Hillary Clinton Contiues the American Apology

[Kadarin]

Obama's arab spring chickens...

Are coming home to ROOST!

Because Obama was, like, totally responsible for Arab Spring...

 

[Tom]

Because Obama was, like, totally responsible for Arab Spring...

Good point. When everything was looking good, I thought Bush and Chaney's Iraq policy was given credit for the "Arab spring" ?

 

[chucky2]

Good point. When everything was looking good, I thought Bush and Chaney's Iraq policy was given credit for the "Arab spring" ?

No no, Dems poo poo'd that.

 

[Matt1970]

Words Matter:


Condemn: to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring.
Reprehensible: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure

 

[SheHateMe]

Yes, Apologize for having a free Country. Then we'll just sit down and talk with them. We will start passing laws that ban movies about the Muslim religion and sensor the content of anything that might get out to the Arab world. We will just start eliminating all the freedoms that offend the fucking nutcases in other Countries. The USA should NEVER apologize for it's freedoms.

What the fuck are you talking about? She didnt apologize for free speech. Yes, we have free speech but we also have the right to tell somebody that what they said or did was fucking stupid. Four people died behind this movie, do you think they are happy about it? Why not apologize for it? It was a stupid movie and we all have the right to say that.

Also, the Government didnt ban the movie, Youtube decided to block it and Youtube has been blocked by the Governments of countries that want to stop to accessibility of it to would be protesters.

There has been no talks of passing any anti-muslim movie laws either.

You guys are insane.


If you were the President, what would you have your Secretary of State do?
Go ahead, write a small speech and tell me exactly how you would address this issue.

I'll wait.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

You certainly don't come out and attack our Constitution, which is exactly what she did.

It seems like silly hyperbole to me to call this "attacking our Constitution." Was Romney attacking the Constitution when he said, "Burning the Quran is wrong on every level. It puts troops in danger, and it violates a founding principle of our republic."? It isn't attacking the Constitution to say that particular instances of free expression are distasteful, irresponsible and/or stupid, and this movie is all three.

 

[Jaskalas]

Yes, Apologize for having a free Country. Then we'll just sit down and talk with them. We will start passing laws that ban movies about the Muslim religion and sensor the content of anything that might get out to the Arab world. We will just start eliminating all the freedoms that offend the fucking nutcases in other Countries. The USA should NEVER apologize for it's freedoms.

The USA should NEVER apologize for it's freedoms.

These protestors are willing to kill to remove those freedoms, are we willing to match their force? Who do we direct that force against - the protestors, or their enablers leading our government?

It seem clear that we must ensure a united response by bringing our own house in order - before we face them on the field.

 

[jackstar7]

And 99% of them are bullshit and IMO themselves illegal and unjust. We simply aren't used to that concept because we were raised in this era and we're just supposed to accept reality as it is presented to us because it had already been figured out that perception is reality. Truth is our Government that we the people had doesn't exist any Longer what we have ow is an extreme bastardization due to assholes trying to control the world through legislation. Stolen from us long ago when the party of Jefferson crushed Hamilton's.

You should probably start all your posts by explaining that you think 99% of laws are illegal. That is going to speed things up considerably.

What is it you really want to talk about?

 

[Matt1970]

What the fuck are you talking about? She didnt apologize for free speech. Yes, we have free speech but we also have the right to tell somebody that what they said or did was fucking stupid. Four people died behind this movie, do you think they are happy about it? Why not apologize for it? It was a stupid movie and we all have the right to say that.

Also, the Government didnt ban the movie, Youtube decided to block it and Youtube has been blocked by the Governments of countries that want to stop to accessibility of it to would be protesters.

There has been no talks of passing any anti-muslim movie laws either.

You guys are insane.


If you were the President, what would you have your Secretary of State do?
Go ahead, write a small speech and tell me exactly how you would address this issue.

I'll wait.

WTF am I talking about? This what I am talking about:

Yes, apologize and keep on fucking apologizing until these idiots stop rioting and attacking our Diplomats abroad.

Fuck that. Tens of thousands of Americans have died for our freedoms and you want to go around apologizing for them?

 

[woolfe9999]

Her use of the word reprehensible is what pisses me off the most. Don't care if she knows or doesn't know what it means, it's the wrong fucking word to use because we do not censure speech like that here, it is a goddamn protected right and I am insanely offends that she would even use anything close to a word that has to do with censure. Disgusting? I agree, but not reprehensible and she owes us Americans an apology for offending our ideals now. I'll be waiting Mrs. Secretary.

Are you actually arguing that freedom of speech means that speech is beyond criticism? In other words, you cannot refer to speech as "reprehensible?"

Calling something "reprehensible" is not "censorship." Nor does it tacitly undermine the value of free speech. Actually, it's the exact opposite. We protect reprehensible speech here. That is the point. It doesn't mean anything to protect speech that everyone agrees with. So when she says the speech is reprehensible but it is nonetheless protected free speech, that is completely consistent with our democratic principles and traditions.

 

[actuarial]

A citizen criticizing our rights? Fine. The Government doing it? NO.

Did she criticize a right, or a specific exercising of that right? It is a significant difference.

Words Matter:

Condemn: to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring.
Reprehensible: bringing or deserving severe rebuke or censure

Reasonable people understand what she meant. If you're going to be anal about it, then do it right.

Rebuke: Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions.

So she said they deserve severe criticism.

 

[woolfe9999]

It seems like silly hyperbole to me to call this "attacking our Constitution." Was Romney attacking the Constitution when he said, "Burning the Quran is wrong on every level. It puts troops in danger, and it violates a founding principle of our republic."? It isn't attacking the Constitution to say that particular instances of free expression are distasteful, irresponsible and/or stupid, and this movie is all three.

Not if you're a member of the P&N Brain Trust who thinks that criticism of speech = censorship of speech.

I wouldn't even use the word "hyperbole" to describe this line of reasoning. It's just flat out false.

 

[umbrella39]

It seems like silly hyperbole to me to call this "attacking our Constitution." Was Romney attacking the Constitution when he said, "Burning the Quran is wrong on every level. It puts troops in danger, and it violates a founding principle of our republic."? It isn't attacking the Constitution to say that particular instances of free expression are distasteful, irresponsible and/or stupid, and this movie is all three.

Don please don't confuse the free speech hypocrites... At least wait until they are done thumping their chests.

 

[SheHateMe]

WTF am I talking about? This what I am talking about:



Fuck that. Tens of thousands of Americans have died for our freedoms and you want to go around apologizing for them?

*sigh*

You know, the guy's movie caused 4 deaths and protests that would not have happened had the video not have been put out. Nobody ever denied that he had the right to publish such a video...but the aftermath of his actions have put ALL US Embassies in danger and for that...they will apologize and I don't see a problem with it.

Not only did they apologize for the video setting off this violence but also condemned the muslims that are reigning terror against their own Governments and citizens in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and now..Tunisia (I believe).


Kids have the right to bully another child. They have freedom of speech, but when the kid goes home and offs himself will you say "Well, Im not going to apologize for my kid exercising his first amendment rights on your dead child".

 

[Matt1970]

Did she criticize a right, or a specific exercising of that right? It is a significant difference.

Sorry Pal, but criticizing one is criticizing the other, and our own Government should be criticizing neither. Especially in an open speech on National TV to the world.

 

[bfdd]

Are you actually arguing that freedom of speech means that speech is beyond criticism? In other words, you cannot refer to speech as "reprehensible?"

Calling something "reprehensible" is not "censorship." Nor does it tacitly undermine the value of free speech. Actually, it's the exact opposite. We protect reprehensible speech here. That is the point. It doesn't mean anything to protect speech that everyone agrees with. So when she says the speech is reprehensible but it is nonetheless protected free speech, that is completely consistent with our democratic principles and traditions.

Speech can be criticized, but reprehensible isn't a word that should be used to criticize speech, it shows poor grasp of the English language and word meanings. We can argue all day that words meanings change, but I didn't have to go digging for this definition of it. It was the first one that came to my mind when I read what she had said. You must not know what reprehensible means either, it's OK you can use the internet to find out then you can laugh at all the times it has been misused to sway your emotions in the past.

 

[Matt1970]

*sigh*

You know, the guy's movie caused 4 deaths and protests that would not have happened had the video not have been put out. Nobody ever denied that he had the right to publish such a video...but the aftermath of his actions have put ALL US Embassies in danger and for that...they will apologize and I don't see a problem with it.

Not only did they apologize for the video setting off this violence but also condemned the muslims that are reigning terror against their own Governments and citizens in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and now..Tunisia (I believe).


Kids have the right to bully another child. They have freedom of speech, but when the kid goes home and offs himself will you say "Well, Im not going to apologize for my kid exercising his first amendment rights on your dead child".

That's where you are wrong. Islamic Fundamentalists caused the deaths of 4 people, over a FUCKING movie. And kids do not have the right to bully other kids.

 

[cybrsage]

*sigh*

You know, the guy's movie caused 4 deaths and protests that would not have happened had the video not have been put out. Nobody ever denied that he had the right to publish such a video...but the aftermath of his actions have put ALL US Embassies in danger and for that...they will apologize and I don't see a problem with it.

Wait - you are saying it is the job of our government to apologize for people in another country choosing to be offended over a movie and then breaking laws in their own country?

Seriously?

You also actually think the movie caused the deaths and not the people who actually committed the murders? You are one of those people who think guns run around town all by themselves shooting people, aren't you?

 

[woolfe9999]

Sorry Pal, but criticizing one is criticizing the other, and our own Government should be criticizing neither.

Sorry pal, but no. Criticizing what someone says is not criticizing their right to say it. Do you even understand the implications of your so-called "logic?" It would mean, for example, that every time someone on P&N disagrees with what someone else says, that person is presumed to be advocating that the other person's speech be censored. So in disagreeing with you here, I am in favor of your opinion being censored, and if you pop back in and disagree with me, then you are in favor of censoring my speech.

And no, it's no different if someone in the government is criticizing speech either because it doesn't affect the right to speak, now or in the future. Free Speech does not mean that no one in the government is allowed to express an opinion about what you say. That would mean, for example, that Obama is violating the First Amendment whenever he criticizes something Romney says, because Obama is in the government and Romney is not.

 

[SheHateMe]

That's where you are wrong. Islamic Fundamentalists caused the deaths of 4 people, over a FUCKING movie. And kids do not have the right to bully other kids.

Okay, so you don't disagree that if this movie didn't exist...would would be wading through this heaping pile of shit right now?

Also, how do kids not have the right to bully other kids?

I have the right to call your kids "fat","ugly","i love you", etc. Whatever I want to fucking say about them because I have a right to...but when my actions cause your kid to do something drastic, am I not responsible?

Thats also the problem with the bullying issue. The parents of bullies don't think their kids did anything wrong. Its the fault of the victims, not the source of the problem.

 

[Skitzer]

*sigh*

You know, the guy's movie caused 4 deaths and protests that would not have happened had the video not have been put out. Nobody ever denied that he had the right to publish such a video...but the aftermath of his actions have put ALL US Embassies in danger and for that...they will apologize and I don't see a problem with it.

Not only did they apologize for the video setting off this violence but also condemned the muslims that are reigning terror against their own Governments and citizens in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and now..Tunisia (I believe).


Kids have the right to bully another child. They have freedom of speech, but when the kid goes home and offs himself will you say "Well, Im not going to apologize for my kid exercising his first amendment rights on your dead child".

How can you positively say it was the video that provoked these murders?
I have seen articles implying that these were planned and deliberate attacks by Al Qaeda to be carried out on the 9/11 anniversary.
Should we apologize for 9/11 too?

 

[OutHouse]

So what would you have them do...embrace the fucking movie? FOUR people DIED behind this

the movie had jack shit to with the assassination of the Ambassador. the attack was planned and carried out by islamist nutjobs.

 

[OutHouse]

She didnt apologize for free speech

She sure as fuck did not embrace it either.

 

[Carfax83]

How can you positively say it was the video that provoked these murders?
I have seen articles implying that these were planned and deliberate attacks by Al Qaeda to be carried out on the 9/11 anniversary.
Should we apologize for 9/11 too?

I was just about to post this :thumbsup:

The evidence so far is leaning towards the killings being a coordinated and planned attack by Islamic militants on the anniversary of 9/11, and not a random act of mob violence caused by the movie.

 

[jackstar7]

Now Romney has denounced the movie...