Ahmadinejad's Columbia Appearance Reveals the Astounding Naivete of Liberals
Well in an unusual act, I am linking this time not to an article in one of the mainstream newspapers, but to one of the diaries of the dailyKos.com "kossacks."
I do this to demonstrate just how naive, myopic, and reactional Liberals tend to be. I only use StevenLeser's diary entry because it is so typical of what passes for deep thought in a Liberal's mind.
It is in fact a necessity that all Americans be allowed to see such a monster unclothed so that they fully understand the innate deceptive nature of the enemies we face and the reason that America stands as a beacon, "that Shining City on the Hill" as the late President Reagan described us.
Where Mr. Leser, and apparently all (or the preponderance of) Liberals thought processes fail is in their jarringly insular view of the stage President Ahmadinejad was given. He and those like him have given little or no thought to the opportunity and prestige such a stage gives this despot in his own nation and on the world stage, where his appearance will not be broadcast in its entirety, but filtered by state run media outlets and foreign (and largely anti-American, anti-Israel) press organizations.
It is all well and good for academics to discuss and debate issue in the narrow confines of the university environment (would that they were as broad-minded and tolerant of conservative American political views), but there is a vast difference in the perceptions of those who live in America and enjoy the innate freedoms and liberties we take for granted. In other nations, the glimpses their populations will have of this terrorist's performance will be filtered by whatever the dictates of that nation's particular news outlet's biases seek to present.
Mr. Leser presumes, in a pathetically naive manner, that the words of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, which he so roundly praises, will be heard by those throughout the world, thus allowing them to objectively evaluate Ahmadinejad's appearance and his response to both President Lee Bollinger's opening CYA salvo, and the Q&A session which followed.
Yet anyone mature enough to see what occurred at Columbia University, without the inherent blinders of one with an unvarnished hatred of President Bush and his administration's policies, will also be aware of the nature of censorship which exists in those nations with whom we are engaged in war, both ideologically and physically.
There are a number of synonyms for the word insular, such as parochial, or narrow but my personal favorite is "illiberal." A particularly useful word for those self-descrbed "Liberals" who make light of the war against the Global Islamic Jihad.
Leser's diary is very illustrative of the generally sophomoric logic used by those on the Left. Concepts which, on the surface, appear to be ideal and wise are not examined in depth. Their thinking is on a most superficial level and little thought is given beyond their emotional "knee-jerk" reaction of "What a great idea!"
Others on the Left have a much more malevolent and deceptive intent. Individuals like Mr. Juan Cole, who allows his anti-Bush, anti-American agenda to affect his every thought, goes so far as to accept the words of Ahmadinejad at face value; making no effort to judge his words by his actions.
Here is an excerpt from Juan Cole's article which appeared in Salon Magazine yesterday:
That Mr. Ahmadinejad supports Hamas and is sending both weapons and special ops troops into Iraq to kill American soldiers and Iraqi citizens in hopes of further disrupting the Iraqi's attempts to create a unified nation cannot be denied.
That Mr. Ahmadinejad is supplying both arms and support to Hamas in their attacks against Israel cannot be denied.
That Mr. Ahmadinejad sent Iranian weapons and support via his surrogates in Hezbollah to destabilize Lebanon cannot be denied.
Those are the facts Mr. Cole, not the bile you spew forth in your despicable attacks against our president and our nation.
In Mr. Cole we have a skilled propagandist whose aim is not to objectively evaluate President Ahmadinejad's presence in the United States, or his appearance before the Columbia University audience of students and faculty, but to castigate the American right.
Mr. Cole has already made up his mind about America and knows that America is planning to go to war with Iran. He has no proof. His sort of purveyor of misinformation doesn't require any proof, his opinion is sufficient for him. He is one of those arrogant Liberals for whom opinion trumps fact and myth substitutes for truth.
Ahmadinejad denies that he is an anti-Semite and that he has never called for the killing of Israeli Jews (this in spite of Ahmadinejad's repeated refusal to answer the question, directly put to him, as to whether he desires the elimination of the state of Israel) thus, in Mr. Cole's view, that must be the truth. No effort is expended in critical analysis; simply take Ahmadinejad at his word. Such dishonesty requires no thought, only, to quote Hillary, Mrs William J. Clinton, "a willing suspension of disbelief."
Yet Mr. Cole intentionally ignores that which IRIB News (the Iranian state News Organization) freely reported in 2005:
An honest broker of information would at least express some skepticism at the words of a proven liar, an exporter of terrorism, and an oppressor of his own people.
Mr. Cole stands out among those who equate the actions of our troops in Iraq and the policies of the Bush Administration to the actions of Ahmadinejad and Hitler. He claims moral equivalency between what is happening in Iraq today with the actions of murderous despots, both past and present.
This "moral equivalency" stems from the Left's irrational hatred of President Bush. Yet we know hatred stems from ignorance and fear, not from logic or reason. These same people who so readily equate President Bush to those two despots have suffered none of the oppression the citizens and victims of despotic regimes routinely suffer. The very fact that individuals like Mr. Cole and Leser can write those words and do so without fear of reprisal, imprisonment, torture or death gives proof of the lies they tell.
They cannot cite a single example of such oppression within our nation. They have no facts with which to back up any of their claims, only assumption, innuendo, and hatred of all things American.
Don't take my word for the claim of censorship in Iran; we can already see some of those filters in active propaganda mode, again from IRIB News, today.
Sorry Mr. Leser, Mr. Cole, go peddle your lies somewhere else...Oh! Come to think of it you are. The audiences you are addressing are true believers already. They practice "a willing suspension of disbelief" in their everyday lives.
Long winded I know, but I just couldn't let this one go.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
I do this to demonstrate just how naive, myopic, and reactional Liberals tend to be. I only use StevenLeser's diary entry because it is so typical of what passes for deep thought in a Liberal's mind.
September 25, 2007In some ways Mr. Leser is correct. It is a tradition for universities to allow disparate views to be expressed (unless one is a conservative American political pundit) so that students receive the broadest and best understanding of the world in general, and to trust their reasoning ability to discern the true from the false and the good from the bad.
Ahmadinejad and his Columbia University Visit – All Happened as it Should
By Steven Leser
I think I am the only one pleased with the way Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to this country played out. It seems that those on the political right were mostly upset with the idea he was allowed to speak at Columbia University at all. Those on the political left were unhappy that people protested against him. Jews in general were understandably upset that Ahmadinejad, accused of being a holocaust denier and someone who has been somewhat belligerent towards the state of Israel, was able to be in the country at all.
Anyone with an absolute objection to the idea of Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University has a fundamental misunderstanding of the reason why Universities and other institutes of higher learning exist. Even if you believe that Ahmadinejad is one of the most awful despots currently in power, the whole point of a University is to afford attendees the widest and deepest learning experience possible. Even at religious universities, students learn about evil and darkness as well as learning about those things that are good and pure. That does not mean you provide an evil person a platform all to himself or herself. I have an objection to the appearance by Christopher Hitchens at an upcoming FFRF (Freedom from Religion Foundation) conference because he will have a forum all to himself. Columbia set up an event for Ahmadinejad where he and his beliefs would be challenged by someone competent to do so, in this case, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. I can think of no better way to teach people to recognize and deal with evil than to do so in a way like that which Columbia University did.
It is in fact a necessity that all Americans be allowed to see such a monster unclothed so that they fully understand the innate deceptive nature of the enemies we face and the reason that America stands as a beacon, "that Shining City on the Hill" as the late President Reagan described us.
Where Mr. Leser, and apparently all (or the preponderance of) Liberals thought processes fail is in their jarringly insular view of the stage President Ahmadinejad was given. He and those like him have given little or no thought to the opportunity and prestige such a stage gives this despot in his own nation and on the world stage, where his appearance will not be broadcast in its entirety, but filtered by state run media outlets and foreign (and largely anti-American, anti-Israel) press organizations.
It is all well and good for academics to discuss and debate issue in the narrow confines of the university environment (would that they were as broad-minded and tolerant of conservative American political views), but there is a vast difference in the perceptions of those who live in America and enjoy the innate freedoms and liberties we take for granted. In other nations, the glimpses their populations will have of this terrorist's performance will be filtered by whatever the dictates of that nation's particular news outlet's biases seek to present.
Mr. Leser presumes, in a pathetically naive manner, that the words of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, which he so roundly praises, will be heard by those throughout the world, thus allowing them to objectively evaluate Ahmadinejad's appearance and his response to both President Lee Bollinger's opening CYA salvo, and the Q&A session which followed.
Yet anyone mature enough to see what occurred at Columbia University, without the inherent blinders of one with an unvarnished hatred of President Bush and his administration's policies, will also be aware of the nature of censorship which exists in those nations with whom we are engaged in war, both ideologically and physically.
There are a number of synonyms for the word insular, such as parochial, or narrow but my personal favorite is "illiberal." A particularly useful word for those self-descrbed "Liberals" who make light of the war against the Global Islamic Jihad.
Leser's diary is very illustrative of the generally sophomoric logic used by those on the Left. Concepts which, on the surface, appear to be ideal and wise are not examined in depth. Their thinking is on a most superficial level and little thought is given beyond their emotional "knee-jerk" reaction of "What a great idea!"
Others on the Left have a much more malevolent and deceptive intent. Individuals like Mr. Juan Cole, who allows his anti-Bush, anti-American agenda to affect his every thought, goes so far as to accept the words of Ahmadinejad at face value; making no effort to judge his words by his actions.
Here is an excerpt from Juan Cole's article which appeared in Salon Magazine yesterday:
Turning Ahmadinejad into public enemy No. 1No Mr. Cole, we do not suffer from a "deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo." We fear what may happen in the Middle East should such a terrorist be allowed to grow in power and influence. We fear that he may further expand his already vigorous exportation of terrorism and violence throughout the region.
Demonizing the Iranian president and making his visit to New York seem controversial are all part of the neoconservative push for yet another war.
By Juan Cole
Sep. 24, 2007
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly has become a media circus. But the controversy does not stem from the reasons usually cited.
The media has focused on debating whether he should be allowed to speak at Columbia University on Monday, or whether his request to visit Ground Zero, the site of the Sept. 11 attack in lower Manhattan, should have been honored. His request was rejected, even though Iran expressed sympathy with the United States in the aftermath of those attacks and Iranians held candlelight vigils for the victims. Iran felt that it and other Shiite populations had also suffered at the hands of al-Qaida, and that there might now be an opportunity for a new opening to the United States.
Instead, the U.S. State Department denounced Ahmadinejad as himself little more than a terrorist. Critics have also cited his statements about the Holocaust or his hopes that the Israeli state will collapse. He has been depicted as a Hitler figure intent on killing Israeli Jews, even though he is not commander in chief of the Iranian armed forces, has never invaded any other country, denies he is an anti-Semite, has never called for any Israeli civilians to be killed, and allows Iran's 20,000 Jews to have representation in Parliament.
There is, in fact, remarkably little substance to the debates now raging in the United States about Ahmadinejad. His quirky personality, penchant for outrageous one-liners, and combative populism are hardly serious concerns for foreign policy. Taking potshots at a bantam cock of a populist like Ahmadinejad is actually a way of expressing another, deeper anxiety: fear of Iran's rising position as a regional power and its challenge to the American and Israeli status quo. The real reason his visit is controversial is that the American right has decided the United States needs to go to war against Iran. Ahmadinejad is therefore being configured as an enemy head of state.
That Mr. Ahmadinejad supports Hamas and is sending both weapons and special ops troops into Iraq to kill American soldiers and Iraqi citizens in hopes of further disrupting the Iraqi's attempts to create a unified nation cannot be denied.
That Mr. Ahmadinejad is supplying both arms and support to Hamas in their attacks against Israel cannot be denied.
That Mr. Ahmadinejad sent Iranian weapons and support via his surrogates in Hezbollah to destabilize Lebanon cannot be denied.
Those are the facts Mr. Cole, not the bile you spew forth in your despicable attacks against our president and our nation.
In Mr. Cole we have a skilled propagandist whose aim is not to objectively evaluate President Ahmadinejad's presence in the United States, or his appearance before the Columbia University audience of students and faculty, but to castigate the American right.
Mr. Cole has already made up his mind about America and knows that America is planning to go to war with Iran. He has no proof. His sort of purveyor of misinformation doesn't require any proof, his opinion is sufficient for him. He is one of those arrogant Liberals for whom opinion trumps fact and myth substitutes for truth.
Ahmadinejad denies that he is an anti-Semite and that he has never called for the killing of Israeli Jews (this in spite of Ahmadinejad's repeated refusal to answer the question, directly put to him, as to whether he desires the elimination of the state of Israel) thus, in Mr. Cole's view, that must be the truth. No effort is expended in critical analysis; simply take Ahmadinejad at his word. Such dishonesty requires no thought, only, to quote Hillary, Mrs William J. Clinton, "a willing suspension of disbelief."
Yet Mr. Cole intentionally ignores that which IRIB News (the Iranian state News Organization) freely reported in 2005:
Ahmadinejad: Israel must be wiped off the mapMr. Cole would have us take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word that the Iranian state is pursuing nuclear capabilities solely for peaceful energy purposes. Perhaps Mr. Cole should take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at his word.
Tehran, Oct 26 - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran entitled 'the world without Zionism'.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.
Addressing some 4,000 students gathered in an interior ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come.
"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said.
An honest broker of information would at least express some skepticism at the words of a proven liar, an exporter of terrorism, and an oppressor of his own people.
Mr. Cole stands out among those who equate the actions of our troops in Iraq and the policies of the Bush Administration to the actions of Ahmadinejad and Hitler. He claims moral equivalency between what is happening in Iraq today with the actions of murderous despots, both past and present.
This "moral equivalency" stems from the Left's irrational hatred of President Bush. Yet we know hatred stems from ignorance and fear, not from logic or reason. These same people who so readily equate President Bush to those two despots have suffered none of the oppression the citizens and victims of despotic regimes routinely suffer. The very fact that individuals like Mr. Cole and Leser can write those words and do so without fear of reprisal, imprisonment, torture or death gives proof of the lies they tell.
They cannot cite a single example of such oppression within our nation. They have no facts with which to back up any of their claims, only assumption, innuendo, and hatred of all things American.
Don't take my word for the claim of censorship in Iran; we can already see some of those filters in active propaganda mode, again from IRIB News, today.
IRI enjoys good relations with world nationsI guess I missed the part where IRIB News included the pre-rebuttal of Columbia University President Bollinger, or the question and answer portion of President Pipsqueaks appearance.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, "America did not take proper advantage of good Iraq negotiations opportunity due to Iran's appropriate proposals."
Ahmadinejad made the comment in an interview with Channel 13, 60 Minutes anchorman Charlie Rose, aired on Monday hours before addressing at New York's Colombia University.
Reacting to a question on his viewpoint on authenticity of America's accusations against Iran's involvement in insurgencies in Iraq, Ahmadinejad said, "The Iraqi Shiis and Sunnis are all our brethren in faith, and we enjoy good relations both with the Iraqi people and with their popular government. Why then should we foment crises in Iraq?"
He emphasized that the American politicians are not ready for hearing logical arguments, adding, "We enjoy good relations with entire world nations, including with the American nation, but believe there is a partisan dictatorship ruling in America, not permitting any candidate outside the two big parties to take the lead on behalf of the people."
The President added, "America claims it is observing freedom of expression. Why then are they raising so much hue and cry over Colombia University's inviting of the IRI President to give an address and answer the students' questions?"
Ahmadinejad pointed out that before the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and during the American backed regime of the ousted Shah, the country was entangled with poverty, its prisons were overcrowded with political prisoners, who were tortured brutally.
He added, "Today, our nation is present at all the scenes and news on the Iranian nation's advancement are broadcast in the world every day."
Sorry Mr. Leser, Mr. Cole, go peddle your lies somewhere else...Oh! Come to think of it you are. The audiences you are addressing are true believers already. They practice "a willing suspension of disbelief" in their everyday lives.
Long winded I know, but I just couldn't let this one go.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!
Labels: Ahmadenijad, Columbia University, Iran, Liberals, Propaganda, Terrorism
What do you think?
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below
posted by Will Malven at 9:32 AM
11 Comments:
Interesting that in one of your comments, you suggest that conservative pundits are not offered opportunities to speak at American colleges and Universities. Ann Coulter has a ton of appearances at colleges and universities all around the country. I think the appearance fees she derives from college appearances are a significant portion of her income.
Such offhanded comments are typical of the errors in fact and judgement of most conservative pundits, commentators and bloggers. Who needs "Liberal naivete" when conservative 'facts' thoughtlessly hurled about are so often just plain WRONG.
Like a typical Liberal, you distort what I stated..."would that they were as broad-minded and tolerant of conservative American political views"
Perhaps it is just your selective Liberal memory which needs refreshing. I stated the I wished they were as tolerant of Conservative views at Columbia and like venues.
Tolerant as in:
Not attacking the speaker on stage. I saw no such protests against Ahmadinejad, but Ann Coulter has been physically assaulted while giving her speeches.
Perhaps you have forgotten that Jim Gilchrist (founder of the Minuteman border watchers group had to be whisked away by security at that same "Ideologically broad-minded Columbia after the stage was charged by a militant group of students and one of the speakers physically assaulted (struck in the face) by this same "intellectually diverse"
audience.
Rather, this tin-pot dictator was given a welcome that any Conservative speaking at Columbia would have been thrilled to receive. The only negative response during his entire appearance occurred when he "crossed the line" and denegrated one of the Liberal holy tenets by abjuring "gay rights."
There were no hecklers, no assaults by pie throwers or cleaning liquid spewers; no banner waivers shouting anti-Ahmadinejad slogans, not one, not a solitary squeak of protest against this monster who endorses, financially supports and gives shelter to murdering terrorists.
Nope, he, unlike those Conservatives invited to campus, was given a cordial welcome and only forced to listen to the single face-saving grunts from the very idiot that allowed his appearance in the first place.
You Liberals are such hypocrites...and liars.
Of course, like most Liberals you express your views on webpages which don't allow any real dissent. Anyone who expresses conservative views on your beloved dailyKos is immediately kicked off and labled a "troll."
Liberals like you really crack me up. You cannot tell the truth because it is not in you, and you won't allow the truth to be spoken on you blogs because it would prove you to be the fool that you are.
You will find no such censorship here (of course you will find none of the obscenities so common on dKos here either, because those words arecensored).
I believe in freedom of expression, but I also believe in keeping this webpage suitable for mature adults and children so you will find none of that juvenile sophomoric, and ignorant form of comment.
Re: Of course, like most Liberals you express your views on webpages which don't allow any real dissent. Anyone who expresses conservative views on your beloved dailyKos is immediately kicked off and labled a "troll."
Oh yes, and posting on "The Houston Conservative" has so many progressives and liberals here waiting to debate you.
Like every other argument you guys make, this one is a joke. You are so bad you are selectively quoting yourself in a pathetic attempt to save yourself from the embarassment you so richly deserve. You say I misquoted you. If you only use that particular part of your response, you would be right, but what about this one:
"In some ways Mr. Leser is correct. It is a tradition for universities to allow disparate views to be expressed (unless one is a conservative American political pundit)"
You are just a coward and a liar, and it is your own words that give you away everytime just like every other conservative politician, pundit and blogger out there.
And still you and you fellow filth spewers, liars, and hate-mongers hide behind the protection of system denying anyone with opposing views to express them.
First, you completely ignored the primary point of my entire editorial.
Second, you select one single statement with which to take issue, one which is an aside to the main thrust of the article. You focus on that one issue to attack my article. I quote your first comment:
"Interesting that in one of your comments..."[Emphasis added].
Ooh you got me. One comment out of an entire column of 2300 words and 300 lines, you could only find a single phrase with which to take issue and in that you use a half-truth to make your argument.
Liberal!
Third:
"Oh yes, and posting on 'The Houston Conservative' has so many progressives and liberals here waiting to debate you."A straw argument. You have evaded the issue completely. The fact that I don't have a large Liberal readership doesn't negate the fact that they are freely given the opportunity to do so with no censorship (except as noted in my earlier statement about language).
As to the point of your entirely irrelevant argument, Ahmadinejad was invited by an official arm of the University, SIPA. Ann Coulter, who you are correct is often invited (never denied that) is primarily invited by student organizations viz. Student Republican organizations, not official divisions or colleges of the university and the administration.
Your arguments are the intellectually dishonest arguments that Liberals always make to excuse their bad behavior.
Name a single instance when a true Conservative was invited to speak at a university like Columbia, in which they were given the same courteous hearing that Columbia students and faculty gave that of Ahmadinejad.
Oh, you're correct, I'm dishonest because I said "to allow disparate views to be expressed (unless one is a conservative American political pundit)." I should have said "heard," not expressed.
The facts cannot be disputed that when Liberals, like you and your bunch of cowardly dKossacks speak or write about first amendment rights or free expression of dissenting views, you only mean the free expression and hearing of your own Liberal views, never do you include the free expression of Conservative views.
When waw the last time you saw a Liberal or say...a Terrorist speaker leader of a nation...for example heckled in the auditorium by a Conservative? When have you seen them shouted down by idiot men and women in pink T-shirts carrying protest signs?
For that matter when was the last time you saw a Conservative group disrupt a Congressional hearing as we have recently seen, again by those same useless idiots in pink.
Liberals speak of freedom when they actually mean freedom to think as they think, speak as they speak, and do as they do.
Your entire attack here has been on a side issue. You have completely ignored the bigger and more important issue which is the propaganda value Columbia gave to Ahmadinejad, an enemy of our nation bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States, by giving him a prestigious forum on which to present his arguments and the complete inability of his own people to hear anything but what he chose to allow them to hear.
You still don't get it and you never will. You have to be intelligent to be a Conservative. You have to look at the big picture. You have to have reason and logic; the ability to think clearly to be a Conservative.
To be a Liberal all that is required is an emotional reaction to a feel good theory. You don't have to worry about the ultimate consequences of your actions...And you sure don't allow dissenting views to be expressed on your webpage...and yes, I know that Free Republic behaves in exactly the same manner that dKos does in blocking trolls. I don't like that and got bumped from them because I took issue with that policy.
Though I my have a small audience, I have an open forum and any may express their views. The only fear they must face is the fact that I will respond to their illogic and half-truths with facts and logic.
I dont hide behind anything. I cross post my articles to DailyKOS and Democratic Underground, that is true. But the originating site they are posted on is OpEdNews.com and at that site, no one is sensored for their views. There are many conservatives and Republicans who challenge us there. Anyone can write anything as long as it isnt ad-hominem, off topic, etc.
So, you are wrong, AGAIN! Lets recap.
1. You were wrong when you asserted that "conservative American political pundit[s]" are not allowed to express their views on American colleges.
2. You lied and refused to face up to the patently obvious fact that you wrote that.
3. You are wrong again about my choosing to write where my views cannot be challenged. You assumed that DailyKos was "where I choose to write". If you had bothered to click on the place I have listed as my website, you would have seen the truth. But you conservatives aren't big on research. As Steven Colbert likes to say, you shoot from the gut! LOL.
So we are up to three times you have been wrong in this little tete-a-tete, care to go for four?
Yeah I'm up for it Steve,
Now instead of changing the subject, why don't you address my original thesis rather than this side issue.
You have yet to have addressed my criticism of the amazing naivete of Liberals like you who assume that giving a prestigious venue to someone like Ahmadinejad will allow the world to see what a monster he is. Perhaps the disparity in what we have , a free press, and what the Iranians have, a state controlled press simply slipped your mind when you wrote your diary.
I notice that you continually compare him to Ann Coulter, but as far as I can tell, Ann has never supported, financed or given shelter to terrorists. Do you truly believe that some American exercising her right to speak her opinions, no matter how odious you may believe them to be, to an American audience is comparable to inviting Ahmadinejad to address the world from the stage of one of America's most prestigious universities?
Are you seriously comparing Ann Coulter's provacative statements, most of which are, if carefully considered, not that outrageous, to the claims of Ahmadinejad?
Have you bothered to read all of my article? Did you nnot read the Iranian Republic's coverage of Ahmadinejad's appearance at Columbia? Did you fail to notice the complete lack of full and complete coverage given? Did you notice the absence of any "fair and balanced" information?
Do you think that the Iranian people got to see and hear the entire presentation on Iranian television, or for that matter, those citizens of Iranian ally nations like Syria.
As for your little claim of victory, apparently what you call "allowing" Conservatives to express their views at American Universities and what you call "allowing" Conservatives to express their views, are two entirely different things.
I believe that Jim Gilchrist and his fellow Minute Man speakers would disagree with your claim that they were "allowed" to express their views. Being forced off stage because you are under threat of physical attack from a group of intolerant Leftists, is the antithesis of being "allowed" the opportunity to express their views.
Ann Coulter being physically assaulted by a pie throwing Leftist is apparently what you would call being "allowed to express her Conservative views," I would call it an attempt to intimidate in order to silence or censor those views.
The fact that you choose to publish in a place that does not allow response is reflective of your choice of venue, not of my ability to do research. I came across your screed at dKos, so that is where I look to find your words. A man is known by the people with whom he associates. Don't blame me for the intolerance of your chosen associates.
I applaud the policy at OpEdNews.com,if that is actually their editorial policy. I will have to check it out and test the veracity of your claim of impartiality. Most of what I saw there on my initial visit seemed profoundly Leftward oriented, but I admit I did not spend a long time there.
This is the fourth sally you have made onto my website in response to my article, yet you have failed to once address the focus of the article. I would appear that you are 0 for 4.
Want to try again? This time try to, as you say, stay on topic.
"There are many conservatives and Republicans who challenge us there. Anyone can write anything as long as it isnt ad-hominem, off topic, etc."
I might add that you have not named a single occassion on which a Liberal has been forced off the stage do to violence either physical or verbal in a similar venue.
Cheers!
How very odd Steve,
I just finished reading through the entire lefthand list of current editorials on the OpEdNews.com page and strangely enough I didn't find a single editorial that could in any way remotely be considered "Conservative." In fact I discovered that contrary to your claim, only Liberal opinions are published in Mr. Kall's editorial section.
Since the term "Op-Ed" derives from the fact that the editorial content of those articles were on the opposite page of the newspaper from the paper's own editorial content, and that they were ususally written by those with opposing views, the name of the webpage is entirely misleading.
It should be named, "JustAnotherLiberalOpinionWebpage.com" Your slogan could be "We distort, you decide."
However, I have chosen to register after reading Rob Kall's mission statement and I shall test the veracity of the open forum policy you claim for him.
I noticed that there is actually a place which allows one to designate himself as "very conservative," so I am cautiously optimistic.
The advice Mr. Kall gives is very savy and useful, as I am well aware that I tend to wander a bit in my blogs.
So now we shall match words to deeds and determine the outcome.
Here I come Steve...
Well, It has now been 11 hours since I submitted my name and credentials to the OpEdNews.com registration site and I have yet to have received my confirmation e-mail, so that I can log in and add my comments to the madness that occurs there.
I guess that adds up to another lie by Mr. Leser. But...perhaps there has been a miscommunication, so I shall once more attempt to gain access to the OpEdNews.com website...you know the one which Mr. Steven Leser claims:
"There are many conservatives and Republicans who challenge us there. Anyone can write anything as long as it isnt ad-hominem, off topic, etc."
I must say Steve not only have you failed to answer my continued challenge, but your not proving your claim to veracity very well either.
Well,
It would appear that Mr. Leser was telling the truth and I have just been given access to the OpEdNew.com webpage.
I offer my gratitude to Mr. Robert Kall for his graciousness for including me at, as I labeled it "Never, Never Land." Perhaps I can bring some reality to those who appear to be sorely in need of it.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home