Does freedom of speech excuse preaching hate?

Of course Friedman would not make a point relating to "all of the reasons for the current unrest and anti-American feeling" because if he did, he would have no point at all. And neither would you.

This is so typical. Seize on some little issue, blow it all out of proportion, like it's the end of the world and the US is just trying to protect all things important in the world.

If he was honest enough to admit that this event allows the people of those countries to, yes, get back at the US for all the misery that it has heaped upon so many of those countries and peoples.



My objection is that he's pointing out a hypocrisy that has had a tiny, miniscule effect. It's all propaganda meant to, once again, demonize the countries of the ME and make the US look grand and noble, when he, you and I know that that is nowhere near the situation.



He should be honest enough to know, as should you, that the hypocrisy that is the US kills millions, destroys countries and millions upon millions of lives.

Neither you nor Friedman is at all interested in the real evidence. You're both interested in effective propaganda.

Need I remind you that the US has recently invaded two of these countries with all the attendant damage that always comes with these "save people for democracy" forays? The US has been supporting a dictatorship in Egypt, hardly the only one, for over 30 years. Was that another mission to save people for democracy?

I'm shocked that Friedman, and you, have the gall to even open your mouths. But then, he's playing to the choir. You, not so much.

Gosh Irish you just don't get it that the crude and offensive things Maher says are satire: Liberal apologists' favorite disclaimer.

Maher can call Sarah Palin a twat and it's just satire, but if Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a slut, it's so horrendous that the President of The United States has to phone her up to dry her tears and assure her that his government won't allow Women-Hating conservatives to break down her door; rape her and sew up her truth telling lips (or vagina).

See, you just aren't intelligent enough to get what is humor and what is offensive intolerance. It takes a nuanced sense of humor such as that possessed by izzy to understand what would be eminently clear to you if you supported Obama.

Take for example the Tony award winning Book of Mormons. If Mormons were anything like Muslims, Broadway would be in ruins, but they are not, although they and their bishop Romney are still weirdly cultish. (Before 11/6/12 you can bet your pay check that the Obama Campaign will tell us just how weird they are.)

Vulgar and offensive jokes about Mormons are funny...it's satire!

Obscure movie trailers by someone who has maybe 3 or 4 different aliases, and which impugn The Prophet, are heinous, disgusting, despicable et al.

And you don't get the difference? You must be a Neanderthal conservative!

Here's proof that vulgar ridicule of Mormons isn't offensive: Hillary Clinton attended one of the performances of The Book of Mormon.

After all, she should know what is and isn't an expression of intolerance since she is a champion of Liberalism.

Book of Mormons:Not only OK but it cracked a smile on her dour face and maybe even a Ha Ha.

Obscure Three Month Old Film Trailer That No One Viewed Before All This **** Happened: Heinous, reprehensible, disgusting, blah blah blah.

It's tough to teach satire Irish and so you (and I) are probably lost causes.

We just don't understand why a crucifix in a bottle of urine is art and protected free speech and an anti-Muslim video is abhorrent and should be crushed.

Just as we didn't understand why a piece of art that consisted of elephant dung smeared across an image of the Virgin Mary was art and protected free speech and a political cartoon about The Prophet was disgusting and incendiary.

You see Irish, we are not nuanced in our thinking. We can't reconcile obvious contradictions and therefore we can't be Liberal.

Red herrings are really an effective propaganda tool aren't they, Comrade Finn?

You're the one who has all the gall on a2k; nobody knows who you are to challenge who you are, but all you do is criticize everybody in all of your posts. Hypocrite.

I just happened to un-Ignore you for this post. As expected, you only repeat the same message millions of times with different words. A ******* bore.

BTW, don't bother responding to this post; I'm writing this for everybody else!

Don't call me a liberal you fascist ****. You couldn't do satire because you're not funny, just a gobshite with a bullhorn, and a complete inability to see the world as it is.

Although there's not much room for satire when someone running for the office of vice president couldn't even name a newspaper.

There appears to be a triple-standard with Maher, though, in that he also crudely goes after special needs kids. No one is off limits with him. After Juan Williams was fired by NPR for saying ME men sometimes made him nervous in airports, Maher went off on the decline of Western values in the UK due to their increasing Muslim population and was so inflammatory with his assembled panel that Wolf Blitzer later had to remind him that NPR 'probably' would have fired him for his remarks. (ABC did fire him for absurd statements he made regarding the 9/11 hijackers on that network).

I think HBO just uses him for filler since his weekly show rarely even cracks the top 40 in ratings (reruns of Family Guy do better lol). His best ratings in 8 years came when people tuned in to see Dinesh D'Souza on the panel discussing his new movie.

I'm not familiar with him , but from what you posted earlier he does sound like an arsehole.

He is an un-pleasant liberal comedian.

The phrase 'liberal comedian' sounds awful, like Nick Clegg's musical apology.

That was not my libertarian commentary.

He offers himself as a comedian.

That's just grand, CI. The chickenshit in chief is writing for all the other little chickenshits.



That's not true at all. It's simply too distressing for you to really grasp the evil that the US has perpetrated. It's not boring. It's just such a major disappointment after all the crap you were subjected to growing up.



I don't know you from Adam. I don't know FF or MM or Spendi or Farmer, Setanta, ... . I don't have to know them to challenge what anyone of them says. This is a complete red herring. It's what you would expect from a complete coward.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/20/rushdie-unrest-a-product-of-the-outrage-machine/?hpt=hp_t3

NAILED. IT.

outrage as a power move, brought to you by victim culture.

If your wife and kids had been killed my an unmanned drone as they were walking through the woods, you'd probably look for any excuse to get back at the people behind it.

Have you bothered reading/listening to all of the Rushdie interview?

I get the impression you haven't.

Nice try, but they attacked us first, when we were doing them no harm.

The drone-strikes are justified self defense, and if they don't like it, too bad for them.

Correct me if I 'm rong,
but I 'm under the impression that we r spending those drones
in surgical strikes against high value targets,
thereby to obviate infantry invasions.





David

If that were just the case there wouldn't be too much of an argument against it, but the amount of civilian deaths by such drones are significant.

Too bad. If they didn't want the war, they shouldn't have started the war.

I propose we replace "precision drone strikes" with "carpetbombing by heavy bombers" for a month.

Accusing us of poor marksmanship ?

I'm pointing out the high level of collateral damage.