Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks [W:156,W:236]

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

This poll's wording is confusing and therefore the results invalid.

"Craven political attack" may be easily construed as the IslamoFascist Swine's attack on our Embassy as a "Craven political attack"

And,

"Accurate criticism" may be easily construed as the IslamoFascist Swine's attack on our Embassy as an "Accurate criticism" of our SUPPOSED policy of maligning Muslims.

ALL THIS AMBIGUITY MAY HAVE BEEN OBVIATED BY SIMPLY PREFACING EACH CHOICE WITH THE WORD " ROMNEY'S" .

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Porchev said:

So with that in mind, on Sept 11, 2012, rioters chanting, "We are all Osama bin Laden" attacked U.S. Embassies and Consulates. Maybe the people that did this violence saw the Democrat party convention and saw all the repeated Osama is dead stuff and they got hurt feelings and lashed out against the Americans they had access too. IF that is the case, does this mean the DNC should apologize? Is the DNC inciting riots with their words? Or just practicing their freedom of speech? I would say they were just practicing their freedom of speech.

Click to expand...

QUOTED FOR TRUTH...

no doubt they saw the DNC more then some internet film of nonsense..look like another Obama gaffe...
spking the football and Obama is having a film made on the raid.. that sounds like a great idea..

did GWB allow a film to be made on Saddam?

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

HoongLoong said:

This poll's wording is confusing and therefore the results invalid.

"Craven political attack" may be easily construed as the IslamoFascist Swine's attack on our Embassy as a "Craven political attack"

And,

"Accurate criticism" may be easily construed as the IslamoFascist Swine's attack on our Embassy as an "Accurate criticism" of our SUPPOSED policy of maligning Muslims.

ALL THIS AMBIGUITY MAY HAVE BEEN OBVIATED BY SIMPLY PREFACING EACH CHOICE WITH THE WORD " ROMNEY'S" .

Click to expand...

That it was Romney's statement is predicated in the OP.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Fletch said:

I think that died somewhere around 1968. But democrats should be commended for their restraint during the Iraq war....

Click to expand...

YOUR POST IS ABSOLUTE NONSENSE !!!

Your post reveals the typical DEM/LIB policy of taking the most EGREGIOUS or CONTEMPTIBLE DEED, AND/OR BEHAVIOUR
of the Dem Adm and PROJECTING that on the opponent.

Or, in this case: to take the MOST CONTEMPTIBLE DEM HYPOCRISY and TREACHERY in the case of the Iraq war of stabbing Dubya in the back after Yowling and Howling for the Violent Overthrow of the Baghdad Psycho by the Clinton Adm, and practically the ENTIRE DEM CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP of Pelosi, The Icon of Dem Morality, The Chappaquidick Murderer, Ted "FATSO" Kennedy (may he rot in Hell), Hanoi Kerry, KKK Byrd, etc ., etc., etc., .....knifing Dubya in the back after it became evident that Dubya's defeat of the PSYCHO's 4th Largest Army in the World in TWENTY ONE DAYS, with Zero, or almost Zero American Casualties spelled the doom of the Dems' chances in the upcoming elections. Thus the HYPOCRITICAL & TREACHEROUS DEMS used its Propaganda Arm, The Mainstream Media, 24/7, to exaggerate and amplify a THOUSAND TIMES OVER every minor glitch Dubya had encountered in trying to smooth over the irreconcilable religious squabbles of the Sunnis and ****tes ....thus giving IRAN and the other IslamoFascist Swine the GREEN LIGHT to start the IRAQI QUAGMIRE !!!

The IRAQI QUAGMIRE that lasted all these years causein some 5000 deaths of our Fines, plus an atrocious number of wounded. Not only that. The relatively subdued Afghanistan EXPLODED into its present violence one the IslamoFascist Swine saw how DIVIDED America was......and that eventually, we'd have to cop out !!!

THE HYPOCRISY AND TREACHERY OF THE DEMS IS DISGUSTING......and that is constantly replicated in the dealings of the Obama Adm whether in the Domestic or Foreign policy areas. Foreign Policy w/r/t its current relationship with Egypt and Israel. Domestic ....too numerous to mention.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

danarhea said:

That it was Romney's statement is predicated in the OP.

Click to expand...

NOT IN THE POLL ITSELF !!!

Those that took the Poll without reading the OP probably got screwed up.

Regardless: JUST SIMPLY PREFACING EACH CHOICE WITH THE WORD " ROMNEY'S" WOULDA MADE YOUR POST VALID INSTEAD OF INVALID .

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Moderator's Warning:

Let's cease the personal attacks, or infractions and thread bans will be handed out.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

It is not appeasing when you are being diplomatic.
Freedom of speech has limits. When speech incites riots, it is against the law. The supreme court has ruled on this limitation to freedom of speech many times in our history.

Click to expand...

Wrong. Speech is limited by inciting a riot when it can be construed as having that purpose---to incite violence and to foment it. No matter what else you may think of it at no point does it tell others to riot. That is the speech limitation you are searching for and it doesnt apply in this instance.

If the SCOTUS decides to limit criticism of the depiction of religious persons, they are violating all kinds of legal precedence. I dont think you have a clue how badly you are restricting speech rights by what you are advocating. Simply criticizing a religious belief or person is NOT inciting a riot. Reasonable people dont commit violence over religious criticism.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Harshaw said:

You are . . . misplacing constitutional doctrine.

Are you saying this video should be outlawed?

Click to expand...

I am saying, who ever incited riots should be locked up. The film in question was manipulated. A rumor circulated that the film was a major Hollywood production and would influence Americans to be against Islam. Clearly, this is an intentional effort of the part of someone to create tensions in the Middle East.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

I am saying, who ever incited riots should be locked up. The film in question was manipulated. A rumor circulated that the film was a major Hollywood production and would influence Americans to be against Islam. Clearly, this is an intentional effort of the part of someone to create tensions in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Rush Limbaugh is behind this?

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

I am saying, who ever incited riots should be locked up. The film in question was manipulated. A rumor circulated that the film was a major Hollywood production and would influence Americans to be against Islam. Clearly, this is an intentional effort of the part of someone to create tensions in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Well, aside from riots elsewhere being of no Constitutional concern . . .

The fact that you think someone should be "locked up" even for what you describe is disturbing.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

OpportunityCost said:

Wrong. Speech is limited by inciting a riot when it can be construed as having that purpose---to incite violence and to foment it. No matter what else you may think of it at no point does it tell others to riot. That is the speech limitation you are searching for and it doesnt apply in this instance.

If the SCOTUS decides to limit criticism of the depiction of religious persons, they are violating all kinds of legal precedence. I dont think you have a clue how badly you are restricting speech rights by what you are advocating. Simply criticizing a religious belief or person is NOT inciting a riot. Reasonable people dont commit violence over religious criticism.

Click to expand...

Actually, this is not about free speech, but about a film that was fabricated. Did you watch the interview on Night Line last night? The actors and actress were told that that this film was about life 2,000 years ago, and were given scripts which had none of the stuff about Muhammad being a child molester in it. The lead character was a guy named George. After the film was done, all of the parts were dubbed into the actors' mouths, and the George character was changed to Mohammad. Pretty dishonest way to do a film, by tricking actors and actresses into participating, when they would not have, had they known what the film was actually going to be about. Pretty seedy operation, if you ask me.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

OpportunityCost said:

Wrong. Speech is limited by inciting a riot when it can be construed as having that purpose---to incite violence and to foment it. No matter what else you may think of it at no point does it tell others to riot. That is the speech limitation you are searching for and it doesnt apply in this instance.

If the SCOTUS decides to limit criticism of the depiction of religious persons, they are violating all kinds of legal precedence. I dont think you have a clue how badly you are restricting speech rights by what you are advocating. Simply criticizing a religious belief or person is NOT inciting a riot. Reasonable people dont commit violence over religious criticism.

Click to expand...

agreed...Like I have stated then the Jews and Israel should be given a pass to destroy the entire mideast as they are targets of mass protests, defamation, destruction of their artifacts, and attacks on their prohets being called pigs and the Jews are descendents of apes.. they riot in the street, burn the Israeli flag and much worse..this speach is even allowed at the UN..

so maybe the Jews should call foul and just nuke Iran today...Ive never seen Jews in blood thirsty riots and killing of Iranian ambassadors etc because or "words" nor has a Jew ever asked for our first amendment to be changed ...

Obama is more then willing to cave to Islam.. dont anyone doubt that

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

danarhea said:

Actually, this is not about free speech, but about a film that was fabricated. Did you watch the interview on Night Line last night? The actors and actress were told that that this film was about life 2,000 years ago, and were given scripts which had none of the stuff about Muhammad being a child molester in it. The lead character was a guy named George. After the film was done, all of the parts were dubbed into the actors' mouths, and the George character was changed to Mohammad. Pretty dishonest way to do a film, by tricking actors and actresses into participating, when they would not have, had they known what the film was actually going to be about. Pretty seedy operation, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

who cares?...I saw SNL openly mock Jesus...many times...who cares?

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Travis007 said:

who cares?...I saw SNL openly mock Jesus...many times...who cares?

Click to expand...

Those actors were not tricked into doing it either. They did it of their own free will.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Harshaw said:

Well, aside from riots elsewhere being of no Constitutional concern . . .

The fact that you think someone should be "locked up" even for what you describe is disturbing.

Click to expand...

I'm simply stating the facts. The Supreme Courts have already ruled on this issue.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a popular metaphor and frequent paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The paraphrasing does not generally include the word falsely, which was originally used and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, which can be distinguished from that which is truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, as they held distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft to be, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

I'm simply stating the facts. The Supreme Courts have already ruled on this issue.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a popular metaphor and frequent paraphrasing of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. The paraphrasing does not generally include the word falsely, which was originally used and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, which can be distinguished from that which is truthful but also dangerous. The quote is used as an example of speech which is claimed to serve no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous, as they held distributing fliers in opposition to a military draft to be, so that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical and expresses the permissible limitations on free speech consistent with the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Click to expand...

So your legal threshold is that criticism to Islam is the same as shouting fire in a theatre? That is pathetic. The only way you make that work is if you can prove that followers of Islam are so mentally diminshed that any criticism of their religion drives them into a rage. So your defense is that the people you seek to protect are incapable of controlling themselves. Liberal philosophy carried to its stupidest end---everyone is a victim, its just a matter of time. Just provoke them, its not their fault.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

I'm simply stating the facts. The Supreme Courts have already ruled on this issue.

Click to expand...

You aren't getting that this has no application to riots occurring in some faraway land, but it's a domestic concern only, under American jurisdiction, and all it even applies to is that incitement laws could pass constitutional muster under certain conditions. The Supreme Court did not say that speech which leads to riots is illegal. It certainly didn't say it was criminal.

Me, I couldn't care less if some mob somewhere else gets into a tizzy about something someone says here. We have freedom, whether they like it or not.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

danarhea said:

Actually, this is not about free speech, but about a film that was fabricated. Did you watch the interview on Night Line last night? The actors and actress were told that that this film was about life 2,000 years ago, and were given scripts which had none of the stuff about Muhammad being a child molester in it. The lead character was a guy named George. After the film was done, all of the parts were dubbed into the actors' mouths, and the George character was changed to Mohammad. Pretty dishonest way to do a film, by tricking actors and actresses into participating, when they would not have, had they known what the film was actually going to be about. Pretty seedy operation, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

So what? That makes it a reason to riot and kill? This is rediculous you are buying into the meme that Muslims cannot help themselves when they are provoked.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

OpportunityCost said:

So what? That makes it a reason to riot and kill? This is rediculous you are buying into the meme that Muslims cannot help themselves when they are provoked.

Click to expand...

There is no excuse to riot and kill, but to trick actors into making a movie that incites crap like this is totally irresponsible. It's like putting your hand on a hot stove that was turned on for no reason. Sure, it shouldn't have been turned on, but that's no reason to put your hand on it. Frankly, the people who made this film, dubbing things into the actors' mouths that they never said, are idiots. But this is America. These idiots do have First Amendment rights, which I support, but they are still idiots.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

OpportunityCost said:

So your legal threshold is that criticism to Islam is the same as shouting fire in a theatre? That is pathetic. The only way you make that work is if you can prove that followers of Islam are so mentally diminshed that any criticism of their religion drives them into a rage. So your defense is that the people you seek to protect are incapable of controlling themselves. Liberal philosophy carried to its stupidest end---everyone is a victim, its just a matter of time. Just provoke them, its not their fault.

Click to expand...

I explained myself in previous posts. If you can't keep up with the conversation, that's on you.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Harshaw said:

You aren't getting that this has no application to riots occurring in some faraway land, but it's a domestic concern only, under American jurisdiction, and all it even applies to is that incitement laws could pass constitutional muster under certain conditions. The Supreme Court did not say that speech which leads to riots is illegal. It certainly didn't say it was criminal.

Me, I couldn't care less if some mob somewhere else gets into a tizzy about something someone says here. We have freedom, whether they like it or not.

Click to expand...

Evidence is showing it isn't just the YouTube clip that sparked these riots. There has been a real effort made to inflame Muslims with anti-Islamic rhetoric. There are no telling how many YouTube clips against Islam out there. It takes more than a clip on YouTube to create this much anger.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

Evidence is showing it isn't just the YouTube clip that sparked these riots. There has been a real effort made to inflame Muslims with anti-Islamic rhetoric. There are no telling how many YouTube clips against Islam out there. It takes more than a clip on YouTube to create this much anger.

Click to expand...

Sounds like ghosts, goblins, and bogeymen to me, but even if it's not, what you're not getting is that there no Constitutional exceptions here. It's free speech.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

I explained myself in previous posts. If you can't keep up with the conversation, that's on you.

Click to expand...

Actually you used the most simple explanation of limitations on free speech. Speech has to have incitement within it, be malicious and you have to prove all these things and THEN you have to prove that the intended victims had no other course or limited course in their actions.

Speech limitations arent quite as low a fence as you are making them out to be, thank God.

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

Evidence is showing it isn't just the YouTube clip that sparked these riots. There has been a real effort made to inflame Muslims with anti-Islamic rhetoric. There are no telling how many YouTube clips against Islam out there. It takes more than a clip on YouTube to create this much anger.

Click to expand...

Jews being alive enrages Muslims..should we get rid of Jews?...

Re: Romney Slams Obama Over Embassy Attacks

Hairytic said:

Evidence is showing it isn't just the YouTube clip that sparked these riots. There has been a real effort made to inflame Muslims with anti-Islamic rhetoric. There are no telling how many YouTube clips against Islam out there. It takes more than a clip on YouTube to create this much anger.

Click to expand...

So. I call you a dickhead (mods this is an example not an actual instance), you hit me. I get to have my speech infringed upon because I incited you and you, of course, are blameless for the violence you enacted upon choice?

You cant possibly believe anything this imbecilic.