Interesting to see the picture from Vietnam with Bush's head superimposed or the one with the noose. Any thing remotely like this about Obama is sure to get a visit from the Secret Service and days on end of comment from the media.
Did these miserble little wanks ever repect RONALD REAGAN? certianly not look at how he was treated by the hollyweed crowd and usial liberal stand up comedians and such they these same little snots demand we show respect for OBAMA?! TELL THEM TO GO POUND SAND
Should anyone be surprised to find that those on the Left, the ones who demand total tolerance from everyone, have zero tolerance for anyone or anything they disagree with?
The best way to neuter the Left is to treat them in the exact same way they treat their enemies.
"I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration's counterterrorism policies and programs. Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state — the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?'" – Freshman Congressman Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Sadly, this is no surprise. Those who hate the First Amendment demand complete respect for their point of view while denouncing and silencing any opposing viewpoint.
The big difference is that Bush deserved to be mocked. After all, he started two wars, 911 happened on his watch, his Patriot Act took away constitutional freedoms, the economy cratered, torture was the norm, etc., etc., etc.
The biggest problem with this poster is that there is no 'your' and 'my' president. The President is the President of the United States of America. That makes him 'our' President (for all the Americans on here) whether you like him or not. Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with everything he says.
It's a silly rule that a prospective President of the USA must be born within the current borders of same (which seem to get rather vague). Surely being a US citizen is enough to be both a voter and a candidate for any political office. (Or after being a citizen for a given number of years).
The purpose for the President being required to be a natural born citizen is to avoid putting someone with divided loyalties into such a position of power.
So Luke, with that logic, what do you make of second or third generation natural-born American citizens who often show as much or more loyalty to the country their recent forebears came from, such as Israel or Pakistan, etc., etc.?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” — Tyrion Lannister
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" - Plato
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse: Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Mohammad
The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said
Prof. Feynman: It is a lot better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction.
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
ALL Leftist speech is hate speech. They are always talking about something in the world around them that they hate
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies.”
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here
19 comments:
Interesting to see the picture from Vietnam with Bush's head superimposed or the one with the noose. Any thing remotely like this about Obama is sure to get a visit from the Secret Service and days on end of comment from the media.
Did these miserble little wanks ever repect RONALD REAGAN? certianly not look at how he was treated by the hollyweed crowd and usial liberal stand up comedians and such they these same little snots demand we show respect for OBAMA?! TELL THEM TO GO POUND SAND
Should anyone be surprised to find that those on the Left, the ones who demand total tolerance from everyone, have zero tolerance for anyone or anything they disagree with?
The best way to neuter the Left is to treat them in the exact same way they treat their enemies.
QUOTABLE QUOTES
"I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration's counterterrorism policies and programs. Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state — the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?'"
– Freshman Congressman Tom Cotton (R-AR)
Yeah!!
Hi colleagues, its fantastic paragraph about tutoringand
entirely explained, keep it up all the time.
my blog post: raspberry ketone diet
Sadly, this is no surprise.
Those who hate the First Amendment demand complete respect for their point of view while denouncing and silencing any opposing viewpoint.
The big difference is that Bush deserved to be mocked. After all, he started two wars, 911 happened on his watch, his Patriot Act took away constitutional freedoms, the economy cratered, torture was the norm, etc., etc., etc.
Well, of course US Presidents are seen differently from one succeeding generation to the next (as with all historical figures).
There are other differences Anon 12:47. Bush was born in America, and unlike his successor, he's not a Marxist.
"Bush was born in America, and unlike his successor, he's not a Marxist."
A typical anti-American birther.
The birther thing - who knows?
Marxist - definitely.
It was abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that Obama was not competent to be President before he was first nominated.
2:32 - and Sara Palin was? LOL
2:32 - IIRC Sarah Palin was running for vice president. A fact most liberals are unable to grasp.
4:02 - So you do believe Obama was born outside the U.S. I'm still not certain.
The marxist thing - no question about it.
McCain was. Comparing Palin, you'll have to ask if you want Gaffie Joe as POTUS?
The biggest problem with this poster is that there is no 'your' and 'my' president.
The President is the President of the United States of America.
That makes him 'our' President (for all the Americans on here) whether you like him or not.
Of course, that does not mean you have to agree with everything he says.
It's a silly rule that a prospective President of the USA must be born within the current borders of same (which seem to get rather vague). Surely being a US citizen is enough to be both a voter and a candidate for any political office. (Or after being a citizen for a given number of years).
The purpose for the President being required to be a natural born citizen is to avoid putting someone with divided loyalties into such a position of power.
So Luke, with that logic, what do you make of second or third generation natural-born American citizens who often show as much or more loyalty to the country their recent forebears came from, such as Israel or Pakistan, etc., etc.?
Post a Comment