Instapundit demands the resignation of Barack Obama. (He also quotes a portion of what I said in this post earlier today.)
I read that right after reading this piece in The New Yorker, by Andrew Marantz, analyzing the movie "The Innocence of Muslims."
The video is crude, both aesthetically and ideologically.... Some have compared its director... to Theo van Gogh, the Dutch provocateur who was murdered in retaliation for a short film he made. Van Gogh’s film was bad in many ways, but at least it strove for political and artistic merit....You see where that's going. A commenter there — Gudmundsdottir — said it well:
I love the continued focus on this idiot as if he has ANYTHING to answer to. He is an American citizen, therefore he has the right to say much worse about "the prophet" Muhammad, "the son of god" Jesus Christ and any other "god" or "prohpet" that he wants to. The American media, predictably, is acting as if this man has something to answer for (or answer to). Good video or not, effective video or not, offensive video or not, untruthful video or not, this man has NOTHING to answer for. Anyone who claims otherwise is an enemy of America, because they are an enemy of the First Amendment (which is what makes America America). This man may have to face civil action from the actors or other participants in the film, but that is a side matter. The film in and of itself is not anything he owes anyone an explanation for.This is similar to what we were talking about in my 8:55 a.m. post "The Invisible Man." Mark O said:
How is this not an assault on the First Amendment? Who cares how bad the movie was? Do any but the obsessed believe the movie is the reason for the killing? If it is, then so what? Our response should be to champion our freedom, not pander to the mob.And I said:
If bad movies aren't protected:Imagine if you had to make a good movie or a well-written book to have the freedom to disseminate it. What power the critics would have! They could be expert witnesses at our blasphemy trials.
1. The vast majority of movies are not protected.
2. The legal authorities will have to distinguish good from bad.
"90% of everything is crud," said Theodore Sturgeon. It's Sturgeon's Law... to which I humbly offer the Althouse Corollary:
If there's a crud exception to freedom, we are only 10% free.
पोस्ट्स
४०४ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 404 पैकी 201 – 400 नवीन› नवीनतम»deborah, the arrest was clearly an intimidation attempt by the Obama administration to try to force this man to pull down the video from YouTube.
The assault is against the rights of every U.S. citizen.
Anyone who contemplates voting for this swinish demagogue either does not understand or does not value our constitutional democracy.
And anyone who does not understand or value our constitutional democracy...what's next?
Point of order: The Muslim jihadists were NOT incited to war against America because we blashpemed their dickhead great prophet guy.
They are at war because we exist in a rebellious state of freedom not to from obey their religious commandments.The movie maker's people have lived among them for 1500 years and he wants to tell the world what the Coptics face every day.
That is all.
I have a question for those of you not bothered by the midnight questioning of this guy for 'parole violations' that may have been brought to light due to his notoriety.
Do you agree that UC was morally and legally justified in firing Ward Churchill?
Thomas when the story first broke, I read that he was not arrested, but came voluntarily. I don't know if this has changed. Was he in danger from assassination?
And anyone who does not understand or value our constitutional democracy...what's next?
Further extension of the government's power over the individual. Further insulation of the Great Helmsman from criticism. Further deterioration of the rule of law.
I think we should avoid going to war by every sensible means we can.
Enforcing anti-blasphemy laws in the U.S. is not one of the things I'm willing to do.
Bill Maher has better writers than Obama.
Some things about our culture are non-negotiable... Bill Maher.
We're about 40 years into the Islamic fundamentalist challenge. It took 70 years to beat the Soviets.
There was never a guarantee we would beat them, if you recall. There's no guarantee we will now either, but I really like having Hillary on this. Obama too.
I love that, if those morons hadn't acted out, I never would've saw this thing - and enjoyed it so much!
Thank God for religion:
It just makes the world so violently ridiculous,...
Allie,
The response to bad free speech is more free speech, not less.
We are not responsible for the murderous actions of Muslims.
They may not like our freedom of speech. It is up to them to figure out how to deal with it without descending into violence.
You seem to blame this film for the attack at Camp Leatherneck.
Why?
He is just a convenient scapegoat for you, isn't he?
Because do you understand why your daughter is in Afghanistan at all?
Do you understand why they have weapons and guards at Camp Leatherneck?
You do realize they didn't just move armed guards and defense to Camp Leatherneck after this video was made, right?
You do realize there have been shootings, attacks, killings across Afghanistan both before and after this video was made, right?
You do realize that 9/11 is considered a day of celebration in the Muslim world, right?
You do realize that they celebrate that day as a victory by conducting new attacks as well as protests, right?
While I was in Iraq, I underwent a mortar attack on Christmas Eve.
Not my daughter, me.
Should we cancel Christmas in the US because the Islamists decided to conduct an attack on Christmas?
Is celebrating the birth of Jesus as Savior yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?
Because they hate that just as much as this video. They consider it blasphemy to call Jesus the Son of God.
Here's the thing: you don't get to choose what the Islamists are upset about. Get that through your head.
"Voluntary," deborah, is an odd term to use when a group of at least six LA County police show up at your door at midnight with an entourage of press photographers.
This intimidation attempt is not ameliorated in any way because the video maker was not arrested.
Yes, the President has set up this video maker for assassination by the jihadis.
Indeed, (4) more years of Obama followed by (8) years of Hillary!
As the party of Lincoln self-implodes ...
Further extension of the government's power over the individual. Further insulation of the Great Helmsman from criticism. Further deterioration of the rule of law.
No, what's next for those who you say don't understand or value our constitutional democracy because they would even contemplate voting for Obama. I mean are we just going to have millions and millions of people in our nation who don't understand or value democracy?
That sounds very dangerous.
When I think of the "neo-con way" I feel grateful for Obama and our State Dept., some pretty smart people who have managed to keep the entire fucking MENA blowing up in our fucking faces
So you think a dead Ambassador and sovereign soil invaded by force in multiple locations is a pretty nice piece of diplomatic success, eh?
I call it "blowing up in our fucking faces".
AllieOop,
Is a "sinister plot" a federal or state crime?
I call it "blowing up in our fucking faces".
Apparently you're new and weren't around when things really blew up in our fucking faces.
Okay, that's your solution, we should go to war over this, and Obama's not doing that.
I didn't say going to war was my solution.
I pointed out those are valid causes of war to highlight that Obama's solution was to negotiate with terrorists (via press conferences and legal harassment of a US person).
That was a juxtaposition to highlight the fecklessness of the President.
I guess if you want the US to be weaker and more vulnerable in the world, then you could say President Obama is doing an above average job.
I get your drift, ST, but what I meant was was he in danger of assassination before the incident?
I didn't say going to war was my solution.
I pointed out those are valid causes of war to highlight that Obama's solution was to negotiate with terrorists (via press conferences and legal harassment of a US person).
That was a juxtaposition to highlight the fecklessness of the President.
Nathan Alexander I respect you and your views but I can't be reading your posts all that frequently if they're not only sometimes too long but you see how you have couched your meaning so obscurely?
Yes, he was, deborah.
But, now, the President of the U.S. has fingered the video maker as the blasphemer who incited the Muslims to kill an American ambassor and servicemen.
Funny thing is… to put on my fictional/ speculative cap… I can imagine a (plausible) scenario in which this guy is the equivalent of a moby, a false flag operation. (Especially if he pretended to be funded by Jews.)
In which he didn't inadvertently, but purposely and with malice aforethought provided a pretext for Islamic rage.
But that in no way changes my position; IMO it only strengthens it. I'd be just as committed to the principle of free speech, if he was a moby.
Because the point of a moby action would be to precipitate a response that would affect innocent others. To precipitate e.g. forms of suppression of speech (suppression of "blasphemy" or "defamation of religion") that would serve the purposes-- and constitute a victory for-- anti-American forces, who'd like nothing more than to see us buckle and cede our commitment to the First Amendment.
video maker as the blasphemer who incited the Muslims to kill an American ambassor and servicemen.
The man fingered himself. You don't think this guy has any personal responsibility for what happens to him? Really?
I'm responsible for what happens to me.
Obama gave Al Jazeera a visual.. If they like Obama... they know what to do with it.
Keep a sharp eye on how Al Jazeera reports it.
Yes, the video maker is responsible for putting himself in harm's way.
Now that he has, it is the responsibility of the U.S. and the President to defend him and his right to speak freely.
The man fingered himself.
It was at these testimonies that what became known as the "$64 question" was asked: "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?"
Ignore history doomed to repeat.
I had to take some time to digest this one. I normally don't take InstaPundit too seriously because he's a hardcore partisan who wakes up every day thinking how he can spin everything for Republicans. However, I sadly have to admit he's right on this and I don't see how I can vote for Obama anymore. I'm sad about it because I want Obama to be a good president whereas a lot of folks seem to take pleasure in everything that goes wrong under his watch (which is strange, because often that means people are hoping for bad news for America). But I remember when Theo van Gogh was murdered, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (a personal heroine of mine) was threatened with death, and then that whole episode with the Danish cartoonists, and I vowed I would not allow terrorist thugs to bully me into not standing up for freedom of speech, or any of our other freedoms that define America but that too many people are willing to flush down the toilet.
So, the Althouse Hillbillies win, at least with me. I can't in good conscience vote for Obama. One should never sell out their principles over some politician. I don't even like politicians so I'm not very emotionally invested in their fates. At Obama's level they are all power hungry phonies to an obscene degree. If Obama can't stand up for the First Amendment he took an oath to uphold, I can't stand with him. I appreciate some of the things he's accomplished in his term but I am now washing my hands of him.
This still won't effect the election. Let's face it. Even if Obama murdered the Ambassador himself, he'd still get 47% of the vote. They cannot be moved by facts, events, or failure. It's unconditional support like for a child or a pet.
Things in one or even multiple areas could get really bad - even bad enough for Obama to lose the election, but he will still get a near majority to vote for him anyway. It's embarrassing, disappointing and the very real albatross we are stuck with.
I feel for the embarrassment that intelligent members of certain groups must feel knowing that their identity will be stained with the "stupid" tattoo, because their group remained working the Obama plantation even after the shackles were removed.
OBAMA, and the his enablers in the press!
But, we probably don't have to worry about drones on us, in the first term.
Insty is losing his damn mind again.
Loafing,
One of the difficult problems here is that Romney hasn't really enunciated a convincing argument for why he should be president.
I wish he would. I can think of ways that he could.
So far, he hasn't.
Now that he has, it is the responsibility of the U.S. and the President to defend him and his right to speak freely.
Well sure, they're not going to give passports to a kill team from Iran. But WTF, even Rushdie took responsibility for himself and didn't blame anyone other than the fanatics.
You're conservatives. People are supposed to accept the responsibility for themselves. Goddamit, the guy was playing with fire, and apparently being a real self-indulgent a.h. about it from what I can tell, and you want to take up a collection for him. And bring down our government who's trying to manage something bigger than this fool's stupid legal problems.
And Loafing Oaf stands up, and walks through the broken gates to freedom and respect. I'm impressed.
phx,
One of the most perplexing parts of this freedom of speech thing is that the people who really define that freedom for us are often scoundrels.
What yashu said at 10:11.
Whether or not his motives are benign or not is irrelevant for the purposes of restating what can never be stated enough apparently...
We value free speech.
"Do you Althouse commenters not recognize the possibility that this guy was engaging in a much bigger, more sinister plot to incite some sort of holy war? You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead. Oh poor bad movie guy, taken in for questions by the brownshirts."
Yes, Allie. Because I have a twisty mind (it's a pre-req for anyone who attempts fiction) I thought of a number of different scenarios including that this fellow, himself, was a jihadist, who made the movie to start a holy war. It's sort of silly, because it's a lot more work than just finding something someone else made, but I thought of it.
And I even thought... if he was in on it, maybe it would be okay if he got investigated. But the investigation wasn't from that end and I figured that it really didn't matter who made the movie or why.
I believe with my whole heart that any appearance of weakness, any appearance to sympathize with the hurt feelings, any chance impression given that the murders and riots have succeeded, will lead to more of the same. More riots, more danger and more death.
It's not a matter of not caring, or thinking that it's *worth* the death of people to stand our ground, it's a matter of caring absolutely that more people *not* be killed.
As people far smarter than me have pointed out, it's not as though there is a *line* that determines what offense is worth a death, arson or riots. It's not as though there actually is some level of respect for Muhammad or Islam that we could look at and say... there it is! The movie is an excuse and you know it. Everyone knows it is an excuse. Everyone knows it had jack shit to do with the deaths in Libya. There are far worse things out there every day. What about Maher's movie? What about the "Obama killed Bin Laden" movie?
Something that works will get repeated. Even if, EVEN IF, we did not have a 1st Amendment freedom of speech and religion that MATTERED, it would be a very bad idea to back down from this, as our President seems to be doing, or at least seems to be trying to finesse a wobbly having-it-both-ways. What works gets repeated.
It's actually a lie that the movie has anything to do with the attack that killed Stevens and Smith and the others in Libya, but it's still being used that way. And if it WORKS what is to stop more of it?
It's not callousness that leads to the conclusion that we must not allow this to be successful. What works gets repeated. If killing Americans and having riots and burning stuff down WORKS it gets repeated. Will you explain to the *next* person who dies family that you thought that if we just took their grievance seriously that it wouldn't happen again?
Better, far better, to stop and say "no more!" sooner rather than later.
And since the press was tipped off,
Were they? Maybe I'm confusing stories, but what I read is that only one press photographer was there, almost by happenstance. And they got the one shot that everyone used.
I value free speech too. I hated admitting the Nazis had a right to march in Skokie. Or admitting that Fred guy who makes a spectacle of himself at service people's funerals probably was acting legally. Or that ignorant fools had the right to have a picnic and burn a few flags.
Haven't seen any really, really good examples lately though that were worth getting my ire up again for. This guy? He'll probably run for Congress in two years.
shiloh,
Indeed, (4) more years of Obama followed by (8) years of Hillary!
As the party of Lincoln self-implodes ...
That's the part the Right doesn't get:
They, too, brought this on themselves.
I've been calling them on every bullshit tactic they've been using to push Romney over the line - without the American people catching on to their shenanigans - and their answer, every step of the way, has been "Don't Care!"
As though they don't understand the values we've fought four long years to uphold are what would win the day, and not this crap sandwich they've made to shove down our throats.
But don't start dancing so soon, my Democrat friend:
They may still pull it off, and then we'll not only have to eat their crap but sop it up with some cult vomit, too - Mmm-mmm-good.
Either way, we're fucked, no matter who wins - I'm just heartbroken "my side" decided to screw the pooch so badly:
It's like they held a private meeting and said, "What can we do to ensure Crack will lose respect for mankind completely?" and then came up with another cult candidate.
Well, no doubt, that would do it,...
If Obama can't stand up for the First Amendment he took an oath to uphold, I can't stand with him.
Good for you... there are principles that supersede partisan politics.
LoafingOaf,
I appreciate some of the things he's accomplished in his term but I am now washing my hands of him.
I don't agree with you - I don't disagree with you either - but I'm glad to see SOMEONE around here is willing to give enough thought to an issue they'd change their mind. Especially based on American principles:
Good job, man!
"or the schoolteacher’s teddy bear"
I had completely forgotten about the school teacher's teddy bear.
Loafing Oaf @11:13,
I'm impressed by what you've said here. Even if you change your mind and go back to being a rabid anti-Romney (pro-Obama?) partisan, you've earned some real respect from me, for coming to a conclusion so (seemingly) at odds with your partisan leanings lately.
I know I'm biased, I acknowledge it. But I really think what's going here transcends partisanship-- and should concern anyone with "liberal" qua "libertarian" values, whether they see themselves as on the left or the right.
Its not the first time they been offended..
But it is the first time we have gone wobbly.
Crack and Robert Cook, Althouse rays of sunshine!
don't start dancing so soon
Having survived (5) years of Nixon and (8) years of Cheney/Bush, no biggie. Not a registered Dem, but almost always vote Dem.
America usually survives despite itself, but hey, most empires come to an end eventually.
It was a good run. As long as Ohio State beats Michigan in football, what else really matters
Shouting Thomas,
One of the difficult problems here is that Romney hasn't really enunciated a convincing argument for why he should be president.
What are you talking about? His election was "inevitable," didn't you hear? The Great And Powerful Oz (or someone) said so.
Now grab a pom-pom and cheer your pre-fabricated but sloppily-organized fate or else,...
For those of you that didn't click all the way through because it involved clicking/passing through an adversary ;)
Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016
It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."
And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!
It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --
"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"
My vote for dumbest Republican on the planet goes to...
Peggy Noonan
Whatever the exact impact of the anti-Muhammad hate film that went viral, we have entered an age of would-be Princips.
Gavrilo Princip of course was the assassin who killed the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife on June 28, 1914. He pulled the trigger that killed the archduke which led to the ultimatums that brought the war that misshaped the 20th century.
Now in the age of technology, with everything disseminated everywhere instantly, it isn't one man with a gun but one man with a camera, or a laptop, or a phone.
Oh no! Free speech! And telephones. And the internet. Oh it's horrible. I can see why dead tree media queen is upset about the internet. Obviously, because internet = assassination.
To be a Princip is to feel power, whatever the cost to others. It is to need to get your point out there, whatever the price others pay.
Hey, shut up! Yeah, you! Who said you could your put your opinion out there, Noonan? You fucking troublemaker.
A Princip has a high sense of authority
Kinda like a stupid moron who has a WSJ column and uses it to tell other citizens that their speech is just like assassination?
—he is in possession of urgent truths—
As opposed to what, lies?
and no sense of responsibility.
Why are you still talking? I now have the urge to light things on fire. Your speech has inflamed my world. Shut up! Your words are making us all crazy!
Now look what you did. Dead nuns. I'm up to my ass in dead nuns. I just killed a whole flock of nuns, Noonan. And it's your fault! You sent me off the cliff with your reckless words and your inflamatory speech and your assassinating WSJ column.
You did it. You nun-killer. Call the cops! Noonan's a psychopath. She's about to start World War III with her word bullets.
The maker of the videotape that contributed to the rioting in Egypt
Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of an Islamic mob? Could be anything.
For instance, maybe Islam is mad because you're showing your hot little shoulder in public.
And your hair!
It's irresponsible to use your sexuality in public like that, Noonan. Cover your shit up, harlot! You're upsetting Islam with your skirts and your high heels. And your pearls! Greed and lust and lust and greed. You're making me terrorist crazy!
Cover your face or more people will die. That's an order. Don't make me send the authorities over there. And I'll do it, too, whore.
is a would-be Princip, as is the American pastor, Terry Jones, who burned the Quran.
Yes, but he's not getting jiggy with the devil. And you are!
We are going to have to think about antidotes to and answers for the new Principism. Because it's not going to go away.
Nothing the 14th century won't cure. Just stop reading, stop writing, stop driving, stop voting, cover your body from head to toe and shut the fuck up. That should calm us all down.
And once more Crack goes bat shit crazy over a post mentioning Glenn Reynolds.
I'm curious Crack, what did he do to you (if anything)? Or is this like that other psychotic commenter a while back whose primary gripe with Reynolds was that he wouldn't link to his blog?
crack, when guys in brown shirts pound on your door at midnight because you slimed Romney, let me know.
It's kind of amusing to see the lefties defending the police state. Better Stalin than Hitler, eh ?
I like how righties are slipping into the conversation that this is an anti-Obama film. LOL
I kinda like Noonan's take on that I think.
I want Obama to be a good president whereas a lot of folks seem to take pleasure in everything that goes wrong under his watch (which is strange, because often that means people are hoping for bad news for America).
I think you malign too many here unfairly.
We all wanted Obama to be a good President.
There is not one conservative here who wants the US to be worse off. There is not one conservative here that wanted Obama to fail.
The thing is "good President" has a different definition for different people and different views of life.
So while I wanted President Obama to be a good President, I expected the economy to flounder under him.
And it did.
That didn't mean I wanted the economy to flounder.
I wasn't rooting for it to flounder, and did all I could to improve the economy.
But I expected economic issues, free speech issues, freedom issues, foreign policy issues, taxation issues, etc, to reveal that progressive ideology policies don't work very well. Sure enough: they don't.
The problem, as I see it, is that progressives have misinterpreted the lessons of Bill Clinton.
They (you?) never got farther than:
"Bill Clinton was President, the economy was good, taxes were higher, and we only fought wars where US interests' weren't involved (so they were more "purely" humanitarian, or something)"
They never got into the causation: the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dot-com bubble, the benefit of NAFTA, the importance of the GOP Congress.
They never understood (or cared?) about the effects: 9/11 arising from Clinton's disinterest in Islamic terror filling the power vacuum of the collapse of the Soviets, the recession that came from the dotcom bubble bursting, the inflating of the housing bubble, etc.
So no one wants President Obama to be a bad President.
At worse, some/many of us wanted him to fail to enact what we thought were ruinous policies.
And where he succeeded to enact his policies, the economy has suffered. Where he succeeded, we were revealed to be correct.
Pointing out Obama's failures regarding US' best interests isn't wishing for US' best interests to be harmed.
It is an attempt to stop further damage in the future.
You should spend some considering the nature of the link between Obama's actions and the rest of the progressive ideology.
If there is one. There may not be.
I think there is one, but if I'm right, that is for you to discover on your own.
But you need to stop impugning the motives who disagreed with Obama's actions earlier than you.
Clinton gave us a sex clause for testifying under oath..
If its about sex... its not a lie...
Now it seems the first amendment is in need of a Muslim clause..
If it might offend Muslims... you better shut the fuck up.
Crack - you have my full attention. If much of your disgust with the current election is based on your certainty that the Republicans selected the "cult" candidate, what kind of candidate (no names if you don't want to share)would pass your muster and also be electable? Given that we have a two-party system (no Italian Parliament for us!)and that the entrenched powers are often indistinguishable in their constant need to retain and wield power, what kind of man or woman should the American people elect as President?
I'm serious about this, as serious as you are in your expressed beliefs. I respect your stalwart belief, that neither current candidate is worthy of election. But most people feel that they need to choose the lesser of two evils. I think that's how folks are generally wired together. It doesn't mean they love either Obama or Romney, they just feel the need to make a choice.
@phx,
If you lack the attention span to read my posts, that doesn't reflect well on your ability to consider and follow complex topics.
Now, if you are just unwilling to read my posts, that's different.
In my opinion, you are missing out. But that's just me.
Still, I'm always willing to explain. But I notice you are very carefully dodging any of the questions I ask, or any of the issues I raise. Very clever of you.
Crack--No, I do not think individual bigotry expressed through a private film comes first. Bigotry is reprehensible, but it's not unlawful unless is expresses itself in discrimination. People have a right to express all sorts of foolish ideas, including bigotry. Bigots disqualify themselves from all kinds of things as a practical matter, because (one hopes) people will shun them. But they are not disqualified from Constitutional protection.
The suppression of speech by government action is unlawful--a very serious breach. It is far more serious than individual bigotry, given the power of government and its duty to all citizens to protect their rights.
There's room for disagreement whether bringing this guy in as they did is suppression of speech, or whether action on his supposed parole violation would be punishment for speech. I think it's plain that these actions proceeded only once the government found his expressions troublesome and that the parole stuff is a sham. Others may differ in that conclusion. I think they miss the point.
I like how righties are slipping into the conversation that this is an anti-Obama film.
WTF?
Well I'm not that clever. I probably abused you a bit much, especially when I went and wrote a long post right after that.
There seems to be no end of folly.
Gotcha! ~ Let freedom ring ...
Crack's anti-cult project supersedes all other ventures...
Including, removing Obama.
That's were he looses some people.. who are focused and believe so should everyone else on what they are focused on.
Crack has a bigger picture in mind.
LoafingOaf, much respect from me for your honesty as well.
This issue has NOTHING to do with partisan politics, at least as far as I'm concerned. I can't imagine that any honest American, whatever their policy beliefs or party affiliation, isn't appalled by this spectacle.
As an artist, it's especially worrisome to me.
Kudos to LoafingOaf! A mind, a heart and a soul lives.
Meanwhile, Shiloh has yet to prove he isn't a Brownshirt. Shiloh has proven he will stand with Obama even when he commits an Evil Bush never did.
I think its b/c Shiloh wants to enforce Groupthink and Thoughtcrime for those who aren't democrats.
Again, kudos to LoafingOaf!
Christopher,
And once more Crack goes bat shit crazy over a post mentioning Glenn Reynolds.
I'm curious Crack, what did he do to you (if anything)? Or is this like that other psychotic commenter a while back whose primary gripe with Reynolds was that he wouldn't link to his blog?
Poor thing, you must be new around here:
I started off criticizing Reynolds' "clique" idea (as opposed to an "ideas" idea) years ago - right here on this blog - but, even after he started linking to me, I didn't stop.
And I'm glad you revealed yourself as holding the small-minded impression that if something doesn't happen to me, personally, then I should shut-the-fuck-up because that's the other issue I have with Reynolds:
Let's say I see him promoting something that kills people - quackery, say, which he does - should I keep quiet?
It won't hurt me - I understand quackery and am at no risk of it killing me - but, having had the experience of it killing people I love, is the proper thing for me to do is accept the blog hits he provides and say "thanks" while the scourge he unleashes on others continue?
What's a blog hit worth to you?
Crack is a lone voice in the wilderness.. some of his antics are designed to get your attention because the imperative of what he believes to be irreparably damaging this country calls for it.
No.. nothing like the tactics of the Islamists.. in fact, the Islamists are also part of the problem.
I think I understand Cracks (should I call it Crusade ;)... but sometimes I'm not so sure.
Here's another think I love about Althouse's post though - the quote in title, using "literally" twice, twice!
It's like the best use of that convention since "I'm shocked, just shocked!"
A hoot.
Michael K,
crack, when guys in brown shirts pound on your door at midnight because you slimed Romney, let me know.
Please. You sheltered types crack me up. I've had mobs outside my door, screaming for my head, since I was a kid trying to do the right thing in the ghetto. Brownshirts would almost be an improvement. And this idea that Mormons are non-violent is as delusional as it gets. I live in Utah. What do you think? People don't kill and die here?
You guys have REALLY got to stop reading the cult's press releases and see it for what it is - a fucking cult.
It's kind of amusing to see the lefties defending the police state. Better Stalin than Hitler, eh ?
Or you defending a cultist for president.
Better mental slavery than freedom, eh?
"By sending — literally — brownshirted enforcers to engage in — literally — a midnight knock at the door of a man for the non-crime..."
Pfffffttttt
LoafingOaf's recent con hero worship raises the rhetorical question.
What would actually make a die hard Althouse con not vote for Romney ?!?
Maybe a better question would be how many are voting for Willard only because they hate/despise Barack Hussein Obama?
BTW.. When I use the word 'antics' it is not meant as any disparagement on my part.
I probably could use a better word.. in the future... I'm sure this wont be the last time somebody is curious about Crack.
Shiloh,
You are a Brownshirt ready to Enforce Thoughtcrime for Obama.
How many people should die or be arrested in the middle of the night before you make any complaints about THIS Administration?
Hint to the general public: Everything is excused by Shiloh if a democrat sits in the Oval office.
Get up a web site. I'll throw in a few bucks for this guys legal defense. Then I'll turn my attention back to what's really important about these events, and this election.
Better mental slavery than freedom, eh?
Obama is freedom?
Hell, I bet I'd be the first and damn near one of the only ones to kick in a couple dollars.
Did anyone hear the new Dylan CD? I just heard the first few songs tonight.
I'm a fan. There's been some, not much discussion of it in recent posts (such as this one). Maybe we can request an Althouse "Tempest" post to discuss/ review it.
Actually I'm pissed off about Obama re: quite a few things. But he's still nowhere near the inept/incompetent/ad nauseam constitutional violations of Cheney/Bush.
A Cheney/Bush that Althouse cons are turning into pretzels "trying" to apologize for. Apparently they haven't read Willard's book :-P No Apologies.
Indeed, Althouse, self-righteous cons march on to the beat of their self-righteous leader.
Again, much like trained seals ...
This should not be a surprise to anyone. "In fact, restrictions on free speech regarding religion have been the official foreign policy of the Obama administration since the fall of 2009.
Upon enthusiastically joining the anti-Israel club of tyrants known as the U.N. Human Rights Council, Obama’s new appointees co-sponsored a resolution–with Egypt, no less–that embraced restrictions on free speech that Islamic countries had sought in order to justify harsh anti-blasphemy laws.
The text of the resolution provided that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities”–and condemned “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and stated that the media had a special “moral and social responsibility” to develop “voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” regarding these topics.
U.N. Resolution 16/18 was brought about primarily to protect one culture, one religion, at the expense of everyone else…" Watch the clip at the link. The AAG from the Obama DOJ refuses to state that they will not criminalize speech. http://chandlerswatch.com/?p=5360http://chandlerswatch.com/?p=5360
Ohhh, now the truth is out Shiloh! You're a closet Republican!!
Shiloh, are you female?
"Maybe a better question would be how many are voting for Willard only because they hate/despise Barack Hussein Obama?"
If your accountant completely screwed up your financials, would you have to hate him to fire him? What if you found out that he also had no experience at all in accounting, but your wife hired him anyway? What if he lied to you? What if the only other accountant in town had a long resume of successful accounting work, as well as extensive support of charities,...and he was a Mormon?
Oh yea, and every time you call your accountant, he's out playing golf.
You gonna fire that guy, or are you completely pussy-whipped?
I didn't see that post @yashi. Interesting. Very interesting. I'm looking forward to the RS interview too.
@yashu that is.
Shiloh,
You are as independent of thought as a Dalek.
It does not matter what a democrat does (cause an Ambassador to die; Have a "Midnight arrest" for making a film) -- in your mind, no GOP can do good.
I think even daleks have more independent thought then you Shiloh.
You are doing scutwork for an Administration that is worse (in civil rights,ask Glenn Greenwald, no Bush supporter) then the last Administration.
You have no independent thought. And what's even worse, Shiloh wants no one else to think independently of the democrats either.
@JSF, you're on good terms with Shiloh, find out if it's a male or female will ya?
@Phx you're on your own.
Shiloh is scum to me. Anyone who acts like a Brownshirt (like Shiloh) deserves to be opposed.
Sheridan,
Crack - you have my full attention. If much of your disgust with the current election is based on your certainty that the Republicans selected the "cult" candidate, what kind of candidate (no names if you don't want to share)would pass your muster and also be electable? Given that we have a two-party system (no Italian Parliament for us!)and that the entrenched powers are often indistinguishable in their constant need to retain and wield power, what kind of man or woman should the American people elect as President?
I would've happily gone with almost anyone who I wasn't told was going to be my candidate before the nomination process had even commenced. If Sarah Palin had run, I would've voted early, but since she didn't I was fine with Rick Santorum. But - and this bothers me more than anything else - in a contest where Romney's "religion" is deemed off-limits, when we know about Obama's and Santorum's and Palin's and everyone else's, no one is going to convince me this non-vetted nomination process was fair or that the American people have any idea what they're getting themselves into with this candidate and his cult. (All you have to do is listen to what people say here - turning Romney and the Mormons into non-human automatons who wouldn't lie to us, or cheat us, or double-cross us, or abuse kids or anything.) It's simply unreal to me how easily they fall for the clean-cut imagery. I got over it a week after living here.
Oh - to answer your question directly - if it was up to me, I'd tell Obama and Romney to both take a hike and draft Thomas Sowell as President. At gunpoint if necessary, while pleading, "Save us!"
I'm serious about this, as serious as you are in your expressed beliefs. I respect your stalwart belief, that neither current candidate is worthy of election. But most people feel that they need to choose the lesser of two evils. I think that's how folks are generally wired together. It doesn't mean they love either Obama or Romney, they just feel the need to make a choice.
But it's crazy. It's a mindset that doesn't grasp "We The People." As Clint Eastwood said, "We run this place" and the politicians are our "employees". You ever heard of a business owner who HAD to take a bad employee? No! So this "lesser of two evils" mindset is a complete renunciation of our role as citizens controlling our nation's destiny - we're letting the politicians, or the process, or the media convince us we have to do this when it's 100% not true. We're just being pussies and/or taking the easy way out.
Call me crazy - and many have so get in line - but, as an American born in the land of the free, blah, blah, blah, I'm simply made of sterner stuff than that,...
shiloh, you keep referring to "con lemmings" or "trained seals" etc.
But your utterances are much more reminiscent of a trained seal's, and they'd be less so if you stopped engaging with people here as an abstract strawman mass ("cons"), stopped pretending that your juvenile heckling is a marker of rebellious originality (heckling is one of the most facile forms of discourse), and started talking to your fellow commenters here as individuals, who might or might not agree or disagree with you on this or that issue.
Look, it does take some chutzpah/ balls to comment at a blog where you're politically/ ideologically outnumbered. But commenting as a troll doesn't take balls or courage-- it's the most childish thing in the world, as easy as sticking out your tongue.
It's much harder, and admirable, to make the effort to engage with your political/ ideological opponents in a conversation (even if it's an adversarial one), as your equals.
You might want to try it sometime.
Actually I'm pissed off about Obama re: quite a few things. But he's still nowhere near the inept/incompetent/ad nauseam constitutional violations of Cheney/Bush.
All of which the Obama administration have kept in place, with the addition of drone assassination of US citizens abroad and, of course, midnight frogmarches of the politically inconvenient(or convenient, if you think this administration actually has that kind of collective intellect).
Shiloh, you're just mailing it in these days.
phx, please define Republican/conservative philosophy taking into consideration:
Bachmann
Trump
Cain
Perry
Paul
Santorum
Allen West
Steve King
Todd Akin
Rick Scott
Rick Snyder
Tom Corbett
Joe "you lie" Wilson
Joe Miller
Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell
Sharron Angle
Ken Buck
Limbaugh
Ingraham
Savage
Coulter
Malkin
Beck
Ted "Vietnam draft dodger" Nugent
and last but not least, as Ted Kennedy said quite appropriately, multiple choice Willard Romney.
TIA
I'm looking forward to the RS interview too.
I do too. There's some discussion of it (or rather discussion of just a summary of it) here.
"Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell"
Kind of a favorite of mine.
"Kind of a favorite of mine."
No doubt!
A tv show with O'Donnell: My Favorite Republican. Retro throwback to 60s sit coms. She reminds of E. Montgomery, only really Republican and hapless.
"Do you really think I'm Republican?"
Please point out where I said you were a Rep?
TIA
(((short exhale)))
David,
Crack--No, I do not think individual bigotry expressed through a private film comes first.
I don't either - that was a "joke" about the behavior of others, here, regarding any exposure of Romney and his cult resulting in shouts of bigotry without evidence.
This blog is filled with a lot of people who engage in a lop-sided situational ethics, based on groupthink and superior numbers - I'm not one of them - I fight alone, which makes me a target, but, as in the old Batman TV show, the perspective in the bad guys' lair usually straightens out once the battle is over.
Biff! Bam! Pow!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go replenish my utility belt,...
Ah yes, mocking Christine O'Donnell. Really edgy, original, and up to the moment political humor!
Look, it does take some chutzpah/ balls to comment at a blog where you're politically/ ideologically outnumbered.
Its also a lot harder to defend an administration (of whatever party) because the nature of administering is... frankly fraught with possible fuck ups.. specially when its the size of this government.
Its a lot easier to attack, than be on defence carrying water for somebody all the time.
But thats not why we choose to go to the moon and do the other things.. not because they are easy but because they are hard...
or something.
Oh come on you two, Shiloh and Phx, for a minute there I thought there was some chemistry between you two guys, heh.:)
I love Christine O'Donnell. You kids with our hipster cynicism.
Interesting after (8) years of Cheney/Bush, many Reps were suddenly reincarnated as Libertarians. Go figure!
Ctmom4, great pick-up. Definitely needs its own post.
This ties in with the whole mindset of Muslims insisting on having others conform to their beliefs, such as in Britain the Koran is to be kept on the top shelf in libraries.
To all, where are lines to be drawn? We can't use the N word here at Althouse and most other venues. Why is that?
I'm tired
I'm going to bed.
All that breathing, exhale, inhale, exhale, inhale......
"chemistry between you two guys"
Allie, again I have chemistry w/everyone as Althouse cons like me, they really like me ...
Shiloh, they sure do!!
Lem,
Crack's anti-cult project supersedes all other ventures...
Including, removing Obama.
That's were he looses some people.. who are focused and believe so should everyone else on what they are focused on.
Crack has a bigger picture in mind.
Luv ya, Lemmy.
I think Obama's got to go, too, but we can't let Romney in without a serious warning, to him and his "church," that we understand their game and we're not going to stand for it.
If not - count me out:
I've seen them blindly put one cultist in office - to my dismay - and I will play no role in electing this one either,...
Shiloh,
I like anyone who can show independent thought.
And call out when their own party does wrong.
You aren't independent minded or honorable.
When you show signs of either, then you get my respect.
JSF, oh dear me, Shiloh will just curl up and die without your respect.
Interesting after (8) years of Cheney/Bush, many Reps were suddenly reincarnated as Libertarians.
You just weren't paying attention. Libertarians (at least those who choose to engage with actual political reality as opposed to utopian fantasy) have to pragmatically choose between, and try to influence/ affect, two imperfect political parties.
If you think the DNC has libertarians in the bag, you're hopelessly blind.
Bullshit. First, the "threat to a certain politician's re-election" was pulled out of Glenn Reynolds' ass - where's the evidence to back it up? There is none, but you guys are already making parrot noises, like it's a fact.
Do you think the President has reacted in a PC way? I think Bush did, but on the other hand, I don't think he ever subordinated American rights to Muslim sensibilities. It may merely be that I don't recall correctly.
I also don't think the MSM understands that blaming the 9/11/12 attacks on the movie makes much sense for their candidate, and I do think Obama is their candidate.
That makes me want to vote for Romney, to take away biased power from the press. Or rather, it makes me want to write bad things about Obama. And if it makes you feel better, yes, I sometimes do this on liberal blogs, sort of like a fly in the ointment. The difference there is everyone thinks the same way, or at least reacts the same way, to any non-aligned thinking.
JSF, that's what I live for!
Getting a con's respect at Althouse. But it can be difficult trying to dodge all the childish, conservative trained seal, expletives flying fast and furious!
Irony intended ...
Every once in a while I try to engage with the trollish and give them the benefit of the doubt. But I give up.
Shiloh,
I've been in politics since I was 15.
Once upon I was a democrat who stood for Free S[eech until I noticed other democrats (like yourself) didnt care or it unless it matched your own thoughts.
Once upon a time democrats used 1984 as a warning, under the Obama administration they use it as a guide.
And you, Shiloh, support the "Midnight arrests" and Americans dying overseas as long as Obama is elected again.
There is a reason why D's have not held Congress (or the WH) continuously since LBJ.
Look in the mirror. You are the problem.
Thanks Crack..
"There is a reason why D's have not held Congress (or the WH) continuesly since LBJ."
Actually there are many reasons.
LBJ beget Nixon
Nixon/Ford beget Carter
Carter beget Dutch
Dutch/Bush41 beget Bubba
Supreme Court beget Bush43
Bush43 beget Obama
Again, yin and yang as presidential politics is not that complicated, turdblossom's fantasy pipe dream of a permanent con majority notwithstanding.
yashu,
Obama is freedom?
No, you guys have handed us two of these losers now:
One with Oprah's unorganized cult and, now, one with a cult so organized we might as well be entering into the final scene of Rosemary's Baby.
Freedom is, at least, four years off,...
Shiloh,
And yet you refuse to stand up against your party when it acts like INGSOC.
Keep on blaming Bush and Rove -- you have no independent thought. meanwhile, the voters have seen how a DEMOCRATIC POTUS from 09 -12 acted.
wake up! It's 2012, Bush and Rove and Romney are not in the WH -- Obama is. Until you stand up to INGSOC tactics, you are nothing but a Troll.
Loafing Oaf proved that he has a heart and a soul.
Does Shiloh?
"Freedom is, at least, four years off,..."
In the interim, you have Althouse to complain ;) about your lack of freedom!
Recapping as mentioned earlier, LoafingOaf is now a con hero at Althouse. Congrats as he has their approval.
btw, did LO say he was now voting for Willard?
Shiloh,
No he's a human being.
It does not matter if he votes for Romney.
He saw something wrong with Obama (and as democrat) called it out.
That, Shiloh, is humanity.
Something you fail to understand.
Actually, there are a few Althouse cons who "say" they are not voting for Romney and I don't consider them "special".
What this proves is 99% of leftists have no principles other then appeasing Islam.
shiloh - own being a lefty! you should wear your Commie lapel pin with pride!
Crack, you have to distinguish between the realm of the private and the public, or between the sociocultural and the governmental.
Politicians A and B may have equally wacky "religious"/ "ideological" beliefs. But one has a demonstrated tendency to enforce his wacky ideology through public policy, using his power as an elected official to impose his irrational, unempirical, pernicious world view and ideological imperatives in the political realm that affects all of us, whether the public wants it or not.
The other may hold certain wacky beliefs as personally held in a religious context, a "spirituality" or view of the transcendental/ supernatural/ divine that may well deserve criticism, but he has never given a single indication in his entire life of introducing and even less imposing these beliefs in public policy, in the material political world relevant to us, and has never abused his power as an elected official to do so.
But facing an election between two politicians (not two friends or priests but politicians), you posit them as equivalent.
Shiloh,
Exactly -- your Hate of the GOP is more then your support of what Democrats are supposed to stand for (NOT acting like INGSOC, "Midnight arrests" and squelching Free Speech)
But you bleat like a robot.
You have shown no humanity. I am not going to waste time with a robot that refuses to even consider saying "Obama is wrong here,"
Instead, you are an Obamabot that does not care what he does. As long as the GOP loses.
JSF, don't hate anyone, it's a waste of time and effort. If I were to hate a politician, it would have been Nixon, but Karma took care of him.
All good things to those who wait ...
Shiloh,
Then ACT it.
Bleating about Bush in the Era of Obama shows you refuse to let go of your Old hates.
Defend Obama or call him to task.
That's bravery.
And stop playing TV Tropes with the Althouse Blog. If you actually try to engage people, you might learn something.
Prove me wrong Shiloh.
Prove me wrong.
JSF, I don't agree w/the premise of this thread.
Have a good night! and pleasant tomorrow ...
bagoh20,
What if the only other accountant in town had a long resume of successful accounting work, as well as extensive support of charities,...and he was a Mormon?
Ah, bag, see - now it's your turn:
What if you discovered - BEFORE you hired the Mormon accountant - that he was actually a shifty liar, to you and the flock?
What if you discovered - BEFORE you hired him - that he was involved in shifty deals and his "business" was backed by criminals?
What if you discovered - BEFORE you hired him - that the "church" he belonged to, along with having some really bizarre beliefs and offering him solicited - and unsolicited - "advice," were buddies with the Mafia? And they took a *very special interest* in his clients?
And what if you discovered - BEFORE you hired him - that the "church" would send along a few powerful members to oversee things whenever the accountant came by, just to ensure things went the way THEY wanted? And you were an afterthought?
Don't you think - as a business owner - might decide to keep looking for someone else to handle the books?
What if Al Gore didn't invent the internet ...
I try to persuade, but then I remember that sometimes, there's no use.
Why does anyone waste time reading or responding to "shiloh"? It's a futile exercise for an intelligent person, whatever their political inclination. His/her nonsense is easily ignored, but the dozens of responses by other commenters is what makes it intolerable.
This is not a partisan issue! The appreciation expressed to LoafingOaf for his honesty has nothing to do with some sort of partisan point-scoring. I don't expect that it means he'll suddenly support Romney or that Republicans are necessarily a better choice over the shameful actions of the Obama administration. My appreciation is based solely on the fact that someone whose opinions I have generally found execrable has shown that he actually has principles beyond partisan considerations. This is a rare occurrence and one that I did not expect from someone that I have previously insulted and confined to the category of hopeless, dishonest partisan shill.
I'm not a partisan, and I have not had kind words for unthinking partisans of any political stripe, leftist, rightist or otherwise. I'm interested in the honest exchange of ideas, of philosophical principles that are stronger than partisan goal-scoring; i'm interested in finding common ground with Americans of all political orientations. That's why I found LoafingOaf's principled declaration on this issue surprising and praiseworthy.
To be principled is a difficult path for most people, and I'm the first to offer a conciliatory handshake to those who demonstrate intellectual honesty over easier party-line justifications.
shiloh: I didn't say I'm voting for Romney. I honestly feel very confused but I've been realizing I don't like how I've been approaching politics. Don't really wanna get into that as i'm tired...and I'm not sure I can explain it very well anyway.
As for this particular matter, it's the straw that broke the camel's back. I agree with Obama on a small set of issues, and I embraced him because I was shocked at the state of the country in 2008 and also as a reaction against some things and people I didn't like in the Republican Party. I also don't approve of some of the ways Obama's been attacked. But there's been a whole bunch of shit that's been bugging me about Obama for a long time and I'm tired of defending him.
But, while I'm an Ohio voter who gets called 6 times a day by both parties (to the point I'm questioning why I have a land line) I'm pretty sure my vote won't decide anything. I'm just another person in the world.
yashu,
Crack, you have to distinguish between the realm of the private and the public, or between the sociocultural and the governmental.
No, you do:
So politician A does his dirty work himself - great. If we bust him, we can kick him out because we elected him.
But politician B, who has been groomed to attain power so much his cult even subverts their own rules for him regularly (like on abortion) just so he can climb through the ranks, has unelected "prophets" to do the nasty stuff - not so good. If they get busted, we're still stuck with him - and he's a former bishop, bound to the "church," and will have NO PROBLEM with them just replacing the busted assholes with new ones.
Let's say politician B gets busted himself - still no good. He and the "church" have staffed Washington by then, ensuring we never get rid of the cult in power. No matter what we do, we're fucked.
You've opened a Pandora's Box this country has never faced before - because it's never faced a power-hungry bunch like these dogs,...
Hey, thanks Palladian. I probably did let myself get too worked up about Sarah Palin, the thing you troll me the most about. lol
Hey, thanks Palladian. I probably did let myself get too worked up about Sarah Palin, the thing you troll me the most about. lol
I understand. I don't even really like Palin that much; I just always felt the urge to defend her as she's actually fairly moderate as so-called religious conservatives go, and I find her somewhat refreshingly un-politician-like, certainly for the Republican party.
Anyway, I will certainly take your opinions much more seriously in the future now that I see that you're much more of an iconoclast that I previously gave you credit for.
It's hard for many partisans (of any persuasion) to understand that there are a lot of us out here who care more about the abiding principles of our liberal republic than about a certain "team" winning.
Why does anyone waste time reading or responding to "shiloh"? It's a futile exercise for an intelligent person, whatever their political inclination. His/her nonsense is easily ignored, but the dozens of responses by other commenters is what makes it intolerable.
You're right, I know. It's just, every once in a while I think I maybe see something in the trollish other than a troll, and want to encourage good behavior (like wanting to reward a creature who always shits the rug, but one time doesn't). I remember feeling that way sometimes with what's its name, j or whatever, the troll that went on to troll Trooper York's blog. I should learn from experience to resist that impulse, and steadfastly resolve to never feed the trollish.
Crack, IMO you have a serious paranoid fixation re Mormons. You see Mormons as especially sinister/ corrupt, when they're just human beings who are, statistically, as sinister/ corrupt as any other human beings, any other group of people, organized or not. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Democrats, Republicans, teachers, university faculties, football teams, movie studios, corporations, businessmen, lawyers, senators, unions, scientific research teams, non-profits, editorial boards, doctors, artists, soccer moms, high school girls, what have you. I could try to convince you of this, but I know there's no point.
On July 26 in the comments of this post, Ann said of Obama, "I don't think he has a hidden agenda. I think he's a good person who means well and is fairly vague/pragmatic, but right now, we're being presented with a choice, and if this is the choice, Americans should and will pick capitalism."
Many of us disputed this statement. My reply was "I don't think he's a "good person". I believe he's an amoral narcissist bent on self promotion and aggrandizement. His moral compass changes with the tides."
Obama has proven us both wrong. Not only is he not a good person, he's worse than amoral, he's evil. I shudder to think what will happen to this country and the world if he's re-elected.
You're right, I know. It's just, every once in a while I think I maybe see something in the trollish other than a troll, and want to encourage good behavior
I certainly understand this impulse; as I said, I like to find common ground with any honest people. I'm an extreme introvert so my social group is small, but while I disagree with many of my friends and loved ones on specific issues, one thing we all have in common is an honest dedication to ideas rather than to affiliations.
But I'm also exquisitely sensitive to bullshit, and I can quickly tell when people have no intention to behave as individuals and honest actors. In this medium, all we have upon which to judge each other is our writing, so it usually becomes quite clear who is worth my precious time and who isn't.
InstaPundit is wrong:
http://thoughtsandrantings.com/2012/09/16/glenn-reynolds-is-wrong/
Lefties have always been for speech restrictions on those they don't like. They tell us this right here on this board.
fast and furious part 2. this is a 2-fer sale. they were chanting oblamo's name for spiking the ball about getting Osama. they didn't see this movie but the did see the democrat party convention. the fact that we are even talking about the movies means they have done a great job of defelecting attention from who and what they were really pissed about... Oblamo
ashu said...
shiloh, you keep referring to "con lemmings" or "trained seals" etc.
Don't engage the high school kid.
Crack. I agree with you more than not, but(you saw that coming, right?)we're on an economic freight train to ruin and there's no one at the switch. Romney wouldn't even be my 12th choice, but right now he's all we got. Another 4 years of the current administration will set us on an economic course we'll never come back from.
Not as a republic anyway.
Obama has proven us both wrong. Not only is he not a good person, he's worse than amoral, he's evil. I shudder to think what will happen to this country and the world if he's re-elected.
Obama - the evil Jimmy Carter.
Crack:
But it's crazy. It's a mindset that doesn't grasp "We The People." As Clint Eastwood said, "We run this place" and the politicians are our "employees". You ever heard of a business owner who HAD to take a bad employee? No! So this "lesser of two evils" mindset is a complete renunciation of our role as citizens controlling our nation's destiny - we're letting the politicians, or the process, or the media convince us we have to do this when it's 100% not true. We're just being pussies and/or taking the easy way out.
But there is a lesser of two evils, depending on your orientation. If you were forced to live as a random citizen in one of Stalinist USSR and Maoist China, you would carefully think through the pros and cons of each before making your decision. If you had children, you would think even more carefully, about likely paths to a future.
Regarding your complaint that this guy was pushed on us (leaving aside the Mormon/cult part of it), it's hard for me to imagine a bunch of stodgy Christian Rs viewing Mormonism as someone they want to invite home to dinner. So perhaps they are playing a chess game with more dimensions than Religion.
Romney embodies an image of what clean living can do. It's hard for the press to denounce squeaky clean Romney with the term "Hypocrite." If the press goes after Mormonism, it will be a great smack to PCism and multiculturalism, but it has to be a huge temptation and very painful for the press. Somehow, that makes me smile. Meanwhile, Romney understands the value of corporations, which is good for Rs. Rs can use some help, as Wall Street was a major campaign contributor to '08.
And for some reason the third party threat seems to hit the Republican party harder. Remember middle of the roader Ross Perot? That gave Clinton the win. Now having moved towards the center to counter that threat, Rs are being threatened by the Tea Party on the right. Democrats, which are comprised of tiny groups, like the Green Party, seem to have no such splitting issues. They have the problem of continuing to find ways to continue to hand out the candy.
If you assume (which may not be a good assumption) that Rs really do care about property rights, it has to suck to be an "R". It's like a bad marriage with kids, in which Mom rewards bad behavior with candy and ice-cream. So you too get into the candy and ice-cream game yourself, only to find that you hate yourself for it.
The questioning of Nakoula Bassily Nakoula had everything to do with the fact that he is a convicted felon who appears to have violated his conditions of parole. It had nothing to do with free speech. The free speech line of attack on Obama looks like weak tea to most of us.
Speaking of free speech, he can't vote in most states, a very direct attack on his free speech rights, yet somehow we are supposed to get worked up when he gets called in to explain why he is violating his parole conditions.
By claiming to be an Israeli Jew, as reported by both the Wall Street Journal and Fox news, Nakoula Bassily Nakoula was clearly attempting to incite anti-Semitic violence. This is illegal in many countries, though not in the US. Still, it is hard to understand why anyone is supporting this anti-Semite.
The Sunday morning troll shift clocks in...
<ka-ching>
ARM - you actually think he was arrested because of a parole violation?
ARM. Yep, rounding up suspected parole violators in the middle of the night has nothing to do with free speech. Five or six brownshirts required to nab the fuy before he fires up a computer in violation of his parole.
Troll on, progressive, troll on. Because free speeh is not important to your "movement". It was once a central piece of liberal thinking.
ARM. Yep, rounding up suspected parole violators in the middle of the night has nothing to do with free speech. Five or six brownshirts required to nab the fuy before he fires up a computer in violation of his parole.
Troll on, progressive, troll on. Because free speeh is not important to your "movement". It was once a central piece of liberal thinking.
"But, while I'm an Ohio voter who gets called 6 times a day by both parties"
Only 6 times a day lol. In any event, Ohio is now a lock for Obama and Sherrod Brown thanx to ad nauseam conservative negativity!
LO, I undertstand your frsutration this election cycle.
>
Re: UnAmerican, can one imagine if Tip O'Neill, like the group of conservative leaders who met the night of Obama's inauguration to decide they would not work w/the president in any way and would "try" to block all legislation, had decide to do the same w/Dutch.
Indeed, if O'Neill wanted to be unpatriotic, he too would have deleted compromise from the dictionary like Boehner/Cantor/McConnell did.
Cons have become an ad nauseam group of sore loser whiners!
Just like Althouse cons.
Every American should be appalled. http://macsmind.com/wordpress/2012/09/picture-of-innocence-of-muslims-director-being-rounded-up-should-send-shivers-down-the-spin-of-any-american/
Whole lotta news media for a "parole viloation".
Violation.
@shiloh,
Maybe a better question would be how many are voting for Willard only because they hate/despise Barack Hussein Obama?
That's easy!
Answer: so close to zero as to be neglible.
And far, far less in both raw numbers and percentages than the number of progressives who will vote for Obama because they hate freedom for anyone but themselves.
One day you will see the truth: President Obama has been the worst President in modern history, and is closing in on being the worst President in the history of the United States.
And it is objectively 100% due to his actions and lack of leadership in the position.
What's remarkable here is the level of support for a anti-semitic convicted felon who violated his parole. The enemy of my enemy mentalilty taken to the nutty extreme.
Even Erik Erickson concedes that the questioning of this clown has been triggered by legitimate local law enforcement concerns.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/15/the-film-maker-is-arrested/
Althouse is now well to the right of RedState.
Actually I'm pissed off about Obama re: quite a few things. But he's still nowhere near the inept/incompetent/ad nauseam constitutional violations of Cheney/Bush.
Neither Cheney nor Bush are on the ballot this year, so you can stop talking about them now.
I won't be talking about Jimmy Carter or Hubert Humphrey as if they have any import on what happens now.
What's remarkable here is the level of support for a anti-semitic convicted felon who violated his parole. The enemy of my enemy mentalilty taken to the nutty extreme.
If you take away their rights, you take away my rights also.
EMD said...
If you take away their rights, you take away my rights also.
This is a pretty funny story that effectively highlights the idiocy of racism and the importance of the ACLU. I don't have an argument with this.
"Even in doing the right thing, all you expose is how many of the wrong things you've been up to,..."
Such as complaining the LSM didn't vet the incumbent while themselves not vetting his homosexuality.
Synova: I don't have any outstanding child support payments and no unpaid traffic fines and I don't own a business, so I'm probably pretty safe, though I suppose someone could make trouble for me at school if they tried.
All the authorities have to to is put your name/SSID#?DL# "in the system". Any time you face a traffic stop, attempt to board a plane, visit a courthouse, file a tax return, apply for a job...
"ENFORCING SHARIA...
...EASIER THAN DEFENDING EMBASSY"
...or the First Amendment.
Allie Oop wrote:
Do you Althouse commenters not recognize the possibility that this guy was engaging in a much bigger, more sinister plot to incite some sort of holy war? You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead. Oh poor bad movie guy, taken in for questions by the brownshirts.
Funny,but it doesn't take a lot to start a holy war with some people does it (i don't actually beleive the video is really the reason these attacks occured on 9/11they're just the pretext, but I'll go with it just to make the point).
Would there be any way you make critical comments about Islam and not potentially provoke a holy war amongst some people?
ANd is that the fault of the person making the movie or the person seeing the movie?
Crack Emcee wrote:
But politician B, who has been groomed to attain power so much his cult even subverts their own rules for him regularly (like on abortion) just so he can climb through the ranks, has unelected "prophets" to do the nasty stuff - not so good. If they get busted, we're still stuck with him - and he's a former bishop, bound to the "church," and will have NO PROBLEM with them just replacing the busted assholes with new ones.
Let's say politician B gets busted himself - still no good. He and the "church" have staffed Washington by then, ensuring we never get rid of the cult in power. No matter what we do, we're fucked.
All that is conjecture on your part, not proven by nay of your links. Again, you are arguing the straw man in your brain and not the reality of Romney in office.
We alreadyhave a precedent of how Romney will govern. As a moderate. So all this talk about how he's an extreme republican from the left is bullshit and how he's an extreme mormon from you is similarly bullshit.
Repubs might find a lot to not like about Romney. perhaps he's too much of a squish. Even if you argue that he is lock step in league with the Mormon church and is getting his marching orders from them, do the people of Massachustets feel any more Mormon after his governance? Did they feel some sinister mormon grip on their lives? Or was his Mormonism incidental to their daily lives?
Crack Emcee wrote:
Let's say politician B gets busted himself - still no good. He and the "church" have staffed Washington by then, ensuring we never get rid of the cult in power. No matter what we do, we're fucked.
Do you think that the cult members have some magic powers or will bring out their mind control machines to subvert the masses over to the Cult of Mormonism? What exactly do you envision them doing to spread their cult?
Allie Oop wrote:
You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead.
the director didn't storm the embassy nor kill anyone.
Would you blame abortion providers if some crazed pro lifer decides to shoot doctors who perform abortions?
Patrick Adkins wrote:
InstaPundit is wrong:
http://thoughtsandrantings.com/2012/09/16/glenn-reynolds-is-wrong/
Patrick,Instapundit isn't blaming Obama for making the movie that insulted the Muslims. He's blaming Obama for sending law enforcement to the directors house for making a movie that's objectionable.
" Did they feel some sinister mormon grip on their lives? Or was his Mormonism incidental to their daily lives?"
Hey, crack may have something here. Maybe this is why Mormon Harry Reid won't bring up a budget for a vote. Is that what it is, crack ?
jr565 said...
Patrick,Instapundit isn't blaming Obama for making the movie that insulted the Muslims. He's blaming Obama for sending law enforcement to the directors house for making a movie that's objectionable.
Of course Obama didn't actually do this. Instapundit is just making shit up.
Check out that bunch of commies over at RedState, even they concede this has nothing to do with Obama.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/15/the-film-maker-is-arrested/
Crack sounds a lot like Tailgunner Joe or the Manchurian Candidate with this insidious cult getting access to govt. ("There are exactly 57 card-carrying members of the Communist Party in the Department of Defense at this time!")
I don't think that Mccarthy was all wrong though, as we were actually in a cold war with Russia at the time. We're not with Mormons.
A Reasonable Man wrote:
Of course Obama didn't actually do this. Instapundit is just making shit up.
Check out that bunch of commies over at RedState, even they concede this has nothing to do with Obama.
http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/15/the-film-maker-is-arrested/
What is instapundit "Making up" and what didn't Obama actually do?
Did law enforcement go to the guys house or not?
Chill out and relax, people. I know you dislike the "Chocolate Crackhead." But don't forget -- Clint Eastwood is AWESOME and Romney is WINNING!
jr565, blinded by his uncontrollable hatred of Obama, is totally delusional as per usual re: Althouse cons who take their marching orders from her royal highness er parochial blog mistress.
It's really kinda sad ...
jr565 said...
What is instapundit "Making up" and what didn't Obama actually do?
Did law enforcement go to the guys house or not?
To quote that well knonwn liberal flack Erick Erickson. "I’m going to be charitable here and presume that the man was arrested on other issues that would not have come to light had such much light been pointed in his direction this past week. Note in the picture it is local authors, not federal authors putting him in a police car."
So Obama didn't do anything and a convicted felon was brought in for questioning on a parole violation by the local police. Who new Republicans were so twisted by their hatred of Obama that they now oppose commonsense law and order moves.
When you've lost Erick Erickson ...
An Unreasonable Man - yeah we're supposed to buy that bullhonky about the police coming to give him a "visit" about some non-related matter.
RIGHT!!!!
Because what else might bring any of us to the attention of the authorities? What if we have unpopular opinions or yell out "The King is a Fink!" at a rally? Will we get investigated, since we've been brought to the attention of the King? Perhaps we'll end up with our business shut down because someone claims we imported legal wood improperly, or maybe we'll get audited by the IRS.
Keep in mind that Obama supporters in the OH government deep dived into his records and leaked anything they could to the press.
How do you people suck the dick of Jesus Fucking Christ when you have your heads so far up his bleeding asshole?
Be glad we're not Muslim or we'd try to kill you.
As a Christian, I just pity you.
Well, your family more than you since your existence is, no doubt, deeply embarrassing to them. True, it's their fault and all, but still...
Because I'm trying to find that part of the 1st Amendment that goes on about "quality of expression?"
Someone want to help me out here?
He should've made it pornographic. THEN the progressives would've made it a cause celebre.
I'm trusting Obama to choose where to draw the line for now
So you trust the President to decide what rights Americans have?
You don't find such a concept a bit terrifying?
Under Obama, we ceased being a government of laws. We are now one of man.
Which makes not terribly different from a dictatorship. As long as you don't piss off Obama, he won't come for you.
That's freedom, I guess.
Crappy movie guy is a hero to the right
Free speech not really that vital to the Left.
Freedom of his speech is worth the 6 dead bodies, at the embassies and Camp Leatherneck!
Unless his film actually physically killed anybody, then you are too much of a fucking moron to take seriously. They died to protect those rights that you are so anxious to forfeit. Your family who is overseas should be deeply disgusted by you over this. If they are putting themselves on the line for rights you want to give up, then their sacrifice is a waste of their time.
Allie, if a woman wears a short skirt and is raped, how long do you wait before telling her that it is all her fault?
Do you give her five minutes? 10 minutes?
Wow, you guys make me nostalgiac! To think, you were all outraged in the same way back when you were defending the Ground Zero Mosque builders.
Oh, my bad. I forgot. You defend only the freedom of Christians. Silly me.
Did the government blame them for death and provide their locations to hostile forces?
No?
She watched as helicopters fired tracers along the fence perimeter, where the insurgent Taliban were entering the Camp. She sat in her "can" with her roommate, with fully loaded weapons while the Camp was on lockdown, n case an insurgent wasn't caught and killed and got into the living quarters of the troops. Then she had to be escorted to work, to see the dead and injured.
And you insult the sacrifice of her and her fellow troops with your bullshit. I hope she doesn't read this board. The idea that her mother so utterly HATES her core mission would likely be hurtful.
God knows where she got her love of
America. Maybe her father. Because it sure as hell didn't come from you.
Well sure, they're not going to give passports to a kill team from Iran. But WTF, even Rushdie took responsibility for himself and didn't blame anyone other than the fanatics.
His government also immediately protected him and hid him from attack, in spite of his opposition to that government.
You're conservatives. People are supposed to accept the responsibility for themselves. Goddamit, the guy was playing with fire, and apparently being a real self-indulgent a.h. about it from what I can tell, and you want to take up a collection for him. And bring down our government who's trying to manage something bigger than this fool's stupid legal problems.
If somebody murdered Dan Savage for being gay or anti-Christian --- would you blame Dan for bringing it on himself?
Hell, we protect the President deeply and he does plenty of things to make many people hate him. Shouldn't we expect him to take responsibility for himself?
AReasonable Man wrote:
To quote that well knonwn liberal flack Erick Erickson. "I’m going to be charitable here and presume that the man was arrested on other issues that would not have come to light had such much light been pointed in his direction this past week
He's making a presumption of fact, not stating a fact. So what was he questioned about, the parole violations or the film? and why did he get hauled in for questioning right after putting out this movie. Is that somehow coincidental?
jr, keep in mind, ARM is unaware that Obama has a job to do. He thinks his job is winning re-election and raising money.
Not, you know, being the President.
Which is too bad for the country, since he is all we have in that office.
Allie Oop wrote:
Do you Althouse commenters not recognize the possibility that this guy was engaging in a much bigger, more sinister plot to incite some sort of holy war? You are screaming about his freedom of speech, he is yelling " fire", people have been trampled and are now dead. Oh poor bad movie guy, taken in for questions by the brownshirts.
Please explain, yelling "fire". Why is what this guy did yelling "fire" but Piss Christ isn't yelling fire (or any insult of Christians anywhere) or Crack and his anti cult crusade not similarly yelling "fire".
What it sounds like is, if you say anything negative about Islam that is yelling "fire" to you, therefore noone can ever be critical of Islam? Do you hold that same standard for any one other than Muslims?
Muslims have rules against depictions of any prophets but in particular of Mohammad. Are non muslims bound by the same rule? If we do make a picture of Mohammad (like say a cartoon) did we therefore desevre to bring death to ourselves and others?
It really is like you're arguing that women dress a certain way deserve to get raped.
But the lesson learned is that more people should engage in violence not less.
What Allie is saying is that Islamoids will riot at the slightest provocation, therefore we have to keep quiet and never insult them. Christians will turn the other cheek, so we can insult them(Piss Christ, Virgin Mary in Elephant Dung and whatnot). That's her logic.
How do you people suck the dick of Jesus Fucking Christ when you have your heads so far up his bleeding asshole?
Now, imagine if you said this about Islam or mohammad? Would that not be yelling "fire"? So then if Christians decided to issue a fatwah that targets you, or attacks an embassy and kills people in it, it would be YOUR fault because you insulted Jesus.
About right? So, maybe law enforcement should be hauling you off for questioning right about now.
But the lesson learned is that more people should engage in violence not less.
That's the perversion of Progressivism. They claim to seek peace, yet it is violence that always get its attention and makes it succumb quickly.
The mugger's veto, so to speak.
Islam reminds me of the character Psycho in the movie Stripes.
Except Psycho was actually all talk and no action. Islam actually follows through on the threat.
Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis, and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. And I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.
For the Psychos of the world, even addressing them as anything but Psycho will get you a death sentence.
Would calling Psycho Francis, really be grounds enough for Psycho to kill people? Well, they DID call him Francis and he did tell them that that was a killing offense. Therefore, they are to blame because they called him Francis. So, if he goes on a killing spree obviously it was the name calling that did it, and not that HE"S A FREAKING PSYCHO!!!
Of course, in the movie Sgt Hulka responds to this monoluge with:
"Lighten up Francis".
And of course Psycho does not in fact kill people. Islam lacks that impulse control. We should be able to call Psycho Francis and not have a justification for murder.
Allie Oop wrote:
Yashu, since YOU brought up my daughter, yes my daughter was five minutes down the road from the attack on Camp Leatherneck, where two Marines were killed and scores injured.
She watched as helicopters fired tracers along the fence perimeter, where the insurgent Taliban were entering the Camp. She sat in her "can" with her roommate, with fully loaded weapons while the Camp was on lockdown, n case an insurgent wasn't caught and killed and got into the living quarters of the troops. Then she had to be escorted to work, to see the dead and injured.
Is your daughter wearing a burkha to cover her face? If not, that might be enough to set off crazy people. It must be scary to know that she is one You Tube video away from a holy war.
jr565 said...
He's making a presumption of fact, not stating a fact.
So what are the "facts" backing up Instapundit's slanderous drivel?
So what are the "facts" backing up Instapundit's slanderous drivel?
Do you consistently confuse reasonable for retarded?
jr565,
All that is conjecture on your part, not proven by nay of your links.
That's because you skipped over the post with the links - why'd you do that, jr? Do posts with links scare you?
I know evidence does.
Because you're as weasley as they are,...
Wow, its amazing how weak the lefts arguments on this are. I mean flaccid. When cornered on the outragsous aspect of having the administration rounding up a film maker, they feign ignorance, or "I need more information". Its not that hard to understand. Your guy blew it. Now pick yourself up off the floor and tell us why obama is so superior to Romney on foreign policy. -20 pts for using the Boosh defense.
gk1 being totally clueless aside, wow 400 ...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा