I didn’t say you didn’t understand the resolution. I said you misrepresented it. You know you did. You’re just flailing now.
Repetition avails you nothing. I presented the resolution as I understand it. I gave the reasons I opposed it. Which are the same reasons that have been advanced by Canada and India and a host of people and organizations around the world. We all oppose it because it advances and encourages the idea that blasphemy or other attacks on religion should be illegal. Which is how I represented it. Or as I put it in my first mention, it it trying to advance the idea that it should be illegal to call Mohammed a flaming asshole. The main supporter of the Resolution, the OIC, has stated that explicitly. The opponents of the Resolution have also stated that explicitly. Jonathan Turley said:
The Christian Science Monitor sees very clearly what the issues at stake are:
Scoop News in New Zealand says:
The supporters of the Resolution don’t agree with you either, Dio. The Egyptian Representative, said that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” said that there should be limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and said “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”
The EU representative spoke out against this interpretation, saying “the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media” goes “well beyond” existing international law and “the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms.”
Of course, all of us from all around the world, atheists, countries, news media, secular organizations, all of us are wrongwrongwrong, because Dio says so … again … and again … and again … and again … and again …
Me, I think the US Supreme Court was right when they said:
Because despite your claims, this fight is not about whether “Muslims are human beings … m’kay”. It is about whether states have the right to criminalize people saying things against religion and religious figures. This is only a non-binding skirmish in that long running battle … but to think that it is just innocent Muslim fun is a dangerous delusion.
Repetition avails you nothing. The Resolution does nothing, and encourages no abridgement of speech. All this crap you’re posting is meaningless. All that matters is what’s in the text of the resoultion, which isn’t even binding in the first place.
I’m not the one contradicting myself, dear. Here you go:
Reviewing the interaction, you made a false claim, viz:
I asked for a cite, saying:
If you can’t tell the difference between somebody saying “it was Obama’s resolution” and somebody saying “So if Obama didn’t know about it, shame on him,” then you should have paid more attention in your Remedial Reading class, dear.
All I said was that Obama should have known about it, and if he didn’t know about it, it’s his fault. Why? Because this resolution in one form or another has been proposed every year since 1999. It has been a hotly disputed item, one Obama should have known about.
Doesn’t make it his resolution, I didn’t say it was, and your cite is a joke, dear.
You said that last time. You’d likely say it next time. Each time I bring in new information, add more citations, provide fresh quotes and ideas. Each time you say NO IT ISN’T NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU, as if simple denial without further citations or new thoughts actually meant something.
I provided the text in question, posted a New Zealand news article pointing out how it is ambiguous, but that a simple reading of it clearly upholds my position. I quoted various people who are very concerned by it, from the EU to news media to commentators. I quoted the head of the OIC, which has been pushing this Resolution in various forms for ten years, saying what their aim is — to make blasphemy illegal.
And you come back to say NO IT ISN’T … I give up, no more pig wrestling on this topic for me.
I do have to thank you for your idiocy, however, it has allowed me to lay out and explain and substantiate my position much more clearly than if you had just let it go … you should learn to quit while you’re behind.
Countdown to NO IT ISN’T in 3 … 2 … 1 …
Just admit you were making shit up and move on to your next Fox and Friends talking point. You’re making yourself look ridiculous.
Hee hee … my countdown was right on time. Moving on now …
Does Obama have any unpaid parking tickets you would like added to the indictment?
I was unaware that he had been indicted. I’ve said he’s done things I like and things I don’t like, which is probably true of everyone here … except there seem to be people here who have a big problem actually admitting that Obama’s done anything they don’t like.
So tell me, elucidator. Has everything that Obama has done met with your pure unadulterated approval? And if not, what has he done that you disapprove of?
Let me start, to give you an idea of how it’s done. I disapprove of his hands-off approach to health care reform. I think we could have had a stronger bill if he had been more proactive, if he had been more supportive of the public option, and if he had not left it to Nancy.
I disapprove of his not taking a stronger stand against the pork in the stimulus bill. It wasn’t a lot of pork, but I think it was foolish to let Democrats put any pork in the bill, it hurt the party.
Your turn …
No virgin is ever elected Queen of the Whores, sunshine. Wasn’t trying to elect a saint, was trying to pick the one with the less running sores and scabs. I’m on the conservative wing of the extreme left and have never voted and most likely never will vote for a candidate who’s opinions matched my own.
But haven’t you noticed how alone you are in all of this? That people are not tumbling in to roll around on the floor and moan about some feckless UN resolution? Now, maybe that’s because we’re all a bunch of Obama worshippers, lacking your critical skills.
Or maybe…you’re just wrong. Be that as it may, your willingness to indict an entire religion with the certainty denied to mortals…well, that says a lot about you, and none of it is very good.
This is quite funny. I say I don’t like some things Obama has done, and you jump all over me, you abuse me for my unbelievable gall in not approving of his every move.
So I ask if you approve of everything Obama has done, and if not, to give us an example … and you start hallucinating in your haste to avoid actually answering a simple question.
Say what? Virgins? Queen of the Whores? Sores and scabs? What on earth are you talking about, sunshine? Grab your left nut for luck and stop prancing around, take a stand here. You are curiously unwilling to list a single thing Obama has done that you disapprove of. To avoid voicing your disapproval of Obama on a single issue, you lapse into talking in tongues and babbling metaphors … and while it is hilarious to watch you tap-dancing as fast as you can, it is hardly conducive to a discussion. Stand up and be counted, ya wimp!
I note, for example, that you have not been willing to condemn a religion that, in the 21st century, still approves of the stoning of women, the killing of apostates, and the chopping off of hands. Well, that says a lot about you, and none of it is very good. Yes, I am a mortal who is certain that stoning of women is barbaric … odd that you aren’t. I do not condemn Muslims, I have no problem with them, by and large they’re just folks like you and me … but Islam is barbaric.
Lots of people around the planet are upset about the UN Resolution, including countries and a long list of very different groups, atheist, religious, free speech, news media. I don’t know whether or not anybody cares on this thread. Dio doesn’t, you don’t, Sam Stone does, I do … hardly a large sample. Have you noticed that you’re also “alone on this”, that nobody is “tumbling in” on either side of the question?
In either case, whether or not I am alone in this is immaterial to me. Do you expect me to decide what is right and wrong by taking a vote? Unlike you, I consult my conscience, not the changing winds of public opinion. I don’t need a focus group, or the approval of my peers, to know that stoning women to death is a barbaric practice. I make up my own mind, without concerning myself in the slightest whether or not people are “tumbling in” to support me … you should try it yourself sometime.
You said it was introduced by the US. If you can’t read your own posts, that’s not my fault.
Not alone. You ignore the vast pool of lurkers (which is what I mainly do in GD) at your peril, but after reading the various unsubstantiated drivel being tossed in Intention’s direction, I feel compelled to step in (tho I’ll undoubtedly have to clean the dog crap off of my shoes when I’m done, which is why I usually don’t in the first place, as it often keeps this chronic insomniac up half the night to get them all nice and shiny again).
Yep, he’s a Dittohead all right, Hannity’s most loyal fan. You know that a stopped clock can be right twice a day, and maybe once in awhile the wingnut ranters can be right about something (for the wrong reasons of course)? <heads explode>
Umm where has he “indicted an entire religion”? All I’ve seen are concerns about various barbaric Islamic practices (along with concerns about the quaffing of free speech condemning same)-that hardly qualifies as a wholesale indictment. And I’ll note several people involved directly in this thread have absolutely no qualms about indicting the entirety of Christianity with the broadest of brushes when it suits them. Can you spell the “H” word? I knew you could. :rolleyes:
Obama doesn’t seem very concerned about human rights and restoring the rule of law as he indicated he would during the campaign (includes indicting the guilty, up to and including Cheney and even Bush if need be). This worries me, as I would have expected him to state, in no uncertain terms, that such practices are incompatible with a modern democracy, and to get said laws changed ASAP. And the signing statement in question also bugs me, even if it doesn’t have the same force of strength that a purely national law would. I’m not afraid to state my opinion on these issues, EVEN IF Hannity and his despicable ilk (and, to be sure, I absolutely loathe him and his “friends”) also criticize him for it (again, not because they are truly concerned about such things, but because it scores them Brownie Points with the wingnut base). Note said link is to a very progressive blog where several diaries have been posted raising such issues.
And, to show that I am not above calling BS BS, I’ll state my agreement with RNATB’s post 693, and thus indicate my disagreement with Intention on said (relatively minor) point.
That’s the thing - I’m not sure he has done anything I don’t like. He’s certainly not done things I would like him to do - DADT, shutting down the Bush homeland snooping nonsense, etc. - but off the top of my head I can’t think of anything he’s done that I would undo.
So when Bush does it, it’s actually snooping, but when Obama does it, it’s just not stopping snooping. That’s an interesting distinction.
I assume that if you believe Bush lied about Iraq, he didn’t actually lie, he just continued what Clinton did.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, please. I said, and I quote,
Now a) that is true, and b) it still doesn’t mean I said what you claimed, that it was “Obama’s resolution”. I never said that.
You do understand, I hope, that the Resolution was co-sponsored by Egypt and the US?
Truly, I don’t understand your point here. You jump up and down about something I never said. Why?
My request was implicity for things undone as well as done. And I agree with your list, I am not happy about DADT.
However, I’d put his support of the Bush spying on the list of things done rather than not done. Obama has actively pursued the Bush bullshit line of “can’t say, go 'way, it’s 'portant government secrets” in the courts, and that’s definitely doing something.
John, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Your example regarding stating your positions whether or not Hannity holds the same position is something I have been trying to get across without success. Sometimes I agree with Hannity or Beck or Rush, most of the time I don’t. The continued Obama support of domestic spying is one place where I may agree with them (don’t know if I do, since I don’t watch them, for all I know they may support domestic spying).
But as you point out, whether or not someone agrees with Beck or Rush is meaningless about whether that person has good, valid, true points or not. It doesn’t matter whether what I said is a “Republican talking point” or not … the question is, is what I said true? Anything else is just an attempt to divert attention by a personal attack on me, the tired old “guilt by association” ploy that Dio who can’t be intimidated and elucidator trot out with pathetic regularity.
I’m trying to find a way to do some outreach here, but I’m stumped. Your stance on Islam isn’t merely ill-informed and intolerant, its just plain down-home scratch-butt stupid. Do you blame the Unitarians for the Inquisition? Blame the Episcopalians for David Koresh? Hitler was nominally a Catholic, we should blame the Catholic Workers Party for the Holocaust?
Islam is not an discrete entity, it doesn’t possess the quality of “thingness”. There are noble and wise Muslims, there are Muslims who are possessed of the same dead dog stupidity that you espouse. Whatzamatta you?
This isn’t just wrong, its totally wrong, its galaxy-wide stupid, it does for dumb what a black hole does for “heavy”. I’d have better luck arguing with a hammer. A rusty hammer! Hell, even atheists have some nuances, there are atheists who shrug with bemused tolerance, and atheists who shriek themselves hoarse at the very notion of a spiritual life.
You have Muslim friends? Have you told them what you think? Tell you what, if you do and they forgive you, if they continue to regard you with compassion and affection, then you are in the presence of better people than you are. You should sit and their feet and take notes, because you got a lot to learn.