Hillary Clinton Contiues the American Apology

[bfdd]

I was momentarily puzzled by this, as I have used the word reprehensible from time to time. I did actually check an online dictionary to make sure I was not using the word incorrectly. I was not.

I'm beginning to wonder if you actually think the word "censure" means the same thing as "censor." If so, whoops.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reprehensible
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censure

condemn. something that is reprehensible is worthy of condemnation. censure is a word that leads to condemnation. so do you believe this man or men or women or people responsible for this "film" should be condemned? That is what she is saying and that is what you are backing up. I absolutely do not believe that and such believes go against supporting freedom of speech. Was the video disgusting? Absolutely for a variety of reasons. Not reprehensible, reprehensible is what the attackers did to our Ambassador and the other Americans that were attacked in Libya. Reprehensible was scaling the walls of our embassy in Egypt, taking down OUR flag(it was OUR physical property, not theirs) and burning it. Those are reprehensible actions. Expressing speech is no way reprehensible.

 

[DominionSeraph]

I absolutely do not believe that and such believes go against supporting freedom of speech.

Supporting freedom of speech does not require that one support every speech. "Freedom of speech" is specifically a limitation on government power -- there is no limitation on the expression of feelings.

If Obama were to look away in disgust seeing a fat chick in a bikini, is he going against her rights to wear a bikini? Is he not "supporting her rights" until he sticks it in her?

 

[CountZero]

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.

They are not apologizing for having a free country. They are apologizing for the actions of some of our country men and denouncing what was said.

There isn't a shred of a hint of an idea that we might start outlawing criticizing Islam. If you are reading that out of what is said you are merely projecting what you want to be said so that you can feel satisfied that the other team is in fact evil America haters or whatever it is you call them in your head.

No apology has been made for our freedoms you just want there to be one.

 

[Geosurface]

So what would you have them do...embrace the fucking movie? FOUR people DIED behind this. There have been more riots in other countries and more embassies under attack...really, what would you have them do?

They don't want anymore bloodshed over this. Didnt Dubya apologize for a copy of the Quran being shot with a gun during one of his terms?


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

In my best case scenario the government buys the rights to this horribly acted, pitifully shot film and burns millions of DVDs of it (make sure they're in 12th century dumbfuck region code) then air drops them on the middle east.

Along with copies of the Koran with pig shit wiped on every page.

In reality, what do I expect them to do? Condemn the violence, say nothing against the film. The worst I'm okay with them saying about it is "We in the US believe in free speech, sometimes that means speech which angers some."

 

[Skitzer]

Lets see...do you think these protests were in response to 9/11? Do you really think that?

It was just so convenient that this stuff was going on when the militant group decided to attack with rockets in Libya. So convenient and yea, it sucks..but I think the film played a part in all of this.

And why would we apologize for 9/11? There was no movie that caused that.

"What’s known for sure is the fact that the establishment media has seized upon the movie as an excuse to explain away the attacks on the embassies in Cairo and Benghazi as just another instance of extremist Muslims getting riled up over nothing in particular.

Subsequent reports confirmed that the attacks were coordinated well in advance of the release of the Arabic version of the trailer this week and had nothing to do with the film, but the media immediately ran with that narrative."​

http://www.infowars.com/is-muhammad-movie-a-contrived-fraud/

 

[Riparian]

condemn. something that is reprehensible is worthy of condemnation. censure is a word that leads to condemnation. so do you believe this man or men or women or people responsible for this "film" should be condemned? That is what she is saying and that is what you are backing up. I absolutely do not believe that and such believes go against supporting freedom of speech. Was the video disgusting? Absolutely for a variety of reasons. Not reprehensible, reprehensible is what the attackers did to our Ambassador and the other Americans that were attacked in Libya. Reprehensible was scaling the walls of our embassy in Egypt, taking down OUR flag(it was OUR physical property, not theirs) and burning it. Those are reprehensible actions. Expressing speech is no way reprehensible.

Do you feel the same way about the Westboro Baptists? I hear so much condemnation of the Obama Administration for their statement trying to play the middle ground, yet I see the exact same statements made about statements made by Westboro. When they protest a soldier's funeral, every comment is along the lines of their speech being reprehensible but we support their right to say it. Is this a double standard you're applying to opinions as that's exactly what the Obama Administration has stated.

 

[bfdd]

Do you feel the same way about the Westboro Baptists? I hear so much condemnation of the Obama Administration for their statement trying to play the middle ground, yet I see the exact same statements made about statements made by Westboro. When they protest a soldier's funeral, every comment is along the lines of their speech being reprehensible but we support their right to say it. Is this a double standard you're applying to opinions as that's exactly what the Obama Administration has stated.

I do not support what they say either. I think they're fucking idiots and they have a right to say it. I also agree Hillary can say what she says, that doesn't make her any less in the wrong about freedom of speech. Yin and yang, you can't have the good shit without the bad shit. To many forget this.

 

[theevilsharpie]

You have American embassies all over the Islamic world (along with their staff) being targeted by violent rioters that are pissed off about a movie that grossly offends their most revered religious icon. Many of these people comes from societies where free speech from private citizens in a public setting is a completely foreign concept, so in their mind, a YouTube video represents the opinion of America's government. Our chief diplomat has an opportunity to straighten things out. Knowing that her words can either ease tensions or further fan the flames of protest and cause even more risk to life and property, what would you her say? "u mad, bro?"

Anyone with enough brain power to maintain consciousness should've realized that Clinton's speech wasn't meant for domestic consumption. Thankfully, we have adults in charge that put practically before ideology.

God damn this thread made my head hurt.

 

[Riparian]

I do not support what they say either. I think they're fucking idiots and they have a right to say it. I also agree Hillary can say what she says, that doesn't make her any less in the wrong about freedom of speech. Yin and yang, you can't have the good shit without the bad shit. To many forget this.

I'm still confused as to how you think her position on freedom of speech is any different than yours or pretty much anyone else's on these forums? She basically said what you said; that the movie was reprehensible and disgusting, i.e., the makers of the movie are idiots. She didn't say we need to censor this speech. She didn't say that a new law would be pushed through to stop speech against the Islam religion. The Obama Administration didn't ask Youtube to pull the video, that was Youtube's own decision. So, I reiterate, what in her statement provides evidence of her disdain for freedom of speech and not disdain for the content of a specific speech?

 

[bfdd]

We need to remove the American representative presence from the ME and potentially the rest of the Muslim world. I'm not saying we isolate ourselves from them, just be friendly from a distance. Trade relations can be maintained, there' just no need for us to have our representatives over there any longer. We have obvious problems understanding the ideals of each other and it's probably best if we had a hands off relationship for awhile.


Do you believe in condemning someone for an act of speech? If so you would say their act of speech would be reprehensible. That would mean you do not believe or support freedom of speech. Supporting freedom of speech means not condemning those who exercise it. Condemn is a very harsh term and I wish it upon no one who expresses their beliefs without being violent towards others.

Also, remember these people chose to expose themselves to these non-sense beliefs that were filling the retarded ass video on YouTube and these people are the ones who made the choice that it offends their beliefs. Many choices were made by those who became violent that had very little to do at all with this film. Not to mention this film is being used as a scapegoat anyways. Anti-Americanism has never gone away in the ME and one could say it has got stronger.

Proof free speech is being used properly, someone was offended.

 

[Jaskalas]

You have American embassies all over the Islamic world (along with their staff) being targeted by violent rioters that are pissed off about a movie that grossly offends their most revered religious icon. Many of these people comes from societies where free speech from private citizens in a public setting is a completely foreign concept, so in their mind, a YouTube video represents the opinion of America's government. Our chief diplomat has an opportunity to straighten things out. Knowing that her words can either ease tensions or further fan the flames of protest and cause even more risk to life and property, what would you her say? "u mad, bro?"

Anyone with enough brain power to maintain consciousness should've realized that Clinton's speech wasn't meant for domestic consumption. Thankfully, we have adults in charge that put practically before ideology.

God damn this thread made my head hurt.

That nicely sums it up.

 

[Theb]

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.

Wow. This is really something special right here.

 

[bfdd]

Riparian her choosing of the word reprehensible when using it as an adjective for this expression of speech. That is where she made the mistake. One should not be condemned for expressing speech. Reprehensible is what the attackers of the embassy's did, not this expression of speech. Disgusting is a good adjective on the other hand.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Is this seriously an issue?

My God Republicans are fucking dumb. Seriously, just stop.

 

[Matt1970]

So we have basically responded to something that insults the way of life of the Islamic Extremists by insulting our own way of life.

 

[Matt1970]

Is this seriously an issue?

My God Republicans are fucking dumb. Seriously, just stop.

Not to someone who doesn't give a shit about our constitution.

 

[Riparian]

Riparian her choosing of the word reprehensible when using it as an adjective for this expression of speech. That is where she made the mistake. One should not be condemned for expressing speech. Reprehensible is what the attackers of the embassy's did, not this expression of speech. Disgusting is a good adjective on the other hand.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the word choice. I don't see anything particularly wrong with the use of the word "reprehensible." The word "condemn" isn't a particularly harsh word for this situation either. The definition from dictionary.com that we've been linking to throughout this thread for "condemn" is:

con·demn   [kuhn-dem] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2.
to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment: to condemn a murderer to life imprisonment.
3.
to give grounds or reason for convicting or censuring: His acts condemn him.

I don't see anything wrong with expressing strong disapproval of someone's message and nothing from the Obama Admin's actions has shown that they have tried or will try to actually suppress that message. Seems like the 1st Amendment is working as intended.

 

[spidey07]

It is pretty funny watching this administration just keep making mistake after embarrassing foolish mistake. Complete failure.

I take that back, it's not funny. It's terribly sad and depressing.

 

[Pens1566]

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.

You ... don't know what you're talking about.

 

[bfdd]

So we have basically responded to something that insults the way of life of the Islamic Extremists by insulting our own way of life.

yes, that is what she said. she believes, by her choice of words, that this man should be condemned for his expression of speech. IMO he(or the group that comprises him) should be condemned for fraudulently involving others in the making of his speech. Those he exploited in getting to unwilling participate with this non-sense have all the rights to demand he be punished for their exploitation. Those offended by the act of speech? Fuck them as far as I'm concerned they should have changed the channel.

Riparian, please read as to what censuring is in the USA and you will see that that definition cannot fit into this situation, unless the definition of censuring you're using is the one that leads to condemnation.

 

[Pens1566]

It is pretty funny watching this administration just keep making mistake after embarrassing foolish mistake. Complete failure.

I take that back, it's not funny. It's terribly sad and depressing.

Romney isn't the "administration".

 

[DrPizza]

I haven't gone through this thread, but let me say this:

If I was a high school art teacher, and my students decided to make some sort of "art" where a statue of Jesus was defiled, or they made some sort of art related to burning the flag and demonstrated it in front of wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan, not only would just about everyone expect ME to apologize, the public would be demanding that I get fired.

The center of this problem is we have free speech, and some people choose to use that speech SPECIFICALLY to offend other people - other people whose culture does not include any type of freedom like that which we enjoy, and whose people cannot even fathom that right.

Furthermore, people in OUR culture cannot understand why another culture gets so upset over this - yet oddly, there's a TON of outrage over things like the protests at military funerals. Yet, people don't realize that these depictions of Mohammed are far more offensive to that culture than those military protests are to other cultures.

AND, idiots in this country blame their entire culture for actions of just a few in that culture. How many Mosques in the U.S. have been damaged in one way or another by people here? I think the tally is a bit greater than the tally of embassies that have been damaged...

 

[chucky2]

I had no idea we stormed Mosques here in the US. Could you link to that?

 

[Matt1970]

I haven't gone through this thread, but let me say this:

If I was a high school art teacher, and my students decided to make some sort of "art" where a statue of Jesus was defiled, or they made some sort of art related to burning the flag and demonstrated it in front of wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan, not only would just about everyone expect ME to apologize, the public would be demanding that I get fired.

The center of this problem is we have free speech, and some people choose to use that speech SPECIFICALLY to offend other people - other people whose culture does not include any type of freedom like that which we enjoy, and whose people cannot even fathom that right.

Furthermore, people in OUR culture cannot understand why another culture gets so upset over this - yet oddly, there's a TON of outrage over things like the protests at military funerals. Yet, people don't realize that these depictions of Mohammed are far more offensive to that culture than those military protests are to other cultures.

AND, idiots in this country blame their entire culture for actions of just a few in that culture. How many Mosques in the U.S. have been damaged in one way or another by people here? I think the tally is a bit greater than the tally of embassies that have been damaged...

The irony in that is they burn our flag all the time. She we repond the way they do?

 

[bfdd]

Romney isn't the "administration".

I hate that he and his campaign are already acting like they are. It really really annoys me and shows a lack of respect for the position.