Nitpick: the state forces you to buy auto insurance, not the Feds.
But obviously, they were kidding.
Never mind.
Yes, it is non-binding. However, that does not mean that it “has no actual effect”.
Two countries and 180 organizations of all types do not find it “meaningless”. Why? Because it provides cover and encouragement for the criminalization of free speech. It supports what is a dangerous trend in the modern world, as I illustrated above, where not only Islamic but Western societies are making free speech a crime.
Who supports the Resolution? The Organization of Islamic Countries, and Dio … do you have to be hit with a clue-by-four to see who you are siding with here?
Perhaps the Resolution doesn’t bother you. It bothers me. It also bothers Canada, and India, and 180 organizations, and cartoonists, and a host of other folks who are concerned about free speech. Atheist groups. Religious groups. Civil libertarian groups. Artist groups.
Which is kind of a not-so-subtle hint that the concern about it is not meaningless. Bloggers in Egypt, the other sponsor of the Resolution along with the US, are being thrown in jail for dissing Islam … I rather doubt that those bloggers think that concerns with free speech are “meaningless,” even non-binding resolutions. Why do you think Egypt co-sponsored the resolution?
a) Because they support people being nice to each other.
b) Because they support throwing people who disagree with the Egyptian Government in jail.
Tough question, I know …
Thanks … I think …
Wow, you’re actually trotting out this crap? You get a lot of your legal education from Rush Limbaugh, do you?
The resolution has no effect whatsoever on anything. All this stupid, weaselly language you keep resorting to like “gives cover to” and “encourages,” is just desperate, straw clutching, specious demagogery. You posted a falsehood. I busted you on it. The end. I’m sorry it galls you so much that the UN made a banal statement that Muslims are human beings. You are not forced to agree. You are allowed to keep hating Muslims to your heart’s content.
Move on to whatever the next item is on your Glenn Beck, talking points email.
Here’s the charming folks whose UN Resolution you are supporting, the Organization of the Islamic Conference:
So those are your allies in this attempt to further the loss of free speech, and that’s a crystal clear statement of what they are aiming for. Not getting Muslims recognized as human beings. Not a “banal statement”. Criminalizing blasphemy.
And this Resolution is just the latest step in their attempt to achieve that.
To mislead the credulous, the Resolution is being misrepresented as a statement that “Muslims are human beings.” It is not. It is another lost opportunity in the battle against the efforts of the OIC and Islamic countries (and you, who are providing cover for them) to criminalize blasphemy. Get it straight.
The Islamic countries think blasphemy should be a crime. They have been trying to pass UN resolutions to that effect for some time. This is just the latest one. The previous one didn’t pass because it was stronger. So they’ve passed a weaker one … but if you think this is the end of the battle, thing again.
You’ve picked your side. But you can give up the idea that this is some simple feel-good resolution. It is another small fight in the unending OIC/Islamic battle to criminalize free speech. Only someone very foolish and short-sighted could mistake one for the other.
Other people and countries and organizations, lots of them, from around the world, who can see further than the end of their keyboard are opposing this trend. That should be a clue for you, but probably won’t be.
You may not realize that attacking me using “Guilt by Association” merely verifies your ignorance, so here’s a few clues. From Wiki:
Or, in your terms:
That idiot Glenn Beck who is wrong, wrong, wrong makes claim P.
intention also makes claim P.
Therefore, intention is an idiot who is wrong.
Please note that this argument you love so much is a well-known and long-stablished fallacy, and that repeating it over and over ad nauseam merely verifies your stupidity and your lack of valid arguments.
PS - You give Glenn Beck much more credit than I do. I doubt that he is smart enough to write and send an email …
This is not a quote from the resolution, so it’s irrelevant, and doesn’t make your assertion about it any less false.
I’m not saying you’re wrong because you agree with Beck. I’m saying he’s where you get your talking points.
You said it was Obama’s resolution.
These are the words of a bigot. I offer you the opportunity to retract them. Otherwise, you are no better than those you condemn, your wretchedness is simply of another type, a different form of the deadly virus of hate. You are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
May the Ironic Buddha shut your mouth, and open your heart.
In the 21st century, any religion that upholds and supports the burying of women up to their waists in the ground and stoning them to death is horrific and primitive.
In the 21st century, any religion that upholds and supports killing people who leave the religion and speak out against it is horrific and primitive.
In the 21st century, any religion that upholds and supports chopping off people’s hands for theft is horrific and primitive.
All of those things are done because those are the specific punishments spelled out in the Koran.
But heck, if you don’t like those adjectives, propose your own adjective for a group that kills people if they leave the religion and speak out against it. Kind? Gentle? The Religion of Peace™? You tell us what you would call a religion that espouses and upholds and supports those things.
Clearly, you don’t understand that those are the same thing …
It does not matter where I get my “talking points”, whether it is from Glen Beck or the Dalai Lama. All that matters is the substance, not who else might have said it at some point or another. To attack me because I “agree with” or “get my talking points from” Glenn Beck is simply your pathetic attempt at guilt by association.
The OIC was one of the main backers of the Resolution. I quoted it to give you a sense of what the aim is of the people who are backing the Resolution.
Even you should be able to make that distinction. The backers of the Resolution want to see blasphemy made a criminal act. In the discussion of the Resolution, that is a relevant fact. It speaks directly to the question of the intention of the Resolution, which is what we were discussing.
Oh, please, do you have to constantly prove the aptness of your screen name? Is that the best you can do? But in any case, give us a cite for where I said it was “Obama’s resolution”.
The resolution does not say what you claimed it says. You were wrong. Just cop to having been wrong and move over to your next Sean Hannity talking point.
A US army psychiatrist with an Arab name shot up a military base today. I’m sure you can make some hay out of that. Has Sean Hannity told you how to blame it on Obama yet?
The Dio unending NO IT ISN’T NO IT ISN’T NO IT ISN’T …
Your constant repetitions do not add up to anything more than boredom. Nor do your repeated attempts at guilt by association. Try adding something new to the conversation, just repeating your claim that you are right is a joke.
Actually, I take that back. You have added something new. Now you are implying that I am biased against people with an “Arab name” … cite?
You’re projecting, dawg. The resolution speaks for itself.
Your constant repetitions do not add up to anything more than boredom.
[/quote]
Projecting like a motherfucker.
Let’s just say I took a wild guess.
Just like the rest of your idiotic assertions … but heck, I guess accusing somebody of ethnic prejudice based on a “wild guess” is perfectly all right on your planet.
Your repeated accusations that I don’t understand the Resolution are right up there with the best of your wild guesses. I suppose your other wild guess is that Indian and Canadian UN Representatives and the 180 different organizations who have spoken out against the Resolution don’t understand that the Resolution just means “Muslims are human … m’kay” either. Lots of deluded people out there who are too stupid to understand UN Resolutions, I guess.