we just have difference opinions about the difference between speech and violence. its never morally wrong to state an opinion. even if you are a child molester, the talking about it is not a problem. its the doing that is bad. try to see the difference between thought and action.
Very true. Then why, pray tell, didn't the President denounce the film when it was released? It wasn't until after the Muslims started trashing embassies that he spoke up. Is he denouncing the hate speech, or pacifying the enemy?
Ask any muslim. From my point of view, this Egyptian was intentionally taking advantage of our freedoms, stirring the pot and trying to create global mayhem. We cannot allow enemies of the US to cause us trouble by exploiting free speech. It is sad that you do not understand this. Both are wrong. They are not mutually exclusive.
How is managing a crisis that has cost American lives being a pussy? It ain't. How is freely speaking the truth being a pussy? It ain't. But you would know more about being a pussy than I.
Is he supposed to review every post on You Tube? Get real. Hate speech has to rise to the point it can be recognized. There can be no denying it from the results. What enemy? Our terrorist enemies have always and will always be hostile. The President was trying to pacify the average muslim in the street, who is NOT our enemy. That is his job.
Red I think what Martin is getting at is that it's ok to say we had nothing to do with the video, but at the same time you have to denounce muslim extremism. Anyone who get thats bent out of shape and gets violent for someone making fun of, or disrespecting some dead dude needs to be taken out back and put down. Our freedom to say whatever the hell we want to say should be defended at all times, regardless if you are some pastor in Florida, to those Westboro idiots, to anyone with a voice.
misplace of blame. film did not cause trouble muslims did. did the victims of 9/11 cause their own deaths by participating in a free secular democracy? stop judging actions by the reactions of lunatics. what the fuck are you even talking about? are you an expert on mohammad? what about his portrayal wasnt true? is citizen kane reprehensible for its portrayal of hearst? is all the kings men reprehensible for the portrayal of long? you seem to have completely pussied out. do you also condemn salman rushdie?
correct. the only real point for obama to make is that the government had nothing to do with it. stupid people in stupid countries dont understand that. they think everything has the approval of the government r it wouldnt exist. thats because those people are savages that live in savage nations with corrupt and overpowering governments. so its a decent point to remind those fuckheads that american say whatever they want without any approval from the government. also of note is that muslims object not only to this particular portrayal of mohammad, but any images of him at all. if i draw a stick figure on a napkin an label it as mohamad i am in the wrong according to them. i hope red doesnt call me reprehensible.
Now you are just repeating yourself and saying pussy a lot. Come back when you have a logical argument that I haven't shredded already.
