In other words, you don't put much faith in the moral high ground...

Since when?? :D

Michale.....

Ya wanna lay a bet?? :D I would LOVE to see you in an I LOVE MITT t-shirt!!! :D

Secret Retirement Plans: Does Obama Expect To Lose? – Insider Reveals Internal Polls, Luxury Hawaii Estate Ready For January
http://beforeitsnews.com/election-2012/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose-insider-reveals-internal-polls-luxury-hawaii-estate-ready-for-january-2444992.html

Michale.....

Not really...

Because if one castigates the game as bad and evil, what does that so for the person that plays it??

And I'd guess, Michale, that if the situation were reversed, you would not be arguing that Republicans simply lay down and not play.

That assumes that I am a Republican. Which we BOTH know is simply not true...

The simple fact is Democrats, present company included, only decry the game because they are bad at it..

Michale.....

You can both play the game and try to change it at the same time. These are not 2 mutually exclusive choices.

In fact, I think that's probably the smartest approach given that the game is going to be played regardless of whether you play or not.

And I'd guess, Michale, that if the situation were reversed, you would not be arguing that Republicans simply lay down and not play.

It's a great argument though if you want Republicans to win!

-David

p.s. Which is looking less and less likely w/ Mr. Mitt :)

Let the back pedaling begin!!! :D

Like I said, SOMEONE owes me 20K quatloos!!! :D

Michale.....

Because, by opting to PLAY the game, Democrats are VALIDATING the game...

Michale

Well, that may or may not be true. I am sure there is some debate there on that..

But my point is, is that it *IS* the game...

And the Democrats are woefully unequipped to play the game.. So, they should take the Harsesis' advice and deign not to play the game..

BTW- I think it's a compliment to NOT be good at this game :)

I would likely agree with that....

But what does that say for the Democrats to try and PLAY the game, knowing they are not good at it??

Michale.....

And the game is giving handouts to corporations?

That sounds like the game of corruption.

This, my friend, is the problem w/ our Democracy. And ... it's why the game needs to change.

BTW- I think it's a compliment to NOT be good at this game :)

-David

You see, this is where the Democrats went wrong..

By embracing Citizens United, Obama and the Democrats gave the Republicans the battle that the Republicans wanted and the Democrats simply could not win...

Surely the BETTER course of action would have been to deny the Republicans the battle AND, in doing so, maintain the position on the moral high ground...

It would have been a Two-Fer win for the Democrats.

As an aside, check yer email. :D

Michale......

"The only way to win is to deny it battle."
-Shifu The Harsesis, STARGATE SG1

Michale.....

Not at all... I just believe that Democrats can't win...

Now this doesn't make much sense.

What happened to non-partisan?

It doesn't make sense because you are trying to read too much into it..

You are trying to "figure it out" when there is really nothing to figure out..

The ruling made it easier for BOTH Partys to obtain corporate cash...

The game is Corporate Cash. The ruling made the game on a level playing field...

I am sure you would agree that Republicans PLAY the game better than Democrats.

That's not being partisan that's a simple evaluation of the facts.

So, we have a game... Corporate cash.

We have a level playing field. No restrictions on either Party to play the game..

But Republicans play it better than Democrats.. That has nothing to do with the playing field, it just has something to do with Ability...

But it another way.

The ruling says that BOTH teams (the Jags and the Bengals) must only have 12 men on the field..

Now, YOU want a ruling where the Bengals can play 25 men on the field, but the Jags can only play 5 men on the field... You think this ruling is "FAIR" because the Jags play the game so much better than the Bengals... (of course, we KNOW that is utter crap, but just go with me... :D)

You want a artificial "handicap" imposed against the other team because your team is so much worse than their team..

In essence, you want the courts to give Democrats an advantage, a NON LEVEL playing field, because they are so much worse at the game...

It has nothing to do with fair..

"Fair" is exactly what the ruling did. It gave BOTH Partys equal opportunity in the "game"...

It just so happens that, in THIS particular "game" Republicans are better than Democrats..

Hope that makes more sense...

Michale.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JJ6IZHBPU4&feature=player_embedded

WOW!!!!

I say again....

WOW!!

Michale.....

This is what happened, however. The moderate Republicans continue to get replaced to the point of near extinction.

Better to take and keep the moral high ground.

Oddly I agree with you here. Though I suspect you want this because you think money will always win the game for the conservatives :)

You want rulings that change the game, since this particular game favors Republicans.

Now this doesn't make much sense.

You claim the ruling leveled the playing field.

And ... at the same time that it favors Republicans.

Pick one, Michale. You can't have both :). What it sounds like is that you want a game that favors Republicans.

What happened to non-partisan?

-David

The latest clarification from the administration came in response to an intelligence source on the ground in Libya telling Fox News there was no significant or sizeable demonstration when the attacks unfolded sometime after 9:30 p.m. in Benghazi last Tuesday. That appeared to challenge the view, espoused by the Obama administration, that ongoing demonstrations over an anti-Islam film had simply spun out of control.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/18/administration-walks-tightrope-in-carefully-worded-accounts-libya-violence/

SOMEONE owes me 20,000 quatloos!!! :D

Michale.....

Everything that's wrong with muslims in the Middle East...

Michale.....

I disagree..

I am sure we would agree that Republicans don't need "pressure" to become more corporate..

It's the Republicans going corporate that pressured Democrats to go corporate....

Here again, a monumental mistake. Democrats can't match Republicans for corporate dollars and it's foolish of them to even try..

Better to take and keep the moral high ground..

"If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are."
-Captain Jean Luc Picard

What I mean is a level playing field that takes money out of the equation and better balances the interests of everyone :)

But you and I both know that will never happen until our system of government radically changes..

So, what's the next best solution??

The next best solution is to ensure that Partys have equal opportunity.

And that's exactly what the ruling did. It leveled the playing field for BOTH Partys.

But that's not what you want.. You want rulings that change the game, since this particular game favors Republicans...

I just don't see that happening in our lifetime. Not without violent and bloody revolution, that is..

Michale.....

BTW, I just read my own statement and it doesn't make a lot of sense so I hope you get the gist.

What I mean is a level playing field that takes money out of the equation and better balances the interests of everyone :)

What I mean, not what I said dammit!

-David

I'd actually accept this argument with one caveat. The ruling makes it level if both parties do what the top money spenders want.

What the ruling actually does is put pressure on both parties to become more corporate and beholden to big money.

It puts pressure on both parties to cater to the interests of the monied. If you go against them, then they simply put up $15 million to get you unelected. This is the case with Sherrod Brown.

This is why I would like to see it overturned. It may be a level playing field in terms of Republicans or Democrats. But it's not a level playing field in terms of the monied interests vs. people.

I'd prefer a level playing field that favors people.

What we are likely to see as a result of this decision is both parties becoming more corporate. Obama in the last election was a good example.

Now there's not a clear direct connection, but what did the money buy? Well, for Wall Street it seemed to have bought kid gloves.

-David

Yer absolutely right.

It IS just like the DNC weather thing. You ignoring all the facts, except those that support your fantasy is the identical strategy you used in the DNC weather thing..

Are you done?? Again???

Michale.....

This whole argument is just like the DNC weather thing. The facts were there, on both sides, but you jumped to the anti-Obama conclusion straight away because you are completely blindly, bigoted and biased against him (take that alliteration!). If Obama came out tomorrow and said 'vote Mitt Romney' you would vote for Obama because that's how much you hate him and stand against everything he says.

There is no point discussing anything with you because you are completely blind to reality and living in this made up 'Michale-world' where Obama is an evil Kenyan Muslim usurper attacking American values and the liberal/Google media conspiracy is letting him get away with it. You and Rush would get along very well.

Sure, in HINDSIGHT, this is the case..

But wouldn't you agree that this is more likely because Republicans don't have the problem with herding cats that Democrats have??

Obama embracing Citizens United was a monstrous mistake. For one, it totally forfeited the moral high ground...

For another, Democrats simply cannot muster/master the SuperPACs like Republicans can.

Surely you can see that Obama's BETTER choice was to take and hold the moral high ground...

Its pretty clear that the original decision was highly partisan, designed to benefit Republicans.

Since you are so non-partisan ... how do you explain your support for a decision that aids one party more than the other?

I view it akin to the idea of Americans and their pursuit of happiness..

Americans have the right to pursue happiness.. But they don't have the right TO happiness...

The ruling made it so the playing field was level. No advantage to either Party..

It just happens to be that, in THIS game, Republicans play it better than Democrats..

Ergo, the ruling WAS non-biased and completely non-partisan...

It's simply a case of Republicans being better at it than Democrats..

The fact that MANY in the country are experiencing "Buyer's Remorse" likely has a lot to do with the lack of success on the part of the Democrats..

A logical analysis, wouldn't you agree??? :D

Michale.....

I hate it when that happens...

Michale

Well, I wouldn't be so paranoid as to think that it's against me! :D

More like against the country, but why pick at nits.. :D

But seriously, this whole Libya thing is a perfect example of the deluded nature of the Obama Administration in particular and the Left in general..

This is a fairly volatile situation. And it is in response, not to the United States policy, not to -- obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video, a film that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States, at large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and -- to Muslims."
-Jay Carney

Michale.....

BTW- Not sure why my response to this never posted. But wanted to add to this. One of the arguments for removing campaign finance restrictions was that they wouldn't aid one party more than another. You yourself admitted that this decision aided one party more than another - the Republicans.

Its pretty clear that the original decision was highly partisan, designed to benefit Republicans.

Since you are so non-partisan ... how do you explain your support for a decision that aids one party more than the other?

-David

You're it, Michale. The only one. The rest of us just make stuff up because we're part of a liberal conspiracy against you.

"You're so money." - Trent, Swingers

http://youtu.be/vvKeDr3k7n0

-David

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/17/gi-joe-named-20th-century-top-toy/?intcmp=features

:D

Michale....

Another example of Obama's Foreign Policy "triumph"...

Michale.....

Yea, there are NO Obama fanatics, right?? :^/

Michale.....

Well, *I* do anyways. I am beginning to wonder if I am the only one left who does..

Michale.....

There is the reason why Obama's "Lead From Behind" strategy was a failure from the start...

It's typical of the Obama Administration to want all the "flash" and glory, but when it comes to the nuts and bolts REAL work that follows, Obama just wants to jet set off to Vegas for a fundraiser...

And ya'all believe that Obama is a foreign policy success!!????

Shee ya right....

Michale.....

I realize facts don't have any place in your fantasy world, michty.. At least not ALL the facts.. Like you did above, you cherry pick the facts that fit your fantasy narrative..

You have to understand. CW.COM is a REALITY based political blog..

We like to deal in ALL the facts. Not just the ones that suit a particular narrative..

For example, it's a FACT that you said you were done with me and this discussion..

Is it too much to ask that you show some honor and abide by your word??

I'm just sayin'....

Michale.....

In Michale-world Obama is doomed if he does and doomed if he doesn't. ;)

The article even points out that this would just as likely be viewed as a positive for Obama's re-election:
Given the rarity of such a strike, there's no obvious political ramification for the administration if the attack turns out to have been planned -- an ambassador hasn't been killed in such an attack in more than three decades. Voters could rally around the flag in the face of another Al Qaeda-tied assault. Or, to the contrary, they might question the administration's Middle East strategy and the measures it took to protect its own diplomatic team.

It's funny - making this a terrorist attack would've been a massive boost for Obama's re-election. History shows this 'rally behind' effect. If Obama was the guy you think he is, and only cared about himself, he would've insta-jumped on calling it a terrorist attack. The fact he hasn't suggests one thing to me: it isn't. Lol.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/political-concerns-could-factor-in-administration-version-libya-events-analysts/

That's actually a good analysis as to why Obama et al want to lay the blame on a "spontaneous" demonstration.

It DOESN'T explain why Obama et al ignored the intelligence...

Michale.....

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20.... Especially when you deal in very general terms..

"Anyone can find something on playback!"
-Commander Clagget, SUM OF ALL FEARS

The Obama Administration was informed of very specifics, time, place and date.. And dropped the ball..

Here's a good analysis as to why...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/political-concerns-could-factor-in-administration-version-libya-events-analysts/

I guess FNC is reading cw.com again :D

Michale.....

Then you are more intimate with Rush than I have ever been..

As I said, I never listen to or watch Rush. Come to think of it, I never listen to or watch anyone or anything... At least, not news/opinion shows.. Hell, I even hate to watch news videos online...

But I read voraciously.. CNN, FNC, AlJazeera, Haaretz, AP/Reuters feeds, StratFor, and a whole host of military and civilian feeds..

That's why I have to laugh when you claim I just spout talking points. I read on issues from a MULTITUDE of sources and then make up my own mind, based on the facts and my own personal experiences...

Further, if you have a problem with "Talking Points" then it seems to me you are in the wrong commentary.. You DID notice the title of this commentary, right??? :D

Michale.....

It wasn't bad enough that the DNC used Russian ships in it's tribute to the American military..

Now it's discovered that the planes depicted in the DNC montage were TURKISH Air Force planes...

I mean, call me silly... But, if Democrats wanted to salute the *US* Military, wouldn't it have behooved them to actually have *US* military hardware displayed???

"Ah, now eventually you do plan to have dinosaurs on your, on your dinosaur tour, right? Hello?"
-Dr Ian Malcolm, JURASSIC PARK

:D

Michale.....

The First Amendment was SPECIFICALLY designed for controversial speech!

Speech that doesn't offend, doesn't incite, doesn't invoke, doesn't affect has absolutely NO NEED of protection...

Speech that ISN'T controversial has NO NEED of protection...

It's the speech that DOES offend, it's the speech that DOES incite, it's the speech that DOES provoke... THAT is the very speech that NEEDS protecting..

The very action ya'all are advocating is the VERY thing that the First Amendment was CREATED to protect speech from... From the holier-than-though who thought that, THEY ALONE, should be the guardians of speech. Who should determine what is and isn't permissible speech..

Again, I am simply amazed that I have to actually LECTURE you people on this subject...

Don't get me wrong. I love it that I am so morally and ethically on the side of angels here... :D

Just a little confused by it...

Michale...

I added the Rush RSS feed (not really a blog but transcripts) a week or so ago - I suggest anyone who has half an interest in how Fox gets their news stories/Michale gets his talking points does the same. They are pretty entertaining/funny/crazy/nutty/offensive. But they make a very interesting insight to the understanding the minds of right-wing crazies. You wouldn't believe how much of the crap that comes out of his mouth is on Fox within 24 hours...

And, yer saying he gets his talking points from!?? :D How kewl is that..

Rush reads chrisweigant.com!!! :D

Sir Salman Rushdie: free speech under threat from 'religious extremists'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/booknews/9548036/Sir-Salman-Rushdie-free-speech-under-threat-from-religious-extremists.html

Remember Salman Rusdie??

If some of you had your way and, if Rushdie wrote Satanic Verses today, ya'all would want him prosecuted for a Hate Crime..

Yet, Bill Maher and his Religiousity (or whatever) film is perfectly OK...

Ahhh the blatant hypocrisy of the Left...

Unabashed, unapologetic and completely moronic......

Didn't you say something about being done???

"Kahn.... I'm laughing at the superior intellect."
-Admiral James T Kirk

:D

Michale.....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/17/susan_rice_plays_the_fool_for_the_cause

And you wonder why I always compare you to Rush? I can literally predict what you'll be posting about on here based on what's on his daily feed...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/09/17/why_don_t_hollywood_movies_made_by_liberals_inflame_the_muslim_world

I understand..

It's hard being a drugged up Obama-Bot, high on His Glory, when you have someone constantly bringing you down to earth with facts and reality..

Don't take it too hard. Better than you have tried.. And failed.. :D

{michale signs off, humming the tune to Queen's ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST.....}

:D

Michale....

Any takers???

Michale.....

You can talk with him LD and David. I'm done.

I still have faith... :D

Michale.....

ssssiiighhhhhhh

I really have to adjust my assumption of your intelligence..

Let's see.. What's better for Obama???

An unplanned unanticipated spontaneous violent protest that the Obama administration was unprepared for that kills an American ambassador and 3 other American citizens??

Or a planned terrorist attack that the Obama Administration was WARNED about days ahead of time that STILL was completely and utterly successful???

Seriously, dood.. Put down the crack pipe and try to amass some undamaged braincells...

Michale.....

Nope. Lol. I don't know why I'm bothering. It's like trying to explain hate speech to someone who doesn't speak English.

The Al-Jazerra report DOES support the contention that it was a pre-planned attack and NOT a spontaneous demonstration, as the Obama-love-fanatics want to believe.

There is a HUGE difference between:
- Protest turned into terrorist attack.
- Protest, that terrorists used as an excuse for a pre-planned attack.
- No protesting at all, just terrorist attack.

First you were claiming the latter (based on Rush, who started the rumour) now you're saying the second one? I'm lost. Please find one wing-nut explanation and stick to it!

Then link it...

I linked the eyewitness report that there was no demonstration. And, as michty has established, Fox News is a credible and legitimate source. At least it is, when it posts something ya'all AGREE with..

Nowhere does it mention that there were no protests before the attack occurred. How does this support your assertion that there were no protests before the attack?

It doesn't.. The eyewitness report previously linked handles that..

The Al-Jazerra report DOES support the contention that it was a pre-planned attack and NOT a spontaneous demonstration, as the Obama-love-fanatics want to believe..

Michale.....

Nice ta see your penchant for spouting lies and BS hasn't changed..

So much for your claim that you only deal in facts...

Michale.....

Your position is that free speech is just fine and dandy until it hurts muslim feelings...

Then ya'all simply bow to mob rule and want to restrict, criminalize and punish Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties, solely to appease an angry mob...

And, once again, I am simply gabberflasted that *I* (of ALL people) am the ONLY one who has a problem with this...

Michale.....

But, of course, no one here will read or believe this report..

Because it's contrary to the Obama narrative, this will all be dismissed...

I have to admit.. Sometimes I admire such fanatical devotion that would lead someone to ignore reality so readily...

No, not really.. I don't really admire such fanaticism...

Michale.....

Actually all the media on the ground report the same thing. The UN ambassador reports the same thing. The administration and American intelligence offices report the same thing.

The only people reporting different are the Libyan President and Libyan officials because they WANT it to seem like it was a planned Al Queda attack that didn't involve their citizens at all. Surely even YOU can see that there is a motive for them to say this?

And, to take this one step further, what is the motive for Obama to say it wasn't a terrorist attack? You know that President's poll ratings shoot up after terrorist attacks right? So if Obama was the guy you think he is in Michale-world, who takes only decisions based on his own best interests, surely they'd be screaming to the skies that this was a pre-planned terrorist attack?

Rush is in my RSS feed. For about 3 days now he has been peddling the 'it has nothing to do with the movie' nonsense. He wants to make it look like the whole world hates America because of Obama and the movie is nothing to do with it. Unsurprisingly, Fox bit and followed his rhetoric. Then of course, so did you lol. Sheeps gonna sheep.

Same difference.. So, in your world, all someone has to do is be violent about something that offends them and viola' instant Hate Speech

Sigh. I give up. You really do not have a clue how it works. Try reading my last post again and see if you get it. In particular the part where I talk about a court of law...

Actually, the only reports of demonstrations came from the Obama administration. Every other report from people on the scene and the Libyan government indicate that it was a planned attack...

Speaking strictly objectively, all those people have no reason to lie..

The Obama administration, getting caught with their pants down... AGAIN... has every reason to lie...

But I know. You won't believe ANYTHING that goes against Obama... So, it's pointless to try to convince the fanatical that their emperor has no clothes...

Michale.....

And your proof of this??

Oh that's right. Your fevered Obama-Centric imagination...

So yeh... I'll wait until I have more data before I jump into the realm of believing Rush/Fox.

Like I said.. Fox says something don't like and now, ALL of the sudden, Fox isn't credible..

If Fox had reported they caught Romney with a stripper, you would be all over it.. :D

Nope. It doesn't need to cause violence. It needs to incite violence.

Same difference.. So, in your world, all someone has to do is be violent about something that offends them and viola' instant Hate Speech..

I am sure glad I don't live in your world...

Thank gods, I live in a FREE country.. Well, granted, it's LESS free under Obama, but that will change soon enough...

Michale.....

This was reported by a Libyan military officer on the scene.. He said that it was quiet, not even an ant was out

Actually Rush Limbaugh reported (read: most likely made it up) first then Fox News picked it up, like a lot of stuff I imagine.

So yeh... I'll wait until I have more data before I jump into the realm of believing Rush/Fox. I know that you don't have this same standard as me so go ahead and shout from the rooftops lol. Yes, it's me who has the bias - YOU'RE the sane one, everyone else is biased!

So, your criteria for "Hate Speech" is that it causes violence.

Nope. It doesn't need to cause violence. It needs to incite violence.

Incite: Encourage or stir up (violent or unlawful behavior).

So, for example, in a court of law one could argue that based on the fact that a Muhammed cartoon had previously caused violence over the world (and everybody in the planet knew this), that making a video completely mocking him is absolutely inciting further violence. There we have a prosecution.

But, as I said in the other thread, there is no point in debating 'hate speech' and freedom of speech issues with you since, as demonstrated above, you are completely clueless to how it works. So yeh I'm a terrorist and I hate free speech. That's life in Michale-world, I've learned to live with it.

Michale.....

No demonstration before attack on US Consulate, source says
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/17/obama-administration-libyan-president-clash-over-explanation-on-consulate/

But, let me guess...

Since FoxNews is saying something you don't like, NOW they are not a credible source, right???

Gods, you are so predictable..

What I wouldn't give for a better quality of debate opponent..

At least LD doesn't have to change reality to make his arguments appear to be valid... I guess that's something...

Michale.....

Once again, making up facts so that your argument works... One would think you would get tired of doing that...

This was reported by a Libyan military officer on the scene.. He said that it was quiet, not even an ant was out...

I realize you like to live in your own world where Obama can do no wrong..

But jeeezus, do you think you might be able to have a PASSING association with reality???

First to have a prosecution we need evidence. So if you could show me the hate speech from Bill Maher that incited violence then let's do it!

Ahhh I see..

So, your criteria for "Hate Speech" is that it causes violence... Following this inane line of thought, if people want to prevent others from denigrating them, they need to get violent at the slightest provocation.. THAT way, in MichtyLand, they can prosecute people for hate speech..

So, in MichtyLand, not only do people get to be violent and rape and behead people, they can ALSO have their opponents arrested for hate speech...

It's a MichtyLand Two-Fer!!!!

Like I said, michty.. Try to have at least a PASSING association with reality, k??

Thank the gods our SCOTUS is smarter than you! :D

Michale.....

Lol no, Rush Limbaugh says there was no demonstration. There is a difference. We, means all of us (normally). 'We' in Michale world means 'me and Rush Limbaugh' ;)

So, when are you going to push for the prosecution of Bill Maher?

First to have a prosecution we need evidence. So if you could show me the hate speech from Bill Maher that incited violence then let's do it!

Despite multiple claims from Obama admin officials, intelligence reports indicate that there was NO demonstration in Libya that proceeded the Benghazi attacks..

Get that, people??

Obama et al claimed that the deaths of our Ambassador and other Americans resulted from a demonstration that got out of control.

We're NOW learning that there was NO DEMONSTRATION at all!

And, since I know how ya'all are totally committed to truth and truth-tellers, I am SURE that ya'all will condemn Obama for this lie as aggressively and as loudly as you condemned Bush....

Riiigggghhhhhttttt????

Stick a fork in Obama. He's done....

Michale.....

Yea, but your problem (like LD's) is that you don't want to apply that standard fairly...

Ya'alls reasoning is EXACTLY why the SCOTUS ruled the way it did in NAACP v Claiborne.

The SCOTUS ruled that, since the restriction would never be applied fairly, that the restriction should not exist...

In other words, ya'alls definition of "hate speech" is completely partisan..

Damn smart those SCOTUS Justices, eh... :D

Michale.....

One of the UK royals got her picture taken when she was topless. (For the record, I've seen better...) Anyways, the word from the photographer is that he was on a public road when the picture was taken. No crime was committed in any way, shape or form..

UK royals are calling from criminal prosecution of the photographer.

Your thoughts???

Michale.....

Really??

Some two-bit Joe Schmooo is part of a TEAM that puts together a rinky dink blurb about islam and this ONE person (who wasn't much involved at all) should EXPECT that this rinky dink video will cause an attack on our embassy in Egypt!!!????

Is THAT your contention??

So, let's say I make a 2 minute blurb that shows islam's prophet/god/whatever getting boned up the arse by a donky and I post it to youtube. I should EXPECT that, out of the millions and millions of videos posted to YouYube DAILY, that my 2 min video will cause a riot at our embassy in Bum Fuq, Egypt???

Is THAT really what you are saying???

OK... What if I go on an anti-religion bender like say, oohhh I dunno.. BILL MAHER and do ANOTHER 2 minute video that shows the christian god being boned up the arse by a donkey and post THAT to YouTube...

Show I expect that our embassy in, oh let's say THE VATICAN!! will come under attack and our ambassador there would be brutally raped and murdered!!

Look at what you are saying! That ANY Joe Schmooo with a less then basic understanding of computers and the Internet can do up a video and, ALL BY THEMSELVES, can grab the vaunted Obama Foreign Policy machine BY THE BALLS and bend it to his will!!

Is THAT really the theory you want to become acceptable???

As I said above, the biggest problem you have with your position is consistency...

You don't advocate prosecuting anyone for anti-christian slander or libel.. You don't advocate prosecuting anyone for anti-jewish slander or libel..

No.. You just want to go after the guys that commit slander or libel against islam...

Now the only question is....

Would you be so hell bent to protect islam if the Right wasn't so hell-bent on attacking islam???

I think we ALL know the answer to that...

Michale.....

So, if I witness a crime and intervene and, during the intervention, innocent people are injured and/or killed, who is responsible??

The scumbag committing the crime or me for intervening??

Don't tell me.. I already know your answer..

You would say it's me... :D

Michale.....

Com'on, David.. Ignorance doesn't become you..

On the other hand, it's par for the course for michty... But at least I spell his name right now. :D

michty,

1. Guy walking down the street calls Romney a felon

See, once again your problem rears it's ugly head. Changing the facts to make your argument sound plausible..

How about Obama's campaign manager called Romney a felon.. Several times...

PS. Great points LD. Michale and I had a similar conversation in another thread where I was pointing out that 'hate speech' is actually illegal in almost every democratic country except the US...

So, when are you going to push for the prosecution of Bill Maher?? No??? What a shock!!

Why don't you just say what you mean. Mockery and ridicule of islam is "hate speech"... Anything else goes...

Apparently, of course, this makes me a terrorist lover and a hater of free speech... ;)

Well, we finally agree on something! :D

Michale......

Holding the Author of the video responsible for the results of his actions has nothing to do with whether someone else was predisposed, except that the author should have known that violence was a likely result and therefore should be held accountable for his actions.

And its been my experience, through the civil rights movement, and a study of American history, that people can change. And that you don't promote that change by first demanding that it spontaneously take place before you'll endorse it.--And also, that good people do bad things.--And can change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

Apparently, of course, this makes me a terrorist lover and a hater of free speech... ;)

Wait ... Romney's a felon? :)

In Michale world yes. This is how Michale-world logic works:
1. Guy walking down the street calls Romney a felon
2. Guy is going to vote for the Democrats.
3. Obama is a Democrat.
4. Therefore, Obama called Romney a felon.

:D If we can still laugh with/at each other, then I guess things are kewl...

I'm all for people being able to bring private civil suits for libel and slander.--Its SCOTUS who says otherwise.

And if the scumbags who respond to offense by raping ambassadors and brutally murdering our fellow Americans would resort to civil suits, then I wouldn't have a problem...

There simply can be NO CASE made for the idea that it's the VIDEO that's the problem and the reaction to the video is secondary...

It's been my experience thru over 2 decades of military, security and LEO work that people who are inclined to rape and murder and burn and pillage will find ANY excuse to do so. And if they can't FIND an excuse, then they will simply make one up..

Like I said (and no one has refuted), blaming the video for the violence is identical to blaming the woman for the rape...

Michale.....

I must have missed this one.
-David

BTW. I never said libel and slander were "acceptable," I said they were (unfortunately,) "permissible," not desirable, but unavoidable. And only to be, reluctantly, tolerated with regard to domestic political speech. But that tolerance only prohibits governmental interference. I'm all for people being able to bring private civil suits for libel and slander.--Its SCOTUS who says otherwise.

Since Team Obama never accused Romney of being a felon--No I didn't speak out against things that never happened.

And see the above comment for my "moral, ethical" foundation.

If yer gonna make the argument that Libel and Slander are perfectly acceptable in a political context, then I shall taunt you a second time!

:D

Michale.....

Branding all protesters as "rapists and murderers" is bigotry, not fact. It would be bigotry even if it were fact. I'd suggest you take a little look at our own history to get an idea of what the formation of new democracies might entail.

We legalized slavery (and rape), waged a genocidal war against our indigenous peoples, considered women property not citizens, only allowed the wealthy, that is landowners, to vote, and engaged in a civil war. We were, in fact, rather infamously well known "rapists and murderers". We outgrew most of it but our democracy is still "a work in progress."

The mythical instantaneous non-violent unanimous formation of law-abiding functional democracies is a figment of right-wing fantasies, its never happened, and no excuse, at all, for righteous indignation or self-congratulatory superiority.

Yes, I care about them. I view them as people, not "rapists and murderers." I expect them to behave like people, make the mistakes people make, have the problems people have and have the potential people possess. I do not expect fairy-godparents, prince charmings, saints, angels, or boogeymen. And I certainly don't expect them to avoid everything we had to go through just because we now know better (sort of).

And people, when attacked, tend to lash out, at whomever they can reach.--And tend to keep lashing out as long as they're being attacked. If we really want to stop the violence we have to stop the attacks, our attacks. Its just that simple.

Did you speak out when Team Obama accused Romney of being a felon?? Did you take exception when Team Obama implied that Romney had murdered a woman??

No??

Then you have absolutely NO moral/ethical authority/foundation to make the argument you are making.

NONE... ZERO.... ZILCH.... NADA.....

Michale.....

You, specifically, and the Left in general *MIGHT* have a case if ya'all were to reign in YA'ALLs abusive elements..

But when you have Lefties making feature films that mock & denigrate religion and you have Lefties putting out twits like "Jesus is frakin' Tim Tebow" and garbage like that, and ya'all don't say dick....

Well, why should anyone take ya'all seriously???

Regardless of your personal beliefs, what this obscure film maker/promoter did is completely and unequivocally within his First Amendment rights to do. PERIOD.

You don't like it? That's your prerogative..

You want to speak out against it?? Knock yerself out..

But what you CAN'T do is make that case that it's criminal...

Because, ALL the facts say that you are wrong...

What this Joe Blow did was perfectly within the bounds of the law and the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution...

I am truly sorry you have a problem with it, but it IS your problem...

Michale.....

I found the cite for it.."

I've said that political speech directed internally is protected, but not all speech. We censor all the time. We have a National Security Act which anyone with access to classified information must acknowledge and agree to, in writing. A pervasive practice of the government both censoring and intimidating people into not speaking. -- And one which is perfectly constitutional, because only political speech is protected.

SCOTUS has a habit, which I've also taken exception to, of unconstitutionally amending the constitution, to our detriment.

Slander and libel are crimes. Crimes which are nearly impossible to prosecute because SCOTUS has gutted the law so courts don't get involved in determining what's protected speech. Heaven forbid, the courts should be called upon to make actual judgments instead of simply picking from an ever growing, and contradictory, menu of precedents.

Libel and Slander are not constitutionally protected. They, in no way, empower or promote our democracy; in point of fact they undermine it. It isn't the money in politics that's the problem. Its the ability to lie with impunity. If all speakers were required to be truthful, to at least speak in good faith, it wouldn't matter how much was spent on campaigns.

Instead we've a major media outlet dedicated to misinforming and misleading the voting public. We've one of the two major political parties whose very existence is only sustained by its pervasive lying and misleading of the electorate. And we have a growing population of domestic terrorists who attempt to incite violence at home and abroad through libel and slander.

We keep ineffectually dancing around the symptoms of our problems because we operate under misconceptions about the 1st amendment, and, just as mistakenly, and unconstitutionally, refuse to confront SCOTUS over the unconstitutional amendments it constantly imposes to promote its various social experiments and theories, even when the supposed "rationale" behind them has proven demonstrably false.

I'm sure we will see some great slogans:
- 'Change you can remember (since it's the same as before)'
- 'Change you will give to millionaires as they need all the change out your pockets'
- 'Change you can believe in (if you're a millionaire)'
- 'Change you can buy - for a merely $1m campaign donation'
- 'Change you will never see as you die because we're taking your healthcare away...'

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81283.html#ixzz26jdJLxUQ

Once again, the Obama Administration is going with the "Are You Going To Believe Us Or Your Own Eyes" strategy...

Possibly because it's worked SO WELL for them.. :^/

Michale.....

The second item of note is that today marks the fifth "birthday" of this column series. September 14, 2007 saw the very first Friday Talking Points column ever (although the name and the column format wouldn't solidify for a few months).

Happy FTP B-Day, CW!!! :D

Michale.....

If Democrats had the kind of edge with SuperPACs that Republicans enjoy, do you HONESTLY believe they would be circulating petitions to take down Citizens United???

I am sure you would agree with me that they wouldn't..

Therefore, I view with skepticism any move by Democrats to take down a Republican money-machine, regardless of the "pure" motives claimed by Democrats..

If Democrats were willing to take down THEIR money-machines first, that would convince me that their motives are sincere....

But nothing else would...

Michale.....

sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cu/?subsource=splash

You don't think Sherrod Brown is taking money from Interest Groups???

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=n00003535

For someone who wants to get the money out of politics, Brown sure rakes in a heapin' helpin' of it....

This is the EXACT problem I alluded to before.

Ya'll support as your "champions" leaders who are part of the problem...

Michale.....

Michale.....

Probably because it's the only issue that is technically a bi-partisan problem, but where only one side of it is denigrated... :D

Inactivity until everyone agrees?

No... Inactivity until everyone addresses the problem in a non-partisan manner..

Sounds more like you're really not interested in taking any action.

Well, if I had to be honest, I am not. Not because I don't think action is warranted.. But because I know it can never be approached in a non-partisan manner...

In other words, I doubt we'll have an IRON EAGLE II moment with regards to combating Citizens United.

Who on the right would you target for providing favors for money? Since you're so non-partisan, there's got to be somebody, no?

It would be a MUCH simpler answer to say who is NOT taking money for favors???

Answer: NO ONE... There is not a politician in the country who is not taking money from special interests....

That's why it always cracks me up to see Weigantians go after Conservatives with such aplomb... :D Especially since Obama hisself has embraced Citizens United and SuperPACS...

I mean, doesn't it make sense to clean one's own house first, before embarking on cleaning up the neighborhood???

It doesn't discriminate. It is completely non-partisan. Overturning this decision would eliminate ALL of these groups.

Yes it would...

But when the "evil" of Citizens United is detailed, guess what??

All we hear is AMERICAN CROSSROADS and nothing about PRIORITIES USA ACTION...

Taking down Citizens United is a worthy endeavor.. But NOT if it's done in a partisan manner with the ulterior agenda of weakening political opponents.

Michale.....

How is wanting to overturn the Citizens' United decision partisan?

For example, if someone writes an OpEd decrying and castigating AMERICAN CROSSROADS, but doesn't touch PRIORITIES USA ACTION, what is a normal rational American to think?

Citizens' United is the legislation responsible for all of these groups.

It doesn't discriminate. It is completely non-partisan. Overturning this decision would eliminate ALL of these groups.

-David

Funny ... this is the only issue you've advocated this new approach ... :)

Inactivity until everyone agrees?

Sounds more like you're really not interested in taking any action.

Well, how about this simple question then. Who on the right would you target for providing favors for money? Since you're so non-partisan, there's got to be somebody, no?

-David

I mean other than trying to start fights with liberals online about who is better.

I am trying to strengthen the message so it's not diluted and discarded as nothing more than partisan snipe hunting...

Then act on it. Join those doing something about it.

I won't until those who are joined encompass the WHOLE problem and not just the part of the problem that is partisan politics..

A good start would be to call out ANY negative influence, whether it comes from the Right or the Left...

For example, if someone writes an OpEd decrying and castigating AMERICAN CROSSROADS, but doesn't touch PRIORITIES USA ACTION, what is a normal rational American to think??

"Ahhh Democrats are bitching and whining again..."

You see the point.. Until those who want to take a stand against CITIZENS UNITED do so in toto rather than just the Conservative side of CU, there will never be anything accomplished..

The war is lost before it even begins...

Imagine what would happen if Daily......

Gotta run. Wife is picking me up..

I'll pick this up when I get home...

Michale....

Yes. And this means that I will call it out where I see it. Just as I did with Rahm Emanuel.

And just as I pointed out happened in North Carolina.

Where do you see this as a problem?

What are you doing about it then?

I mean other than trying to start fights with liberals online about who is better.

Here's the petition to repeal Citizen's United ...

http://www.sherrodbrown.com/petition/w1112cu/?subsource=splash

It would take you less than 30 seconds.

Or write your Congressman ...

Or pitch in some money ...

Or take some action of your own ...

But, as we agree, it IS a problem on BOTH sides of the aisle.

Then act on it. Join those doing something about it.

-David

Before, I had mentioned that the SCOTUS had ruled that free speech cannot be curtailed because it MIGHT incite an angry mob..

I found the cite for it..

In the 1972 case NAACP v Claiborne, the SCOTUS unanimously rejected the that theory, holding that there would be no meaningful free speech if speech could be censored on the grounds that it "inspires" others to commit violence: "While the State legitimately may impose damages for the consequences of violent conduct, it may not award compensation for the consequences of nonviolent, protected activity"

Further, the SCOTUS ruled that advocacy of the use of force or violence does not remove speech from the protection of the first amendment.

In other words, the SCOTUS has ruled that just because someone says something or posts a video that MIGHT offend someone to the point of violence, it is not sufficient cause to limit said author's freedom of speech... That it's the person that commits the violence who is solely and completely responsible for the violence and NOT the person who's speech allegedly incited the violence..

Ya'all are LIBERALs, fer christ's sake!!!

I am amazed I have to explain this to ya'all...

Too bad CW is no longer taking submissions. I could do a doozy!!! :D

Michale.....

Does anyone doubt that if the Bush White House had "requested" in the wake of 9/11 that all anti-war or anti-administration videos be "reviewed" to see if they should remain on the internet -- on the not-implausible ground that they might encourage attacks on American troops or personnel -- that Democrats would have little trouble seeing why it is dangerous to have the executive branch taking action to influence private internet companies to suppress political speech? The actions of the Obama White House are no less inappropriate.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conservatives-Democrats-a-by-Glenn-Greenwald-120916-66.html

Who woulda thunked I would actually AGREE with Glenn Greenwald...

I have always respected Greenwald..

Not because he is usually right. Just the opposite. He is wrong, more often than not.. His current commentary is the exception..

No, I respect Greenwald because he is not enslaved by the "-D"/"-R" phenomena...

He has his principles and he sticks by them, REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY VIOLATES THEM...

He is wrong most of the time, but at least he isn't a hypocrite...

I respect that...

Michale.....

But, as we agree, it IS a problem on BOTH sides of the aisle...

Michale.....