LawTalkers
Page 203 of 334 « First 103153193201202 203 204205213253303 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Meet your new thread, same as the old thread. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=781)

Gattigap 09-24-2007 05:33 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess I don't get this. It's not like it would keep him from getting his message out. He's the President of Iran. He already has many microphones. The point of inviting him to speak at a university is that the intellectual debate at the school is improved. Surely it's beneficial to people at Columbia to have the chance to hear him. In the First Amendment context, courts say that the remedy to speech you don't like it more speech. Why isn't that true here?
It is. FWIW, I'm not saying that he should be restricted from speaking, just expressing irritation with this private actor's judgment. It's possible to be annoyed with the choices of a nonstate actor without being anti-speech.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-24-2007 05:44 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In the First Amendment context, courts say that the remedy to speech you don't like it more speech. Why isn't that true here?
He's part of the same liberal hegemony that protests having Donald Rumsfeld spend some time at the Hoover Institute

taxwonk 09-24-2007 05:46 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess I don't get this. It's not like it would keep him from getting his message out. He's the President of Iran. He already has many microphones. The point of inviting him to speak at a university is that the intellectual debate at the school is improved. Surely it's beneficial to people at Columbia to have the chance to hear him. In the First Amendment context, courts say that the remedy to speech you don't like it more speech. Why isn't that true here?
The intellectual debate at the school is not improved. The man is a whackjob. That's like suggesting the intellectual debate on race would be improved by inviting Matt Hale to speak.

We already know the message. We already know it's offensive and wrong. We also know that his speking at Columbia is not going to change anybody's mind on Israel, the Holocaust, and the killing of homosexuals.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-24-2007 05:59 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
The intellectual debate at the school is not improved. The man is a whackjob. That's like suggesting the intellectual debate on race would be improved by inviting Matt Hale to speak.

We already know the message. We already know it's offensive and wrong. We also know that his speking at Columbia is not going to change anybody's mind on Israel, the Holocaust, and the killing of homosexuals.
Of course it's improved. Columbia students get the chance to hear and see a foreign leader. The debate about this episode seems to assume that Columbia students are intellectual kindergarteners who are at risk of subscribing to these ideas if they're exposed to them. This is a university. Graduate students in foreign relations and Middle Eastern studies would surely want to see this guy speak, even if he is -- especially if he is -- a batshit crazy dictator.

sgtclub 09-24-2007 06:57 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course it's improved. Columbia students get the chance to hear and see a foreign leader. The debate about this episode seems to assume that Columbia students are intellectual kindergarteners who are at risk of subscribing to these ideas if they're exposed to them. This is a university. Graduate students in foreign relations and Middle Eastern studies would surely want to see this guy speak, even if he is -- especially if he is -- a batshit crazy dictator.
Any benefit is outweighed by the propaganda he will be able to generate for the Arab world. I am, perhaps, the biggest proponent of free speech on this board, but not under these circumstances (i.e., with the leader of a country that we may go to war with shortly).

For what it's worth, I'm not against Fidel or Chavez speaking at Columbia.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-24-2007 07:02 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Any benefit is outweighed by the propaganda he will be able to generate for the Arab world. I am, perhaps, the biggest proponent of free speech on this board, but not under these circumstances (i.e., with the leader of a country that we may go to war with shortly).

For what it's worth, I'm not against Fidel or Chavez speaking at Columbia.
Propaganda? What is the harm to him speaking at Columbia as opposed to the University of Tehran? Don't we show how strong we are in letting him speak here? The reaction to him makes it seem like we're worried people might hear him and be convinced. If we might go to war with him -- and what a stupid idea that would be -- all the more reason to let him speak.

taxwonk 09-24-2007 07:03 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Of course it's improved. Columbia students get the chance to hear and see a foreign leader. The debate about this episode seems to assume that Columbia students are intellectual kindergarteners who are at risk of subscribing to these ideas if they're exposed to them. This is a university. Graduate students in foreign relations and Middle Eastern studies would surely want to see this guy speak, even if he is -- especially if he is -- a batshit crazy dictator.
That's not necessarily true. He may be a foreign leader, but he's one who holds ideas that are wildly out of touch with history and reality. Your argument suggests that an appearance by Gallagher would per se improve the quality of discourse on the arts.

All columbia has done is lend legitimacy to a batshit crazy dictator, legitimacy which is not befitting the quality of his speech or intellect.

Spanky 09-24-2007 07:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Jesus, I wonder where you found a practicing Catholic.
I went to a Catholic Law School (although I am not Catholic myself). Before I attended a Catholic school, I did realize how devout one could be as a Catholic and completely ignore the rules. Didn't work that way in the Protestant church I grew up in.

taxwonk 09-24-2007 07:07 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Propaganda? What is the harm to him speaking at Columbia as opposed to the University of Tehran? Don't we show how strong we are in letting him speak here? The reaction to him makes it seem like we're worried people might hear him and be convinced. If we might go to war with him -- and what a stupid idea that would be -- all the more reason to let him speak.
I'm not saying his speech should be supressed. Let him spew his rhetoric at the United Nations, on Fox News, or on Howard Stern. I just don't think an institution like Columbia needed to give him a bully pulpit. I don't think there's any harm in it. I just think it cheapened the institution and what's more, I think that Columbia's adminstration was thinking far more of the notoriety and the attention his appearance would bring to the school than it was thinking of the importance of free speech.

Spanky 09-24-2007 07:10 PM
Solidarity!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by andViolins
Well, that may be inevitable, but that's not what these negotiations are about. GM has a huge problem with retiree health. Its this multi-billion dollar monster that's currently killing them. The GM pension is (I believe) actually overfunded.

Of course, this could all be posturing by the UAW. There very well could be a deal, but one that won't be easy to sell to the members. Thus the strike (likely a very short one) is simply put on to show the members that the union is really fighting for them!

aV
Many of these companies have taken a 180 degree uturn on universal healthcare and government provided health care. They can't afford to cover their own workes so they are starting to like some of the Dems ideas of government help. Where corporate america and the doctors (AMA) were united against UHC now only the AMA and the drug companies are against it. It is turning into a battle royale within the Republican party, and I believe the inevitable result will be some sort of national UHC.

Replaced_Texan 09-24-2007 07:12 PM
Solidarity!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Many of these companies have taken a 180 degree uturn on universal healthcare and government provided health care. They can't afford to cover their own workes so they are starting to like some of the Dems ideas of government help. Where corporate america and the doctors (AMA) were united against UHC now only the AMA and the drug companies are against it. It is turning into a battle royale within the Republican party, and I believe the inevitable result will be some sort of national UHC.
2, though the insurance companies are also none too thrilled about it either. The hospitals desperately, desperately want it, because they're going broke having to cover so much uncompensated care.

Gattigap 09-24-2007 07:16 PM
Solidarity!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
2, though the insurance companies are also none too thrilled about it either. The hospitals desperately, desperately want it, because they're going broke having to cover so much uncompensated care.
Apropos of that, the LAT ran an article on Sunday explaining that about two dozen Southland hospitals are in financial straights for this very reason. Apolcalypse to follow.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-24-2007 07:17 PM
Batshit Crazy Dictator In NY, Today's Version
 
Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
That's not necessarily true. He may be a foreign leader, but he's one who holds ideas that are wildly out of touch with history and reality. Your argument suggests that an appearance by Gallagher would per se improve the quality of discourse on the arts.

All columbia has done is lend legitimacy to a batshit crazy dictator, legitimacy which is not befitting the quality of his speech or intellect.
Columbia doesn't give him any legitimacy at all. He gets that in Iran. Columbia has a role in deciding whether Gallagher is an artist, but it does not have a role in deciding who runs Iran. A. gets invited to Columbia because he *is* the leader of Iran, not because his ideas about history and reality are meritorious in their own right.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-24-2007 07:18 PM
Solidarity!
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Many of these companies have taken a 180 degree uturn on universal healthcare and government provided health care. They can't afford to cover their own workes so they are starting to like some of the Dems ideas of government help. Where corporate america and the doctors (AMA) were united against UHC now only the AMA and the drug companies are against it. It is turning into a battle royale within the Republican party, and I believe the inevitable result will be some sort of national UHC.
These companies are operating at a competitive disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors, and their albatross is our health-care system.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-24-2007 07:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Before I attended a Catholic school, I did [n't] realize how devout one could be as a Catholic and completely ignore the rules.
You're like a modern-day Martin Luther.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:56 AM.
Page 203 of 334 « First 103153193201202 203 204205213253303 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com