They also requested that Google remove the Video to which Google said No. It did not violate their user agreement.
They did subsequently make in unavailable in Egypt and Libya though.
They also requested that Google remove the Video to which Google said No. It did not violate their user agreement.
They did subsequently make in unavailable in Egypt and Libya though.
Again, a link to an apology or retract what you said.
Condemning an inflammatory video is not apologizing for "Rights and Freedoms". It's actually exercising those same rights you two ridiculously are claiming were apologized for. Free speech applies to those in the embassy, too. You know, those risking their lives, those that were killed. They have the same rights you two do.
Finding something offensive is not apologizing for freedom of speech. It's almost Palinesque in it's hilarity to claim that it is.
Besides, GatorBallz is citing the embassy making the comdemnation while in the middle of it being attacked, i.e, trying to calm the situation down. GatorBallz and Alice surely would have jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping towards those muslim scum because they are real merkins.
Give me a break. Nothing worse than armchair quarterbacking from two people who have never been put in a life or death situation like those in the embassy were. You both should be ashamed.
I keep hearing Romney say he's going to get Canadian oil and that pipeline. The way he say's it just seems like no matter what Canadians want, he'll get it.
In any case. I agree. This will come down to Ohio IMO.
Canadian oil is not cheap. It is sold on the same market that all other oil is sold on.
The oil does not belong to Canada, and a pipeline will not make it US oil.
It belongs to the international oil companies who sell it on the open market or use it for their own products.
It is very expensive and energy entensive to produce so high oil prices are necessary for it's production.
If oil prices come down those oil fields will be closed.
We are not talking about drilling for oil. Nor hydraulic fracking.
This is oil mining.
I misspoke-, Google was asked by the White House to Review the video it wasn't a demand to remove it My apologies.
I absolutely disagree with you on the apology of our freedoms aspect which is why I sighted Pussy Riot. The entire world came out to condemn Putin and Russia on behalf of three ladies singing in a church. They do not have the same freedoms and rights as we do so when we disagree with the treatment of someone denied those rights we stand tall to defend them. When it was falsely assumed to cause a much more severe reaction we immediately begin crouching. It's an absolute double standard and completely deplorable.
If you want sources you can find them. I won't make any assumptions on your ability to understand or discern whatever bias crap you can find...You know, Since you're accusing me of be a right winger and all.
They also requested that Google remove the Video to which Google said No. It did not violate their user agreement.
They did subsequently make in unavailable in Egypt and Libya though.
Again, a link to an apology or retract what you said.
Condemning an inflammatory video is not apologizing for "Rights and Freedoms". It's actually exercising those same rights you two ridiculously are claiming were apologized for. Free speech applies to those in the embassy, too. You know, those risking their lives, those that were killed. They have the same rights you two do.
Finding something offensive is not apologizing for freedom of speech. It's almost Palinesque in it's hilarity to claim that it is.
Besides, GatorBallz is citing the embassy making the comdemnation while in the middle of it being attacked, i.e, trying to calm the situation down. GatorBallz and Alice surely would have jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping towards those muslim scum because they are real merkins.
Give me a break. Nothing worse than armchair quarterbacking from two people who have never been put in a life or death situation like those in the embassy were. You both should be ashamed.
You should be ashamed. You are being inconsiderate, you probably voted for Obama, and your reading comprehension is ghastly. GatorDude don't crotch chop.
I said that ThymbeBomb13 should apologize becausr he was wrong. Some people don't know how to apologize when they are wrong.
Ps. Mining Oil. You must be kidding me. I though they only mined for Diamond and Gold...just kidding.
If there is a lot of it, then the price should decrease. The natural gas supply helped lower the cost of electricity.
I keep hearing Romney say he's going to get Canadian oil and that pipeline. The way he say's it just seems like no matter what Canadians want, he'll get it.
In any case. I agree. This will come down to Ohio IMO.
Canadian oil is not cheap. It is sold on the same market that all other oil is sold on.
The oil does not belong to Canada, and a pipeline will not make it US oil.
It belongs to the international oil companies who sell it on the open market or use it for their own products.
It is very expensive and energy entensive to produce so high oil prices are necessary for it's production.
If oil prices come down those oil fields will be closed.
We are not talking about drilling for oil. Nor hydraulic fracking.
This is oil mining.
that burtynsky photo in there is part of a larger, more mindblowing project which toured to great reception. i went while it was in toronto. some of the pics are from 10 minutes away from my house.
that burtynsky photo in there is part of a larger, more mindblowing project which toured to great reception. i went while it was in toronto. some of the pics are from 10 minutes away from my house.
I misspoke-, Google was asked by the White House to Review the video it wasn't a demand to remove it My apologies.
I absolutely disagree with you on the apology of our freedoms aspect which is why I sighted Pussy Riot. The entire world came out to condemn Putin and Russia on behalf of three ladies singing in a church. They do not have the same freedoms and rights as we do so when we disagree with the treatment of someone denied those rights we stand tall to defend them. When it was falsely assumed to cause a much more severe reaction we immediately begin crouching. It's an absolute double standard and completely deplorable.
If you want sources you can find them. I won't make any assumptions on your ability to understand or discern whatever bias crap you can find...You know, Since you're accusing me of be a right winger and all.
Right. You make a bogus claim, can't back it up, then I'm supposed to find evidence to back your nonsense? No.
Pussy Riot is not the same as the Innocence of Muslims video. False Equivalence (SS's favorite political phrase!). Why do you think they are the same?
Sorry, Alice. Diplomats, you know US Citizens, have the right to condemn something you think we should stall tall and support (a inflammatory video made soley with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world). Why are you trying to destroy their right to free speech? Or do you think free speech only applies to things you agree with?
Why you think that video demands standing tall and defending is beyond me. Do you also stand tall and defend the burning of a cross on a black man's front yard? Maybe it's just because muslims were the intended target? Love to know the answer.
Show me where I called you a right winger, Alice. Or do I have to find that, too? Stop making bogus claims, and you wan't have to defend that position. Simple.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
So the Canadians up in here, what do you think of Alberta being strip mined for oil?
Fuckin sucks. David Suzuki had a good doc out there which discussed how this is affecting the aboriginals in Fort Chipewan. Our emissions per capita are totally unacceptable in great part due to the bitumen extraction & processing in Athabasca.
So the Canadians up in here, what do you think of Alberta being strip mined for oil?
Fuckin sucks. David Suzuki had a good doc out there which discussed how this is affecting the aboriginals in Fort Chipewan. Our emissions per capita are totally unacceptable in great part due to the bitumen extraction & processing in Athabasca.
Come on man. Are you forgetting that it is a two way street? Jobs, growth, progress. How can anyone be okay with progress up until they are comfortable and then say, "Wait, the emissions are unacceptable now. Sorry, bud. Time for taxation." Yeah, the tax money goes towards research. However, that does more harm than good when you consider the price increase for commodities, the civil unrest/insecurity, and the gains lost to the competition.
So the Canadians up in here, what do you think of Alberta being strip mined for oil?
Fuckin sucks. David Suzuki had a good doc out there which discussed how this is affecting the aboriginals in Fort Chipewan. Our emissions per capita are totally unacceptable in great part due to the bitumen extraction & processing in Athabasca.
Come on man. Are you forgetting that it is a two way street? Jobs, growth, progress. How can anyone be okay with progress up until they are comfortable and then say, "Wait, the emissions are unacceptable now. Sorry, bud. Time for taxation." Yeah, the tax money goes towards research. However, that does more harm than good when you consider the price increase for commodities, the civil unrest/insecurity, and the gains lost to the competition.
So the Canadians up in here, what do you think of Alberta being strip mined for oil?
Fuckin sucks. David Suzuki had a good doc out there which discussed how this is affecting the aboriginals in Fort Chipewan. Our emissions per capita are totally unacceptable in great part due to the bitumen extraction & processing in Athabasca.
Come on man. Are you forgetting that it is a two way street? Jobs, growth, progress. How can anyone be okay with progress up until they are comfortable and then say, "Wait, the emissions are unacceptable now. Sorry, bud. Time for taxation." Yeah, the tax money goes towards research. However, that does more harm than good when you consider the price increase for commodities, the civil unrest/insecurity, and the gains lost to the competition.
In my elementary school, back around 1965, these were called damn dolls. Don't know why.
Boys collected em more than girls did.
I never came across anyone else who called them damn dolls.
GatorBallz and Alice surely would have jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping towards those muslim scum because they are real merkins.
This is where your accusatory tone towards my political beliefs was heard. Are these derogatory
terms not typically used to describe Conservatives, Republicans or even Evangelicals? I am sure I would be not be invited to any parties by any of those just mentioned.
Bon Vivant said:
Right. You make a bogus claim, can't back it up, then I'm supposed to find evidence to back your nonsense? No.
I made No bogus claims and when I misspoke about Google I corrected it. Gatordude had already posted the quote from the Embassy. I am providing you with the quote from Hillary out of respect for your inept internet search skills:
Condemn and Censor
By Hillary Clinton:
"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America???s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue." http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-condemns-anti-islam-film-full-text-788950
Bon Vivant said:
Pussy Riot is not the same as the Innocence of Muslims video. False Equivalence (SS's favorite political phrase!). Why do you think they are the same?
Pussy Riot and Innocence of Muslims are the same in the regard that they are speaking out against something they do not agree with or believe in. They both incompass the issue of Freedom of Speech. One is seen as Favorable and Heroic and the other is seen as Hateful and Dangerous. Still, They have many simularities. I have No opinion on the film itself, only the principal.
Bon Vivant said:
Sorry, Alice. Diplomats, you know US Citizens, have the right to condemn something you think we should stall tall and support (a inflammatory video made soley with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world). Why are you trying to destroy their right to free speech? Or do you think free speech only applies to things you agree with?
Sitting around their coffee table, Yes, they have the right to condemn it. While speaking at a joint appearance in Washington, D.C., with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani they do not. Govt Officals can not condemn our citizens speech. They can do so in their personal lives as every citizen can but when speaking on the record they have a duty to protect and secure our rights.
Bon Vivant said:
Why you think that video demands standing tall and defending is beyond me. Do you also stand tall and defend the burning of a cross on a black man's front yard? Maybe it's just because muslims were the intended target? Love to know the answer.
Again, I am not sure what you are insinuating with your reference to Muslims and Myself but I can assure you as an Athiest I really do not give a fuck. The Video, Pussy Riot - anyone speaking out against something they don't like or agree with is our right as US Citizens. These Rights are Not Afforded in Other Nations. Whether you like it or not it is not illiegal to be a homophobe, a racist, masoginst etc. Hate Crimes such as cross burning are just that. That is not to say that I think we should be forcing our views on others but that we should never apologize for them. In the instance of Pussy Riot, Would you not breathe a sigh of relief knowing you would not currently face that kind of condemnation or conviction for saying what you believe? You asked me how this was the same as Innocence of Muslims and I ask you how it is any different?
JustAlice, I appreciate you're arguing in good faith. Nothing you've said justifies the implication that you're anti-muslim or some kind of hateful right-winger. Still, I think you're missing the point.
IMO Hillary was speaking to people around the Muslim world who saw the video and blamed America. In countries where the media is tightly controlled by the government, American-style free speech can be a foreign and abstract concept. I'm sure it's inconceivable to some that such a video could be produced without explicit government approval.
Hillary was simply explaining that while the US government isn't anti-muslim and doesn't endorse that kind of inflammatory bigotry, it will ALWAYS allow it due our belief in free speech... Which is sort of what you're saying, right?
From the same speech you quoted:
Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today???s world with today???s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.
There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable.
You don't think it's a bit of a stretch to equate Pussy Riot being jailed for political speech with Hillary saying "This distasteful dude can say whatever he wants, but he does NOT speak for the US government"?
I'm still not seeing an apology or anything even remotely infringing on free speech; I'm seeing diplomacy 101.
jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping
I've been battling some hellacious flu bug since Tuesday and did not read any of what's gone on here but catching up today I have to say I got tremendous comedy relief reading the above considering BV's avatar.
b/w
How do you destruct land that is basically sand contaminated with petrochemical? In my business we'd call this a Superfund Hazardous Waste Site.
Welcome back. I feel your pain I was down with a bad fever on Monday and it didn't break until late Wednesday night. Felt like I was walking against the current. I have watched way too much TV as a result.
GatorBallz and Alice surely would have jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping towards those muslim scum because they are real merkins.
This is where your accusatory tone towards my political beliefs was heard. Are these derogatory
terms not typically used to describe Conservatives, Republicans or even Evangelicals? I am sure I would be not be invited to any parties by any of those just mentioned.
Bon Vivant said:
Right. You make a bogus claim, can't back it up, then I'm supposed to find evidence to back your nonsense? No.
I made No bogus claims and when I misspoke about Google I corrected it. Gatordude had already posted the quote from the Embassy. I am providing you with the quote from Hillary out of respect for your inept internet search skills:
Condemn and Censor
By Hillary Clinton:
"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America???s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue." http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-condemns-anti-islam-film-full-text-788950
Bon Vivant said:
Pussy Riot is not the same as the Innocence of Muslims video. False Equivalence (SS's favorite political phrase!). Why do you think they are the same?
Pussy Riot and Innocence of Muslims are the same in the regard that they are speaking out against something they do not agree with or believe in. They both incompass the issue of Freedom of Speech. One is seen as Favorable and Heroic and the other is seen as Hateful and Dangerous. Still, They have many simularities. I have No opinion on the film itself, only the principal.
Bon Vivant said:
Sorry, Alice. Diplomats, you know US Citizens, have the right to condemn something you think we should stall tall and support (a inflammatory video made soley with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world). Why are you trying to destroy their right to free speech? Or do you think free speech only applies to things you agree with?
Sitting around their coffee table, Yes, they have the right to condemn it. While speaking at a joint appearance in Washington, D.C., with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani they do not. Govt Officals can not condemn our citizens speech. They can do so in their personal lives as every citizen can but when speaking on the record they have a duty to protect and secure our rights.
Bon Vivant said:
Why you think that video demands standing tall and defending is beyond me. Do you also stand tall and defend the burning of a cross on a black man's front yard? Maybe it's just because muslims were the intended target? Love to know the answer.
Again, I am not sure what you are insinuating with your reference to Muslims and Myself but I can assure you as an Athiest I really do not give a fuck. The Video, Pussy Riot - anyone speaking out against something they don't like or agree with is our right as US Citizens. These Rights are Not Afforded in Other Nations. Whether you like it or not it is not illiegal to be a homophobe, a racist, masoginst etc. Hate Crimes such as cross burning are just that. That is not to say that I think we should be forcing our views on others but that we should never apologize for them. In the instance of Pussy Riot, Would you not breathe a sigh of relief knowing you would not currently face that kind of condemnation or conviction for saying what you believe? You asked me how this was the same as Innocence of Muslims and I ask you how it is any different?
Never called you right winger, Alice. Sorry, didn't happen. Never implied it, either. Didn't happen. Although, some of the positions you're taking are starting to make me think you may be, at least on some issues. That's fine.
Government officials most surely can condemn speech they disagree with, whether in their official capacity or not. They can't suppress it, but saying they don't agree is not suppression. Why do you think this? Example, President Obama called Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke "reprehensible". According to you, Obama was apologizing for our rights and freedoms. According to you, he wasn't protecting our rights. WTF? This position is certainly not backed up by any case law, because it's dead wrong.
It's strange that you find no moral or ethical similarity in putting a burning cross on a yard, and the Innocence of Muslims video. Is their purpose both not to incite visceral emotions? Is the fact that one is potentially illegal (cross) while the other not (video) the only thing you consider? What about motive of the speaker? What about morals, ethics?
How are Pussy Riot and the video different? Uh, one incited mobs across the middle east causing injury and property damage, the other didn't.
jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping
I've been battling some hellacious flu bug since Tuesday and did not read any of what's gone on here but catching up today I have to say I got tremendous comedy relief reading the above considering BV's avatar.
You don't think it's a bit of a stretch to equate Pussy Riot being jailed for political speech with Hillary saying "This distasteful dude can say whatever he wants, but he does NOT speak for the US government"?
No. I do not think it is a stretch, that is why I am using it in contrast.
I already explained how I thought it was similar, I want to know How it is different?
I assume it is because most people see one as being Good and the other as Evil.
Currently - Our laws cover both. In typical fashion it is only a stretch when one doesn't agree.
I am only speaking on principal, not the actions in either of these instances.
"To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage." Hillary Clinton
That is condemnation. Her job as a public official is not to condemn our citizens actions unless they are illegal as I said before. This is where she slipped up. Four Americans are killed and here we are jumping to conclusions, making excuses and presenting a thinly veiled apology for Terrorists Killing our Diplomats.
Where you see diplomacy I see the dissolution of Freedom.
To quote an 80's movie, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
Feeding the Trolls is a very hard call to resist. I find it easier just to put certain folks on ignore and then i don't have to respond. Ignorance is bliss.
Alice is taking an extreme Civil Liberties view of the situation.
She should know that BV is a lawyer and has no shame when it comes to arguing his point.
In arguing that Mormons should not be allowed to hold public office he said, there is nothing wrong with discrimination based on religion because people don't have to believe.
I don't know what kind of law he practices, but it is safe to say he does not work for the ACLU.
Never called you right winger, Alice. Sorry, didn't happen. Never implied it, either. Didn't happen. Although, some of the positions you're taking are starting to make me think you may be, at least on some issues. That's fine.
Government officials most surely can condemn speech they disagree with, whether in their official capacity or not. They can't suppress it, but saying they don't agree is not suppression. Why do you think this? Example, President Obama called Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke "reprehensible". According to you, Obama was apologizing for our rights and freedoms. According to you, he wasn't protecting our rights. WTF? This position is certainly not backed up by any case law, because it's dead wrong.
It's strange that you find no moral or ethical similarity in putting a burning cross on a yard, and the Innocence of Muslims video. Is their purpose both not to incite visceral emotions? Is the fact that one is potentially illegal (cross) while the other not (video) the only thing you consider? What about motive of the speaker? What about morals, ethics?
How are Pussy Riot and the video different? Uh, one incited mobs across the middle east causing injury and property damage, the other didn't.
Fact is, no one apologized. You're making it up.
I never said anything about the Law but to answer your question from my ethical stand point - In regards to Limbaugh and Obama - Yes. I do not feel as though Gov't Officials should speak against or make judgements upon citizens statements or views on the record. I do not feel the POTUS or SOS should condemn and decry anyone exercising their first amendment rights. To me, that is immoral.
There is no doubt in my mind that the attack in Libya was handled poorly by the White House. They initially announced publicly that the murders were a reaction to the video. We now know it had nothing to do with that. It also raises the question as to whether this assertion might actually have caused MORE violent demonstrations across the Middle East. - Here, Let us provide you with examples to our incompetence.
Hillary Clinton began by commenting on one of the perceived effects of our freedom of speech. This was entirely hypothetical and unproven as fact. The White House reaction was a rush to judgement. The proper response by Govt. Officials would be to regret the loss of life and bring those responsible to justice. Understanding the validity of the situation as a whole was just as important as Unheard's findings that she was "just trying to calm down the situation". Crucify first ask questions later? Fuck it!
So she didn't come out and say "we are sorry" in so many words but guilty before proven innocent? Also in Your Words: "a inflammatory video made solely with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world" This statement has no baring to truth. It is strictly your opinion. The assertion that I am immoral or unethical for pointing out difference between fact and assumption is ridiculous. Cross Burning on someone else's property = Crime. Cheesy Video = Cheesy Video.
Hillary Clinton was petting the Hurt Feelings of Muslims and making excuses for our right to free speech. Pussy Riot also incited massive Protests, public outcry, Kickstarter campaigns and even official statements from Admin. The only real difference besides perceived good and evil is... against the law ( Russia ) and perfectly legal ( USA ). So yes, the legality is of great importance to me.
My point is that for the same reason a Pussy Riot would likely not happen here in the near future (gratefully), breaking the code on the 'Innocence of Muslims' is slowly beginning to pull the door closed on Say what you will / Be careful what you say / Say nothing at all.
Our rights provide us the Freedom FROM being persecuted for it. Who determines what is acceptable to say? And where do we press blame for violence? Is it Ice Cube? Or Marilyn Manson? Batman perhaps? The Speaker or assumed motive of the speaker is not the person committing the crimes, at least currently in these situations.
The assault of Free Speech is immanently more dangerous in the name of Political Correctness and Opportunism. It does not trump First Amendment Rights. This is especially true when our public officials, speaking as representatives of our people and our freedoms, denounce and decry the reactions TO our freedoms. We should not be playing Truth or Dare with our liberty.
Comments
They also requested that Google remove the Video to which Google said No. It did not violate their user agreement.
They did subsequently make in unavailable in Egypt and Libya though.
Again, a link to an apology or retract what you said.
Condemning an inflammatory video is not apologizing for "Rights and Freedoms". It's actually exercising those same rights you two ridiculously are claiming were apologized for. Free speech applies to those in the embassy, too. You know, those risking their lives, those that were killed. They have the same rights you two do.
Finding something offensive is not apologizing for freedom of speech. It's almost Palinesque in it's hilarity to claim that it is.
Besides, GatorBallz is citing the embassy making the comdemnation while in the middle of it being attacked, i.e, trying to calm the situation down. GatorBallz and Alice surely would have jumped on the wall and said "Suck Deez" while crotch chopping towards those muslim scum because they are real merkins.
Give me a break. Nothing worse than armchair quarterbacking from two people who have never been put in a life or death situation like those in the embassy were. You both should be ashamed.
Texans are opposing the pipeline as well.
I absolutely disagree with you on the apology of our freedoms aspect which is why I sighted Pussy Riot. The entire world came out to condemn Putin and Russia on behalf of three ladies singing in a church. They do not have the same freedoms and rights as we do so when we disagree with the treatment of someone denied those rights we stand tall to defend them. When it was falsely assumed to cause a much more severe reaction we immediately begin crouching. It's an absolute double standard and completely deplorable.
If you want sources you can find them. I won't make any assumptions on your ability to understand or discern whatever bias crap you can find...You know, Since you're accusing me of be a right winger and all.
You should be ashamed. You are being inconsiderate, you probably voted for Obama, and your reading comprehension is ghastly. GatorDude don't crotch chop.
I said that ThymbeBomb13 should apologize becausr he was wrong. Some people don't know how to apologize when they are wrong.
Ps. Mining Oil. You must be kidding me. I though they only mined for Diamond and Gold...just kidding.
If there is a lot of it, then the price should decrease. The natural gas supply helped lower the cost of electricity.
that burtynsky photo in there is part of a larger, more mindblowing project which toured to great reception. i went while it was in toronto. some of the pics are from 10 minutes away from my house.
Edward Burtynsky: an introduction to Oil
sucks balls man. it's not even that GOOD kind of strip mining.
Thanks for the link. Amazing stuff.
Right. You make a bogus claim, can't back it up, then I'm supposed to find evidence to back your nonsense? No.
Pussy Riot is not the same as the Innocence of Muslims video. False Equivalence (SS's favorite political phrase!). Why do you think they are the same?
Sorry, Alice. Diplomats, you know US Citizens, have the right to condemn something you think we should stall tall and support (a inflammatory video made soley with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world). Why are you trying to destroy their right to free speech? Or do you think free speech only applies to things you agree with?
Why you think that video demands standing tall and defending is beyond me. Do you also stand tall and defend the burning of a cross on a black man's front yard? Maybe it's just because muslims were the intended target? Love to know the answer.
Show me where I called you a right winger, Alice. Or do I have to find that, too? Stop making bogus claims, and you wan't have to defend that position. Simple.
Fuckin sucks. David Suzuki had a good doc out there which discussed how this is affecting the aboriginals in Fort Chipewan. Our emissions per capita are totally unacceptable in great part due to the bitumen extraction & processing in Athabasca.
Come on man. Are you forgetting that it is a two way street? Jobs, growth, progress. How can anyone be okay with progress up until they are comfortable and then say, "Wait, the emissions are unacceptable now. Sorry, bud. Time for taxation." Yeah, the tax money goes towards research. However, that does more harm than good when you consider the price increase for commodities, the civil unrest/insecurity, and the gains lost to the competition.
i.e. Target for Chinese Investment and Takeover
In my elementary school, back around 1965, these were called damn dolls. Don't know why.
Boys collected em more than girls did.
I never came across anyone else who called them damn dolls.
This is where your accusatory tone towards my political beliefs was heard. Are these derogatory
terms not typically used to describe Conservatives, Republicans or even Evangelicals? I am sure I would be not be invited to any parties by any of those just mentioned.
I made No bogus claims and when I misspoke about Google I corrected it. Gatordude had already posted the quote from the Embassy. I am providing you with the quote from Hillary out of respect for your inept internet search skills:
Condemn and Censor
By Hillary Clinton:
"I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly -- and I hope it is obvious -- that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America???s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.
To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue."
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-condemns-anti-islam-film-full-text-788950
Pussy Riot and Innocence of Muslims are the same in the regard that they are speaking out against something they do not agree with or believe in. They both incompass the issue of Freedom of Speech. One is seen as Favorable and Heroic and the other is seen as Hateful and Dangerous. Still, They have many simularities. I have No opinion on the film itself, only the principal.
Sitting around their coffee table, Yes, they have the right to condemn it. While speaking at a joint appearance in Washington, D.C., with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani they do not. Govt Officals can not condemn our citizens speech. They can do so in their personal lives as every citizen can but when speaking on the record they have a duty to protect and secure our rights.
Again, I am not sure what you are insinuating with your reference to Muslims and Myself but I can assure you as an Athiest I really do not give a fuck. The Video, Pussy Riot - anyone speaking out against something they don't like or agree with is our right as US Citizens. These Rights are Not Afforded in Other Nations. Whether you like it or not it is not illiegal to be a homophobe, a racist, masoginst etc. Hate Crimes such as cross burning are just that. That is not to say that I think we should be forcing our views on others but that we should never apologize for them. In the instance of Pussy Riot, Would you not breathe a sigh of relief knowing you would not currently face that kind of condemnation or conviction for saying what you believe? You asked me how this was the same as Innocence of Muslims and I ask you how it is any different?
IMO Hillary was speaking to people around the Muslim world who saw the video and blamed America. In countries where the media is tightly controlled by the government, American-style free speech can be a foreign and abstract concept. I'm sure it's inconceivable to some that such a video could be produced without explicit government approval.
Hillary was simply explaining that while the US government isn't anti-muslim and doesn't endorse that kind of inflammatory bigotry, it will ALWAYS allow it due our belief in free speech... Which is sort of what you're saying, right?
From the same speech you quoted:
You don't think it's a bit of a stretch to equate Pussy Riot being jailed for political speech with Hillary saying "This distasteful dude can say whatever he wants, but he does NOT speak for the US government"?
I'm still not seeing an apology or anything even remotely infringing on free speech; I'm seeing diplomacy 101.
I've been battling some hellacious flu bug since Tuesday and did not read any of what's gone on here but catching up today I have to say I got tremendous comedy relief reading the above considering BV's avatar.
b/w
How do you destruct land that is basically sand contaminated with petrochemical? In my business we'd call this a Superfund Hazardous Waste Site.
b/w
18 more days
Welcome back. I feel your pain I was down with a bad fever on Monday and it didn't break until late Wednesday night. Felt like I was walking against the current. I have watched way too much TV as a result.
Never called you right winger, Alice. Sorry, didn't happen. Never implied it, either. Didn't happen. Although, some of the positions you're taking are starting to make me think you may be, at least on some issues. That's fine.
Government officials most surely can condemn speech they disagree with, whether in their official capacity or not. They can't suppress it, but saying they don't agree is not suppression. Why do you think this? Example, President Obama called Rush Limbaugh's comments about Sandra Fluke "reprehensible". According to you, Obama was apologizing for our rights and freedoms. According to you, he wasn't protecting our rights. WTF? This position is certainly not backed up by any case law, because it's dead wrong.
It's strange that you find no moral or ethical similarity in putting a burning cross on a yard, and the Innocence of Muslims video. Is their purpose both not to incite visceral emotions? Is the fact that one is potentially illegal (cross) while the other not (video) the only thing you consider? What about motive of the speaker? What about morals, ethics?
How are Pussy Riot and the video different? Uh, one incited mobs across the middle east causing injury and property damage, the other didn't.
Fact is, no one apologized. You're making it up.
Thank you, and you're welcome.
No. I do not think it is a stretch, that is why I am using it in contrast.
I already explained how I thought it was similar, I want to know How it is different?
I assume it is because most people see one as being Good and the other as Evil.
Currently - Our laws cover both. In typical fashion it is only a stretch when one doesn't agree.
I am only speaking on principal, not the actions in either of these instances.
"To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage." Hillary Clinton
That is condemnation. Her job as a public official is not to condemn our citizens actions unless they are illegal as I said before. This is where she slipped up. Four Americans are killed and here we are jumping to conclusions, making excuses and presenting a thinly veiled apology for Terrorists Killing our Diplomats.
Where you see diplomacy I see the dissolution of Freedom.
To quote an 80's movie, "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"
Feeding the Trolls is a very hard call to resist. I find it easier just to put certain folks on ignore and then i don't have to respond. Ignorance is bliss.
She should know that BV is a lawyer and has no shame when it comes to arguing his point.
In arguing that Mormons should not be allowed to hold public office he said, there is nothing wrong with discrimination based on religion because people don't have to believe.
I don't know what kind of law he practices, but it is safe to say he does not work for the ACLU.
I never said anything about the Law but to answer your question from my ethical stand point - In regards to Limbaugh and Obama - Yes. I do not feel as though Gov't Officials should speak against or make judgements upon citizens statements or views on the record. I do not feel the POTUS or SOS should condemn and decry anyone exercising their first amendment rights. To me, that is immoral.
There is no doubt in my mind that the attack in Libya was handled poorly by the White House. They initially announced publicly that the murders were a reaction to the video. We now know it had nothing to do with that. It also raises the question as to whether this assertion might actually have caused MORE violent demonstrations across the Middle East. - Here, Let us provide you with examples to our incompetence.
Hillary Clinton began by commenting on one of the perceived effects of our freedom of speech. This was entirely hypothetical and unproven as fact. The White House reaction was a rush to judgement. The proper response by Govt. Officials would be to regret the loss of life and bring those responsible to justice. Understanding the validity of the situation as a whole was just as important as Unheard's findings that she was "just trying to calm down the situation". Crucify first ask questions later? Fuck it!
So she didn't come out and say "we are sorry" in so many words but guilty before proven innocent? Also in Your Words: "a inflammatory video made solely with the intent to cause havoc in the Muslim world" This statement has no baring to truth. It is strictly your opinion. The assertion that I am immoral or unethical for pointing out difference between fact and assumption is ridiculous. Cross Burning on someone else's property = Crime. Cheesy Video = Cheesy Video.
Hillary Clinton was petting the Hurt Feelings of Muslims and making excuses for our right to free speech. Pussy Riot also incited massive Protests, public outcry, Kickstarter campaigns and even official statements from Admin. The only real difference besides perceived good and evil is... against the law ( Russia ) and perfectly legal ( USA ). So yes, the legality is of great importance to me.
My point is that for the same reason a Pussy Riot would likely not happen here in the near future (gratefully), breaking the code on the 'Innocence of Muslims' is slowly beginning to pull the door closed on Say what you will / Be careful what you say / Say nothing at all.
Our rights provide us the Freedom FROM being persecuted for it. Who determines what is acceptable to say? And where do we press blame for violence? Is it Ice Cube? Or Marilyn Manson? Batman perhaps? The Speaker or assumed motive of the speaker is not the person committing the crimes, at least currently in these situations.
The assault of Free Speech is immanently more dangerous in the name of Political Correctness and Opportunism. It does not trump First Amendment Rights. This is especially true when our public officials, speaking as representatives of our people and our freedoms, denounce and decry the reactions TO our freedoms. We should not be playing Truth or Dare with our liberty.