If we say we stand for the rule of law, freedom, the first amendment and we also have the best thing going for all in the world then why be afraid to have Mr. Ahmadinejad talk all he wants. If I were a student and had the opportunity to listen to a world leader I would get their early with pad and pencil and prepared questions on issues I disagreed on. You cannot learn hiding in the closet or under your blankets. If we are right we will prevail. Diplomacy works...weren't we preparing to do in the north Koreans not to long ago. Lets talk so that we may walk or all fight, no chicken hawks, no exemptions, no you go and I'll make millions like some are doing now. BS, I have lost enough family members to misguided wars. I spent some of my best years in a God forsaken place serving in the Armed Forces while some people went to school and prospered. I had to start from the bottom, playing catch up and never did. So no, celebrate courage like that of Pres. Lee Bollinger of Columbia.
2007-09-24 04:14:30 · 11 answers · asked by cristales 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It doesn't matter if Bush is welcome in Tehran. This isn't Tehran. It is the U.S.A. A place where we don't shy away from the controversial. A place where diverse ideas are shared. And since the man can't answer a question there isn't a problem. What are you people afraid of? For myself I would love to hear him speak. I watched him on 60 minutes last night. He's a character.
2007-09-24 04:29:20 · answer #1 · answered by gone 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
After seeing Bollinger's introduction and the absolute ridiculous way that Ahmadi Nejad talked in circles about absolutely nothing, I've changed my mind on the decision to allow him to speak.
The truth is, it's Columbia's decision, as an institution in a free country, to let anyone they choose speak.
It's also quite apparent that the people of Iran (a wonderful and intellegent people otherwise) have a serious problem on their hands that they need to fix now before this pig-fecking psycho brings down destruction upon that fair land. That anyone in Iran or the Muslim world supports him is a mystery, but then again Islam has a long history of hate and war against 'infidels', so maybe this bozo is the best they have to offer.
One point I must agree with the Psycho on, it's that opposing points of view, no matter how hateful and distasteful they are, do have a right to be spoken. In France and Germany and a few other Fascist-Socialist states in Europe, it's not legal to publish opposing points-of-view on certain topics. and that is just plain wrong.
2007-09-24 09:34:22 · answer #2 · answered by DJ 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a BIG difference between allowing a PRIVATE school to let a controversial character speak, versus having a PUBLIC school host the same character. A private school can pretty much ask anyone to speak, since it is privately funded. However, if you apply the same rules to a public school, it would not work.
This is America, NOT Iran. The constitution protects the freedom of speech. That is why even controversial characters like the president of Iran can speak his mind. God bless the constitution!
2007-09-24 04:54:38 · answer #3 · answered by Think Richly™ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think of its recuperating slowly....I observe these days with the media that they now conceal thoughts that they does no longer have carried out so like 2 years in the past. besides the shown fact that, i do no longer think in 'absolute' freedom, as with each and each freedom could be practiced responsibly. to illustrate, we don't choose racists human beings making racists comments interior the call of freedom of speech, or hateful human beings like Stardust right here. To Stardust: you will ought to homicide all Muslims for that.
2016-10-05 06:51:26 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agreed. No matter how distasteful it is to have Ahmadinejab speak, we must let him have the soapbox.
Otherwise the first amendment stands for nothing.
The good thing is that Ahmadinejab will have to answer questions in response to his speech and actions.
Whenever the KKK wants to have a rally, we all must put up with it. Our tax dollars are spent on police to protect those cowards and publically fiananced buildings are used to allow them to spout their message of hate.
Allowing Ahmadinejab to speak is no different.
2007-09-24 04:21:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
we should have invited hilter, stalin and the likes to give them a place to talk. other than he has targeted israel, supplies weapons into iraq, has prayed for the fall of the united states and hides al queda members, all of which is proven, what could he have to say. i have heard this guy enough in several world newspapers to know that he hates us. and bolinger wont let rotc on campus because of the "don't ask don't tell" yet the iranian gov. this guy leads a kills gays because they are gay. bolinger is to stupid! he has no courage. you speak of n. korea and talking yet now we find n. koreans in the middle east "talking" with the syrians.????????
2007-09-24 04:39:06 · answer #6 · answered by BRYAN H 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Bollinger is a "progresssssive". They have not met a dictator or terrorist they haven't liked. This is proof.
If they invite open dialogue why did they deny the ROTC and Minuteman group? Liberals are such chumps!
2007-09-24 04:43:46 · answer #7 · answered by No Black Box 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The leader of Iran is very controversial though. I have heard him speak, and quite honestly he dodges questions and doesn't give clear answers. He doesn't practice free speech in his country, and in fact attempts to control it. Why should we afford him the luxury here? There's also the danger of Americans taking his messages to heart and turning against us. A slim risk to be sure, but not one I'd want to take. Do you think Bush would be welcome in Tehran? I doubt it....
2007-09-24 04:23:49 · answer #8 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
My problem is that they only allow ONE side to speak - the left.
They denied an American citizen the same respect, just because he's not a liberidiot. How in the heck is that an example of freedom? Simple - it's not. That's an example of indoctrination.
2007-09-24 04:19:43 · answer #9 · answered by Jadis 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
The true test of freedom is defending the right of someone who is unpopular to speak.
2007-09-24 04:20:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋