Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/28/07 12:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/27/07 06:13 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: There's a shitload of domestic abuse, murder, rape, robbery, and the rest of all that good stuff, right here in America, too. Compared to other Middle Eastern countries that are theocracies, Iran is pretty moderate.

And compared to Stalin, Hitler was a right winger.

If you're making that decision based on the deaths attributed to each, it's irrelevant.

What point are you trying to make?

I'm trying to say that people think Amahdinejad is a totalitarian dictator that rules with an iron fist while his people suffer. He is an elected official, and his term will end eventually. He represents the religious demographic of Iran, the fundamental muslims. That doesn't mean that all of Iran thinks the way he does. Much of Iran is moderate- especially the new middle class. I'm trying to say that thinking that Amahdinejad represents the whole of Iran is like saying that Bush represents the whole of America, which obviously isn't the case.

It still sucks in Iran. We have abuse here, but it's neither religiously or state-ly condoned.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying that when compared to the rest of the Middle East, Iran is much less oppressive.

At 9/27/07 04:48 AM, Alphabit wrote:

At 9/27/07 01:24 AM, Bolo wrote: I think the Columbia university president, as well as many protesting Americans, lowered themselves to Ahmadinejad's level, through their blatant disrespect.

I'll be the last one to condone Ahmadinejad's actions, but we could have conducted ourselves in a much more civilized manner. Do you know what this sort of thing looks like to other countries? Xenophobia. That's the last thing America needs right now- more countries pissed off at it for being closed minded.

Thank you. That's the point I was trying to get across. I keep saying that this is not about Iran; it's about the US itself, but the discussion keeps coming back to the 'Oh, but they're evil they deserve it'.

I never once used Mr. Preso'iran's Notion of ill-actions as an excuse to dislike him. I said this thing happens all the time to and from individuals who argue on a 1vmany basis... like, they're speech isn't treated with respect. Press conferences are different on the respect that reporters are trained officials, but do you remember when the 'minute men' visited columbia university, they retreated them WORSE than what they did to mr. Presoiran... Much worse, they Boo'd them when they entered, the boo'd them when they left, and they turned they're backs as he was talking.

First of all... I want to get into DEEP detail in explaining something to you about the way that people behave. I would like you to find me a specific article detailing the blatant disrespect that americans showed mr. Presoiran so i can make specific statements without being critizied, i need a target; if you please.

Considering you have already come to the conclusion that americans were disrespectfull to this man, you should have no problem summoning for me an article which talks about the specific disrespects they showed him.

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: I am pretty disgusted at how the Americans reacted to the visit by the Iranian president. The American government conducted themselves like total brats. I really don't care how much the US despises this man; he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation; one that is made up of both bad and good people. For one I believe that it was anti-constitutional to not allow him to visit ground zero; this is goes against the very foundations of American ideology; freedom.

Lolno. Get a fucking clue, read the damn constitution. Not allowing someone to visit a closed area doesn't violate their right to religion, speech, expression, or speech.

I don't see why American's care so much; he's not the one who destroyed the WTC, why can't he be allowed to visit it like a any regular folk.

That's what you get when you have your armies cause the death of American soldiers. Maybe when he gets the IRGC under control he can visit.

Now, beside the Iranian president's mis-treatment, the biggest issue to be concerned about is the message this event sends to the Iranian people themselves. Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches.

George Bush isn't giving funding to terrorists killing Americans. If a U.S Ambassador tried to visit a closed area in Russia back when we where funding Osama's bunch to kill russians, do you think they would?

I can tell you right now that you, as people be pissed of at the Russians. And this situation is an understatement to teh true impact of this arrogance on the part of the Americans; in an unstable Muslim country like Iran; they put even more emphasis on their president than we do on ours. The results of this 'meeting' (if you can call it that) are extremely counter-productive; the Iranian president is going back to his country angrier than before... Not only that, but this display of complete American arrogance and unwillingness to work towards peace will only further worsen the image that the Americans have in the middle east and the Muslim world.

Iran: I'm currently killing your troops, running a terrorist orginazation (The IRGC), and am a general civil rights abusers. Now give me special privilages so I can do a photoshoot that makes me look like I am AGAINST U.S-aimed terrorism, whilst I still FUND U.S-aimed terrorism.

Bush: Lolno

You: STOP DENYING IRAN THE ABILITY TO MAKE PEACE! EVEN THOUGH THEIR STILL KILLING OUR SOLDIERS BY FUNDING MAHDI!

America has very good engineers, professors, doctors and the like, but we are yet to see American politicians with the gift of common sense. I mean, a regular 10 year old could have done a better job at preparing for the Iranian visit; I honestly think that more would have been achieved if they did nothing at all.

Of course, all ten year olds love to give foreign terrorist facilitators rights not enjoyed by U.S citizens.

Hey, if the Anne Frank museum was closed for maintenance, you know who WOULDN'T be allowed to visit? The leader of the German Nazi Party.

At 9/28/07 01:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You wrote the 2nd stupidest thing I've ever read (After the lesbian who said Achmen..made her wet), that protesting a mass murdering, racist, war mongering, piece of garbage...made us xenophobic.

The American tradition is that everyone gets their fair chance to be judged, and that everyone deserves the freedom to state their opinions civilly in America.

Whether or not Ahmadinejad is a good person is beside the point, and totally off topic. In America, he should be able to speak his opinions, no matter how arrogant and misguided they may be, and engage in intelligent discourse, free of preconceived notions.

I would say the same about any person in human history.

Despite the fact that this may be the worst single person in the world...the protests against him were civil, intelligent, and completely above board.

This guy is by no means the "worst man in the world". The leaders of Sudan are essentially condoning the genocide of up to 2 million of their own citizens. There are dozens of other dictators who are worse than Ahmadinejad, and supress their people to a greater extent. The fact is, despite Iran's insistence to the contrary, it is relatively westernized already. I've read articles about how Iranian culture is closer to that of Europe and America's than just about all the rest of the Middle East. While Ahmadinejad has imposed greater state control over the last few years, its citizens are still better off than those of most countries of the region.

By no means, though, would I want to live in Iran myself. Its freedoms are still primitive and limited in comparison to American standards, and the level of theocratic state control really is unacceptable by the standards of developed nations. I'm simply saying that there are both better and worse off nations than Iran in the world, along with better and worse leaders.

Despite being a mass murdering piece of crap who hangs gays, wants to annihiliate Israel, and is killing our soldiers...you find fault with the best example of protestors in your entire life.

I think the protestors acted unfairly, and against the spirit of opportunity afforded to all people in the form of a chance to state their case, regardless of its morality, or lack thereof, and be judged according to testimony rather than preconceived notions.

Thus, Fair Trial by Jury allows defendents to state their case, or allows a lawyer to act as an intermediary. Eventually, if the court decides the defendent is guilty, he will be punished. But punishing the defendent before he makes his case is counter to the American spirit.

Did you watch the news? The crowds of pissed off people they interviewed, who were protesting Ahmadinejad's visit, have no idea who he really is -- they're only angry because he's from the Iran, and they've been told for the last 28 years that Iran is irreparably evil.

I'm not saying that Ahmadinejad isn't bad. We all know he's on record denying the Holocaust, and persecuting minorities with his country, but really; it's ridiculous that Ahmadinejad is being used as a selling point for hatred of the Middle East in general, when in reality most Middle Easterners would be happier if he just went away and stopped causing the region to enter America's crosshairs.

How are we supposed to greet this trash Bolo? Give him flowers? Throw him a party? Organize a parade in his honor. Quite simply, there has not been an event in this nation's history when leftists have acted so bloody stupid: decrying our intelligent citizenry as opposed to our worst enemy.

Like I said, reserve judgement for him until after he presents his case, and stop looking like we have a blanket hatred of the Middle East.

Anyone who demonizes the protesters against this trash should do us all a favor and just shut the hell up. It'd be better if you died or something, but that's asking too much.

The Ahmadinejad-hate-squad protestors look a lot, to me, like the Stars-and-Stripes burning jihadists, in that both know nothing about the perceived "agressive" or "evil" cultures which they protest.

At 9/28/07 06:29 PM, Bolo wrote:

He;s going to get heckled, what do you expect? This isn't a trial by the way so therefore the people has a right to heckle him. Don't forget his rep doesn't help either.

At 9/26/07 05:19 AM, Alphabit wrote: I am pretty disgusted at how the Americans reacted to the visit by the Iranian president. The American government conducted themselves like total brats. I really don't care how much the US despises this man; he 'may' be evil, but that doesn't change the fact that he represents a WHOLE nation; one that is made up of both bad and good people. For one I believe that it was anti-constitutional to not allow him to visit ground zero; this is goes against the very foundations of American ideology; freedom.
I don't see why American's care so much; he's not the one who destroyed the WTC, why can't he be allowed to visit it like a any regular folk.

Now, beside the Iranian president's mis-treatment, the biggest issue to be concerned about is the message this event sends to the Iranian people themselves. Just imagine it if George Bush went to visit Russia and they baned him from going to certain places and they walked out on him before one of his ever-so-stupid speeches. I can tell you right now that you, as people be pissed of at the Russians. And this situation is an understatement to teh true impact of this arrogance on the part of the Americans; in an unstable Muslim country like Iran; they put even more emphasis on their president than we do on ours. The results of this 'meeting' (if you can call it that) are extremely counter-productive; the Iranian president is going back to his country angrier than before... Not only that, but this display of complete American arrogance and unwillingness to work towards peace will only further worsen the image that the Americans have in the middle east and the Muslim world.

America has very good engineers, professors, doctors and the like, but we are yet to see American politicians with the gift of common sense. I mean, a regular 10 year old could have done a better job at preparing for the Iranian visit; I honestly think that more would have been achieved if they did nothing at all.

Are you mad?! The Iranian president hates America! He did not wish to speak at Ground Zero in memoriam of those who died, but to praise the men who flew the planes into the buildings! He supports terrorism, which should be easy to see because the terrorist group Hizbollah is funded, and therefore controlled, by his own country!

The US has hated Iran since the 70's, when they took OUR embassy from us. We hated them so much that we sided with Saddam Hussein, of all people, in the Iran-Iraq war a while back!

My point is that Americans are right to be displeased with Colombia University for allowing this man over into the US; they only did so because they hate our government. However, this is not unexpected from Colombia, the same university that made "total brats" out of themselves when a member of the US Armed Forces was invited to their campus.

Learn some history before you speak on politics.
You made yourself look like a total brat.

Let's see where we are. We've gone from intelligent dissertations to open flaming. I'm really disappointed. I didn't really expect anything of Mad-Saxon; his argument was not even his own, and his best response to being called out on it was to type out slurs as fast as he could. But WolvenBear I was suprised at you. You're one of the people who can articulately make their point, but you let it get personal, and your arguments, while still intellectual, are now having the same tone as Saxon's; angry and hostile.

I can understand that why you might be, and it's obvious a lot of it is because of the issue, but when you let that kind of emotion color what you say, it only takes away from its legetimacy. It's less debate and more quarrel.

I'm not trying to preach. But I just think we'd get more done if we debated the issue and not eachother.

yeah teh american govermnetn has NO RIGHT to be upset with a dicktator who mass murderizes people and hates america with a pashyun! YOU NEED TO BE OPEN MINDED! if someone wants to threaten the lifes and welfare of all americans, he should be allowed to and at an ivy league college IN america speakin to american students!!!

and you know whats!? BUSH SHOULD BE BANNED FROM RUSSEA! cause the president makes death threats aginst russia all teh time and cause america is so trying to destroy every cityzen of russia!

YOU'RE SO SMART!!1
LISSEN TO THIS GUY!!

On an update note, Ahmadinejad invited president Bush to attend a discussion in one of Iran's universities...

Oh, by the way, hurray for foreign countries always blasting the way America does things within America as if they have any idea!
Don't you just love it how they throw a fit though if we try to discuss their internal affairs?

At 9/29/07 04:27 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: On an update note, Ahmadinejad invited president Bush to attend a discussion in one of Iran's universities...

But since he is a dictator, he could and would fill the crowd with his own supporters.

At 9/29/07 02:41 AM, onearmdude wrote: I'm not trying to preach. But I just think we'd get more done if we debated the issue and not eachother.

The issue of being rude to the Iranian president just touched the "from-zero-to-pissed-off" nerve in a lot of Americans. We're used to criticism about our strategy in Iraq, our influence in the stability of the middle-east, and the quelling of insurgents in the region. But I think the last thing we expected was to be chastised the world over for being rude to a man who considers it a virtue to take all of the above issues from bad to a political living hell.

At 9/29/07 04:26 AM, squeakytoad wrote: yeah teh american govermnetn has NO RIGHT to be upset with a dicktator who mass murderizes people and hates america with a pashyun! YOU NEED TO BE OPEN MINDED! if someone wants to threaten the lifes and welfare of all americans, he should be allowed to and at an ivy league college IN america speakin to american students!!!

ROFL

Sarcasm is teh pwnage!

At 9/28/07 06:29 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 9/28/07 01:49 AM, WolvenBear wrote: You wrote the 2nd stupidest thing I've ever read (After the lesbian who said Achmen..made her wet), that protesting a mass murdering, racist, war mongering, piece of garbage...made us xenophobic.

The American tradition is that everyone gets their fair chance to be judged, and that everyone deserves the freedom to state their opinions civilly in America.

Idd.

Whether or not Ahmadinejad is a good person is beside the point, and totally off topic. In America, he should be able to speak his opinions, no matter how arrogant and misguided they may be, and engage in intelligent discourse, free of preconceived notions.

Number one, Columbia is a PRIVATE place... The only time a person would be inhibited by free speech is if they were denied acess to public places. But saying people can't 'Deny him the right to...' in a private place is the same as saying 'we should deny private buisnesses the right to they're own affairs' PERIOD.

Secondly, you still have failed to argue the fact that there are people in OUR own country who have been treated worse by columbia then a man that wishes the death of every individual who was listening to him that day.

This guy is by no means the "worst man in the world".

That doesn't explain why you feel people shouldn't have the right to speak out against him. [Because by implying it's wrong for them to do so is implying they would be better of just pretending to be gratious, or atleast indifferent of his prescence. if your questioning americas actual response by sheer human nature, there are far worse things people can do than call a man horrible names. Should people be respectfull to George W. Bush because it's the right thing to do? has it ever bothered you the kind of horrible things that people say about him. Go on.. respond to my message by saying; "Because it's true" i DARE you. if you don't beleive me, take a look;

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=
george+bush+is+evil&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&t ab=wi

I think the protestors acted unfairly, and against the spirit of opportunity afforded to all people in the form of a chance to state their case, regardless of its morality, or lack thereof, and be judged according to testimony rather than preconceived notions.

Did you watch the news? The crowds of pissed off people they interviewed, who were protesting Ahmadinejad's visit, have no idea who he really is -- they're only angry because he's from the Iran, and they've been told for the last 28 years that Iran is irreparably evil.

So your commenting on they're actions and not on the legality of they're actions? there's nothing i can debate there. If you think they should be FORCED to not protest because it would be rude, your insane for reasons i have thrice provided on this forum. if you're commenting on the poor-ness of they're actions there's nothing i can do, only assert the fact that they have a reason to be angry. I've NEVER seen a liberal talk about how the minute men on the texas boarder were treated poorly by the columbia students.

http://www.nysun.com/article/41020

You can either acklowedge both of these actions were wrong, or split the hairs of this issue and provide an excuse as to why what the 'american people' did was worse, and make yourself look like a F00L

I'm not saying that Ahmadinejad isn't bad. We all know he's on record denying the Holocaust, and persecuting minorities with his country, but really; it's ridiculous that Ahmadinejad is being used as a selling point for hatred of the Middle East in general, when in reality most Middle Easterners would be happier if he just went away and stopped causing the region to enter America's crosshairs.

How are we supposed to greet this trash Bolo? Give him flowers? Throw him a party? Organize a parade in his honor. Quite simply, there has not been an event in this nation's history when leftists have acted so bloody stupid: decrying our intelligent citizenry as opposed to our worst enemy.

Like I said, reserve judgement for him until after he presents his case, and stop looking like we have a blanket hatred of the Middle East.

Your far too emotionalistic, and your conception on how anyone would be treated in ANY country in any scenario is completely idealistic. Something like this is so unbeleivable uncommon i find it insulting that the example of how people treat other individuals who havn't been given a chance to speak there mind is actually half merited.

The Ahmadinejad-hate-squad protestors look a lot, to me, like the Stars-and-Stripes burning jihadists, in that both know nothing about the perceived "agressive" or "evil" cultures which they protest.

And what policy would you enact to solve the problem?

Scott Adams, FTW.

At 9/28/07 06:29 PM, Bolo wrote: The American tradition is that everyone gets their fair chance to be judged, and that everyone deserves the freedom to state their opinions civilly in America.

.... wait for it.

I think the protestors acted unfairly, and against the spirit of opportunity afforded to all people in the form of a chance to state their case, regardless of its morality, or lack thereof, and be judged according to testimony rather than preconceived notions.

First off, you're full of shit if you honestly expect anyone to buy this line of reasoning. "Oh, it's American tradition for everyone to get to speak their minds... but the protestors were WRONG for doing it!" Either all are obliged to speak their mind under your hypothesis, or only a select few are. Now which is it?

Second off, it's not preconceived notions but rather Ahmadinejad's testimony that has caused such fervant opposition. Claiming he wants to wipe Israel off the map, continuing to pursue weapon's grade plutonium despite UN warnings not to do so, and his continued support of the Insurgency in Iraq is more than enough evidence for me to not want to take this guy or his opinions seriously.

True, America is a place of free speech, but that doesn't just stretch to everyone anytime.

The US should have curbed the problem before it started by not letting him into the country in the first place. No law says that he has any right to come into America, so therefore there would be no argument regarding rights that were or were not violated.

At 9/29/07 12:51 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 9/29/07 04:27 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: On an update note, Ahmadinejad invited president Bush to attend a discussion in one of Iran's universities...

But since he is a dictator, he could and would fill the crowd with his own supporters.

Oh... supporters... yeah :D That's way better than hitmen.

At 9/28/07 05:15 PM, Luxury-Yacht wrote: If you're making that decision based on the deaths attributed to each, it's irrelevant.

No, I'm making that point to show the silliness of the comparison. Iran is not moderate. It sponsors terrorism, is killing Americans, hangs gays, stones adulterers, etc. That there's someone worse (which is debatable) doesn't make Mr. Alphabet Soup a "moderate".

I'm trying to say that people think Amahdinejad is a totalitarian dictator that rules with an iron fist while his people suffer. He is an elected official, and his term will end eventually. He represents the religious demographic of Iran, the fundamental muslims. That doesn't mean that all of Iran thinks the way he does. Much of Iran is moderate- especially the new middle class. I'm trying to say that thinking that Amahdinejad represents the whole of Iran is like saying that Bush represents the whole of America, which obviously isn't the case.

But all of that is soooo much smoke. That Iranians disagree with him is irrelevant. It does nothing to discredit the fact that the sanctions are hurting his country and that he's a madman.

I'm not saying it doesn't suck, I'm saying that when compared to the rest of the Middle East, Iran is much less oppressive.

That's debatable.

At 9/28/07 06:29 PM, Bolo wrote: The American tradition is that everyone gets their fair chance to be judged, and that everyone deserves the freedom to state their opinions civilly in America.

And other people have the right to protest you. Freedom of speech is a two way thing. Your point is so dumb because you're decrying these people for using THEIR freedom of speech. And you're ridiculously claiming that he was mistreated. He's a murdering piece of garbage.
Realistically, we could've arrested him when he landed on our soil and sent his ass to Guantanimo, but we didn't. He had no RIGHT to come here and spew his lies, but we let him anyway. You're simply not being honest here.

Whether or not Ahmadinejad is a good person is beside the point, and totally off topic. In America, he should be able to speak his opinions, no matter how arrogant and misguided they may be, and engage in intelligent discourse, free of preconceived notions.

Well, as he's an enemy, it's not like he actually has rights. But I'll ignore that.
You are being so duplicitous here. You are DECRYING THE FREE SPEECH OF THE PROTESTORS. You're bitching about him being called scum (he is) and that people are protesting a man who finances al Quida. He has no right to be free from mockery, derision, harsh words, or fact checking. There is no "right to not be questioned", "right to softball questions", "right to not have your feelings hurt" or "right to be paid a huge sum of money to address a crowd".
Did you know they cheered him at Columbia. It wasn't until he said "gays don't exist", that he received any mockery from the audience.

This guy is by no means the "worst man in the world". The leaders of Sudan are essentially condoning the genocide of up to 2 million of their own citizens. There are dozens of other dictators who are worse than Ahmadinejad, and supress their people to a greater extent. The fact is, despite Iran's insistence to the contrary, it is relatively westernized already. I've read articles about how Iranian culture is closer to that of Europe and America's than just about all the rest of the Middle East. While Ahmadinejad has imposed greater state control over the last few years, its citizens are still better off than those of most countries of the region.

Iran's financing of terror is what keeps most terrorist groups gonig today. Most of that Westernization came from the Shah. But even so...so what?
The man is garbage and the protests against him were civil. Compare that to the protests against Coulter, the minutemen, Bush, etc.

I think the protestors acted unfairly, and against the spirit of opportunity afforded to all people in the form of a chance to state their case, regardless of its morality, or lack thereof, and be judged according to testimony rather than preconceived notions.

Assinine. Calling a sponsor of terror a sponsor of terror is not unfair. They were civil, they were orderly and not unruly. They weren't given a platform to speak, so they carried signs.
So, as I said: you side with the murderer and slander the good people who protested a monster.

Thus, Fair Trial by Jury allows defendents to state their case, or allows a lawyer to act as an intermediary. Eventually, if the court decides the defendent is guilty, he will be punished. But punishing the defendent before he makes his case is counter to the American spirit.

He wasn't on trial fool.

Did you watch the news? The crowds of pissed off people they interviewed, who were protesting Ahmadinejad's visit, have no idea who he really is -- they're only angry because he's from the Iran, and they've been told for the last 28 years that Iran is irreparably evil.

Why shouldn't these people be angry? He's a sponsor of terror and his regime is supplying IEDs that are killing our troops. We know who this guy is.
So a non-American has a right to be paid to come here, get a national platform, lie like crazy and not get criticized. The American protestors have no right to be angry. Frigging hypocracy.
You slander your countrymen in calling them stupid, to stand up for a monster, and denounce people for excercizing their constitutional rights. Pathetic.

I'm not saying that Ahmadinejad isn't bad. We all know he's on record denying the Holocaust, and persecuting minorities with his country, but really; it's ridiculous that Ahmadinejad is being used as a selling point for hatred of the Middle East in general, when in reality most Middle Easterners would be happier if he just went away and stopped causing the region to enter America's crosshairs.

Slander. No one is saying "Look at him. ALL ARABS ARE BAD!" You're so full of crap.
God this describes you perfectly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ -c

Like I said, reserve judgement for him until after he presents his case, and stop looking like we have a blanket hatred of the Middle East.

So be stupid and go, well, let's hear him out. Maybe gays really DON'T exist in Iran. Gotcha.

The Ahmadinejad-hate-squad protestors look a lot, to me, like the Stars-and-Stripes burning jihadists, in that both know nothing about the perceived "agressive" or "evil" cultures which they protest.

The jihadists know quite a bit more about us than we give them credit for.

And these people aren't burning effigies. They're not rioting. They're peacefully and lawfully holding signs to protest an evil person. Stop slandering these people just to show that you can be a mindless little lemming and celebrate diversity.

you can't blame them...americans are just dumbasses lol...js look at miss south carolina...she IMO is the ideal representation of yanks

At 10/4/07 08:56 PM, kensijo wrote: you can't blame them...americans are just dumbasses lol...js look at miss south carolina...she IMO is the ideal representation of yanks

Miss South Carolina is the pinnicle in liberal education. She can't answer a simple question, but knows that we need to be nicer and spend more money on the rest of the world because we're too wealthy. As a bonus she sounds incoherent.

This week's issue of "The Week" featured an editorial cartoon by Michael Ramirez that I think is very befitting of this discussion and the subject at the center of it all....

The Iranian people don't like him and this would hopfully help us from starting a wwar with Iran.

yes he represents a whole nation but nothing changes the fact that he funded terrorism.He only wanted to gloat.He knew that being in NYC would piss everyone off.He could have gone to any other place but he chose NY.

At 10/7/07 06:33 AM, Sawke wrote: yes he represents a whole nation but nothing changes the fact that he funded terrorism.He only wanted to gloat.He knew that being in NYC would piss everyone off.He could have gone to any other place but he chose NY.

Right, and the solution would be to not let him into the country.
I like to think that America has a proud tradition of not letting mutual enemies into the country.

At 9/28/07 01:17 AM, Bolo wrote:

At 9/28/07 12:19 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 9/27/07 01:24 AM, Bolo wrote: I'll be the last one to condone Ahmadinejad's actions, but we could have conducted ourselves in a much more civilized manner. Do you know what this sort of thing looks like to other countries? Xenophobia. That's the last thing America needs right now- more countries pissed off at it for being closed minded.

Gotcha. Protesting a murderer is the same as hanging a gay person for liking buttsex.

You're a fucking moron.

This is one of those few times when I'm going to have to reply with a good ol' "What the fuck are you talking about?"

Seriously, I can't understand what you're trying to say, here.

I can.... even though we're Nuclear 101 in the small, small dangerously close to the sun world we ain't the
land between Heaven and Earth. So thus if we piss enough people off then we might get wiped off the map a bit sooner than we'd prefer.

So in order to keep the current rusting (but still functioning very well mind you) regime in place.
Let's treat foreigners (especially Diplomats. C'mon people!, this stuff is age old!. Even the BARBARIANS OF ANCIENT EUROPE gave diplomats some respect!) with some respect so we DON'T look the Xenophobes that at least 64% of us really are...

I've made 4 sizable posts on this thread already, in regards to other people's posts, and not one counter response :(

Listen, we are America, and we make the rules in our country. Since they are our rules, we can choose who they apply to.

Just because it says so on a piece of paper that everyone can speak freely, it doesn't mean we have to let our enemies speak freely. The founding fathers, who wrote the Constitution, would have thought the "everyone can speak freely" interpretation was ridiculous! Why would the US people use their own Constitution as a means to bind the hands of their own nation behind its back? How do they benefit from using the Constitution simply for the sake of complaining?

Just because we don't let a man with a passionate hate for all that is America speak in America, we aren't having our rights trampled on!

At 10/8/07 09:54 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I've made 4 sizable posts on this thread already, in regards to other people's posts, and not one counter response :(

that means no one will post against you because they know your right =)