced to death by Court No. 19.
Iran enforces Islamic Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex.
One youth was aged 18 and the other was a minor under the age of 18. They were only identified by their initials, M.A. and A.M.
They admitted – probably under torture, London-based gay human rights group Outrage! suggests – to having gay sex but claimed in their defence that most young boys had sex with each other and that they were not aware that homosexuality was punishable by death.
Prior to their execution, the teenagers were held in prison for 14 months and severely beaten with 228 lashes.
Their length of detention suggests that they committed the so-called offences more than a year earlier, when they were possibly around the age of 16..
link (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/280393/sex_lies_and_muslim_sharia_law_iran.html?page=2)
Per a report at Iran Focus, an Iranian man was executed in 2005 for running a porn ring. He was publicly hanged in the town of Qazvin, west of the Iranian capital Tehran. The unnamed man was accused of running a brothel and producing pornographic videos along with his wife. The couple had both been sentenced to 10 years in prison, five years in exile, 80 lashes and execution for running the prostitution ring and being found in possession of alcohol, drugs, and illicit CDs. The man's sentence was carried out in front of the judge that sentenced him in one of the town's squares on a Monday morning, while his wife had been executed several months beforehand.
Despite what's being reported in the headlines, it appears that nothing's really new under the sun regarding Iran, pornography and the sex industry. Under Iran's Islamic law, adultery and corruption on earth are still punishable by death.
link (http://governmentdirt.com/kurdish_reporters_sentenced_to_death_for_writing_against_iran_and_sharia_law) Persian Journal reports that Mullahs' judiciary confirmed that two journalist from the country's Kurdish minority have been sentenced to death, a rare verdict against media people in Iran, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported on Tuesday.
"Adnan Hassanpour and Hiva Boutimar have been sentenced to execution on the charge of Moharebeh," the agency quoted Ali Reza Jamshidi, spokesman of judiciary, as saying. Moharebeh, which literally means "fighting" in classical Arabic, is used in Iran's Sharia law to describe a major crime against the religion and the Islamic state.
The official news agency did not specify what crime the two Kurdish journalists were precisely accused of. There was no immediate comment on when or how the sentence could be executed.
The journalists were deemed activists in Sanandaj, the capital of the western Iranian province of Kurdistan, bordering Iraq. They were detained after Kurds protested in Sanandaj in 2005.
Being directly responsible for killing scores of our soldiers and Marines hasn't piqued the left's interest too much, but hanging GAY people is just going too damn far:O
-
Chairboy,
Would you mind possibly going back and reading my post again. Please note I was talking to a specific individual about their specific post. It had nothing to do with you. Don't read into it what was not specifically stated.
:huh
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Holden,
Based on that premise then anyone physically inside the USA would be able to vote in the elections.
No,
AMENDMENT XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
AMENDMENT XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--
AMENDMENT XIX
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
AMENDMENT XXIV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
AMENDMENT XXVI
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
The right to vote is clearly kept for citizens only.
Article. I.
Section 8
(The Congress shall have Power) To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Section 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person
So qualification for citizenship of foreign born is controlled, and after 1808, migration can be constituionally controlled.
However: speech, religion, redress of grievances, search and seizure, bail, criminal proceedings... these are for people, not just citizens.
-
Holden,
I am aware of the items you posted in what you said just above this one. What I was doing was pointing out the omission in your post of the discrimination between the full rights of citizenship and those of visitors, legal and otherwise. By putting only the information I have quoted below in your prior post, it seemed like you were advocating full and unrestricted rights being granted to anyone who is physically in the border of this country. That is why I pointed out what I did earlier. In this country all men / women are NOT created equally as there are specifics that grant more rights to citizens than visitors, legal or otherwise. It is also possible to have some of those rights taken away from you even if you are a citizen.
Thanks for answering my post.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
That all men are created equal... not all citizens, all men.
Due to the 1st amendment, the government does not have the authority to stifle descent.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- Voltaire
so, yes.
-
So far as iran... they may be the most peacful and loving democratic people on the planet that just happen to have a nutcase hate monger for a leader.
I can't dispute that. none of us can know... we have an iranian here who claims that is true.
What can't be denied tho is that not that long ago.. they had another nutcase hatemonger leader and he broke into our embassy and blindfolded and paraded through the streets a bunch of US citizens.
These peaceful and democratic iranians seemed to be a tad mean spirited in the mob scenes I seen. People can change... I just don't buy it just yet... given the guy they elected and support.
And moray... there will always be things we agree on.. I very much doubt that our reasons for doing so tho will be anywhere near the same.
lazs
-
A year old article about Ahmadinejad:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/20/gb.01.html
"Now, look, it doesn`t matter if I don`t believe that it`s the apocalypse. It doesn`t matter if you don`t. The important thing is these people do, and they`re dead serious. A year ago he said the end of the world would happen within three years. Don`t be fooled by the talk of peace and brotherhood."
If the madman wants chaos, he may just get it. Though it probably won't be global.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece