According to Alan Colmes, since evil dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a liberal, but instead a "conservative," then conservatives in America should not be offended because the Iranian leader received better treatment on a college campus than some of America's conservative political figures, some of whom have been met with attacks with pies or other violence.
Such was the absurd argument suggested by the liberal FNC host during a discussion on Monday's "Hannity and Colmes." Colmes commented to conservative guest/author David Horowitz: "Ahmadinejad's not a liberal. He's a conservative. He's very right wing. He was welcome at Columbia University. You shouldn't be complaining. Phil Donohue, Hillary Clinton, they've been all booed off stages. You don't talk about that." (Transcript follows)
Before asking his first question to Horowitz, conservative co-host Sean Hannity began the segment by recounting the violent protest against Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrest when he tried to speak at Columbia University in October 2006. (Video of the incident can be seen here.) Hannity also recounted the stories of other conservatives who have met with violent experiences. (Video of a pie attack on Ann Coulter can be seen here and of a pie attack on Bill Kristol here.) He then turned to liberal guest/journalist Robert Dreyfuss and, recounting a number of the strikes against Ahmadinejad, asked why the dictator should be allowed to speak at an American university. Hannity: "He denies the Holocaust, he's providing weaponry killing American troops, here's a guy that, you know, why would you provide a prestigious forum for such a maniacal, evil dictator, and a guy that wants to wipe Israel off the map?"
The far-left Dreyfuss, a Columbia University graduate who has supported left-wing presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche and has written for liberal publications like The Nation, suggested a moral equivalency between Iran's support of violence and the wishes of some Americans to invade Iran. After Hannity demanded, "He's killing American soldiers, what part of that don't you get?" Dreyfuss responded, "Exactly, and there are people in the United States who are advocating a preemptive war against Iran just like the preemptive war that we waged in Iraq."
When Colmes got his turn to join the debate, he ridiculously suggested that since Ahmadinejad is "conservative" that American conservatives should not be offended by his treatment by Columbia University while Horowitz repeatedly exclaimed, "He's a radical!"
ALAN COLMES: David Horowitz, Ahmadinejad's not a liberal. He's a conservative. He's very right wing.
DAVID HOROWITZ: He's a radical.
COLMES: He was welcome at Columbia University. You shouldn't be complaining.
HOROWITZ: He's a radical.
COLMES: Phil Donohue, Hillary Clinton, they've been all booed off stages. You don't talk about that.
ROBERT DREYFUSS: The left doesn't support Ahmadinejad at all.
HOROWITZ: He's radical.
COLMES: You don't want to hear about that.
HOROWITZ: He's a radical, he's a radical at talking-
SEAN HANNITY: We got to break, guys.
COLMES: He's a right-wing radical.
Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the discussion from the Monday September 24 Hannity and Colmes on FNC:
SEAN HANNITY: You know, David, we've discussed this at length here. You see how Jim Gilchrest was treated, you have Pat Buchanan, he's hit with a pie, Ann Coulter's hit with a pie, the attacks against Clarence Thomas, yourself, Bill Bennett. How do you gauge the reaction of the applause that the students gave Ahmadinejad today?
[DAVID HOROWITZ, Conservative author]
HANNITY: Mr. Dreyfuss, look, we see how conservatives are treated on college campuses all the time. There's a double standard here. We don't see these very same liberals making the argument about free speech in those instances here. Let me ask you this. You know, here's Ahmadinejad, he denies the Holocaust, he's providing weaponry killing American troops, here's a guy that, you know, why would you provide a prestigious forum for such a maniacal, evil dictator, and a guy that wants to wipe Israel off the map. Can you explain why you would provide him that prestigious forum? [...]
ROBERT DREYFUSS, Author/Journalist: If he had been hit with a pie, would that make it equal because some conservative was hit with a pie? The fact, the issue here-
HANNITY: He's killing American soldiers. What part of that don't you get?
DREYFUSS: Exactly, and there are people in the United States who are advocating a preemptive war against Iran just like the preemptive war that we waged in Iraq.
...ALAN COLMES: David Horowitz, Ahmadinejad's not a liberal. He's a conservative. He's very right wing.
HOROWITZ: He's a radical.
COLMES: He was welcome at Columbia University. You shouldn't be complaining.
HOROWITZ: He's a radical.
COLMES: Phil Donohue, Hillary Clinton, they've been all booed off stages. You don't talk about that.
DREYFUSS: The left doesn't support Ahmadinejad at all.
HOROWITZ: He's radical.
COLMES: You don't want to hear about that.
HOROWITZ: He's a radical, he's a radical at talking-
HANNITY: We got to break, guys.
COLMES: He's a right-wing radical.
Comments Policy
And yet Fox News is just a
September 25, 2007 - 02:21 ET by Gary P JacksonAnd yet Fox News is just a propagandist for the Bush administration!
if AJ really is a neo-con
September 25, 2007 - 15:18 ET by TruthMongerif AJ really is a neo-con now then i guess the left won't mind if we take him out with a nuke? no protests then? is that a promise?
Hillary booed off stage. Perhaps..
September 25, 2007 - 02:52 ET by Gary HallHillary booed off stage. Perhaps.. the MSM will give Ahmadinejad teh Hillary treatment.
That's exactly correct. The MSM did not talk about that. When Hillary was booed off stage, MTV (Hillary had a new book with the parent company) simply edited out the boos and replaced them with cheers. MSM did not complain - no story here. Thanks to John Stossel of ABC, compiled by none other than the MRC:
MTV Edits Hillary being booed off stage.
simply edited out the boos
September 25, 2007 - 07:43 ET by motherbeltsimply edited out the boos and replaced them with cheers. MSM did not complain - no story here.
I remember that; I was furious at the time! The scary thing is that that kind of thing can be done with such ease. (also Photoshop). Someday we're not going to be able to trust anything, even things that we can see with our own eyes.
motherbelt - belonging to the 1% minority
September 25, 2007 - 11:17 ET by Gary Hallmotherbelt - belonging to the 1% minority. That we are. Oh yea, I had another one of those coversations over the weekend with one of the ignorant far left. I rattled off a quick handful of prime examples of MSM censorship. Nothing rang a bell. I even explained that it was not really their fault - this being so ignorant, as -- how would they know, when the MSM simply censors so much. Censorship? By the left?
Colmes
September 25, 2007 - 03:35 ET by jmad627What I don't understand about Colmes is that he thinks everyone, or anyone, can be reasoned with--how naive can this guy be??? His constant whining mantra asserting "free speech, free speech" just shows me that his liberal needle is stuck, or broken.
As I see it this pinch-faced pinhead is good at only one thing, changing the subject of a debate, or am I just imagining this. I was watching his dialogue w/Dick Morris about Shillery, and he always goes off topic. I sure wish someone, like Dick for instance, would just call him on it and insist that he stay on point, instead of bringing up other people. Does anyone else notice this?
Everyone?
September 25, 2007 - 06:06 ET by ThisnThatI don't think Colmes includes President Bush, the Pope, Charlton Heston, or any number of other people in this list. Colmes himself can't be reasoned with; he's unreasonable; and his views and talking points are on the left edge of loonyville. Why does Fox continue to support this wierdo?
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
I agree, TnT. Colmes is
September 25, 2007 - 08:36 ET by motherbeltI agree, TnT. Colmes is the personification of the "knee-jerk" liberal.
I particularly hate his constant implications that just because someone is what he calls "a conservative," Sean Hannity and every other conservative would think that whatever he does is fine.
Conservatives are more likely to criticize one on their side who does something wrong; liberals are the ones constantly defending their own, even when they won't stand against something like the Petraeus ad. They twist themselves up rationalizing whatever another liberal does.
Exactly. The first word
September 25, 2007 - 09:16 ET by kathleenirishExactly. The first word to come into my head when I read this piece was, "LOON!". He even looks like one. Liberalism is a mental disorder. "Gee, Let's talk everyone! We're all the same, after all, on the inside!" You call the dictator of Iran a conservative?! YIKES! You are beyond reach, Colmes!
One can only hope the lemmings of the MSM and the Left will run over the cliff soon, taking all the liberal presidential candidates with them. This country has never had so many enemies, mostly from within.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Just ask their friend AlDinnerJacket
September 25, 2007 - 09:22 ET by JimboJust ask AlDinnerJacket about how we are all the same on the inside. He has seen enough disemboweled and beheaded dissidents, reporters, homosexuals and American GI’s to be an expert on the matter.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Unfortunately, Colmes is
September 25, 2007 - 12:26 ET by BeowulfUnfortunately, Colmes is (for once) right. Im-A-Dinner-Jacket is indeed a conservative. An extreme right-wing conservative. So was Hitler. Whereas the ultra left, when taken too far, becomes communistic, as in Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong Il. See what the extremes, in either dircetion, can lead to?
Of course, Colmes referring to Im-A-Dinner-Jacket as a conservative, while intimating his similarity to our conservative values, once again defines his mental deficiencies.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Im-A-Dinner-Jacket is
September 25, 2007 - 12:39 ET by motherbeltIm-A-Dinner-Jacket is indeed a conservative. An extreme right-wing conservative
I don't care if he is. My beef with Alan Colmes is his constant implication that because someone is a "conservative", Hannity and other conservatives will approve of him, even if he is a monster. See my post above: it's the liberals who think other liberals can do no wrong. Did you hear a single liberal criticize Hillary Clinton for not voting to condemn the calumny of General Petraeus? That would be a minor criticism at best, but not one of them did...they all defended her and said they agreed with her.
I agree with all you're
September 25, 2007 - 12:49 ET by BeowulfI agree with all you're saying here. I just wanted to clarify some points on accuracy. The Libs live, eat, and breath hypocrisy, then with it still dripping down their chin, they deny any association with it. This is their bread and butter. You will not hear libs berating other libs. First off, look at what happens when they do - they're censured and attacked by their former cronies. Secondly, they usually don't have the time because all of their limited intellect goes towards bashing anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with them. Colmes just epitomizes their philosophy.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Beo, I disagree with you
September 25, 2007 - 13:14 ET by ForeverOnTheRightBeo, I disagree with you about Hitler. My understanding is that the Nazi party was a socialist party, and on the political spectrum socailism is on the left. Facisim on the otherhand can be on either end of the spectrum, it's a condition of extreme nationalism. This is at least my undertanding of Hitler poltically.
Actually, the Nazis
September 25, 2007 - 14:15 ET by BeowulfActually, the Nazis (National Socialist Workers Party) were a nationalist ogranization, and were vehemently and violently opposed to both the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SBD) and the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), which were both leftist parties. The only thing socialist about the Nazis was the word "socialist" in their title. They were ideological conservatives. One of the clearest giveaways was their philosophy toward homosexuals, "mental defectives", and the Jews (whom they considered inferior). Can you imagine a group of Leftists (liberals) imprisoning and executing gays and other handicapped people?
Ultra-conservatism tends to include nationalism, isolationism, homophobia, and often militarism.
Liberals supposed core belief is in the advocacy of individualism, individual rights, free thought, and free speech. How many of these liberal ideas existed in Nazi Germany? The Nazis were, as I said, a poisonous extreme of right-wing philosophy. Cuba, USSR, N. Korea, Venezuela are examples of the same poison in the other direction.
My point here is that, because of the political polarization happening in our country, we face the possibility of such extremes ourselves, either left or right, neither of which is or should be acceptable to Americans. History proves the axiom about moderation. Too much of anything is bad for you, including political ideology.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Beo, thanks. I can see how
September 25, 2007 - 15:37 ET by ForeverOnTheRightBeo, thanks. I can see how a label/title/name can mislead. Just like their are groups out their that have called themselves "Christian(s)", but in truth it's in name only. (Can't think of a clear example off hand, but I know that they have and do exist.)
Just like their are groups
September 25, 2007 - 16:24 ET by BeowulfJust like their are groups out their that have called themselves "Christian(s)", but in truth it's in name only. (Can't think of a clear example off hand, but I know that they have and do exist.) - I can. The Most Reverend Phelps and his gang of despicable followers. They are the one who go around to military funerals holding up signs with such Christian sentiments as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers", and "God Hates Faggots". But they call themselves Christians. They even have a church and everything...
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Chris Matthews upset about Bollinger's 'dumping on' Iran Prez
September 25, 2007 - 04:01 ET by lumpyJust watched Matthews Hardball and he was more upset about Bollinger's comments during the Columbia presentation than he was about anything Ahmadinejad had to say. That poor Ahmadinejad was treated so unfairly, according to Matthews!
I saw Matthews earlier in
September 25, 2007 - 09:33 ET by drillanwrI saw Matthews earlier in the evening talking with two university students, one was with the young republicans, and I don't know who the other was with. Anyhow, Matthews was trying to force the republican into admitting the Iranian president had, in essence, changed his opinion on the Holocaust simply because he had admitted there had been one. Matthews seemed in awe of this guy, almost to the point of hero worship, and was completely unnerved the student would not agree the Iranian president had had some sort of fricking epiphany that we all should be giving him credit and praise for.
People like Matthews and Colmes and the leftist-like remind me of that episode of Twilight Zone (To Serve Man) ... Where everyone was eagerly boarding the alien ships for their trips to the alien world ... and no one was coming back! Oh, it must be because that world is such a perfect and wonderful place nobody wants to come back to Earth ... It never occurred to the idiots that it could be anything else ... anything horribly outside the scope of Utopia ... Dream on, Chris and Alan.
Hey, Newbusters
September 25, 2007 - 15:28 ET by motherbeltHey, Newbusters Moderators....Ken, Warner, Tim, Matt....any chance of a transcript or video of some of it?
Alan's intellectual bankruptcy shows here
September 25, 2007 - 04:20 ET by sarcasmoKeep trying to use a stupid one-dimensional left-right line to describe political diversity, and you'll keep sounding dimwitted in a world that's had the quiz for literally-decades. Trying to ignore something doesn't make it go-away, Alan, and there's no-way you haven't heard of the World's Smallest Political Quiz by now, so this line about conservatives is 100% political & 0% honest. I guess I'm getting used to that kind of thing from you...
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I'm a libertarian-leaning
September 25, 2007 - 09:28 ET by JasonCI'm a libertarian-leaning liberal, according to your quiz sarc.
I have three things to say in defense of Columbia's decision to invite Ahmadinejad (and their even more admirable decision not to cancel amidst all the heat that was brought down on them:
1. The most common accusation leveled at Ahmadinejad is that Iranian weapons are being used by insurgents, or whatever we're calling them now, in Iraq. The US is the last country that should be getting snippy because unsavory people in one country are getting weapons from unsavory people in another country. We have a long history of that too, which has always been rationalized away in historic debates.
2. Yes, the Minutemen were interrupted and booed off the stage. Too bad, I would have liked to see the Q&A at that forum. However, a) That was the work of a small group of politically-radical students, and can hardly be held against the whole university and b) Gilchrist is the leader of a questionably racist vigilante posse whereas Ahmadinejad, like it or not, is the leader of a sovereign nation, a nation whose relationship with the US is complicated, tangled, and more important now than ever.
3. A guest on Hannity the other night, who was in favor of hearing Ahmadinejad at Columbia, was asked by Sean if he would have been fine with Hitler being invited to speak at a university in 1937. I cringed when he said "of course not." Why the hell not?!?! Because he's an enemy of freedom? Weak.
I don't care if Ahmadinejad is the love child of Stalin and Satan, we can only benefit from hearing him speak, learning about his mostly insane viewpoints, and getting it out in the open. Once you cut through all the bs about how it's disrespectful to give him a forum and all the awful things he's done, I think it should be obvious that if Columbia had buckled under and disinvited him, it would have been a blow to the principles of our country. Frankly Bush said it best, that he wouldn't have invited him, but it's a testament to the openness of the US and the freedoms we enjoy.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
JasonC - your weapons argument
September 25, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Dee BunkJasonC – your weapons argument would mean that no one should care who supplies our enemies. When the U.S. has supported unsavory characters, it was always against even more unsavory characters. We support the one we think is least likely to harm our interests. Supporting our enemies means they are an enemy of ours. Period. I don’t understand why you liberals can’t see the difference. It’s baffling.
There's absolutely a
September 25, 2007 - 09:49 ET by JasonCThere's absolutely a political difference.
However, to me, there is little moral difference between the situation you describe and the selling of weapons to Iran in order to funnel money to the project of putting down a popular leftist government via an organization of insurgents and drug traffickers. God bless Ollie North.
You can call me a moral relativist, a communist, libtard, un-American, whatever. But if you're going to, please explain how these scenarios are not morally equivalent.
This is all immaterial though, none of it changes the fact that the Columbia visit was good for the country (ours).
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
First JasonC - I find it offensive that you are implying
September 25, 2007 - 10:30 ET by Dee Bunkthat I'm a name caller. You can call yourself names if you want, but leave me out of it.
What kind of moral argument are you talking about? You could run around in circles forever with that. Like how the left wing supports Castro, Chavez and other dictators that suppress their people. The whole Iran contra thing is a little more complicated than you imply. The Nicaraguan government had every right to think of us as an enemy and they did. We were enemies before and that is why it happened. Selling to Iran was an attempt at making them ease up on Israel and the Hostages. I'm not condoning any of it but it's completely different. As a country, our government should be most concerned with protecting our country's interests.
For all the outrage that the left had over Iran Contra, they have none for what Iran is doing. That makes no sense at all. If they are outraged by one, they should be at least as outraged by the other. You would think that they would find the one that is fighting for freedom less outrageous. Like I said it's baffling.
I don't really care about him being at Columbia as long as there are people criticizing him. What is outrageous is that they don't do more to protect peaceful conservatives who come there. It's sad that because conservatives are not as extreme, he is allowed to speak while conservatives are not.
Dee, my apologies, that was
September 25, 2007 - 11:01 ET by JasonCDee, my apologies, that was more of a pre-emptive strike against the general NB community, as I realized that point #1 could be considered particularly controversial.
It would add legitimacy to the left's position if they didn't have to be forced into condmening people like Ahmadinejad. I wish they would do it more. I also think that the left, at least the non-moonbat left, is inherently compelled to critique from the perspective that "We are American citizens, America plays a major role, for better or worse, in world affairs, therefore, critiquing American policy and culture is the logical starting point." It's not always the best idea, of course, but I think that's the basic train of thought that gets the left accused of moral relativism and of the "blame America first" problem.
Indeed, our country should be most concerned with protecting it's own interests. Any country should. That's why I agree with you on a political level. Nonetheless, selling arms to our enemy (also an enemy to our allies in the region) in order to fund insurgents in a sovereign nation is morally wrong, any way you slice it.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
That is the JasonC I remember
September 25, 2007 - 12:50 ET by Dee BunkWelcome back. I agree with you that the left thinks criticizing our culture is the place to start because of our supposed influence. That is one of the biggest flaws in their thinking. Every country but our own influences the left. They forget that citizens of other countries are not allowed to criticize their government so they need all the help they can get from those who can. We have zero influence in countries like Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuella and very little in Saudi Arabia or Europe for that matter. European governments are much more left leaning and they all do more spying on their citizens and don't have a death penatly for example. They are not influenced by us and never have been.
does Jason have a problem
September 25, 2007 - 15:33 ET by TruthMongerdoes Jason have a problem with Pat Robertson speaking at Columbia university?
i know Columbia university does:)...
Jason does not. "He was,
September 29, 2007 - 14:02 ET by JasonCJason does not.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
I'd say your result
September 25, 2007 - 09:44 ET by sarcasmoProves, at least in your case, that it's an accurate quiz. :)
1. I wish something besides weapons would get sold in the Mideast, too.
2. I wish the university had hired decent security to arrest a small group of moonbat students in that case. Also, there's no proof the Minutemen are somehow "racist" despite all the continual accusations from the left, any more than there's proof they're "vigilantes" because Bush claimed they are. Both the lefties and Bush are prevaricating, and I tend to like groups with bipartisan lies going against 'em.
3. I think the main point is that different voices should be heard, and that Columbia seems more open to those voices of a certain political bent. If even-I can see that, why can't others???
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
1. Whatever you're
September 25, 2007 - 09:51 ET by JasonC1. Whatever you're implying, it has gone over my head.
2. True, good points all, but I was careful to couch the "racist" phrase in non-commital rhetoric.
3. Agreed, 100%
And I am also becoming more and more impressed with Paul.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
No implication...
September 25, 2007 - 09:58 ET by sarcasmoI just hope for trade someday in something besides weapons & oil, because IMO that's more likely to lead to peace than trying to do police-work with a military which is fettered with effectively-impossible rules of engagement. The continual allegation of "racist" seems to be a tactic employed by those who'd like to make what is false "true," so people like me tend to react to it forcefully. I think the next debate will be quite interesting, especially if they let Alan Keyes attend -- and even though he's not my top-choice I hope they do.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Let the record show, I
September 25, 2007 - 10:01 ET by JasonCLet the record show, I figured it out seconds before you posted that.
As to number 2, I feel there is a seed of racism in most of the immigration debate (I'm not calling anyone racist here, calm down), so people who decide to arm themselves and rove around the border looking for illegals seem particularly suspect.
Similarly, I think any sort of anti-gay rhetoric contains a kernel of homophobia, no matter what sort of rationalization is employed, and so those who actively work against gay marriage or employ gay epithets seem all the more homophobic.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Leaving aside the other stuff
September 25, 2007 - 10:08 ET by sarcasmoDon't these people have a 2nd Amendment right to arm themselves? And despite huge numbers of them who do choose to patrol that dangerous area armed, I've heard of very few if any incidents involving gun-confrontations started by the Minutemen. Why is being armed "suspect" anyway? If I had to walk around such a dangerous area, I'd feel better if I could effectively defend myself, too, so I "suspect" these people are sane, rational actors.
JMR
PS Similarly, I think only some of the anti-gays are homophobic, not all of them.
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
First of all, the Minutemen
September 25, 2007 - 10:13 ET by JasonCFirst of all, the Minutemen qua Gilchrist don't have to do anything. This is not their job. Second, I am not accusing them of being racist, I'm saying that their actions and ethos suggest a racial motivation. I don't exempt myself from the generalization that subtle moments of racism can effect our everyday actions.
Nor do I think all anti-gay persons are out-and-out homophobes. But I think that a small degree of something that could be classified as homophobia motivates them. Do you see a difference or am I talking nonsense?
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Edit: affect, not
September 25, 2007 - 10:15 ET by JasonCEdit: affect, not effect.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
It's not their job, true
September 25, 2007 - 10:19 ET by sarcasmoBut they noticed nobody else seemed to be doing it. It's not my paid job to bust antilibertarian bias, but I do it anyway. My point was that they have a right to be armed, and that being-armed says nothing about their racial feelings, it says something about their sanity.
I think we agree on the makeup of the gay-debate -- I'm still trying -- without success -- to think up a good joke that links Larry Craig's & Ahmadinejad's gay-denials.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Fair enough, but I think
September 25, 2007 - 10:22 ET by JasonCFair enough, but I think they're asking for trouble as much as the gang of disenfranchised black youths who roam South Central L.A. with tec-9s and glocks because some other gang of disenfranchised black youths has ventured into their neighborhood. The realpolitic of the situations is different, but the basic consequences are the same.
Must get to work, later sarc.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Oh, for #1, you mean like
September 25, 2007 - 09:58 ET by JasonCOh, for #1, you mean like free markets in general, right? Duh, sorry. I thought you were making some sort of sly joke.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Alright, the misuse of the
September 25, 2007 - 04:27 ET by AvatarAlright, the misuse of the labels 'liberal' and 'conservative' by both these guys on FNC, and by the author here is getting to me. Conservatism and Liberalism are not political parties, they are political ideals based on the founding principals of your nation. A conservative in the US wants to preserve our constitution, whereas the Liberals want to change it.
That said, in Apemahbinajad's country, he would be considered a conservative, and the pro-democratic students we hear about every now and then would be considered liberals. Got it? It's not party affiliation, it's political ideals compared to the founding principals of your country. Since Apemahbinajad is not an American, the same labels of 'liberal' and 'conservative' cannot be readily applied to him, since he is president of another country with other ideals, and has no political or voter power in the US.
Thanks, I just had to let that out.
The Avatar
A conservative in the US
September 25, 2007 - 08:04 ET by BacchusSo, does that make Alan Combes a conservative Liberal, being someone who constantly moves the goalposts? Just wondering cause the guy irks me sometimes with his constant and inane quest for contrarianism.
In regards to Ihavealovelydinnerjacket and Columbia University, the time for discussion has long passed. Iran's actions belie its words. Holocost-truthers, genocide for gays, oppressors of women, a state sponsor of terrorism (in Iraq against americans), nuclear ambitions, etc.
Bollinger made a pompous ass of himself. What made him think his opinion would matter? Could it be...BDS? Pelosi, Kocinich, and now Bollinger. Who wants to be next? One potential positive might be that he admitted that Iran is a genuine problem, and maybe, just maybe, liberals will see now that the path of pacifism is futile.
I don't know what that
September 25, 2007 - 11:50 ET by AvatarI don't know what that makes Colmes. As far as i'm concerned, someone that constant 'moves the goalposts' is what's known as a 'finger in the wind' political leaning, with a favor towards liberalism.
The Avatar
avatar... Colmes knows
September 25, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Clear thinkeravatar...
Colmes knows that by constantly moving the goal posts it's hard to lose the argument.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
The lefties who disrupted the minutemen speaker
September 25, 2007 - 04:34 ET by lumpyat Columbia did not disrupt this Iranian wacko. Huccome? They hate right-wing fascists? Who's more of a right-wing fascist than this Iranian despot?
Alan Colmes
September 25, 2007 - 04:47 ET by Army Bratis a cartoon character acting his part. If a conservative says something is black he says it's white without a moment to think. He is, I think, a knee jerk liberal. Perhaps "contrarian" would apply. His kind of argument requires no thought or intellect...fortunately for him.
Happy Trails...
Colmes
September 25, 2007 - 05:23 ET by jmad627Hey Army Brat,
You summed up perfectly what I was thinking in an earlier post. Thank you for being more concise, I agree with you 100%.
The circumstances are a bit different, IMO
September 25, 2007 - 08:11 ET by sarcasmoWith the Minutemen founder, the Moonbat contingent knew they could vastly-outnumber security/cops and get away with being disruptive. These days, with "Don't Taze me, bro!" ringing in their ears and a large number of cops, disruption didn't seem like such a good idea.
Ultimately, this was a good thing, because the crowd got to laugh at the claim that Iran has 0% homosexuals. This rivaled the claims of "Baghdad Bob" for humor-factor. The solution for the Minuteman founder is enough security to arrest disruptors quickly, but I don't know if Columbia will have the courage to implement it.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Colmes
September 25, 2007 - 07:14 ET by SportPoliticsColmes " Oooh, oooh mister kotter, mister kotter, it's a "r e p u b l i c a n" , that means guess who is evil ". ( Alan forgot his lefties wanted to hear their hero peacenik. They booed properly in liberal doctrine for gays, their only booing the entire time. )
I guess it's so stupid, I'm not sure what else to say, other than I thoroughly enjoyed the FoxNews collage clips of the various POTUS hopefuls responding to it, and found the contrasts very interesting. Bush was honest( I don't think I would have, but it shows something great about the USA anyway), Hillary lied BLATANTLY in split personality cya psycho mode(surprised me, it was a transparent set of lies - declaring harshly in a show of personal "strength" she wouldn't- but is not by that offering any opinion on what Columbia did), Edwards did a "lawyerly" don't allow carelessly, his own courtroom specialty of spewing propaganda to be used by the regime ( gee how does the mirror look lawyer man - it's no wonder you thought it was very, very important to be cautious about propaganda), Rudy flat out denounced it as pure stupidity(nice job, not great, but your anger was palpable -thumbs up), and Thompson had a nice released statement that slammed the dirtbag terrorist effectively, good job too. Obama said he wouldn't, but it's ok if others want to host our enemies, and he would talk to our adversaries and enemies.(nice discombobulated lie - you wouldn't, but you would as mr elite)
Now for my guy:
GOP Congressman Duncan Hunter introducing legislation to cut off federal funding to Columbia University. (FoxNews separate clip)
You KNOW, I'm smiling the biggest, for a good reason. ('cept he can't win)
He sent a letter to the University president already that he is introducing legislation to cut off all funds to the University, and pointed out children of the Alumni have probably been killed by these bombs(and provided data) Hunter has seen in person in Iraq, showed by our military to him, and then railed about the ROTC not being allowed on campus before Cavuto cut him off saying they were going to talk about that later.
Thanks Duncan Hunter. Way to go, try to shut that hole down, put some fear into the traitors hearts.
I'm getting sick now listening to Chertoff, where hosting a terrorist is OK, because those terrorist views are out there on the internet. What a MORON. We have to let the University decide. Yes, when they host suspect or known terrorists, too. Great policy, almost as weak as Britian, it's getting there, no security threat says Chertoff. Wow. Whatever Homeland guy. How about to get a hold of Federal Justice and get some ACTION.
Newt had a separate take for Greta, and said it was astoundingly ignorant, and pointed out how we are floundering - unlike in 1981 when our cia and Casey and REAGAN sent purposefully faulty black market gas pumps into a dark sale to Russia who thought they were getting "great US technology", and there was soon a HUGE explosion in Siberia "nuclear" in size, and one half of the White House said to the other half - stay cool, this is what we did... ( That's what I'm talking about ! Nice history, and yes it is declassified he noted BEFORE he related it.) He loved it, thought it was great, was a sign of superb USA. Yeah, you got it Newt, you got it.
I've got to hand it to Newt, I really like his answers and presentations. I'd love to see him running the CIA, would LOVE it. He'd be hammering the risk averse lawyer legal beagle cries and bureaucratic wimpism, which he also pointed out - my gawd he'd have a huge headache trying to whip them- get him in there to run the CIA. Give us someone with some vision, intelligence, and some CAHUNAS where they belong. I'm so sick of seeing wimps/admin tigers running the cia. Newt doesn't give a doggone, he'll demand it gets done- from capable hardcores raring to go, pat em on the back and declare em heroes. Gosh, get him in there. Get a Casey in there.
He also had a GREAT statement on maybe running for POTUS- with massively "fixing" unworking government - then when the interviewer whined he's too late, he brained back - we have TV now, your show has me reaching more than Lincoln did his entire life, if I get the support ($30M) and people want me to do this, I'd feel obligated, and we'd have a capable and winnable campaign structure up and going quickly. (all right! Can do! - with the slamback of the VERY OBVIOUS for the stupid question. Good job. You told the moron the very fact you're on his show makes his stupid question obviously invalid. Gosh, we need more of that - thanks for not being a completely gushy, limp, LYING rhetoric piece of crap like so many others. Go Newt - wherever or whatever you wind up doing.)
Mika The Mouth on the
September 25, 2007 - 07:08 ET by Gat New YorkMika The Mouth on the Scarborough show just berated Lee Bollinger for not just doing a basic introduction of Ahmadinnerjacket.
I guess being clueless about radical Iranians runs in the family.
I think the term
September 25, 2007 - 08:28 ET by 10ksnookerColmes is looking for is fellow traveler, FASCISTS. All the isms are leftist structures, they just get more violent as the people object more and more.
So what is Hillary? She be a Marxist, just to the right of Fascist and left of socialism.
One thing for sure, I-Am-A-Ding-Dong isn't a freedom worshipping Conservative. But I assume Colmes isn't that stupid, is he?
The Lexicon
September 25, 2007 - 08:45 ET by dwillmoreHe who owns the lexicon wins the debate.
I would like Allan to give his definition of conservative/
If this guys is such a 'conservative' why does the left love him so?
If Ahmadinejad is conservative why do liberals love him?
September 25, 2007 - 09:24 ET by Dee BunkLiberals love all charismatic dictators. They are easily duped. Being liberal (wanting change) in the most prosperous and free country means you want less freedom and more government. All other governments are to the left of ours.
What liberals love
September 25, 2007 - 10:46 ET by balboaWhat liberals love Ahmadinejad?
I applaud what Horowitz was
September 25, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Ruths husband BenI applaud what Horowitz was trying to do. He was refuting Colme's assertation that Ahmadinejad is a conservative. Holmes equates everyone who is not a liberal as a conservative, as if one's political leanings are one dimensional. This is one of the big lies in politics and needs to be firmly addressed.
A conservative believes individual rights trump the state's rights. Does Ahmadinejad agree with that? Of course not. He believes that the state (the Iranian theototalitarian state in this case) has the right to enforce their brand of Islam on all citizens.
A liberal believes that the state has an obligation to fix the individual's life, if the state decides that it is not in line with it's views, whether he wants it fixed or not. Does Ahmadinejad agree with that? Well, yes he does. Does that make Ahmadinejad a liberal? No, but it does point out that there are points in which totalitarian ideologies and liberal ideologies line up.
The simplistic view espoused by Holmes, "Ahmadinejad's not a liberal. He's a conservative. " is wrong and detrimental. It stops the flow of ideas from the right and the left, and it is practiced by both sides, by the way.
"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices.... Government has to make those choices for people" -HRC
Alan Colmes has completely
September 25, 2007 - 09:43 ET by drillanwrAlan Colmes has completely thrown aside all semblance of logic, reason, and critical thought when the facts are before him.
Colmes has become the ultimate nay-sayer who has to say the complete opposite, no matter how physically, scientifically, emotionally, mentally wrong his contribution to the argument / discussion is. It is almost uncomfortable watching him twist and contort himself into these opposing positions on that show. A wise and thinking person can see him crafting these positions right there on camera.
Sean Hannity: The sky is blue
Alan Colmes: Of course a conservative would say that. The sky is obviously green. Just because you say it's blue doesn't make it so.
Sean Hannity: But Alan, look up. It's blue ...
Alan Colmes: I don't have to look up. Don't pull that fascist conservative stuff on me ... forcing me to look up. The sky is not blue. It's green. I feel it's green, so I say it's green.
Alan Colmes and Mary Magdalene : That Each Had 7 Spirits
September 25, 2007 - 10:37 ET by gideonmjamesMark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
Alan Colmes has a spiritual problem - a problem with various unclean, lying, and seducing spirits ...
Matthew 12:43-45
(43) When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places [he searches his human, earthly logic], seeking rest, and findeth none.
(44) Then he saith, "I will return into my house from whence I came out" [I will return to my old way of thinking and my liberal opinions]; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
(45) THEN GOETH HE, AND TAKETH WITH HIMSELF SEVEN OTHER SPIRITS MORE WICKED THAN HIMSELF, AND THEY ENTER IN AND DWELL THERE [in his body and mind] : AND THE LAST STATE OF THAT MAN IS WORSE THAN THE FIRST. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
Democratic People's Republic
September 25, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Hero SquadColmes contention is about as specious as if we were to say that Democrats should love the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) because "Democrat" is in the name.
What is this, third grade?
I guess we should also love the old Iraqi Republican Guard?
*****
"I heart famous people."
Hero Squad
September 25, 2007 - 09:55 ET by drillanwrDon't forget who we're dealing with ... Colmes belongs to the "braintrust" of the left whose High Priest, Bill Clinton, set the standard bar for word play games in his infamous and groundbreaking "It depends what your definition of is is ..." proclaimation. Oh! And only the left/democrats have the supreme right to practice this word play game.
In grade school back in the early/mid 1960s I remember using the word "gay" in place of happy, and "queer" in place of weird or odd. Really can't do that today.
Alan Colmes : 98 lb. Antichrist
September 25, 2007 - 10:04 ET by gideonmjamesHe is the reason I stopped watching Hannity & Colmes 3 years ago. It's like letting Satan comment on every verse in the Bible ... he challenges, twists, and distorts every word that doesn't fit HIS warped liberal viewpoint.
The show should be titled Hannity & Satan, or Hannity & Elihu ... Hannity & Doeg ... Hannity & Esau ... Hannity & Balaam.
if the shoe fits...
September 25, 2007 - 10:16 ET by vrwc1344 For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8
v
Colmes The Ignorant
September 25, 2007 - 10:11 ET by iveseenitallSince ignorance is bliss, this former stand-up comic lives in a blissfull daze. The only time these loons on the left get upset is when you ask them to think. Otherwise, they live in a world of cliches, meaningless slogans which require no insight at all. Sad.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The left believes
September 25, 2007 - 11:13 ET by drillanwrThe left believes everything is in constant motion, therefor, subject to change upon the situation. That is why the very far left are known as anarchists:
The Constitution ... The left sees it as a living document, in need of change when social issues warrent.
Laws ... The law is supposed to be used equally over ALL people ... However, as we see in such cases as the Jenna 6, unless it's "payback" for slavery and civil injustice ... and in the reverse, hate crimes, when it involves racial parties in reverse in the same situation.
Marriage ... Just a piece of paper to the left, unless, of course, it involves gay/homosexual marriage ... Which, in that case, it is a supreme documentation of social acceptance of gay rights.
Babies/Children ... Disposable commodities, unless gay couples wish to have a "family" ... or the ACLU protected pedophile groups need/want them for personal use.
The Bible ... Total fiction ... unless someone on the left wants to wack a conservative over the head with it when he/she has fallen from grace.
Freedom ... If it's the left it's All for me and none for you ... AND you gotta pay for mine!
The Iranian president showed something of this way of thinking yesterday. Chris Matthews was so willing and eager to shower the man with accolades for admitting there was a Holocaust ... However, in the world of double-speak, A-jad never defined where the Holocaust was ... the people who died in the Holocaust. He never defined it as the extermination of Jews during WWII ... His admission to a holocaust, in his mind standing there in that moment, was probably his views of the Palestinians ... This WOULD enable him to say, Yes, there was a holocaust ... even though he was not thinking of the Holocaust WE ALL were thinking about. THIS is what I believe he meant yesterday.
The argument for allowing this head terrorist to speak at a major American university was "We must have a dialog ..."
Well, this is all well and good ...IF the person with whom you are having a dialog is willing to listen to the otherside's beliefs and views. I AM SO SICK of hearing we need a dialog ... and it's "free speech" ... Hitler used a hell of a lot of "free speech" in the run up to hearding the Jews into cattle cars on trains ... The world sinned in NOT actually listening and HEARING what this free speaking terrorist in the 20th Century was saying.
It's the twisting and turning and contorting and complete-from-whole-cloth mentality that flies in the face of historical facts, proof, evidence, and testimony ... on any subject.
This is why the Global Warming movement has so easily grown in the last few years. Just look at WHO is at the forefront of preaching and pontificating on the subject. Not scientists (unless you count that "climate expert" witch on TWC) ... But a weak and failed politician, celebrities, for gawd sake! THESE are the people some in society have turned their critical thinking over to on this subject. They claim they are backed by scientists, but they are NOT at the forefront. And neither are these scientists making themselves available for public