It might be hard to quantify, but there’s absolutely no limit to how low the liberals will sink when trying to pursue their agenda. Even when their lies and propaganda have been proven to be just that–lies and propaganda, they will stick to their guns.
I remember during 2004 presidential elections some liberal “journalist” on CBS ( I think ) basically came up with a completely bogus story about George W. Bush military service. The whole story was exposed as hoax in about 5 minutes, but this “journalist” (I’m using the term very loosely) continued to maintain that his pack of lies was the truth years after it was proven the whole story was just a bunch of made up bullshit
Do women who wear short skirts provoke being raped and definitely bear some responsibility, if they are raped?
Drawing a cartoon provokes people to go on a murderous rampage…
Just when you thought the insane liberal rationalization couldn’t get any wackier…
When did this happen? You couldn’t possibly be talking about the Killian Documents, a case where Dan Rather was duped by bad intel, the story was almost immediately retracted, and everyone involved lost their jobs. It shares the noteworthy distinction to most right-wing hoaxes that the network actually cared whether the truth was told. This is your best example? A case from 10 years ago where the left screwed up, immediately copped to it, and fired those responsible? But no, I’m sure republicans are just as honest when their bullshit is called. I mean, Bush apologized for misleading us into Iraq right about the same time that… Uh… Baboons learned to take tea in a civilized manner.
That’s a totally failed analogy. Presumably women who wear short skirts are doing so purely for short-skirt-related reasons, not in a deliberate attempt to enrage or anger others.
I then typed out a bunch of stuff about the very tricky issue of victim-blaming when it comes to rape, but I think it’s outside the scope of the thread. So I will just restate what I said in my last post, which you casually dismissed:
The purpose of free speech is to protect and ensure the right to persuade. It is bound by common sense and common decency. Was this gathering called to protect the right of free speech, or just that one little thread of it, the right to insult a particular figure. Knowing full well that such a gathering simply cannot help but enrage and terrify! American Muslims.
Why is this necessary, why is it urgently necessary, that we must take emergency action? If the people who organized this really were on about free speech, why Mohammad? So it becomes clear that this is not about free speech, but about him and the religion that follows him.
It was a hate rally. And the horse upon in which it rode. I am willing to accept that there is no legal way to infringe upon such speech without risking the thing itself, I am a reluctant free speech absolutist. Draping the dignity of the First Amendment over this is secular blasphemy, a golden chalice as a chamber pot.
People just ought to have better sense. And damn their eyes, they do not mean well.
(And, goddamit! does it always have to be Texas! There’s a whole bunch of mean assholes in Oklahoma, I know, I’ve been run out of there!)
Part of persuasion is being provocative. Thumbing your nose at the accepted morality. See: Piss Christ.
Is having the right to express something, but still being responsible for the consequences of that expression, really something that some people can’t reconcile?
I would be very interested in seeing that proof. Bush’s official records, released by the Pentagon, show that after receiving millions of dollars worth of training in the ANG unit famous for keeping the rich and powerful out of Vietnam, there were several long stretches where nobody in the ANG saw him; that he was grounded, permanently, for refusing to take a physical shortly after they began including drug tests; and that he was discharged well short of his six-year commitment. Just google “bush military service.”
It’s true that the documents publicized by Dan Rather turned out to be fake, and he lost his job for it, unlike all the conservative commentators who were totally wrong about the war, and all the Fox News personalities who spew bullshit daily. But it’s widely believed that it was a very slick false flag operation dreamed up by Karl Rove to defuse the real facts behind the story, and it seems to have worked.
It’s also true that you can find anything on the internet, including exaggerated accusations that the facts will not support, e.g. Bush was guilty of desertion, or that his honorable discharge was a fake. But that doesn’t mean that he didn’t pull strings to get into a cushy reserve unit to avoid combat, and it doesn’t mean that even after doing that, he blew off many of his service obligations, without any repercussions.
The rich and powerful live in a different world than you and I.
The quickness with which Dan Rather’s document was debunked suggests that it was indeed a setup. With Karl Rove being a highly visible White House aide, I think it’s more probable the grunt work was done by one of Rove’s apprentices.
Republican politics definitely relies on Big Lies. GWB was a shirker? Impugn his war hero opponent. Joe Wilson proved the yellowcake purchase was a lie? Make the story about Wilson and his wife. White House broke the law outting Valerie Plame? Make the story about some N.Y. Times reporter.
The Dan Rather case is a good example. The story he reported was true, so the Rovians rished to plant the “false flag” and it all turned into a story about Dan Rather instead of GWB.
These people should be in prison. Instead there’s a 50-5- chance they’ll get the keys to the White House back a year from November.
Okay, so if Christians riot and murder over blasphemy, then that’s on those who blaspheme.
There are only two people who had anything to do with the war with a chance at being in the White House. Both of them are Democrats. If liberals were serious about punishing those responsible for the war, then their Presidential field would look like ours: mostly new faces. Instead, your frontrunner supported and voted for the war and the person who is supposed to “save” the party if Clinton stumbles, also voted for and supported the war.
With candidates like that, making the war an issue in 2016 will be a lot like Romney trying to make an issue of Obamacare.
There is zero chance. My decree is still in effect.
If someone tells you “You cannot say X”, there is no answer to that which actually defends free speech that does not involve saying X. And while the speech may be provocative, it is entirely on the heads of those who become violent and commit violent acts as a response to such free speech. As much of an ass as Alkash is, he’s half right - the reporter in question should lose her job, and was completely and utterly wrong, and listening to it is and should be like nails on a chalkboard to anyone who gives a shit about freedom of speech, or indeed any sort of reasonable discourse on Islam and religious critique in general. Fuck that reporter, she dropped the ball on this one about as hard as you can.
…That said, who was that “liberal bimbo”?
Ah. Alisyn Camerota. Fresh off her 16-year career at FOX News. Wow, what a bleeding-heart liberal she must be.
No, you were very clear.
In showing how firmly you have your nose wedged up your own ass crack, that is.
because that’s never used to target specific groups of people.
Yeah, and abortion and birth control were once also used to target a certain group of people.
Gerrymandering is still a thing in 2015 and you think your response has anything to do with what I said?
Sometimes you seem intelligent, and almost interested in policies rather than in pure partisanship.
Then I see blazing ignorance like this. :smack:
First of all, you dolt, being a Congressman and swallowing the lies of the White House is not the same as concocting those laws. That even that is too much for you to grasp should (checking thread title) make you ineligible for any human function requiring cognition, let alone voting.
Second, dolt, is that Jeb! has endorsed the same lying “neocons” who plunged the U.S. into a stupid war. (I put “neocons” in quotes since the intelligent neocons denigrated the War against Gog and Magog even before GWB started bombing.)
Adaher, you really are stupid. Please start a Pit thread pitting yourself. I won’t do it – you’re not worth any more keystrokes.
Soooo, of all the Democrats who either had nothing to do with the war or opposed it, none of them are as qualified to be in the White House as the two who fell for Bush’s persuasion?
Secondly, all you managed to come up with was Jeb? You do know there are 3-5 guys ahead of him depending on what polls you look at, none of whom had anything to do with the Iraq war.
Look, if your serious about wanting people involved with the war to go to jail, or at least be disqualified for office, you can’t go giving free passes out to Democrats, especially since Democrats believed intelligence about Iraq’s WMD programs before Bush even came into office. It was always a shitty excuse for their votes(which in most cases were based on political calculation, not Bush’s intelligence), so by excusing them you’re just perpetuating ignorance.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a prime example of liberal bigotry in action.
The message here is that Muslims are so animalistic, that seeing a cartoon (a fucking cartoon) they don’t like, triggers them to go on a murderous rampage. Therefore, please, no offending cartoons.
You should be ashamed of yourself.