Question for Obama

[zebra24.livejournal.com]

Some wise man said once:
*Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech.
Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.*

I wonder why Democratic party leaders, Obama and Clinton was so much against those anti-Muslim film maker? Even here in talk_politics I was blamed for defending those "provocateurs" rights.

Since when "provocateur" supposed to be an offensive epithet toward peaceful film-maker?
Why is that? Seems they forgot completely about freedom.
They don't understand it, don't need it, don't want it. They hate freedom.
I wouldn't defend that Romney is freedom fighter either, but at least he understands this issue.
I can't tell that Obama or Hillary does.

In their mind "freedom of speech" is to post pornographic collage with their political opponent faces. Seems like they are "ok" with any libel against republicans, libertarians, tea party and so on. Who said a word against that lie in democratic party? Anyone? Is it because of freedom of speech or what? "Kill the rich" is covered by freedom of speech, but shitty anti-Muslim video is not?


Where was that principle when Clinton promised to prosecute filmmaker behind incendiary Muslim Movie?? (also read here)

Seems like Obama's administration completely forgot about freedom, the only freedom they respect - their own freedom to lie and rule.
More government means more freedom for Obama, less for people.
Funny thing is that "democratic" media supposed to fight for freedom, helps them to lie effectively and don't question their decisions and lie at all. You can google "Charles Woods" but only Fox and abcnews have coverage for that.
In internet era at least few hours after information become widely available they still failed to report it. Such a liars.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

If that's how you want to read that, that's on you.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

If by "you", you meant the majority of members, then yes.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I don't mean that here, no. I mean you specifically.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Return to your initial comment. It's a thinly veiled ad hominem against a group of people. There's no way that could be interpreted as an innocently intended "observation". Especially in the context of your post from yesterday, which included yet another thinly veiled ad hominem.

If some of the responses you got are shocking to you, that's more likely a result to 1) either your inability of self-introspection, or more likely 2) a deliberate attempt to ignite a group of people for your own amusement. If you expected that this wouldn't get called out, you were mistaken.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not an ad hominem as there's no dismissal of any argument by virtue of the nature of the person. It is an observation on the comments people are making and then making a conclusion about the person from that. And the point is that they are making these comments not just on my post but on any post that doesn't agree with their decided beliefs.

The responses aren't shocking, they are just sad and pathetic, and I don't think they are understanding what they are doing, since they keep denying that they are doing it.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

an observation on the comments people are making and then making a conclusion about the person from that

I.e. attacking the person rather than the point, which is ad hominem. When you speak of denial, perhaps you should start by looking at yourself.

As has been said, the responses you reap are the ones you sow in your post. Had you omitted the generalized ad hominem part, you would've probably reaped a much different set of responses.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, it's not attacking the person.

Had you omitted the generalized ad hominem part, you would've probably reaped a much different set of responses.

I've seen no indication that this is true. And that's not just from my posts.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Indications mean nothing. Facts mean something. Try it next time, and we'll see.