Apparently Phil "Duck Commander" Robertson wasn't Charlie..

Nor was that Florida Nutjob (redundant :D) who wanted to burn korans..

If you want to talk about people who try and censor and shut down other people's free speech, there is a LOT more blood on Democrat's hands than Republicans...

Michale

But we're all Charlie, no?

I was just listening to ATC on NPR and they interviewed an attorney from Paris who specializes in freedom of speech cases and, according to him, Dieudonne tweeted: "I am Charlie Coulibaly.", although I've read online that it was "Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly."

Maybe this is just a difference in translation to English, but the first one does seem more likely.

:D

Michale

Only to yerself, sunshine..

Only to yerself... :D

So STFU!!

Love you too... ;^*

Michale

It is entirely possible to prove that an event did not in fact occur. But it does require evidence. You simply do not have any. Which is why your assertion that I am untruthful is a lie.

Your lies are not true until proven otherwise, Michale.

I gave you facts. Relevant facts. I stated that I personally experienced it. That I am a witness.

And I have proven, repeatedly, that you are a liar. Just as I've already proven, repeatedly, that you are a racist bigot. Those are facts. Facts that I have Proven. Repeatedly.

And those facts prove that your baseless opinions have no credibility. So I am, in fact, under no obligation to further prove anything to you. I've already proven, repeatedly, that you are a liar. As I have just proven, yet again. So STFU!!

Can't prove a negative, sunshine... :D

It's possible to prove ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to me...

All I ask for are FACTS.. Relevant FACTS...

Something you have a LOT of trouble providing..

All you have is your "truth", which is as far from factual as is possible to be...

".... and so it goes and so it goes...."
-Billy Joel

:D

Michale

And when I mentioned watching the Selma march on television you claimed that that wasn't "proof" that it ever happened either.

My word that it happened is all the proof I need to offer. I don't give a damn whether or not you choose to believe me. You've amply demonstrated you only believe what you want to believe based upon your prejudices.

In fact, its people like you that are the reason I'm not interested in any video. The people who don't believe discrimination is currently happening, I relevant, are uninformed by choice. They don't want to know the truth, so they simply refuse to know the truth. Like you, Michale.

You are the most prolific bald-faced liar on this site! And your routinely challenge everyone else's veracity while claiming you present rumors and opinions as "fact" with absolutely no proof whatsoever.

It isn't possible to prove to you anything that you don't want to know, and I'm tired of you libeling me here with your lies. So either YOU provide proof that I'm not telling the truth or STFU!

Yea....

And Nixon had the Silent Majority behind him as well... :^/

And I have a LOT of support... In email... :^/

You make the claim, ya gots to prove it...

"Pics or it didn't happen."
-Charlie Bradbury

Michale

Given one in five black men felony convictions so that both their rights may be legally taken away and so that they may be legally discriminated against.

Repealed the fourteenth amendment and reinstituted poll taxes (having to buy photo-IDs) and Jim Crowe laws preventing black people from voting. (Like requiring birth certificates of people born at home during a time when certificates weren't issued. Or requiring a photo-ID to vote, and a photo-ID to get a photo-ID! (I've personally experienced that one here in Illinois, though, thankfully, we do not require a photo-ID to vote.))

Reoutlawed abortion by making it illegal to perform procedures unless you're the Mayo Clinic! (OK--Yes, I exaggerate--a little.) to force women to carry to term against their will. (AKA "involuntary servitude," AKA "slavery.")

Sure, "its not actually happening in the here and now", Michale. I believe that when it comes to "white America honestly believes that that sort of thing is irrelevant ancient history..." that you resemble that remark.

...But I'll pass on the video. My experiences were common enough, well known enough, well documented enough--people can view "Selma" if they're so inclined. I'm a rather private person. I don't even do Facebook! Much less YouTube videos!

Which is more than such instances actually happening in the here and now...

Michale

How long ago and where?

It occurs to me that it might be worthwhile to stage a conversation about your experience, and post video of it on Youtube. Much of white America honestly believes that that sort of thing is irrelevant ancient history. To a lot of people, when they hear any date more than five years before their own birth, it's just a four-digit number. It might as well be 1066 or 1492. But if they see video of a person speaking in the first person, the events are automatically understood to have happened within living memory. Of course, odds are that not very many people would watch. But probably more than zero.

Thanks to "The War On Terror (tm)" terrorists are definitely on the run!

Instead of terrorist havens like Taliban Afghanistan we now have the ISIS Caliphate! Terrorists now have their own country!

Maybe, if we defeat them enough, they'll end up ruling the world?!

Charlie initiates an entirely spurious and egregious attack on Islam. Islamic extremists escalate with excessive force and murderous intent. Charlie, naturally, escalates its own attacks in reply...

Yes, Michale, we're really getting a handle on the violence! Way to fight terrorism! Starting fights, refusing to back down, and escalating them has always been an effective way to prevent violence.--NOT!

Okay. Now I'm read on Boxer comments.

Personally, I think America's a good place worth supporting and defending. I just think we could, and should, be better. And I don't think we will be by telling ourselves how awesome we are now, and how much better than everyone else we've always been. I think we need to admit our mistakes, learn from them, and take action to do better in the future.--Call me crazy, but it just appears to me that America has just a little bit of difficulty getting past step one...

I'm a great-grandson of a slave, descended from Native Americans, who had to get off the sidewalk and walk in the street for white folks when I was a child visiting my Grandparents home. So America's public image is in minor conflict with my own personal experience and family history. It's just a tad difficult to reconcile with America being the ultra virtuous morally impeccable historical role-model for individual freedom, liberty, and justice for all!

But I recognize that splashing America's shining image with reality is a total buzz kill. It isn't hatred, its "tough love."

North Korea hacked into Sony and caused all sorts of mischief in an effort to stop people from seeing THE INTERVIEW...

The result??

Millions more saw it than would have seen it if NK had left well enough alone. The movie made tons more money than it had a right to..

Islamic terrorists attack Charlie Hebdo and kill 12 people over their paper's mocking of the islamic prophet..

The result??

Hebdo sells 3 million issues of the post-attack issue where normally they would sell around 30,000.... Millions more saw the prophet in all his "glory" than would have if the scumbags would have left well enough alone..

Are ya'all sensing the pattern that I am seeing???

The more scumbags try to interfere with our inalienable human rights, the WORSE it is for said scumbags..

The scumbags are bringing about the very scenarios that they sought to avoid with their attacks...

It's a welcome trend that I hope continues and expands...

Michale

:D

What constitutes a right, and the ontological and epistemic status of rights, do have a factual component. But methinks there's a wee smidgen of theory involved as well.

There is no such thing as "free speech rights." Individual rights cease, everyone's individual rights cease, when they conflict with the rights of others. For the simple reason that everyone has the same rights.--Uh, let me qualify that, everyone's rights cease to exist when they conflict with another's IF everyone has the same rights.

Therein lies the problem with "free speech rights." If I've a right to mock and slander you I reduce your ability to speak, as fewer will heed your words.--Which, after all, is the whole point of mocking and slandering. To negate another's speech so that they do not in fact have the same ability to speak that I do. (So much for "Free Speech rights!")

"Free speech rights" isn't about everyone having the right to speak. It's about you having the right to speak instead of the other guy.

In America we have First Amendment rights. Because when individual rights conflict they cease to be individual rights, but, rather, are subject to negotiation. The results of America's negotiations was a mutual agreement to accept the rights delineated in the First Amendment. Which are that all political speech is a protected right.

The idea being that ensuring citizens have access to all information necessary for them to make informed choices about their governance, and ensuring that corrupt government officials cannot manipulate the electorate by controlling the information that the electorate has, is worth compromising the speech rights of some individuals on occasion.

The courts generally grant First Amendment protection to nearly all speech on the grounds that almost any speech can be "political" in nature. And also on the pragmatic grounds that we really don't want the potential for abuse in having courts decide what is, and is not, protected speech any more than we want to risk any other government officials making those decisions.

But no one, ever, has suggested, and it certainly isn't the intent of the First Amendment, to grant "free speech rights." If you don't believe me try walking into any courtroom, the places charged with protecting our First Amendment rights, and exercise your "free speech rights."--When you get out of jail we can talk again.

There is not now, and there has never been, a "free speech right." Your individual right to say whatever you please any way you want ends the instant it conflicts with another's right say what they want to say--unless, and except, for when there's been some kind of agreement between you giving you a right to speak anyway.--Like the First Amendment.

Our issues with religious extremists, conservatives, and bigots of all stripes, are a direct result of the misconception that they have rights in effect no matter how their actions may affect others. Rights like "free speech rights" that simply do not, and have never, existed. It's those faulty beliefs that ultimately cause violence as people fight, and kill, over their rights.

It isn't what rights people believe that they have that's the problem. It's that they believe that their "rights" give them a right to do things to others, whether those others agree or not.--There are no such rights.

I thought everyone else here agreed that there's some new right to speak your mind. That there no need to be civil. And that there's definitely no need to pay any attention at all to how your audience might react to your words. If they can't handle the truth that's their problem!

Don't you want to come out and play too?

You clearly are not against christian priv and yeah you project a lot, hypocrite.

BTW - it really doesn't matter if I'm good with other peoples' free speech rights or not. They have them. That's what is known as a "fact", a word you apparently don't understand.

"you claim religion is the cause of bigotry"

Actually, I claimed it is the source of anti-gay violence and bias. Try not to put words in my mouth liar.

"If you're so satisfied with everyone's right to defame each other then why the complaints about the treatment of Gays by the religious?"

I've made no complaints about the things they say and criticizing crazy ideas is not defamation regardless of how many times you repeat that tripe.

There's no projection only fact. Just as I said your prejudice blinds you to your own blatant hypocrisy.

I don't give a damn about your "religious indoctrination," my point was that your bigotry is not the result of obeying some religious tenet, as you claim religion is the cause of bigotry.

If you're so satisfied with everyone's right to defame each other then why the complaints about the treatment of Gays by the religious? That's contradictory. As is your complaining of "Christian privilege."

And if Christians have a right to slur you, as you've a right to mock them, then they also have a right to enact laws to criminalize your behavior. To try to exclude you from the benefits of society, because that's just another form of "expression."

Don't give me "Christian privilege" if you're not against all "privilege," as I am. Because Gay privilege ain't gonna happen and I don't give a damn.

If you're good with the status quo of everybody slurring and mocking each other, and occasionally killing each other--fine. I'm glad your amused. But, then, you sound like a fool, and fools are notoriously easy to amuse.

Still lying. You ignore the facts I offer and offer straw men of your own. Yes NRA instead of IRA was a typo. So what?! Even if you could, and you can't, substantiate your opinion that if America is a terrorist organization then Obama is a terrorist, it wouldn't make your lie that I said Obama is a terrorist true. That is factually a lie. You cannot lie your way out if it. You do not get to put words in my mouth based on your opinions.

"You have no right to do things to others. No right at all. And that includes mocking them, defaming them, embarrassing them, humiliating them, and holding them up to public ridicule. You do not have a right to free speech. NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER!"

Yeah I do have the right to mock them for believing ideas like rising from the grave or virgin births and they have the right to keep on slurring me with their idiotic labels like "sinner" and "sodomite" and "evil".

"If you believed in those crazy religious teachings you might have heard of something called 'The Golden Rule.'"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

LOL! I received plenty of religious indoctrination as a young person, but you don't have to believe fantastical stories to understand the golden rule. It's not a concept that was generated by religion anyway, but it would be nice if christians gave it a try.

Your defensiveness on this subject is quite amusing. You should try this out - "christian privilege". For gay people (and atheists and religious minorities) it describes the situation quite well. christian is the default setting in USA. christian supremacy is institution and structural and it's based on christianity, just like the faithers say it is.

"Bigotry against gays isn't limited to religious people. And neither is violent prejudice. Nazis, for example were equal opportunity bigots attacking Gays for their sensual orientation. Romani simply for being different. And Jews to being successful. They were as violent as they come and not the least motivated by religious teachings."

The Nazis were christians.

"As I said, based on absolutely zero evidence you've formed a belief that's an iron-clad certainty that differs from the beliefs of the religious only in details."

Yeah. Details like I have no interest what-so-ever in forcing my not-god's rules by force of law on anybody else (as if there are any of those).

"You can pretend that you've a right to inflict emotional distress on others simply because you want to, because your beliefs are so self-evidently superior."

Actually, that is clearly the christian position and they're not pretending. They are the majority and they inflict their insanity on the rest of us because they can.

"You seem to think people who aren't Gay should respect the desires of those who are. Why? I'm not Gay. What Gays want has nothing to do with me.
That's what you think of the religious, and the hypocrisy should be self-evident."

That's interesting. I didn't say anything like that. Where have I asked for their respect and exactly what faither "desires" am I disrespecting? Their desire to demonize, physically attack, and legally target gay people? Their desire to teach their idiotic ideas in public schools? Their desire to have their crazy ideas go uncriticized and unchallenged?

Oh good grief. Get a room you two.

hehehehehehehehehe

No need.. I think we're done here.. :D

Michale

Really???

The NRA, eh??

Well, I am glad you are so sure of yer facts... :D

Since you are so sure of yer facts, I guess I have nothing left to counter with...

Oh, well.. 'Cept for reality.. :D

Michale

If the US is a terrorist group as you claim, then the head of the US is a terrorist..

No amount of messiah-worship will change that...

Michale

Three centuries as a slave nation alone will qualify any nation in the universe as a "terrorist organization." But then we've also got our Indian Wars, the atomic bombing of Japan, support for the Shaw of Iran, support for the Sandinistas in Nicaragua...

To name just a few of the more blatant examples of American terror campaigns, and without even mentioning our recent forays into mass kidnappings, murder and torture so euphemistically referred to as "extraordinary rendition" and "enhanced interrogation."

Your simply refusing to accept facts doesn't make them untrue. It doesn't even make them "opinions." It just makes you a liar.

So...

The mere fact that you claim the US has NOT committed terrorist acts simply shows how far off the reservation you have gone...

It is not my opinion. Its a fact. And I gave evidence to support it. When the NRA was internationally recognized as a terrorist organization its official political wing, and its members, were not. That is historical fact.

And even if it were my opinion, being subject to opinion means YOUR "interpretation" is "opinion" and not FACT.

So when you claim that its a fact that saying America is a terrorist organization means that you're saying Obama is a terrorist, that is YOUR "opinion." It is not a fact.

And making claims that are not factual is "lying". There is nothing you can say that will alter that simple fact!

That's your opinion completely and unequivocally unsupported by anything factual in nature...

The mere fact that you claim the US has committed terrorist acts simply shows how far off the reservation you have gone...

Michale

It's "lying" not "dumbing down."

Your excuse that my comment about America is the same as commenting about Obama is simply not true. You'd have to make a number of assumptions, none of which are true or a part of my comment.

Obama is America's representative, he is not America.

Terrorist organizations do not have to be actively engaged in terrorism at present.

People associated with terrorist organizations that are not involved in terrorist activity are not terrorists themselves.

So you'd have to have evidence that America is currently engaging in terrorism and that Obama is a part of it before it would be true that Obama is a terrorist.

America, on the other hand, only has to have engaged in terrorism in the past with the potential to do so again in the future to be a terrorist organization.

You have no such evidence. I know that people like you also like to pretend that anyone even remotely involved with any terrorist organization even if the organization isn't currently involved in terrorism is a terrorist.--That, however is also political spin, not objective fact.

Your definitions are political not factual. It's why you reject the simple fact that acts intended to terrorize are terrorism. You insist on being able to shape the definition to meet political objectives. So adversaries are terrorists and you are not. That's what our official government definitions are for.

But political spin isn't necessarily fact. And your spin on my comment is still a lie. You are free to spin away. But your spin is not actual fact, and it is not actually what I said. Claiming that it is what I said is lying.

You are no fool. You know the difference between spin and fact. You simply choose to lie.

As I recall during the Troubles in Northern Ireland the Irish Republican Army had a political wing that everyone knew was part of a terrorist organization, but which were not terrorists themselves. Recognizing the distinction was necessary to promote a peaceful dialog.

Your insistence that being an executive in a terrorist organization automatically makes you a terrorist is simply not true.

Your insistence that saying America is a terrorist organization means Obama I a terrorist is simply mot true.

You just prefer winger talking-points to facts, and winger spin to the truth.--And that is lying.

So be it.. :D

Michale

You do not get to change my words to suit yourself. That is lying. Yes I said America is a terrorist organization. I never said one word about Obama, however.

You are free to imagine my words mean whatever you please. You do not get to claim that what you imagine my words mean are the words that I said. That is lying.

And your attempts to justify your lies by means of your own personal interpolation is lying.

My words are what I say. Nothing more. Nothing less. You do not get to add meaning to them and claim the words are mine. That is lying.

Saying that America is a terrorist organization is not the same as saying Obama is a terrorist. You may think it means the same given your prejudices and challenges with facts and veracity. But it simply is not the same thing. Claiming it is is a lie.

Proof, beyond doubt, that you are a liar lying about what I say.

You Wingers always love to misrepresent the words of others and then lie attributing your fantasies as quotes.--But you are lying.

Bigotry against gays isn't limited to religious people. And neither is violent prejudice. Nazis, for example were equal opportunity bigots attacking Gays for their sensual orientation. Romani simply for being different. And Jews to being successful. They were as violent as they come and not the least motivated by religious teachings.

Just as your comments would seem to indicate an atheist and yet you are still a bigot. A feat you've obviously effortlessly managed without any religious instruction.

As I said, based on absolutely zero evidence you've formed a belief that's an iron-clad certainty that differs from the beliefs of the religious only in details.--And like them, in spite of your total lack of evidence you are not only convinced of the validity of your belief, but of its, and your, superiority.

Human nature. Not religion. As your personal self-delusions amply demonstrate. You, and your beliefs do not differ one tiny bit from those of the religious, with the sole exception of what you believe validates them. The actual substance of your beliefs are identical.--That you've received truths unknown to, or rejected by, others. That your acceptance of those truths renders you, and your opinions, superior to others. That you have a right, and a duty, to defend your beliefs against the obviously misguided and irrational beliefs of others.

And you are as clueless as any zealot as to the hypocrisy, arrogance, irrationality, self-aggrandization, and hubris in being so certain of your beliefs, and your superiority based on nothing at all but your personal prejudice. That's what makes people like you dangerous. It always has and it always will.

No religious teachings were necessary to make you an arrogant irrational self-important hypocrite with sociopathic and meglamaniacal tendencies.--It never is...

Human nature people. Thinking you're better than others. Smarter than others. Know more than others. That you have a right to do things to others because of your manifest superiority.

You can pretend that you've a right to inflict emotional distress on others simply because you want to, because your beliefs are so self-evidently superior. You can claim that any harm done to them is their own fault for choosing to cherish such obviously wrongheaded beliefs that they cannot suffer your righteous correction. And you can delude yourself that you can attack others with impunity so long as you do not personally offer them physical violence they are precluded from offering you physical violence in return.

--Only problem: There are no such rules. Which is why France has a dozen dead bodies that say otherwise.

And six-thousand years of human history says that until people stop pretending that they've a right to violate the rights of others. That what other people believe may mean something to them but it doesn't mean anything to you--people will go right on killing each other.

You seem to think people who aren't Gay should respect the desires of those who are. Why? I'm not Gay. What Gays want has nothing to do with me.

That's what you think of the religious, and the hypocrisy should be self-evident. It's not because you act on your prejudice over rationality.--And that, not religion, is why people kill each other.

Stopping the violence means stopping the bigotry. It means recognizing that your rights end where they impact others. From that point on everything is negotiable.

You have no right to do things to others. No right at all. And that includes mocking them, defaming them, embarrassing them, humiliating them, and holding them up to public ridicule. You do not have a right to free speech. NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER!

If you believed in those crazy religious teachings you might have heard of something called 'The Golden Rule.'

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

It's a simple rule. No belief in a supreme being required. Is basic wisdom should be obvious to agnostics and atheists alike. And if more people honored it the world would have a much lower hypocrisy quotient. To say nothing of a greatly reduced body count.--And the massacre at Charlie would never have happened.--But then, neither would Charlie's cartoons.

Nice try... But if THAT is all you have.. :D

You claimed that the US is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet... Obama is the leader of the US..

Ergo, your claim is that Obama is the biggest terrorist on the planet..

I can dumb it down for you further if you need me to.. :D

Michale

Just one lie after another with you--always.

The proof that you're lying is right here, and you know it. You've repeatedly claimed that I said Obama is a terrorist. I have not. No where in these comments have I said any such thing. That is simply a fact. Your lying is simply a fact. You prove me wrong. Find the quote where I said Obama is a terrorist. You can't. I never said it. You've been lying.

ONLY amongst uncivilized savages...

THAT is the point that you completely and unequivocally miss...

You can call me all sorts of BS names, fully secure in the knowledge that it won't result in death or destruction or bloodshed or mayhem..

Why??

Because you know that I am a civilized person..

I can tell you that you are totally frak'ed in the head and that your beliefs are as wrong as wrong can be, secure in the knowledge that my family won't be butchered..

Why??

Because I know that you are a civilized person...

THAT is the whole point of this entire commentary.. We are free to ridicule and mock and laugh at and denigrate anything we want to...

And CIVILIZED people would not resort to murder or terrorism..

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

That picture is about as offensive to ALL major religions as is possible to get.. It's gross, it's crude, it's perverse, it's disgusting and offensive to high heaven..

Guess what???

Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was threatened because of that picture.

Not ONE SINGLE PERSON was killed because of that picture..

Not ONE SINGLE LOCATION was firebombed because of that picture..

Why??

Because ALL the other religions have grown up and (for the most part) become civilized..

Sure, there is an outlier here or there that someone can point to...

But, with islamic terrorists and islamic radicals and islamic extremists, the outliers are the norm...

No amount of words or pictures, defaming, denigrating, ridiculing or offensive though they may be, justifies a violent response or a death sentence..

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

THAT's the point you just don't get...

And, I think it's safe that everyone else DOES get it...

Michale

Your argument that the Charlie Hedbo people were legitimately attacked because they had "attacked" first has one major flaw in it...

Four French Jews named as victims of Paris kosher deli attack
http://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Four-Jewish-victims-of-kosher-deli-siege-named-387299

Why was the Paris Kosher Deli attacked??

What's the justification to kill these 4 innocent French Jews??

They hadn't mocked anyone's prophet... They hadn't lampooned anyone's religion... They hadn't defamed anyone or ridiculed anyone..

What was the justification for their brutal murders, eh??

Face it... In an attempt to justify the unjustifiable, you are fighting a losing battle...

You are either with the good guys or you are with the terrorists..

YOUR choice is abundantly clear...

"He chose..... poorly."
-Knight, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

Michale

And I keep telling the truth about your lying?

No, all you keep doing is saying I am lying without providing ANY facts to back up your claims..

Basically, you are acting EXACTLY like you accuse the Charlie Hebdo of acting..

And you keep bullying and attacking anyone who says you are wrong...

Which, in this commentary alone, is almost a half dozen people...

Michale

Michale

What he said.. :D

Michale

No, it's not "based on nothing but their prejudices". It's based on the fact that there is no evidence of gods other than the "historical record of people who met and talked" to various gods, which is normally called "hallucinating" or "lying".

"Logically a belief based on no evidence is clearly superior to a belief based on evidence you don't accept?!--And its exactly that kind of idiocy that results in violence."

Actually, "the people who still believe in God based on teachings thousands of years old" can and do find justification for their violence in their insanely violent religious source documents. The violence and discrimination against gay people is not a result of "that kind of idiocy". It's a result of the kind of idiocy that comes from believing "teachings thousands of years old" about what an invisible, supernatural being thinks about what one species of mammal does with their genitals.

A good atheist pogram is a match for any religious crusade, inquisition, or jihad.

It ain't about religion its about human nature. Violence over beliefs isn't restricted to religious beliefs, any beliefs will do. Which is why people will kill each other over parking spots and the last slice of pizza. They simply need to believe that they're entitled--and deprived.

And there is every bit as much evidence for the existence of God as there is for there being no God. Which, basically, is none. More, in fact. As there is at least an historical record of people who supposedly met and talked with God. While the "evidence" against God's existence is all assumption, supposition and theorizing based on not one fact whatsoever. The folks who demand proof of the existence of God sure as Hell don't require any proof for their own belief that there is no God!

But the idiots who are absolutely positive that there is no God, based on nothing but their prejudices, are convinced that they are "enlightened" and the people who still believe in God based on teachings thousands of years old are fools. Logically a belief based on no evidence is clearly superior to a belief based on evidence you don't accept?!--And its exactly that kind of idiocy that results in violence. People are rarely rational, and apparently have great difficulty maintaining even a semblance of rationality for more than very brief periods of time. Since mindless violence requires an absence of rationality its a much more natural state for most people.

In America religious persecution is illegal. Its in that constitution thingy. Defamation is also illegal, though its almost impossible to get a conviction in court. Smearing is simply unethical and immoral, however. Nothing that would trouble a Republican.

Your problem is that you mistake the ability to do something with a right to do it.--Unfortunately the founders of this nation expected its citizens to act in good faith and voluntarily abide by the law. They didn't quite anticipate the Conservative Movement. So while gaming the system is certainly possible it is in no way a right.

Free political speech is a right. Free religious expression is a right. Smearing, defaming, and persecuting is illegal, but conservative courts, and especially our Republican SCOTUS may let you get away with it anyway. That, however, still does not make it a right.

The absence of criminal law does not equate to a "right." We're lazy. We tend not to write criminal laws until people have sufficiently demonstrated their lack of good sense and abused their rights egregiously enough make it mandatory that we start prosecuting the offenders.--Except, of course, to make paranoid Wingers feel their being protected from their innumerable imaginary attackers so they'll stay scared enough to vote Republican, but not so scared that they vote Tea Party. After all, legislating cuts into Congressional vacation time!

Michale, please...I'm smearing and defaming YOU?! Because you keep lying? And I keep telling the truth about your lying?

Yet another Winger classic! Projection!

"Look at me! I'm the victim! Not the guy I'm defaming!
"

Hilarious. You clowns really do think that if you keep on lying it becomes the truth, don't you?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1357057/-The-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons-no-one-is-showing-you

Many of these are against the far-right Le Pens.

-David

Well, I was giving it an A+ for content. The drawings themselves don't look like much effort is expended.

And yet you keep replying to him.

Actually, that translates as "The film that sets the muslim world ablaze". ...

Thank you. Mea culpa. I shouldn't have believed Google Translate. I still don't know enough to say for myself whether the cartoon is excellent, but it still seems pretty clear that it's offensive, and that people should be free to publish it.

FRAK YOU Islamic Terrorists!!

Michale

Wait!!!

Let me go grab a beer....

..........

Ok, go fer it.. :D

Michale

They are only strawmen if you have the mental capacity to knock them down...

Apparently, they are not strawmen, eh? :D

Michale

In spite of what you Wingers profess, there is no right to lie. There is no right to smear, to defame, to persecute.

What country do you live in, sunshine??

Because, here in the US, we EXACTLY have that right..

If it's not to your liking, try Iran or Saudi Arabia.. Their rules will likely fit your personality better...

On the other hand, you don't have a problem with smearing or defaming or lying about me..

So your own words seem to belay your claims..

AGAIN....

Michale

Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!

We have a winner!!!!!

Tell 'im what he's won, Johnny!!!!!

Michale

Archie Bunker was a fictional character... He was whatever the writers made him to be...

"Did IQs suddenly drop sharply while I was away??"
-Ripley, ALIENS

Michale

I agree although allowing religionists to run amok with their superstitions results in violence and discrimination, too. Gay people know this all too well.

There is no right to be unoffended. Muslims need to get over that. Their religion's rules apply to them, not me.

It also calls their commitment to free expression into question.

Religious dress, by definition, isn't "free expression"..

It's an imposed dress code...

Am I the only one that sees the total incongruity of what you are defending???

You are defending forcing people to adhere to a arbitrary set of rules under penalty of death by torture???

Silly me.. I thought ya'all were against torture...

I guess if it suits your agenda, anything goes...

Color me shocked... NOT!!

Michale

POLICE: AS MANY AS 6 PARIS TERROR SUSPECTS MAY BE AT LARGE
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_FRANCE_ATTACKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-01-12-15-25-45

Do you ever get tired of being wrong???

Just curious... :D

Michale

It also calls their commitment to free expression into question.

Actually, that translates as "The film that sets the muslim world ablaze". The cartoon is a reaction to the riots that followed the release of the YouTube movie trailer called "The Innocence of Muslims". The cartoon parodies the 1963 Jean-Luc Godard film "Contempt" in which Bridget Bardot appears naked and asks that same question about her butt.

I think this is an excellent cartoon although I would not understand it w/o an explanation because I'm not French.

In spite of what you Wingers profess, there is no right to lie. There is no right to smear, to defame, to persecute.

As I said to Liz, there's a difference between satire and defamation. In point of fact, "extremism" completely aside, if you insist on belittling people for their beliefs, mocking their beliefs, denigrating their beliefs, and persecuting them for their beliefs, violent responses will ensue. (And, BTW, France outlawing religious dress is textbook persecution.)

That is simply a fact. Amply demonstrated throughout history. Many of this country's original colonies were established to escape just that kind of persecution. And while our Constitution protects free speech, it makes it clear that religious persecution is neither a right nor protected.

Refusal to appreciate the difference between religious persecution and the exercise of free speech will inevitably lead to violence.--As will most forms of persecution. It always has. That is reality, whether you agree or not it is still going to be reality.

You'd think that you Wingers, arming yourselves in record numbers, in preparation for the eventual "defense" against any number of wholly imaginary threats based entirely on what you've heard, would understand that.--Then again, that would require you to have a clue.--And you ARE Wingers!

That is the crux of the entire issue....

If you want to have freedom to do whatever, you have to allow others the freedom to criticize it, ridicule it, satire it or laugh at it...

Otherwise, you are denying the very freedom to others that you yourself demand...

Michale

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/01/10/maher_on_islam_when_theres_this_many_bad_ideas_theres_something_wrong_with_the_orchard.html

Or, in this case, Medina....

Michale

You mean, when I said that a satire "attack" on a religion is the same thing as a physical attack??

Oh no, wait.. That was you..

You mean, when I said that inspiring thousands to speak out against Islamic extremism is a "hell of an attack"???

Oh no, wait.. That was you again...

You mean, when I said that the United States is the greatest terrorist threat on the planet??

Oh, shuckey darn..

That was YOU.... again...

So.... where are my "lies"....??? exactly??

Michale

No one can fault the persistence of you Wingers, always doubling-down on your lies in the face of incontrovertible proof that you are, in fact, lying.--But it would be far more impressive if you ever did anything other than lie.

My words are the things that I write. Not the things that YOU write.--Those are lies.

In reality the false claim that blaming the President for anything and everything is "leadership" is Conservative propaganda.--And Republicans avoiding any and all responsibility for their actions. They control TWO-thirds of the government. "Leadership" is accepting responsibility for your actions.--Not being scapegoated for the actions of others.

All of which happened in the last 6 years under your Messiah..

yep... By your definition, Obama is a terrorist...

Again... These are YOUR words, not mine...

Michale

Uhh....

Yes it does....

It's called "Leadership".....

Perhaps you have heard of it...

Michale

And, as the leader of the United States, that makes Obama the "World's Greatest Terrorist"...

You simply CANNOT have one without the other, LD....

It's not allowed...

You either have to concede that you are full of shit, that the US is NOT a terrorist organization..

Or...

You have to concede that Obama is the "World's Greatest Terrorist"....

Either way, you are as wrong as wrong can be...

"Simple logic..."
-Admiral James T. Kirk

Michale

We've just completed the destruction of, at least two sovereign nations, destabilized an entire region, fostered two or three new Islamic States that are definitely "extremists", while personally massacring a few hundred thousand people along the way. Not to mention the odd hundred or so tortured and, or, falsely indefinitely imprisoned without trial.

But none of that can I attribute to Obama personally. I believe Obama has tried to stop it. Or at least curtail it. But Congress, our Republican Congress, has prevented the closure of Guantanamo. That I do know. Which makes THEM "terrorists" for sure.

IMHO its the previous President, the previous Republican President, and the Republican Congress, past and present, who are terrorist. But Obama may be one also. I simply have seen no evidence of it. Taking charge of a terrorist organization in order to try to stop the terrorism does not make someone a terrorist.

And, unlike wingers, like you, Michale, my leaping to conclusions is constrained by logic, factuality, and rationality. Winning the Presidency does not make one personally responsible for everything involving the United States.

The Presidency, the Executive Branch, is responsible for administering the United States Government. This "new rule" of you wingers since Obama gained office that Congress and SCOTUS get to run the country but the President gets all the blame is just another one of your fatuous lies.

So... Basically....

Obama was too scared to attend...

I am not sure which is worse...

That....

Or Obama just didn't want to miss the NFL playoffs.... :^/

Michale

You can deny the reality all you want, LD...

But the simple fact is, the Islamic extremists are Islam's biggest enemy....

Michale

"Or, as his friends call him, 'Hay Mo!!.. nyuk nyuk nyuk... Oh, a wise guy, eh!! nyuk nyuk nyuk.'..."
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET

:D

Michale

yet, you are the ONLY one that doesn't believe it..

What does THAT tell you?? :D

The actual perpetrators are in custody. The rally wasn't against them. It was against unspecified others with no known connection to the murders categorized solely by their adherence to Muslim beliefs.

Their EXTREMIST Muslim beliefs.. The beliefs that say you have to kill ANYONE who won't swear allegiance to that luser, Mohammed...

That's the part you just don't get...

Michale

Winger logic is incredible! You bitch and moan over Obama's "illegal" actions because Obama is only President, not King! Then try to claim that anything the Unites States does, did, or might ever do, (in fact anything that happens anywhere in the world!) is Obama's personal responsibility because he, as President, is responsible for everything!

Your faulty, illogical, contradictory, and factually incorrect "assumptions" notwithstanding, the simple fact remains that you falsely claimed, repeatedly, that I said things that I simply did not.

You lied. And you continue to lie. I never said Obama is a terrorist. I never said anything about Obama. And nothing I said can reasonably be inferred to be about Obama.

You are simply a serial liar.

You can put lipstick on a pig Michale. But it's still a pig.

Obama is the leader of the United States..

If the United States is a terrorist organization then, ipso facto, that makes Obama a terrorist...

Do you think the leader of Hamas or the leader of the IS is NOT a terrorist???

Nor is Obama's presidency permanent. An Organization can be terrorist without currently being actively engaged in terrorism. The US could easily be a terrorist organization that actively engages in terrorism both before and after Obama's presidency without Obama himself ever being a terrorist, or ever engaging in terrorism.

Ahhhhhhhh I see..

So, the United States is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet.. Right up to 20 Jan 2009....

AFTER 20 Jan 2009, the US is NOT the biggest terrorist organization on the planet...

But then, on 20 Jan 2017, then the US once again becomes the biggest terrorist organization on the planet...

Are you sensing the same pattern I am sensing?? :D

I think you can see how utterly lame and ridiculous you sound..

No need for me to point it out.. :D

Michale

Je suis Michale

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe

:D

Michale

Obama is not the United States. You said that I said Obama is a terrorist. That is a lie.

Nor is Obama's presidency permanent. An Organization can be terrorist without currently being actively engaged in terrorism. The US could easily be a terrorist organization that actively engages in terrorism both before and after Obama's presidency without Obama himself ever being a terrorist, or ever engaging in terrorism.

I know you are as challenged when it comes to logic as you are when it comes to facts and veracity, but the voices in your head are not me speaking. And your claims that I say things that I clearly do not are just lies not "messages."

And, for the record, it wasn't an "Anti-Muslim" cause..

It was an anti EXTREMIST Muslim cause..

And any rational and/or civilized person would NOT have a problem with that cause...

Only those with terrorist sympathies would have a problem with that cause..

One is either on the side of civilized human beings or one is with terrorists..

There is no middle ground...

Michale

Anything is possible. This conversation is about specific actual events. And this series of events, including the underlying "speech", is in fact anti-Muslim.--Like Michale, you want to talk about your fantasies. I'm talking about what's actually happening here on planet Earth.

You said that the US is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet..

Obama is the head of the US...

Ergo, you said that Obama is the biggest terrorist on the planet..

As I said, don't get pissy with me.

Those are YOUR words, not mine...

Michale

Not a single one of my comments ever referred to Obama in any way. You are simply lying. It's what you do.

Your stupid misrepresentations (and stupider rebuttals!) are all your own.

They are your own words, LD...

They are simply interpreted in a logical and rational manner to show exactly how full of shit you are..

Don't kill the messenger.. For the messenger is you...

Michale

No.

defending the "right" to defame Muslims is definitely an anti-Muslim cause

There's nothing necessarily anti-Muslim about stating a different understanding of what constitutes defamation than you have. It can just be part of a defense of a the right to engage in general category of speech, independent of who the target is.

Since you insist on debating yourself I'd truly appreciate it if you'd stop claiming that I'm your invisible friend. Anyone interested can read my words above. Your stupid misrepresentations (and stupider rebuttals!) are all your own.

Looks like the MSM is not going to let the Obama Administration off the hook for it's snub of the anti-terrorism march in Paris...

Michale

Ho now, buckwheat..

It was YOU who spouted the nonsense that a non-physical attack such as satire or ridicule is commiserate with a physical attack such as we saw at Charlie Hebdo..

I simply pointed out that it's complete and utter felgercarp....

The rally is clearly a broader attack, a continuation of a broader attack--and a relatively indiscriminate one. And, as is so often true now, attacks on peoples freedoms are being spun as defenses of individual freedom.

Using your reasoning, the Ferguson and Staten Island protests were "broad attacks" and the wholesale slaughter of said protesters would have been justified as a "retaliatory attack"...

That's your problem, LD.. Like with claiming Obama is the biggest terrorist in the world... You dig yourself into a really big hole because you don't think that your own words and opinions also apply to the causes that you support...

Michale

You may think a giant rally in a country becoming ever more anti-Muslim in support of the "right" to defame Muslims is a show of solidarity in support of freedom of speech, but I think its a massive show of religious bigotry. Just as I think attacking "Muslim extremists" for the actions of a trio of murderers is religious bigotry.

The world is full of "extremists" of every stripe. Members of all sorts of extremist groups commit atrocities, from ambushing cops, park rangers, doctors, and people on the street, to military personnel.--None of which inspires an immediate massive international show of "solidarity" against the anyone who might hold beliefs similar to the perpetrators, two of three of whom are already in custody. The French legal system hardly needs international solidarity to deal with its criminals.

The rally is clearly a broader attack, a continuation of a broader attack--and a relatively indiscriminate one. And, as is so often true now, attacks on peoples freedoms are being spun as defenses of individual freedom.

Michale may want continue to spout nonsense about physical vs nonphysical actions but inspiring thousands all across the globe to take up an anti-Muslim cause is one hell of a physical attack. And defending the "right" to defame Muslims is definitely an anti-Muslim cause. It's inconceivable that the rally would be happening were Charlie publishing antisemite "satire". (And, Liz, there is a difference between satire and defamation. Charlie, from what I've seen, tends more to defamation than satire.)

Too many may believe that they can combat violent Muslim extremism by waging war against Muslims but I don't believe it. There are too many Muslims and "extremist" is far too elastic a term. We tried it and, predictably, only succeeded in converting more Muslims into violent "extremists", while, equally predictably, targeting far more non-extremist Muslims than violent extremists. I'm sure the impromptu rally against "Muslim extremists", and show if solidarity, will be equally counterproductive.

As to the efficacy of the rally in defending freedoms I recommend you to the comments, here and abroad, attacking people simply for holding religious beliefs. Extending the attack beyond Muslim "extremists", beyond even Muslims in general, but to anyone religious.

The battle being fought here, Liz, isn't the one you claim it is. Nor is it about the freedoms you claim it is.

Except, all you have as evidence is your own word that I am "lying" and "making shit up"...

Forgive me, but the word of someone who thinks Obama didn't lie and who thinks that the US is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet and who thinks that satire is the same as a physical attack warranting a terrorism response....???

Well, the word of someone like that doesn't really amount to a whole hill a beans....

Wouldn't you agree?? :D

Michale

Why do your "arguments" always devolve into you lying and just making shit up? Thankfully your insistence on putting words in my mouth spares me from the need to respond further to your idiocy.