How to insult your guests in your own home

I agree with you. It would have been more polite to not invite he murderer than to insult him in your own home. It goes against the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic beliefs and customs of hospitality. Great secularists are a pain in the ass because they don’t believe in anything that does not make them feel good. It felt good to invite this mad man to the school. When the protests became too strong he changed tact to insult the man he invited in order to gain popularity with the masses he miscalculated would be on his side. In doing this change of tactics he is now standing in the middle of the road making it easy to be run over from both directions. In short he will get his in the end, most likeley from the people he wanted to impress so much in the first place.

Oh, come on! That country executes homosexuals for their sexual orientation. I do believe a prison counts as a major public institution.

Treating the Iranian president like the dirt he is has NOTHING to do with mistreating a visitor.

The university should never have invited that homophobic, sexist, and racist butcher. That's the mistake they made.

BINGO!

I actually think it's great that they had him speak.  Listening to pieces of the session, especially the Q&A, revealed how out-of-touch the President of Iran is.  The best thing you can do to damage world dictators is give them a forum to speak, and where folks can freely ask questions.  Ahmadinejad likely never had to face such a critical audience since if he gave a speech like that in Iran and someone shot their mouth off at him, they'd be jailed or executed.

I think every half-baked dictator in the world should be invited to universities for these sorts of sessions.  It does us a world of good and makes them look like the chumps they are.

The best thing you can do to damage world dictators is give them a forum to speak, and where folks can freely ask questions.

Turns out that those who ask questions are not the group we have to worry about.

Ask 52 Americans what kind of welcome they enjoyed in Iran back in 79.

 

Sorry but he is not out of touch he is just being politically correct in his speech. When he said he has no homosexuals in Iran he is speaking the truth. If people are caught in a homosexual act they are executed for being a violent criminal not for being homosexual.

It is like in the old Soviet Union, where you could not say what you thought because you went to jail for saying it so you had to put it in politically correct terms. Like here in the US you could not make fun of bald people we call them follicle challenged. What is happening is we like in Iran are restricted from speaking the truth without using code words. All racist use code words so they can speak their mind without criticism. So do the racist in Iran he is not out of touch you are out of touch because you will give him a pass for being out of touch when he is calling you an idiot because he plans to do what he is going to do to you and us and your turning a blind eye to his plans.

What is the most entertaining to me is all the ways the left are excusing his tyrrany.  If only they could find it in their cold, dark hearts to extend the same courtesy to Americans.

What is the most entertaining to me is all the ways the left are excusing his tyrrany.

In how many ways are the left excusing his tyranny?

In how many ways are the left excusing his tyranny?

Let me count the ways https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=163463

Just a start, but google is your friend.

Let me count the ways https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=163463

None of those are attributed a verifiable source and even if they were none of those are excusing tyranny.

So far it seems the MSM is painting Basher as the bad guy here, and Ahmadinejad as some kind of victim. Apparently, not only was Columbia Univesity supposed to allow him to speak, but the only way he could really be afforded "freedom" was to treat him with kidd gloves.

Since when did "Freedom of Speech" come with a guarentee to be given a public forum, press coverage and respect?

I thought it was bad form of Columbia to allow him to speak, and bad manners to treat him the way they did.

But I'd rather lob missles at the man, not insults.  Heh

Haha, we can always depend on LW to get straight to the heart of the matter.

None of those are attributed a verifiable source and even if they were none of those are excusing tyranny.

Amadinejad in 2008 is not?  You have a strange standard.  And the contention was not that A, B or C was, just that members of the left are.  And you mispoke.  The source is verifiable since it was written down.  The Actual person is not.  But then the tone of their comments indicates the left end of the spectrum.  Of course it may just be another vast right wing conspiracy too.

and even if they were none of those are excusing tyranny.

This was my fav part. Not only do they deny it but even if it was true they still wouldn't believe it. And they saw people who follow Bush are mindless sheep. These people can't even take the truth as truth.

It totally cracked me up when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran.

I kept waiting for the punch line.....

Amadinejad in 2008 is not? You have a strange standard.

Yup o.k missed that "one" verifiable source.

And you mispoke. The source is verifiable since it was written down. The Actual person is not.

Thats funny. In cases like these I always thought the "actual person/handle" was the "source". So according to you we can verify a source without needing a pointer or reference to one? Interesting. Sounds very similiar to the same "strange standards" required by just making stuff up.

Did you also fall for the "WMD in Iraq". With your kind of reasoning Im sure it wouldn't have been too hard to convince you.

And the contention was not that A, B or C was, just that members of the left are.

Huh?

Let me count the ways https://www.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=163463

You pointed to this selection of comments as the basis for a count on the number of ways that the left are supporting Amadinejads tyrrany. Otherwise what did you mean when you said "Let me count the ways"??

So if as you now say A, B or C dont "actually" count..... because their not "actually excusing anything", (this being MY point), then i ask again "in how many ways are left excusing his tyrrany?".

Cmon, lets "count the number ways".

It totally cracked me up when he said there are no homosexuals in Iran.I kept waiting for the punch line.....

Any country that needs to kill off its queers, is clearly more fagotty than the rest. Otherwise why would you be so threatened by them?

Thats funny. In cases like these I always thought the "actual person/handle" was the "source". So according to you we can verify a source without needing a pointer or reference to one? Interesting. Sounds very similiar to the same "strange standards" required by just making stuff up.

If the statement had been made - Madam X said....... you would be correct.  However the statement was made that "how is the left..." which is not a person, but a political persuasion.  The proof was provided.  Since you did not ask for a person, no person need be attributed, only the statement shown as being made.  it was made.  By whom is your guess.  You did not ask to be shown where Kerry or Clinton made one, and I offered no "person" just the statement which is sufficient to satisfy your interogative.

Say what you mean and mean what you say.  And next time, either be more specific, or less obtuse.

This was my fav part. Not only do they deny it .

Deny what? I see 5 statements in the link Dr Guy offered none of which excuses his tyranny. By all means Charles point out which of those statement excuses his tyranny. Once you're done heckling of course.

but even if it was true they still wouldn't believe it.

"Even if it was true"...... so you admit that its not then?

The problem here of course Charles is it's not....... which is why its being challenged. If you want to make it true, (and we all know how desparately you do) then you're going to have to support it with verifiable fact. This being my point.

And they saw people who follow Bush are mindless sheep.

Yes I did.

...

...

If the statement had been made - Madam X said....... you would be correct. However the statement was made that "how is the left..." which is not a person, but a political persuasion. The proof was provided. Since you did not ask for a person, no person need be attributed, only the statement shown as being made. it was made. By whom is your guess. You did not ask to be shown where Kerry or Clinton made one, and I offered no "person" just the statement which is sufficient to satisfy your interogative.

lmao. What? Lets break that down.

If the statement had been made - Madam X said....... you would be correct.

O.k.

However the statement was made that "how is the left..." which is not a person, but a political persuasion.

Agreed. The left is a political persuasion. Or perhaps more likely an abstraction of a political persuasion but whatever and so what?

The proof was provided.

Where? What are we "proving" Dr Guy? Do you even know?

We are proving, or more correctly Ive asked that "you" prove (in this case provide a verifable count) that the left is excusing Amadinejads tyrrany.
Where have you done this? So far you've trailed off into everything but a proof.

You provided a link to a bunch of statements only one of which has a source other than "Island Dog says" and none of which excuse Amadinejads tyrrany.

Since you did not ask for a person, no person need be attributed, only the statement shown as being made. it was made. By whom is your guess. .

No by whom is "your" guess. You're the one offering "guesses" as "proof".

You did not ask to be shown where Kerry or Clinton made one, and I offered no "person" just the statement which is sufficient to satisfy your interogative.

Kerry and Clinton? Sufficient to satisfy my interRogative? What on earth are you on about here Dr Guy?? I think you've nattered yourself in circles. The subject of my dispute is "the number of ways the left are excusing Amadinejads tyrrany".

You've suggested theres ample proof. But you've provided none. Now you want to waffle on about Kerry and Clinton?

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

Yeah. Again Dr Guy, Im not the one saying anything. Im the one questioning whats been said.

If you reread what i wrote:

None of those are attributed a verifiable source and even if they were none of those are excusing tyranny.

... you'll find that my questioning of his sources was very incidental. I have little doubt that he, Island Dog, could go back and find where each and every one of those quotes he lifted came from..... or thereabouts. Clearly thats not the focus of my dispute. My dispute is with the idea that the left are, in their masses excusing the tyrranical behavior of Amadinejads. You clearly suggest they are. You even go so far as to attempt to start the count of ways in which they are.... well lets see it.

All this other nonsense is just you either waffling on trying to come off as remotely intellectual or otherwise just trying to muddy the waters because so far despite all your bluster you know you haven't been able to support the claims you've made.

Typical sheep-shagging lefty.

Leave GrandDad out of this. He's not been well for years.