September 17, 2012

"Happy Constitution Day."

Says Instapundit... with this:



(I wasn't sure which of my already-existing tags would work for this post, but then I remembered oath-botching. The original error occurred at "faithfully.")

271 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 271 of 271
Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

AllieOop,

Of course it's the fault of the perpetrators, there is also a responsibility of the person engaging in free speech too, or can anybody even an Al Qaeda operative engage in free speech, even if it kills Americans?

Short answer: Yes. Slightly longer answer: An Al-Qaeda operative is an enemy combatant and so, as it were, speaks at own risk, as I understand it Judging by drone strikes in the last year or so, the Obama Admin reserves the right to kill American citizens w/o due process.

Addendum: "Free speech" does not kill Americans. People kill Americans. With exceptions like obscenity (and no, some guy pretending to be Muhammad pretending to go down on someone doesn't remotely qualify) and disclosure of classified information, you can basically say whatever you want in this country. Yes, you can even tell the whole world exactly who the guy who is allegedly behind this video is, and what city he lives in, and what his front door looks like. And obviously people have eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity.

I don't suppose the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has contacted the local cops to tell them (politely!) to quit it, though, has he?

creeley23 said...

phx: So what is your big deal about "responsibility" then?

You don't like that he uploaded a video, fine. Does that make him irresponsible, because you and thousands of fanatical Muslims don't like his video?

If so, where do you stand on all those other irresponsible people like Lenny Bruce or Thomas Paine who said inflammatory things that upset people?

AllieOop said...

Chickelit, you may think you know me, you don't.

chickelit said...

AllieOop said...
Chickelit, you may think you know me, you don't.

Oh, I know I don't know you--that's why I've never trusted you.

AllieOop said...

Ditto Chickelit.

exiledonmainst said...

This video was on You Tube in July. Gee, Muslims throughout the world admirably restrained their rage for weeks until they just couldn't hold it in any more. Pure concidence that it happened on 9/11/12, I'm sure.

phx, if it hadn't been this guy's stupid trailer, it would have been something else. It doesn't even have to be real. Remember the explosion that occurred after Newsweek falsely reported that US troops had flushed Korans down the toilet?

I'm sick of the idea that we have to constantly coddle the sensibilities of Muslim mobs - it's not only craven, but it doesn't work. No amount of coddling will appease them.

Synova said...

"But how closely do you have to look at these people to realize they don't have the values of someone you want to be allied with? Get the sleep out of your eyes. You should have known as far back as high school or before, these are guys who are going to get you in trouble if you aren't careful."

I may hate what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Or something like that.

Used to be a massively popular liberal sig line, back on usenet when people had sig lines.

Will the loudmouth in Florida get me in trouble? Possibly. Should I actively *defend* him? Possibly.

Alternately... they came for the assholes, but I wasn't an asshole, so I did nothing.

AllieOop said...

And Chickelit I would appreciate it if you would drop all the personal stuff here.

phx said...

phx: So what is your big deal about "responsibility" then?

Responsibility, especially personal responsibility (is there any other kind?) is always a big deal.

If a guy committed and was convicted of identity theft and bank fraud, I'm not at all surprised that someone wants him to take personal responsibility for that. If he used actors and lied to them and endangered their lives, well it doesn't surprise me people want to hold him responsible.

I understand you don't want him to be responsible. You and I are not so different. I don't feel like he owes me anything either.

I'm just not surprised or full of pity that other people feel he owes them something.

AllieOop said...

Exiled, the Saturday before the embassy attacks, clips from this movie were shown on a religious TV program in the region. I doubt if Muslims were aware of the movie until that Saturday broadcast.

Baron Zemo said...

Once again you must realize who it is that is after this smuck's head.

Cedarford. Allie Oop. Garage Mahal.

What do they all have in common?

Matthew Sablan said...

He's responsible for lying to people about his film. He's responsible for making his film.

He is not responsible for people killing people and using his film as an excuse.

Personal responsibility extends to more than film makers who do things we don't like. It should also extend to MURDERERS, who by the way, we should like significantly less.

AllieOop said...

TV host who aired scenes from anti Islam film supposedly "shocked" by violent reaction

Baron Zemo said...

Obama has done more to inflame the passions of these animals than anyone.

How many victory laps has he taken?

The whole basis of his campaign is that he killed a Muslim hero.

It is only accomplishment.

creeley23 said...

Creely, I am dodging nothing, perhaps I am not giving you the answer you want me to give you. I am not interested in getting into a free speech debate with you or anyone else here.

Allie: "Do you support the First Amendment?" is a straightforward question. If you can't answer it, you don't support it. I'll take that as a No.

We need to be responsible when we engage in our rights, not abuse them foolishly.

So? Those who wish to constrain the freedom of others always say this.

Cedarford said...

Creeley23 -

Again, where do you stand on the First Amendment?

1. All in favor of Lincoln shutting down some Copperhead newspapers that were subverting the Union.
2. All in favor of rooting out Soviet moles in Hollywood that were taking orders from Soviet propagandist "handlers" on what objectives they needed to follow in movies and scripts to damage America and promote Soviet goals.
3. All in favor, absolutely, of bin Laden having his precious Constitutional free speech rights terminated.
4. All in favor, absolutely, of Adam Gadan being indicted for treason and under a drone hit order as Al Qaeda spokesman - despite the present rightwinger love for courageous 1st Amendment champions like Adam. Who, they will say as a talking point, is no more perfect than Larry Flynt.
5. Really enjoyed knowing after his Free Speech helped cause the Ft Hood massacre and the underwear bomber that US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki's 1st Amendment Rights were no match for the 4,000 Deg plasma and 20,000 FPS frags of a Hellfiire missile.

chickelit said...

Cedarford, AllieOop, and Garage...
What do they all have in common?


They all voted for Obama and may do so again.

phx said...

Personal responsibility extends to more than film makers who do things we don't like. It should also extend to MURDERERS, who by the way, we should like significantly less.

Well clearly you don't read all my crap. Hey, I can't always blame ya. But I'll repost this from just a little while ago just this once.

And yes I like the murderers even less. But everybody's gotten that angle. I'm not going to beat a dead horse on that one. Someone here needs to make a cogent case against the filmmaker while supporting his 1amendy rights and holding the Islamist fanatics responsible for the murders.

I love the confusion you conservatives thinkers have about responsibility. Like because the Islamists murderers are responsible for their actions, nobody else is responsible for theirs.

The fact remains the film-maker's responsible for HIS actions, too. Just like I am for mine, and you are for yours.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phx said...

And I'm not claiming the case against the filmmaker that I'm making is necessarily cogent or better than the two or three other people here who also are willing to say they have problems with him and aren't so sympathetic. But I don't feel like anyone is expressing it the way I see it.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

hmm, Trooper York comes out of the shadows ...

AllieOop said...

Creely, of course I support the 1st Amendment, I don't however support abusing it.

phx said...

Shiloh who?

Matthew Sablan said...

"I'm not going to beat a dead horse on that one. Someone here needs to make a cogent case against the filmmaker while supporting his 1amendy rights and holding the Islamist fanatics responsible for the murders."

-- The problem is *there is no* case against him. He is allowed to say whatever he wants. He can be a jerk, an ass, a racist, a bigot -- whatever. No one, I think, is denying that his work is offensive, low brow and bad. (Well, ok, I'm agnostic on that since I haven't seen it, but from the general gist of what I've heard, that seems to be the consensus, and I see no reason to bother with it myself.) The fact we even think we need to make a case against someone for saying something offensive is the problem.

Alex said...

Allie gets to define what is 1A "abuse".

Alex said...

I don't like what you cons are sayin', you're abusin' the 1A. Time to lock ya'll up!

EMD said...

No - of course not, I can't imagine a more disgusting, crap film

Oh come on. It's called Avatar.

AllieOop said...

Alex "abuses" himself daily.

Cedarford said...

exiledonmainst said...
This video was on You Tube in July. Gee, Muslims throughout the world admirably restrained their rage for weeks until they just couldn't hold it in any more. Pure concidence that it happened on 9/11/12, I'm sure.

phx, if it hadn't been this guy's stupid trailer, it would have been something else. It doesn't even have to be real. Remember the explosion that occurred after Newsweek falsely reported that US troops
===============
You don't understand cause and effect too well.
Every organization accumulate data against enemies, useful dirt.
They bank it for later use. Video, damaging photos, speeches that are fine in the enemy's laws and cultural sensibilities, but deeply offensive to their foes, or a party not involved in the conflict that the propaganda weapon is then used to employ.

It's all ammunition to use.

Why give America's enemies the ammunition and then go past that to praise the perps as holy advocates of Precious Rights.

We made the Japs pay dearly for all the footage they took themselves and we covertly took of what they thought was legitimate violence against Chinese who had surrendered then went into illegal (by Japanese law and morality) insurrection in Nanking.
We banked that ammo.
Then put it out when the time was right from India all the way to remote Pacific Islands showing Japs from 6 years back lopping off heads..

Thats what Al Qaeda does - they comb our media for weapons, for ammo. Then when their plans are set, they trot it out to incite target populations to kill Americans and destroy property.

OF COURSE THE EGYPTIAN DIRTBALL'S FLICK, in and of itself, DID NOT SOLELY CAUSE deaths and 10s of millions in damages!!!
It was just juicy, beautiful ammo handed gift-wrapped to Al Qaeda. No different than US progandists in 1942 cutting and splicing Jap footage of Nanking into anti-Jap propaganda product with big smiles - knowing the ammo the Japs gave us would mean more dead Japs and new allies.

phx said...

Cedarford makes a real good point here.

Alex said...

Come on Allie, stop saying things that make me get all hot & bothered.

AllieOop said...

Anybody remember this saying from WW2? "Loose lips sink ships"?

Matthew Sablan said...

"Anybody remember this saying from WW2? "Loose lips sink ships"?"

-- And that is why Bradley Manning is in jail.

AllieOop said...

Yes, Cedarford certainly does see the issue and does an excellent job explaining it, wonder how many here will understand the truth of what he is saying?

EMD said...

I don't however support abusing it.

Quantify abuse.


Matthew Sablan said...

We surely are not equating the rape of Nanking with bad comedy, are we? See, one of these things is WORTH getting upset over.

Also: If we're not supposed to give the enemy ammunition, why is the White House collaborating on a documentary about the mission to get bin Laden? Here's why: One of these propaganda movies will help the administration, the other won't.

AllieOop said...

Matthew, again, Bin Laden is their hero, not their Prophet. Nothing like insulting their prophet to get them rioting, fast!

Matthew Sablan said...

Allie: So... why was everyone chanting about Osama?

phx said...

The fact we even think we need to make a case against someone for saying something offensive is the problem.

Matthew I don't mean a legal case. But why shouldn't we make our own personal case against this guy, using our personal judgment and our values.

Just because you believe in this guy's First Amendies as I do, does not mean he isn't responsible for his other crap.

Matthew Sablan said...

His other crap is immaterial to the movie. He's a jerk and probably a criminal if the reports are accurate. That has no bearing on the First Amendment issue (read: the issue that matters).

AllieOop said...

Because they were feeling their oats, I bet they were also saying Americans are goat fuckers! Maybe they were creatively coming up with chants, hey hey ho ho Americans have got to go!

phx said...

His other crap is immaterial to the movie. He's a jerk and probably a criminal if the reports are accurate. That has no bearing on the First Amendment issue (read: the issue that matters).

I agree with the First Amendment issue - I've been saying that along. But it's a lot like some local yokel deciding to make a movie about a motorcycle gang or the mob and talk also sorts of shit about them.

You can't uphold all your constitutional rights in every situation even if you should be able to. And if you're a real dick about it, like this guy seems to be...I'm gonna stand up there and say "Hey, what about his first amendment rights?"

Yeah sure, sure. I got a lot more people who more deserve my sympathy. Just because it's convenient for you to use this politically doesn't change my judgement of what is right and what is wrong - and how that doesn't always tally up with what is legal or illegal.

Maguro said...

OF COURSE THE EGYPTIAN DIRTBALL'S FLICK, in and of itself, DID NOT SOLELY CAUSE deaths and 10s of millions in damages!!!
It was just juicy, beautiful ammo handed gift-wrapped to Al Qaeda. No different than US progandists in 1942 cutting and splicing Jap footage of Nanking into anti-Jap propaganda product with big smiles - knowing the ammo the Japs gave us would mean more dead Japs and new allies.


Dude, how many times do you need to have this explained to you: The Youtube clip was a pretext and if he'd never made it, they would have found some other reason to attack us on 9/11.

These people have an infinite capacity to take offense, you literally cannot appease them.

By the way, how many of the rioting Islamic rage boys do you think have even seen the Youtube clip? Probably not a single one.

Chip S. said...

Now that you mention it, the lavish production values of that video are a dead giveaway that it was financed by Hollywood Jews as a Reichstag-fire kind of deal.

Good work, all you members of the Unoffensive Free Speech movement!

AprilApple said...

Chip said...

-Now that you mention it, the lavish production values of that video are a dead giveaway that it was financed by Hollywood Jews as a Reichstag-fire kind of deal.

You Forgot Al Qaeda. They always finance poor productions of prophet bashing.

Chip S. said...

You know, until we get to the bottom of this it would probably be prudent to just ban all forms of speech about Muslims.

AprilApple said...

Here's some twitter free speech from the RoP and an Obama supporter.
(directed at the Mr. NB)

“Insallah [God willing], we will kill him,” one Facebook user, Shayan Khan, wrote from Karachi, Pakistan.
Some YouTube users envisioned particularly imaginative demises for Nakoula in the comments section of a video related to his detention.

“I wanna torture him with a shot [to] his knee cap, then blow his eyes with [a] knife, take a chain saw and cut his penis, then a hot rod would be given to his ass, then kill him until he is hanged till death,” funkyfolk1110 wrote. “Kill this bastard,” said another user.

On Twitter, a user named Yayan E. Putra posted, “Fuck Nakoula Basseley, i want to kill you!!!” The message starkly contrasted with Putra’s brief Twitter profile, which stated simply, “A smile is the little thing that can make life easier.”

“Someone please kill him,” agreed Nelson Davis, a retired market researcher living in New York, who earlier on Sunday invited his Twitter followers to “Choose your free Obama sticker!”

AprilApple said...

Bill Press: Useful Idiot

Methadras said...

AllieOop said...

Creely, I am dodging nothing, perhaps I am not giving you the answer you want me to give you. I am not interested in getting into a free speech debate with you or anyone else here.

We have free speech in this country, terrorists don't give a damn about our free speech and they probably love it when fools abuse this precious right so they use it against us and kill American innocents and troops.

We need to be responsible when we engage in our rights, not abuse them foolishly.


Can you please fly to the middle of Cairo and say this please. Let's see how far that takes you, staple face.

Methadras said...

AllieOop said...

Creely, of course I support the 1st Amendment, I don't however support abusing it.


Then you really don't support the 1st amendment. No one is saying that yelling fire is bad, but even a shitty video is protected speech, but hey, pumpkin head, he's one of yours after all. Another democrat.

creeley23 said...

Allie: No I don't think you support the First Amendment. Or maybe you just don't understand it.

The First Amendment is not a license to say anything and everything. True. That is well established. In addition to the "Fire"/theater case, one can't use freedom of speech to justify divulging state secrets, conspiring with others to commit violence, etc.

Ridiculing a religion, however much pain it may cause adherents, is well within the bounds of the First Amendment. That is rock solid, despite the few niggling cases that Althouse cites, and that is what you are unable to accept.

Athiests have been saying terribly disrespectful things about Christians and Christianity since Tom Paine's "The Age of Reason" in 1794.

One more chance. Do you accept that Nasouli's film's is protected under the First Amendment as it is currently understood?

Revenant said...

But Revenant's obsession w/me is disappointing.

I just noticed you have the same style of argument and the same odd habit of using ((( lots of these ))) for emphasis.

shiloh said...

Revenant

Many of Althouse cons are total idiots! hmm, maybe they are all the same person ...

Palladian said...

Jesus, this place is getting really stupid.

Revenant said...

Some here forget we are still at war.

The President certainly has.

Americans and American territory are attacked by armed mobs of foreigners. He and his fellow quislings respond not by killing the people responsible, but by immediately launching an investigation into the person they want to kill.

If this was a war, he would have gotten on the air and announced his intention to see every last member of every last one of those mobs either (a) dead or (b) standing trial for war crimes. Because that's what you do to enemies who attack your diplomats.

The reality, of course, is that when you say "we're at war" you mean "shut up, the President's a Democrat". :)

Revenant said...

Many of Althouse cons are total idiots! hmm, maybe they are all the same person ...

There are subtle differences. :)

Revenant said...

THE EGYPTIAN DIRTBALL'S FLICK, in and of itself, DID NOT SOLELY CAUSE deaths and 10s of millions in damages

It didn't cause them at all, solely or otherwise. The fault lies entirely with the Muslims who did that damage and committed those murders.

It is the natural right of every single one of the seven billion people on Earth to say anything they want to about Mohammed, Islam, or any other religious topic they wish to discuss. Anyone who can't handle that without rioting and killing people needs to be put one of two places:

1. In a cell
2. In a grave

Alex said...

shiloh can kindly FOAD.

exiledonmainst said...

"It was just juicy, beautiful ammo handed gift-wrapped to Al Qaeda."

And once again, I repeat, if it had never been made, they would have found something else on the Internet or invented something, any damn thing, to rev up the mobs.

Alex said...

Yes let's pretend that Al Queada would be toothless except for hate films produced by Zionazis.

gk1 said...

So sad so many so-called "liberals" just want to be left alone to eat their waffle. I think they know deep down this is bad, but tribal identification keeps them from dissing their chief. I think this deserves a hearing or two before it gets swept under the rug. I sure want to know how the feds were alerted to this "parole violation" if that is what this is, and how far up the chain it goes. DOJ? The White House? Where is Fitzgerald or Walsh when you need them?

whoresoftheinternet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chip S. said...

If that's not delete-worthy, nothing is.

Who knew so many imbeciles were unable to figure out wv?

whoresoftheinternet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Revenant said...

Her daughter deserves to die by a jihadi's hands, for all Allie's worthless cowardice.

Allie's a coward and a fascist, and she probably invented her "daughter" to add weight to her pathetic arguments.

But that aside, it takes a true idiot to wish death on a child because her parent's an asshole.

Rusty said...

Dose of Sanity said...
The message it was meant to convey is clear.

It was meant to appease the jihadis.



Interesting argument. I don't really believe the riots are about the films at all. At least, that's what my "sources on the ground" are telling me. (in cairo and in libya). I suppose if the government believed the film was a problem, then this might be an attempt to appease.

That would be massively shortsighted on their part though - considering that the government should be trying to show that they DONT control speech, rather than showing they DO try and control. Prove you don't control it, and the responisibility goes to the speaker, of course.

Just a thought.


I wrote the other before I read this. My mistake.
I agree.
What we witnessed was a classic example of political theater.

damikesc said...

One of our DoJ officials refused to say that he wouldn't attempt to advance an anti-blasphemy law.

Christopher in MA said...

We have free speech in this country, terrorists don't give a damn about our free speech and they probably love it when fools abuse this precious right so they use it against us and kill American innocents and troops.

One wonders whether you held the same opinion when Harry Reid bleated the war is lost or when a columnist (whose name I cannot find) wrote that he hated Bush so much he sometimes wished for more US deaths in Iraq to really get people mad at him.

One wonders if you even thought the General Betrayus ad was an abuse of free speech.

Somehow, I doubt it.

AllieOop said...

Revenant, you may have invented yourself, perhaps you aren't real at all, perhaps you are just a ghost.

AllieOop said...

As for Whore, he is engaging in free speech, no?

Karma will take care of this person.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 271 of 271   Newer› Newest»