Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

And Chavez endorsed Obama...so what?

(10-02-2012 07:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  And Chavez endorsed Obama...so what?

Muslim leaders didn't embrace the GOP. The last paragraph was satire/made up in order to equalize the deadly riots over a YouTube clip with the evicting of Occupy protestors from camping out for months in a small public park.

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

That's just good quality comedy right there.

(10-02-2012 07:58 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  And Chavez endorsed Obama...so what?

Muslim leaders didn't embrace the GOP. The last paragraph was satire/made up in order to equalize the deadly riots over a YouTube clip with the evicting of Occupy protestors from camping out for months in a small public park.

They don't embrace either but their religous ideals are more in line with social Republicans than Democrats.

(10-02-2012 08:56 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:58 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:43 AM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  And Chavez endorsed Obama...so what?

Muslim leaders didn't embrace the GOP. The last paragraph was satire/made up in order to equalize the deadly riots over a YouTube clip with the evicting of Occupy protestors from camping out for months in a small public park.

They don't embrace either but their religous ideals are more in line with social Republicans than Democrats.

Well said Robert!

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

(10-02-2012 09:10 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like?

(10-02-2012 09:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:10 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like?

So then the Danes who threw a pastor in Jail for disparaging homosexuals are the same as militant Muslims? The government of Canada is the same because they ban certain religious doctrines from being taught on the radio?

I would say you can't see the forest from the trees but I seriously doubt you can even see the trees.

(10-02-2012 09:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:10 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like?

So then the Danes who threw a pastor in Jail for disparaging homosexuals are the same as militant Muslims? The government of Canada is the same because they ban certain religious doctrines from being taught on the radio?

I would say you can't see the forest from the trees but I seriously doubt you can even see the trees.

I disagreed with the Danes, but am a tad more tolerant of the anti-hate speech laws in parts of Europe that were occupied by the NAZI's. That was my parents’ generation, and I know people who lost family and my own uncle was a prisoner. Their goal is to prevent a reoccurrence of an example where millions of Christians and the Vatican looked the other way while millions of Jews and liberals were killed (Danes mostly excluded from this). However that does not make it right (or should I say left).

I do not agree with the Canadian laws.

I support the right of WBC and their millions of followers to practice free speech.

I disagree when the hate becomes the law of the land and sometimes it is baby steps that start it. Just as baby steps can remove my right to free speech.

(10-02-2012 09:49 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I do not agree with the Canadian laws.

So are the Canadians no different than the Mullahs? You made the insipid comparison with Conservative because of the occupest now eat your own dog food.

Quote:I support the right of WBC and their millions of followers to practice free speech.

WBC has less than 50 followers, but keep trying to say otherwise

(10-02-2012 09:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:10 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like?

Again, which free speech are social consevatives "squashing"? The only rule being mentioned is the "no camping in national park" rule. Only a leftie reporter could stretch that to "OH noes, Republicans are anti-Free speech!"

That blurb is a load of crap, and you on the left KNOW it...

(10-02-2012 10:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:49 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I do not agree with the Canadian laws.

So are the Canadians no different than the Mullahs? You made the insipid comparison with Conservative because of the occupest now eat your own dog food.

Quote:I support the right of WBC and their millions of followers to practice free speech.

WBC has less than 50 followers, but keep trying to say otherwise

WBC may have less than 50 members, but they have millions of followers supporting their cause.

(10-02-2012 02:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:10 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like?

Again, which free speech are social consevatives "squashing"? The only rule being mentioned is the "no camping in national park" rule. Only a leftie reporter could stretch that to "OH noes, Republicans are anti-Free speech!"

That blurb is a load of crap, and you on the left KNOW it...

So if in russia, cuba, or north korea they break up a protest because someone littered, you would agree that the intent was to enforce the anti littering law and not to clamp down on free speech.

The NPS even said that the law was not really intended to apply in situations such as this and they try to error on the side of free speech.

I never cared about what a Muslim had to say, why would I start now?

(10-02-2012 03:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

Quote:“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

So if in russia, cuba, or north korea they break up a protest because someone littered, you would agree that the intent was to enforce the anti littering law and not to clamp down on free speech.

The NPS even said that the law was not really intended to apply in situations such as this and they try to error on the side of free speech.

That has NOTHING to do with your claim... you're the one that wrote in the post:

"How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like? "

There was nowhere in that blurb that said "Republicans were squelching free speech", except in the mind of the Post author.

(10-02-2012 03:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 02:19 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:24 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:10 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 07:37 AM)dcCid Wrote:  Quotes:

“The presidents of Egypt and Yemen denounced the protesters’ violence in speeches to the U.N. General Assembly. But they were equally fervent in defending the religious outrage behind them and challenging Obama’s fulsome view of free speech.”

“In his remarks to the General Assembly, Yemen’s president turned the U.S. argument inside out with a demand for strict curbs on speech that insults religion.

“There should be limits for the freedom of expression,” Hadi said, “especially if such freedom blasphemes the beliefs of nations and defames their figures.” "

The Islamic leaders are embracing the House GOP’s actions to eliminate the Occupy protesters at McPherson Square National Park by invoking a rarely used “no camping in national parks” law. The Protesters message against greed and corruption was considered heretical and blasphemes by the house GOP who moved quickly to squash the protest that were occurring at the front steps of their money train on K street.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nati...story.html

Im sorry did the islamic leaders say GOP, Houe, or Occupy... anywhere in the article?

Nope?

Ok so its your spin on the authors spin.

How is it different when both squash free speech they do not like?

Again, which free speech are social consevatives "squashing"? The only rule being mentioned is the "no camping in national park" rule. Only a leftie reporter could stretch that to "OH noes, Republicans are anti-Free speech!"

That blurb is a load of crap, and you on the left KNOW it...

So if in russia, cuba, or north korea they break up a protest because someone littered, you would agree that the intent was to enforce the anti littering law and not to clamp down on free speech.

The NPS even said that the law was not really intended to apply in situations such as this and they try to error on the side of free speech.

So if the DNC fenced off "free speech zones" at the convention would they have put Jews in Ovens?

Yes your stupidity on this was Goodwin worthy! Cant draw a moral equivalence between "Kill those who say bad things" and "can break a public loitering law indefinitely while you crap on police cars and runi a city park.

Foreign people don't matte as they aren't real Americans

(10-02-2012 03:44 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 10:04 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-02-2012 09:49 AM)dcCid Wrote:  I do not agree with the Canadian laws.

So are the Canadians no different than the Mullahs? You made the insipid comparison with Conservative because of the occupest now eat your own dog food.

Quote:I support the right of WBC and their millions of followers to practice free speech.

WBC has less than 50 followers, but keep trying to say otherwise

WBC may have less than 50 members, but they have millions of followers supporting their cause.

I don't believe that in the least.

So, this seems as good a place to ask this question as any. Consider the curbs on free speech in Britain and France, specifically, where certain classes of speech are illegal - specifically Holocaust denial and denial of the Turk massacre of Armenians. Given those laws are on the books, should they also prohibit blasphemy in a form that could be considered hate crimes? Disregarding the fact that one form is designed to prevent denial and recurrence of genocidal acts by preventing speech by those that support them and the other form of speech is designed to prevent denial and recurrence of genocidal acts by preventing speech by those that may be victims of that genocide, aren't blasphemy laws the first waypoint on the slippery slope?

Personally, I'm happy to live in a country that does allow forms of speech like holocaust denial, as despicable as it is.