Quote :

"is Massachussetts more academic than Alabama? "

hell no. those Irish are dumb as bricks.

9/26/2007 10:56:49 PM

Quote :

"keep posting in it to show how much you don't care about it"

What gave you that idea?

9/26/2007 10:57:15 PM

Quote :

"most likely never again"

another blatant lie

9/26/2007 10:59:55 PM

HUR said it best, and it will always be true for you

Quote :

"ahh more use of insults and false conclusions to make up for your lack of reading comprehension skills and debate skills."

9/26/2007 11:09:21 PM

tell us more about how you're probably not going to post in TSB ever again

9/26/2007 11:12:24 PM

9/26/2007 11:18:37 PM

hay guyz


















whats up?

9/27/2007 2:01:03 AM

Quote :

" I invite you to come up with your own reason as to why the two cases were treated differently. When you do, please share it with me."

The two cases are not comparable. A number of people have already said this.

One guy is unpopular, but is a leader of a nation of millions, and a key player is a potential international conflict.

The other guy is simply famous for screwing up. What exactly do you think would have been discussed at his forum? The finer details of university leadership? From the reports I've read, half of his staff hated him well before his commentary on women.


And you can't simply dismiss the fact that this took place in two -completely separate- universities. What, do you think these folks get together each year and write up a speaker black list? You can't claim "double standard" when you're talking about two different entity's standards. Unless of course you have an overly simplistic view of the people you're accusing.

9/27/2007 7:46:27 AM

^ Your argument is too far above TreeTwista10's comprehension level.

9/27/2007 8:26:05 AM

Quote :

"tell us more about how you're probably not going to post in TSB ever again"

How can I tell you more, when I haven't told you anything to begin with?

I thought posting HURs comment about reading comprehension would give you a clue. But, durr, if you can't comprehend what you read, how could any words give you a clue?

9/27/2007 8:31:17 AM

Quote :

"The two cases are not comparable. A number of people have already said this. One guy is unpopular, but is a leader of a nation of millions, and a key player is a potential international conflict. The other guy is simply famous for screwing up. What exactly do you think would have been discussed at his forum? The finer details of university leadership? From the reports I've read, half of his staff hated him well before his commentary on women. And you can't simply dismiss the fact that this took place in two -completely separate- universities. What, do you think these folks get together each year and write up a speaker black list? You can't claim "double standard" when you're talking about two different entity's standards. Unless of course you have an overly simplistic view of the people you're accusing."

Is this seriously the best you can come up with? Just because you say the two instances are not comparable doesn't make it true. The two universities aren't the issue here. It's liberal academia. The liberals at Columbia promoted free speech in this case. The ones in the U of C system didn't. Why the disparity? I thought infringing on one's free speech is one of the surest ways to draw a liberal's ire. I hope so because today's conservatives don't seem terribly concerned with it.

Obviously they thought Summers had something to say because we was originally invited to come and speak. Only after 300 U of C system faculty signed a letter of protest was he told not to come. The fact that people hated him isn't a good reason to disinvite him from speaking. Millions of people hate Ahmadinejad, but he was still allowed to speak.

Therefore the only differences between the two is what each one brought to the table in terms of career experience and what they had to say. I won't try to deny that Ahmadinejad had something of import to say. I don't think it was as important as some of you are making out, mainly because he just recycles his inflamatory "We're going to get nuclear power whether you like it or not, and Jews are evil, etc.,etc.", but hearing him speak was worth this risk nonetheless.

Summers also brings an extreme viewpoint to the table on certain issues. His questioning of women and minorities' abilities to excel in math and science is a good example. So again what he had to say would have contributed an opposing but legitimate (however misguided it may be) viewpoint.

So I guess it comes down to where each speaker is in their career. Presently Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran. I completely agree with Columbia's decision to allow him to speak because he is obviously relevant on the world stage.

The world stage isn't Summers venue; however, academia is. You can't deny the man's credentials. Former President of Harvard and former Treasury Secretary to President Clinton. I would want to listen to someone with those credentials.

So if Ahmadinejad and Summers both bring to the table extreme viewpoints, inspire equal (and this is a stretch) hatred, and both have impressive credentials, why is one given the green light to voice his opinion, but the other is specifically uninvited from his speaking engagement (at the behest of 300 faculty who I would say not coincidentally are members of one of the most liberal University systems in the country)?

9/27/2007 9:38:28 AM

The right wing conspiracy theory that the liberal are trying to brainwash college kids by engulfing academia is about as stupid as the left wing conspiracy theory that 9/11 was known beforehand by the Bush administration

9/27/2007 10:00:41 AM

so... some asshole gets fired and replaced for pissing off all of his co-workers by being sexist and racist

AND

oh man providing an open forum for the discussion of ideas and possible conflict resolution is all part of the Left Wing Academic Zionist agenda

fuck man, we're all screwed

9/27/2007 10:32:47 AM

Quote :

"but is a leader of a nation of millions, and a key player is a potential international conflict"

so by that criteria, you'd be in favor of someone like Hitler or Mussolini speaking at an American University...but they're leaders of nations of millions and key players in potential international conflicts!

9/27/2007 11:02:15 AM

no... they're dead

don't be so contentious

they were key players in past conflicts
perhaps if these conflicts had been discussed in universities they wouldn't have been resolved on battle fields

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 11:04 AM. Reason : really, you should be above these kinds of infantile claims]

9/27/2007 11:03:25 AM

obviously they are dead, its pretty infantile to feel the need to point that out

the point is...AJ isnt just some "president of a country" unless Hitler was just the president of some country also

its amazing how he seems to be more favorably viewed on TWW/TSB than Bush...thats really, really sad

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

9/27/2007 11:12:31 AM

Ahmadinejad was introduced as a "cruel and petty dictator" at Columbia

I think the way in which he was handled was appropriate
he got to speak, people got to listen and evaluate what he said
and he was shown all due courtesy

9/27/2007 11:17:31 AM

If this was say 1940, would you be for or against allowing Hitler or Mussolini or Tojo to come into an American University and speak?

9/27/2007 11:29:27 AM

I wipe my hands clean of this thread. It's apparent nobody is going to try to answer my question with any kind of sincerity, so I'm not going to waste my time.

And for those of you who insist on throwing about the terms conspiracy and the like, you're no better than the conservative folks who resort to name-calling when they are at a loss as to what to say. Meeting a legitimate question with the equivalent of propaganda and blatant sarcasm are a veiled attempt at making up for your debating inadequacies.

9/27/2007 11:52:07 AM

^^ In 1940 Hitler and Mussolini were both in a large scale shooting war with our European allies, so I'd probably say no. I'd also probably be against Tojo since in 1940 he was a general in the Japanese Army, fighting a war in China (with who we had stronger allegiences to than Japan).

To answer your question, though, I'd probably be OK with Hitler or Mussolini speaking in the US prior to 1938-ish, and I probably would be OK with any of the Japanese Prime Ministers prior to Koki Hirota (except maybe for those around 1931).

At no time would I have been happy to see Hitler, Mussolini, AJ, or the Japanese PM's speaking in the US. But that doesn't mean that I would act to prevent their speaking.

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2007 12:00:07 PM

I just don't see AJ speaking at Columbia as I would see the leader of a free nation like England, France, Germany, Japan, etc speaking at Columbia...I mean stop executing homosexuals and denying people human rights in your own country before you preach to us whats so bad about our country

9/27/2007 12:02:39 PM

Quote :

"Just because you say the two instances are not comparable doesn't make it true."

9/27/2007 12:05:09 PM

^^ Who said they were the same? Who sees them as the same? AJ is a dictator and the others are leaders of modern, fairly free countries. Those differences don't mean that you shouldn't listen. It just means that you interpret what they say differently.


^^^^

Quote :

"Just because you say the two instances are not comparable doesn't make it true."

See? I can do that too.

This has nothing to do with free speech. If you think that two universities--located on opposite sides of the country with completely separate leadership and organizational structures-- are somehow tied together through a 'liberal academia' that coordinates and organizes the actions of each, then it is up to you to provide proof that it is true. It is not up to others to show that it is not true.

9/27/2007 12:23:03 PM

Quote :

"Those differences don't mean that you shouldn't listen"

But don't the differences mean we should be a lot less likely to provide a platform for him to speak? Should we let the grand wizard of the KKK speak at a university? I mean you don't have to listen, right? How about some other leaders of hate groups? Just because our country protects freedom of speech, does that mean we should actively provide a platform for anyone to speak?

When somebody vows death on my children I don't exactly welcome him with open arms.

9/27/2007 12:29:16 PM

Columbia is a private institution

they can do whatever THEY like

what is this "we" bullshit?

9/27/2007 12:33:58 PM

Not that I support AJ since I know how you like to warp and misinterpret people's comments. Regarding...

Quote :

"I just don't see AJ speaking at Columbia as I would see the leader of a free nation like England, France, Germany, Japan, etc speaking at Columbia...I mean stop executing homosexuals and denying people human rights in your own country before you preach to us whats so bad about our country"

cause we all know that if you disagree with TreeTwista10 then you are a retarted fucking idiot and should not be allowed to speak. I am glad he isn't president or we really would be a facist state. Anyone apart of the "liberal agenda" would end up in prison for treason.

Quote :

"When somebody vows death on my children I don't exactly welcome him with open arms."

AJ never called my cell and told me death to my children

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM. Reason : l]

9/27/2007 12:36:24 PM

^^what does that have to do with anything? nobody is saying him speaking is illegal...they're saying its completely tasteless, which it is...why dont you address that?

^just shut up if you dont have anything worthwhile to say (which you dont)

hey bin Ladin never called the guys in the world trade towers' cellphones

9/27/2007 12:41:25 PM

^^^^^ Did you read my next sentence?

Quote :

"Those differences don't mean that you shouldn't listen. It just means that you interpret what they say differently."

When the Grand Wizard stands up and says "Viva la White Power," you say "Wow, the Klan is just as fucked up as I thought they were."

When AJ says "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon," you say "Wow, AJ is just as fucked up as I thought he was."

Incidently, AJ's homosexual comment probably did more damage to his international standing than all of Bush's Axis of Evil speeches.

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2007 12:41:36 PM

did you even watch the video?

Lee Bollinger ripped Ahmadinejad a new one

how can you criticize this man for standing up to a heinous dictator?

9/27/2007 12:44:32 PM

^^but why would you want to provide a public stage to the grand wizard or AJ? i don't really need to listen to the grand wizard of the KKK...I don't need to listen to what he says or interpret what he says because I already know what he stands for...just like I already know what AJ stands for

^i'm not criticizing anyone for standing up to a heinous dictator...I'm criticizing him initially for inviting a heinous dictator to his campus to speak in the first place

Quote :

"Incidently, AJ's homosexual comment probably did more damage to his international standing than all of Bush's Axis of Evil speeches."

I think you're probably right...also it seemed to me that that was one of the things that actually caught AJ off guard...where he couldn't essentially read from his script...still though saying "we don't have homosexuals" is a little misleading...he could've been literal and said "homosexuality is not permitted in Islam, so we execute all homosexuals because that is the will of Allah"

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2007 12:44:37 PM

Quote :

"It's apparent nobody is going to try to answer my question with any kind of sincerity, so I'm not going to waste my time."

It's apparent that you have no interest in listening to us.

Quote :

"The liberals at Columbia promoted free speech in this case. The ones in the U of C system didn't. Why the disparity?"

Do you realize how ignorant you sound here? Liberalism is an ideology, not a tree fort. You could just as easily ask why there's disparity within a religion, or a culture. The answer is, of course, that no such group should be treated as a single entity.

Quote :

"Therefore the only differences between the two is what each one brought to the table in terms of career experience and what they had to say."

Exactly.

9/27/2007 12:44:50 PM

you don't want to listen to anyone because you're a fascist

9/27/2007 12:46:05 PM

Quote :

"just shut up if you dont have anything worthwhile to say (which you dont)"

The pot calling the kettle black eh?

9/27/2007 12:48:52 PM

^you said absolutely zero about anything relevant...all you did was make remarks about namecalling, etc...while I'm sitting here continuing to address AJ's speech...idiot

^^So listening to an Islamofascist will make me not fascist? Brilliant logic, as usual

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2007 12:49:36 PM

YES his speech was heinous and unacceptable

I'm not arguing in his favor

I'm simply saying that a univeristy is an appropriate forum for ANY kind of discourse

9/27/2007 12:52:00 PM

^^ you are pretty much like the SalisburyBoy of the right-wing bush agenda oriented TWWers. Even you fellow bush lovers think the majority of the comments u make are idiotic

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : l]

9/27/2007 12:52:11 PM

Quote :

"but why would you want to provide a public stage to the grand wizard or AJ?"

When did I say that I wanted to provide AJ a public stage?

Doesn't really matter, though. Others in this country are free to provide him with a public stage. While I may not agree with how Columbia used their stage, I certainly agree with Columbia's right to use their stage as they like.

It's a pretty fundamental part of our country.

9/27/2007 1:00:58 PM

I just do not see the big deal. What is everyone afraid of?? He might brainwash the people in the crowd into supporting Iran. In my view AJ speaking at Columbia is like Preacher Gary speaking in the brickyard. No one is actually inspired by Gary to become a renewed virgin, give up drinking, and follow his warped view of the perfect Christian lifestyle. The only people they even pay attention to Gary are those who stop and laugh at his absurd comments or to refute his ridiculous ramblings.

[Edited on September 27, 2007 at 1:11 PM. Reason : l]

9/27/2007 1:10:49 PM

I get the outrage to giving Ahmadinejad a platform as a knee-jerk reaction. Regardless of free speech, giving him the mic is a sign of respect in and of itself.

But seriously... how do you weed out fanaticism, hate-based ideas, and positions based on lies?

Answer - Stick a microphone in its face, and let the house of cards crumble.

9/27/2007 2:19:00 PM

Quote :

"it is up to you to provide proof evidence that it is true."

A Tanzarian

Fixed it for you.

Evidence has already been provided and that you may choose to believe or not. Some of you post here that leftists are generally smarter than conservatives, so it's no surprise that academia employs a majority of leftists, right? When I simply try to agree with part of that assertion--academia employs a majority of leftists--you call me dishonest or some such.

You simply can't have it both ways.



[Edited on September 28, 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason : .]

9/28/2007 12:04:33 AM

First of all, I'm not sure what sort of inane point you're trying to make about proof and evidence.

Quote :

"proof: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact"

Quote :

"evidence: something that furnishes proof"

Regardless, no proof has been provided of a 'vast liberal conspiracy in academia'. The fact that two different universities acted differently with respect to two different speakers is only proof of...well...nothing.

Quote :

"Some of you post here that leftists are generally smarter than conservatives"

I know that you like to group people together to fit your 'me versus the evil liberals' mentality, but who is this 'you' that you speak of? I never said this and, in fact, I disagree with the statement that 'leftists are generally smarter than conservatives'.

Quote :

"When I simply try to agree with part of that assertion--academia employs a majority of leftists--you call me dishonest or some such."

When have I ever called you dishonest? I've called you a bitter, crotchety ephebiphobe and stupid, but I don't believe that I've ever called you dishonest. Certainly not in this thread, at least.

I do disagree with the statement that "academia employs a majority of leftists."

I would agree with the statement that "the majority of those employed in academia are liberal."

9/28/2007 7:06:54 AM

Well, this thread followed a repeatable pattern. Non treetwister people having a reasonable debate. Twister comes in and trolls it up for a couple pages while he is bored at work. People destroy him after he leaves work. He forgets to come back to the thread the next day. People that were interested in the thread assume it was killed and never come back to keep the discussion up. He'll be back eventually and launch a couple insults at me as well as a few others.


ad nausueam

9/28/2007 4:29:57 PM

9/28/2007 5:20:50 PM

^^^
leftist:

Quote :

"noun 1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views. adjective 2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or advocated by the political Left."

So, leftists aren't liberals?

9/29/2007 2:56:19 AM

No, in normal political discussion liberal and leftist are essentially synonymous.

I don't believe that a majority, or even a plurality, of liberals are employed in academia.
I do believe that a majority of those who work in academia are liberal.



Figured you be all over that one. It's the kind of inanity that you like to fixate on. But it doesn't really surprise me that you can't spot the other differences between those two phrases. Nor does it surprise me that you ignored the rest of my post, where I address you falsely accusing me of calling you dishonest. Pretty stark contrast to you getting your panties in a wad when I compared you to salisburyboy.

[Edited on September 29, 2007 at 9:53 AM. Reason : ]

9/29/2007 9:41:30 AM

leftist" is a pejorative term, and many "liberals" do not identify as leftists. what's the opposite of a "Leftist"? that's essentially a "right-wing reactionary"

now, do all conservatives also identify "rightwing reactionaries"?

i dont think so. not any more than all liberals are "leftists".

of course this will just get a rolly-eyes from our pedantic grammar nanny, because he won't have a meaningful response.

unless he's still doing that pussy smiley-face thing.

9/30/2007 10:29:56 PM

10/1/2007 12:35:35 AM

excuse me, i don't remember calling your name.

oh, wait.... unless you identify yourself as "pedantic grammar nanny"







[Edited on October 1, 2007 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ]

10/1/2007 12:51:47 AM

10/1/2007 1:00:36 AM

Seattle public schools want a side of political correctness served on your Thanksgiving table.

Quote :

"Washington state's largest school district sent letters to teachers and other employees suggesting Thanksgiving should be 'a time of mourning' for its Native American students. The memo, from Caprice Hollins, the district's director of Equity, Race & Learning Support, included an attachment to a paper titled 'Deconstructing the Myths of "The First Thanksgiving."' It includes 11 'myths' disputing everything from what was served at the first Thanksgiving (no mashed potatoes or cranberries) and who provided the food to the nature of the Pilgrims themselves: Myth No. 3 calls the colonists 'rigid fundamentalists' who came to the New World 'fully intending to take the land away from its native inhabitants.' But what got the Internet abuzz was Myth No. 11: 'Thanksgiving is a happy time.' It was followed by 'Fact: For many Indian people, "Thanksgiving" is a time of mourning ... a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship.' But what got the Internet abuzz was Myth No. 11: "Thanksgiving is a happy time." It was followed by "Fact: For many Indian people, 'Thanksgiving' is a time of mourning ... a bitter reminder of 500 years of betrayal returned for friendship." Hollins would not defend her letter, but David Tucker, a spokesman for the district, said it was an effort to be sensitive to minorities in Seattle schools. 'One of the core elements in education is not just understanding your own life history but also those of others,' he said. But one Seattle-area tribe says Thanksgiving is not somber on the reservation but a time to see friends and family, as it is for other Americans. Native Americans in the Northwest celebrate the holiday with turkey and salmon, said Daryl Williams of the Tulalip Tribes. Before the period of bitter and violent relationships between natives and their culturally European counterparts, they worked together to survive, he said. 'The spirit of Thanksgiving, of people working together to help each other, is the spirit I think that needs to grow in this country, because this country has gotten very divisive,' he said [emphasis added]. Nationally syndicated talk show host Michael Medved was more blunt. 'The notion that now you have a major school system sending out a message that, no, rather than expressing thanks we should emphasize guilt on this holiday — that is sick, it is destructive and it is anti-American.' Seattle Public Schools has been in the news before, not always for the performance of its students. The U.S. Department of Education investigated in April after the district spent part of a federal Smaller Learning Communities grant to send 20 students to the 'Eighth Annual White Privilege Conference.' After complaints last year, the district removed from its Web site a definition of racism that claimed planning ahead and individualism were examples of cultural racism [emphasis added]."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312480,00.html

I didn't post this outrage before because I didn't want to mar Thanksgiving. Un-fucking-believable.

11/26/2007 2:52:50 AM