Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.hinton who wrote (242563)	9/21/2007 3:08:26 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

Suppose it was 1938, and they invited Herr Goebbels to speak. (But they promised to "forcefully discuss" or whatever, Goebbel's defense of the Nurenburg laws that deprived Jews of their citizenship) Would you approve that too? Or you don't have to put it in the past. David Duke is still alive and kicking, in fact he attended Ahmedinijad's little "the Holocaust is a Myth" shindig in Tehran. Should Columbia invite David Duke too? Would you approve? If not, what's the difference?

To: c.hinton who wrote (242563)	9/21/2007 3:16:24 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Michael Barone points out that Columbia has no problem prohibiting activities they find obnoxious. From Instapundit: Michael Barone emails: Just a random thought on Ahmedinejad speaking at Columbia. Columbia doesn't host ROTC or (I think) military recruiters on campus, because it would be just too offensive to do so, because the military obeys the law passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by Bill Clinton which bars open homosexuals from serving in the military. OK. But Columbia does host Ahmedinejad who heads a government which executes homosexuals for the crime of being homosexuals. So it's obnoxious beyond belief to exclude homosexuals from military service, but it's not obnoxious beyond belief to hang them from the neck until dead. I'm inclined to think that Congress and the military should rethink their policy of barring homosexuals from military service. It's a long argument, which I'll omit from this post. But I don't have any trouble joining the 99.99% of Americans who oppose execution of homosexuals for homosexual acts. And who think it's a barbaric act, incapable of being supported by any decent argument. Why does Lee Bollinger think a man who heads a regime that executes homosexuals--not just excludes them from military service, but hangs them by the neck until dead, in public ceremony-- should be honored with an invitation to speak at Columbia?