Ahmadinejad The Educator

[|Bunghole|]

Ahmadinejad calls for university purge
CNN.com
POSTED: 7:41 p.m. EDT, September 5, 2006
Adjust font size:
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's hard-line president urged students Tuesday to push for a purge of liberal and secular university teachers, another sign of his determination to strengthen Islamic fundamentalism in the country.

With his call echoing the rhetoric of the nation's 1979 Islamic revolution, Ahmadinejad appears determined to remake Iran by reviving the fundamentalist goals pursued under the republic's late founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Ahmadinejad's call was not a surprise -- since taking office a year ago, he also has moved to replace pragmatic veterans in the government and diplomatic corps with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.

Iran still has strong moderate factions but [b]Ahmadinejad's administration also has launched crackdowns on independent journalists, Web sites and bloggers.[/b]

Speaking to a group of students Tuesday, Ahmadinejad called on them to pressure his administration to keep driving out moderate instructors, a process that began earlier this year.

[b]Dozens of liberal university professors and teachers were sent into retirement this year after Ahmadinejad's administration named the first cleric to head Tehran University, sparking strong protests from students.[/b]

[b]The country's oldest institution of higher education remains home to dozens more professors and instructors who outspokenly oppose policies that restrict freedom of expression.[/b]

"Today, students should shout at the president and ask why liberal and secular university lecturers are present in the universities," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a meeting with students.

The president complained that reforms in the country's universities were difficult to accomplish and that the educational system had been affected by secularism for the last 150 years. But, he added: "Such a change has begun."

It was not clear whether Ahmadinejad intended to take immediate specific measures, or was just urging the students to rally.

Ahmadinejad, in his role as head of the country's Council of Cultural Revolution, would have the authority to make such changes himself. But his comments seemed designed to encourage hard-line students to begin a pressure campaign on their own, thus putting a squeeze on universities.

[b]"This is the beginning of a so-called cultural revolution. Ahmadinejad and his allies plan to sweep their opponents from the universities," said Saeed Al-e Agha, a Tehran University professor. "They want to rule the brains of youth there."

"Ahmadinejad wants to settle scores with the most important center of critics and opposition and close the door to any opponent before municipal elections in late November," said Kouhyar Goodarzi, a human rights activist. "But his move may prompt a new round of student unrest."[/b]

Liberal and secular professors teach at universities around the country, but they are a minority. Most are politically passive and do not identify with either the hard-liners or the liberal camp.

Public opinion is difficult to gauge because of a lack of independent opinion polls. But Ahmadinejad must tread carefully among various factions, and strong moderate voices remain.

Hard-liners increasingly control the top rungs of government but still encounter resistance from some members of the public. Moderates also remain in government. Even among conservatives, there are different goals and powerful political factions.

It remains unclear, for example, how tightly Ahmadinejad controls the government, or the exact nature of his relationship with the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ahmadinejad surprised his conservative backers in April by deciding that women could attend soccer games, but Khamenei didn't agree and the supreme leader's view prevailed.

Shortly after the Iranian revolution, Tehran fired hundreds of liberal and leftist university teachers and expelled many students.

It had a brief period of reform in the 1990s under then-President Mohammad Khatami, but hard-line factions cracked down then, too, especially on university students, dissidents and journalists.

"It's horrible. I did not expect at all that Ahmadinejad ... would try to deprive others of their jobs because of political differences," Reza, a university graduate who [b]did not wish to be identified further for fear of retaliation,[/b] ([i]they don't do stuff like that in Iran, do they? It's such a great country![/i]) said of the president's statement Tuesday.

In spite of Ahmadinejad's bluster, the purge has not yet taken place, a human rights activist pointed out.

"At the moment, these words haven't been followed with actions," said Hadi Ghaemi, a researcher on Iran for the New York-based Human Rights Watch. But they could signal a coming crackdown, he added.

Ghaemi cautioned the international community not to be "fixated" on the Iranian nuclear issue. "We should not forget about human rights violations within the country," he said.

The president, who won election based on promises of economic reform, has sharpened the government's stance both on human rights issues and on Tehran's controversial nuclear program.

Iran ignored a U.N. demand to suspend uranium enrichment by the end of August, insisting its nuclear program is peaceful and not intended to make a bomb. Ahmadinejad also has accused the United States of imperialism and called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Despite Western disgust with its confrontational positions, it seems unlikely that Iran will face tough U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program. Many European leaders have called for more negotiations, and Russia and China appear unwilling to endanger trade ties.

[Homer_Rice]

Lemme see if I've got this straight. The same folks here who decry the liberal press as appeasing accomplices of evil-doing, and who also holler "Foul" when liberals in our universities pop their heads up out of their foxholes, want to exploit this proposed policy action of a foreign (and sovereign) nation, all to justify whatever means we might choose to use, including warfare, in order to further the "Democracy Agenda" as the major flank in our foreign policy.

Let's save some bloodshed. Let's just find some really good salespeople and put them to work in Diebold's international sales division, Iran department.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='331884' date='Sep 6 2006, 04:52 AM']Lemme see if I've got this straight. The same folks here who decry the liberal press as appeasing accomplices of evil-doing, and who also holler "Foul" when liberals in our universities pop their heads up out of their foxholes, want to exploit this proposed policy action of a foreign (and sovereign) nation, all to justify whatever means we might choose to use, including warfare, in order to further the "Democracy Agenda" as the major flank in our foreign policy.

Let's save some bloodshed. [b]Let's just find some really good salespeople and put them to work in Diebold's international sales division, Iran department.[/b][/quote]


I never cry liberal biased media. And liberals in Universities are par for the course in America, I believe it's actually a good thing by and large. I also think the definition of what is a liberal differs widely between what would be considered a liberal in America versus what would be a liberal in Iran.
A liberal in Iran is likely someone who would quietly, but openly oppose the oppression of women, and get tortured for it.
A liberal in America calls his President Hitler and any other derogatory term he/she can think of and nothing happens.

[Lawman]

[quote]Lemme see if I've got this straight. The same folks here who decry the liberal press as appeasing accomplices of evil-doing, and who also holler "Foul" when liberals in our universities pop their heads up out of their foxholes, want to exploit this proposed policy action of a foreign (and sovereign) nation, all to justify whatever means we might choose to use, including warfare, in order to further the "Democracy Agenda" as the major flank in our foreign policy.[/quote]

Converseley, I find it funny when some (liberals) on here (not saying you Homer) applaud and support the actions of Ahmadinejad who is the epitome of a Neo-Con.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[size=3][u][quote][b]Colorado governor wants 9-11 professor out[/b]
Says state not compelled to accept pro-terrorist views at taxpayer cost
February 2, 2005[/u][/size]

Prof. Ward Churchill under fire for 9-11 comments

The governor of Colorado yesterday called for the resignation of the University of Colorado professor under fire for comparing the victims of the 9-11 World Trade Center terror attacks to Nazis while praising the suicide hijackers for their "gallant sacrifices."

Gov. Bill Owens sent a letter to the president of the University of Colorado College dumbasss, Isaiah Lechowit, who was scheduled to read it at a rally in opposition to professor Ward Churchill.

"All decent people, whether dumbass or Democrat, liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of Ward Churchill," wrote Owens. "Not only are his writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history."

As WorldNetDaily reported, the controversy stems from an essay Churchill wrote titled "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," written shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. In it, he describes the thousands of American victims who died in the World Trade Center inferno as "little Eichmanns" (a reference to notorious Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann) who were perpetuating America's "mighty engine of profit." They were destroyed, he added, thanks to the "gallant sacrifices" of "combat teams" that successfully targeted the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon.

On Monday, Churchill stepped down as chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department but remains a professor of Ethnic Studies and Coordinator of American Indian Studies at the Colorado school.

Tomorrow night, the university's board of regents will have a special meeting to discuss the tenured professor's fate.

Wrote Owens: "Not only are [Churchill's] writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history. The thousands of innocent people – and innocent they were – who were murdered on September 11 were murdered by evil cowards Indeed, if anyone could possibly be compared to the evildoers of Nazi Germany, it is the terrorists of the 21st century who have an equally repugnant disregard for innocent human life.

"No one wants to infringe on Mr. Churchill's right to express himself. But we are not compelled to accept his pro-terrorist views at state taxpayer subsidy nor under the banner of the University of Colorado."

Owens, a dumbass, said the professor's views are more than just anti-American, but are "at odds with simple decency, and antagonistic to the beliefs and conduct of civilized people around the world. His views are far outside the mainstream of civil discourse and useful academic work."

Concluded Owens: "His resignation as chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department was a good first step. We hope that he will follow this step by resigning his position on the faculty of the University of Colorado."

Churchill was scheduled to speak at Hamilton College, in Clinton, N.Y., near Syracuse tomorrow, but yesterday officials at the school canceled the appearance, citing security concerns and death threats they had received.[/quote]


[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42666"]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42666[/url]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Lawman' post='331913' date='Sep 6 2006, 08:04 AM']Ahmadinejad who is the epitome of a Neo-Con.[/quote]



[b]What nation has he invaded again ???

Our Neo-Cons have invaded 2 and counting ... [/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[center] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] [/center]



[size=3][u][quote][b]Will the Real McCarthyists Please Stand Up?[/b]
By Justin Park
10/25/05[/u][/size]


Is there a [b]conservative movement to silence dissent on college campuses?[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] At the University of Colorado at Boulder, a radical professor's scholarship and [b]ethnicity is the subject of an official review[/b] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] . [b]Yale recenty fired its one anarchist professor[/b]. [b]David Horowitz's Students for Academic Freedom keeps a conservative campus watch list.[/b] Conservatives charge that McCarthyist liberals are keeping them out of the Ivory Tower. Liberal professors argue thathat conservatives are out to remake campuses in their image - one professor or one piece of legislation at a time.

Yeshiva University history professor Ellen Schrecker, author of numerous books on the McCarthy Era including No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, puts things in perspective. [b]"The current climate and the McCarthy Era are of course both similar and different,"[/b] she explained about the post-9/11 United States. "We never see history repeat itself exactly. There's no Congressional investigating committee now, but we see the same process of demonizing enemies and seeing some kind of threat to security that has whipped up a furor with connections to partisan politics."

Ward Churchill, a UC-Boulder ethnic studies professor, thinks the comparison to the Red Scare days isn't accurate to describe the current witch-hunt on campus. "There are parallels to McCarthy's days, but the techniques have advanced," said Churchill in an interview with Clamor. [b]"What that era didn't have is an articulated plan to convert the institutions of higher learning to the dominant ideology."[/b]

Schrecker sees an evolution as well, saying, "What's different between now and the McCarthy Era is that then attacks were on individual professors for extracurricular activities with communist groups or whatever. At no time was anybody's teaching or research brought into question. What's different today, and I think more scary, are things directed against curriculum and classroom and attempts by outside political forces to dictate the syllabus."

Middle East Studies professor Joseph Massad endured an investigation into his teaching by his employer, Columbia University, stemming from anti-Israel charges brought on by the pro-Israel group the David Project. And cases such as that of University of Florida computer science professor Sami Al-Arian, whose extracurricular activities with Muslim organizations have him awaiting trial for terrorism charges, illustrate that not all the attacks on professors have shifted to their lecture materials.

Current campus conservatism isn't part of any clandestine plan organized by neoconservatives in a back room of the White House. But it's important to seriously look at cases like those of professors Churchill, Al-Arian, and others in order to determine what kind of wasr is currently being waged on campus and who the combatants are.


[u][b]Big Man on Campus[/b][/u]

The Churchill saga has become a cause celebre for all sides of the controversy. Late last January, Churchill was preparing to leave for Hamilton College, in upstate New York, . But the weekend before his scheduled appearance, remarks he made in an essay titled "Some People Push Back," written the day after September 11, more than three years earlier, became the topic of national conversation. On January 26, 2005 the story was covered by the Associated Press and released on the statewide wire service. At 3:46 A.M. the next morning, Colorado dumbass Congress member Bob Beauprez, an alumnus of UC-Boulder, issued a press release calling for Churchill's resignation. Within days, the story was national news, most feverishly embraced by Bill O'Reilly on his conservative talk show, "The O'Reilly Factor." At the end of June, O'Reilly had taken up the Churchill "controversy" on more than 50 programs.

[b]Churchill started to receive death threats,[/b] Hamilton heard about anonymous threats of violence, and the event was cancelled. "I don't know how they selected Hamilton," said Churchill, "I guess someone at Hamilton found a copy of my essay, forwarded it to O'Reilly and the Denver media and suddenly it was the hottest thing since hot pants."

His version of the story isn't far off but omits part of a pattern. A few months earlier, Hamilton hired former Weather Underground activist Susan Rosenberg to teach a memoir-writing course. Much like Churchill, however, Rosenberg never made it to campus, thanks to protests at college fundraisers and immense pressure from alumni to rescind the offer to teach.

After the high-profile Rosenberg dispute, a small group of Hamilton faculty members was suspicious of the Churchill invitation and did some digging, finding Churchill's essay about September 11. Though more than 5,000 words long, detractors focused on key phrases to ignite the controversy, including this now well-worn and largely misunderstood line: "As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

AP wire stories quoted other juicy words from the essay, like "gallant sacrifices" of kamikaze "combat teams" on 9/11 and Churchill's labeling of World Trade Center dead as "little Eichmanns" working for the "mighty engine of profit." The remarks were inflammatory and not necessarily timely. The whole essay put the quotes in some context. But headlines still read "9/11 Victims Had It Coming," "Professor's Future Hinges on Conduct," "Coverage of Professor's 9/11 Essay Feeds his Ego, Terrorism," and "9/11 'Nazi' Prof Quits College Post."

Churchill later publicly clarified his remarks, saying "It should be emphasized that I applied the 'little Eichmanns' characterization only to those [World Trade Center workers] described as 'technicians.' Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen, and random passers-by killed in the 9-11 attack."

[b]But O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and even politicians such as New York Governor George Pataki proceeded to hammer the issue into the national discourse, with O'Reilly covering it for nine consecutive nights.[/b] Despite an eventual consensus defending Churchill's right to voice his opinion, even from O'Reilly, the university formed a committee to investigate claims made during the media maelstrom that he plagiarized work and falsely identified himself as an American Indian to further his career. Suddenly the inquisition into the professor's public remarks morphed into an ad hominem attack, legitimized by the official Board of Regents investigation and resolution passed by the Colorado house and senate condemning Churchill's remarks, and urging university officials to fire him.

Churchill calls the allegations "spurious," especially those that he used his race to advance his career saying, "I look white enough. Look at a standard bibliography in American Indian studies and it's overwhelmingly white and male."


[u][b]War of the Words[/b][/u]

The Churchill case gave groups like the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) and David Horowitz's Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), groups that see the academy as one of the last bastions of leftist power, a taste of victory in this battle on campuses. [b]Using the crowbar of a few phrases taken out of context, they were able to justify opening two committee investigations into Churchill, force his resignation as Chair of the Ethnic Studies department, and may yet succeed in ousting him entirely,[/b] despite the often ground-breaking research and numerous books on Native American history and genocide to Churchill's credit.

Whether these groups succeed in ousting Churchill matters little. They've already established a blueprint for other administrators, politicians, and media with an agenda to remove any professor they deem unfit. In a recent treatise on the conservative agenda, Newt Gingrich states that the threat of the leftist professoriat is equal to that of terrorists. "The flow of immigrants combined with the anti-American civilization bias of our academic left ... threatens to undermine and eliminate the history, language, and cultural patterns of American civilization in a secular, multicultural, politically correct, ethnic politician-defined new model," wrote Gingrich"

Colorado Governor Bill Owens, who called Churchill's essay "treasonous," works hand-in-hand with ACTA as part of their Governors' Project and was at the frontlines in calling for Churchill's dismissal. The publicly available "Action Plan" for the Governors' Project includes this line:

If we can get 20 key states moving in the right direction, it will start a national trend. Those states will be prioritized on the basis of (a) the size and prestige of their systems of higher education, ( likelihood that the governors will be open to our message, and © governance arrangements conductive to reform efforts (e.g., a single statewide system appointed by the governor is easier to influence than multiple boards, some of which are elected).

Churchill, for one, isn't scared to cry conspiracy, saying, "It's organized and coordinated. It evolves. This has been a consistent pattern for the past 25 years."

David Graeber, a Yale anthropology professor, avowed anarchist, and anti-globalization organizer, also got his pink slip and with no explanation. He isn't as quick to see a neo-con cabal behind his sacking, but adds that he recently defended a grad student attempting to organize a union, a move that pitted him squarely against many of the same faculty that fired him.

Graeber also says that after he was quoted in the New York Times for a story about protesting the World Economic Forum in which he was associated with an anarchist group, there were "suddenly all these conservatives saying to Yale, 'How could you have an anarchist there?'"

While Graeber sees his own dismissal chiefly as the result of power-tripping senior faculty, he does agree there's a larger, national assault on academics. "Someone probably did orchestrate Churchill or Massoud's cases, though. Situations like theirs create this climate where people feel like they can go after 'the anarchist professor.' You can get away with things you wouldn't normally consider."

That anarchists are a rare species that some think should be extinct on college campuses corresponds to the popular conservative view that higher education is one-sidedly leftist and desperately needs righting. An editorial by Mike Rosen in the March 4 edition of the Rocky Mountain News offers a typical right-wing view of the academy. Rosen declares academia as the "power base of the Left" and adds, "The left has taken over academe. We want it back." He goes on to quote a professor worried about the chilling effect the Ward Churchill case might have on other professors and answers, "Good. It's about time. I'd prefer to call it a remedial, correcting effect."

Conservatives such as Horowitz have relied heavily on the studies done by Santa Clara economics professor Daniel Klein, which alleged that anthropology departments have 30 democrats for every dumbass, and an average of seven to one in the social sciences and humanities generally. What most who cite the study, including a recent, beefy New York Times article, fail to note is that the study appeared in Academic Questions, a publication of the National Association of Scholars, a right-wing group devoted to eliminating "liberal bias" in America's hallowed halls. Even if Klein's work were accurate, despite the taint of its origins, to say those numbers indicate a bias that needs correcting is merely aping the flawed logic that has cowed the corporate media into searching for the nonexistent "balance" between left and right.

Horowitz's response to the perceived bias is his Academic Bill of Rights, a specious document brought to the floor of several state legislatures and designed to remove political "indoctrination" from classes. He hasn't been very successful in getting passage for the inherently political bill but he may not care. His tactics, often successful, are usually devised simply to win attention for his views. In his book Political War, he describes why he considered filing a libel suit against Time magazine for an article claiming he was a racist, saying, "My main objective... was to get my response - or pieces of it - before as large an audience as possible."

While the Academic Bill of Rights may not be winning much credible support, Horowitz has claimed victory on another piece of state legislation in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. In early July, lawmakers approved HR 177 by a vote of 111 to 87. The measure creates a committee that will investigate claims by students that professors are doling out low grades because they don't agree with their political opinions. On his web site, Horowitz states the legislation is "squarely based on the Academic Bill of Rights."

Robert Jensen, a University of Texas at Austin journalism professor who often appears on Horowitz's SAF site, calls the bias charge bunk. "The way this discussion [about academia] is proceeding is ridiculous. Everyone agrees education shouldn't be indoctrination and a lot goes on, but it's not towards the left, it's towards the existing system."

Jensen has pointed out that they don't teach alternatives to capitalism in business schools and wonders how people miss the bias towards the status quo inherent in most courses of study. "These people love to argue on the basis of individual behavior because they can avoid any real analysis of the system. And any major bias you can find in looking at it is going to be towards the existing system."

Jensen shrugs off the hate mail and personal threats he has received after he critiqued the likely American response to Sept. 11 in the Houston Chronicle saying, "It's not like the government is dragging me away in the night. Every once in a while I'm on the [Students for Academic Freedom] website. One guy wanted a Bob Jensen deportation site. I'm tenured and I don't care what they think, but often this stuff scares people who want to speak out."


[u][b]Defending the Thesis[/b][/u]

Clearly many of the problems that limit speech at universities are systemic. The American Association of University Professors reports that 65 percent of all university faculty are in non-tenure track positions and 46 percent of professors are part-time, leaving this demographic ill-equipped to espouse controversial positions that might drop them out of favor with university brass.

Additionally, each year average college tuition hikes accelerate and schools turn more to corporations and government for subsidies, scholarships and grants. Firmly indebted, those schools put more dollars into departments that are able to secure money from research and innovations that can be sold to corporate America or the government. In fact, politicians and economic development gurus such as Richard Florida, author of The Creative Class, enthusiastically encourage these sorts of partnerships as essential to keeping American cities competitive in the global marketplace.

When asked what might be done to build and maintain spaces for truly radical scholarship, Graeber could only respond, "I'm not really sure. Rather than give you some glib answer I'm going to say I have to think about that one." He added, "Yale, for example, is a corporation. It's a business that's so far about the reproduction of the ruling class. They're producing people to rule the world. Where does an anarchist fit into that?"

Currently, a number of organizations are working to expose how conservative foundations and think tanks are influencing academia, and several progressive organizations are tracking the attacks on academics. Graeber says that awareness and reasoned opposition is the key to deflecting attempts to squelch radical scholarship. "Sadistic bullies are a small percentage of the population but people often find it inconvenient to fight them. Enough public pressure in the right places can make it inconvenient to not fight them. Exposing them is the most useful thing to do."[/quote]

[url="http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/November2005/AlternetMcCarthyistsandRespose113005.htm"]http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/...spose113005.htm[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='331923' date='Sep 6 2006, 08:21 AM'][b]What nation has he invaded again ???

Our Neo-Cons have invaded 2 and counting ... [/b][/quote]

It does not change the fact that you trumpet this guy at every turn, when his government is clearly neo-conservative.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='331921' date='Sep 6 2006, 06:18 AM']
[size=3][u]
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42666"]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=42666[/url][/quote]
People in this country can say whatever they like, but when you are in a position where your income is derived from the public sector, you better be able to handle the consequences for what you say.
I was never in favor of the attempt to fire Churchill, even though he is an idiot, but...he works for a public university, and as such, doesn't have the same levity that a tenured professor at a private school would have in regards to warding off (couldn't resist the pun) public criticism of any comments they make.

[Guest bengalrick]

1. saying "the liberal media sucks" and saying "all liberal professors are to be banned" are two different things... for one, there has been no laws or actions to knock out any liberal proffessors...

2. ward churchill made some crazy comments imo, and in many other people opinions... that is NOT why he was fired though... as a matter of fact, even the plagerism and lying on his resume could barely do it... they were still worried that they couldn't fire him (because he embarressed the hell out of their univeristy) because of his tenure... bj, your purposely clouding that issue...

3. why do you guys continue to stick up for this crazy bastard?

[Homer_Rice]

1) Lawman: To suggest the Iran is neo-conservative is indicative of a lack of understanding of what neo-conservativism is, as a doctrine. The leadership in Iran may be a lot of things--neo-conservative it is not.

2) Who is sticking up for "this crazy bastard," br? Speaking for myself, I am simply not so gullible as to fall in line with the latest tactical electioneering of Karl Rove. You, only the other, fall for this stuff every time. What people should be talking about is the many lies and failures of this admin to date, ad nauseum.

[Guest bengalrick]

so homer, your trying to tell me that karl rove has something to do w/ this story? in some instances, i can see what your saying... in this one, i think your are overreaching...

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='332033' date='Sep 6 2006, 08:14 AM'][b]Speaking for myself, I am simply not so gullible as to fall in line with the latest tactical electioneering of Karl Rove[/b].[/quote]

So Karl Rove feeds CNN their stories now? There is no truth to the fact that Iran's leadership is oppressive, or desires a Caliphate of Islamic fundamentalism?
I just thought I'd throw this out there to portray how some here seem to view the USA's govt (especially the current admin) as oppressive and hail Ahmadinejad as some really great guy, when in fact I believe the opposite is true on both counts (not that this current US admin isn't playing dirty pool in many regards, but I can say so without fear of dissapearing into the night).

[Homer_Rice]

My goodness! It's as though you fellows had never heard of the tactic that frames the debate. Follow the yellow brick road!

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='332098' date='Sep 6 2006, 09:15 AM']My goodness! It's as though you fellows had never heard of the tactic that frames the debate. Follow the yellow brick road![/quote]
Why Homer, you're being so cryptic! That is [i]so[/i] unlike you!

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Lawman' post='331945' date='Sep 6 2006, 08:45 AM']It does not change the fact that you trumpet this guy at every turn, when his government is clearly neo-conservative.[/quote]


[b]1. You clearly have no idea what Neo-Conservative means ... and how it is implemented in todays context

2. I only trumpet Adman when he speaks the truth on Zionism .... and that is only because he is the only world leader with the chutzpah to do so .... hence why he will be nuked soon. But when you take out his positions on Zionism and his economic policies (which are pretty liberal) I think the guy sucks as Irans leader. He is also brutal to the Kurds of W Iran .... but hey I will never find a leader I agree on everything with. Don't confuse me enjoying the few times he tells the truth about Zionism as me loving the guy ... hell he would probably have me stoned for a myriad of shit .... [/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[b]Also for the Adman haters ...


the irony is that he is much closer to Bush .... than Kerry ... or my guy John Edwards. [/b]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='332435' date='Sep 6 2006, 04:00 PM'][b]

2. [i]I only trumpet Adman when he speaks the truth on Zionism .... and that is only because he is the only world leader with the chutzpah to do so .... hence why he will be nuked soon. But when you take out his positions on Zionism and his economic policies (which are pretty liberal) I think the guy sucks as Irans leader. He is also brutal to the Kurds of W Iran .... but hey I will never find a leader I agree on everything with. Don't confuse me enjoying the few times he tells the truth about Zionism as me loving the guy ... hell he would probably have me stoned for a myriad of shit .... [/i] [/b][/quote]
I'm glad you cleared that up because for awhile you really seemed like you had your bags packed for Tehran.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='332442' date='Sep 6 2006, 06:06 PM']I'm glad you cleared that up because for awhile you really seemed like you had your bags packed for Tehran.
[/quote]


[b]The irony is that I could write him some kick ass speeches on Zionism ... and really help him formulate his image for the west .... but once he takes a look at my long haired, fully tattooed bodied ass, in a bob marley shirt = He would throw me in a Shia Gulag..... or report me to the theocracy police. Not to mention I might ask one of his hot Iranian sisters if I can see under the burkah drapes..... [/b]

[Lawman]

[quote]1) Lawman: To suggest the Iran is neo-conservative is indicative of a lack of understanding of what neo-conservativism is, as a doctrine. The leadership in Iran may be a lot of things--neo-conservative it is not.[/quote]
[b]You clearly have no idea what Neo-Conservative means ... and how it is implemented in todays context[/b]

From Wipedia:

In academia, the term "neoconservative" refers more to journalists, pundits, policy analysts, and institutions affiliated with the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and with Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to more traditional conservative policy think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Hudson Institute or periodicals such as Policy Review or National Review.

[i]My usage as it implies to Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Theocractic regime; Bolded.[/i]
According to Irving Kristol, former managing editor of Commentary and now a Senior Fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington and the publisher of the hawkish magazine The National Interest, a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," [b]meaning someone who has become more conservative after seeing the practical impact of liberal foreign and domestic policies[/b]

Kinda like when some (liberal media types) group the Christian Right with the neo-cons, meaning governing through Divinity. eg: George Bush "I believe that God wants me to be president."

[quote] the irony is that he is much closer to Bush .... than Kerry ... or my guy John Edwards.[/quote]

thanks BJ

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='332445' date='Sep 6 2006, 04:10 PM'][b]The irony is that I could write him some kick ass speeches on Zionism ... and really help him formulate his image for the west .... but once he takes a look at my long haired, fully tattooed bodied ass, in a bob marley shirt = He would throw me in a Shia Gulag..... or report me to the theocracy police. Not to mention I might ask one of his hot Iranian sisters if I can see under the burkah drapes..... [/b][/quote]
You'd probably get a better shot at a peek under the burqua if you asked the Iranian Stallion to be your ambassador...and hooked up Adman with a #84 authentic jersey.....with detachable ponytail.....

[Rumble In the Jungle]

[b]how come when the president of iran asked president bush to have a live face to face on TV debate bush refused to ? just a question [/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Rumble in the Jungle' post='332483' date='Sep 6 2006, 07:18 PM'][b]how come when the president of iran asked president bush to have a live face to face on TV debate bush refused to ? just a question [/b][/quote]


[b][size=3]probably because his "back bulge" box is broken ... [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//23.gif[/img] [/size]

[center][img]http://www.detroitfilms.com/receiver.jpg[/img][/b][/center]

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='Rumble in the Jungle' post='332483' date='Sep 6 2006, 05:18 PM'][b]how come when the president of iran asked president bush to have a live face to face on TV debate bush refused to ? just a question [/b][/quote]
Honestly because it wouldn't gain anything for either side of the political fence, both would spout rhetoric and it wouldn't answer any questions for anyone. And don't forget that the US doesn't recognize Iran diplomatically after they took US Embassy hostages in 1978-9. And where would it be held? Switzerland?

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='332194' date='Sep 6 2006, 12:59 PM']Why Homer, you're being so cryptic! That is [i]so[/i] unlike you![/quote]

Well, Bung, I think I spend a fair amount of time here trying to illuminate topics. I can't be responsible to explain everything that adults should know today, but do not. So, when I don't feel like explaining what should be more or less obvious, I get snarky.

That okay with you? I've been thinking of giving this up for a while anyhow, as I'm busy.