• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Does this idiot have any idea what it means to have "freedom of Speech"?

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,272
2,971
126
Oh boohoo cry me a river.......
Since when do we a as nation have an obligation to speak out against defamation of other countries so called "divine prophets"?
He is joking right? Oh I get it -- the end is near so he wants to go out in a blaze of glory...hahahaaaaaa


UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Iran's president called Israel a nuclear-armed "fake regime" shielded by the United States, prompting Israel's U.N. ambassador to walk out of a high-level U.N. meeting Monday promoting the rule of law.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also accused the U.S. and others of misusing freedom of speech and failing to speak out against the defamation of people's beliefs and "divine prophets," an apparent reference to the recently circulated amateur video made in the U.S. which attacks Islam and denigrates the Prophet Muhammad.

There is more.......
http://news.yahoo.com/attack-irans-ahmadinejad-sparks-israel-walkout-014904590.html
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,833
1
0
We did speak out against it. I was listening to World Have Your Say last Friday and one of the guests kept saying that we refuse to condemn the video... I think to them condemning means also banning.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Apparently hillary and obummer profusely apologizing for our freedoms was not enough. Maybe more apologies and speeches are needed.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
the israeli delegation walked out as he speaked. lol. maybe they didnt like this

Yeah, because the Israeli delegation has anything to do with this. It's about others demanding we ban (which is what this means as others have pointed out) free speech. Israel isn't doing that, it's your friends who are. While it's a really really really bad idea there are days when placing top snipers in key locations for a "hunt" sounds appealing. It wouldn't be in Israel, BTW. I'd pay to have a crack at Immadinnerjacket on some days.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
If he said that, and if he meant free speech/association should be banned by our govt, then he has issues than I thought. OTOH, he may not have meant it should be banned by our govt... even if he did, however, how is what he did different from most politicians?

Also, I can understand his frustrations considering the stuxnet virus and Obama's admin hacking into their infrastructure causing many deaths. It's not like the ruling class in Israel or in the u.s. cares any more about we the subjects than ahmadinejahd cares about his subjects. I mean, I could be forcibly taken from my parents by federal agents then tortured by a different country under the NDAA... in other words, I worry about my own govt all the time especially when it tries to make me also worry even more about some govt thousands of miles away.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
If he said that, and if he meant free speech/association should be banned by our govt, then he has issues than I thought. OTOH, he may not have meant it should be banned by our govt... even if he did, however, how is what he did different from most politicians?
/QUOTE]

Different? How about he had his own people gunned down in the streets?

Different? Well he is a lying sack of shit, but he's a murderous insane sack of shit who is delusional in the extreme.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
If he said that, and if he meant free speech/association should be banned by our govt, then he has issues than I thought. OTOH, he may not have meant it should be banned by our govt... even if he did, however, how is what he did different from most politicians?

Also, I can understand his frustrations considering the stuxnet virus and Obama's admin hacking into their infrastructure causing many deaths. It's not like the ruling class in Israel or in the u.s. cares any more about we the subjects than ahmadinejahd cares about his subjects. I mean, I could be forcibly taken from my parents by federal agents then tortured by a different country under the NDAA... in other words, I worry about my own govt all the time especially when it tries to make me also worry even more about some govt thousands of miles away.
Well said, he is corrupted just like the politicians here but where is the outrage?
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Different? How about he had his own people gunned down in the streets? [...]
How do you know that "he had his own people gunned down in the streets" any more than the u.s. govt guns down its own people? look at FDR's pearl harbor incident or even the bonus army fiasco by Hoover... it's what govts do. Also, what was reported to be his excuse for shooting them dead?

I think youre just as biased as I am and I even realize that I'm not as bad off as his subjects are, although there are times when the state just makes me want to die.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
If he said that, and if he meant free speech/association should be banned by our govt, then he has issues than I thought. OTOH, he may not have meant it should be banned by our govt... even if he did, however, how is what he did different from most politicians?
/QUOTE]

Different? How about he had his own people gunned down in the streets?

Different? Well he is a lying sack of shit, but he's a murderous insane sack of shit who is delusional in the extreme.
The US has killed there own civilians along with many other innocent people around the world.

Don't you remember obama assassinating an American Citizen
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,430
121
106
We did speak out against it. I was listening to World Have Your Say last Friday and one of the guests kept saying that we refuse to condemn the video... I think to them condemning means also banning.
Why should we even have to speak out against it to begin with especially when any random guy can make the same sort of video on Youtube? What, they think they are the only fvcking religion in this world that gets insulted or ridiculed? Bottom line, zero tolerance to the unreasonable, period.
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
Why should we even have to speak out against it to begin with especially when any random guy can make the same sort of video on Youtube? What, they think they are the only fvcking religion in this world that gets insulted or ridiculed? Bottom line, zero tolerance to the unreasonable, period.
They believe there religion is somehow superior to Christianity and Judaism, complete idiots
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,324
4
0
Apparently hillary and obummer profusely apologizing for our freedoms was not enough. Maybe more apologies and speeches are needed.
It's being reported that Obama will condemn and apologize for the video again in front of the UN today.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
We did speak out against it. I was listening to World Have Your Say last Friday and one of the guests kept saying that we refuse to condemn the video... I think to them condemning means also banning.
That's because condemn is a hard word and idiots here toss it around with a different meaning. Just like I had that whole spiel over reprehensible. Just because you guys choose to ignore the harsh definitions doesn't mean they aren't. Condemning something isn't to be taken lightly. I would never condemn the video or its makers, nor would I use a harsh word like reprehensible which basically means it's worthy of condemnation either. We need more English lessons for the native English speakers on this board.
 

SheHateMe

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2012
7,251
20
81
"Divine Prophet"..these folks are insane. They sound a lot like some Christian groups in the US.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
not even on the same level.
No, but it has to be that way for him. No christian group is threatening for burning a bible and killing for it, whole nations receptive to the idea, but hey what's reality anyway?
 

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,430
121
106
No, but it has to be that way for him. No christian group is threatening for burning a bible and killing for it, whole nations receptive to the idea, but hey what's reality anyway?
I'm sure some nonsensical troll here is going pull out some Christian killing an abortion doctor and tell us how on the whole both religions are equally bad because BOTH KILL PEOPLE SEE?!.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
1
0
I read his entire message and I didn't find anything wrong with it. It actually makes sense.

All he said was that if you have a group of people attacking the prophets of another religion, that it's going to make people angry. Which is why the riots are happening. That a responsible group of people would not use "Freedom of speech" as an excuse not to condemn those making the statements. Freedom of Speech comes with a bit of self control.

If I went up to a statue of David and spit on it, would it not be a normal reaction of those who cherish David to bee angry at me? They may even punch me in the nose? Is that a normal reaction? Or is it "freedom of speech"? Same for Christians and a status of Jesus or whatever. Or stomping on a cross while sitting outside of a church... Sure, freedom of speech. But that is just asknig for trouble.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,874
4,203
126
I read his entire message and I didn't find anything wrong with it. It actually makes sense.

All he said was that if you have a group of people attacking the prophets of another religion, that it's going to make people angry. Which is why the riots are happening. That a responsible group of people would not use "Freedom of speech" as an excuse not to condemn those making the statements. Freedom of Speech comes with a bit of self control.

If I went up to a statue of David and spit on it, would it not be a normal reaction of those who cherish David to bee angry at me? They may even punch me in the nose? Is that a normal reaction? Or is it "freedom of speech"? Same for Christians and a status of Jesus or whatever. Or stomping on a cross while sitting outside of a church... Sure, freedom of speech. But that is just asknig for trouble.
I missed the part where our government didn't speak against the premise of the film. Would you find a quote where Hillary or Obama supported it or didn't comment? His idea of "responsibility" is to use the government to suppress. But fortunately the film didn't happen. It's in the past and one can't comment on historical acts. Why should scholars be punished?

Listen to the link about the Holocaust.

I also suggest you google "piss christ" by maplethorpe. Note that there was some vandalism. Note that no one died as a result. Being upset is a natural reaction. Killing over it is too, but I hardly see an equivalency in the two acts.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY