@TerraholmSPAMNOT: "Rant over Columbia allowing Ahmadinejad to speak and give him a forum...and 
then broadcasting the whole thing live....
Laurel T
"The lives of cadis, scholars, shaykhs, Alids,
and Nestorian priests, and persons who do not
 combat against us are safe from us."
Hulagu Khan's arrow message at the sack of Baghdad"
    @GOP: "<quote>
     Speaking of being a hypocrite, wasn't it you that pretended to
take the high road after refusing my offer of a debate, criticizing me
for taking (what you perceived to be) a cheap shot against Liberals?"
    @TerraholmSPAMNOT: "<quote>
I did not say there was.
In America we have freedom of the press, so his
It was broadcast live by other networks. Fox did not support his being 
heard, ...but instead they broadcast it to the world also.
...they should tell their advertizers to withdraw their ads. =)
So the Iranians get Fox but no other networks? Glad they betrayed their 
morals then....
Which has what to do with the rant about Columbia? Ahmadinejad has to use 
Fox to spread his views to Iranians?
That is the funniest shit yet.... =)
Laurel T
 "Should any political party attempt to abolish social
 security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate
 labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear
of that party again in our political history.
 There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes
that you can do these things. Among them are a few
Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or
businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible
and they are stupid." Dwight D. Eisenhower"
    @GOP: "<quote>
     What side-step are you referring to? If you get the transcripts of
what commentators like Brit Hume,  Bill Krystal, Charles Krauthammer,
Fred Barnes and Sean Hannity from Fox News, and Dennis Prager and Larry
Elder from talk-radio were saying before Ahmadinejad's speech, you'll
see that their main concern was the speech being used as propaganda.
     Wasn't it you that was criticizing me for name-calling and making
assumptions about people, while then, as you often do, pretending to
take the high-road? The next time I go to name-calling, or take a
personal attack at you, I hope you'll remember this post before, once
again, exposing yourself as a hypocrite.
-"
    @GOP: "<quote>
     I'm not alleging that you did. See below.
     When I said there's nothing wrong with any American news network
broadcasting Ahmadinejad's speech, it's because for any network,
including Fox News, to do so is irrelevant. It all comes down to target
audience. American news networks are targeting American audiences.
Since we have freedom of the press here, his words can be analyzed and
he can be exposed as the fool that he is. American news broadcasts will
not be shown in Iran, so whatever is broadcast here is irrelevant. The
Islamic news services will provide their own (edited) coverage, with
their own positive spin.
     But Ahmadinejad was not targeting American audiences. Nor was he
targeting a world audience. Many on the Left don't seem to understand
that. They kept saying how important it was to have a "dialog" with
him, so we can expose him to the world as a fool. For what? We learned
nothing from his taylorschneider@example.org. All he did was restate positions
that were already known. The only thing that giving Ahmadinejad a
platform at Columbia accomplished was to give him yet another tool to
spread his propaganda. It was that propaganda tool that Fox News was
trying to prevent. But once the event was set, for Fox News or any
other news outlet to broadcast it was, as mentioned earlier,
irrelevant.
     As mentioned above, Iranians don't get Fox News or any other news
broadcast, other than those that have been edited (spun) by their
government.
     Again, you are completely missing the point. The above-cited
article has *everything* to do with Ahmadinejad's speech. It clearly
demonstrates how his speech has been (positively) spun in the Islamic
world. And that is *exactly* the problem, and *exactly* what the
commentators on Fox News were hoping would not happen.
     What's funny about it? It was those on the Left that kept
emphasizing how important it was to have a "dialog" with Ahmadinejad.
They were apparently too short-sighted to see that his speech would
simply be turned into propaganda. I dare say, even now, even with all
the evidence we now have showing how the event has been turned into
propaganda, if Ahmadinejad was offered a platform at another
prestigious American university, those on the Left would again agree
that he should be given that platform, emphasizing the importance of a
"dialog" with him. What about you, Laurel? If Ahmadinejad was offered
another platform, would that be a good thing to allow him to speak?
-"
    @TerraholmSPAMNOT: "<quote>
I do not disagree, the problem is the wrapper that Fox put on it.
Fox was not trying to prevent a thing, they were not losing out on the 
ratings for the live speach to MSNBC.
It is the Fox outrage that he was given a forum, then they give him a vastly 
wider forum and make ratings off ranting to promote Columbia should be 
punished for giving him a forum.
<url>
Despite a ban on owning dishes, foreign satellite TV channels are widely 
watched; this is largely tolerated by the authorities. Stations operated by 
exiles in the US were said to have played a role in student protests in 
2003.
Millions of Iranians have access to the internet, which has been used as a 
way of circumventing censorship. Internet service providers are prevented 
from allowing access to sites deemed to be pornographic or anti-Islamic, but 
the web remains the main forum for dissident voices. Access is easy to 
arrange and affordable for middle-class households.
There are said to be tens of thousands of weblogs, with bloggers active both 
in Iran and among the diaspora. Government officials, including President 
Ahmadinezhad, have launched blogs under their own names.
Foreign broadcasters target audiences in Iran; they include the 
Washington-backed Radio Farda, a music-based station aimed at younger 
audiences
Because the point is bogus I was making fun of it.
So by broadcasting it agaist their own principals of giving him a forum, 
while the broadcast would not be seen in Iran according to you, they 
prevented him spinning his ideas at home, where he can be broadcast at any 
time... uh huh...
Your hilerious notion on fox's reason for broadcasting it.
It was those on the Left that kept
Let them all talk. And trust the people to decide. I tend to trust the 
people...well the ones that lay off the coolaid handed out at either extreme 
on what to think...
Laurel T
"The real victims of Fox News weren't the liberals it attacked,
but the conservatives who believed it....."
Nickolas D. Kristof"
    @apterix: "<quote>
I have reached a point in these dangerous times of the 
greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War where I 
consider you and the other two posters I named (among others 
anywhere, including but not limited to, morally corrupt 
politicians, their plutocrat masters, their media lapdogs, 
and their ordinary supporters and enablers) to be beneath 
contempt when it comes to an honest debate on serious issues 
in a civil manner seeking reasonable solutions through 
cooperation and common goals.  I can no longer see any 
reasonableness in, or cooperation or common goals with, the 
tyrants you love, and I am thoroughly fed up with all three 
of you, and others, and the viciousness of the media 
demagogues (several of whom you name, above) whose lies and 
libel you parrot, whose black and white views you embrace, 
and whose hatefulness you worship.
You and they represent the ignorance, prejudice, fear, and 
intolerance which enables the wealth and privilege driven 
narcissist despots who have seized control of most of the 
government and much of the media to amorally pursue the 
reduction of the United States, and then the whole damned 
world, to a two-class society where the many have-nots are 
politically and economically oppressed by a few 
self-aggrandizing plutocratic oligarchs through 
international, monopolist, amoral, unrestrained corporate 
capitalism.  And all in the name of the freedom, democracy, 
and common people the imperialists really despise.  I have 
come to despise you and them on a personal level with a 
visceral opprobrium for all the ruinous goals and pernicious 
methods you sit up, lay down, and roll over for, and I'll 
call you insulting names and generally heap scorn on you and 
your ignorance every chance I get because not only do you 
invite contempt, contempt is all you deserve.
I have come to consider you and your ilk to be implacable, 
intractable, incorrigible, and inveterate enemies of the 
Constitution, the nation, and the legal rights, political 
liberty, and personal freedoms of the common people you 
would so casually abandon while paying lip service to in 
order to cling to the self-destructive follies of your false 
heroes.  In short:  It's revolution time; it's personal now, 
motherfucker, and I hate your fucking guts.  Get it now?"
    @GOP: "<quote>
     Hmmm... The only criticism I recall from anyone on Fox news was
with Columbia giving Ahmadinejad a platform for propaganda within his
own country. It wasn't about giving him a platform within the U.S. At
least, not with the commentators I heard (and mentioned earlier). If
Fox News was shown in Iran, then you would be exactly right that it
would be hypocrisy on their part. But since Fox News, or any other
American news broadcast, is not shown in Iran, their irrelevant.
     The Iranian government blocks major news organizations from
broadcasting within Iran. BBC used to be available, but I think it's
blocked now also. Only self-run amateur broadcasts get through. Radio
Farda is largely irrelevant. As for the internet, the government
censors websites using the same methods as used in China. Obviously,
there's no way for the government to stop all websites and bloggers.
Here's a small sampling of the type of discussion going on within Iran
regarding Ahmadinejad's taylorschneider@example.org. Some Iranians seem to see
him for the fraud he is, but others don't...
<url>
     Fox News (or any other American news broadcast) is not seen in
Iran, therefore they did not give him a forum. See the article linked
above for confirmation (from an actual Iranian citizen, as opposed to
speculation from those outside the country).
     Fox News' reason for broadcasting it was for ratings, as is the
case with all news channels and all big stories. Again, your contention
that Fox News was against giving Ahmadinejad a forum here in America is
wrong. It was the ultimate propaganda within Iran that the commentators
were against.
     Some of the people in Iran get it, which is great. But many others
don't, as confirmed by the article linked above.
-"
    @TerraholmSPAMNOT: "<quote>
Bull shit. They say he should not be allowed to speak to a thousand college 
students and then broadcast the speach. As far as it not being seen in Iran 
that is doubtful and you have provided nothing to show they even spun it as 
justification.
2 minutes after the speach ended they were saying Columbia patrons should 
cut donations for letting him talk, so Fox's advertizers by that standard 
should pull their ads...
Laurel T
You can tell a gelding,
you can ask a mare,
but you must discuss it with a stallion.
-unknown horseman "
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 8, "forum_name": "alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers.20141016.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.sports.parquet'}