I’m not a “conservative.” I wouldn’t say I’m a liberal either. And I’m certainly not a libertarian. I don’t have political views that fit into one category. I just think that the Dalai Lama is incredibly overrated and that he has accomplished very little despite his bully pulpit; I am extremely skeptical of Buddhism as a philosophy/religion and cause, as I am of all organized religions.
Why did you go to hear him speak?
Is it possible that you think he is a fraud because he doesn’t believe the things that you think he should believe – not because he claims to be something he is not?
Sam Stone, do you have a history here at the Straight Dope of condemning the detention of human beings at Guantanamo without trial? Did you protest the use of the concocted title of “enemy combatants” as a designation for those held at Guantanamo? Did you protest the use of torture at Guantanamo?
If so, I will take your concerns seriously now. If not, I will assume that you are well intentioned, but easily persuaded by blogs that you read that are anti-Obama and terribly nitpicky.
I was disappointed that Obama postponed the meeting with the Dalai Lama. By tradition, the President of the United States always meets with him on his visits to the United States. But his visits are not that infrequent. His brother resides here. The Dalai Lama is a peaceful man and I would think that he would hope that some good would come from the way things are. Wouldn’t he want more Western influence in China?
No one has ever thought of that response before. That trumps everyone who has won the Peace Prize forever and ever, right?
BTW, I think the Dalai Lama is wrong about some things too. But I still think he is a holy man.
He is a holy man, insomuch as he is the head of a religion the same way the Pope is. I wouldn’t deny that. I just think he’s overrated as a figure of wisdom and of international significance. He’s basically like a mascot that people who want to appear spiritual can latch onto; he’s famous for being famous. He was born into his position; he did not do anything to achieve it. He was designated the Dalai Lama as a child through rituals of religious superstition.
I don’t wish ill on the man, I’m just not impressed by him.
You mean, besides the government of China?
Oh, and also Elton John.
Why should he meet with a religious leader about internal Chinese matters?
Heh, as opposed to Saudi Arabia eh?
This is the sort of thing I can get worked up about but I’d need to know more. So far most of the issues I see around this kind of stuff is the idea that the internet is some sort of holy ground that the government has no place in. It’s based on a nonsense premise, but depending on how it’s implemented I could get upset, possibly, maybe. The internet IS a medium, and you ARE producing media when you say something on the net. This is an empirical fact, it is by definition, it’s not a matter of opinion.
So the Iranian Human Rights Documentation Center ISN’T Orwellian? I fail to see why one is good and why another isn’t. If the US is on any council, it won’t be Islamic controlled anymore, it will be American controlled or we’ll simply ignore its edicts.
Oh yay, he said, ‘under the bus’. It’s amazing there’s any room under that bus anymore no?
I really hate these resolutions that make it not ok to criticize Islam. But at the same time, that’s what the Supreme Court is for.
Yeah well you’re all a bunch of Communists. The first amendment is tested by the supreme court.
LOL, are they?
The bolded bits are mutually exclusive. Turning a country with a 90% illiteracy rate into a modern Democracy is a fool’s errand. It is NOT realistic foreign policy.
More generally on the topic of what Obama’s refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama means. If we take it as read that this refusal signifies that America is willing to overlook human rights abuses in order to maintain a favorable relationship with the Chinese government, how, exactly, will this be distinguishable from how we have treated with China for the past thirty years?
Please. He’s got every right to complain as long as he keeps within the rules of the forum, which he does. Being Canadian has nothing to do with anything. We’re incredibly closely related countries. What 'Merka does, Canadia must pay attention to.
This is a fucking retarded thread for entirely different reasons.
See, I don’t get this. It’s not as if we’ve spent the last 40 years nuking - or even threatening to nuke - our neighbors. You want to place checks on weapons we’re unwilling to use?
You’re a smart guy, Dio. Why on earth do you believe that “checking” Israel will benefit anyone? The only think it’ll do is reinforce our bunker mentality, making us less likely to make any sort of compromises on our security. Push us, and we push back. Make us feel safe and accepted, and we’ll give you whatever you want. It worked for Egypt, and it worked for Jordan.
Why don’t people understand that the *more *secure Israel feels, the *better *it’ll be for the Palestinians?
Besides, nuclear threats, being one-off things, are decidedly limited. After all, MOD didn’t stop the U.S. and the U.S.S.R from invading other countries. The only thing an Iranian nuke can prevent is an Israeli attack on Iran; the only conceivable reason Israel could have to attack Iran is that it’s developing nukes. See the logical flaw here?
Posting links that don’t say what Sam claims them to say is nothing new. He does it often.
There’s really no point in digifying this nonsense with responses.
No, screw Tibet. China should crush them into dog food.
Yeah, who do they think they are - Palestinians?
What makes you think anyone gives a shit about the Palestinians? They’re just a stick to beat up Israel.
To be fair, it’s the same with Iran - if they ever drop the anti-US, anti-Israel stance, then and only then will their human rights record become relevant. And it will be terrible that they have nukes.
So the opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter? Good to know.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s not what you said, and not what you have steadfastly refused to defend with any actual evidence. You called him a sham, a huckster, and act as if all he has accomplished is having his picture taken. Those are completely unfounded, and highly stupid, assertions that you have no support for. But I guess since a bulk of his work has been helping the poor in Tibet, so they must not count. You made very ignorant statements, and I’m happy to see you backpedalling so furiously.
That’s fine. That’s also not what you said.
A lawyer wrote that?
Referring to Bush’s (lack of) popularity around the world:
It seems to me that you kinda decided that a while ago.
A lot of people rightly or wrongly view the expansion of settlements as an act of aggression. They don’t think Israel is serious about checking this expansion, and they don’t think Israel will give up land it has taken. I can understand this point of view, the settlement stuff is kind of shady. I do agree though that Israel is a strong partner that we can trust.