Was it over the top?

Did you think it glorified terrorism?

Does it presuppose that Mohammed was in fact God's prophet?

Did you think it denigrated Christianity or Judaism?

Would the report have been more accurately named if it were called Mohammed's Warriors?

Was CNN right in promoting this idealism at the expense of Christianity?

Troll behavior nonetheless. Nothing like a little unnecessary rudeness to liven up an otherwise boring day.

I think you're right hiker and that there is a pack of Ahmadinejads behind Ahmadinejad. The collection of ruling authority in Iran is suspect as I see it.

Apparently this is getting to be the mainstream perspective at this point as well. It seems that 75 or 80 percent of the American people consider Iran to be terrorist and a great risk. Maybe it is the success of propaganda, but then maybe it is the success of Iran itself in promoting its extremist agenda.

Wow. One more theory debunked.

Too easy to make a mistake in a conviction. Life without parole is reversible, death penalty is not. It is hard to define a threshold of proof that is acceptable.

I can't respond to this because I haven't gone to the link. Can you please post the pertinent few related comments from the article? I just really don't like clicking all over the place to see things.

I'll give some related info though. I have it on poor authority that Ahmadinejad is working for the Israelis. By raising the issue of the holocaust he intends to force Germany to open their holocaust records, thereby enabling the Jewish people to get a look at the records, which will then enable them to sue Germany for reparations. Besides which by creating a war between Israel and Iran, Israel will be able to set back Iran's nuclear ambitions for years, so Israel is the country to gain from that scenario.

This of course is an unfounded conspiracy theory so certain people here should just love the idea.

Try Lead Bismuth (370 f)or tin-lead. Those alloys melt somewhat lower. Anyway somewhere in the 300s. If you inject water into it, it becomes steam, lightens the one sides lightly and things flow.

Anyway I'm off topic because I don't like to go to links. The point of being so far off topic was to encourage people to give a little more info about their links. If I have a little more info I might go look at a link if it is interesting to me and a link site that I am comfortable with.

So there!

Fanta, you're trying to preach to the choir, I pretty much said those things, except for the fact that I fundamentally disagree with you on all things, just on principle, except for when we agree of course.

Voil, your parable is trite and so cliche. It cuts both ways too. It can just as easily be said that Bl8ant also refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem for gays living in Iran. And it looks to me like Spider's opening statements you referenced were quotes, although he did not say who he was quoting. I think he should have been more clear about that.

As for gays in Iran, I have it on good authority that most of the mullahs there are in fact f-cking each other in their little den of mullahdom. Apparently this is a well known fact in Iran. One caveat, my source may in fact be relying on popular urban legends within Iran and invective as a source. However I suspect there may be some ring of truth in there or it would not be such a widely popularized opinion.

I think it may be a matter of killing the gays if they know about them and they are not mullahs. The sword cuts one way in the case where the mullahs are involved, as in all aspects of Iranian freedom and security.

Was this post about anything? I don't usually do utube.

I'm really up for some new idealism about now.

Lets try being idealists about renewable energy. Did you know you can create a u-tube filled with lead-antimony and inject steam into one side and the lead will flow (must be heated to melting first) then placing large magnets around the tube and electrodes on opposite sides of the magnetic field, extract electricity from the device? It is actually quite efficient. Any takers?

Nice hat.

I tend to come down on the side of free speech as well. However I just wouldn't give him any advantage. (the pulpit)

He is saying now that the 200 or so students came to him and listened to him as a teacher, and they listened to him with rapt attention, and he was able to teach them about the things they didn't know already.

I differ in opinion about that, but obviously he is using the opportunity to enhance his image and his standing with others. So he got something I would not have given him. But as I said, it was the universities choice, not mine.

But Voil, can you not separate the two items, allowing someone free speech, and inviting him to speak in a particular place?

If you can not, then are you not personally guilty of censorship because you didn't invite Idi Amin, or perhaps Pol Pot to speak at your own university? By that criteria are we not all guilty of censorship every time we fail to invite a dignitary?

That certainly is not a perversion of freedom, freedom also means you don't have to invite someone you don't like.

What in the world are you all talking about here? The question was whether Bush hates the children of poor people. I think the question was small minded and petty, mainly because it is unlikely that Bush actually hates the children of the poor.

As to whether he cares about their health care, are the children of parents earning 80,000 per year actually poor and in need of government assistance for their health insurance? I suspect maybe they are not. Since he did not disable the existing plan he has not adversely affected the children of the poor.

So I guess the answer is no, there is no evidence that he actually hates the children of the poor.

Well reread my original post then. In it I said nothing about censorship. In fact I was quite open about seeking other's opinions. I'm still interested in them.

I have not supported censorship throughout this series. Exclusion from a certain opportunity based on past activities is not unreasonable though. For instance, consider if you have a dog that always makes a mess on your sidewalk. You can only let the dog walk in the grass. That way your sidewalk stays clean. You are not preventing the dog from relieving himself, just preventing him from doing so on your sidewalk. Inside I'm laughing a little because my friend from Paris was telling me that was a particular problem.

As for free speech. It's pretty important. I may argue against him being invited to speak at the university, but when it gets down to the final day, if they are determined to have him speak I would accept their decision.

Now, I am seeing that in your reply you didn't mention my comment about advertising and marketing as applied to his situation. I think this was actually a different sort of commentary. Since you didn't respond to that am I to conclude that in fact you didn't actually read my comments before criticizing me for repetition?

As for whether the topic has moved on would you like me to address the US getting out of the UN or Arms for Hostages, or perhaps the demonic possession of Dubya's brain? I'm still interested in the original issues.

Anyway I still didn't get to read all of yesterday's responses. I'll have to follow up. I know some are off topic.

Any intelligent person knows the value and the importance of advertising and marketing.

When one group advertises it takes attention away from another group. Hitler promoted his agenda with a marketing campaign, spreading his word as far and wide as possible. It was instrumental in his success.

When you give Ahmadinejad the pulpit, you bolster his advertising and marketing campaign. So this amounts to support. It may be inadvertent support, but only because you were too stupid to understand the subtleties. If you think it was only bad publicity he gained remember the adage that all publicity is good publicity. Also look at the media today and you will see that his speaking bolstered his support and his status at home.

My Iranian buddies tell me the Mullahs are well known to be homosexual. They tell me everyone knows the Mullahs are f-cking each other all the time in their little mullah center. Apparently for the 'in' crowd it is ok.

Anoasis, would you like to have been responsible for bolstering Hitler's support just because you didn't realize the ramifications of giving him the pulpit. Before the holocaust Hitler had already invaded Poland and U-boats were rampantly attacking vessels in the Atlantic.

Everybody likes to point out that the CIA had something to do with the shah being in power so they should expect it when the ayatollah and his group took power. Nobody seems to mention any possible connection with the Russian KGB when the ayatollah took over, except for my Iranian friends, who mostly feel strongly about the matter. So once again, it is bad for the US to create activities, but never noticed for Russia or other countries. One country gets the criticism for decades and the other gets a free pass. Why.

One more thing, the people I know from Iran consider Carter to be the stupidest president the United States ever had. Personally I don't think he was stupid. I think he was a polyanna in rose-colored glasses. Except for his unbending faith in the good nature of everyone everywhere, he was a pretty smart fellow. Its a shame people couldn't measure up to his faith in them. If they had Iran would be living in peace with its neighbors.

I haven't had a chance to read all your responses, sort of busy, but I thank you for responding. I'll look it over tomorrow afternoon.

Kerry, this country has a long tradition of free speech. Columbia University stands on that foundation. It is really hard to criticize that sort of thing. It is important to let people speak. However I think there has to be a line. Is there no behavior that is so bad you wouldn't simply cordon off the individual and not hand him the microphone. I think everyone has a tolerance level, and that level varies from person to person. In the interest of satisfying all the people sometimes it seems better to go a little farther than you might ordinarily go if it were just you, yourself. In that line I think Columbia will not suffer so much ignominy. However the fact remains that so many people feel so strongly, that they will take hard lines against Columbia U. declaring it to be every kind of anti-american radical.

Voil I don't agree that in the name of free speech you have to hand someone the microphone. Free speech is about the government restricting individuals from making political comments in a public venue. When a university decides not to invite someone to speak, that individual is still able to exercise free speech, he is simply not invited to share it at a particular location by a particular group. Your comment begs the question whether every university that did not invite him to speak denied him the right to free speech. I would hardly say Harvard, for example, denied him the right to speak, they simply weren't interested enough in his words to invite him.

Now I'll mention something about his appearance at the University. The appearance there was tough. Highly critical remarks were made. Some of these were personal attacks against his character. Some might say that is not how you treat a guest. That also is a slight against the university. An Iranian I know said he was amazed at how badly he was treated. He points out that the university president could suffer serious consequences, being fired, or even murdered. He points out how many people have been murdered already when the cross the man. I don't think we have an accurate count on that score.

For my guess, I think the university president will be just fine, but he has to live with his own words. Some of those words were that he would invite Hitler to speak (before the holocaust of course). I don't think even he would invite Hitler after the holocaust. So it is a rich tradition of tolerance. Long line tolerance. But to play a part in popularizing a hateful message is wrong. To play a part in covering hateful actions by letting someone stand and tell bald faced lies and platitudes is also wrong. In any case it does not help. I just think he is over the line.

If the guy was not given the venue for his speech it wouldn't matter. We hear his stuff all the time. It is all over the media every day. He doesn't say anything new when he gives speeches.

If he doesn't get an invitation to speak here, what is he going to do, go home and whine to the people he will not speak in his own country? He has nobody to complain to. Pots calling kettles black are absurd anyway.

Voil I don't mind him speaking, I just don't like the guy and I am certain he has nothing new to say. Columbia is a pack of fools for not already knowing his stance well enough to not need to hear from him.

I just think they will keep building until they have war, so probably sooner is better than later.

The Iranians I know really dislike their government anyway. They wish it was gone.

If Persia wants to be a world leader it should do so through academia, science and philosophy. People could respect them for that. That guy is no credit to Iran. He is a smear on any place he goes. Unfortunately he has painted Columbia University now in a very bad light. If you don't think that is true then admit at least that to he at least painted it controversial.

Many people will lose respect for the university as a result. Some may go the opposite way and love the school for it, but it will always have that stain when someone shows a degree from there. The university will lose students and support.

He made the University look like an ass by showing his face there. He didn't have anything interesting to say so it was a waste of time.

Lots of people thing he should have been able to speak. When they give their opinion I understand their right to speak. Just because people have a right to say such things does not mean that people have to actually do them. Like riding a motorcycle across the country, or swimming the English Canal. Sometimes it is better to just talk about them a little and then forget about it. I think it is such with having Iran's leader for tea. Sounds nice and civil, but he remains a hateful man. Really I would not want him at my table.

Fanta, I'm sure you are just fine with your opinions. I just don't like them or agree with them or think they are well thought out. That's life. You actually did make the point that you thought it would be just fine if Iran were to have nukes in a previous thread. If you are retracting that now I'll pretend it never happened and let it go. I would hope that maybe it was a misunderstanding.

I do not think it is inevitable that Iran will have them. I am actually worried that is a new Carter-like president takes office then they might throw Musharaff (sp) to the wolves and let the Islamic extremists in Pakistan have the nukes he has
built. If that happens the Afghanistan war may extend to Pakistan and that might be nuclear. At this point a war with Iran might not be.

I am concerned that the arms war in the middle east is expanding. Iran is fomenting this unrest. I think the United States and several other countries would like to take Iran's military down a notch in order to stem the tide of extremist rhetoric in the region. That does not mean they want to kill all the women and children and burn the towns, it means they want to take down the military and the extremism. Fanta I don't think you are willing to see the difference between the two. But I could be wrong. How about it?

And put on a shirt. I'm getting pretty tired of looking a the picture you cobbled off the web somewhere. It really takes away from your credibility.