digg

Join DiggAbout

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

Scott Adams: A Feeling I'm Being Had

dilbertblog.typepad.com — I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom of speech.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • CatManDoIt, on 10/10/2007, -8/+82Hilarious. I couldn't stop laughing. It's a gutsy post though as it deals with what are classically hot button issues in the US political system.
    • jarjarjanks, on 10/10/2007, -1/+58Yea, I love how freedom of speech is now a "hot button issue," not like a pillar of our democracy or anything like that
      • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Actually we aren't supposed to be a democracy; a.k.a. "mob rule". Though illegitimate use of democracy is why all our pillars have been removed, because they got in the way of the mobs.
        Free Speech Pillar: the mob didn't like how the ROTC and the Minutemen wanted to use it; so it had to go.
        Rule of Law Pillar: the mob didn't like the immigration laws, but working to change the law is, well.... too much work; so it had to go.
        Individual Justice Pillar: the mob decided to commit injustice against rich white males rather than enforce justice for all; again, had to go.
        Equality Pillar: like justice, the mob doesn't think equality is "fair", so they've decided to respond to inequality with different inequality; again, that pillar was in their way.
        Liberty Pillar: the mob convinced each other to keep their rights but reassign the responsibilities that are attached. So now they the make a claim on my personal liberty to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, drive without a seatbelt, smoke, eat an increasing list of foods, and more. Yes, if my liberty is going to cost them then my liberty, another "pillar" of America, has to go.
        I could continue, but there will be a rationalization essentially explaining that violating each of these founding "principles" was necessary, hence it somehow isn't really a violation of our founding principles.
    • shruggedatlas, on 10/10/2007, -35/+3Yes, it is gutsy in the sense that he had the guts to post a poorly thought out rant. It connects only on the surface level. If you really think about each point made, it does not hold water. For example, Ahmadinejad, according to most scholars, did state that he wants Israel wiped away from the pages of time. Not as bad as being wiped off the map, but we are not talking about merely redrawing district lines.

      This directly relates to his holocaust myth claim. Whether or not he disputes the European scientists (what, he claims he doesnt?), the fact is he is still sore about the formation of the Jewish state, and is using his doubts about the holocaust as justification for the position that Israel should not even exist. This is just not the way the world works. We can look at any nation and list justifications for why it should not exist or should not occupy the land it has. History is full of bloody disputes and differing opinions on who was right and wrong, but the bottom line is you just accept boundry lines and deal with it, unless you are ready to go to war.

      And what freedom of speech is he entitled to here in the U.S.? None.
      • DooM, on 10/10/2007, -1/+34"And what freedom of speech is he entitled to here in the U.S.?"

        That is such douche baggery. This is the same argument that they use to allow the torture of non-citizens. Read just the first couple of paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence will you?

        "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

        This country was founded on the belief that HUMANS have rights. Our founding fathers did NOT write "all men born in the United States or naturalized therein have certain rights".

        So wherever you were born you have the right not to be detained without cause or representation, you have freedom to not be tortured, and the freedom to express yourself because that is what being human SHOULD mean.
      • phunlee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2There's just no words....
      • vanbacon, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I'm sorry But no matter who you are you should have the right to say and express whatever you want and no one should be able to stop you and for me freedom of speech I'm gonna suck ***** you.
        • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"...and for me freedom of speech I'm gonna suck ***** you."

          *rereads several times*

          *shakes head, dazed and confused*
  • DrHyde, on 10/10/2007, -10/+27Wow !
    • n0gnuz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"Wow!"

      Exactly.

      Second thought: I'm going to miss Scott Adams.

      Seriously -- He better make an act of contrition before AIPAC and ADL or he can kiss his career goodbye.
  • syroncoda, on 10/10/2007, -10/+52haha brilliant. well constructed sarcasm is lost on many in this day in age. lets hope the fanaticals don't take it the wrong way and see the error of their ways.... meh. on second thought, perhaps they wont.
  • sdave007, on 10/10/2007, -3/+91Not for the sarcastically challenged!
    • bonedead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Phew, I wasn't sure to be pissed or not.
  • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -45/+10I understand his point and the post is somewhat funny but his interpretation of Ahmadinejads comments re Israel is extremely ignorant.
    I'm all for free speech and of course Ahmadinejad should be able to travel wherever he chooses but lets not pander to his more extreme positions.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21One of the major points of free speech is to allow people to make statements that are utterly ridiculous so that you can point to them as an example of how not to think or act. This is why the KKK should be allowed their rallies to prove tot he rest of us that they are indeed idiots. Making people go underground hurts democracy rather than helps it.
      Why was Israel created? It was in response to the Holocaust. And, the US seems to support Israel no matter what happens. It is true that the Palestinians are not helping themselves by some of their actions, but some Israelis seem to think that they can to anything they want and the Palestinians should have no rights. Personally, even though you don't state your views on Israel, I think you are likely ignorant re: Israel if you cannot see the bits truth of what Scott is writing.
      • znicket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bits of truth?... Not really. It is a onesided version of history that has recently become popular among the ignorant left. I have lived in the middle east - I have friends on both sides and yes... I think Scott's comments were ignorant and not realistic.
        I'm not saying that Ahmedinajad should be prohibited from speaking but I thought Scott made too light of the content of his opinions.

        The world is a nasty complicated place. Take the time to study it rather than to repeat well rehearsed bullet points.
    • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Educate yourself: http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/01/08/did- ...

      Or are you a fluent speaker of Farsi?
      • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3Right. Because "erase from the pages of time" means something completely benign.
        • byrdgang, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Whenever you are translating from one language to another, there is no way you could translate a quote. It's impossible, because no language matches another word for word without completely messing up the grammar. Did Ahmedinejad, in Farsi, say "erase from the pages of time?" That's impossible, because Farsi' words for 'erase the pages of time' could not possibly fit that exact wording. You can translate a quote, and then put it up as a translation, but you can actually put your translation in quote marks, because you're translating the MEANING of words, not the words themselves.

          For example, "Hay aceitunas verdes y tambien negras" is Spanish literally for "There are olives green and also black." THAT is a literal quote. In English, it would be most accurately translated as "There are green and black olives." But, of course, you can't put those words in quotes, because it's not exactly what the original saying said!

          Now try this with Farsi, and what Ahmedinejad said. Unless you speak fluent Farsi, there's no reason I should trust what you're saying.
    • vanbacon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Or lets do that. shall we
  • Napoleone, on 10/10/2007, -12/+42I'm starting to see a deepening trend across the Internet, and papers, motion news and social circles. I see blusterous contempt for the ***** of the power elite, like never before. I hear talk of guns and ammo and insurrection. I see countless open threats against the life of the King we call a president. Wow. What is going on? Are these the signs of an oncoming revolution, or the final pangs of a moribund democracy?

    Which is it? The former, or the we're *****?
    • acrodev, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Can't it be both?
    • fuzzmeister, on 10/10/2007, -3/+25If you think that an armed revolution would work, you need to go get checked out. Unless Bush does something like call off elections, there would never be anywhere close to the massive amount of public support necessary for a revolution to even have a snowball's chance in hell of working. If you want to protest to get him impeached, or something like that, go for it. But saying that we need to start shooting government officials to change the policy of our government is beyond insane.
    • thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -16/+5*gets really angry* for the last goddamn time. WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY. Please, read the preamble to the constitution. We (United States Of America) = Federal constitutional republic
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13We are a partial democracy. Ever vote for referenda on a local/state ballot? That's direct democracy, baby.
      • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5We're a "democratically elected republic".

        I think it's worked out pretty well. A true democracy (everyone casts a vote on everything) would fail in a heartbeat.
      • jm9206755, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7There is a difference between democracy and Democracy (note the capitalization). Lowercase describes a general style of government which is apt in describing the US because we democratically elect our representatives. A Democracy is a specific type of government that is often more clearly described by the term Direct Democracy.
    • TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6It means the pendulum has finally reached the limit and is showing signs of swinging back toward the center. In a few years it will go too far left, and cycle repeats.
      It is as it always has been.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17lol, when has this country ever been far left much less even left of center? the "liberal" politicians in america are more conservative than the conservatives in europe and australia.
        • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Left and right are RELATIVE idiot. Europeans and Australians don't determine the "center" in America.
          To say that someone can't be extreme left, or even left of "center" in a CAPITALIST society, because a SOCIALIST doesn't see it that way is profound IGNORANCE. Our nation began wealth redistribution of wealth, UNCONSTITUTIONALLY by an extreme left that LIED about it NEVER applying to more than 2-3% of the population; democracy, illegitimately imposed. And there has not been ONE SINGLE DECADE that you can SHOW movement to the "right" SINCE. Much of it by "popular demand" (illegitimate democracy), with no regard for what the Constitution SAYS; just what we want it to say.
      • TroubleInMind, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure I agree with that. Would you say Mr. Blair and Mr. Howard, card-carrying members of the "Coalition of the Willing", are/were more liberal than the most liberal US politicians?
        Actually, in the 50s, conservatives in the US stood for taxation and fiscal restraint. In the Eisenhower era, the top US tax bracket was an incredible 91%. It's only been since the Reagan era in the 80s that the Republican party has stood for unbridled tax cuts for the rich, so-called "supply side" voodoo economics, and keeping our citizens in check by making them afraid of foreign "enemies". So in one sense, what was conservative 50 years ago is liberal now. And my point is that the pendulum has reached the limit, and now is swinging back the other way.
    • tempusrob, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15"Are these the signs of an oncoming revolution, or the final pangs of a moribund democracy?"

      More likely, it's just a bunch of Internet Tough Guys. There will be no revolution ... despite our ranting and raving, we, the American populace, are far too apathetic in that regard.
      • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In other words, we're far too rich and comfortable. But continued mismanagement on this scale could change that with amazing speed.
        • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1no.

          We jut don't care because most of us struggle to make ends meet. Even int he middle class. People work, and when they are tired they don't want to do anything else but watch the football game on tv.
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Don't mistake kids posting on the internet as some kind of real revolutionary movement. People will say all kinds of things on the internet but it usually doesn't translate to real life.
      • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It likely does translate to a growing awareness and anger, though. Opinions on the internet tend to be exaggerated and overblown, but that doesn't mean there's nothing real behind them.
    • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Actual revolutionaries would be stupid to recruit on diig.
    • MrFunions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A Revolution? In a country that voted Bush into office? twice?? I obviously have less faith in the intelligence of the American people than you.
  • ArthurSucks, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2http://duggmirror.com/world_news/Scott_Adams_A_Fee ...
  • addrake, on 10/10/2007, -24/+3Napoleone...did you get that drivel right from the SDS handbook or is it simply regurgitated crap from some lefty douche?
  • crimson117, on 10/10/2007, -5/+24"Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of *****. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the launch codes for nuclear weapons."

    I lol'd.

    Scott hits a lot of good points in this post, though he doesn't reference anything to back up his implied claims.
    • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -18/+0It had a LOT of weak points. Parallels were linked only at the surface level. Do you really think we would launch a nuke based on someone's interpretation of the bible?
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13i wouldnt put it past bush, all it would take is for him to have a dream about it and mistake it for god communicating to him.
      • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11We created a country, attacked a country, and will eventually change the constitution based on someones interpretation of the bible.
      • terminal157, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Far from being crazy, it would be imprudent to not be worried. Bush has made it as clear as day that he believes God wants him to be president. As a born again fundamentalist Christian, it's likely that he believes we're in the end times. If you put those two things together and you're not at least a little worried, you have too much faith that nothing bad can happen.
  • ninethirty, on 10/10/2007, -4/+36Sadly, not many will understand what he wrote. Good on him for writing it though.
    • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1not sad at all. it is nothing but ***** whining over nothing. And inaccurately calling it something it is not.
      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11ninethirty, I present you with Exhibit A.
    • euphemizeme, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Anybody with an 8th grade education (even a U.S. public one) can decipher the sarcasm in this post. It's positively dripping with it. I'm sick of Diggers who take it upon themselves to point out the obvious and assume they're part of some elite minority with the brains to identify it.

      FYI: A lot of the people who post ignorant things on here, such as appearing to take sarcastic things in a literal sense, are TROLLING. And it makes you look like an idiot when you call them out on it.
      • TheNik, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2"Even a U.S. public [education]..."

        I just love sweeping generalizations, don't you?
    • mesmeriffic, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I'm a frequent digger, but we are not the last bastion of sane thought as so many like to believe. Stop the ego trip.
      • iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2In fact, if anything digg is the home for a bunch of idiots and trolls who failed at 4th grade grammar and spelling.
  • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -25/+4hmm, i was expecting something with more insight or a little bit funny. This bit was a let down.
  • TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18A fine, if somewhat blatant use of sarcasm. Sarcasm should always be slightly incognito, in the way that even a smart guy has to double-take in order to be sure of it. Good post.
  • sandyiit, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Well written an point well made. People need to see the other side of things. It should not always be that I am right and its my way or the high way.
  • devindotcom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11That guy swears like a sailor! Who knew?
  • bingobongony, on 10/10/2007, -29/+1That is an idiotic as Dilbert was. Freedom of Speech has nthing to do with wacko leaders of other countries. He gets to say anything he wants back in his own country. It would be absurd to let him use hte US for his propaganda.

    Absolutely nothing that he mentioned was taking away free speech. There is nothing in the Consititution about universities MUST allow any leader to speak, for example.
  • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -5/+55I am basically a Libertarian and an American, but I would love to hear an uncensored speech by President Ahmadinejad.

    This guy may very well be a dangerous enemy, but I am not convinced. He is the most misquoted person in American media that I have *EVER* seen in my lifetime. In his native language he says, "I would like the national boundaries of Isreal to be redrawn". Certainly nothing that outrageous. It is then translated to English as, "I would like to wipe Isreal off the map".

    Let me man speak and quit spoon-feeding me all the sound bite garbage!
    • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -16/+3and you are so sure about that native language translation...
      • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+20No, I am not sure. He very well may have said he wanted to wipe the map. I have heard conflicting translations in the global media, however. I have only heard ONE translation in the American media. I have enough doubt that I would like to hear more. Supressing the guys speech does nothing but make me more suspicious that I am being manipulated by propaganda.
    • shruggedatlas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think what he said was something like wiping Israel away from the pages of time. While he was originally misquoted, he is not talking about Gerrymandering here.
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"I want to see an end to the zionist regime."

        is what he said.
    • Pile, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11He's only an enemy because the talking heads on television say so. In reality very few of us have any personal experience.

      The intelligent thing to do would be to not make up your mind about people like this based on some biased government official or news idiot.

    • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -1/+20Hes talking about renaming the country Palestine. If he wanted to exterminate Jews, he would start with the tens of thousands of Jews who live in Iran.
    • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10> "In his native language he says, "I would like the national boundaries of Isreal to be redrawn". Certainly nothing that outrageous. It is then translated to English as, "I would like to wipe Isreal off the map"."

      Bzzt! Wrong...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_a ...

      --- Quote ---
      According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

      The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly: [T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.
      --- End Quote ---
      • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10OMG! He called for regime change in a foreign country!

        Why is that so outrageous? The US does it all the time, we even forced one in Iran.
        • Cl1mh4224rd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I never said it was outrageous. What *is* outrageous, however, is jdaniel284's total misrepresentation of the statement. The "western translation" isn't nearly as bad as he would like others to believe.

          Do you disagree?
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Every 4 years, we have the opportunity for Regime change in America.

        Egads! What a travesty!
    • BlueCalico, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The full and unedited version - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14 ... Don't be too pissed about Wallace's interview style - he's gettin' old man!
  • flink405, on 10/10/2007, -22/+8C´mon Scott, I dare you to draw a cartoon that includes Dilbert, Ahmadinejad and Mohammed in the cartoon that extremist Muslims will not get your sarcastic humor....and then wait for the be jihad and fatwah on you.

    http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/09/angry-mu ...
    The cartoon:
    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20 ...
    • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4exactly Scott, Walk the Walk now. Create your cartoon, one making fun of jesus and the other of mohammed...exercise your freedom of speech!

    • Pile, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10If you knew more about what you were talking about, you'd understand that a fatwah can only be made toward Muslims/Ex-Muslims.
    • Beeryan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7both broken links..... into the abyss you go
  • theghoul, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29What the?
    They didn't let him speak? Yet *HE is threatening the *Free world?

    Ok , confused I am.
    • doublethrow, on 10/10/2007, -13/+1They don't want him to speak, because he will use it as propaganda in Iran and worldwide: "Look at our great leader. Even the Americans want to hear what he has to say. He is the real leader of the world. If he nukes someone, we will believe should have been so."

      • MacEnvy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Gee, it's a good thing our president never uses propaganda to get what he wants.

        WTF? "Do as I say, not as I do" is bad foreign policy.
  • Ghoztt, on 10/10/2007, -3/+19LMAONAISE! Personally this "OH NOES! Can't talk to our enemies! Cuz they're EVIL!!!111e1even11!11" crap is very, very frightening. It's the most anti-free speech dogma I can think of. We should ALWAYS talk to our enemies. Because even if someone is a liar or evil - whichever side is speaking the truth will shine through no matter what in a debate. Honestly - I think that's what scares the neo-con's the most. If Iranian President Ahmadinejad is allowed to speak from his heart with no news filtering - then the propaganda controls that usually get tagged on to what he says won't be there.
    • Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"whichever side is speaking the truth will shine through no matter what in a debate."
      Not true.
      • Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I don't think he means that the truth will be had from the speaker. If a debater throws out a blatant falsehood, there is often further debate generated by said falsehood, further exposing it.
    • iofthestorm, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Dugg for LMAONAISE.
  • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22the fact is he (irans president) can come here and say whatever he want and preach peace and tell us he sympathizes with the victims of 9/11 and wants to open dialog with the US but stupid americans will just say oh that is just rhetoric he doesnt believe this, he wants to wipe israel off the map, blah blah blah. it always frustrates me how americans can stare at facts straight in the face and yet ignore them in favor of false propaganda spread by the government through the MSM. this country is doomed.
    • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0your an idiot. All it is is rhetoric, he is a damn politician after all.
      • dortdruben, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Get your grammar right if you're going to insult someone. It's "You're an idiot," idiot.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3the fact is it may very well be rhetoric but its the type of rhetoric that might actually lead to peace (gasp!). but americans dont wanna hear that type of stuff because then they will have to find something else to hate.
    • NSResponder, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4You do realize that you're talking about a man who runs a government that imprisons people over their hairstyles, don't you?

      -jcr

      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5really? over hair-styles? and you have proof to back this up i assume?
      • kuzotz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1how he governs his country doesn't matter to me. It's how he is a threat to me ,and my family, and in this case. The guy isn't, and he is horribly mis-quoted, and hell I can clerly see the propaganda machine in the US at work.

        CNN correspondants are still saying that he said he wants to wipe Israel off the map when 6 monthf ago the same CNN correspondant said that it was a mis-quote, and he said he wants to see an end to the zionist regime....
        You Americans have horrible short term memory spans.
    • jdaniel284, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It may very well *be* rhetoric, or maybe it's not. Be careful not to have a predetermined bias yourself, especially when accusing others of having a predetermined bias. I agree with you though, I would like to hear the guy speak. American hypocrisy is more of a problem than American misunderstanding, however... so be careful.
      • quaxon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4as an iranian i know very well that the ahmedinejad is no saint and he made promises for more womens rights and government reforms and has yet to come through on those promises but a big part of it is that he cant really do much because the ayatollah holds the majority of power in Iran. in his heart i do believe he is a much better/kinder man than bush and he is definitely more of an intellectual, but everything he says should still be viewed through a magnifying glass. i do believe him though when he says he wants peace, it would make no sense to want to fight with america.
  • theehman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21If the guy wants to place a wreath at the site, then let him.
  • kelchm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Brilliant.

    Absolutely ***** brilliant.
  • Pile, on 10/10/2007, -8/+8In the United States, you are guilty until proven innocent. Once the government and the mainstream media makes up their mind, you're not allowed to disagree with them.
    Bill Maher for President!
    http://www.bsalert.com/news/2077/Bill_Maher_We_Can ...
  • redstatepride, on 10/10/2007, -21/+1Why are we discussing an idiot liberal who sympathizes with the enemy? When the terrorists invade America, Scott Adams will realize how much we need the troops he wishes death upon.

    Liberals are the modern equivalent of the appeasement movement.
    • nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12redstate...they had a word for your you and your neocon buddies back in Nazi Germany - collaborators.
      • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Does the name "Neville Chamberlain" mean anything to you?
        • cranium, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Yeah, he's that guy who wouldn't care too much if Bush were to order an unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq, right?
  • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -18/+3Scott, Draw a Mohamme cartoon! Walk the walk or shut up.
  • vervalsing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+22Wow.

    I did not expect such blunt words from the man who draws Dilbert.
    • arjung, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You should subscribe to his blog. He has a lot of really thought-provoking topics. Today's was a reply to the one in this digg submission that explained his ideas a bit more.
  • joel2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14i have a lot of the same thoughts on the matter, with a little less sarcasm. it's amazing to me to look at the headlines on the newspapers talking about how much we don't want the president of iran to visit ground zero, or even to speak to us. why? all of these same newspapers are running headlines calling him evil and a madman. are you kidding me? what has he done that's so evil? how is anything that this person has done or said more evil than anything done or said by our own leader. pisses me right off.

    Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
    ~ George Orwell
    • cozb, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
      ~ George Orwell

      how else should a war start?
  • SavageBlackCat, on 10/10/2007, -23/+3President Ahmanjihadakbar-whatever-his-name supports terrorism. Hell, the guy is a terrorist. Where's John Hinckley when you need him to take a shot.
  • zombies187, on 10/10/2007, -0/+15Why forbid Americans to hear a speech?
  • CannedMango, on 10/10/2007, -5/+25Brave post by Scott Adams... my respect for him is even higher than it was.

    Of course they wouldn't let Ahmadinejad speak or look like a human... they're too busy trying to turn him into the next Saddam Hussein. Anything that goes against that Characture must be thrown down immediately.

    Now, I'm not on a total Ahmadinejad love in or anything... the guy has some shady military activities in his past and is a bit of a fascist if you ask me. He loves to go around the world and challenge foreign populations about their governments activities, but doesn't seem to mind the un-democratic Islamic ruling group that controls Iranian law. However, there's no way I'm going to take lessons on morality from criminals, so Bush & Cheney, you can go ***** yourselves if you think I'm buying a war with Iran.
  • Toloran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The best part by far were the comments after it.
  • Aggaman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15He's in real trouble now. He criticized Israel. Everyone knows that is illegal in the USA.
  • totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Not a huge Dilbert fan, but that was a great rant :D
  • stealth658, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Follow up: http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 ...
    • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1Wow it's amazing how he can actually piece a sentence together without using the word *****. It actually makes him sound like maybe he isn't an idiot after all. Now back to stuff that matters, football.
  • jason17439, on 10/10/2007, -9/+0"That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus......."

    Am I the only one who saw any irony in these two sentences?
  • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -11/+4I just read that Scott Adams supports Iran's killing of Americans in Iraq. Can someone clarify this?
    • ironhide, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10I just read that proliance likes sleeping with little boys. Can someone clarify this?
      • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4Typical liberal reaction. You can't answer the question so you respond with childish insults.
        • ironhide, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6From what I saw - you started with the childish insults first.
          • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Then it's time to take your intarweb troll goggles off.
    • dortdruben, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Sounds like horsehit spouted by someone who is pissed that he isn't a blind supporter of Isreal's policies and a kneejerk hater of Iran, which of course means that he hates America and supports the killing of its soldiers.
  • PhilMoskowitz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This type of outrage is fine and it's healthy, but the only thing that will finally end up correcting America is the bankruptcy it's sliding into. The people have been sufficiently cowed over the decades after ww2 to "go down with the ship." In the past 7 years it's been proven that anything can be done by the government and you'll sit back and take it. You'd even watch your country launch a first strike nuclear attack and still not rise and over throw it. So now you're doomed to the fate of states with an infinitely corrupted government, bankruptcy. You're looked at as a rogue state as it is. The rest of the modern world is starting to work around you, trade around you, advance without you. The petro-dollar is being abandoned, China is threatening to dump dollars, the EU is becoming a significant power in the vacuum left by the dearth of American leadership.

    Your country is failing right in front of your eyes and you just look on.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -13/+5Hmmmm. This guy is so caught up with trying to be clever, he missed the utter idiocy of his point.

    The two are being shown as being downright comparable.........yet trolls routinely ignore these similarities to giddily swoon over one and rag bloody hell about the other.

    "THEY ARE THE SAME! I hate one with a passion........excuse me while I fellate the other!"

    Thank you Mr. Intarwebs Humor Guy for showing us just how dumb you really are.

    And thank you so much, digger activists, for promoting this gem to the front page. It's such a fine example of common digg mentality.

    A lot of us are laughing, but not for the reasons you think.

    Now bury me as if it makes any difference.
    • ironhide, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Consider yourself flushed dingleberry.
      • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3There's something you never see on digg. Name calling.

        I wonder which one you blow on a regular basis?

        Judging from your need to fling pooh at logic, I'd say you march in step with the rest of the intarweb activists around here.

        Not too surprising if your defending this exercise in idiocy from criticism.
  • eagles2k3, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Scott Adams is an idiot. His attempt at sarcasm is weak here. You people who'd rather have that Iranian ***** munch as your president are pathetic. It would of been best had we taken him out while he was over here.
  • akf2000, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6wow, I'm ashamed to say this but I didn't think I'd ever, ever see an American write those words and say those things.
    • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1not all of us are idiots who swallow the propaganda whole. sadly, we are drowned out by racists and neo-cons in the corporate media.
  • n00bis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2some great sarcasm ninjitsu. Bravo!!
  • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7"The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the
    Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd
    agree the best course of action for the United States is to be
    constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil
    as the Iranians. Those *****."

    Tell it to the mothers of the soldiers killed by Iran's explosively formed projectiles.

    Scott Adams, American traitor.
    • ironhide, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7proliance - ***** scumbag.
      • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Do you have anything constructive to say?
      • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Can't argue the facts so you have to resort to name calling. Let me guess, you're a liberal?

    • HappyScrappy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Tell that to the mothers of the Iraqis killed by the US's explosively formed projectiles.
    • digsig, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Tell your bs to the mothers of the children dying all over the world by american weapons supplied to tyrants all over the world. Tell it to the mothers of the 200.000 Iraquis who have lost their llves since the american invasion. Tell it to the mothers of all the Iraqui and Balkan children who are gonna die of cancer in the next decades because the us used depleted uranium shells bombing their countries and contaminating their underground water.
      But i forgot:
      "They are not US mothers so they don't count"
  • airiox, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5It's nice to see Scott Adams unbridled by censorship in the print medium show how much of an ass he really is.
  • amirman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5if we listen to what he's saying and see him as a human it won't be so pleasing to murder him in an overpriced war, by the way please take a moment to view my avatar :)
  • iMoth, on 10/10/2007, -8/+2dilbert is ***** stupid.
  • deltavike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Great points made in the article but Scott piles the sarcasm all in one pile. I would add that removing the censors will highlight the Iranian leaders for something much worse than his article suggests. Hitler was a popular author until America decided to release the uncensored version of Mein Kampf.

    Of course, maybe he really does want Iran to have a healthy energy plan and nuclear options just happen to be a coincidence with their dominance in the Middle East. How is that for sarcasm without a biased point!?
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Sarcasm is only acceptable from one side around here.

      You should spend more time making the two presidents out to be carbon copies.

      It makes it easier for diggers to justify their choices somehow.
      • deltavike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I guess Digg is the new Fox - no spin allowed
  • digsig, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Everyone who criticizes Scott Adams on this does what the american government does best.
    Telling everyone to choose one side over the other, and that war is inevitable.
    I'm neither with you, neither with Iran. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Why do i have to hear your rant, but you refuse the representative of 70 million people the right to speak freely, so i can hear his point of view.

    As to what he says about Israel, he's spot on. Why the ***** do Jewish americans call him anti-semitic anyway. He didn't speak out against Judaism, he did so against Israel. Israel has used the Holocaust to further it's agenda so much, this rant by israelis rings hollow. And why is it illegal to question the Holocaust as a historic fact, but people can deny that the creation of Israel was planned by zionists, and caused the displacement of millions of Palestians, when even israeli historians agree on it as fact?
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1You're making very large assumptions and painting all criticism with the same brush.

      I criticized and made no specifics about which side was best.

      If they're the same, as Adams suggests, the obvious conclusion is that both sides are equally stupid.

      I'm not getting the impression this is the choice made by those defending and promoting this tiring bout of intarweb snark for the sake of being snarky.
      • digsig, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I just re-read your comment, and i think it fits pretty well in the category of "choose the least of evils". This is not about condemning some dictator, it's bigger than that. At this point there's an orchestrated effort to depict this guy (the ELECTED president of Iran) as satan, so that the military/industrial/oil complex can have another war. So, this is a way of saying "ENOUGH". Yes, some points are exaggerated, the US has not yet become like Iran, but you should be afraid of where it's heading. At the end what matters is if you want to go to war because someone else told you to, or because you made an informed decision to go. And we all know what happened in the Iraq case.

        PS: Just for the record, i'm not digging down any valid arguments promoting dialog, like yours. And i find this practice in digg quite annoying.
  • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Columbia has such a distinguished record for "respecting" free speech, and "other" perspectives.
    Just ask the Minute Men. If they are busy, check with ROTC.
    And he definitely would not offer any "hate" speech, like respect for U.S. soverienty, enforcing the "rule of LAW", providing for our DEFENSE (which IS really in the Constitution, no penumbra, seer or crystal ball needed).
    • proliance, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3I'm glad you brought up the ROTC at Columbia. As some of the enlightened few may know, Columbia has banned ROTC from its campus because the school disagrees with the military's "don't ask, don't tell' policy.
      Funny how Iran brandishes being gay as a crime and punishes those found guilty with the death penalty.
      Liberals, please support your hypocrital decision on this.
      • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0First, the support you will likely receive will come from their "swiss army excuse"; "it's different". This stands on its own and will not be supported.
        Second, liberals can't be hypocrites; they have exempt themselves from any obligation to be consistent or have principles (everything they will claim to be "principle" is frequently violated by "it's different").
        Third, "supporting" their decision assumes the possibility they "might" be wrong; worse, you might be right. This very notion is considered an attack and they will take personal offense. With melodramatic and very public indignant outrage you will be called stupid and dismissed.

        BTW, how ya feel about this????
        Demanding the free speech right of an "artist" to display a crucifix in a glass of urine and calling Christians "petty" for complaining about paying for it.
        "Understanding" and "it's different"ing a head of state calling for the ASSASSINATION of an "artist" for a pencil sketch.
  • shruggedatlas, on 10/10/2007, -7/+6I really cannot believe that we did not let Ahmadinejad speak out as he wishes. I am truly enraged! What a bunch of douchebags we are. I think Mr. A could really enlighten us on many things. In Iran, you see, there is perfect freedom of expression and religion and sexual preference, unlike in our country. Did you know that in this day and age, in some states (like Bush's TEXAS), it is illegal to have homosexual relations. I wish we would have let Ahmadinejad speak and enlighten us on this subject. For example, he could explain why in 2005, two gay teens, aged 18 and 16, were hanged, but not before they had the liberty of being imprisoned for 14 months and enduring 228 lashes. Oh and they also had the liberty to choose from one of four executions styles: being hanged, stoned, halved by a sword, or dropped from the highest perch. I know that in Texas they are much more barbaric and do not allow gays to pick from the above execution methods, so Mr. A could maybe shed some influence down south.

    And I cannot believe that we did not let Mr. A speak about Israel, and how it should be erased from the pages of time. He did not mean "wiped off the map", how could anyone conclude this? He is absolutely right, and we as americans should also wipe ourselves from the pages of time, because, after all, we illegally secured our land from the Native Americans. We should redistrict all our land and do away with our current government as a reparation for this, just like Israel owes the same to the Palestinians.

    And finally, I cannot believe that we did not allow Mr. A to lay a wreath in remembrance of the martyrs who died on 9/11. If it was not for their deeds, well who knows?
    • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your tolerance in the name of culture for that which repulses you knows no bounds.

      You are truly a master of tolerance.

      If only diggers could match your expertise and tolerate your tolerant tolerance. By burying your inarguable accounts of the intolerant actions of religious bigots, they have failed to reach true tolerance in the name of culture.

      Only the truly tolerant can tolerate the intolerance of their heroes.

      Salute.
      • AhmedF, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1bah stupid digg.
      • shruggedatlas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0The culture I speak of does not repulse me. But are you suggesting we should be tolerant of intolerance? They do say that tolerance is nine parts apathy to one part brotherly love, so you are probably in the 9 tenths.
        • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You just don't get it.
          Tolerating tolerance isn't tolerant at all; You are expected to tolerate their tolerance. And their tolerance is more tolerant than yours is; BECAUSE they tolerate intolerance. They are also sensitive. It's their sensitivity that forces them to show some intolerance too; like ROTC and advocates of border security and law enforcement. If they didn't, it would be just like saying those who are intolerant are "wrong". And that could make them feel bad or damage their self-esteem. Do you see how insensitive that would be????
    • AhmedF, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Iran had what to do with 9/11?
      • jcm267, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Who is trying to say that Iran had anything to do with 9/11?
        • pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2then why the objection to his visiting the site?
        • 42h6Fh62h, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Because he ALSO stated his intention to give his "explanation" of WHY IT HAPPENED. If you want to argue his "right", just make sure you never EVER criticize anyone for "insensitivity" again.

          After that, why don't you invite him to piss on the graves of some of YOUR loved ones.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Wrong place.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.