• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Soldier beheaded' in Woolwich machete attack: latest

Please, it's amazing that you need quotes.{/quote]

Why, I follow none of these people and one instance of "advocating violence" from you already proved to be mischaracterized



Again, hate mongering isn't violence. The phelps klan, clearly hate mongers, but they do not advocate violence, and are in no way comparable to OBJ or some guy advocating killing random people.



please do



from the link: "So at the moment anyway, I mean I don't know what's going to happen in New York today, but at the moment I'm not really worried of a movement like SDS which really swept a lot of the college campuses... taking over. Of course if it does, just remember the lesson from my book: it just took a few shootings at Kent State to shut that down for good."

*cant believe I am defending coultere here*

If you go on to read the comment *within context*, though she might be wrong, she is speaking from the perspective that the SDS was performing domestic terrorist activities w/o fear of reprisals from authorities. And pointing out, that it only took one single 'force" response to shut them down, as a domestic terrorist operation. So there is no real threat of them 'taking over"

That isn't even actually advocating violence,. Just outlining it's effects.

Complete idiotic? Sure. The same as advocating violence against random people for not engaging in domestic terrorism, but simply being american, jewish, etc? No, not even close, and in no way comparable to the man who was central to developing AQ ideology

full transcript: Discussing Occupy Wall Street, Coulter Says: "It Just Took A Few Shootings At Kent State To Shut That Down" | Blog | Media Matters for America

relevent contexual quote: "talk radio. And you know, those kids, the ones who started the Kent State riots was Bill Ayers' best friend and according to Ayers, homosexual lover. He ended up blowing himself up in that townhouse in Greenwich Village when they were trying to blow up army recruits -- a dance for army recruits and their dates. They were running through Kent State smashing jewelry store windows, burning the ROTC building to the ground, and when the firemen showed up, they threw rocks at the firemen, they slashed the fire trucks' hoses. This was really out of hand -- it wasn't some peace [unintelligible], you know, peace, love not war --

SUSSMAN: Right.

COULTER: -- rally, and also, according to the recent reporting by James Rosen, the National Guard may have been shot upon first. But the point is, these kids never realized that they couldn't go run around burn down a building and get anything from -- but praise from the mainstream media."




This is the second time you provided a quote that was totally mischaracterized. I think I will be fine


Is this hate speech better, or are you going to defend this too?

''If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.''
—Ann Coulter

''[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.''
—Ann Coulter, on Fox News, November 30, 2004

''These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much.''
—Ann Coulter, on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration

''My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.''
—Ann Coulter

''We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee. That's just a joke, for you in the media.''
—Ann Coulter

''Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims.''
—Ann Coulter, writing in her column, Sept. 28, 2001
 
If you have hate speech laws then you don't have free speech.:peace

It's not that simple. This is part of our constitution:

The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[2] Section 2 of the of the Charter grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."[3]

Many years ago, a University professor got deported for teaching that the Holocaust was completely fabricated by Jews. It was a very controversial decision, but one that many Canadians felt comfortable with.

You can read more about our hate speeech laws here:
Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
It's not that simple. This is part of our constitution:

The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[2] Section 2 of the of the Charter grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."[3]

Many years ago, a University professor got deported for teaching that the Holocaust was completely fabricated by Jews. It was a very controversial decision, but one that many Canadians felt comfortable with.

You can read more about our hate speeech laws here:
Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If that's the way you want it then that's fine and it's no one's business but Canadians. That said, it is as I posted earlier: you don't have free speech.:cool:
 
You prove my point well.
Of course. Besides. Ann Coulter said some nasty things about Muslims...and Rush Limbaugh...so you just have to understand the reasoning and rational choices made by those caring committed faith driven individuals that are just very passionate about religion and country...and THATS they are slaughtering people. If only we werent so evil, they wouldnt have to kill children in Indonesia and Pakistan. If only the US wasnt filled with bad people they wouldnt have had to kill 85 Iraqis last week. If it werent for the US foreign policy muslim fundamentalists in the Philipines wouldnt kill women and children. If talk show hosts would just stop talking about their actions they wouldnt threaten to kill journalists and blow up newspapers. We just have to UNDERSTAND them. We just have to see how...really...its OUR fault. THATS why those brave dedicated souls detonated shrapnel filled pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon.

Geeeeezus.
 
Is this hate speech better, or are you going to defend this too?

1) I thought we were talking about people advocating violence?

yep, here is what you quote above:
Again, please cite them advocating violence, if you want to even make a somewhat legitimate comparison to islamic extremists.


2) I wouldn't need to defend anything if you could manage to actually research something beyond an out of context headline.


If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

Totally hateful, but it isn't advocating violence


'
[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.'

sounds like political hyperbole. That is, unless you think she was seriously advocating an armed conflict with Canada.

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's deaths so much

right, hateful. But not like telling someone to go blow up a bunch of random people for being american
 
It's not that simple. This is part of our constitution:

The Constitution of Canada incorporates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.[2] Section 2 of the of the Charter grants to everyone, among other things, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media. Section 1 restricts the granted freedoms by making them subject "only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."[3]

Many years ago, a University professor got deported for teaching that the Holocaust was completely fabricated by Jews. It was a very controversial decision, but one that many Canadians felt comfortable with.

You can read more about our hate speeech laws here:
Hate speech laws in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

right, just look at how such laws toppled Geert Wilder ...
 
1) I thought we were talking about people advocating violence?

yep, here is what you quote above:



2) I wouldn't need to defend anything if you could manage to actually research something beyond an out of context headline.




Totally hateful, but it isn't advocating violence


'

sounds like political hyperbole. That is, unless you think she was seriously advocating an armed conflict with Canada.



right, hateful. But not like telling someone to go blow up a bunch of random people for being american

Right. She's a hateful dick.
 
Of course. Besides. Ann Coulter said some nasty things about Muslims...and Rush Limbaugh...so you just have to understand the reasoning and rational choices made by those caring committed faith driven individuals that are just very passionate about religion and country...and THATS they are slaughtering people. If only we werent so evil, they wouldnt have to kill children in Indonesia and Pakistan. If only the US wasnt filled with bad people they wouldnt have had to kill 85 Iraqis last week. If it werent for the US foreign policy muslim fundamentalists in the Philipines wouldnt kill women and children. If talk show hosts would just stop talking about their actions they wouldnt threaten to kill journalists and blow up newspapers. We just have to UNDERSTAND them. We just have to see how...really...its OUR fault. THATS why those brave dedicated souls detonated shrapnel filled pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon.

Geeeeezus.

Listening to rant radio in the car yesterday, the talk show host was focused on the war on terror and just who we are fighting. Clearly, his opinion was that the enemy was Islam.

Since nearly a third of the human race is Muslim, I find it somewhat frightening that we the "war on terror" could be quite that large.

And it seems unlikely that "terror" itself is our enemy, despite the phrase "war on terror."

Yet, he did make a good point: If you're going to fight a war, you have to know who your enemy is.

So, who is our enemy?


http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-terror/161657-our-enemy.html#post1061847109
 
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity."
 
So, in the end, despite the fake indignation, and the characterizations as clueless, you can't cite an incidence where she actually advocates violence?

By consistently spewing hateful things about certain people *cough-cough* Muslims/liberals/the poor, do you not think that her hateful influence (being on a national stage) could incite violence towards said people by members of her audience who are especially vulnerable?
 
By consistently spewing hateful things about certain people *cough-cough* Muslims/liberals/the poor, do you not think that her hateful influence (being on a national stage) could incite violence towards said people by members of her audience who are especially vulnerable?

Someone responding unreasonable to her remarks isn't the same as telling a person to go out and kill random people. They are not even comparable.
 

The Beslan school, September 2004 involved the capture of over 1,100 people as hostages (including 777 children), ending with the death of over 380 people
Terrorist stabs five family members to death in settlement of Itamar early Saturday; three children, including baby girl, among victims.
Dalal Mughrabi led the most lethal terror attack in Israel’s history in 1978, when she and other terrorists killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children
26 November 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 174 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India's largest city and financial capital, Mumbai.
23 July 2005 – Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.
29 October 2005 – 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings, India. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus
1979, Grand Mosque Saudi Arabia Approx. 250 Dead, 600 wounded
Bali, 2005 20 dead, 129 injured in bomb attacks

You just have to UNDERSTAND them.
 
Someone responding unreasonable to her remarks isn't the same as telling a person to go out and kill random people. They are not even comparable.

True. But those in the limelight have a responsibility to a certain degree. Those that blow themselves up are just as much victims of propaganda as those who hate because they are told to. If the hate festers enough, then deadly/terrible actions might result.
 
The Beslan school, September 2004 involved the capture of over 1,100 people as hostages (including 777 children), ending with the death of over 380 people
Terrorist stabs five family members to death in settlement of Itamar early Saturday; three children, including baby girl, among victims.
Dalal Mughrabi led the most lethal terror attack in Israel’s history in 1978, when she and other terrorists killed 37 civilians, 12 of them children
26 November 2008 – Muslim extremists kill at least 174 people and wound numerous others in a series of coordinated attacks on India's largest city and financial capital, Mumbai.
23 July 2005 – Bomb attacks at Sharm el-Sheikh, an Egyptian resort city, at least 64 people killed.
29 October 2005 – 29 October 2005 Delhi bombings, India. Over 60 killed and over 180 injured in a series of three attacks in crowded markets and a bus
1979, Grand Mosque Saudi Arabia Approx. 250 Dead, 600 wounded
Bali, 2005 20 dead, 129 injured in bomb attacks

You just have to UNDERSTAND them.

You seriously need to know the difference between 'understand' and 'sympathize.' I'm not talking about having tea with them on Oprah's couch.
 
True. But those in the limelight have a responsibility to a certain degree.

Right, they can't tell people to go kill someone

[quote Those that blow themselves up are just as much victims of propaganda as those who hate because they are told to.[/quote]

They are incapable of making a free choice in the matter?


If the hate festers enough, then deadly/terrible actions might result.

You have apparently been able to subject yourself quite extensively to butchered quotes from Coltere without the need to go kill random people. And you don't adrees hate by simply pushing it underground
 
Right, they can't tell people to go kill someone

[quote Those that blow themselves up are just as much victims of propaganda as those who hate because they are told to.

They are incapable of making a free choice in the matter?[/QUOTE]


Out the two following points, which on is not accurate? Or are they both right or wrong?

1) In America, we have free choice as long as it's legal.
2) In America, despite having free choice, people are still victimized by propaganda.
 
You seriously need to know the difference between 'understand' and 'sympathize.' I'm not talking about having tea with them on Oprah's couch.
you seriously miss the point. I "understand" them. quite well. They and their ilk have been butchering people fairly consistently over the last 100 years. The excuse of US and British presence is just an excuse...and it's one they know others will jump to. Sorta like a group of terrorists killing an ambassador under the disguise of an unknown video deemed insulting to Muhammed. Slaughter a family in the Philippines, children in India, schoolgirls on Afghanistan...same despicable group of ****s, always with a 'reason' you should 'understand'.

Like I said...I understand them just fine.
 
how can someone be "victimized" by propaganda?

One of the most obvious examples are the pre-WWII Germans who were led to believe that Jews were bad people. In today's world--amongst others--I'd say the the North Koreans are subjected and victimized by propaganda. So now that you understand, you can answer my 2 previous questions.
 
One of the most obvious examples are the pre-WWII Germans who were led to believe that Jews were bad people.

The german's weren't hapless victims. Nazi ideology simply played into a rising trend of scientific antisemitism that had proponents as far back as Wagner.

Also, the isolation and control exercised over the NK is rather unique, to say the least.
 
Back
Top Bottom