Kudos to those Ivory Tower Libs..

[Maverick]

Torque,

I think hillary is perfectly welcome to go fill the village idiot position in iran, as long as she stays there.

[Holden McGroin]

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.

[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

[Maverick]

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.

[Chairboy]

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.

[Donzo]

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.

[MORAY37]

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.

[MORAY37]

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.

[MORAY37]

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.

[john9001]

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.

[bj229r]

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

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

 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

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

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

[Maverick]

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.

[Holden McGroin]

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.

[Maverick]

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.

[lazs2]

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