The World Was Watching Ahmadinejad

How dare Columbia University to allow THAT monster to speak and answerquestions. The monster doesn't believe there was THEE "holocaust".there are no "fags" in his country, and I'll bet he thinks "Goddidn't make the little green apples, and it don't rain in Indianapolis in thesummer time" (on a personal note, the jury's still out on the apple thingfor me and Hitchens). Columbia U. should have saved their money and donated itfor bombs dammit! What good would it do to watch this kook try and "bob& weave" through a barrage of direct and not so bad questions?

Well I'll tell you what good it does/did/done. The World WAS watching.Contrary to what some may believe, it wasn't only FOX, O'Reilly, Hannity, Morganetc. etc. etc....that was watching this.

  From an email I sent to a friend: 

  i have to say though, all the crap about Ahmadinejad is killing me. i can't believe all the conservatives thinking it's wrong to talk to that kook. i equate that to the police not interviewing a murder suspect. even when they have the murder on tape, have the murder weapon and fingerprints...they still interview him/her to find out "who, what, why, where and how" so to speak. the more you talk to someone, the more information you have. as it was pointed out, even when they thought he  was lying they were able to pick up important info from those lies.  

maybe we should just continue bombing everyone we don't like...even though we're short on military, money and support of such nonsense...let's get 'em!! i have to go, my arm is getting tired from waving  the flag (and i'm getting nauseous)

We aren't (or shouldn't be) some "secret society". There's a worldout there. Does anyone really believe that when  Ahmadinejad  said "we don't have that problem in Iran"referring to homosexuality, that the world thought "hmm, interesting, howdo I get on that plan?" or do you think they thought "BULL SHIT,that's one crazy bastard"?

If all the republicans can come up with is "he's bad and supplyingthe insurgents with weapons" not to talk to him, then they're just ascrazy as he is. I wonder if conservatives believe this type of"non-communication" works well with their children as well?

Mom/Dad: "Go to your room and read 5 versus of theBible"...(I would have picked Chapter 11, verse 35 "JesusWept")

Rotten Kid: "Why"

Mom/Dad: "Because I said so and I'm the Mom/Dad"

That's my argument and I'm stickin' to it

Comments

[Chief Editor: Todd]

"I wonder if conservatives believe this type of 'non-communication' works well with their children as well?"

Great question!!! Are we going to stand around and be fearful of one another all day, or are we going to show strength through communication? Even with all the downsides of Hillary Clinton, even SHE has it together with regard to how you engage with friends and foes on the world stage.

Bill Richardson understands this maybe more than anyone. He went face-to-face with the world's most brutal dictators. The way I see it, if you are the leader of the free world and you aren't able to look a dictator in the eye and stand your ground, that shows a lack of courage and strength.

[Ted K.]

Tony, do you have kids?

A terrible analogy, but a funny one, because it is true.
Not about the Bible verse per se, but sometimes that line is a line parents have to give.
Your child keeps asking why he has to buckle a seatbelt, not lean back in a chair, look both ways before you cross, not stick his finger in an electrical outlet, etc, and it is in his/her best interest and safety to do it and even though time and time again you have given them reasons why , they keep doing it, until you use the heavy hand like that.
"Do it (Don't do it), because I know what is best for you."
Sometimes that "non-communication" as you call it, is a necessity.
Parents are not a minor child's friend..they are their parents and responsible for their well-being.

But going back to inviting a terrorist to a University.
What good did that do?
What, somebody didn't know this guy is deranged, we had to hear his drivel and lies about his country and his intentions?
And the big talking point that keeps coming up, is him claiming no gays in his country?- (thier country likes women..although they like to stone them to death as well.)
I think there are bigger things to worry about with this nut job than that statement.
Like his contstant threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

But by all means, lets waste time and taxpayer money by needing to guard him, and lets invite him to spew his lies..
Call Bush the Devil again, just so the world can see.

Didn't it really just confirm what we already knew about him?

[granny]

You go, Tony! Great piece. Great responses!

And, in fact, that IS the conservative approach to child rearing,as well as to "political leadership". Witness ever present "sex education" rumpus. "It's the parents' job to teach sex education, not the schools'" - is the hue and cry of the morally offended ... only it turns out that teaching amounts to not mentioning it at all; or invoking a vengeful god; or dire conqequences, often with mythical proportions; everything BUT "education". The kids end up without any realistic view of how things work, what goes on, and what being sexually responsible involves...

The "because I say so" anecdote is too much of an oversimplification though, without the bible reference. That's relevant because it's the business of "ruling" rather than "raising" - hiding from reality rather than facing it, that's being discussed.

"Because I say so" is a phrase that is critical to some moments, and some situations. Kids have to learn to do what they're told, WHEN they're told it and ask later in some instances. Stopping in the middle of the road to ask "why" does not effectively remove the child from the path of the on-coming car.

The point to be taken is that avoidance of the subject by simply ruling by edict is not "teaching" anything but fear. It doesn't result in a strong, informed,independently functioning adult. Nor does it result in a strong, informed, independently functioning
nation.

[Ted K.]

By the way granny, it IS the parents job to teach kids about sex education and NOT schools.
Schools should teach the basics and not worry about teaching kids about sex because they think their parents cannot do it , or won't do it.
What gives a school the right to decide when it is the right time to talk to our children about such a subject and possibly branching off into homosexuality, or trans sexuals or how to put on a condom?
Quoting you:
"Only it turns out that teaching amounts to not mentioning it at all; or invoking a vengeful god; or dire conqequences, often with mythical proportions; everything BUT "education". The kids end up without any realistic view of how things work, what goes on, and what being sexually responsible involves..."

It is really a silly and narrow notion to paint with your broad brush and think that most parents think this way.
It is a very Liberal way to think. That thought being that parents can't do what they should, so we should do it for them- since we know better.
I grew up Catholic, went to public schools when they didn't teach sex ed and my parents talked about it, and they did not invoke God's unjust wrath, but told me the consequences of getting a girl pregnant and ruining young lives with babies out of wedlock.
This was true with the majority of my friends in religious ed classes.
We wished parents avoided the talk ( but they didn't), because it is an odd talk to have with your mom and dad.

Back to the thread topic, nothing knew was learned from this Iranian thug, that most people didn't already know.

It is not preaching avoidance of a subject. The subject is well known and an open book.
A lying open book, but again, we already knew that going in.

A pointless appearance.

[aravella]

Ted, how about "Don't do that because you can hurt yourself"? an explanation goes a long way. As far as your question, no I do not have any children, and I don't think all parents play the "just do it" card. I think most of them understand how important it is to explain to a child why they are told "to do"/"don't do" something.

As far as what good did it do, in my opinion it put him on stage for the world. Sure the world (for the most part) knows he's a little nutty, but we should show them every chance we can, otherwise all we are is a country that wants to bomb a country in the Middle East (through the eyes of the rest of the world)

[Ted K.]

aravella,
if you read my post above, you would have noted that I said, "..even though time and time again you have given them reasons why , they keep doing it.."

So I have explained it, it still isn't being done, so a more stern action is then taken...even a spank (oh no!) is sometimes warranted (think running across a busy street) in a very dangerous situation, where your advice is not heeded.

We don't need to show the world he is nutty, he does it constantly in the UN and with his mentions of wiping Israel off the earth.
The consequences of him being a terrorist enabler and nutjob are to not be invited to our Universities to smile smugly and tell his lies.

I really find it hard to believe that anyone came away with any knew gleaned info on the man from his Q & A.

[granny]

Well Ted, I am delighted that you had such a warm and fuzzy upbringing by such wholesome and all American parents; Lucky you. Not so for everyone.

And where was that part about how I think “most parents think this way” – whatever “way” that might be?

What I know is that your experience is not the “most parents” thing either, and your brush is every bit as broad as mine if you think your personal experience covers the waterfront on sex education.

And if you think liberals own “knowing better” and thinking parents can’t do what they “should” you better go back and check out who it is that’s trying to ban books, censor information, promote “intelligent” design, ban Darwinism, deny global warming, AND remove the teaching of personal health and biology from public schools. And, maybe I should throw in whose Congressional Representatives it is that pursued impeachment of a president for heterosexual misconduct with an acquaintance, while their own are scouting out little boys and strangers in bathrooms to perform their misconduct with! - since you threw that in as an aspect of the fearful possibilities of sex education in school.

And to get back to the original uproar: Ahmadinejad – if it was pointless, what’s all the fuss about? If it failed to do any good – what harm did it do? All this carrying on is about something, and it didn’t start with the people who thought it was a good idea, or a pointless idea. So what’s it about?

[Ted K.]

granny, you said this:

"And, in fact, that IS the conservative approach to child rearing"
Thus implying that conservatives rear their children this way and I was explaining that No, we don't and giving examples of my Christian upbrining and my Christian friends and how Not one of their parents did what you explained.
I am sure it happens, but to say that schools need to teach sex or it won't get taught is preposterous.
ban books- censor information-
Just list accusations and don't back it up why don't ya.
What books?
"Heather has 2 mommies"?
I know there are Liberals who want to ban Mark Twain books because of the terms used for blacks in his writings.
Intelligent design is meant as another theory of man as Darwinism is also a theory and NOT gospel (no pun), They do not say teach this Instead of, they want it "in addition to".
Global Warming..trumped up "Chicken little" talk.
Global cooling was all the rage 30 yrs ago.
This is NOT a scientific fact that man has caused the earth to warm, in fact they JUST discovered the last link to the Atlantic ocean current off the coast of Australia that was not factored in any computer tests that they have done concerning global warming- and these currents have a lot to do with rushing water around the globe...whoops!
I am not sayiing that the earth is not warming at the present, but who says this is not just normal in the earth's cycle?
Tell me what is the exact ambient temperature of the earth. How do we know we are not too cool right now and are just moving to a more norm?
Talk about scare tactics.
Who is removing biology from schools?
I don't what Clinton's impeachment has to do with the price of tea in China here, but since you brought it up, let me clarify your muddied thoughts:

granny I hate to tell you this, but the impeachment process was not brought about because of sex.
It was for lying under oath, and witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
Clinton was Barred in Arkansas for lying under oath and obstuction of judicial process.
On a side note Bill and his henchmen completely trashed Ken Starr and ruined his reputation bringing twenty some charges against him and his office. Starr was exhonerated on ALL charges because they were complete lies...and Star's reputation was ruined.
Anyone that crossed the Dem party line against him also got "the business"..just ask PA congressman Paul McHale.

And you are going to use THIS example to prove your point?
How much of the "It was just sex with Clinton and the impeachment" Kool aid did you drink?
I didn't even go into Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers.
Also, the "scouting out of little boys" using emails and IMs was not criminal -yucky as it was. No charge ever brought because there was no crime. You had a Dem actually having SEX with a 17 yr old pageboy after getting him drunk, so lets not go down that road.
And Craig was involved in a "he said, he said" thing, in which he didn't want the publicity and plead to a nuisance charge-stupid as he was.. small potatoes compared to what you are bringing up.

Kind of like making swiss cheese with all the holes I am poking in your post.

[granny]

I think it's the holier than thou approach that's doing that cheese thing.

[Ted K.]

nope.. that is me poking holes in your arguments.
You can explain it away anyway you want to try, but you know I am right.

[niggapuhleez]

Granny,

At least in Ted's mind, he's poking holes in your argument. In reality, all he knows is simplifying life with his sweeping generalities. But don't go making any generalities about him, 'cos he speaks for ALL conservatives, and knows about ALL "you lib'rals) and has ALL the answers for YOUR life.

Bottom line, Ted legitimately represents ALL conservatives by his mantra "don't try to confuse me with cogent argument and facts, I already know all I need to know to believe you're wrong!"

Fight 'em there, Ted!

[Ted K.]

show me where my points are wrong instead of speaking in generalities.
Back up you assertions with something, anything.
Sweeping generalities, I just listed specific examples of why Clinton and his impeachment was not "just about sex."
You think my assessment of Bill Clinton is wrong? why?
Prove me wrong, just don't talk to hear yourself.

I hope my thoughts do represent conservatives..Reagan type conservatives and not some of the RINO's we have in office, who wear a Republican badge, but are sell outs.