Originally Posted by playwrite

F U a-hole.

Neither I nor the Cairo embassy excused anything.

What they said BEFORE the attacks was that bigoted Americans, like you, don't help us win hearts and minds.

Once there were attacks, they condemned the action in the strongest of diplomatic terms. Moreover, 50 Marines (unlike you, real men that actually put their lives on the line) have been detached, Predator drones are on their way to backup surveillance drones, and two cruisers with cruise missiles stationing offshore so try not to wet your bed tonight.

Like Romney, your infantile bluster and blunder, Bush-like cowboy bullshit is exactly what makes it easy for terrorists to get the upper hand on swaying hearts and minds their way and not ours.

Your shit is not only stupid beyond belief, but it is unpatriotic and gets our people killed. Like Romney, the best thing you can do for your country is STFU.

F--- them, their hearts and minds are already didicated to Islam and Islamic violence.

Originally Posted by Weave

Another internet tough guy....

H-m-m-m. PW was a Marine in his time and his son is one today. What's your story?

Originally Posted by B Butler

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is no class of speech that is protected absolutely. This has been adjudicated on several occassions. There is a great phrase one SC Justice used to describer this, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

I always liked, "Your freedom to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins."

I guess that's the difference between a Boston Brahmin (Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.) and guy from the Rust Belt (Robert H. Jackson). Holmes was certainly the more eloquent and noted as pithy during his entire public career. Jackson, the last SC Justice to make it that far without attending law school, was simply blunt. They both got the point across, each in his way.

FWIW, I 've always been fond of the Holmes quote myself.

There are several disconnects here. A couple of them grate. First, we have a supposedly Christian preacher preaching hate, deliberately pushing anti-muslim provocation. Secondly, when a US extremist provokes middle eastern extremists, they extremists don't go after the other extremists, but after the most convenient and provocative target.

One of my recurrent themes is the 'spiral of violence and rhetoric'. When one side does something, the other side feels compelled to do something more extreme in order to force the other side to back down. Things get out of hand when the other side doesn't back down, but instead escalates.

I'm seeing it on these forums on the rhetoric side, at least if one considers foul language to be a form of rhetoric.

But I don't know that our Floridian preacher is really responding to or addressing the muslim extremists. Seems to me he just wants face time in the press. That people die because he likes publicity doesn't seem much relevant to him.

Did I mention that I don't much care for ideological extremists?

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

F--- them, their hearts and minds are already didicated to Islam and Islamic violence.

No. There are still words as well as ordinance going in both directions. What people say and do is still important. The notion that an extremist can spout words and throw bombs without regards to consequences is irresponsible.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Originally Posted by Weave

Meanwhile back at the ranch....

Median income is down to 1995 levels.....well done Obama...well done....

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ed14f...#axzz26IenHv8d

You notice that it started plummeting in 2006, right?

Worse, it stopped rising in the '70s .... 40 years of pro-business, supply-side baloney. Apparently, it isn't over, since neither major party has any intention of supporting working people. The only difference is the degree of hostility.

Nate Silver of Five Thirty Eight has a theory on why there has been a larger than normal convention bounce for the Democrats. Polls Since Conventions Point to Decline in ‘Enthusiasm Gap’

Crudely, the theory is that in off season elections, the Republicans are more apt to get off their butts and vote. Thus, there is a difference between a 'who do people prefer' polls and 'among likely voters, who do people prefer'. In a presidential election, if the democratic candidate riles up emotions, if he makes his base enthusiastic, more Democrats are apt to get to the polls.

The theory is that the Democratic Convention got people more riled up.

Originally Posted by Odin

A person has a right to be a bigoted **hole. Others also have a right to criticize and mock the person being a bigoted ***hole, but no one has any right to get violent in response to that person. Whoever made the film is a hateful bigot, but he has a right to spew his hate as long as he is not directly terrorizing others with it. The rioters are clearly in the wrong and I am rather angry how many of my fellow LWers over at Democratic Underground are supporting censorship.

I agree that censorship is not warranted, but there may be a case for incitement to riot, if that can be shown to be the intent of the producer and distributor. In that case, it isn't the speech that's bad, per se, even though the film seems to be totally tasteless and vile in its own regard.

Originally Posted by Weave

Plenty of people here are blaming the video as to why terrorists murdered Americans...thus excusing them for thier actions

Wrong. That is NOT excusing them for their actions.

Let me tell you exactly what I believe. The video, if it contributed to the situation at all, is far from the main cause. The main cause is U.S. policy towards the rest of the world and towards the Muslim world in particular. Or I should say, that part of the Muslim world that's oil-rich. Other Muslim countries we don't so much care about. Terrorist groups target the U.S. because we come to their countries, bomb the crap out of them, every once in a while invade and occupy them, and much more often support tyrants over them. On top of which (because everything gets wrapped up in religion for these folks) we're a bunch of infidels with no respect for God. But just being a bunch of infidels with no respect for God wouldn't provoke terrorist action; it takes the other stuff, and then being infidels with no respect for God is just icing on the cake.

Now you're going to have to do a little bit of thinking here and not try to reduce everything to a gut feeling or a bumper-sticker slogan, which I know is not habitual for you but try -- you can do it.

The statement, "they commit terrorist actions against us because we treat them really, really badly" and the statement "committing terrorist actions against us is wrong," are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It is entirely possible for BOTH of them to be true. And in fact, I believe them both.

Further: failing to believe BOTH of them can be true is a recipe for failing to correct our OWN mistakes (or crimes), and so continuing the provocation that leads to terrorist action. Failing to correct our own mistakes (or crimes) because that would be somehow "soft on terrorism" would be, frankly, stupid.

Being stupid is not a requirement for being righteous. You are calling on us to be stupid.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that censorship is not warranted, but there may be a case for incitement to riot, if that can be shown to be the intent of the producer and distributor. In that case, it isn't the speech that's bad, per se, even though the film seems to be totally tasteless and vile in its own regard.

Hillary Clinton is speaking on this now. She appears to be supporting freedom of expression regarding the video. I do hope that this doesn't embolden the makers of the video and others to continue provoking Muslims in this manner.

Another point to be raised with regard to the recent round of embassy attacks is that the Arab Spring is being turned. For a decade plus Al Qaida has been trying to blame the US 'great Satan' on all the middle east's problems. Food shortages and prices recently led to the Arab Spring, where bad autocratic government has taken the blame and has been the target.

Me, I believe the underlying problems involve global warming, crop failures, rises in food prices thus real life style problems. While the Arab Spring got rid of some really bad dictators, the replacement governments weren't really able to address the underlying problems. Thus, while the Arab Spring seemed from the west to be a good thing, I was dubious. So long as the US is increasingly turning grain to fuel, China turning grain to meat, while global warming induced crop failures become increasingly likely, we should not be happily clapping the Arab Spring.

There is conjecture that Al Qaida participated in the Libyan consulate attack. The penetrating attack used tactics and weaponry inconsistent with your typical mob protest. I shouldn't be surprised if they aren't attempting to shift the focus of arab anger from horrible dictators back to the United States. After all, Al Qaida's goal isn't to get rid of horrible dictators, but to become horrible dictators. It is in Al Qaida's interests to preempt the Arab Spring, to change the focus of arab anger from their own poor politics and economics to a blame the US spiral of rhetoric and violence.

My feeling is that if it will get him a few votes, Romney will play along with Al Qaida's ploy. He seems to care more about winning votes than minimizing the spirals of violence and rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

H-m-m-m. PW was a Marine in his time and his son is one today. What's your story?

Well I used to be a Law Enforcement officer and I now teach teenagers, you can decide which is more hazardous....

Michigan back in Obama's column on Real Clear Politics. The electoral score is now 237-191.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that censorship is not warranted, but there may be a case for incitement to riot, if that can be shown to be the intent of the producer and distributor. In that case, it isn't the speech that's bad, per se, even though the film seems to be totally tasteless and vile in its own regard.

I thought "incitement to riot" refers to direct rabble-rousing of a lynch mob and similar things. With this movie it sounds like Islamists made up crap about this stupid film being on every TV in the US and is "The official US government position" and that is how the outrage over this turned into a riot.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Hillary Clinton is speaking on this now. She appears to be supporting freedom of expression regarding the video. I do hope that this doesn't embolden the makers of the video and others to continue provoking Muslims in this manner.

Making a movie is not "provoking" fir god sakes. The muslims need to learn to grow up and get over it. If they don't and use violence then they pay the consequences.

Originally Posted by Odin

I thought "incitement to riot" refers to direct rabble-rousing of a lynch mob and similar things. With this movie it sounds like Islamists made up crap about this stupid film being on every TV in the US and is "The official US government position" and that is how the outrage over this turned into a riot.

They aere pi$$ed off that we haven't put the guy on trial. T

The muslims need to grow up and get over it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Wrong. That is NOT excusing them for their actions.

Let me tell you exactly what I believe. The video, if it contributed to the situation at all, is far from the main cause. The main cause is U.S. policy towards the rest of the world and towards the Muslim world in particular. Or I should say, that part of the Muslim world that's oil-rich. Other Muslim countries we don't so much care about. Terrorist groups target the U.S. because we come to their countries, bomb the crap out of them, every once in a while invade and occupy them, and much more often support tyrants over them. On top of which (because everything gets wrapped up in religion for these folks) we're a bunch of infidels with no respect for God. But just being a bunch of infidels with no respect for God wouldn't provoke terrorist action; it takes the other stuff, and then being infidels with no respect for God is just icing on the cake.

Now you're going to have to do a little bit of thinking here and not try to reduce everything to a gut feeling or a bumper-sticker slogan, which I know is not habitual for you but try -- you can do it.

The statement, "they commit terrorist actions against us because we treat them really, really badly" and the statement "committing terrorist actions against us is wrong," are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It is entirely possible for BOTH of them to be true. And in fact, I believe them both.

Further: failing to believe BOTH of them can be true is a recipe for failing to correct our OWN mistakes (or crimes), and so continuing the provocation that leads to terrorist action. Failing to correct our own mistakes (or crimes) because that would be somehow "soft on terrorism" would be, frankly, stupid.

Being stupid is not a requirement for being righteous. You are calling on us to be stupid.

That wasnt the argument being made. It was about freedom of speech vs "sensitivity" towards the Muslims. Our foreign policy inthe Middle East has at times been bad but also it has done many positive things to which we seem to never credit for.

Some here are simply advocating censorship to avoid offending Muslims as if that will ever be enough to satisfy the extremists who dominate the agenda there. This plays right into the hands of the extremists, in fact it makes their point for them. The film was simply a pretext. That hate our western values, our treatment of women, our openness to allow differing opinions.


Simply withdrawing from the region will not satisfy them. Perhaps when we are all praying to Allah 5 times a day they might stop the madness...

Originally Posted by B Butler

There are several disconnects here. A couple of them grate. First, we have a supposedly Christian preacher preaching hate, deliberately pushing anti-muslim provocation. Secondly, when a US extremist provokes middle eastern extremists, they extremists don't go after the other extremists, but after the most convenient and provocative target.

One of my recurrent themes is the 'spiral of violence and rhetoric'. When one side does something, the other side feels compelled to do something more extreme in order to force the other side to back down. Things get out of hand when the other side doesn't back down, but instead escalates.

I'm seeing it on these forums on the rhetoric side, at least if one considers foul language to be a form of rhetoric.

But I don't know that our Floridian preacher is really responding to or addressing the muslim extremists. Seems to me he just wants face time in the press. That people die because he likes publicity doesn't seem much relevant to him.

Did I mention that I don't much care for ideological extremists?

You do understand the differnce between words and violence, right?

Originally Posted by playwrite

F U a-hole.

Neither I nor the Cairo embassy excused anything.

What they said BEFORE the attacks was that bigoted Americans, like you, don't help us win hearts and minds.

Once there were attacks, they condemned the action in the strongest of diplomatic terms. Moreover, 50 Marines (unlike you, real men that actually put their lives on the line) have been detached, Predator drones are on their way to backup surveillance drones, and two cruisers with cruise missiles stationing offshore so try not to wet your bed tonight.

Like Romney, your infantile bluster and blunder, Bush-like cowboy bullshit is exactly what makes it easy for terrorists to get the upper hand on swaying hearts and minds their way and not ours.

Your shit is not only stupid beyond belief, but it is unpatriotic and gets our people killed. Like Romney, the best thing you can do for your country is STFU.

They do excuse it, by equating a film with violence.

Are you confused on this?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Wrong. That is NOT excusing them for their actions.

Let me tell you exactly what I believe. The video, if it contributed to the situation at all, is far from the main cause. The main cause is U.S. policy towards the rest of the world and towards the Muslim world in particular. Or I should say, that part of the Muslim world that's oil-rich.

It is natural for you to believe this. Your world view is class and economic driven. Many in the Middle East are not idealistic socialists. They are deeply religious. Like many, you have difficulties stretching your thoughts to embrace other world views.

Originally Posted by Weave

Do you eat with that mouth?

Obama was not on the same page as his Embassy and they issued 2 statements, one after the attack that reiterated what they said earlier, while condemning the embassy attack. The attacks came on 9/11. Looks like Obama was caught with his pants down. No heightened security on this day??? They didn't expect anything to happen yesterday? This movie was hardly the motivation for the Benghazi attack. Obama's embrace the "Arab Spring" and the Muslim Brotherhood is having very negative consequences.

I'm amazed how many liberal are now saying "politics stop at our shoreline" a convenient excuse now that we have a Dem Pres. Where were those arguments in 2003-09. John Kerry, Hillary and Obama never seemed to observe this during the War in Iraq....In fact on several occasion in 2008 after a high casualty event Obama was out attacking Bush and McCain immediately.

I agree with you about the Marines, they truly are heroes. They are fight for our rights to free speech as well as other freedoms, and I certainly hope for your sons safety and well being. I can however assure you that as a former Law Enforcement officer every time I made a traffic stop or other "routine" police activities my life was on the line. When have you put yourself out there serving others at risk to your safety?

Anyways feel free to continue your personal attacks I wont getting sucked back into hurling personal insults...

And to anyone out there reading this I referred to Playwrite earlier as a "libtard" I know this word offends some of you so I wont use it again. I was responding to Playwrite use of the "Tea-bagger" a sexual innuendo. However its no excuse I shouldn't have got sucked into the personal attacks...

Here is the actual quote that got Mittens into his hissy fit -

We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others,”

Do you notice what I bolded? "THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT" how does that in any way suggest the lack of belief in free speech?

What they are rejecting is "hurt the religious belief of others." That was in reference to the movie AND it was meant to calm the mob gathering outside the perimeter. Neither you nor Romney were in the compound that was at risk and neither you nor Romney have been or presently stationed in Cairo to assess what was needed at that time to diffuse the situation. No, you and Romney were back in the States seperated from the action by two oceans and protected by thousands of our military, intelligence and diplomatic assets that defend with their lives your belief that it is okay to put them at greater risk so you can sniff your superior sniff about freedom of speech that you and Romney have NEVER come close to EVER having to defend yourselves on foreign soil.

Moreover, here is what was in Romney's talking points -


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ibya-response/

Questions & Answers:
Don’t you think it was appropriate for the embassy to condemn the controversial movie in question? Are you standing up for movies like this?

– Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance.

and further -

– If pressed: Governor Romney repudiated this individual in 2010 when he attempted to mobilize a Quran-burning movement. He is firmly against any expression of religious hatred or intolerance.

Now you explain to me how Romney's prepared Q&As differ from the Cairo statement.


And as far as personal attacks, I can’t think of anything worse than telling someone they’re excusing terrorists. In person, you can call me a libtard or whatever you want. But you accuse me of that, I can guarantee you wouldn’t be walking away under your own power.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here is the actual quote that got Mittens into his hissy fit -



Do you notice what I bolded? "THE UNIVERSAL RIGHT" how does that in any way suggest the lack of belief in free speech?

What they are rejecting is "hurt the religious belief of others." That was in reference to the movie AND it was meant to calm the mob gathering outside the perimeter. Neither you nor Romney were in the compound that was at risk and neither you nor Romney have been or presently stationed in Cairo to assess what was needed at that time to diffuse the situation. No, you and Romney were back in the States seperated from the action by two oceans and protected by thousands of our military, intelligence and diplomatic assets that defend with their lives your belief that it is okay to put them at greater risk so you can sniff your superior sniff about freedom of speech that you and Romney have NEVER come close to EVER having to defend yourselves on foreign soil.

Moreover, here is what was in Romney's talking points -


http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ibya-response/



and further -




Now you explain to me how Romney's prepared Q&As differ from the Cairo statement.


And as far as personal attacks, I can’t think of anything worse than telling someone they’re excusing terrorists. In person, you can call me a libtard or whatever you want. But you accuse me of that, I can guarantee you wouldn’t be walking away under your own power.

So when will this apply to christians?

Or atheists, now that I think about it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Our military is supposed to be used to protect American i.e. democratic values.
The freedom to post a crappy and insulting video on youtube certainly qualifies as one of those.
Censorship of political speech (and it seems like pretty much everyone agrees that's what the movie was) is not ok. Period.

In other words:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...123010848.html

Ah, defender of the wretchedly stupid; I was wondering when you would show up.

Here's a little experiment for you.

Go to the inner city and find some young black males hanging out on a corner. Go up to them and ask them how they like being Afro-Amer but instead use the N-word. [If that particular scenario doesn't work for you, I think you can find the equivalent involving a group of White or whatever people just as easy]

Now, why would you not do that?

1. You are not extremely stupid.
2. You are not extremely bigoted.
3. You would personally get the shit beat out of you.

Now the thing about Weave is 1 and 2 would not stop him because, well, he's not like you.

The only thing that stops Weave is #3.

This is not about freedom of speech, it’s about needlessly putting other peoples' lives in danger and thinking you have the right to do that so you do it. It's about being a coward.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

F--- them, their hearts and minds are already didicated to Islam and Islamic violence.

There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in this world and you want to F all of them.

Yea, that makes you really special.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Ah, defender of the wretchedly stupid; I was wondering when you would show up.

Here's a little experiment for you.

Go to the inner city and find some young black males hanging out on a corner. Go up to them and ask them how they like being Afro-Amer but instead use the N-word. [If that particular scenario doesn't work for you, I think you can find the equivalent involving a group of White or whatever people just as easy]

Now, why would you not do that?

1. You are not extremely stupid.
2. You are not extremely bigoted.
3. You would personally get the shit beat out of you.

Now the thing about Weave is 1 and 2 would not stop him because, well, he's not like you.

The only thing that stops Weave is #3.

This is not about freedom of speech, it’s about needlessly putting other peoples' lives in danger and thinking you have the right to do that so you do it. It's about being a coward.

The next time some guy puts out a movie that offends the bible thumpers, and the the bible thumpers go on a rampage, will that be your story?