Progressive Politics from an "Urban Liberal" in Westminster, Maryland.
Not all of us. A'jad didn't need Columbia's imprimatur for people to recognize him for the cruel and petty dictator he is. Like Hitler and Stalin before him the proof is there for anyone willing to look for it.
Congratulations Mark, you win for the earliest use of Godwin's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law.
Russel,That may be so, but my comment has the added value of being TRUE!I also note from your reference on Godwin's law that, "there is a widely recognized codicil that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful." And, "Godwin's Law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions." I was making the apt comparsion of A'jad to Hitler and Stalin, I was NOT calling Andrew a Nazi, which your invocation of Godwin's law is implying. Given that my statement is historically accurate, your invocation of Godwin's law proves the codicil. If all you can do is invoke Godwin's law instead of dealing with the substance of what I wrote then that doesn't say much for your side of things. Then again you really did not have much of a real argument to begin with.
I will address your argument Mark. Just because you know how horrible A'jad is, doesn't mean that most Americans do. His statements at the event cemented for pretty much all Americans (except for perhaps those who hate homosexuals) that A'jad is a crazy, rather dangerous individual. This is really a matter of whether or not you believe in the free exchange of ideas or not, even when those ideas come from someone who supresses such freedom in his own nation. I do hope you will reconsider which side you are standing on.
Again you miss my point, which is to long to make in a blog comment.See my 3 posts on the subjecthttp://themainadversary.blogspot.com/2007/09/i-stand-with-israel.htmlhttp://themainadversary.blogspot.com/2007/09/species-of-political-capitulation.htmlhttp://themainadversary.blogspot.com/2007/09/ahmadinejad-reax.htmlTo truncate my complex argument:Its not about free exchange of ideas. As I said before that A'jad is a thugish dictator was a well known fact. Columbia did not need to invite him for "free exchange of ideas." We already knew how abhorrent those ideas already were. All it did was give him a chance propagandize.
Even if it was "propagandizing" as you claim, since when was that illegal?
Huh? I never said it was "ilegal." and it was never my point. Seriously, if you are going to debate you need to offer more than that pablum.Also, if you can't see that A'Jad was propagandizing then you are truly lost.
Of course he was propagandizing. Its not illegal, and yet Republican congressmen are introducing legislation to strip funding from university based on an act of speech. To me, that is troubling.If you aren't saying his speech was illegal, what is your point? That it was "bad"? Ok, whatever, I have work to do.At this point, I am going to end this little "debate", which is really just you hurling insults and calling them arguments. I could care less what you wrote on your blog, as its just more of your "conservative delusion". Not so nice when thrown back in your face, eh?
Post a Comment