""The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others"" - secretary of state. are you able to comprehend that theo van gogh and salman rushdie denigrate the religions of others, as do i? do you think that quote applies to their works as well? again, do you think: ""The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others" or dont you? yes or no. cant do it, can you. i can answer the question. i have opinions. i think the secretary of state was full of shit. but that is just me i have opinions and answer questions.
Don't ask a question and answer it yourself, dipshit. The answer is that I can't answer for the President. This is why your examples are dishonest and trite. His comments did not address Salman Rushdie so neither of us know how far he extends it. Why do you cowardly refuse to answer the repeated question . . . Why do you have a problem with criticism of the Mohammed film, Salman Rushdie or anybody else. That is also free speech, is it not? Yes or No?
I don't have a problem with free speech, Hillary Clinton can be disgusted all she wants by whatever she wants. The problem is that the state department, and the president and Secretary of State are speaking as agents of our government, making claims about what is reprehensible and what isn't. I don't approve our our government t taking positions on works of art, film, or music or novels or whatever. Private citizens do that, but our government is explicitly banned from endorsing religious opinions. That Mohammad is worry of respect is a religious opinion. You and I can weigh in on that, but the government cannot and should not. Still too afraid to answer my questions from before? I can ask again.
The Constitution does not require your approval. Realize that the elected government is free to take diplomatic positions on behalf of The People. Some of the people may disagree, but such is the way of democracy. Consider also that they were taking a position on the inciting of violence in the name of America, not on works of art, film, music, or novels. They defended freedom of expression at the same time. They eschewed the idea that offensive media is an excuse for violence. They did their job to protect Americans abroad and defend America's reputation. Freedom of speech is a privilege that comes with responsibilities, not an right without restrictions. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre, nor incite a riot, these are limitations of long legal standing. While defending the individual right to express, we can also express diplomatically that it incites violence and does not represent US policy. Our government did not endorse a religious opinion. The government was and should be concerned that foreign public sentiment is worthy of respect. The foreign media was whipping up the notion that the United States of America was insulting them! The government did its job in explaining that individuals in the US can make personal statements that are not endorsed by the government. And it worked. You refuse to admit that the rioting stopped shortly after the clarification came out. And you cannot say that this constitutes endorsing a religion. It simply does not. Go back and read my answer. Stop wasting my time.
the government did endorse a religious opinion. it is a religious opinion that mohammad is sacred and silly movies disrespect him and are are offensive. two opinions: 1: some coptic christian. he thinks something about religion 2. muslims. they think some other thing. our government has sided with the violent idiots. our government agrees that this fellas version of coptic christianity or whatever is offensive and reprehensible. they took a side. on a religious issue. thats wrong. yes, like salman rushdie and theo van gogh. foreign public sentiment is that these guys deserve to die for speaking out. i have made no comment on this. i see no value in stopping riots or protests. those are not the same thing as terrorist attacks on our ambassador. thats all i care about. sand niggers can protest whatever the fuck they want for as long as they want, good for them. thats not the concern. all that was needed was better security, not apologies about free speech.
More people need to speak out against Islamic extremists, and teachings that treat everyone except Islamic males with their shit stained hands like scum that is beneath them. People shouldn't shy away from hard truths.
They did not. They specifically spoke out against the violence and said that there was no excuse for it. I quoted them. You lie. No, No, No. There were no religious sides to take except that of the United States of America. Religion was not the issue. The issue was that the anger in the streets aimed at AMERICA was misplaced because the offending media came from an individual. And as soon as Al Jazeera reported the American response to the riots, they settled down. And the Netherlands must deal with their own issues of misplaced anger. This is not a philosophical issue. There were actual riots in the streets in a dozen countries, raging at the United States of America. It had to be answered lest it grow. So it was and the problem is gone. Yet the video is still out there and its maker is free to make more. No free speech was compromised. Proper information was disseminated and the problem went away. This is a real world, not a black and white philosophical issue. You are acting martinian as you often do when confronted by a situation with gray scales. you are confusing issues. The offending video caused the rioting in several countries. The assault on the temporary consulate was a terror act unrelated to the video. It's not about you and your philosphy. They did their jobs as diplomats to deal with misguided Anti-american protests that put Americans abroad in danger. Wise up and think about practical realities for once in your life. Again you confuse the issues. Better security was needed for sure, but it was a temporary consulate and the ambassador knew what he was doing was dangerous. Shit happens. The issue is supposed to be about the offensive video inciting riots. You are changing the subject again. But absolutely no apologies about free speech were given. You lie.
yes they did. the extremists aregues tht the video was offensive, and the administration agreed. both are wrong. the coptic guy and i, we do not think the video is offensive. the US governmetn and the islamists are taking the opposing viewpoint. they are taking a side. nope. video was about muhammad. offensive or not? religious question.i have a viewpoint, the government should not. but they did. they agree with the muslims. thanks! which is yet anther reason the administration fucked up. they continued to mention the video and that was the big controversy that mitt raised. the question here is how much we compromise our values and be pussies. do we defnd freedom or sell it out when sandniggers get loud? i will mention this anecdote again. salman rushdie was asked if he could go back in time, would he act differently and not have to deal with the fatwa. he said , and i quote: "that is pussy talk". this is why a fat ugly fuck was banging padma lakshmi: at some point we as a nation have to stop being cowards, stop blaming ourselves for violence directed against us. this dude knows what i am talkin bout:
Now you are just repeating yourself and weaving it into your bent personal worldview. Spare me. Come back when you have something new.
That's cool. We have different ideas about the world. In other news: fact, I ran the manhattan half marathon this morning and I got sweaty and my hair froze into icicle dreads
