Obama Administration Advises Limits On Free Speech At UN.

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: jonks

Take 3. What does the resolution say that you condemn so vehemently. Gimme a line from it. Something.

I would ask the same question of BarrySotero - Butterbean. What's your gripe beyond the pissing and moaning on the opinion piece at your link to the right wingnut rag, the Weakly Substandard?

The last paragraph of the article says:

In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Please cite the specific provisions of the resolution you find offensive. And in case you don't recall, not all speech is not protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Libel and slander are not protected. Neither is speech calculated, intended or likely to incite panic or violence against others.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: Harvey
There's not much worse you could be called than Butterbean

I'm sure you would like to give it a try.
For weeks here I was being called "winner/ winnar" or whatever/whoever it was. None of these names can take away from the facts of the creepy stuff Obama is doing in the UN. There's a "gang of 12" or so here that always try to make threads about the poster when they don't like the the information.

Obama sits in a racist church for many years - but a poster will be called racist for seeing that for what it is. Obama hires communists for administration but a poster is "trolling" for pointing it out. 97% of people are heterosexual as nature intended and no societies marry boys off to each other - but a poster is "homophobic" for pointing these things out. This sort of defamation and personal attack is the way the left and Marx-o-crats work. America is disintegrating, and the loony tunes are growing in number and see everything exactly backward from reality.

To these people Obama, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Kevin Jennings etc seem like shining lights but they are just bright shining lies who justify their followers resentments. It's a form of hypnotic deliverance - absolution via absorption - getting lost in an appointed authority figure who is given power to make broken people feel right about being wrong. Anyone who disturbs that relationship with facts gets condemned. It's a psychological phenomenon as well as political.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: jonks

Take 3. What does the resolution say that you condemn so vehemently. Gimme a line from it. Something.

I would ask the same question of BarrySotero - Butterbean. What's your gripe beyond the pissing and moaning on the opinion piece at your link to the right wingnut rag, the Weakly Substandard?

The last paragraph of the article says:

In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

Please cite the specific provisions of the resolution you find offensive. And in case you don't recall, not all speech is not protected by the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Libel and slander are not protected. Neither is speech calculated, intended or likely to incite panic or violence against others.

Yes, and that is in contrast to the new resolution that "'the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of 'negative racial and religious stereotyping.'"

No matter how you try and spin this, this IS a violation of the freedom of expression and speech protected in our constitution. That last paragraph is to show the contrast between the 1992 treaty and this new resolution.

This resolution would not only apply to governments, but media as well. Which could be applied to websites and blogs as well. How many Christian bashers on AT would this apply to? How about religion bashers in general?

There is a reason the ACLU also fights for the Klan and other racist and bigoted orgs. Because the freedom of speech and expression is NOT measured by the expressions and speech we agree with, but by that which offends us most.

This has NOTHING to do with civilly actionable libel or screaming fire in a theater. This is a resolution seeking to stop religious dissent.

Lets face it, Harvey. If you took this story and replaced "Obama" with "Bush" and "Islam" with "Christianity" you and the others here vainly trying to defend and water this down would be screaming bloody murder. And rightly so... just as you should be now.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
It's all going over your head Jonks. That's my problem with guys like you - I am so far ahead I look behind. Obama hates America like his buddies Ayers, Wright, Jones et al. Just keep pretending psychotically that Obama isn't a radical headcase.

You're not ahead, you're a century in the past remembering a country that doesn't exist, and good riddance. On women's rights, on gay rights, on equality, on race relations, you think (and wish) that it's 1855. You're a homophobe, a bigot, an atavist. You look at a man that embodies the very dream and ideals of America and yet you are blind to it. You're not alone because you're so far ahead of the rest of us; you're alone because you're insane and people run away from you screaming.

Lol - the country still exists and poll after poll shows it. Your fixation to homosexual political issues is the filter that you make your reality conform to. The only time I write about race is when I talk about Obama and Rev Wright (and the facts are crystal clear there) or when I correctly say it's an insult for blacks who's ancestors came in chains to have to be compared to homosexuals (they know it's a farce and that's why 70% of them [and growing] are against homosexual "marriage").

The "homophobia" thing is just a tool for defamation. The president of APA who was in charge when homosexuality was removed as a disorder (pending future research that was then never allowed of course) has said as much himself


Nicholas Cummings said his profession was characterized by"intellectual arrogance and zealotry" and 'homophobia as intimidation is one of the the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda..sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves."

He also said when APA conducts research they only do so "when they know what the outcome is going to be...only research with predictably favorable outcomes is permissible."

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: Harvey
There's not much worse you could be called than Butterbean

I'm sure you would like to give it a try.
For weeks here I was being called "winner/ winnar" or whatever/whoever it was. None of these names can take away from the facts of the creepy stuff Obama is doing in the UN. There's a "gang of 12" or so here that always try to make threads about the poster when they
don't like the the information.

Obama sits in a racist church for many years - but a poster will be called racist for seeing that for what it is. Obama hires communists for administration but a poster is "trolling" for pointing it out. 97% of people are heterosexual as nature intended and no societies marry boys off to each other - but a poster is "homophobic" for pointing these things out. This sort of defamation and personal attack is the way the left and Marx-o-crats work. America is disintegrating, and the loony tunes are growing in number and see everything exactly backward from reality.

To these people Obama, Cass Sunstein, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Kevin Jennings etc seem like shining lights but they are just bright shining lies who justify their followers resentments. It's a form of hypnotic deliverance - absolution via absorption - getting lost in an appointed authority figure who is given power to make broken people feel right about being wrong. Anyone who disturbs that relationship with facts gets condemned. It's a psychological phenomenon as well as political.

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

As much as you try to validate your warped views, they're still warped. There have been a few other posters with similar views over the years and to be compared to them should be embarrassing. Once you have been made aware of this, it's up to you spend time on self-examination. I predict that if you stay on your current course, you're going to die an angry, bitter, lonely person after chasing ghosts your whole life.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

On both sides, the ones up in arms over it usually couldn't give a shit what the UN rules.

True to a point. They do tend to bitch about the UN but then dismiss it.

Either way, this is a VERY disturbing resolution, but what makes it very sad is that our president signed onto it. Any and every liberal, including myself, should be very disturbed by this.

In my opinion, this is the one subject that should unite all people on this board. Even if the conservatives are pissed only because it says Islam and the liberals are blasé because it's being backed by one of them.

Well if we the American public were subjected to it then yes I'd be disturbed but we aren't and I'm not.

Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional? Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

Yeah if your are a hysterical little bitch.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Amused
How ironic that the very group of people who make posts demeaning of Christianity and religion in general fully support a resolution that makes speaking out against a another religion punishable by sanctions.

Seriously, folks. This is an outrageous resolution no matter what party you're from.

And this is coming from a socially liberal agnostic/atheist.

This UN resolution and the committee that created it are a danger to religious freedom and freedom of expression. Any argument to the contrary is an argument in favor of religious tyranny. Replace Obama with Bush and Islam with Christianity in this story and the very people demeaning the OP would themselves be up in arms, as would I.

The hypocrisy in this thread is astounding. President Obama pulled a real boner here and it is surprising to me that the people who consider themselves liberal here are not shocked by it.

On both sides, the ones up in arms over it usually couldn't give a shit what the UN rules.

True to a point. They do tend to bitch about the UN but then dismiss it.

Either way, this is a VERY disturbing resolution, but what makes it very sad is that our president signed onto it. Any and every liberal, including myself, should be very disturbed by this.

In my opinion, this is the one subject that should unite all people on this board. Even if the conservatives are pissed only because it says Islam and the liberals are blasé because it's being backed by one of them.

Well if we the American public were subjected to it then yes I'd be disturbed but we aren't and I'm not.

Ah, yes, but herein lies the hypocrisy. Did the left not frame their argument against the detaining of terrorists as being unconstitutional? Well now, if we are to treat foreign terrorists with constitutional rights, should we not uphold and promote those rights universally? Or is it only expedient when you oppose the party in power?

And like it our not, if this UN resolution can be used to bring sanctions against a state who's media or government is seen as violating it, can those sanctions not be brought against the US?

No matter how you look at it, it's bad. And it's even worse that our president signed onto it.

Yeah if your are a hysterical little bitch.

You're (not your) so full of crap Red with your phony toughman shit. If this was Bush and a bunch of Christians passing resolutions seeking to limit religious dissent you'd have your prissy little panties in a bunch.

Meanwhile, some of us have ideals that stand even if someone we like is fucking with them.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

Yeah, well my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said it was.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

As much as you try to validate your warped views, they're still warped. There have been a few other posters with similar views over the years and to be compared to them should be embarrassing. Once you have been made aware of this, it's up to you spend time on self-examination. I predict that if you stay on your current course, you're going to die an angry, bitter, lonely person after chasing ghosts your whole life.

Lol - your perfect. You have "insider" info from "people who know people" and now if I never went to Trinity I should step back and let the truth shine.

Rev Wright is a pretty easy call. He's an obvious racist agitator hiding behind a church ( a reason Oprah left the church - to her credit).

Wright himself reveals his church is racist when he says theologian James Cone is his "spiritual" inspiration. Cone is another obvious racist nutter:



"The leading theorist of Black Liberation Theology is James Cone. Overtly racist, Cone?s writings posit a black Jesus who leads African-Americans as the ?chosen people.? In Cone?s cosmology, whites are ?the devil,? and ?all white men are responsible for white oppression.? Cone makes this point without ambiguity: ?This country was founded for whites and everything that has happened in it has emerged from the white perspective,? Cone has written. ?What we need is the destruction of whiteness, which is the source of human misery in the world.?

Obama too thinks Whites and America are source of trouble in the world - a reason he apologizes on the world stage and seeks to suck the life out of global lead of US economy.

More from nutter Cone:

"If whiteness stands for all that is evil, blackness symbolizes all that is good. ?Black theology,? says Cone, ?refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.?


Trinity Church is garbage.
The Asian Times had good article on the church and Obama:



"The peculiar theology of black liberation"

Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a "black messiah" and blacks as "the chosen people". At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.

What played out last week on America's television screens (this article was after Wright advocated Cone as his authority on Hannity show) was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of "black liberation theology" and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JC18Aa01.html

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

Yeah, well my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said it was.

k, skippy.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

Yeah, well my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said it was.

k, skippy.

Did you really think claiming the experience of a friend of a friend was any sort of argument?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
...

There doesn't appear to be any hope for you. Have a good life, hater.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

Yeah, well my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said it was.

k, skippy.

Did you really think claiming the experience of a friend of a friend was any sort of argument?

It's closer to the source than hearing it on fox.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

Yeah, well my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said it was.

k, skippy.

Did you really think claiming the experience of a friend of a friend was any sort of argument?

It's closer to the source than hearing it on fox.

Actually, I do believe there are transcripts and recordings of the man's words floating around. May wanna check that out instead of falling back on the ever popular "faux news" routine.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: seemingly random

I saw some chicago friends last year who have some friends that go to that church. They said it's not racist or they wouldn't attend. Have you ever attended? You seem very familiar with it.

Yeah, well my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate said it was.

k, skippy.

Did you really think claiming the experience of a friend of a friend was any sort of argument?

It's closer to the source than hearing it on fox.

Actually, I do believe there are transcripts and recordings of the man's words floating around. May wanna check that out instead of falling back on the ever popular "faux news" routine.

I would guess that every church has had some preachin' that they're not proud of in retrospect. With your logic, every one of them is guilty of something.

Fox is just one source of hysterical crazies. Nice try, though. There are many others. Hopefully, you're not one, too.

 

[1prophet]

Should speech like in the case of Falwell vs. Hustler be protected, or parody satires like in the Muhammad cartoons that caused the uproar in the middle east, when it comes to religions or highly esteemed religious figures both past and present?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jman19
Hi butterbean

I been called worse.

I'm another who suspects you're the same person as Butterbean because you continually post the same kinds of malicious, racist, bigoted bullshit in the same malevolent style as he did. This thread is a fine example.

There's not much worse you could be called than Butterbean, except possibly any of the names used by Kalyan Rachakonda, aka zendari and a host of other names under which he was an equally malicious bigot. :thumbsdown:

I guess I don't see what you see. I see a lot of good discussion in this thread, along with a lot of barry bashing. I would really like to you take barry on, ie. the op, and show him how his thinking is wrong. Up to it? .....Probably not, I mean, it is so much easier to try to discredit the subject matter at hand by participating in the Gangbanging. :thumbsdown:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Amused

You're (not your) so full of crap Red with your phony toughman shit. If this was Bush and a bunch of Christians passing resolutions seeking to limit religious dissent you'd have your prissy little panties in a bunch.

Meanwhile, some of us have ideals that stand even if someone we like is fucking with them.

Stop being such a little Harpie, this isn't an American Institution, what's allowed to be said there has no bearing on our rights as American Citizens. All you hair on fire Nancies need to get over yourselves.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Originally posted by: jman19
Hi butterbean

I been called worse.

I'm another who suspects you're the same person as Butterbean because you continually post the same kinds of malicious, racist, bigoted bullshit in the same malevolent style as he did. This thread is a fine example.

There's not much worse you could be called than Butterbean, except possibly any of the names used by Kalyan Rachakonda, aka zendari and a host of other names under which he was an equally malicious bigot. :thumbsdown:

Too bad the IP's don't match, or you'd have already pulled the trigger with a big dumb grin on your face.

 

[umbrella39]

Any fool can proxy a new account, anyone with money can get a new ISP. In any event, of all the people posting here in P&N the SS should keep an eye out on this one the closest. People like this have pictures of Jodie Foster on their bedroom ceiling.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Should speech like in the case of Falwell vs. Hustler be protected, or parody satires like in the Muhammad cartoons that caused the uproar in the middle east, when it comes to religions or highly esteemed religious figures both past and present?

It should be protected and discouraged, as the resolution states. People should always have the right to speak out against ideas and ideologies they disagree with, but calling for a level of respect in the opposition dialogue isn't condemnable.