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

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,784
20,614
136
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.
not sure where you dug up this assumptive pile of horseshit, but I've seen Obama speak long before he was president, and it's roundly clear that the man knows how to give a speech. Every president has speechwriters, to varying degrees. To assume that this is more a product of his staff than of the man himself, is simply being obtuse and internally hateful--simply, no reason to assume the negative, in the clear absence of any sound evidence of such.

What you see here is arguably one of the best foreign policy speeches delivered by a POTUS over the last decade, maybe even 15 years--generally no one, on "either side of the fence" has found any fault in this--yet all you can do in repsonse, is bury your head, and call the man a brainless twit?

interesting. I wonder what stellar insights into foreign policy and world culture you can illuminate us with, in obvious contrast to the words of this "fraudulent, petty man?"
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
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.
It doesn't exist except for people trying to connect dots that don't exist.

Honestly reading his words on free speech and then watching him say it, it kind of made me emotional. I hold free speech/expression in extremely high regard, it's one of the most valuable things in the world to me.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,784
20,614
136
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.
of course it is equivalent.

So, I assume you are living in the world the rest of us are living in, right? You have access to the same news streams, the same reality....you don't exist in a separate dimension, right (like spidey, Craig, pilotguy, etc)?

Anyone knows what will happen when someone yells "fire" in a theater. If it is intended to get people out, because there truly is danger, it will..."work" (but not very well, of course.) If someone yells it with the intent of creating the same type of chaos, but only with ill intent, the same will happen. Some people will likely die in a stampede, and as such, this speech is not entirely protected.

[--WARNING TO THE SLOW: Before you proceed with the next paragraph, it is important to realize that I make no judgement on the rightness/or wrongness of the known situation it describes. That judgement comes later in my post. One must RESIST the desire for strawman, and taking a comment out of context, and proceed---]

So...most of us are aware of what kind of world we live in. We know that when somebody draws a cartoon of Muhammed, or creates an art piece, or writes accurate interpretation of the personal history of prophet (whether or not it is inaccurately seen as blasphemous), or creates some ridiculous video, we have now 3 decades of history that tells us what will happen. Idiots will react violently. You are creating a fire in the theater situation.

NOW--does that make it right that people react in such ways when they perceive such things as blasphemous, giving them the right to kill in response? Most of us would say no1 of course not! Does it mean that we should actively censor people that want to create such inflammatory content? No! of course not! But to ignore the very clear reality that such actions will indeed incite these reactions is extremely naive, or willfully obtuse. That is, simply, the world that we live in. (It's like banning guns in the US--sorry, what's going to happen to the 500 million guns that are out there? They aren't going to disappear...)

Either side of what we think of is "right," can never ignore the reality of the world we live in. This is exactly what Obama is saying--this is exactly why we have protected speech, for all speech. He never calls for this video, or future similar videos to be banned. Never.

He states, quite clearly, that this is the world we live in. You have a very small minority of extremist fuckwads that simply act as the fuse to the tinderbox of other like-minded idiots that are prancing around waiting to fan the flames.

The only way to eliminate either of these groups is accept tolerance, because right now, they aren't going anywhere, and there is no "ban," of any type, that will ever satisfy any of them. Therefore, there is only one other option: more speech, more information, more freedom...more tolerance of tolerance, zero tolerance of intolerance.

that's it. It's a simple, effective argument for a preposterously complicated world. The cynic in me believe it will never work in this world, and maybe not...but we can hope, can't we?

It's still better than the "turn them all into glass" argument you hear from one camp.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
No it is not an equivalent. Just because we know those assholes will respond like assholes, doesn't make it an equivalent. It means they are assholes who do not know how to act like "adults". Also, do you know why we know they do this shit? It's the same reason you have so many anti-Islamists. Their fucking Quran.

Quran 5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

BTW, so if I make it common knowledge that I will blow up any Dairy Queen that dares advertise their storefront, then them advertising their storefront would be equivalent to yelling fire in a theater? Don't be stupid. There is no equivalence between the two and it is seriously grasping at straws to fucking make one.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
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.
There is a huge distinction between yelling fire in a crowded theater (creating a false sense of danger that actually puts people's lives in danger as they react instinctively to safe guard their physical lives) versus some obscure video purportedly denouncing or insulting another person's/group of people's religious views which any sane person can ignore or respond to via a civil manner vs rampaging like a rabid mob of animals. The aforementioned example you mentioned involves a gut animal reaction of fear the later involves a conscious decision to either put your brain in gear or let it spin in perpetual "outrage".
 
Last edited:

jhbball

Platinum Member
Mar 20, 2002
2,915
16
81
I stopped listening to limbaugh many years ago.

....but in my opinion, obama is, repeat, IS a muslim.
Well, you are a low life hick piece of shit, so that's not a surprise.


Also, it's time to change your diaper.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
There is a huge distinction between yelling fire in a crowded theater (creating a false sense of danger that actually puts people's lives in danger as they react instinctively to safe guard their lives) versus some obscure video purportedly denouncing or insulting another person's/group of people's religious views which any sane person can ignore or respond to via a civil response. The aforementioned involves a gut animal reaction of fear the later involves a conscious decision to either put your brain in gear or let it spin in perpetual "outrage".
The comparison is that the intent was to cause problems. That it would result in the level of disaster beyond that which is foreseen doesn't change that at all. Even then if you parse the speech you will see that it was said that the film maker had the right to do it. I say he had that right too. So he has the right. He also didn't make a documentary for educational purposes. Right or wrong there's little doubt as to the reason this was done. Like those who killed he had a belly full of hate. No he didn't go and kill anyone, but can you honestly tell me that people who have so much hatred that they devote considerable resources to spreading it are those who should be making foreign policy for example? Should they have the freedom of expression to come and teach your children to feel as he does? What about those in the ME who do? Should they?

Again the point isn't whether the film can be made. It can and that's been stated. What it's about is whether people like that should lead. I think it's an awful think if it happened. Even then he can run. That doesn't mean he should be selected.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,784
20,614
136
There is a huge distinction between yelling fire in a crowded theater (creating a false sense of danger that actually puts people's lives in danger as they react instinctively to safe guard their physical lives) versus some obscure video purportedly denouncing or insulting another person's/group of people's religious views which any sane person can ignore or respond to via a civil manner vs rampaging like a rabid mob of animals. The aforementioned example you mentioned involves a gut animal reaction of fear the later involves a conscious decision to either put your brain in gear or let it spin in perpetual "outrage".
I would posit that the latter situation, to the right group of people, represents the same gut, instinctual reaction, if the person knows nothing else of life, do to upbringing--call it brainwashing if you want.

Yes, I agree that there is a philosophical difference between the two, but the assumption of this being a problem attributable only to an "uncivil rabid mob of animals," is, for lack of a better term--"western-pomorphizing" the situation.

Do I think these people are nuts? Do I think they are rabid idiots? YES! But this loud and violent minority is not entirely representative of this region of the world and in fact, they are generally representative of entrenched reactionaries, but I digress and..that isn't the argument here.

It's more simple than that--and you already admit to knowing that this is exactly how this segment of people will react. Read: we know the outcome of x statement, and we know the outcome will represent a certain danger for a specific segment of people (think: westerners on vacation, our embassies, our soldiers, etc.)

both examples represent a known negative/threatening reaction.

we already recognize "yelling fire" as protected, but not equally protected free speech. I certainly advocate far, far stiffer punishment for that, compared to NO punishment for someone insulting someone else's religion.

Of course, simply arguing that angry Muslims need to grow thicker skin isn't going to help anything.

....this video was made by an Egyptian. Not an American....and a Felon. We know this, Anyone has access to this information, yet the USA is still attacked over this. what does that tell us? Is our dedication to freedom of speech seen as "inadequate" by some segments of this world? Yes, certainly...but I think the larger lesson in this is that this isn't really the reaction of logical, endemic peoples--we see plenty of them out in the streets in support of the USA--but entrenched, radical fundamental instigators simply looking to create chaos. The source really doesn't matter. They will create their own story. As such, banning or censoring such speech does nothing for anyone. Obviously, they will always be mad. Leading by example, explaining why we protect this type of speech, even if few of us like this kind of stupid, hateful speech (and we don't), we choose to allow anyone in our country to denigrate whatever religion they hope to.


Were this man not a felon, and were he a US citizen (he isn't right?), then he would rightfully be offered protection from the US Intelligence services, as was afforded to Rushdie for his first 2 years of hiding (though...granted, Rushdie was writing fiction and was, himself saying nothing that was not historically known, Further, there was no knowledge-ever-of an official fatwa).


Of course....this man is no artist, he is no social martyr for justice--he's a plain-spoken idiot with a peppered criminal past. Good luck finding any state willing to offer such protections
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
The comparison is that the intent was to cause problems. That it would result in the level of disaster beyond that which is foreseen doesn't change that at all. Even then if you parse the speech you will see that it was said that the film maker had the right to do it. I say he had that right too. So he has the right. He also didn't make a documentary for educational purposes. Right or wrong there's little doubt as to the reason this was done. Like those who killed he had a belly full of hate. No he didn't go and kill anyone, but can you honestly tell me that people who have so much hatred that they devote considerable resources to spreading it are those who should be making foreign policy for example? Should they have the freedom of expression to come and teach your children to feel as he does? What about those in the ME who do? Should they?
I could link a host of videos which slander, belittle, decry, etc Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc and all religion itself made by atheists, comedians and even religious people. Yet regardless of the intent of the authors of these videos none of those videos themselves are justification or an excuse for murder.

Furthermore whether or not the video was "educational" or not is completely irrelevant. A video alone criticizing or slandering someone's religion does not have the power to cause someone else to murder another human being unless that "outraged" person already has murderous intent and pre-established justification to act violently already cemented in their own mind long before they had a chance to be angered.

Again the point isn't whether the film can be made. It can and that's been stated. What it's about is whether people like that should lead. I think it's an awful think if it happened. Even then he can run. That doesn't mean he should be selected.
The film did not cause these people to commit murder their inability to deal with that which they disagree with and the political and religious organizations which spurred them on to commit murder played more of a role then a video that no one knew about until terrorist elements used it to knock on our door the day after 9/11 to remind us that they have some power to sway gullible and ignorant masses of people.

In the end "Freedom of Speech" is not intended to protect or promote tolerant or popular speech but to protect and allow for that which we would consider personally offensive to be heard because maybe, just maybe it might be a undeniable truth someday that pisses us off rather then some sloppily made low budget obscure video that any sane person could rationally dismiss and filter out.
 

DucatiMonster696

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2009
4,269
1
71
I would posit that the latter situation, to the right group of people, represents the same gut, instinctual reaction, if the person knows nothing else of life, do to upbringing--call it brainwashing if you want.

Yes, I agree that there is a philosophical difference between the two, but the assumption of this being a problem attributable only to an "uncivil rabid mob of animals," is, for lack of a better term--"western-pomorphizing" the situation.

Do I think these people are nuts? Do I think they are rabid idiots? YES! But this loud and violent minority is not entirely representative of this region of the world and in fact, they are generally representative of entrenched reactionaries, but I digress and..that isn't the argument here.

It's more simple than that--and you already admit to knowing that this is exactly how this segment of people will react. Read: we know the outcome of x statement, and we know the outcome will represent a certain danger for a specific segment of people (think: westerners on vacation, our embassies, our soldiers, etc.)

both examples represent a known negative/threatening reaction.

we already recognize "yelling fire" as protected, but not equally protected free speech. I certainly advocate far, far stiffer punishment for that, compared to NO punishment for someone insulting someone else's religion.

Of course, simply arguing that angry Muslims need to grow thicker skin isn't going to help anything.

....this video was made by an Egyptian. Not an American....and a Felon. We know this, Anyone has access to this information, yet the USA is still attacked over this. what does that tell us? Is our dedication to freedom of speech seen as "inadequate" by some segments of this world? Yes, certainly...but I think the larger lesson in this is that this isn't really the reaction of logical, endemic peoples--we see plenty of them out in the streets in support of the USA--but entrenched, radical fundamental instigators simply looking to create chaos. The source really doesn't matter. They will create their own story. As such, banning or censoring such speech does nothing for anyone. Obviously, they will always be mad. Leading by example, explaining why we protect this type of speech, even if few of us like this kind of stupid, hateful speech (and we don't), we choose to allow anyone in our country to denigrate whatever religion they hope to.


Were this man not a felon, and were he a US citizen (he isn't right?), then he would rightfully be offered protection from the US Intelligence services, as was afforded to Rushdie for his first 2 years of hiding (though...granted, Rushdie was writing fiction and was, himself saying nothing that was not historically known, Further, there was no knowledge-ever-of an official fatwa).


Of course....this man is no artist, he is no social martyr for justice--he's a plain-spoken idiot with a peppered criminal past. Good luck finding any state willing to offer such protections
I'm not willing to lower our standards of freedom so that others in the world don't get offended or so that people who wantonly throw around accusations of being slandered, or claims of intolerance can have a free pass to censor or hush other people up. It also doesn't matter who made the video or why they made it. They had a right to do so and everyone else has/had a right to ignore them which was what occurred up until Islamic terrorists decided to behave like savages and used this obscure video that no one knew about as an excuse to murder innocent people. So yes they need to buck the fuck up.
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,144
3,838
126
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.
My wonderful fellow American, I am very sad too. I know you believe what you say and I know it makes you look insane in my eyes. But I don't want to grind you into the dirt like a black widow spider, just because you are filled with such loathing. I know what that loathing is and I feel it too. But it makes me sick that I feel that way for a fellow American and I do not want to let it master me, so in those too infrequent moments when I am see the pain reality will bring I want to extend my hand. You are none of the things you are being called here. You believe in the truth that you see not because you are evil, but because you are guided by morality. You and I and the people who spit on you are the same, differing only in what they believe morality to be.

That you would die for a fellow marine on the battle field I do not doubt for a second. I bow down to you for that. I just hope you can see more and more Americans as your fellow marines. I believe it is possible to stand proudly for the truth without always having an enemy to hate. I don't like what I would call your blindness, but I like you.

I know nothing but I would think that a soldier needs to assess the battlefield and adjust to the terrain, and be able to separate the enemy from the civilian population or he may wind up killing friend rather than foe. Maybe just maybe you misjudged who Obama is. The speech he gave today made profound sense to me and shows something of his inner character. It would never have been written by a post turtle in my opinion.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
My wonderful fellow American, I am very sad too. I know you believe what you say and I know it makes you look insane in my eyes. But I don't want to grind you into the dirt like a black widow spider, just because you are filled with such loathing. I know what that loathing is and I feel it too. But it makes me sick that I feel that way for a fellow American and I do not want to let it master me, so in those too infrequent moments when I am see the pain reality will bring I want to extend my hand. You are none of the things you are being called here. You believe in the truth that you see not because you are evil, but because you are guided by morality. You and I and the people who spit on you are the same, differing only in what they believe morality to be.

That you would die for a fellow marine on the battle field I do not doubt for a second. I bow down to you for that. I just hope you can see more and more Americans as your fellow marines. I believe it is possible to stand proudly for the truth without always having an enemy to hate. I don't like what I would call your blindness, but I like you.

I know nothing but I would think that a soldier needs to assess the battlefield and adjust to the terrain, and be able to separate the enemy from the civilian population or he may wind up killing friend rather than foe. Maybe just maybe you misjudged who Obama is. The speech he gave today made profound sense to me and shows something of his inner character. It would never have been written by a post turtle in my opinion.
He didn't write that speech. He is a masterful speaker but he lies and is a consummate politician saying what he thinks he needs to say to keep the masses fooled so he can continue with his destruction of America. That was his father's dream and continues to be his. Putting America in its "place".
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
65
91
He didn't write that speech. He is a masterful speaker but he lies and is a consummate politician saying what he thinks he needs to say to keep the masses fooled so he can continue with his destruction of America. That was his father's dream and continues to be his. Putting America in its "place".
The only fool is you. As I have said before, you are a nasty, bigoted old kook. It will make me happy picturing you scowling in your basement on election night.

So let's get this straight: You think the President is a Muslim. Do you also think he was born outside the US, that he is a terrorist plant, and/or that he is or might be the anti-Christ?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,144
3,838
126
He didn't write that speech. He is a masterful speaker but he lies and is a consummate politician saying what he thinks he needs to say to keep the masses fooled so he can continue with his destruction of America. That was his father's dream and continues to be his. Putting America in its "place".
This is all lies, then, but it's what he said:

“I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video,” said Obama. “The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.

“Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense,” said the president.

“Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs," he said. "As President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views--even views that we profoundly disagree with."

I can't change your mind. I can only feel sad that you are so blind. I try only to see the good intentions you have behind it, protecting the country from a monster President, voted in by a majority of the people who had a different vision.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,880
4,212
126
I could link a host of videos which slander, belittle, decry, etc Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc and all religion itself made by atheists, comedians and even religious people. Yet regardless of the intent of the authors of these videos none of those videos themselves are justification or an excuse for murder.
I didn't say it did.
I agree.
Furthermore whether or not the video was "educational" or not is completely irrelevant. A video alone criticizing or slandering someone's religion does not have the power to cause someone else to murder another human being unless that "outraged" person already has murderous intent and pre-established justification to act violently already cemented in their own mind long before they had a chance to be angered.
Who's arguing that point? Not me.

In the end "Freedom of Speech" is not intended to protect or promote tolerant or popular speech but to protect and allow for that which we would consider personally offensive to be heard because maybe, just maybe it might be a undeniable truth someday that pisses us off rather then some sloppily made low budget obscure video that any sane person could rationally dismiss and filter out.
You seem to keep arguing against a point I'm not making. In all of this did I ever say that people can't say what they want? I did not. What I DID and DO say is that people who are full of hate shouldn't be put in positions of power. There is no legitimate place for that. I don't care if they sweep the streets or build skyscrapers. They can be on welfare or Buffet. I don't care. I just don't want them running things. Stop addressing things you wish I had said.

I'll turn this around. Why do you want hateful people in office? Why should I vote for one? Why should terrorists be considered fit for office? How about just those who are so enraged they can't be objective? What standard do you think I should lower myself to to accept them in positions of leadership?

Note that no where did I say that they can't say what they want.
 

dawheat

Diamond Member
Sep 14, 2000
3,123
71
91
Excellent speech with well reasoned arguments. It's frustrating that some folks try to pull out individual phrases in an intellectually dishonest manner, missing the point he's trying to make.

Why America is the greatest country in the world:
I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video. The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech. Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. Moreover, as President of our country, and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day, and I will always defend their right to do so. Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views – even views that we disagree with.
The truth - those who are sucked in by extremists with promises of glory mainly get death or destitution:
That brand of politics – one that pits East against West; South against North; Muslim against Christian, Hindu, and Jew – cannot deliver the promise of freedom. To the youth, it offers only false hope. Burning an American flag will do nothing to educate a child. Smashing apart a restaurant will not fill an empty stomach. Attacking an Embassy won't create a single job. That brand of politics only makes it harder to achieve what we must do together: educating our children and creating the opportunities they deserve; protecting human rights, and extending democracy's promise.
Hatred is the enemy, in all its forms.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

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.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
The only fool is you. As I have said before, you are a nasty, bigoted old kook. It will make me happy picturing you scowling in your basement on election night.

So let's get this straight: You think the President is a Muslim. Do you also think he was born outside the US, that he is a terrorist plant, and/or that he is or might be the anti-Christ?

“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” obama
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Bus a rider, didn't you draw the equivalence of fire in a theater to this? There is no equivalence. I'm glad ducati came in here to help take that stance. There is no equivalent.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,033
65
91
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” obama
In context:

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

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.

Among Israelis and Palestinians, the future must not belong to those who turn their backs on the prospect of peace. Let us leave behind those who thrive on conflict, and those who reject the right of Israel to exist. The road is hard but the destination is clear – a secure, Jewish state of Israel; and an independent, prosperous Palestine. Understanding that such a peace must come through a just agreement between the parties, America will walk alongside all who are prepared to make that journey.

In Syria, the future must not belong to a dictator who massacres his people. If there is a cause that cries out for protest in the world today, it is a regime that tortures children and shoots rockets at apartment buildings. And we must remain engaged to assure that what began with citizens demanding their rights does not end in a cycle of sectarian violence.

Together, we must stand with those Syrians who believe in a different vision – a Syria that is united and inclusive; where children don't need to fear their own government, and all Syrians have a say in how they are governed – Sunnis and Alawites; Kurds and Christians. That is what America stands for; that is the outcome that we will work for – with sanctions and consequences for those who persecute; and assistance and support for those who work for this common good. Because we believe that the Syrians who embrace this vision will have the strength and legitimacy to lead.

In Iran, we see where the path of a violent and unaccountable ideology leads. The Iranian people have a remarkable and ancient history, and many Iranians wish to enjoy peace and prosperity alongside their neighbors. But just as it restricts the rights of its own people, the Iranian government props up a dictator in Damascus and supports terrorist groups abroad. Time and again, it has failed to take the opportunity to demonstrate that its nuclear program is peaceful, and to meet its obligations to the United Nations.
I really wish you'd take me up on my election bet, since you continue to boldly predict, against all odds, a significant Romney victory. You are a creepy old bigot.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
US is walking out on Iran lead err. Way to show that we support the UN and diplomacy. Retarded. Our leaders have no clue.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
18,022
9,459
136
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.
C'mon now, there are plenty of secular conservatives out there. Let's not paint an entire political faction with the Blessed Brush of Evangelical Stupidity!

I agree though, many religious conservatives here seem to adopt a similar mindset as those zealots in the East. It's as disturbing as it is depressing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY