USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
- Thread starter ScottM
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
We had an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court musing publicly the other day about carving out a First Amendment exception for Islam.
The Yale University Press refused to publish the book about the Muhammad cartoon flap, until the "offending" cartoons were removed. Kinda defeaats the purpose of the book, doesn't it?
A guy protested at GZ by burning pages of the Koran, and was promptly fired by his employer. He was on his own time. He violated no law nor ordinance, but he was fired. Where are all the big deal lib ACLU type lawyers who will defend Charles Manson's First Amendment rights? Huh? Where the h**l are they? They would surely defend his right to burn the American flag.
"Imam" Rauf says if he can't build his little Islamist playground near GZ, there "will be trouble." Sounds like the old protection racket to me. Does anybody care that this pig is threatening NYC if he doesn't get his way?
Are we just going to slink off into the night, taking our Constitution and its First Amenment with us? Or are we going to tell Islamic thugs that occasionally being offended is the price you pay for living in a free society?
In short (which of course I never am) the answer to your question is that many of our opinion leaders are scared s**tless of offending Islamists, and what might happen to them if they do.
Ask yourself, would these advocates of American freedom do anything differently if the situation involved Christian nutbars?
We had an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court musing publicly the other day about carving out a First Amendment exception for Islam.
The Yale University Press refused to publish the book about the Muhammad cartoon flap, until the "offending" cartoons were removed. Kinda defeaats the purpose of the book, doesn't it?
A guy protested at GZ by burning pages of the Koran, and was promptly fired by his employer. He was on his own time. He violated no law nor ordinance, but he was fired. Where are all the big deal lib ACLU type lawyers who will defend Charles Manson's First Amendment rights? Huh? Where the h**l are they? They would surely defend his right to burn the American flag.
"Imam" Rauf says if he can't build his little Islamist playground near GZ, there "will be trouble." Sounds like the old protection racket to me. Does anybody care that this pig is threatening NYC if he doesn't get his way?
Are we just going to slink off into the night, taking our Constitution and its First Amenment with us? Or are we going to tell Islamic thugs that occasionally being offended is the price you pay for living in a free society?
In short (which of course I never am) the answer to your question is that many of our opinion leaders are scared s**tless of offending Islamists, and what might happen to them if they do.
Ask yourself, would these advocates of American freedom do anything differently if the situation involved Christian nutbars?
Last edited:
solovsfett
Registered User
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Oldpio and Huskyfan...
It's just frightening to me the direction in which this appears to be headed.
I didn't hear that associate justice's remarks but IMO that's just insane. It really indicates to me that that justice doesn't understand the constitution. not at all.
I just don't get it. We're qualifying freedom of speech now based on fear. how does that work? It doesn't, and we'll be paying for it ad infinitum.
I don't want this country to end up in the same predicament as France, UK, Netherlands, et al but we keep ignoring this idea that we don't have freedom of speech in talking about certain subjects (islam, or terrorism or both in this case) and we'll get there sooner than we could think possible.
Oldpio and Huskyfan...
It's just frightening to me the direction in which this appears to be headed.
I didn't hear that associate justice's remarks but IMO that's just insane. It really indicates to me that that justice doesn't understand the constitution. not at all.
I just don't get it. We're qualifying freedom of speech now based on fear. how does that work? It doesn't, and we'll be paying for it ad infinitum.
I don't want this country to end up in the same predicament as France, UK, Netherlands, et al but we keep ignoring this idea that we don't have freedom of speech in talking about certain subjects (islam, or terrorism or both in this case) and we'll get there sooner than we could think possible.
Patman
Rodent of Unusual Size
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Reporters don't want to stigmatize the moderate and uninvolved members of the group. Its obvious why they do it... and it certainly has its noble elements... but it also ignores the philosophic undercurrents we see in these cases.
The bottom line is the reporters want to protect the harmless mass... they see reprisal (actual acts, stigmatization) as a bigger problem than the underlying issues which lead to these things... or that if things were made better in a rational fashion then these things wouldn't happen. Remember, the reporter class tends to see these as moments of craziness or ill behavior... after all, people are all nice and rational. Hence, by self-censoring certain information they feel that they are serving the greater good.
There's a whole lot of nuance to this of course... but the reasoning is there.
Reporters don't want to stigmatize the moderate and uninvolved members of the group. Its obvious why they do it... and it certainly has its noble elements... but it also ignores the philosophic undercurrents we see in these cases.
The bottom line is the reporters want to protect the harmless mass... they see reprisal (actual acts, stigmatization) as a bigger problem than the underlying issues which lead to these things... or that if things were made better in a rational fashion then these things wouldn't happen. Remember, the reporter class tends to see these as moments of craziness or ill behavior... after all, people are all nice and rational. Hence, by self-censoring certain information they feel that they are serving the greater good.
There's a whole lot of nuance to this of course... but the reasoning is there.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Just saw they've all been released with no charges filed. Hmm
Just saw they've all been released with no charges filed. Hmm
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
There's a reason the Pope has an incredible security detail. Are there radical Islamists who would like to see him dead? Ab.So.Lutely. The sad part, though, is that they have a lot of company.
There's a reason the Pope has an incredible security detail. Are there radical Islamists who would like to see him dead? Ab.So.Lutely. The sad part, though, is that they have a lot of company.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I'd guess a few altar boys would help the Islamists
I'd guess a few altar boys would help the Islamists
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
It is common knowledge they have no spine. The sad part is I'm sure there were more than a dozen who opposed the war, but lacked the stones to vote with their conviction.
It is common knowledge they have no spine. The sad part is I'm sure there were more than a dozen who opposed the war, but lacked the stones to vote with their conviction.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
You and Andrew McCarthy hit it on the head. Mr. Justice Breyer was the one speculating that the First Amendment might not cover insulting Islam.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246965/there-oughtn-t-be-law-andrew-c-mccarthy
Breyer did his musing on Good Morning America, hardly an obscure law journal:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/14/justice-breyer-no-right-to-burn-korans-in-first-amendment/
It's my understanding the "wise Latina" has expressed similar sentiments. That's two of 'em.
You and Andrew McCarthy hit it on the head. Mr. Justice Breyer was the one speculating that the First Amendment might not cover insulting Islam.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/246965/there-oughtn-t-be-law-andrew-c-mccarthy
Breyer did his musing on Good Morning America, hardly an obscure law journal:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/14/justice-breyer-no-right-to-burn-korans-in-first-amendment/
It's my understanding the "wise Latina" has expressed similar sentiments. That's two of 'em.
Last edited:
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Both sides lack a spine, hence when McCain was up against junior he got railroaded by the neo-cons while the lemmings toed the line. Same reason Horner has little chance in MN without the celebrity fascination voters had with Jesse.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
On the other hand, for decades, reporters had no difficulty assessing responsibility (as between Catholics and Protestants) for various acts of butchery in Northern Ireland, even though the vast majority in either group had nothing to do with the violence. What's the difference? Well, the IRA and Orangemen generally tried to kill only each other. To my knowledge, they never retaliated against the media for reporting their misdeeds.
On the other hand, for decades, reporters had no difficulty assessing responsibility (as between Catholics and Protestants) for various acts of butchery in Northern Ireland, even though the vast majority in either group had nothing to do with the violence. What's the difference? Well, the IRA and Orangemen generally tried to kill only each other. To my knowledge, they never retaliated against the media for reporting their misdeeds.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
We should not be surprised at the weakness of our institutiions in dealing with potential or actual Islamist threats. For decades now our society, and especially our campuses, have been awash in political correctness. And that virus now seems to be infecting other aspects of our society. It's going to get worse, unless we collectively lose our reluctance to call uncivilized murderers just that. And unless we give up our recent tendency to be blackmailed into silence by threats of violence from these beasts.
The core value of political corrctness is the avoidance of giving offense. In the abstract, not a bad idea. The problem is in the enforcement. At campuses all across the country students expressing "non-PC" point of view have been forced to attend communist style "re-education" sessions under threat of expulsion. Students who have religious beliefs against homosexuality, or students who don't buy in to every jot and tittle of the feminist cant or who have "transgressed" in other ways, have found themselves in trouble. A few years ago there was a kid (at Penn State?) who was being kept up at night by the ladies of an African American sorority. He yelled out his window, suggesting the "water buffalos" knock it off. This was a phrase he'd picked up that summer in a Kibbutz, but never mind, he was in major league trouble, believe it. Even though nothing in the use of the term could unambiguously be described as racist, he had nevertheless "given offense" to the ladies. One could author many volumes detailing these outrages against the Constitution and common sense.
Campuses all across the country enacted "speech codes," by far the most draconian which was at the University of Wisconsin. Such an infringement of the First Amendment that the ACLU took the code and Donna Shalala to court to get it overturned. How can educators, most of whom describe themselves as "liberals" countenance something called a "speech code?" It boggles the imagination.
The nation's leading collegiate athletic organization has set itself up as the arbitor of what is and is not an appropriate mascot for various schools. 'Course that same band of athletic pecksniffs was totally out to lunch when USC and it's professional running back completely sold out any semblance of "amateurism." So they're durn sure gonna get rid of the North Dakota Sioux, but Reggie (show me the money) Bush, as far as they're concerned, is an honored figure.
When she was disgracing the Senate (and my home state, Illinois) Carole Mosely Braun adduced a "right not to be offended" on the floor of the "highest deliberative body on the planet." Well, people laughed. This idiot can't be serious. After all, you can have a First Amendment OR a "right not to be offended," but you obviously can't have both.
Nobody's laughing now. . .unless they're Islamists.
We should not be surprised at the weakness of our institutiions in dealing with potential or actual Islamist threats. For decades now our society, and especially our campuses, have been awash in political correctness. And that virus now seems to be infecting other aspects of our society. It's going to get worse, unless we collectively lose our reluctance to call uncivilized murderers just that. And unless we give up our recent tendency to be blackmailed into silence by threats of violence from these beasts.
The core value of political corrctness is the avoidance of giving offense. In the abstract, not a bad idea. The problem is in the enforcement. At campuses all across the country students expressing "non-PC" point of view have been forced to attend communist style "re-education" sessions under threat of expulsion. Students who have religious beliefs against homosexuality, or students who don't buy in to every jot and tittle of the feminist cant or who have "transgressed" in other ways, have found themselves in trouble. A few years ago there was a kid (at Penn State?) who was being kept up at night by the ladies of an African American sorority. He yelled out his window, suggesting the "water buffalos" knock it off. This was a phrase he'd picked up that summer in a Kibbutz, but never mind, he was in major league trouble, believe it. Even though nothing in the use of the term could unambiguously be described as racist, he had nevertheless "given offense" to the ladies. One could author many volumes detailing these outrages against the Constitution and common sense.
Campuses all across the country enacted "speech codes," by far the most draconian which was at the University of Wisconsin. Such an infringement of the First Amendment that the ACLU took the code and Donna Shalala to court to get it overturned. How can educators, most of whom describe themselves as "liberals" countenance something called a "speech code?" It boggles the imagination.
The nation's leading collegiate athletic organization has set itself up as the arbitor of what is and is not an appropriate mascot for various schools. 'Course that same band of athletic pecksniffs was totally out to lunch when USC and it's professional running back completely sold out any semblance of "amateurism." So they're durn sure gonna get rid of the North Dakota Sioux, but Reggie (show me the money) Bush, as far as they're concerned, is an honored figure.
When she was disgracing the Senate (and my home state, Illinois) Carole Mosely Braun adduced a "right not to be offended" on the floor of the "highest deliberative body on the planet." Well, people laughed. This idiot can't be serious. After all, you can have a First Amendment OR a "right not to be offended," but you obviously can't have both.
Nobody's laughing now. . .unless they're Islamists.
Last edited:
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
If you don't want unrestrained growth in entitlement spending, somehow this means you hate the poor or you hate the elderly and want both groups to starve/freeze/get sick and die, depending on what program's spending you wish to contain. If you don't want unrestrained growth in defense spending, you hate the troops. If you don't want tax increases on the rich, you hate the poor and middle class.
All of it is ridiculous.
Politicians play to the lowest common denominator and simplify their stances to appeal to the short clips that get played on the news. We see the same thing happening with spending and tax debates.
If you don't want unrestrained growth in entitlement spending, somehow this means you hate the poor or you hate the elderly and want both groups to starve/freeze/get sick and die, depending on what program's spending you wish to contain. If you don't want unrestrained growth in defense spending, you hate the troops. If you don't want tax increases on the rich, you hate the poor and middle class.
All of it is ridiculous.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Thanks. I couldn't recall, but knew it was a Pennsylvania school. 10 years ago seems about right, I wasn't trying to give the impression that it happened last week,
just to illustrate the overwhelming number of similar incidents by people who would support Bill Ayers' First Amendment rights but think nothing about punishing college students for trivial speech "infractions."
Several years ago there was one at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. A male graduate student had a picture of a pretty young lady in a two piece bathing suit, at the beach, on his desk. A female graduate student (and latent heterosexual) passed by his desk every day. Finally, she complained that the picture on the young man's desk created a "hostile work environment," etc. etc.
The young man was called before a star chamber proceeding to explain himself. Turns out the picture was of his new bride, taken on their honeymoon. Now what SHOULD have happened is that Butch should have been taken out to the parking lot and beaten within an inch of her life. Naturally, nothing happened to her. Pity.
Thanks. I couldn't recall, but knew it was a Pennsylvania school. 10 years ago seems about right, I wasn't trying to give the impression that it happened last week,
just to illustrate the overwhelming number of similar incidents by people who would support Bill Ayers' First Amendment rights but think nothing about punishing college students for trivial speech "infractions." Several years ago there was one at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. A male graduate student had a picture of a pretty young lady in a two piece bathing suit, at the beach, on his desk. A female graduate student (and latent heterosexual) passed by his desk every day. Finally, she complained that the picture on the young man's desk created a "hostile work environment," etc. etc.
The young man was called before a star chamber proceeding to explain himself. Turns out the picture was of his new bride, taken on their honeymoon. Now what SHOULD have happened is that Butch should have been taken out to the parking lot and beaten within an inch of her life. Naturally, nothing happened to her. Pity.
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
I like this headline:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/09/glenn_beck_mocks_michelle_obam.html
"Glenn Beck Mocks Michelle Obama Healthy Food Drive"
Soooo...apparently we should all be eating unhealthier instead? Yikes, knuckledraggers, what a bunch of buffoons.
It reminds me of the episode where Bart Simpson ran for class President against the fat kid. Bart in a debate: "My opponent wants to rid the school of asbestos. He doesn't have that right. I say More Asbestos. Say it with me, MORE ASBESTOS, MORE ASBESTOS.
Sounds like a conservative to me...
I like this headline:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/09/glenn_beck_mocks_michelle_obam.html
"Glenn Beck Mocks Michelle Obama Healthy Food Drive"
Soooo...apparently we should all be eating unhealthier instead? Yikes, knuckledraggers, what a bunch of buffoons.
It reminds me of the episode where Bart Simpson ran for class President against the fat kid. Bart in a debate: "My opponent wants to rid the school of asbestos. He doesn't have that right. I say More Asbestos. Say it with me, MORE ASBESTOS, MORE ASBESTOS.
Sounds like a conservative to me...
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
Someone mocked the First Lady, say it ain't soI like this headline:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/09/glenn_beck_mocks_michelle_obam.html
"Glenn Beck Mocks Michelle Obama Healthy Food Drive"
Soooo...apparently we should all be eating unhealthier instead? Yikes, knuckledraggers, what a bunch of buffoons.
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
You really don't see the point he's making here?
I like this headline:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/09/glenn_beck_mocks_michelle_obam.html
"Glenn Beck Mocks Michelle Obama Healthy Food Drive"
Soooo...apparently we should all be eating unhealthier instead? Yikes, knuckledraggers, what a bunch of buffoons.
It reminds me of the episode where Bart Simpson ran for class President against the fat kid. Bart in a debate: "My opponent wants to rid the school of asbestos. He doesn't have that right. I say More Asbestos. Say it with me, MORE ASBESTOS, MORE ASBESTOS.
Sounds like a conservative to me...
You really don't see the point he's making here?
SteveF
* * * * *
Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage
other than rallying his base of stupid fat people?
(cue patman.......)
other than rallying his base of stupid fat people?
(cue patman.......)
- Status