# Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says "We need more evidence" for the Holocaust



## Metal Ken (Sep 24, 2007)

cause millions of dead jews, homosexuals and gypsies weren't enough. 

He spoke at Columbus University today, and he also said
-There are no homosexuals in Iran
-Women in Iran are the freest women in the world.



Does anyone else find this ridiculously absurd?


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Sep 24, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Does anyone else find this ridiculously absurd?



[action=NegaTiveXero]raises hand[/action]


----------



## D-EJ915 (Sep 24, 2007)

...


----------



## Lucky Seven (Sep 24, 2007)

You know what, there are plenty of other people like this. I consider them LOLcows like Hal Turner...


----------



## noodles (Sep 24, 2007)

He also has large ears.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 24, 2007)

The best part of the whole thing was the introduction that the President of the University of Columbia gave him. You should check that out. He basically called him the next hitler, and handed the mic over to him


----------



## lordofthesewers (Sep 24, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> The best part of the whole thing was the introduction that the President of the University of Columbia gave him. You should check that out. He basically called him the next hitler, and handed the mic over to him



however, after ahmadinejad started talking people clapped at his answers. he was invited to be humiliated, and he performed really well politicallay. if you would actually listen to his hole speech, he doesn't say it as ridiculously as you guys make it. not defending him, but you should watch the whole thing before commenting. i know cause i just watched it on abc news


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 24, 2007)

i, unfortunately missed the hole speech, but the parts of it i saw were hilarious. Of course its a foregone conclusion why he was there, perhaps you've seen the protesters? 
Also, when he said there were no gay people in Iran, the whole room laughed at him.

I also never said "HIS SPEECH WAS RIDICULOUS!!!" 
I said he gave a speech, and listed some of his talking points.


----------



## BigM555 (Sep 24, 2007)

So perhaps we should do an exchange program and send The Dubbya to one of their Universities?


----------



## ohio_eric (Sep 24, 2007)

The best part was after he said Iran had no homosexuals, the crowd laughed at him.


----------



## Samer (Sep 24, 2007)

any videos?


----------



## bostjan (Sep 24, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> if you would actually listen to his hole speech, he doesn't say it as ridiculously as you guys make it.



I don't know if anyone really said explicitly that it was ridiculous, yet, but I'll say it-

Some of the things he said begged ridicule. Every public speaker knows how to make things sound smart, but if you use your own analytical prowess, you may discover that part of the speech, or the hole speech, is in fact, ridiculous.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 24, 2007)

hell, i wish the guy would tell us good things, and that iran wanted to be friends, and not talk about wanting to kill jews, but in reality he said many things in many ways that are just wrong, he brings alot of the crap on himself, i'm pretty sure most americans wish for no more enemys, but what can ya do when some have 180 views


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 24, 2007)

bostjan said:


> but if you use your own analytical prowess, you may discover that part of the speech, or the hole speech, is in fact, ridiculous.



Nice


----------



## garcia3441 (Sep 25, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> -There are no homosexuals in Iran



That's because they hang them.


----------



## Samer (Sep 25, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> That's because they hang them.



They don't hang them, Iran is actually a very liberal nation, other than the president. It would be like judging Americans by president bush. In fact both of them have two things in common they are religious idiots.


----------



## garcia3441 (Sep 25, 2007)

Samer said:


> They don't hang them, Iran is actually a very liberal nation, other than the president. It would be like judging Americans by president bush. In fact both of them have two things in common they are religious idiots.







Scoop: Iran: Two More Executions for Homosexual Conduct


----------



## lordofthesewers (Sep 25, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> That's because they hang them.



you make it like it is a bad thing  

also, i wasn't defending the guy at all, but he didn't explicitly said: "lets kill the jews", he actually says that he wants to be friend with the jewish people, just not with israel. When he was asked about the holocaust he said that it is a historical event on which research should never stop, among other things. He didn't directly said that, this time he was more cautious than other times. IMHO, the crowd was not laughing at him, i think they were just laughing at the idea in general, given the audience was a bunch of college kids.
the guy is crazy, but he played _half_ decently this time


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 25, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> you make it like it is a bad thing
> 
> also, i wasn't defending the guy at all, but he didn't explicitly said: "lets kill the jews", he actually says that he wants to be friend with the jewish people, just not with israel. When he was asked about the holocaust he said that it is a historical event on which research should never stop, among other things. He didn't directly said that, this time he was more cautious than other times. IMHO, the crowd was not laughing at him, i think they were just laughing at the idea in general, given the audience was a bunch of college kids.
> the guy is crazy, but he played _half_ decently this time



I think you're letting his words speak louder than his actions.


----------



## nikt (Sep 25, 2007)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says "We need more evidence" for the Holocaust


----------



## Xtremevillan (Sep 25, 2007)

Dude, imagine if in Iran, they started a "Are you homosexual?" door to door policy.


In today's news, 300 men have gone missing.


----------



## Samer (Sep 25, 2007)

To be honest i watched his speech on digg today, and i agree with him on 99% of things other than the homosexual bashing.


----------



## Thomas (Sep 25, 2007)

Samer said:


> Iran is actually a very liberal nation








You're kidding, right?


----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 25, 2007)

I haven't seen this speech yet, but I'm sure it's the average, charismatic Ahmadinejad fare. I really don't understand this guy, he's seemly insane but also strangely politie and eloquent......


----------



## Cancer (Sep 25, 2007)

Samer said:


> To be honest i watched his speech on digg today, and i agree with him on 99% of things other than the homosexual bashing.




Could you post a link for that, I've been googling (*and although I've found some interesting things from him*) ....no speech.


----------



## Samer (Sep 25, 2007)

Thomas said:


> You're kidding, right?



No not at all, it histrionically had one of the highest left wing population in any country. 


Go to digg.com there are 3 long videos posted there


----------



## stuz719 (Sep 25, 2007)

It's interesting that the intolerance towards homosexuality allegedly displayed by the president of Iran should draw criticism from people in the U.S.

[Note - I know that ss.org members would never stoop so low as to be homophobic or racist, so please don't anyone take this as personal criticism]



wikipedia said:


> In contrast, twenty-six states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage, confining civil marriage to a legal union between a man and a woman. Forty-three states have statutes restricting marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, including some of those that have created legal recognition for same-sex unions under a name other than "marriage." A small number of states ban any legal recognition of same-sex unions that would be equivalent to civil marriage.



Link.

And I know this is a conservative group, but the voting is interesting:



American Family Association said:


> Would you vote for a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage Republican candidate for president?
> I would not. 157,044 I would. 4,899



Link.


----------



## asmegin_slayer (Sep 25, 2007)

Here is a good video of Mahmoud views about President Bush, i thought it was very interesting, and in the most part agree.

Crooks and Liars » 60 Minutes: Ahmadinejad plays coy


----------



## lordofthesewers (Sep 25, 2007)

Zepp88 said:


> I haven't seen this speech yet, but I'm sure it's the average, charismatic Ahmadinejad fare. I really don't understand this guy, he's seemly insane but also strangely politie and eloquent......


+1, that is what i tried to say.

@MetalKen, I was not discussing his actions, we all know what he did, i was discussing his speech there. IMHO the Columbia president came worst than ahmadinejad did. You don't invite ANYONE to shit on him before he speaks when you invited him. However Ahmadinejad had the balls to speak and answer to any questions he was asked no matter how difficult for him were. He was even heartily applauded at times, on "hostile ground". Bush doesn't do that even at his residence, he dodges the questions and ditches the press and critiques.
Not supporting his policies, but I think as a politician he came off well now. To me Ahmadinejad is like andrew jackson, great polician, total asshole that should be killed in sulfuric acid!

It is also worth noting that in Iran he doesn't have total power, he can be booted any time by the supreme cleric, what is his face dude with beard  He is just an administrator doing what he is told, so he can do it well. He still has lots of power, but he obeys the cleric, not always himself


----------



## Samer (Sep 25, 2007)

I would prefer Ahmadinejad over Bush.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)

I would prefer a rabid pitbull over both of them.


----------



## Samer (Sep 25, 2007)

noodles said:


> I would prefer a rabid pitbull over both of them.



I just hope Obama comes to save the day!


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 25, 2007)

I'd rather have Mrs. Clinton over him  - and for me that's saying a lot. Gotta be honest I don't agree inviting the guy into the states at all. But what was the President of the Universities game? I thought that dude invited him to speak at his college then he bad mouths him prior to his speech


----------



## XEN (Sep 25, 2007)

noodles said:


> I would prefer a rabid pitbull over both of them.


Hell yeah! At least pit bulls are trainable.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 25, 2007)

stuz719 said:


> It's interesting that the intolerance towards homosexuality allegedly displayed by the president of Iran should draw criticism from people in the U.S.



Come on bro - of course we have our differences of opinion in the U.S. but we are not rounding up and hanging homosexuals as a government sponsored program. 

Additionally anyone who thinks this guy is not using our media and our open society to put out exactly what he wants us to hear. Next thing we know he'll be out shaking hands and kissing babies.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> Come on bro - of course we have our differences of opinion in the U.S. but we are not rounding up and hanging homosexuals as a government sponsored program.



Do you think that is because we are more altruistic, or because we have laws preventing people from doing it?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but think about it for a minute. There was a point in our country's history, in the southern states, that lynching was an acceptable way of dealing with persons of color. That period did not come to end because the people of the south suddenly grew a conscious. We have laws to protect people from each other. There is no federal laws protecting the right of homosexuals to marry, so most states don't give it to them. What if the federal laws against murder only applied to straight people?

Everyone seems to think that the United States is the land of tolerance and progressive thinking. It's not. We just don't allow our citizens to persecute each other to the extent that a radical state theocracy does, but never make the mistake of assuming these people don't exist right under our noses. The price of freedom is constant vigilance, and we haven't been very vigilant at home for the past six years.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 25, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> you make it like it is a bad thing



Sound familiar anyone?


----------



## Drew (Sep 25, 2007)

Samer said:


> No not at all, it histrionically had one of the highest left wing population in any country.
> 
> 
> Go to digg.com there are 3 long videos posted there



This is actually true - the general populace of Iran is measureably more liberal than your average middle eastern Islamic state. It's just, a few years ago they elected a hard line government after a long period of moderation, so that may be changing. 

That said, Samer, if you're saying you agree that we need "more evidence" that the Halocaust occured, you're crazy.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)

Candidates question university's invitation to Iran president - CNN.com



> Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Monday he finds it "disturbing" Columbia University invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak before its student body, calling him "the leader of one of the governments that's one of the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world."
> 
> "He's denied the Holocaust; he's threatened the future survival of Israel," Giuliani said in an interview with Maine television station WMTW.
> 
> ...





> "We should be tightening our sanctions against Iran, not welcoming him to the world stage and I've called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to withdraw that invitation," Romney said in the ad set to run in Iowa and South Carolina today and Florida later in the week. "What we should be doing is indicting Ahmadinejad under the Genocide Convention."



The predictable Republican response. 



> "If I were the president of a university, I would not have invited him, but I did not express an opinion about the decision made by Columbia," Clinton said. "Obviously I was very much against his desire to go to ground zero. I thought that was absolutely out of bounds and unacceptable and thankfully it was not permitted."





> One of Clinton's chief rivals for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, also said he would not have invited Ahmadinejad to Columbia but stood his ground Monday on his controversial remarks earlier this year that he would meet with him.
> 
> "We should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate," Obama said, quoting John F. Kennedy. "Meeting with somebody is not tantamount to agreeing with them," he later added when taking questions from reporters after announcing an endorsement by the New York City Correctional Officers Benevolent Association in Manhattan.



Herein lies the difference between Republicans and Democrats in this country. The Republicans may make some good points, but they do it in a very hostile way, almost as if they're challenging Iran to do something. Increased measures and sanctions, when we do not currently posses the ability to militarily back them up, is tantamount to swatting at a hornets nest with a stick. Why add tension to an already touchy situation?

Meanwhile, the Democratic response contains the same condemnations, but doesn't include any saber rattling. The president of Columbia is allowed to think for himself, since he is an adult. Freedom of speech is never threatened. The idea that one can have diplomatic relations without conceding our principals or weakening our position is put forth.

Now, I didn't like Regan very much, but he would have never refused to meet with his enemies. He would have never looked at a strictly military solution above all else. This was the man who more relations with our chief rival, the USSR, than all of his predecessors combined.

This is why I can never support a Republican ever again, in any way. At one point, the party opposite to my viewpoint could at least think rationally, reach compromise, and hold positions that I could grudgingly respect, even if I disagreed with them. The modern GOP is blindly loyal to a fault, and push forth the agenda of a common schoolyard bully. Our foreign policy has become a gross, extremely dangerous failure.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)

Drew said:


> This is actually true - the general populace of Iran is measureably more liberal than your average middle eastern Islamic state. It's just, a few years ago they elected a hard line government after a long period of moderation, so that may be changing.



Man, I so know the feeling.


----------



## Rick (Sep 25, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The best part was after he said Iran had no homosexuals, the crowd laughed at him.



I'm sure he's right.


----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 25, 2007)

Rick said:


> I'm sure he's right.





Maybe these are strange sarcastic jokes that don't translate well?


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 25, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> @MetalKen, I was not discussing his actions, we all know what he did, i was discussing his speech there. IMHO the Columbia president came worst than ahmadinejad did. You don't invite ANYONE to shit on him before he speaks when you invited him. However Ahmadinejad had the balls to speak and answer to any questions he was asked no matter how difficult for him were. He was even heartily applauded at times, on "hostile ground". Bush doesn't do that even at his residence, he dodges the questions and ditches the press and critiques.
> Not supporting his policies, but I think as a politician he came off well now. To me Ahmadinejad is like andrew jackson, great polician, total asshole that should be killed in sulfuric acid!



Thats because he TRULY doesn't give a fuck what anyone thinks. It wouldn't have mattered what situation, what circumstances, etc, he went out there on. He still wouldn't have given a fuck. Does he have balls to be that way? hell yeah he does. He's got balls the size of bowling balls to come up in front of thousands of people at Columbia U and stare them straight in the eye and lie in their faces, and not just a lie he could pass off like weather he ate breakfast or not that morning, but a like that EVERY SINGLE PERSON in that audience KNEW was a lie. He has balls? Yes. Is he a fucking lunatic? Yes he is.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)

Seems like everyone is missing the really good point he made: the United States government displaced Iran's duly elected Democratic government, replacing it with a dictatorship headed up by the US-appointed Shah of Iran. We squashed a democracy to establish a dictatorship that was friendly to our interests, which caused the nationwide resentment that led to the rise of the current regime. So, we are responsible for Ahmadasdtna;sd (whatever his name is) coming to power.

Talk about zinging us right between the eyes, because he is 100% correct. He would be a nobody if we left the country alone.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 25, 2007)

Isnt that how Saddam got in power, too?


----------



## Drew (Sep 25, 2007)

Pretty much, Ken - he was an American ally during the Cold War, and we deemed him a useful buffer against the Soviets. 

Reminds me of someone else from that region, who used to work for the CIA... What was his name...? Oh, yeah. Osama Bin Laden.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)




----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 25, 2007)

Drew said:


> Pretty much, Ken - he was an American ally during the Cold War, and we deemed him a useful buffer against the Soviets.
> 
> Reminds me of someone else from that region, who used to work for the CIA... What was his name...? Oh, yeah. Osama Bin Laden.



Woah woah, Bin Laden worked for the CIA? 

That's a piece of info I never read.


----------



## noodles (Sep 25, 2007)

Osama bin Laden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is an interesting read. While the CIA did not employ him directly, nor did they directly train him, our country did provide the monetary and infrastructure support that made his rise to power possible.

Oh, and his niece is hot:


----------



## Zepp88 (Sep 25, 2007)

Well, that's one more interesting tid bit to add to the knowledge banks...

The hypocrisy never ends...


----------



## eleven59 (Sep 25, 2007)

Y'know, I think the world would be a much happier place if there were more public orgies


----------



## D-EJ915 (Sep 25, 2007)

the world would be a happier place if there were no people


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 25, 2007)

noodles said:


> Oh, and his niece is hot:



Weird.. his daughter lives in new york....


----------



## BigM555 (Sep 25, 2007)

noodles said:


> Oh, and his niece is hot



Holy freakin' schnikees!  

That's off the scale HOT!


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 25, 2007)

now wait, if that pic is really of his neice, would he be condiming her for pictures like that?


----------



## jim777 (Sep 25, 2007)

lordofthesewers said:


> however, after ahmadinejad started talking people clapped at his answers. he was invited to be humiliated, and he performed really well politicallay. if ....



He was absolutely NOT invited to be humiliated, he was invited because he is exactly the type of person that Columbia loves to have speak. America hating, and controversial. It sells really well at Columbia, and sells well to the millionaire and billionaire financial benefactors of the school. Not necesarilly a bad thing, but that's exactly how they roll up in Morningside Heights....that Bollinger decided to go after him is his own business, but suffice it to say that it was unexpected behavior.


----------



## jim777 (Sep 25, 2007)

never mind


----------



## 999dead666 (Sep 25, 2007)

iran dont believe in the right of israels existance because untill now by the UN israel is an occupation power over the palestinian,syrian,lebanese lands. so his point of view is true, you cant trust a country that was built upon british occupation of palestine then it expanded over 3 other countries. another fact, israel is the last occupation on earth!! and its over 60 years old. now we know that ahmadi nijad is politician and all politicians are untrustfull and liers, but on this point of view the simple minded people of the middle east back him up. specially the ones who are living in below zero condititions in refugee camps since 60 years. but the homosexual thing is really stupid to mention.i mean how the fuck he know that there is zero homosexuals in a big country like iran were over 70 milion people are living?!?!?!?.the holocaust thing is, most of westerns took the western media propaganda that he doesnt believe in the holocaust and he wants to kill the jews. he did such a thing because, again when you return to the palestinian issue and blame israel, you will be pointed as anti jewish and anti israelian. 2nd if any one tries to find out more unknown informations about the holocaust he will be stopped or charged, even in europe as we heared of many historians and writers,3rd how many milion gypsies died and russians and poles in the 2nd world war. i cant remember the number but i think russians lost as many jews or more in 2nd world war, any one morn their death or treat it as holly as the hollocaust? gypsies?homosexuals in germany?poles?disabled and old people in germany? so its nothing against jews as religion, its just he is trying to tease israelians and the west by touching such sensitive subjects.


----------



## Drew (Sep 25, 2007)

999dead666 said:


> 3rd how many milion gypsies died and russians and poles in the 2nd world war. i cant remember the number but i think russians lost as many jews or more in 2nd world war, any one morn their death or treat it as holly as the hollocaust? gypsies?homosexuals in germany?poles?disabled and old people in germany? so its nothing against jews as religion, its just he is trying to tease israelians and the west by touching such sensitive subjects.




Are you fucking _kidding_ me? 

I'm not questioning that Russia took staggering casuialties during WWII, but the Russians were by and large military casualties, with a number of additional deaths from starvation in the russian winter afterwards. The holocaust, meanwhile, was a systematic rounding up and execution of an entire race of people. You absolutely, unequivically, CANNOT equate the two. One was the byproduct of a desperate war of attrition, the other was cold, premeditated genocide/ethnic cleansing. 

I'm speechless. Consider this a formal warning - if you make another post in this thread like that again, I'm suspending you. As it is I'm letting you off lightly by not doing so now.

EDIT - and to be clear, I'm perfectly aware that Jews were not the only "undesireable" group purged in the Holocaust. That doesn't make it any less disgusting to try to write it off as "just another round of casualties of war."


----------



## 999dead666 (Sep 25, 2007)

Drew said:


> Are you fucking _kidding_ me?
> 
> I'm not questioning that Russia took staggering casuialties during WWII, but the Russians were by and large military casualties, with a number of additional deaths from starvation in the russian winter afterwards. The holocaust, meanwhile, was a systematic rounding up and execution of an entire race of people. You absolutely, unequivically, CANNOT equate the two.
> 
> I'm speechless. Consider this a formal warning - if you make another post in this thread like that again, I'm suspending you. As it is I'm letting you off lightly by not doing so now.



drew, when i feel im missunderstood i feel good when i see your quote later because i feel you understand both of the 2 diffrent views, but now im speachless. what did i do or say that your warning me like this? if i mentioned wrong number or wrong informations you can just point that and i would be thankfull to correct my knowledge. i didnt say jews werent dying because of systematic killing. and i didnt forget the red armies strategy, quantity over quality thing, when they used to push hundred of thousends of soldiers while few hundreds had rifles to fight while the rest had to wait to collect theirs from the falling ones. but in the end their death happened because of the nazie invasion to russia which caused all the death by lack of food or by the fires of the germans. i know too that chinese army was searching for undigisted seeds and weat in the horses shit to eat because they had to fight for days with no food ( i know it has nothing to do with nazies and the holocaust ). and by the way, my wifes grandmother is 84 years old she was 16-17 years old when germans kicked her with her family from gdansk to radom, and she used to tell us how they used to see the trains of jews travelling to death camps. but she told me that jews were shot to death or worked in camps till death , but she doesnt believe in the zyklon b gaz, because she heared from the russians who came in the end of the war that most of the jews had bullets in their bodies, and the excution by zyklon b was too expensive and unpractical. it was easier to force the victimes to dig massive graves and then shot and fall in it. how ever they died , it doesnt change the grim fact of the black history of the 2nd world war. just too many died and most of them took their secrets with them


----------



## Drew (Sep 25, 2007)

999dead666 said:


> drew, when i feel im missunderstood i feel good when i see your quote later because i feel you understand both of the 2 diffrent views, but now im speachless. what did i do or say that your warning me like this? if i mentioned wrong number or wrong informations you can just point that and i would be thankfull to correct my knowledge. i didnt say jews werent dying because of systematic killing. and i didnt forget the red armies strategy, quantity over quality thing, when they used to push hundred of thousends of soldiers while few hundreds had rifles to fight while the rest had to wait to collect theirs from the falling ones. but in the end their death happened because of the nazie invasion to russia which caused all the death by lack of food or by the fires of the germans. i know too that chinese army was searching for undigisted seeds and weat in the horses shit to eat because they had to fight for days with no food ( i know it has nothing to do with nazies and the holocaust ). and by the way, my wifes grandmother is 84 years old she was 16-17 years old when germans kicked her with her family from gdansk to radom, and she used to tell us how they used to see the trains of jews travelling to death camps. but she told me that jews were shot to death or worked in camps till death , but she doesnt believe in the zyklon b gaz, because she heared from the russians who came in the end of the war that most of the jews had bullets in their bodies, and the excution by zyklon b was too expensive and unpractical. it was easier to force the victimes to dig massive graves and then shot and fall in it. how ever they died , it doesnt change the grim fact of the black history of the 2nd world war. just too many died and most of them took their secrets with them



Again, arguing that military casualties on a battlefield and systematic extermination of civilians are equivalent to advance an anti-Israel platform is both completely off base and absolutely disgusting. I too have issues with the way the Israeli state was formed, but I'm revolted to see someone taking such a glib attitude towards genocide and ethnic clensing. If you're going to insist on posting in that manner, then I'm going to suggest you stay out of this thread, or I'll take steps to ensure you're not able to post further.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 27, 2007)

noodles said:


> Do you think that is because we are more altruistic, or because we have laws preventing people from doing it?


 I think it's probably both. I believe people can be scared of things they don't understand whether right or wrong it is what it is. Most people would never act on their prejudicial feelings, some people might especially if the government endorsed it. Then of course their are others that will act on these belief's whether or not there are laws governing them. 



noodles said:


> I'm not trying to be an ass, but think about it for a minute. There was a point in our country's history, in the southern states, that lynching was an acceptable way of dealing with persons of color. That period did not come to end because the people of the south suddenly grew a conscious. We have laws to protect people from each other.


Of course there had to be a culture change - Many of those people were used to seeing the other race as a piece of property and not another human being - I'm sure this made the justification in their own minds very easy (not right but easy). Many people are as prejudice as ever and continue to live law abiding lives - while not acting out upon the object of the prejudice. 




noodles said:


> There is no federal laws protecting the right of homosexuals to marry, so most states don't give it to them. What if the federal laws against murder only applied to straight people?


I have to say I think it's a big leap from homosexuals right to marry to state sponsored murder of homosexuals. Even people that are willing to change need to be given time to do it. Maybe ten years from now people that don't believe in gay marriage today will be accepting - I just think it's hard to ask people to change like you turn on a light switch. Homosexuality is a tough concept for many people to get their heads around - let alone two people of like sex being married. 



noodles said:


> Everyone seems to think that the United States is the land of tolerance and progressive thinking. It's not. We just don't allow our citizens to persecute each other to the extent that a radical state theocracy does, but never make the mistake of assuming these people don't exist right under our noses. The price of freedom is constant vigilance, and we haven't been very vigilant at home for the past six years.


You say "these" people like they are diseased. Most people have prejudices even if they are very minor ones.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 27, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> You say "these" people like they are diseased. Most people have prejudices even if they are very minor ones.



Huh? I thought "these" was just a pronoun with antecedent "the persecuted of the USA" .

Did anyone see the newer interview with Ahmadinejad where he walked off the set after four minutes? I didn't hear what happened.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 27, 2007)

bostjan said:


> Huh? I thought "these" was just a pronoun with antecedent "the persecuted of the USA" :scratch.


 Thanks for the English lesson professor.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 27, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> Thanks for the English lesson professor.


He was defending Dave by implying that Dave was choosing a select group of people. 
And people that ARE trying to turn America into a theocratic ideal DO deserve any contempt they receive. 


DslDwg said:


> Maybe ten years from now people that don't believe in gay marriage today will be accepting - I just think it's hard to ask people to change like you turn on a light switch. Homosexuality is a tough concept for many people to get their heads around - let alone two people of like sex being married.



_These_ people need to get their heads around that its none of their business if gay people get married. Its none of mine, yours, or anyone else's who gets married. If America's supposed to be where people can be free, maybe people that intolerant of other people's choice of spouse should get out. 
Gay people aren't sitting at home scheming on how to bring America down. They just love each other. And if two people like each other enough to get married, who are you, I, or anyone else to say they shouldn't get married?

/Rollins-esque rant


----------



## jim777 (Sep 27, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> _These_ people need to get their heads around that its none of their business if gay people get married. Its none of mine, yours, or anyone else's who gets married. If America's supposed to be where people can be free, maybe people that intolerant of other people's choice of spouse should get out...
> 
> /Rollins-esque rant



It _shouldn't_ be anyone else's business, but it most certainly is at the moment.
If 'these people' have the right to vote out people who come out for or against any proposition (especially a proposition like gay marriage, which is all over the news) then they have the power and it is their business. These issues of what people should and shouldn't be allowed to do will always be up in the air until the specific actions are guaranteed by the constitution (in the US, anyway).
Now, I personally have no problem with gay marriage. I think it would be nice if everyone could be in that glorious position of having to give half their stuff away over a stupid argument or whatever. However, that right isn't guaranteed, so all of the voters out there who are against everyone being as happy or miserable as they are do indeed have a say in what other people can and cannot do. Same as they did with abortion before Roe vs. Wade.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 27, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> _These_ people need to get their heads around that its none of their business if gay people get married. Its none of mine, yours, or anyone else's who gets married. If America's supposed to be where people can be free, maybe people that intolerant of other people's choice of spouse should get out.
> Gay people aren't sitting at home scheming on how to bring America down. They just love each other. And if two people like each other enough to get married, who are you, I, or anyone else to say they shouldn't get married?


Right or wrong The American people have a way of deciding what's their business. Playing devils advocate - what is the downside if homosexuals are not allowed to marry? If two men or women live together as a couple why do they need a piece of paper to validate that union? They can still have a ceremony - say some vows and blast wedding cake up each others nose.


----------



## jim777 (Sep 27, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> Right or wrong The American people have a way of deciding what's their business. Playing devils advocate - what is the downside if homosexuals are not allowed to marry? If two men or women live together as a couple why do they need a piece of paper to validate that union? They can still have a ceremony - say some vows and blast wedding cake up each others nose.



Well, part of the downside is the subtle things like 'next of kin' when someone is in the hospital. Imagine the person you've lived with all your life going in the hospital and you can't visit because you're not a relative. It happens. Don't you watch TV?  This is a popular theme with the hour long dramas.


----------



## Samer (Sep 27, 2007)

Drew - No i don't think the holocaust didn't happen, i disagree with him on that, i agreed with him on his other topics. I just like his level of honesty and sincerity, its rare in politics. And i would put him way about Bush, but then again i think i would put Stalin above Bush.


----------



## ohio_eric (Sep 27, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> I have to say I think it's a big leap from homosexuals right to marry to state sponsored murder of homosexuals. Even people that are willing to change need to be given time to do it. Maybe ten years from now people that don't believe in gay marriage today will be accepting - I just think it's hard to ask people to change like you turn on a light switch. Homosexuality is a tough concept for many people to get their heads around - let alone two people of like sex being married.



Brace yourself because here comes Eric&#8217;s little rant on gays and their rights. 

First off I don&#8217;t get why being gay is so damned hard to understand. Boy meets boy or girl meets girl and they are attracted to one another. It occurs in nature in other species. It happens all the time. Even if the conservative estimates are correct then about 120 million people on this planet are gay. It&#8217;s just that certain people demonize anything that is different or outside the culturally accepted norm or if they need a convenient scapegoat. Of course as we are learning lately lots of politicians that are supposedly against homosexuality are in fact gayer than Paris in the springtime. So most of it is all bullshit and fear mongering. The rest is just blatant discrimination. 

Gay marriage ought to be legal. Now churches can do as they please, separation of church and state and all. The states ought to allow gays to marry however. This isn&#8217;t so much a commitment issue as it is a property issue. Gay couples want the same legal rights when a partner passes as straight couples. Sure the whole marriage thing is swell and all but this more of a rights issue than anything. So let them get married by a mayor or justice of the peace and let&#8217;s move on. Now the federal government however needs to keep their filthy little noses out of it. Marriage is a state issue. It always has been it always will be. The federal government needs to focus on Iraq and health care and our crumbling infrastructure and schools and leave marriage alone.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 27, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> They can still have a ceremony - say some vows and blast wedding cake up each others nose.



Sounds like "Seperate but equal" to me.

As others have said, its not just that, its property rights, emergency situations, in case one of them dies. The significant other, whoever it may be has none of the legal rights straight people do. Why? Just cause they decided they liked dudes or something? Whats up with that?


----------



## tonyhell (Sep 27, 2007)

dfgbhn


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 28, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> As others have said, its not just that, its property rights, emergency situations, in case one of them dies. The significant other, whoever it may be has none of the legal rights straight people do.


Maybe the whole situation would be easier to get past if this was no longer called marriage? Call it a familial bond or whatever - the couple then goes through a legal registration to make the bond between the couple. I think part of the problem is when you call it marriage - the religious types get up in arms. Because the term is so closely connected with a religious ceremony.



tonyhell said:


> That would certainly be the case if the republican party had the absolute power they seek.


Do you really think that's true


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 28, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> Maybe the whole situation would be easier to get past if this was no longer called marriage? Call it a familial bond or whatever - the couple then goes through a legal registration to make the bond between the couple. I think part of the problem is when you call it marriage - the religious types get up in arms. Because the term is so closely connected with a religious ceremony.



Why dont we just have water fountains for different races again? 

Like i said, that idea sounds a lot like 'seperate but equal'. Gay people can be religious, too.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 28, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> Like i said, that idea sounds a lot like 'seperate but equal'. Gay people can be religious, too.


 Not even saying it's my idea - but obviously the more organized and larger religions in this country have great power - doesn't mean we have to like it - just a fact. Of course they can - but if they went along with strict Catholic doctrine they would then be opposed to themselves.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm going to play the devil's advocate here on this gay marriage thing, and probably catch a lot of flak and negative rep, but here it goes: I don't think the Catholic church SHOULD recognize/perform gay marriages. Why? It is against their religion. It says so right in the bible. I'm not saying it's right, or that gay's SHOULDN'T have some kind of common law type thing where they get all the same legal rights, but if you're talking marriage's in a religious sense, then why should they force Christians to do something against their religion. That's like forcing a big fucking ham down the throat of a jew. If you're going to respect the religious rights of Christians, then don't make them perform gay marriages. Again I will state in my own defense before the shit storm comes that I DO think gay people should have the same legal rights/tax benefits/whatever that religious marriages have.

*JJ waits for it*


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 28, 2007)

Catholics don't have to perform them. I'm just saying they should be legal. Just because ham is legal doesnt mean jews have to eat it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 28, 2007)

I'm pretty sure it's frowned on in any sect of Christianity, but I was more directing it towards this:



Metal Ken said:


> Like i said, that idea sounds a lot like 'seperate but equal'. *Gay people can be religious, too.*



I don't understand why people would worship a god that condemns them. Are they planning on turning straight before they die and repenting? Or are they hoping that it's a lie? For example, if I worshiped a supreme being who condemned music, and I chose to keep listening to music, why would I stay part of the religion that says "that's bad!" even though I know that's bullshit? Either way, they should allow cival unions for same sex couples.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 29, 2007)

There's actually protestant gay churches with gay preachers and ive seen a catholic parish with a gay preacher. 

I dont know what their ideology behind it is... Maybe they just like the doctrine? Who are we to question them? If i were gay, i wouldnt be a christian. Well, i wouldnt be a christian being straight either. Kind of a bad example


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 29, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> T*here's actually protestant gay churches with gay preachers and ive seen a catholic parish with a gay preacher.*
> 
> I dont know what their ideology behind it is... Maybe they just like the doctrine? Who are we to question them? If i were gay, i wouldnt be a christian. Well, i wouldnt be a christian being straight either. Kind of a bad example



"And today, we're going to read from the bible...make sure you skip this page here and this one here...."


----------



## noodles (Sep 29, 2007)

Metal Ken said:


> I dont know what their ideology behind it is... Maybe they just like the doctrine? Who are we to question them? If i were gay, i wouldnt be a christian. Well, i wouldnt be a christian being straight either. Kind of a bad example



They wouldn't be the first religious group to ignore certain sections of the bible at their on convenience. Actually, that pretty makes it par for the course with religion.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 29, 2007)

I just think that it takes hypocrisy and ignorance to a new level, which is pretty hard in the first place.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 29, 2007)

noodles said:


> They wouldn't be the first religious group to ignore certain sections of the bible at their on convenience. Actually, that pretty makes it par for the course with religion.



Yep. my view is, if you're gonna say the bible is the word of god, then accept it all or accept none of it.


----------



## noodles (Sep 29, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm going to play the devil's advocate here on this gay marriage thing, and probably catch a lot of flak and negative rep, but here it goes: I don't think the Catholic church SHOULD recognize/perform gay marriages. Why? It is against their religion. It says so right in the bible. I'm not saying it's right, or that gay's SHOULDN'T have some kind of common law type thing where they get all the same legal rights, but if you're talking marriage's in a religious sense, then why should they force Christians to do something against their religion. That's like forcing a big fucking ham down the throat of a jew. If you're going to respect the religious rights of Christians, then don't make them perform gay marriages. Again I will state in my own defense before the shit storm comes that I DO think gay people should have the same legal rights/tax benefits/whatever that religious marriages have.



In this case, though, it is absolutely nothing like telling Jews that they have to eat ham. No one is forcing anyone to marry anyone else. Where are you getting that from?

You are advocating the persecution of a group of people, based upon religious principals that you feel should carry force of law, because a larger group of people find the actions of the smaller group offensive. Tell me you Constitutional justification for your proposal. Oh, and should we move onto offensive music, offensive television shows, offensive food odors, offensive clothing, and offensive cultural customs next?

Just because you find something offensive to your religious sensibilities, does not give you the right to tell someone what they can or cannot do. Do you know what it takes for someone to call themselves a pastor, minister, or priest? A minister's license from your state government. That's it. There is no government body that regulates different religious based upon a legislatively determined set of ordinances. That is by the design of the first amendment. Religion is a very personal thing, and the government should have no involvement in it. Words like "Christian", "Muslim", "Jew", "Catholic", "Protestant", and so on are NOT protected trademarks or copyrights.

The government denying people marriage, based upon principals that can only be traced back to religious institutions, is a government endorsement of a religious establishment, and as such, completely unconstitutional. As Ken alluded to with his water fountains comment, it is no different than when our government denied certain rights to a group of people based upon the color of their skin. Argue until you are blue in the face about persons of color being born that way and homosexuality being a lifestyle choice, but you are still applying personal religious belief to what should be a strictly legal argument.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 29, 2007)

noodles said:


> In this case, though, it is absolutely nothing like telling Jews that they have to eat ham. No one is forcing anyone to marry anyone else. Where are you getting that from?
> 
> You are advocating the persecution of a group of people, based upon religious principals that you feel should carry force of law, because a larger group of people find the actions of the smaller group offensive. Tell me you Constitutional justification for your proposal. Oh, and should we move onto offensive music, offensive television shows, offensive food odors, offensive clothing, and offensive cultural customs next?
> 
> ...





JJ Rodriguez said:


> Again I will state in my own defense before the shit storm comes that I DO think gay people should have the same legal rights/tax benefits/whatever that religious marriages have.



I don't advocate anything religious, not being religious myself. I don't advocate forcing Christians to perform ceremonies that are against their beliefs. But like I said, I think they should allow cival unions, or "marriages" by a judge or whatever so they get the same legal rights.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 29, 2007)

No one's forcing any Christians to perform gay marriages, dude. Where do you get this idea?

You dont have to be christian to be married. Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, etc, ALL GET married.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 29, 2007)

A couple of posts ago I said I was addressing this:



Metal Ken said:


> Gay people can be religious, too.



Sure, they can be religious, just don't expect to get married in a church that thinks you should be killed because of their sexual preference.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 29, 2007)

You dont need to get married at a church. You go to the justice of the peace, ask for a license, and sign it. 
The 'ceremony' doesnt affect the legality of it. Thats a bunch of frou-frou show crap. You can get married and have no ceremony whatsoever. Conversely, you can go to vegas and get it done in 20 minutes.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 29, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Again I will state in my own defense before the shit storm comes that *I DO think gay people should have the same legal rights/tax benefits/whatever that religious marriages have*.




Do you guys even read my posts?


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 29, 2007)

Yeah, we do, but then you come up with this really off the wall shit no one understands 

You're arguing based on a premise that doesn't even exist in the real world, man. Just because gay people can be(and are) religious doesnt have anything to do with getting married at a christian church OR the legality of said marriage.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 29, 2007)

Would I sound too emo if I said no one understands me?


----------



## noodles (Sep 29, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Do you guys even read my posts?



Yes. Do you read our posts? Who is saying that any church has to marry two gay people? Who is saying that all churches are intolerant of homosexuality?

Christian and marriage aren't titles that are granted by some regulatory agency. If a gay couple want to be married, and they find a church that will marry them, then what is the big deal? Sure, this may piss off other churches, but so what? Catholics and Protestants piss each other off all the time. Recently, a fissure has developed in the Episcopalian church over homosexuality. In 2003, the first gay bishop was appointed. That alone should be a signal that more than just a few gay activists feel that religion and tolerance are two things that can go together.

So, rather than accusing people of not reading your posts, why are you being so intolerant?

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"

Mathew 7 is actually pretty specific on the topic. A true Christian would realize that it is not his place to tell other people what to do, an harsh judgment of your fellow man will result in equally harsh judgment after death. So, when it comes right down to it, it is not your place legally or religiously to say a damn thing about it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 30, 2007)

Dude, I said I'm not religious. I'm not judging anyone. I'm not being intolerant.


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 30, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Dude, I said I'm not religious. I'm not judging anyone. I'm not being intolerant.



Yeah, You're playing devil's advocate, i know. i think dave might have missed that post, it was 2-3 pages ago. No big deal. 

I still think the point in his first two paragraphs in that post are really relevant though.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 30, 2007)

I just get the feeling from his posts that he thinks that I think that gay people shouldn't have the right to any kind of union or have any of the rights straight couples have.


----------



## Drew (Sep 30, 2007)

I freely admit I'm drunk, but I think Dave's point was you're calling marriage a strictly religious institution, whereas his point (and mine) is that it's a legal one, as well. I care fuck all if the caltholic church recognizes marraige. I care very much if the US government DOESN'T recognize marraige between two consentng adults.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Sep 30, 2007)

But the point I made a couple times in a couple of posts is that I do believe they should be allowed cival unions (or marriages if you will by a judge), granting them the same legal rights. You guys are making it sound like I DON'T support their right to that.


----------



## bostjan (Sep 30, 2007)

We should retitle this thread 

I say that Iran should keep it's nose out of the holocaust discussion entirely, as it's none of their business anyway. I think that gays should be allowed to marry, and I think that Bostjan should get an eight string Oni.


----------



## Samer (Sep 30, 2007)

If the president of Iran just avoided the topics of gays and the holocaust would have made a few decent points. But he sounds like an idiot over those two topics. The liberals don't like him because he is anti gay, and conservatives hate him because he is Muslim.


----------



## noodles (Sep 30, 2007)

Samer said:


> If the president of Iran just avoided the topics of gays and the holocaust would have made a few decent points. But he sounds like an idiot over those two topics. The liberals don't like him because he is anti gay, and conservatives hate him because he is Muslim.



I'm liberal, and I happen to hate him because he is a intolerant fuck, former terrorist, and militant asshole.


----------



## Samer (Sep 30, 2007)

noodles said:


> I'm liberal, and I happen to hate him because he is a intolerant fuck, former terrorist, and militant asshole.



I agree with you.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 30, 2007)

Samer said:


> If the president of Iran just avoided the topics of gays and the holocaust would have made a few decent points. But he sounds like an idiot over those two topics. The liberals don't like him because he is anti gay, and conservatives hate him because he is Muslim.


 You sure have pinpointed all of us conservatives


----------



## Metal Ken (Sep 30, 2007)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> But the point I made a couple times in a couple of posts is that I do believe they should be allowed cival unions (or marriages if you will by a judge), granting them the same legal rights. You guys are making it sound like I DON'T support their right to that.



Well, what i'm saying is that by calling it a civil union, you're segregating. 


To get back on topic -- i think if you actually _like_ Mahmoud, regardless of your party affiliation, you're a crazy fucker.


----------



## noodles (Oct 1, 2007)

DslDwg said:


> You sure have pinpointed all of us conservatives.



Must be the liberal media's fault.


----------



## DslDwg (Oct 1, 2007)

noodles said:


> Must be the liberal media's fault.


hmmm it's possible - they make such an easy target . Unless I misunderstood - Samer's point read because I'm a conservative I hate all things Muslim. Which is not accurate. Even my dislike of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is based on his actions and speech not his religion.


----------



## noodles (Oct 1, 2007)

Well, I'm liberal, and I hate all things religious. I guess that makes me one religion shy of a conservative.


----------

