"We don't have gays...

Who is saying the US is in any way like Iran. I am praising that it isn't. What I am criticizing is that we pay any time or attention to people whose reasons for believing anything right or wrong rests solely on things they think were vouchsafed to people by a God (who is clearly immoral himself by any decent reckoning) in ancient times.

An "ideal world" of folks like Jerry Falwell would look alot like the ideal world of Mahmoud. They want secularists and atheists (and ultimately, no Christians) treated like non-Muslims are in the Muslim world, a barely tolerated minority with restrictions placed on them.

I mean, these Christian folks agree with Muslims that homosexuality and simple disbelief are the moral equivalents of child molestation, rape, and murder (if they weren't why would this bastard God punish all with equal severity?). It sounds like to me it is the religious folks who have no basis for moral and ethical considerations. If this arrogant God can't distinguish between murder and simply having his ego and random inhibitions respected, where are his morals? And as far as Muslims are concerned, why can't their impotent God ever seem to do anything for himself. Whenever you have to go through the most absurd apologetics to explain why, even though the world looks as though there is no God, there really is (and you are his instruments - some ominpotence this God has!) I think you are simply making a virtue of necessity. If there is a God, he must simply hate Arabs and Shiites in particular considering the awful state he has left them in.

I don't give a crap what nonsens people believe, it is when they think they have a right to make laws based on unsubstantiated beliefs (that is, crap written in ancient texts) or warm and fuzzy feelings (what they call "faith" or "a personal relationship with God") and to have those taken seriously simply because they are religious.

If Falwell and Robertson don't condone the killing of gays (which they would if they had the power to do so - ever heard of Christian Dominionism? ) it is simple cowardice. If you think a sin is so bad it warrants eternal punishment, why WOULDN'T you execute gays? I mean, all these Christian folsk claim that without the Bible, we would have no basis for right and wrong behavior, so on what basis do they decide it is ok to make laws against murder, but not against other sins that all warrant the same punishment from God? I mean, if God warrants them all worthy of eternal obliteration, why should the law be any different if our laws and morals do indeed flow exclusively from the Bible and metaphysical notions of right and wrong? No good Christian can explain this to me without sounding like a milquetoast who is trying to make theological excuses for his detente with the values of the Enlightenment.

I am not remotely arguing that the US is intolerant, quite the contrary, we luckily have the forces of the dark ages on the run here. I am merely saying I don't see much difference between the mullahs in Iran and the ones here in what they would like to see happen in an ideal world. The only difference is the ability to make it so.

Just like stupid liberals want to make excuses for Middle Eastern backwardness and blame it on something besides the obvious culprit - religion - many of you northern conservatives don't really get it when Christians (who have clearly never studied the thing) believe that the Bible is the answer to all questions and that God is going to operate in a similar manner. People really do believe this stuff. Otherwise smart people believe really dumb things and we ignore it because of our dopey commitment to diversity and tolerance, even when it simply means putting up with nonsense. Why won't somebody ask Mitt Romney if he really believes Joseph Smith was visited by an angel and translated an ancient book by peering into his hat with seer stones? See, we can't ask this question, because LDS is a religion, so we carve out a special exception to these sorts of idiot beliefs.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Where did Falwell or Robertson condone executing homosexuals? How many homosexuals were executed by the state last year for homosexuality in the U.S.?

I never said they did, I was replying to other guy who "supposed" they had some sort of following and wasn't "aware" of bad things they said about gays. Blaming 9/11 on homosexuals (and the ACLU and feminists) is fairly harsh criticism, right? Maybe some of their followers agreed and patriotically killed some gays to get some revenge for 9/11, right? If Falwell speaks for God, and says gays were respsonsible for 9/11, what's a good Christian avenger to do?

(and of course we are not as bad to gays as Iran is. But waaaay back in 2003 in Texas, they were still arresting people who participated in consensual, PRIVATE, gay sex ! Incredible. Gay sex was AGAINST THE LAW, until, as Scalia put it, the Supreme Court decided to sign on to the "homosexual agenda" . He was pretty pissed that anti-gay sex law was overturned, and he fought it hard. And he is a convervative/libertarian hero! (which is funny, because you were defending Craig pretty intensely, and Scalia would have locked him up and thrown away the key in a heartbeat, even if the guy was having private relations! Scalia, what a guy. So we not might have had the death penalty for being gay, but being gay was still an arrestible offense until very recently. How far are we ahead of Iran in this realm ??? )

I 've known about 15 iranians , 7 out the 15 ARE GAY!! PLZ MR. President DON'T COME WITH THIS BS!!!

pullups at stop signs wrote:

i bet that gay comment was really well received by all those liberal fags...ironic that it was them who wanted the speaker in the first place....

Why all the fuss over letting Ahmadwhatjamacallit talk at Columbia?

This may be the difference: I'm a liberal straight and I think it's a good idea to invite him to speak so I can get a better perspective of where he and his country are coming from. Now I suppose conservatives are against him speaking at Columbia because they already know where he's coming from and want to silence him. Two fundamentally different perspectives.

I find it ironic that Persia claims that there are no gays. It's probably because man on man sex isn't considered "gay" over there. It's just a couple guys having some fun on a Saturday night while their women are locked up at home.

No gays, just a lot of nervous sheep and camels.

I don't give a crap what nonsense people believe, it is when they think they have a right to make laws based on unsubstantiated beliefs (that is, crap written in ancient texts) or warm and fuzzy feelings (what they call "faith" or "a personal relationship with God") and to have those taken seriously simply because they are religious.

We are in agreement.

The only disagreement we have is really more of a semantic one on how you would define a conservative. You ever hear the radio talk show host Marc Davis? I would call him conservative, but he along with others whose names I cannot think of off the top of my head also share your idea that law should not be based off of religious ideology or text. We are all better off with a separation of church and state.

We might have a slight degree in disagreement of having to deal with the acute problem dealing with leaders of countries that are religious zealots with teeth since they hold power now vs potential/percieved problem with religious zealots in the US who have been declawed for the most part.

You can watch an interview of the President of Iran on

WWW.CHARLIEROSE.COM

The interview makes me sick. Amjamahad never feels compelled to answer the question posed. He will talk about some other issue that may be related to the question, but not answer the question given to him. Then he puts on a big stupid grin when he is done talking. He uses a lot of language that can be interpreted different ways too. I don't care where he comes from. Without understanding a word he says, you can tell he is the slimest of politicians by his gestures and stupid grin. When what he said was translated, he said he has a different perspective on the world. He was right.

Do you think it would be a good idea if your college invited the local leader of the MS-13 gang to speak at next week's conference forum?

It isn't that great of an analogy but you should get the point. Amajahadahdad fails to recognize that Israel exists, questions who really carried out the 911 attacks, denies the Holocaust took place, there are allegations that Iran supplies weapons that are used against US forces in Iraq, and Iran has a nuclear program that they claim is for peaceful purposes but Russia has offered them all the peaceful purpose nuclear material they would need but Iran didn't want it, and Iran funds terrorist organizations.

I agree with you that comparing the leader of a sovereign nation to the leader of a latino gang is a bad analogy. But I do get your point. When do you shut out despots and when do you try to engage them in dialogue?I don't think that words disqualify you to the point of being excommunicated from the international community. Now if we actually had proof that he was carrying out some of his ludicrous positions then yes, by all means, kick him out. But because he tries to talk a good game the only thing that he will accomplish with an international forum is to expose himself as a incapable leader. Iranians aren’t idiots. But they do need to see their leader making a fool of himself for the whole wide world to see. Kinda of like what Bush has been doing the last 7 years. Maybe Iran, like us, will have seen the light and kick him out.

duncehead wrote:

Do you think it would be a good idea if your college invited the local leader of the MS-13 gang to speak at next week's conference forum?

It isn't that great of an analogy but you should get the point. Amajahadahdad fails to recognize that Israel exists, questions who really carried out the 911 attacks, denies the Holocaust took place, there are allegations that Iran supplies weapons that are used against US forces in Iraq, and Iran has a nuclear program that they claim is for peaceful purposes but Russia has offered them all the peaceful purpose nuclear material they would need but Iran didn't want it, and Iran funds terrorist organizations.

Sure, just don't invite any of the Minutemen. CU turned them down, remember? It's fine to hate the US on ALL Ivy campuses.

Note: it's not Ivy but MIT had some co-ed c*nt pull a stunt at Logan Airport in Boston where she walked around with some sort of electronic-looking device on a sweater and carrying what was reported to be Play-Do or Silly Putty (which resembles plastic explosives). Great work being done on campus by 'some', not all, students. Just great.

The media is whining about the Security people holding her in custody then bringing her to court for this stunt.

What are they DOING on some campuses today?

Yes, yes, She's supposed to be 'wicked smart' and a swimmer. Hoo-ray for her. She should have had more sense.

Um, he blamed 9-11 on the gays.

I don't think most people are that upset that he was going to speak at the UN.

I don't have a problem with someone like Charlie Rose or other news reporters interviewing him. People could hear what he has to say that way.

But I would hope that universities would invite more worthy candidates to speak on their campus. Speakers with controversial ideas are appropriate to speak on colleges. A guy that funds terrorist organizations is not someone worthy of an invite to speak at an university IMO.

It seems to me Ahmedinijad (I will persist in not looking up the correct spelling of his name as a sign of disrespect) thinks like conservatives do in another way - the thinking behind his Holocaust denial is similar to conservative knne-jerk dismissal of global warming as both are instances where one must ignore or downplay facts because those facts might get in the way of a larger and pre-existing political commitment. In the case of Ahmedinijad, he hates Israel and doesn't want them to have anyr ight to exist, so he has to question any rationale that might be used to support that right. Global warming deniers simply have a pre-existing aversion to government regulation, so they have to believe any facts that might support an argument for regulation must be wrong. Similarly, those opposed to evolution quickly ge tinto arguing about what might be at stake if we accepted evolution rather than arguing about the facts. The facts HAVE to be a certain why because they have a pre-existing commitment to a worldview that can't accomodate those facts.

What would the odds be that you set of retards would have elected him if he were American and running for presidency?

At least you'd have a leader with at least half a brain this time.

I agree with your points.

The only disagreement is I think you should write most conservatives instead of conservatives. There are people I would consider conservative who understand that regulations are needed and who think market forces are the best way to change behavior. For instance, they would argue for the use a limited amounts of permits to pollute be issued. Pollution is then limited and the most efficient user will buy the permits.

There also seems to be a growing evangalical movement to take action against global warming. Some seem it as a social justice cause since the poor will suffer more than the rich.

But I agree that conservatives such as Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh types fit your examples perfectly.

Thanks for the link. I was able to watch Charlie Rose interview and am disappointed with others who watched it and then commented on the Charlie Rose board. I feel like I didn't see the same interview as I did. How can so many people cut Charlie Rose down and praise Ahmadineajad after that interview?

Our country has no problem inviting high ranking leaders from China, so why is the President of Iran a big deal?

China runs slave labor camps, child labor, massacres and imprisons dissidents and Falun Gong practioners. China also supplies much of the weaponry to African rebels, Myanmar, and other various despots. Moreover, the bad stuff we hear about Iran supporting terrorists is from the same crowd that claimed WMDs were in Iraq and the whole yellow-cake in Niger debacle.

The guy was given a stage, and he demonstrated to the whole world what an assclown he is. As Justice Brandeis once said, "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

I believe he said alternative lifestyle people.