My Photo

From the
Fascist's Mouth

What I'm Reading

Answers

« Student Tasered in a Fashion Reminiscent of Jingus Khan | Main | An Open Apology to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad »

Comments

HempFlower

Seriously, I bet he is a closet homosexual because you know how all those right wing religious people are.

Damian G.

Even Fox Noise lackey Alan Colmes called him a conservative! Praise Gaia, the truth is out there!!!

Maria in Iowa

Larry, I'm astonished you have time to even think about this. I assumed you were jacked up on Game Fuel, deep into hour 23 of Halo 3 by now.

pixologic

see! Jewish lesbians love Mahmoud Ahmadinejad!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/83652/6735

Bush4Ever

Hello? Mr AhminNeedOfJihad from Iran? Here's an organization you can join!


Fist of Etiquette

I always get several paragraphs in before realizing it's a parody site. Stop linking to dailykos, people, because their subtle humor tricks me every time.

Anyway, for the last time, Academia is designed to exist outside what is called the "real world", and this is done for a very good reason. Professors and their students must be completely insulated so that they can develop theories and practices that have no practical application but are fun to think about.

If you parents want your kids to come out ready to deal with the so-called real world, send them to business school or something. Just don't expect them to be prepared to change society for the better if you do.

feelthelove

Jewish lesbians love Mahmoud? Birds of a feather...

Dangerous Dave

I must admit that I was disappointed in Ahmedinejad's statements about gays. Having solidarity with gays myself, feeling their pain, and in general being down for their struggle, I felt appalled that this otherwise benevolent, warm hearted man could stoop so low as to ignore the LBGT community in his own country. That being said, I still love him and he would be a much better president than Bushler. I wish he's run against Hillary since she's too conservative on some issues.

kb

Some comic said:

"he would have been met with the same reception at any other institute of progressive learning."

And what an embarrassment to have to admit this about our institutions of "higher learning". Personally, I was more embarrassed by the idiot-ass introduction which the "president" gave than by Ahmadinejad's naivete about gays supposedly not existing in his country, which, interestingly enough I would have thought the homophobic right would have admired him for. It's great to see the right whine about his remarks regarding gays when their own are quite similar. Anyway, he was invited to the school, so they school shouldhave bent over backwards to be as kind as possible. It's just ignorant elementary school psychology to think taunting the guest is going to help relations. But for warmongering idiots it's probably the correct path. I don't recall and big whinefest taking place when the U.S. went to meet Saddam their buddy and assured him that the U.S. had no problem with him, but that it was just a few rogue journalists. You know, the ones which would supposedly be demonstrated their being "liberals" by pinting out Saddam's crime WHILE they were taking place and DURING the time he was still out buddy. Don't remember, eh? Hypocrites.

"He's consumed with a fanatical hatred for America and Western Civilization in general."

Where would you have gotten a dumbass idea like that? That's as dumb as saying Chavez "hates America", etc...

"He openly sides with our enemies"

"Our enemies"? Who are "our enemies"? This is mostly manufactured crap. We openly side with our enemies, too, yes? In the case of Saddam, we supported him during all of his worst crimes. We have also supported many others who should have been the enemies, but rather chose to support the murdering anti-democratic dictators.

"and blames 9/11 on U.S. imperialism."

Uhhhh.....And? What do YOU blame it on, the weather? 9/11 is an exact result of the U.S. screwing around in other folks countries who don't want them there. Nothing but. And the U.S. powerbrokers are quite well aware of this. But it makes pseudo-patriots feel better to think that just one day, out of the blue, some "radical Islamists" just woke up jealous of the folks who used to support them. You know, folks like bin Laden. Grow the hell up you juvenile delinquents. You think youy can just fucking about the world and there's not going to be any response. Well, you idiots of you do. Actions have consequences, as you are always preaching to "the criminal element". Grow the hell up and take responsibilities for your country's actions. I've never seen so many whiny-ass irresponsible droolers in my life. You all remind me of a bunch of rich frat boy inbreds who used to have the same perceptions and irresponsibility.

"He even believes capitalism and democracy to be outdated concepts."

Well, capitalism most definitely is. Democracy is not at all. I'd like to know where you're getting all of your "insights" into what he thinks. Where and who are your references? The U.S. Information Agency?

"But none of that makes up for his mistreatment of gays."

Awww.....A concerned right-winger caring about gays. That's funny.

"So a word of advice to any other tinpot dictators out there"

You mean like the kind the U.S. has repeatedly supported? I mean, I've only left a very long list here a dozen times so far. Want another one, just ask.

"You can kill a cop. You can cut off your own penis. You can even brazenly arm an insurgency that is slaughtering our troops"

I LOVE when I see propaganda working so well. Before this war even began the left were making bets on how long it would take for the inevitable "discovery of Iranian arms" of which the lemming brigade would jump right onto the bandwagon in predicatble fashion. PING!!! "A bullet shell was found today with Iranian markings on it....." "I knew it! I knew it! Iran is behind everything. I can't wait to be fed more propaganda so that I can go to my blog and start spreading the word like a disease and fooling my lemming friends into believing the same dumbass and naive nonsense that I always fall for..." And what makes THIS so funny is that it's SO SO SO obvious. Use your damn brain for just one second if you can. AT the same time Iran is doing whatever it's doing with it's nuclear program, knowing that the U.S. is going to be looking for ANY reason under the sun to start the next conflict, they're going to be sending a few fighters or arms to help some folks would for sure be used as a pretext if discovered? You REALLY think they're THAT stupid. Jeez! Of course if the KKK sent the pre-Apartheid white South African some guns from the U.S. and THESE were discovered by those fighting against the white racist government, who the U.S. was supporting of course, it wouldn't have been evidence of the U.S. suporting the government, but rather just a few rougue elements within society. And you folks think I'm just calling you meaningless ad homenim attack names when I call you "lemmings". Wrong. Lemmings.

"and still be invited to speak at a prestigious American university like Columbia."

It shouldn'T matter if he said that Israel should be wiped off the map, the U.S. should be wiped off the map, and that all gays should be killed. If you believe in free speech, the he has the right to say this. And HE was invited by US. All this did was to further worsen our relationship with a country who the VAST majority, probably over 95% lke the U.S. very much and always have. Needless to say, this number will start dwindling now, thereby increasing the anti-U.S. sentiments even more. Dumbasses. That he would even accept an invitation from the U.S. is a sign of something right. After all, we helped Saddam kill hundreds of thousands of his people not all that long ago. Remember? When Saddam was our buddy, and we were giving him poison gas to use against the Iranians, in just another war crime. If ANYONE has reason to be pissed and shunning the U.S., it's him. But, as is to be expected from the indoctrinated lemmings, the victim is to be scorned and should beg his attacker for forgiveness. Even with some of the dumbass ideas that Ahmadinejad put forth, he still should have pulled down his pants and said kiss my ass. Anyway, we all know what's probably going to happen in the not so distant future anyway. So if you want a job in the State Department, or the "Defense" Dept. you should probably start learning Farsi now.

"But hang a few homosexuals from construction cranes and you'll be chased off the campus like Vanilla Ice out of the Apollo."

As it should be.

feelthelove

Academia is in that rare world of denial. Mahmoud is totally aware of homosatchels in our country, but is too polite to tell us that once we have caved in, they will be the first in line to get stoned or dropped off collapsing bridges. He just couldn't seem to give a straight answer though, to a reporter who was asking him about how he intended to use his nukular capability. And so, of course, Ahmadinejad once again, speaks truthiness.

Intellectual Conservative

Tell us something, KB, is this your ideal of what Man should be? Or better yet, does this describe you?

"He is constantly changing and in a state of rebirth and growth. He determines what is good and what is evil, not allowing religion or society to determine these things for him. He finds his happiness in this way. He uses a reason that is independent of the modern values of society or religion. He determines his own values. This creation of his own values gives him joy, and in order for him to cope with a changing world, he must constantly change. This constant state of change is a constant source of joy, leaving little or no room for suffering. He does not believe in an afterlife or the power of the soul over the body because he does not believe in religion and has no proof of an afterlife or a God."

Well, KB

I'd be truly interested in your answer. Yes or no?

andrew

Is there any anti-American position that kb won't adopt? Are there any limits to his whitewashing and rationalizing of America's enemies?


"I was more embarrassed by the idiot-ass introduction which the "president" gave than by Ahmadinejad's naivete about gays supposedly not existing in his country, which, interestingly enough I would have thought the homophobic right would have admired him for."


"Naivete"? That's why I like you kb. The way you spin on behalf of thugs, as long as they are anti-American, is so creative. I never would have thought of that in a million years.


And oh yeah, your doublethink is showing again. An anti-American, anti-Semitic, fascist thug speaks and you're whining about how his free speech rights are under attack (which of course they aren't). But the President of Columbia dares to criticize the thug and suddenly your phony concern for free speech is dropped like a bad habit. Why the contradiction?

Gwen's Ghost

"homophobic right."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

KingBloviator shows himself, more and more for what he is, with each successive post. An utterly clueless, America-hating moron.

We should 'admire' a loony dictator for making an undoubtedly false claim? r-ighhht.

feelthelove

kb's hypocrisy is glaring yet again. Calling the enablers of terrorism rude?
ahmadinejihad is a liar. he is funding the war on terror and most iranians in this country who fled the Ayatollah don't even acknowledge 'Iran.' They are Persians.
Grow up, assclown.

feelthelove

And there is no naivete about 'gays' in Islam. You excuse his naivete based on what?
Ignorance of our culture? A way of life for gays? Ahmadinejihad did not get to be president of Iran by being naive, dickhead. He was supposedly a moderate, like Hillary. The mantra of Islam is to 'know your enemy.' He has access to information about this country at all times and culture is one place where you will win or lose people. You leftard pinkos know this...and base your platforms accordingly. You want the gay vote, appeal to either NAMBLA, the Lesbian Avengers or 'mainstream' gay couples who want families.

That is why you change your spots, you fu**in' chameleon. You have no loyalty, no absolutes except to make everyone as miserable as you are. And you are miserable.
No one can be happy having the so called 'values' you do.

kb

feelthestink said:

"He just couldn't seem to give a straight answer though, to a reporter who was asking him about how he intended to use his nukular capability."

Yeah, he should have said "Well, dumbass, how about YOUR nuclear capability? Have you used it for bad or good? Oh, wait, you ARE the only country to have used nuclear weapons on people. Yes, you REALLY have some kind of business even thinking about asking me such a dumbass question, hypocrite. Now, sit down or kiss my ass. Next!"

"And so, of course, Ahmadinejad once again, speaks truthiness."

Pertty much as much as most any other politician. What'S funny is that many on the ritght seem to have swallowed Bush's lies from day one until today and his own aversion to "truthiness" hasn't seemed to bother you. Why such hypocrisy?

Oh, and just to head off the inevitable inbred responses which would probably have occurred had I not said the following, and probably will anyway due to the inbred inability to understand basic sentences: I AM NOT endorsing this fellow, saying that he's a good guy, or even saying he's right about anything at all, though he probably does have some things correct. I mean, even Bush can't be wrong 100% of the time. He still have a few months to do one things right. Just simply pointing out the lemmingness of your folks hypocrisy and the basics which most folks around the world hear and see when THEY see things like this taking place. Sorry to have to tell you, but the FIRST though people in most countries have when they hear your pseudo-patriotic inbred statements is "Here go the hypocrites again. Telling others that they can't have what they themselves have, in spite of breaking international law which requires ALL countries to reduce and eventually get rid of all nuclear weapons."
I mean, just in case you weren't aware.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ICthatmitchromneyonlyhasonewifethatweknowof said:

"Tell us something, KB, is this your ideal of what Man should be?"

Don't understand the question. I guess about as much as I think a man should be like Bush.

"Or better yet, does this describe you?"

Nope. Not at all. My job isn't to go around projecting myself onto others thinking they should be like me. This is what people with mental disorders do.

"He is constantly changing and in a state of rebirth and growth."

SOunds good, but a little vague. Doesn't describe anyone from the right at all, so not sure what your concern is.

"He determines what is good and what is evil"

Just as vague as the opening statement. It could be from anyone from Hitler to Mother Teresa. Unfortunately, the right seems to have great difficulty distinguishing between what is "good" and "evil" as if evidenced by many of he positions they take.

"not allowing religion or society to determine these things for him"

Well, not allowing religion to determine them is most defintiely a wise move. It's probably pretty difficult NOT to let society determine these things for people to a certain extent. After all, we DO live in a society and were born into one which already had MANY rules which we began internalizing after the day we were born. To pretend that we can 100% escape having some of these things sort of psychologically determined for us is probably to be in some amount of denial.

"He finds his happiness in this way."

He finds his happiness by doing what he wants and ignoring society and religion? As vague as a fortune cookie. It's sort of like a Hallmark EReligious greeting card which allows one to project pretty much watever they want onto it. That being said, if a person can find happiness without religion, as many have, great. If they can find happiness without following the rules of society, unless they are murderers who are not following the rules of society, then great.

"He uses a reason that is independent of the modern values of society or religion."

Sounds nice, but is probably difficult to do. Takes quite a bit of work and bravery to shed what one has been raised in. And what are modern values? Which ones? SOme think that women should have the same rights as men. This is a modern value which I, being a lefty who fought and supported for such things against the desire of the backward right who fought tooth and nail against such a value, personally feel is good modern value. On the other hand, spending billions of dollars every year on WMD to "protect" ourselves from the very folks who we often have supplied WMD to in the first place, thinking that walking around with a big stick makes us look tough, etc...is a pathetic value. I guess it depends on which ones you're talking about.

"He determines his own values."

It's probably not possible, but sure sounds nice. First thing which comes to MY mind are the fanatical fringe right who think that they exist in some free from caring about anything or anyone lese state, like living in a vaccuum. This is one of the most serious disorders as they are extremist sort of anti-social Darwinists. Evevn most animals behave better than this and show concern for at least their own kind. Just out of curiosity though, if someone determines that killing someone and talking what they have is his own vaoue, and he does it, do you think he's something to look up to because, well, he DID live follow and make his own values?

"This creation of his own values gives him joy"

Killers could possibly have joy. Sounds a little narcissistic, but as already mentioned, it so vague that most anyone could project whatever they want onto it.

"and in order for him to cope with a changing world, he must constantly change."

Well, I find that this sort of throws a cog in the wheel. What if the world is changing, but the values he wishes to follow are old and not changing? Suppose his old values, lets take something the right could appreciate...A desire for keeping blacks in their place, which was his old value, but thanks to the rowdy, moral, lefty, protestors who are always causing trouble of the sort we need, decide that this old outdated and what they consider to be immoral stance shouldbe gotten rid of, like slavery, etc...and most every other seemingly moral change. Well, what does he do? Does he maintain his position and value that blacks should be kept in their place, or a few years back, kept as slaves, as the inbred white-right, and even a few inbred white-left desired, and remain conservative. After all, this IS pretty much the defintion of a conservative. Or should they change?

"This constant state of change is a constant source of joy, leaving little or no room for suffering."

Sounds nice. Could be a Taoist proverb or any number of a hundred other things.

"He does not believe in an afterlife"

Why should he? He has probably gotten this from his society in the first place. Where would anyone get such a notion in the first place? This would be a pretty good example of demonstrating exactly that he did NOT decide something independent from society. It's possible, but most defintiely not a requirement. Some caveman walks out, sees lighting, decides there's some "thing" up there which has more power than himself. Well, is he correct? If he thinks it's a god and names it iwdcbwyb, is he correct? Or is he just ignorant of how the weather works and attributes to it something which stems from his ignorance? The latter I'd have to say.

"or the power of the soul over the body"

Assumes that there's such thing as a soul. This is one of the great questions in philosophy. What'S a soul? What makes it up? Is it just our ability to think? If I'm unconscious do I have a soul? How do you know? Just guess that it must be there? And many, many, many more fun and interesting questions.

"because he does not believe in religion and has no proof of an afterlife or a God.""

There are MANY people who don't. So what? Some of the most moral people I've ever met do not think there's a god. There seems to be little connection between their professed atheism and them being a moral person. One does not need the notion of a god in any way, shape, or form, to be moral, kind, etc...These are HUMAN characteristics, and it's just intelligent to be kind to others. I'm aware that it hurts if I'm hit and so I don't hit others. It's probably a genetic characteristic of our species. This is why governments, authorities, etc...have to put so much money, time, lies, etc...into trying to weed out these noral human traits in order to build armies for fighting. They've even persuaded many folks that fighting itself IS natural. Talk about a deviation from reality. It's NOT natural, and most definitely NOT normal. So, one could be a Christian pacifist, an actual Christian, and not believe in killing "Thou shalt not..." after all. Or one could believe that there is nothing but a species we've named humans and believe killing is not right simply because we should "Do unto others..." which isn't based on any religion at all, but rather just normal human characteristics. Perhaps an atheist-humanist. I can tell you one thing though. Given the choice between having the atheist as a friend, someone who is kind, helps people, etc...and someone claiming to be a Christian who supports war, beats his wife and children, lies out his ass all the time, and tries to preach to others about God's greatness, I'll have to chose the former and assume that the latter's notion of god is seriously flawed, or his god is little more than a mental disorder projecting itself outward, or that god is playing a joke on his, or that there's just no god who would allow such a lathetic creature exist unless it to give lefties something to beat up on when they were bored, or something else.

"Well, KB"

Well, IC, there you have it. Actually, it's only about 1% of what I could have delved into, but I thought I'd keep it simply and short.

"I'd be truly interested in your answer. Yes or no?"

Probably maybe not, but could be sort of maybe. How about you? You can comment on each line as I have and tell me what you think. Given that Warrne Jeffs was just living up to his values, do you think it shuld have been left alone?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
androolSTILLdemonstratingthathehasntasinglecellinhisbrain said:

"Is there any anti-American position that kb won't adopt?"

Is there a single inbred right-wingnut here who can produce a single line I've written which would demonstrate that I'm anti-American"? Here, inbred, let's get something straight. YOUR notion of what makes something as being "pro-American" or "anti-American", both totalitarian notions, is NOT the template for which to measure things. In my opinion, I'm one of the few people on this blog who has demonstrated any concern for the U.S. at all. YOU folks are the "anti-Americans" if you wish to use your vocabulary. You dumbasses even think that being pro-war is an expression of being "all-American" or something equally as ludicrous. Sorry, but you and you kind do NOT define what "America" is any more that someone belonging to the American Socialist Party does. Get down off your pseudo-patriotic low horse and try using your brain for once.

"Are there any limits to his whitewashing and rationalizing of America's enemies?"

Are there any limits to you folks NOT producing any examples for any of the assertions you've made since my first day on this blog? And "whitewashing"? I must simply laugh. If anything, I've whitewashed toward the U.S. side. There are MAAAAAAANY more things which OUR, NOT YOUR, country has done which should be looked at and criticized, and changed if possible. THIS is an example of showing concern for ones country, dumbass. You folks act like criticism, and I haven't even started yet, all I've done is point out a few of the uncontroversial basics, demonstrates "anti-Americanism" and that the only way to be a "real" Amrican is to be in denial, whitewash your own shortcomings or crimes, cheer for the home team regardless if it's wrong, etc....This doesn't demonstrate some abstract inbred notion of "love for ones country". It deomnstrates denial if not a more serious mental disorder. You droolers are funny. You have the psychological sophistication of a grade school child. Sad. Pitiful. Pathetic.

"I was more embarrassed by the idiot-ass introduction which the "president" gave than by Ahmadinejad's naivete about gays supposedly not existing in his country, which, interestingly enough I would have thought the homophobic right would have admired him for."

Yes, I was. It's pretty bad when a supposedly educated man could stand up and make himself appear as little more than an inbred Ann Coulter follower. And to make it even worse, when Cristiane interviewed Ahmadinejad later on CNN he took it all in stride and demonstrated that he wasn't really bothered by such ignorance by ignoring it and actually giving a pretty good definition on what institutions of higher learning should be doing thereby making the president look even more inbred. Pathetic and embarrassing if you can let a "sort of" Holocaust-downplayer(NOT denier), who doesn't think his country has gays, even though this, too is not correct at least accoring the the news I was listening to when the translator said "We don't have that thing..like you do here" which could easily have meant that he's quite well aware there are gays, as he probably is, but that it's just not flaunted or accepted as much as it is in the U.S.. But, well, you know how those who are WANTING to hear things which will confirm their pre-conceived notions are. This is another thing which distingusihes the left from the right in many instances. I personally don't care one way or the other what he thinks as long as he's not attacking me, which he isn't. There are many folks in the U.S. who are in denial about how many people are gay. So the hell what? Teach their dumb asses and then move on.

"Naivete"? That's why I like you kb."

Because I repeatedly point out your naivete WITH evidence as I have just finished doing again? Yes, this shuld be a reason to like me. However, I'd be more impressed if you didn't just like me because of how easy it was for me to point out your naivete, but rather try and grow up so as not to be so naive in the first place.

"The way you spin on behalf of thugs"

What spin? No evidence of spin at all from my side. I have no interest in making him look one way or the other. I could care less. I have no agenda regarding Iran. I DO care that the U.S. may be gearing up for another illegal war though. This demonstrates my concern for the country, just as my and most of the left being anti-Saddam when the right was supporting him during his worst crimes was a demonstration. You know, I've brought this up hundreds of times only to have it never respionded to. This is just another example of YOUR whitewashing and spinning. YOU made apologetics for Saddam when Chomsky was supporting anti-Saddam democratic resistance groups, and it was even illegal to do so in the U.S. at the time because Saddam was such a buddy, and you inbred pseuso-patriots were calling him "anti-American" because he wasn't supporting Saddam like you, ignorant ass idiot. You should learn something about the topic before coming here and pretending to.

"as long as they are anti-American, is so creative."

And yet another ignorant-ass statement. Not a single word have I said has been "anti-American" nor is anyone I use as references anti-American, idiot. Grow up. But if you'd like to prove something I'd be most interested in seeing it, especially given that it's not there.

"I never would have thought of that in a million years."

No shl dyou as there is no anti-Americanism, nor has there ever been, dumbass.

"And oh yeah, your doublethink is showing again."

There STILL has not been a single example of it being present in the first place, so your assertion here is a lie until proven otherwise. And I already told you to quit trying to use terms which you don't know what they mean. I makes you sound even more stupid than you already do. I'm trying to helop you here, inbred.

"An anti-American"


Not a word I've even written, nor has a word even been provided as evidence. Perhaps you can be the first. Give it a try.

"anti-Semitic"

Not a word I've even written, nor has a word even been provided as evidence. Perhaps you can be the first. Give it a try.

"fascist thug speaks and you're whining about how his free speech rights are under attack (which of course they aren't)."

Uhhh...Yeah, that's exactly correct. That'S the AMERICAN position, dumbass, and what distinguishes us from fascist countries. Obviously you don't inderstand the first thing about free speech, or America for that matter, or you'd know that that is 100% correct. And I didn'T say a word about his free speech rights being under attack. I said that the introduction which was made was embarrassing. Didn't say he should have been banned from giving the dumbass introduction either. Here, it's a simple concept. You either believe in free speech or you don't. Period. I do. America has a relatively long tradition of this thanks to the left, and even a few of the right. It's just sort of embarrassing, not to mention ruse as hell, if the college invited him there, just to allow some idiot take pot shots at him. If he was so concerned, they shouldn't have invited him. It's sort of like your daughter is dating some guy who you think you hate based on a few things you've heard him say. You'd never invite him over for dinner in a thousand years, but because your wife, the liberal, thinks you shoul dat least give him a hearing face to face, and she won'T give you any if you don't, you resistantly agree. So, he comes over, thinking he's been invited because someone may be willing to give him a listen, even though he's ware that he's been trash talked about before and has had spies watching him, etc...so you meet him at the door, and start ragging on him
as soon as the door opens with all the stuff you "think" youknow about him. He comes in and quitely eats dinner and answers questions anyway, regardless of the absurdity of some of his answers. Now, who do you think looks better? The father? He looks like an idiot. I've been around many right-wing folks who have said at least as bad and ignorant things as he has. I don't call them "anti-American" simply because of their ignorance, dumbass.

"But the President of Columbia dares to criticize the thug and suddenly your phony concern for free speech is dropped like a bad habit. Why the contradiction?"

Lying out your ass again I see. I've never said a word about anyone not having the right to speak freely. I'm a lefty, dumbass. We're the ones supporting the free speech issues all the time. I could care less if the criminal who runs Columbia, incidentally, the country from all of Latin America with some of the worst human rights records, FAAAAAAAAR beyond anything eminating from Cuba has EVER had. I could care less if he speaks. Hey, as a lefty, we on principle believe in free speech to the extreme because we think the ideas which are strongest will prevail if open and challenged. This is why right-wing government usually kill off the free speech lefties. Always have. Hundreds of thousands just in Latin America alone. Columbia is one of the worst, in fact. More material to educate your dumb ass with:

"Political violence in Colombia increased significantly in 2001, continuing a trend registered the previous year. Colombians fled their homes and even their country in record numbers, facing hunger, the elements, and disease in desperate efforts to save themselves and their families.

In the first ten months of the year, the office of the Public Advocate (Defensor僘 del Pueblo) recorded 92 massacres, which they defined as the killing of three or more people at the same place and at the same time. Most were linked to paramilitary groups working with the tolerance or support of the security forces. Most paramilitaries are allied in the United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia (Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, AUC). Other massacres were perpetrated by anti-government guerrillas. Both paramilitaries and guerrillas reportedly moved with ease throughout the country, including via helicopter." (Read on)
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/02/colombia0205.htm

On Colombia
Noam Chomsky
introduction to Doug Stokes America's Other War: Terrorizing Colombia, Zed, December 2004
As I write, I have just received the most recent of the regular notices from the Jesuit-based human rights organization Justicia y Paz in Bogotà, directed by the courageous priest Father Javier Giraldo, one of Colombia’s leading defenders of human rights, at great personal risk. This notice reports the assassination of an Afro-Colombian human rights activist, Yolanda Cerón Delgado, as she was leaving the pastoral social office near the police station. Justicia y Paz reports that it is a typical paramilitary operation, in association with the government security forces and police. Regrettably, the event is not remarkable.
A few weeks earlier there had been an unusual event: a rare concession of responsibility. The Colombian attorney general’s office reported that the army had lied when it claimed that three dead union leaders were Marxist rebels killed in a firefight. They had, in fact, been assassinated by the army. Reporting the concession, the New York Times observes that “Colombia is by far the world's most dangerous country for union members, with 94 killed last year and 47 slain by Aug. 25 this year,” mostly killed “by right-wing paramilitary leaders linked to rogue army units.” The term “rogue” is interpretation, not description.
The worldwide total of murdered union leaders for 2003 was reported to be 123, three-quarters of them in Colombia. The proportions have been consistent for some time. Not only has Colombia been the most dangerous place for labor leaders anywhere in the world (insofar as statistics are available), but it has been more dangerous than the rest of the world combined. To take another year, on Human Rights Day, 10 December 2002, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions issued its annual Survey of Trade Union Rights. It reported that by then over 150 trade unionists had been murdered in Colombia that year. The final figure for 2002 reported by the International Labor Organization in its 2003 annual survey was 184 trade unionists assassinated in Colombia, 85% of the total worldwide in 2002. The figures are similar in other recent years.
The assassinations are attributed primarily to paramilitary or security forces, a distinction with little apparent difference. Their connections are so close that Human Rights Watch refers to the paramilitaries as the “Sixth Division” of the Colombian army, along with its official five Divisions. As Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other human rights organizations have documented, political murders in Colombia – of which assassinations of union activists constitute a small fraction – are carried out with almost complete impunity. They call for an end to impunity, and termination of US military aid as long as the atrocities continue with scarcely a tap on the wrist. The military aid continues to flow in abundance, with pretexts that are an embarrassment.
It remains to be seen whether the September 2004 concession of the army murders leads to any action. If the past is a guide, nothing will happen beyond the lowest levels, though the evidence for higher military and civilian responsibility is substantial. There have been a few occasions when major massacres were seriously investigated. The most significant of these was the Trujillo massacre in 1990, when more than 60 people were murdered in a particularly brutal army operation, their bodies cut to pieces with chain saws. Under the initiative of Justicia y Paz, the Samper government agreed to allow an independent commission of investigation, including government representatives, which published a report in shocking detail, identifying the military officer in charge, Major Alirio Urueña Jaramillo. Ten years later, Father Giraldo reported that nothing had been done: “Not one of the guilty has been sanctioned,” he said, “even though many more victims have come to light in subsequent years.” US military aid not only continued to flow, but was increased."
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200412--.htm

Now, if I don't mind allowing a murdering neo-Nazi to come and speak, someone who has killed far more in his own country than has the leader of Iran, then why would you have such a problem with the Iranian president? I really can't believe that you haven't learned one damn thing since the last time you were drooling on the other blog. Not one damn thing. Probably just another sign of being inbred.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gwenstoasthasbeenburnt said:

"homophobic right."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"KingBloviator shows himself, more and more for what he is"

Uhhh....A guy who knows something about the subject? Yeah, well, it takes a little study. Perhaps you've heard of that before? Study? I mean, I'm SURE youhaven'T real about it because that would kind of be like "study" and, well, that's not really an option, so maybe you've heard of it in passing?

"with each successive post."

More and more data which has yet to be touched in each successive post. Yeah? This demonstrates a problem on YOUR part, not mine, idiot.

"An utterly clueless, America-hating moron."

No evidence of "clueless", or "America-hating(My favorite of the dumbass whines), or "moronic". Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Now, what makes THIS especially funny, is that the ocmments you've just made demonstrate thatyou are all of the things you've just tried to accuse me of. I have demonstrated, WITH EVIDENCE, that i'm nothing of the sort. You have demonstrated by your lack of evidence that you fit all three of these terms quite well. This is called "projection" for all you inbreds unfamiliar with the concept. Perhaps taking a high school psychology class, you know, when folks usually learn about such phenomena, though children probably even younger already know this as well, would help you from making such obvious mistakes, especially in public.

"We should 'admire' a loony dictator"

And yet another demonstration of being illiterate. Never even hinted that he should be admired. Not a word. That being said, he DID accept an invitation from a raher fancy school, and came knowing what probably lie in store anyway. Gotta give him a little credit for bravery. Or perhaps he was just deminstrating his naivete again by thinking those who had invitied him would be polite or something stupid like that. Nope, never even a word about admiring him.

"for making an undoubtedly false claim? r-ighhht."

Which one? Heprobably made several. So the hell what? Bush illeghally invaded another country and killed thousands of people so far by making undoubtedly false claims, idiot. And BUSH is YOUR responsibility. Jesus Christ! I've never seen so many irrespionsible droolers collected in one place before, whining about how bad eveyone else is while doing the very things you're accusing them of doing, but worse. The U.S. invades Iraq based on lies, kills thousands of people, etc...but it's not a problem, even though illegal. This is okay because, well, after all, it's us. But if someone else says there country doesn't have a gat issue, now THAT'S a crisis. We should invade and start killing everyone for their own good, again. And you inbreds wonder why som many people all over the globe fear Bush and the U.S. more than Saddam or bin Laden, as a poll from Canada showed. You folks are simply dangerous and have bo business playing with the weapons you have.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
feeltheignoranceeminatingfrommymoutheverytimeiopenit said:

"kb's hypocrisy is glaring yet again."

Yeah, you folks sure keep saying this and have yet to give a single example.

"Calling the enablers of terrorism rude?"

Don't know what you're referring to. I called the university president rude and embarrassing. How does THAT demonstrate hypocrisy in any way, shape, or form. Perhap you don't understand the concept of "hypocrisy" either. Just ask me and I can give you many examples. Actually, I've already given you some of your own hypocrisy right here in the above comments. ANyway, read and learn:

Noam Chomsky on the hypocrisy of the US 'war on terrorism'
Noam Chomsky is one of the leading opponents of US foreign policy. He is the author of many books which attack the hypocrisy and violence of US governments. Here we print extracts from a talk he gave at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology last month.

"What happened on 11 September was a historic event-not, unfortunately, because of its scale. It is unpleasant to think about, but the scale was not that unusual. It's a historic event because there was a change in the direction in which the guns were pointed.

The last time that the national territory of the United States was under attack was when the British burned down Washington in 1814. There have been many recent references to Pearl Harbor. But that's not a good analogy. The Japanese bombed military bases in two US colonies-colonies which had been taken from their inhabitants in not a very pretty way.

During these close to 200 years since the last attack on the national territory the US expelled or mostly exterminated the indigenous population (that's many millions of people), conquered half of Mexico, carried out depredations all over the region (the Caribbean and Central America) and sometimes beyond, and conquered Hawaii and the Philippines, killing several hundred thousand Filipinos in the process.

Since the Second World War the US has extended its reach around the world. But it was always killing someone else. This is the reason why most of the rest of the world looks at the 11 September crime quite differently, not lacking sympathy for the victims of the atrocity or being horrified by it-that's almost uniform-but viewing it from a different perspective.

The "war against terrorism" has been described in high places as a struggle against a plague, a cancer which is spread by barbarians, by "depraved opponents of civilisation itself". The words I'm quoting, however, happen to be from 20 years ago. Atrocities

They are from President Reagan and his Secretary of State. The Reagan administration came into office declaring that the war against international terrorism would be the core of our foreign policy. The Reagan administration responded to this plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilisation" by creating an extraordinary international terrorist network. It was unprecedented in scale and carried out massive atrocities all over the world.

I'll just mention one case, which is totally uncontroversial. It's uncontroversial because of the judgements of the highest international authorities-the International Court of Justice, the World Court and the UN Security Council. I'm talking about the Reagan-US war against Nicaragua, which left tens of thousands of people dead and the country ruined, perhaps beyond recovery. Nicaragua didn't respond by setting off bombs in Washington. It responded by taking the US to the World Court-it had no problem putting together evidence.

The World Court accepted its case, ruled in its favour, condemned what it called the "unlawful use of force" (which is another word for international terrorism) by the US, and ordered the US to terminate the crime and pay massive reparations.

The US, of course, dismissed the court judgement with total contempt and announced that it would not accept the jurisdiction of the court. Then Nicaragua went to the UN Security Council, which considered a resolution calling on all states to observe international law. No one was mentioned but everyone understood. The US vetoed the resolution. It now stands as the only state on record which has both been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism and has vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on states to observe international law.

Nicaragua then went to the General Assembly, where there is technically no veto, but a negative US vote amounts to a veto. It passed a similar resolution with only the US, Israel and El Salvador opposed. The following year the US could only rally Israel to the cause. Nicaragua tried all the measures. They don't work in a world that is ruled by force.

The US responded to the World Court and the Security Council by immediately escalating the war very quickly. Official orders were given to the Contra terrorist army to attack what are called "soft targets", meaning undefended civilian targets. Terrorism, like other means of violence, is primarily a weapon of the strong. It is held to be a weapon of the weak because the strong also control the doctrinal systems, and their terror doesn't count as terror."
(more factual content, data, details, etc...here for those seeking truth as opposed to playing 'who can be the loudest propagandist'.
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=12190

"ahmadinejihad is a liar."

So is Bush. So is my ex-wife. So what?

"he is funding the war on terror"

Much less than you are. No evidence.

"and most iranians in this country who fled the Ayatollah don't even acknowledge 'Iran.' They are Persians."

And like the usual dumbass statement you forget to mention history as usual. What LED to the Ayatollah in the first place, idiot. The U.S. supported murdering dictator the Shah which people voted against. GOD, you folks refuse to accept responsibility for ANYTHING. YOU, created the Ayatollah, idiot. Perhaps if the U.S. had been supporting who most of the citizens wanted to be their leader, instead of supporting the usual murdering dictator, there would have been much less problem. Same hoes with Saddam when YOU supported him, or Suharto, or Marcos, or any number of dozens of others. What do you this is going to happen in Iraq? I mean, the ONLY reason the U.S. is stayingthere now is tl make sure the guy they've put in is sedure and in place, which, of course, will never happen, thereby probably giving the U.S. exactly the excuse they're looking for NOT to have to leave, ever. Well, the longer we stay, the more the people will feel that this "elected leader" is NOT good for them, the more they keep being killed, the more most anyone will look better. Then some ultra-religious fanatic will come along who appears strong as is saying the right things, and they will all follow him and he'll be even worse. Actions have consequences. Don'T they teach you these things in your right-wing inbred home-schools?

"Grow up, assclown."

Looking at the mirror when talking to me isn'T really doing you much good. Read a book for Christ's sake and quite deoending on Rush, Coulter, FOX, or bathroom stalls(All the same, though the stalls may be more informative. May ask Larry Criag and see what he says)for your information.

"And there is no naivete about 'gays' in Islam. You excuse his naivete based on what?"

Uhhh....Not knowing. How is this of your concern, did you say? I love it when the right are put into the uncomfortable position of having to either support the Iranian president because of his comments regarding gays, or go and rent a copy of Brokeback Mountain just to prove they don't think like he does. It's ALL good.

"Ignorance of our culture?"

Well, I'd bet a couple of million that he as well as most Iranian know infinitely more about the U.S. as the other way around as is usually the case. As a matter of fact, I'd bet that the majority of Amercians can't find Iran on a map. But boy do we know a lot about them and their culture. We most definnitely know enough to go start bombing them.

"A way of life for gays?"

Not of your concern. How about the rights of gays inthe countries YOU support, hypocrite ass.(Here, let's give them even more ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support MY position that THEY ae the hypocrites and not I)
Let's see....hmmm....which of the U.S. allies should we use to demonstrate to our little drooling friend THEIR own hypocrisy....How about one of our biggest allies, Saudi Arabia:

Saudi Arabia
Statute:
Penalty: Death
Restrictions:

News
The Kingdom in the Closet - The Atlantic Monthly, May 2007
Sodomy is punishable by death in Saudi Arabia, but gay life flourishes there. Why it is easier to be gay than straight・in a society where everyone, homosexual and otherwise, lives in the closet.
In Saudi Arabia, AIDS Still a Stigma Despite Government, Activist Actions - The Advocate, November 28, 2006
Saudis Reportedly Arrest 20 At 'Gay Wedding' - 365Gay.com, August 17, 2006
20 Arrested at Saudi Gay Wedding - Independent Online, August 16, 2006
Saudi authorities arrested 20 young men after raiding a suspected gay wedding in the southern town of Jizan. The detainees, who were among some 400 men attending "the wedding party of two men" on Tuesday, had been "emulating women."
Saudi Arabia Begins to Face Hidden AIDS Problem - New York Times, August 8, 2006
He lives virtually in hiding, his real life a secret from his family and some of his closest friends.
Gay Men Flogged and Tortured in Saudi Arrests - Gay.com, April 8, 2005
Saudi Arabia Sentences More Than 100 to Prison and Flogging for gay Conduct・/a> - 365Gay.com, April 7, 2005
Saudi Arabia: Men behaving Like Women・ Face Flogging - Human Rights Watch, April 7, 2005
Police to Free Detainees from Gay Gathering - The Washington Times, March 21, 2005
Thirty in Court after Saudi Raid on Gay Wedding - The Guardian, March 19, 2005
Saudi Arabia Arrests 110 Gay Men - Gay.com U.K., March 18, 2005
Saudi Arrests at gay Wedding・/a> - 365Gay.com, March 18, 2005
Saudi Puts Gay Wedding Party on Trial - The Saudi Institute, March 16, 2005
Saudi Gay Men Executed for Killing Man Who Witnessed Sex Act - The Advocate, March 15, 2005
Anger as Saudi Arabia Executes Gay Men - Gay.com U.K., March 14, 2005
Saudis Behead Gay Couple - 365Gay.com, March 14, 2005
Saudi Executes Gay Lovers for Killing Pakistani - Reuters, March 13, 2005
Queer Sheik - July/August 2004
Saudi Government Lifts Gay Web Ban - April 2, 2004
Saudis Quiz gay Wedding・Guests - March 2, 2004
Saudi Police Bust gay・Wedding - March 1, 2004
Saudi Religious Police Busts Gay Wedding - The Saudi Institute, February 26, 2004
Saudi Gays Flaunt New Freedoms: straights Can Kiss in Public or Hold Hands Like Us・/a> - February 20, 2004
Saudis Report Jump in Aids Cases - October 23, 2003
Saudi Arabia Censors Gay Website - Gay.com U.K., June 20, 2003
Saudi Arabia: Human Rights Groups Emerging - Human Rights Watch, May 9, 2003
Is Beheading Really the Punishment for Homosexuality in Saudi Arabia? - December 2002
Tight T-shirts and a Gay Caf・in the Saudi Capital - By Mubarak Dahir, November 5, 2002
Paris Protest Over Saudi Executions - January 12, 2002
Saudi Official: Molestation Led to Beheadings - January 11, 2002
Who They Hate - January, 9 2002
Al-Fatiha Denounces Executions in Saudi Arabia - January 8, 2002
Saudis and Human Rights - January 7, 2002
Saudis Beheaded for Sodomy - January 4, 2002
Saudi Gay Men Publicly Beheaded - January 3, 2002
Saudis Behead Three Gay Men - January 2, 2002
Saudi Arabians Behead Three Accused Gays - January 2, 2002
Three Saudi Men Beheaded for Sodomy - January 1, 2002
Saudi Executes Three for Molesting Boys - January 1, 2002
3 More Saudi Executions - July 14, 2000
Saudi Executes Three Yemenis for Homosexuality - July 14, 2000
Saudi Executes Three Men For Homosexuality, Rape - July 11, 2000
Executions in Saudi Arabia - July 11, 2000
Nine Saudi Men Sentenced on Sodomy Charges - April 17, 2000
Nine Saudi Transvestites Jailed - April 16, 2000
Saudi, 2 Yemenis Suffer Amputation - February 13, 2000
http://www.sodomylaws.org/world/saudi_arabia/saudi_arabia.htm

"Ahmadinejihad did not get to be president of Iran by being naive, dickhead."

Never said he did.

"He was supposedly a moderate, like Hillary."

She's actually more conservative.

"The mantra of Islam is to 'know your enemy.'"

Is nonsense.....

"He has access to information about this country at all times and culture is one place where you will win or lose people."

Yes, I'm sure given how advanced their country is he just has a wiretap on everyones phone.

"You leftard pinkos know this...and base your platforms accordingly."

What sort fo dumbass comment is this. I'm no pinko, and my only platform is thinking that killing folks is not a good thing to do, amongst other civil ideas which distinguish me from the mentally ill folks who think it's a sport of some sort.

"You want the gay vote"

I don't care. I want the vote of whoever the most rational person is. This is why gays have usually voted for the left, as they are quite well aware that the inbreds neo-Nazi fascists from the right would hang them all were they ever to ascend to power. That being said, like any other group there are a few idiot s among them who think it's cool to be different and ignore the very "platform" and people who fought for their rights in the first place, and side with the enemy.(See Log Cabin Republicans, Black Republicans, etc...)

"appeal to either NAMBLA, the Lesbian Avengers"

Everyone I know from the left, including gays, are anti-NAMBLA because this is a ciminal organization and most gay are not criminals.

"or 'mainstream' gay couples who want families."

Better a mainstream gay couple who cares about the kid than a racist, redneck, inbred, neo-Nazi, wife-beating, PBR-drinking, idiot couple. You know, and other like mormons?

"That is why you change your spots, you fu**in' chameleon."

Haven't changed a position I've hasd since the first day here nor have you demonstrated that I have. Have you EVER read a book in your life? Anyway, being the always polite lefty I am, I'll allow you the chance to present some evidence to support your dumbass assertions. You DO know youhave yet to do this even once, don't you? Not a single time. Zero. Zilch.

"You have no loyalty"

And yet another dumbass statement. I most certainly DO have loyalty. I'm 100% loyal to making sure you and the inbreded lemmings don't fuck up the U.S. any more than you already have. I'm loyal to the truth which will help me to carry out this mission, too.

"no absolutes except to make everyone as miserable as you are. And you are miserable."

Now where on goddess's green earth would, or even could, you haven't gotten anything of the sort from anything I've written? I'm anything BUT miserable. I'm quite happy. Even as I sit here trying to teach your dumb ass how to read and understand basic words and concepts I'm quite happy. What's there to be unhappy about other than a few droolers who don't know that it's not a good idea to play in the street, especially with blindfolds on, while spinning around and speaking in tongues. It's quite entertaining for me, not to mention that I feel good that I can share with you all of this data which I do, you know, that stuff which you don't read because you think, incorrectly, of course, that you already know what it says? I feel good knowing that the truth will make the usual right-wing lies be exposed quite easily. I'm more than happy to participate in this charity. So, YOU can try and project your own miserable, Wal-Mart shopping, Fat-ass McDonald's eating, Right-wing thumb-sucking drool onto me all you want, but I, as well as any other literate and rational person reading our exchanges knows, it's YOU who are angry.

"No one can be happy having the so called 'values' you do."

And yet MORE projection. That being said, I think there are MANY people, probably MOST people around the world who would be quite happy with the values I have, inbred dumbass. These values would include being against war, riding the world of poverty, pollution, discrimination, enjoying life as much as possible, etc....You know, the usual value of most rational and sane people. Of course YOUR values would include everything eose, yes? Pro-war, anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-well, basically everything moral and civil. You folks are really pitiful. How sad.

feelthelove

kb, when gays demand rights reserved for traditional couples IT IS MY FUCKING CONCERN.
You keep your ignorant and hypocritical nose out of it. I don't go around demanding gays be shot, hosed off or imprisoned...only when they prey on children. Keep it legal, and between adults, no problem. Of course, you can't qualify as an adult because of your stupid behavior. And WHY is it my concern? Because many times I see
those who would truly be stellar parents denied the privilege of raising children because of an orientation. Hell yes I think it is sin. But as long as a gay couple stays faithful to their partner and they do their best to provide a stable nurturing home, no problem. Certainly gay parents with this background are preferable to aborted children...but you are such a lame ass twit you seem to think that it isn't my concern.

Go fuck yourself. Since you claim you have such a large appendage, it wouldn't be anatomically impossible.

feelthelove

Once again, your naivete is just amazing. He has briefings and Iran has a secret police. You really are stupid. And be careful who you are calling inbred, since you
believe in being descended from animals...no telling what simian lines you are crossed with.

Intellectual Conservative

Thank you, KB, for exposing yourself as a follower of Nietzsche. If you'll look at your own answers, and my comparison to Nietzsche on the more recent thread, I'm sure you'll figure out I figured you out.

Oh, and others have too.

Justa Joe

"naivete" - classic

You know they say that the leftist dictator Hitler was naive to all the bad stuff that was going on in his administration so maybe leftist totalinarianism isn't all that bad afterall.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Fair Trade
Gift Shop

  • fairtradelogo.jpg

Sites I'm Banned From