Okay, now I see where you’re coming from. A rabid theocratic dictatorship and world’s largest sponsor of terrorism gaining nuclear weapons is a good thing, because it will act as a check on the only real democracy in the region. Got it. The fact that this could likely trigger a nuclear arms race in the region is just the price you’ve gotta pay for keeping those dastardly Israelis down.
I guess there’s not much more to talk about.
What race? The Israelis already won. Anyone else gets the bomb, they’re just playing catch up at best.
[quote=“Lobohan, post:5, topic:512852”]
[li]You think that the US shouldn’t work to increase freedom of speech in other parts of the world unless they suddenly copy word for word the complete first amendment of the American constitution? What an odd stance to take.[/li][/QUOTE]
The US shouldn’t work to increase freedom of speech by giving a veneer of legitimacy to those who seek to suppress free speech. That is what the Human Rights Council stood for, the last time I checked: blackwashing Israel and silencing criticism of Islam.
Really, seems to have escaped most people’s notice, contra the treatment during the past Administration as ‘useful idiots.’
This sounds like familiar rhetoric. I seem to recall the Americans (and honourary Americans…) getting quite worked up along these lines. Not surprising seeing you jump at a repeat of that rhetoric.
That really is quite amusing when you state it.
I myself am shocked and somewhat discouraged by the toilet paper controversy that has consumed Obama Hussein’s Whitehouse:
Paper on the outside or the inside?
Why does Obama refuse to comment on this? And why does the mainstream (liberal - commie) media refuse to print this controversy?
THIS IS A COVER-UP AND WE DEMAND ANSWERS!!!
On a more serious note, I’m sure the Obama adminstration could (and should) do a better job on the human rights front.
It’s just really too bad that:
and
You know, I never thought I’d see someone who actively dislikes the Dalai Lama. The guy preaches, and lives, a life of peace and harmony, he’s won the Nobel Peace Prize, won the Congressional Gold Medal, is a source of wisdom for millions of people, and works for human rights throughout the world. I can see how that gets on someone nerves.
Why would you think he does those things out of anything but his own goodness? Why do you doubt his sincerity so much? I understand you dislike the cult of celebrity that surrounds him, but to call him a charade and a huckster without evidence strikes me as silly.
Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize. Henry Kissinger, someone whose policies led to the death of countless civilians in Cambodia, won it too. The Nobel Peace Prize is a ridiculous joke, and not worth anything to me.
I’m more bothered by the fact that a Canadian keeps bitching about stuff that’s going on in the US.
Does ignoring the entirety of the point to pick one nit work for you?
Saying that Obama “refuses to meet with the Dalai Lama” is inaccurate. From the article linked in the OP, he is planning to meet with the DL after his trip to Beijing:
A serious question for Sam Stone:
Why wouldn’t you do an exhaustive survey of all of Obama’s international diplomacy moves, judging them with a quick thumbs up or thumbs down (simple method) or examine and judge each of them (more involved method), and then and only then make a final judgement as to whether he is doing a good or bad job of favoring US interests (or the interests of the global community)? Why the need to cherry-pick as if you already know the answer to this question a priori?
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Obama_to_meet_Dalai_Lama_after_Chin_10062009.html Why do I bother? He will scrounge up something else to feed his rabid anti Obama mind set.
Can you tell me one positive thing the Dalai Lama has actually done to help anyone? With all the problems in this world, has he made any effort to unify Buddhists around the world (and especially around America) to pull together in an effort to protest, for instance, America’s dependence on oil from a theocratic regime which sponsors terrorism, just to name one thing? Has the Dalai Lama made an effort to help, for instance, Coptic Christians who are being persecuted and abused by the government in Egypt? Has the Dalai Lama tried to help the Africans who are being murdered in Darfur, or for that matter the white farmers in the former Rhodesia whose land was confiscated by Mugabe and who are being murdered and persecuted to this very day? Has the Dalai Lama made an effort to help the people who are being put on trial and executed for homosexuality in Iran?
No. The Dalai Lama has made a full time job out of having his picture taken with Richard Gere and Steven Seagal, giving big speeches full of non-specific bullshit that’s no more “enlightening” than “Chicken Soup for the Soul” or Dr. Phil, and collecting money for monastaries so that Buddhist monks can do nothing but pray and have all their expenses paid for. The Dalai Lama has not really done anything to proactively help anyone; the only cause that he’s really invested in personally is Tibetan nationalism.
Some “wisdom” from the Dalai Lama:
“The failure of the regime in the former Soviet Union was, for me, not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I still think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.”
“A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else…Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”
“Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand… From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct.”
“…if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.” (Horrible advice that if followed would lead only to disaster - “shooting to wound” is not recommended by any competent marksman and center-of-mass is the ONLY point to aim for on an attacker.)
Why do people - especially non-Buddhists - revere this man? He’s a fraud.
:rolleyes:
I see that you continue to ignore that all Latin America and even European nations are against the coup because they do have a past were military and pseudo democratic dictatorships ruled. The de facto government of Micheletti can not be recognized, and neither are the compromised elections that are coming, because the coup plotters continue to refuse the rulings of mediators, continue to close radios and TV channels of the opposition and continues to beat, arrest and kill people who oppose the de facto government.
BTW, the funding for the Iran human rights group was $3M. My position, and I would think Sam’s should be as well, is to privatize this. Surely the Iranian diaspora in the US (as well as other interested groups) can raise $3M to fund this group if it’s so important. Or maybe we can just rely on the UN to do this kind of work.
Is this a joke? You don’t think the Dalai Lama has done anything to help anyone? He’s a leader of a movement that rejects violence in the pursuit for the freedom of Tibet. He’s helped stop the conflict from turning into a violent war, instead relying on the teachings of Gandhi. He works to resolve conflicts not through invasion or warfare, but through peace. He’s constantly taught about stopping violence, including religious based violence.
One of his foundations “The Charitable Trust of His Holiness the Dalai Lama” has raised and spent millions on helping Tibetan refugees, building schools, and feeding the poor. Another, The Foundation for Universal Responsibility, helps facilitate talks between opposing factions in troubled areas and offers scholarships to help fund education. There are also dozens of other charities out there that he has been the inspiration for, all of which help people.
I’m having a hard time taking you seriously on this. Even if you think the Nobel Prize is bunk, he’s gotten awards from all over the country for his promotion of non violence and work to help the citizens in Tibet. From the Albert Schweitzer Award to France, US, Germany, India, and others all recognize him for his work. He sure fooled a lot of people, especially those poor Tibetans who he saved.
But you somehow missed all that. Pity.
Is he fucking Superman?
No, he hasn’t solved all the world’s problems. I guess that makes him a sham.
I get that you don’t like the cult of personality around him. Never mind that he was doing all this work well before anyone in the US knew about him. Never mind that he’s be teaching the same things for decades before Gere, Stone, and their ilk ever thought about him.
But, once again, you have offered NOTHING to indicate that he’s somehow insincere in his work, or some kind of fraud. You don’t have to agree with everything he says, or even part of it. But it’s ridiculous to claim that he’s pulled the wool over pretty much the entire world’s eyes and is instead some kind of sham. Well, except for you. ARGENT TOWERS!!! THE MAN WHO SEES THROUGH EVERYTHING!!!
ETA: I am not implying that the Dalai Lama is having intercourse with Kal-El. It was an adjective, not a verb.
One thing about the DL I’ve always liked – he’s willing to prioritize scientific reality over stubborn superstition. He has said that if anything in his religion is contradicted by science, he will adjust his religion. Not too many world religious leaders are willing to say that.
I’m mildly bewildered by Argent’s post. America conservatives have supported the Dalai Lama since 1959. (My cite is various Reader’s Digest articles in the 1960s, and a general knowledge of current events since then.)
American conservatives no longer appear to support him, and that’s news to me.
Why is **Argent **being equated with “American conservatives”? If his argument is fallacious, then that’s one thing. But guilt by association? I’m not even aware that **Argent **is a conservative.