• 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."

Obama's UN Speech

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
Obama hit Iran? That will not happen.

If obama wins the election, then very shortly after that, Israel will strike and strike big at Iran. They will have nothing to lose if obama wins. If anything obama will attack Israel or at the least help Iran and not help Israel.

That is what any muslim would do.
i think you inhaled too much LOx when you used to fly.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
12,909
1,850
126
Unfortunately I am. I would hope and pray that both Israel and Iran figure out before it is too late that throwing nukes at each other is some really heavy shit.

I am a retired Marine and very conservative but there is no way that I want anyone to set off a nuke. That is one jeannie that never ought be let out of the bottle.

However, one must always keep in mind that every Jew, especially those living in Israel, have upper most in their daily lives and planning the phrase....."Never again".
Obama isn't a muslim as far as I know. You must be listening to too much limbaugh, it rots your brain.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,827
430
136
Obama isn't a muslim as far as I know. You must be listening to too much limbaugh, it rots your brain.
He reads and listens to much worse. His head along with Spideys will explode when Obama wins. They will never accept that they were wrong either if their "prophecies of doom" don't happen when he is reelected also.
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
12,909
1,850
126
He reads and listens to much worse. His head along with Spideys will explode when Obama wins. They will never accept that they were wrong either if their "prophecies of doom" don't happen when he is reelected also.
This is a big problem with conservatives, many of them aren't far past islamists on the religious ladder. They literally think the world is going to end and god is going to save them so why bother planning for the future? Use all our resources now and don't plan for tomorrow because the end is near.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,879
1,213
126
PSA-I just checked CSPAN's schedule-this speech is broadcast again tonight at 8:00 PM and 10:22 PM and is 31 minutes long. The 8:00 PM broadcast is followed by a 20 minute Romney speech at Bill Clinton's function.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Obama isn't a muslim as far as I know. You must be listening to too much limbaugh, it rots your brain.
I stopped listening to limbaugh many years ago.

....but in my opinion, obama is, repeat, IS a muslim.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
He reads and listens to much worse. His head along with Spideys will explode when Obama wins. They will never accept that they were wrong either if their "prophecies of doom" don't happen when he is reelected also.
You are right, however, it is not my head that will explode. It will be my heart and soul that will die do to sadness.

I have been wrong before. I'm sure that I will be wrong again.......someday.

I am still predicting that Romney will win with 320 EC votes.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,566
1,526
126
All I know is...
If this had been Mitt giving a speech at the UN, we'd all would have nodded off half way through.
I mean really... we would have. For real.
zzzzzzzzzzz

 
Last edited:

Orignal Earl

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2005
8,059
55
86
I stopped listening to limbaugh many years ago.

....but in my opinion, obama is, repeat, IS a muslim.
I see another wise man in another thread, crying because some Muslim wants to ban dogs, because dogs are offensive to Islam
Obama loves dogs.
Therefore Obama is Christian.
Am I right?
lol
 
Last edited:

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
Here's the full quote.

Quote:
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.
I agree with him because the purpose of the film wasn't enlightenment, it was an purposeful incitement. I don't want the world filled and run by people who have hateful intent. Note further that he's also kicked a bunch of people in the nuts here who demonstrate their hatred for Christians as well. I don't want our future determined by spiteful and petty people.
I disagree. You should be able to slander the "prophet of Islam", Jesus or any other religious figure or else you risk suppressing credible criticism by allowing subjective views on what constitutes slander to reign supreme and thus all valid debate is crush just like political correctness stifles often touchy discussions on race. Thus the future does and should have room for those who "slander" religious figures, religion itself, and/or political figures, etc because without this function of discussion being allowed we end up in a world where knee-jerk reactionaries who view even the slightest form of criticism toward their religious beliefs as "slander" and hence they end up controlling and running the level of discourse in society.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,657
136
Obama hit Iran? That will not happen.

If obama wins the election, then very shortly after that, Israel will strike and strike big at Iran. They will have nothing to lose if obama wins. If anything obama will attack Israel or at the least help Iran and not help Israel.

That is what any muslim would do.
you should have ended the paint chip diet by the time your turned 12.

sadly, your parents seem to have failed you.

:(
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,657
136
I disagree. You should be able to slander the "prophet of Islam", Jesus or any other religious figure or else you risk suppressing credible criticism by allowing subjective views on what constitutes slander to reign supreme and thus all valid debate is crush just like political correctness stifles often touchy discussions on race. Thus the future does and should have room for those who "slander" religious figures, religion itself, and/or political figures, etc because without this function of discussion being allowed we end up in a world where knee-jerk reactionaries who view even the slightest form of criticism toward their religious beliefs as "slander" and hence they end up controlling and running the level of discourse in society.
uhhhh, that's exactly what Obama said. He didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, just that the future should not belong to these people.

They very point of this part of his speech is that when such actions (this video) are allowed to incite visceral, violent responses, we all lose. He explains full well that there is no stopping this type of "blasphemous" content from appearing anywhere and everywhere in this modern world, so it is incumbent on everyone to not let these idiots "dictate the future" by giving them exactly what they want--the control of chaos. This content will exist, and it will exist for all religions (he politely requests that those who do not tolerate anti-Islam blasphemy to then equally express intolerance over anti-Jewish and anti-Christian and anti-Hindu blasphemy....which of course many of these nations relish in.)

In this statement, Obama responds directly to nutjob Pakistani parliamentarian #1 whom, earlier this week, demanded the UN adopt an "anti-blasphemey law to be enforced in all nations, and nutjob Pakistani parliamentarian #2 whom, earlier this week, offered a "$100k" bounty to the person who murders the creator of this video.

Obama says, quite directly, that this kind of antiquated behavior, this rejection of free speech, simply gives the hateful idiots of the world the power they want. You guys need to clean house and reexamine how you define freedom, because there is no stopping such "blasphemy" in the world of the internet. We already have this world of knee-jerk reactionaries that you fear, and that is, specifically, whom Obama is addressing.
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,657
136
You are right, however, it is not my head that will explode. It will be my heart and soul that will die do to sadness.

I have been wrong before. I'm sure that I will be wrong again.......someday.

I am still predicting that Romney will win with 320 EC votes.

:D:D:D:D:D

so, that tiny little pocket of inbred hillbillies which you call home represents, to you, the sum-total of the general American sentiment?

I think you need to go back to 4th grade and read up on how the EC works, and where and how these votes are distributed. I would be shocked if Romney crests 200 at this point. It's still "early," yeah....but he's only losing ground at this point.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
uhhhh, that's exactly what Obama said. He didn't say it shouldn't be allowed, just that the future should not belong to these people.

They very point of this part of his speech is that when such actions (this video) are allowed to incite visceral, violent responses, we all lose. He explains full well that there is no stopping this type of "blasphemous" content from appearing anywhere and everywhere in this modern world, so it is incumbent on everyone to not let these idiots "dictate the future" by giving them exactly what they want--the control of chaos. This content will exist, and it will exist for all religions (he politely requests that those who do not tolerate anti-Islam blasphemy to then equally express intolerance over anti-Jewish and anti-Christian and anti-Hindu blasphemy....which of course many of these nations relish in.)

In this statement, Obama responds directly to nutjob Pakistani parliamentarian #1 whom, earlier this week, demanded the UN adopt an "anti-blasphemey law to be enforced in all nations, and nutjob Pakistani parliamentarian #2 whom, earlier this week, offered a "$100k" bounty to the person who murders the creator of this video.

Obama says, quite directly, that this kind of antiquated behavior, this rejection of free speech, simply gives the hateful idiots of the world the power they want. You guys need to clean house and reexamine how you define freedom, because there is no stopping such "blasphemy" in the world of the internet. We already have this world of knee-jerk reactionaries that you fear, and that is, specifically, whom Obama is addressing.
That was not what he said in that quote. What he said was that views against slander and respect must run both ways which is different then stating that "slander" itself must be protected not because you may or may not disagree with it but because it is the only way to ensure freedom reigns supreme even when others view that "slander" as "intolerance".
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,657
136
That's cute. You can insult the messenger all you want, I am not the condemning someone for exercising free speech.
and this poor understanding you have is what is wrong with half this country.

condemning, criticizing, calling an idiot for the idiot that they are, is not the same as censoring.

it really is quite simple.

we allow the idiots to talk in this country all they want, and it is a fine thing. However, the rational, well-read people among us understand full well, that equating illogical, non-factual, slanderous and inaccurate speech with factual, relevant speech is not a benefit to society.

Giving equal time to inaccurate appeals based on nothing but passion is not a version of "unbiased reporting." Some time, and only some times, there are, indeed, 2 sides to a story. But in fact, that is rarely the case. There is often only one relevant side...but many people just don't accept that for what it is.

One thing has become clearer and clearer to me: the angrier and louder the increasingly shrinking, less educated, and radically minded wing of a party has become, voicing their irrational, deluded mantras couched in nothing but paranoia and revealing a basic fear of education, the more this voice is crying about "protection of free speech!" "You won't listen to me, so you are denying my free speech!"

That, in itself, is a clear indicator that a poor understanding of history and philosophy--likely due to personally supported cuts in public education--has fed the internal beast, serving only to keep this sector more and more uneducated, more and more paranoid and fearful of demons that simply do not exist.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,657
136
That was not what he said in that quote. What he said was that views against slander and respect must run both ways which is different then stating that "slander" itself must be protected not because you may or may not disagree with it but because it is the only way to ensure freedom reigns supreme even when others view that "slander" as "intolerance".
so....then why ignore the rest of his statement where he explains quite clearly that the intent of protecting free speech is to protect unpopular speech? that censoring unpopular speech would lead us towards censoring our critics?

He explains all of this quite elegantly. Do you make a habit of drawing out a pair of words from what anyone will say, and draw conclusions on what they say from those words, all the while ignoring the actual argument?

I mean...there is no reason to expect him to say all of that in one sentence, when it takes you more than a sentence to explain what is missing. Obama very clearly makes this argument--it is part of his story, this is how appeals through public speech work. I'll dig it up, as I just read through it, and post it momentarily:

OK, here it is. in the middle of page 4 from the transcript linked earlier. It is actually in the speech before he mentions the "slanderers of Islam" bit.

We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities. We do so because, given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression, it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obamas-2012-address-to-un-general-assembly-full-text/2012/09/25/70bc1fce-071d-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story_3.html
 
Last edited:

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
I disagree. You should be able to slander the "prophet of Islam", Jesus or any other religious figure or else you risk suppressing credible criticism by allowing subjective views on what constitutes slander to reign supreme and thus all valid debate is crush just like political correctness stifles often touchy discussions on race. Thus the future does and should have room for those who "slander" religious figures, religion itself, and/or political figures, etc because without this function of discussion being allowed we end up in a world where knee-jerk reactionaries who view even the slightest form of criticism toward their religious beliefs as "slander" and hence they end up controlling and running the level of discourse in society.
If you note the Obama said that we give people the right to do just what you say. They can shoot their mouths off as they please. The point wasn't that people can't be critical but that those who use speech as a weapon of hate to purposefully "yell fire in a theater" if you will shouldn't have any part in a rational society. Consider the call by some to slay the man who made the movie? A hundred thousand dollars on his head. How about the calls of hate that causes the deaths of our ambassador and others? Sure they might have an abstract right to do so, but those people running things? I hope not.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,804
20,657
136
If you note the Obama said that we give people the right to do just what you say. They can shoot their mouths off as they please. The point wasn't that people can't be critical but that those who use speech as a weapon of hate to purposefully "yell fire in a theater" if you will shouldn't have any part in a rational society. Consider the call by some to slay the man who made the movie? A hundred thousand dollars on his head. How about the calls of hate that causes the deaths of our ambassador and others? Sure they might have an abstract right to do so, but those people running things? I hope not.

exactly. He draws this out quite pointedly, and is, as I mentioned in my post, directly addressing those Pakistani parliamentarians that were making such ludicrous calls for "anti-blashpemy" laws.

I mean, one actually has to read (or listen to) the speech to digest the argument. If anyone wants to take one line out of context and wave it around claiming it's the entire argument...well, that would be their right to do so.

Just don't tell me I'm "infringing on your free speech" by telling you that you are a disingenuous, lazy, and "contextually-challenged" simpleton to try and base an argument off of this baseless strategy. ;)
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
O'Bamma is incapable with going with his gut. Not only that he is incapable of speaking on his own. You might ask why did O'Bamma take so long to make a response to this terrorist attack? The answer is that President O'Bamma is bumbling fool and everytime he makes a respons he is scared he will say something stupid so he waits till his speech writers can make a formal reply and then he gives a prepared speech. The man is incapable of thinking and speaking intelligently on his own.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
If you note the Obama said that we give people the right to do just what you say. They can shoot their mouths off as they please. The point wasn't that people can't be critical but that those who use speech as a weapon of hate to purposefully "yell fire in a theater" if you will shouldn't have any part in a rational society. Consider the call by some to slay the man who made the movie? A hundred thousand dollars on his head. How about the calls of hate that causes the deaths of our ambassador and others? Sure they might have an abstract right to do so, but those people running things? I hope not.
Do you consider the video that spawned all this hubbub the equivalent as "yelling fire in a theater"? I don't. Not even close, in fact there is nothing similar between the two.

I believe Obama very eloquently explained Free Speech and I don't think in anyway he said he would come out in favor of censoring Free Speech at all. I do not know where some of you are drawing that conclusion. That video was idiotic and also happened to be offensive to some, oh well.
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,020
9
81
Can someone show me were Obama says those people don't have a legal right to say what they did, were Obama said such speech must be banned. I can't seem to find it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY