Mohammed in a jar of urine

Is it just me or is it odd to hear liberals talk about how we need to avoid being offensive vis a vis these cartoon riots? What kind of understanding could the left possibly engender with their long record of ‘religious understanding’?

I’m wondering when a liberal artist will apply for an NEA grant to produce some Serrano-like ‘works of art’. Perhaps Mohammed in a jar of urine? Or maybe they might go the Maplethorpe route… but many people (even liberal artists) have reservations about involving themselves with bearded men and bullwhips (that might be a sin, unless they’re married of course).

CNN says they will not display blasphemous cartoons of Mohammed, "out of respect for Islam." But is this an issue of respect or an issue of freedom? Because if Jesus in a jar of urine must be funded with federal dollars (or else it's censorship), I'm pretty sure that cartoons merely depicting Mohammed is no big deal.

In Paris, the daily newspaper France Soir fired its managing editor after it republished the caricatures Wednesday, and in Pakistan protesters marched chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France."

...Muslims consider it sacrilegious to produce a likeness of the Prophet Mohammad. CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons in respect for Islam. (Watch the furor caused by cartoons -- 2:48)

"The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are an attack on our spiritual values. There should be a limit to press freedom," the state Anatolian news agency quoted Erdogan as telling French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy during talks in Ankara. cnn

The real question is, where are all the radical left-wing activists up in arms about Muslim censorship? Where are the demands to have these cartoons publicly funded?

At first, I had a hard time even finding these cartoons on the web, but now they're on thousands of blogs, but few official journalistic enterprises feel compelled to display them. I wonder why? What's so offensive about them? They are not even a twentieth as offensive as Andre Serrano's works of publicly funded art.

Speaking truth to power: the utter failure and tragic hypocrisy of liberalism

The tragedy here is that it is supposed to be the left who champions the cause of liberty and freedom. It is supposed to be the left who bravely stands up to those who use oppression and fear to cow others into subjugation to their will. (Speaking truth to power.) The left is supposed to be fighting sexism, slavery, racism, religious bigotry and ignorance. But where are the protestors on the left? You won't find them speaking out against the burning of Danish embassies. You won't find them fighting for women's rights in Tehran, or Egypt, or Syria, or even Iraq. You won't find them protesting the complete subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia.

You only find them 'speaking truth to power' here in America, (at funerals and memorial services). Mouthing banal and empty slogans, completely without fear of reprisal, about how evil and oppressive western society, and in particular the Bush administration is. Let's see International A.N.S.W.E.R. organize a protest in Syria or Iran and call for a 'regime change' there. Or create paintings of Mohammed with animal dung (Why is this picture even here in a story about cartoons of Mohammed?) in protest to the sexist, racist, patriarchal oppressive Islamic society.

The fight for freedom on the left has been overtaken by a redefinition of terms. Racism, sexism, imperialism, bigotry, ignorance, and intolerance are all words that apply only to America in the liberal lexicon. Thus we have the idea that people of color cannot be racists. Minorities cannot be prejudiced or intolerant-- by definition. Muslims are being oppressed by our foreign policy and support for Israel, therefore, ipso facto, they cannot be engaging in intolerance and the like, because they are an underprivileged and oppressed people.

Fundamentalism

The tragic truth is that the left still does not believe there is an 'Islamic fundamentalist' problem. The reason for this is that the only fundamentalists they are concerned with are the ones right here at home (in their minds).

Jimmy Carter's latest book is a shallow and shrill political denunciation of conservatives as religious zealots who are the real danger to the free world in Carter's mind. Imagine that.

In his tome, Carter blames all the world’s ills on the rise of "fundamentalism." Appearing on CNBC’s "Tim Russert Show" on Saturday, November 5, Carter reminisced that he saw such fundamentalism "when the Ayatollah Khomeini rejected any kind of reasonable interpretation of the Koran and took American hostages" – and now it’s spreading among Christian conservatives. Carter defines fundamentalists as "authoritarian males who consider themselves to be superior to others" and "have an overwhelming commitment to subjugate women." They believe "they are right and that anyone who contradicts them is ignorant and possibly evil…They are often angry and sometimes resort to verbal or even physical abuse against those who interfere with the implementation of their agenda." They tend "to demagogue emotional issues" and view "efforts to resolve differences as signs of weakness." [1] When challenged whether he actually meant Christians were little Ayatollahs, Carter affirmed, "all of those things are compatible [with Christian fundamentalism], yes." He explained to Russert that the sway of fundamentalism in the South derives "from more ancient times, 30, 40, 50 years ago," – ancient? – "from racism, when whites dominated blacks."

The man from Plains makes clear in his book that "fundamentalists" aren’t merely knuckle-dragging yokels who believe in a flat earth: "neocons" are also "fundamentalists" [2] Opponents of the Kyoto Treaty are "fundamentalists." [3] Even justifying violence against judges is attributable to fundamentalist "intimidation of the judiciary." [4] Thus, Jimmy Carter continues his long history of insufferable, grating moralizing; demonizing his opponents; and rewriting the history of his failed presidency.

...Carter demonstrates he has the same grasp on the War on Terror as he did the Cold War as he pens the only sentence in the book that is underlined: "The fact is that, unlike during other times of national threat or crisis, the United States of America is not at war." [12]
~Ben Johnson

Mr. Carter can be thankful that the enemy he has chosen to 'speak truth to' is not anything like those we are actually at war with.

***** UPDATE *****

This is exactly the wrong response:

LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday. ADVERTISEMENT

In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion.

"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right." yahoonews

Posted by Eric Simonson at February 9, 2006 2:26 AM
Comments
Comment #122578

you do like to lay it on thick dont you eric?

ok…fine…as an artist i’ll bite….

yes…it is wrong for democrats to cry censorship of “PissChrist” and not of these cartoons. it’s a double-standard. a rather bold one which is why it caught your attention…

and Muslim doctrine says there can be NO depiction of Mohammed, as it’s sacreligious….fine.

and there are plenty of christians who felt that “PissChrist” was sacreligious, as they felt the “Last Temptation of Christ” was sacreligious…

although they have no problem making him into bumper stickers, candles, air fresheners, pens, lamps, action-figures, coloring books, etc…..

you wanna start yelling double-standard…let’s start there.

as for your NEA funding slam….i am against the NEA…and I am an artist. Mostly because i find that Private Investors are much more open minded than the NEA, and if they are willing to help me pursue my work, then great. Screw the NEA. But I do find it amazing that the people who scream the most about the NEA funding are big rednecks like yourself who wouldn’t know culture if it bit you in the ass.

And no…PissChrist is not culture…although it is a well taken photograph. I disagree with the content, but technically it’s well done.

alright…i’ve said my piece….you may now rant about something which will make me hate you more.

Posted by: views at February 9, 2006 4:45 AM
Comment #122579

Do you write to show “the left” your and “the right’s” point of view? After reading your writings here, I’ve come to the conclusion that you only want to create more animosity between liberals and conservatives. Why don’t you go ahead and say liberals are responsible for 9/11?

The problem isn’t with religion. It’s economical. The West, which includes the USA, UK, much of Europe, Russia, and Australia, is made up of first world nations. The Muslim world, which includes much of Africa and the Middle East, is made up of third world nations. In the Muslim world, few people have access to education. In the Muslim world, few people have access to hope. Our world represents everything they don’t have.

It’s easy to tell poorly educated Muslims, many of whom cannot read, that the US is responsible for their plight. How are they to know the difference? They have little knowledge of Western civilization. Go ahead and ask someone in Afghanistan or Somalia who George Washington is.

Those who are calling for an end to these cartoons and depictions of the Muslim world are doing so because these depictions don’t have the desired affect. The desired affect is to show the Muslim world how the West views them.

A cross in a jar of urine doesn’t result in violence in the US because we’re educated people. We’ll think about the message behind the “art”.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at February 9, 2006 4:46 AM
Comment #122580

It’s a toss-up as to whether Carter was more damaging to American interests while in office or now as a former president. I can’t think of anything kind to say about the peanut pundit.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 9, 2006 4:51 AM
Comment #122581

“Why don’t you go ahead and say liberals are responsible for 9/11?”


uh, joseph…i hate to break it to ya, but eric really does believe that.

Posted by: views at February 9, 2006 4:53 AM
Comment #122586

Eric you have outdone yourself this time! Wow!

Okay first of all what freakin’ liberals? Where are you seeing liberals who don’t see the erroneousness of the arabic hyper-reactionism to what most would describe as a ‘damn’ cartoon? Where are they I’d like to meet some.

Eric this is not your most insane post but close, it’s close. We don’t know there is an Islamic fundamentalist problem??? Um yeah we do Eric.

See the violent reaction is typical of those who are bent on theocratic rule and this was a definative stunt to justify their position. I mean would any other religion do this? Only the catholics when they had a theocracy going did they do such violent (and most would say infantile) protest of something as inane as essentially newspaper illustration.

Now granted the Danish paper was pushing their buttons and yup! sparked a reaction but the reaction is of those bent on theocratic rule, separation from the west, and religious conquest. The Catholic Church used violence to justify and uphold their totallitarian regeim—this is similar.

The illustrations were in many ways dead on, in terms of their religion which was founded by a pirate/spoil-plunderer/despot/mass murderer so it was a case of saying the blatently obvious to anyone who knows anything about Islam and it’s genuine historical foundations.

But I don’t think that liberals in the US in any way are playing extreme apologetics with this. WE know they’re nuts we tried to tell you that before you neo-cons went and liberated them—yeesh.

First thing you saw in the media was a parade of them marching down Iraqi streets banging themselves in the heads with swords and slapping themselves silly with chains on the back. My thoughts were “Gee George glad you liberated ‘em—they really seem like a nice bunch”. And by gum they’ve lived up to the expectation. Those people are nuts we know that.

TRY reading about what the lives of women are like in Islamic Bangladesh if you want a real horror story. Bush hasn’t mentioned the phrase “honor killing” once to my recollection. We should be creating Visas for those women—there is some sad stuff in the Islamic world all created by totalitarian Islam itself.

I think the right is working harder to understand them and are growing to like them but same token, I think we Dems upon gaining information on their back-asswardsness and social attitudes despise Islam even moreso for what it institutionalizes.

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 5:21 AM
Comment #122592

Joseph it’s not Muslims, Musim is a sociological term the ones who went stir crazy were the extreme Islamists. You can’t claim the dumbness factor it’s clearly the culture factor.

Okay in the Southern United states when there were lynchings of blacks that was not a dumbness factor that was a cultural and cultural belief/tradition factor. In the Us today there are just as many dull-witted individuals probably but the culture has changed. Do you see what I’m saying. the number of lynching have ceased A) because the US government put their foot down and B) because the society as a whole frowns on such abhorrent racism.

the dumbness factor sadly isn’t it.

Now I’ve also heard that they were being used as pawns, but truth be told to burn buildings in protest or to join in is a choice too.

They weren’t looking for civil rights or they would have had civil discourse as a reaction—this was fundamentalist Islam’s reaction. They want conquest, they want dominion.

The race riots of the blacks in the 1970’s wasn’t them calling for civil rights that was hatred of whites and wanting dominion of their own. Yes there was degradation, oppression, demoralization, almost total poverty rates, No change but ultimately what burst was hate of whites. That was after three sufferable centuries of devestating oppression. BUT Islam is NOT oppressed not in Europe, Not in Asia, Not in the middle east (w/ exception to Israel where they want total dominion). They as a religion are not oppressed or repressed anywhere not even in the US. What was this s**t about then? What is that hate going after? I’ll tell ya’ it’s dominion and conquest and that’s the religion in a nutshell.

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 5:56 AM
Comment #122595

Being from the Boston area, I have a very experienced based view on liberalism within the local media, politics, and the union I happen to belong to. Eric, you’re pretty close to the mark. I’m a bassist of 18 years, and happen to be a conservative myself. 9 out of 10 musicians I play with consider me anything from a curious oddity to a downright traitor because they can’t wrap their heads around the fact that one can be an artist and a conservative at the same time.
The Boston Globe, in support of piss christ and poo mary, and my tax dollars they garnered via the NEA printed numerous editorials(their perfect right to do so of course), and IF memory serves me correctly printed the pictures as well.
(also their right) Yet, in the spirit of “respect to all religions” didnt reprint, OR even take a stand for free speech. Just another example of liberal hypocrisy, and a glowing example of why Dems haven’t won the governorship here in quite some time.
I’ve learned one thing as a Boston artist…
Liberals ONLY celebrate the free speech of other Liberals.

Posted by: Bob Kelley at February 9, 2006 6:11 AM
Comment #122598

Eric actually Carter is wrong in calling Neo-cons fundamentalists because you actually have to technically be fundamental of something (or fundamentally anything), with republicans it’s pretty damn mutt & Jeff the only uniting factors are hatred of those “damn liberals” and reward the rich.

Carter was off-mark Eric, you’re right.

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 6:25 AM
Comment #122610

The hypocrisy is based on fear.

Posted by: dawn at February 9, 2006 7:39 AM
Comment #122611

goodkingned,

It’s a toss-up as to whether Carter was more damaging to American interests while in office or now as a former president. I can’t think of anything kind to say about the peanut pundit.

Three words — Habitat for Humanity.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 7:44 AM
Comment #122613

Eric,

There’s a big difference between a private corporation (CNN) choosing not to show something and the Government (NEA) censoring something. CNN, as a private company, can “censor” whatever it wants. But the NEA — a government institution — should not base its funding of art project upon some random person’s objection to the religious content thereof. It’s called “Separation of Church and State”, not “Separation of Church and Corporation”.

So, if an American artist wanted to depict Mohammed in a jar of urine, or whatever, and had legitimate reason to request NEA funding, then the NEA would be required to fund it despite any objection that some may have to the content.

Do you really not understand the difference here?, Eric? Do I need to teach an online Government 101 class to explain the difference between private corporations and government entities?

Oh, and for the record, whether it’s done by CNN, an artist with NEA funding, or a Danish newspaper, it’s still a stupid thing to do. They have every right to do it, but legal don’t equal smart.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 7:58 AM
Comment #122615

Bob Kelley,

Liberals ONLY celebrate the free speech of other Liberals.

Unfortunately, that is the case for most of them. It’s also the case that most Conservatives only celebrate free speech of other Conservatives.

A newspaper that would show images (when they make the news) offensive to Christians but would not do the same for images offensive to Muslims is being hypocritical. Personally, I don’t think that the newspaper should show either, out of respect for their readers. But, as an advocate of free speech, I must defend their right to show both, neither, or any combination in between.

It seems that Respect has fallen victim to the same political divide that Free Speech has. For a long time, people on the Left have been willing to insult Christianity without regard for those of us who hold the faith. And now many on the Right are showing the same lack of respect when addressing issues about Islam.

It’s sad that being Liberal or Conservative has become more important to people than being American, and being Christian or Muslim or Jewish or whatever has become more important than being Human.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #122618
Is it just me or is it odd to hear wingnuts talk about how we need to avoid being a wimp vis a vis these cartoon riots? What kind of understanding could the right possibly engender with their long record of ‘religious autocracy’?

I’m wondering when a wignut artist will apply for an NEA grant to produce some Serrano-like ‘works of art’. Perhaps Teddy in a jar of booze? Or maybe they might go the Scooter Libby route…


Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2006 8:27 AM
Comment #122620
I’m pretty sure that cartoons merely depicting Mohammed is no big deal.

To you and me, it’s no big deal. To an observant Muslim, it’s blasphemy. Do you see the difference? Or are you telling them that their religion is wrong because it doesn’t make sense to you?

Also, well said, Rob Cottrell.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 8:42 AM
Comment #122622

Rob,
I wonder if you were upset with Clear Channel when they (a private corporation) and other private corporations decided to suspend Dixie Chicks songs and boycott their album sales after Natalie’s anti-Bush comments several years ago.

The point I took from Eric’s post is highlighting the hypocracy of the liberal media. They’d show other “works of art” that may be considered a sacrilege to Christians or Jews, but refuse to show something that may be sacrilegious to Muslims.

On another point, I agree with you. Carter’s one-and-only positive contribution to our country is his work with Habitat for Humanity. I must give credit where credit is due. He should stick to that. Thinking Carter has any useful insight on muslim or middle-eastern affairs is a gross overstatement of his abilities.

I do think that the biggest part of any hate-based violence (racism, islamo-fascist rioting - both in France a few months ago and the current unrest, etc.) is lack of education.

Although I hate to bring attention to “AAA”, I must opine:
“But I don’t think that liberals in the US in any way are playing extreme apologetics with this. WE know they’re nuts we tried to tell you that before you neo-cons went and liberated them—yeesh.”
That is the epitomy of the left’s argument against Iraq. Despite the attempts of redirection and abandonment of logic, reason and previous statements and actions of past democratic leaders, the left’s basic premise for opposition ot the efforts in Iraq is simply “they are not ready or capable to be free”. Whether they are “too crazy”, too stupid, too primative or whatever. They do not deserve to be free, so it’s OK to ignore their plight. If you think about it, it’s not unlike their opinion of most Americans….let us (the government) take care of you, because you can’t take care of yourselves. We’ll tell you can and cannot believe in. We’ll tell you (in public schools) what you need to know. blah-blah-blah.

The left does not know how to solve problems. All they can do is try to find something to scare us, point to who’s responsible for it (usually, it’s GW) and try to rally opposition without offeriing alternative solutions.

Posted by: Rich at February 9, 2006 8:50 AM
Comment #122629

Rich,

I wonder if you were upset with Clear Channel when they (a private corporation) and other private corporations decided to suspend Dixie Chicks songs and boycott their album sales after Natalie’s anti-Bush comments several years ago.

Yes, I was upset with Clear Channel (mainly because I enjoy listening to the Dixie Chicks), but it was their right to boycott. It was also my right to boycott Clear Channel for doing so, and go buy a Dixie Chicks album in support (which I did, and am listening to right now). :-)

But, legally speaking, they did nothing wrong. It wasn’t about whether Clear Channel upset me by doing it. Their rights aren’t increased or decreased based upon my feelings on the matter.

The point I took from Eric’s post is highlighting the hypocracy of the liberal media. They’d show other “works of art” that may be considered a sacrilege to Christians or Jews, but refuse to show something that may be sacrilegious to Muslims.

And I agree with that — the “liberal media” is being hypocritical. My point is that the hypocracy isn’t limited to the Liberals. The same people who attacked the media for showing pictures of the Saviour in urine are standing up in support of the media publishing offensive pictures of Mohammed. As usual, both sides traded stances when there was some political gain to be had from it.

On another point, I agree with you. Carter’s one-and-only positive contribution to our country is his work with Habitat for Humanity. I must give credit where credit is due. He should stick to that. Thinking Carter has any useful insight on muslim or middle-eastern affairs is a gross overstatement of his abilities.

Carter’s done other positive things, too. But he certainly made a horrible President. (I’ll be the second one to admit that, as Carter himself was the first.) And he does have useful insights on the Middle East conflict, but they’re so wrapped up in partisan politics as to be more harm than good right now. Ironically, President Bush has the same problem.

I do think that the biggest part of any hate-based violence (racism, islamo-fascist rioting - both in France a few months ago and the current unrest, etc.) is lack of education.

Absolutely true. But what a lot of people miss is that, underneath the hate-based violence, there are usually legitimate concerns that never get heard.

The left does not know how to solve problems. All they can do is try to find something to scare us, point to who’s responsible for it (usually, it’s GW) and try to rally opposition without offeriing alternative solutions.

Neither the Left nor the Right really knows how to solve anything, because extremism never solves problems — it just creates more. The answers to most of our country’s problems get trampled in the isle in the mad rush to prove the other Party wrong. Most of the issues in this country boil down to two major problems — Democrats and Republicans.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #122635

Eric:

Thanks for being a uniter.

“The tragic truth is that the left still does not believe there is an ‘Islamic fundamentalist’ problem. “

—Yes, they do. They just happen to believe its leadership is laughing its ass off somewhere in a cave in Pakistan, because your beloved Republican leadership thought it best to invade Iraq instead.

Liberals 1, Hypocritical conservatives 0.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at February 9, 2006 9:47 AM
Comment #122637

First of all, if your religion, whether it’s Islam or Socialism, can’t withstand a few cartoons, you need a new religion. Apperently, Islam is not much of a religion. Ironic, since Islamists so often ally with Socialists. We all know, Socialism ALWAYS fails. I wonder if Islam will go the same route? These cartoons allow us to see the real Islam, in all it’s bloodthirsty glory.


There is nothing more fun than watching the Socialists wrap themselves into pretzels by saying that we should respect Islam, while they have spent the last 40 years doing everything they can to insult Christians and Jews whenever possible. This situation reveals all about them as well, and soon all the folks in the middle will even notice, Islam and Socialist are just new and different words for hypocrite.

Posted by: David C. at February 9, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #122640
Neither the Left nor the Right really knows how to solve anything, because extremism never solves problems — it just creates more. The answers to most of our country’s problems get trampled in the isle in the mad rush to prove the other Party wrong. Most of the issues in this country boil down to two major problems — Democrats and Republicans.

Rob, extremely well said. I’m on the opposite side of most issues from where you are but I wish more people (on both sides) would wake up to this idea. IMO it is the single biggest problem in the government today. 2 parties, both playing “devil’s advocate” on every issue. Disagreeing jsut to disagree. Instead of working together to come to an agreement.

It’s disappointing and it is only getting worse.

Posted by: BradM at February 9, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #122641

Rob C-

You sound like a libertarian, at least in the making. The two biggest problems facing the United States at this time in history are Republicans who want to protect our freedoms, even if it means taking away some them in the process, and Democrats who want so badly to regain their lost power that they will do or say anything that might give them an edge, and both want too much involvement in my personal life to make me comfortable.

Neither side is pure and clean, they are both dirty as mud. And that, dear friends, leaves us with few alternatives at the ballot box. We have come to the point where the two major parties have abandoned the concept of public service and are only intent on getting and keeping power.

There are some in government, on both sides, who are trying to look out for the country. Unfortunately, they are boxed in by the majority and especially the ones who hold the power within the parties. When toeing the “party line” becomes more important than what is good for the country, we have lost all of the good things that have made this country great.

Me, I gave up on D and R a long time ago. I am a Libertarian by necessity, not because I totally agree with the total philosophy but because it is closer to what I see as important than the others.

Posted by: John Back at February 9, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #122642

Eric, Eric, Eric…
Don’t you get it? Free speech includes the right not to say things. If CNN doesn’t want to show the cartoons in question, that is their fundamental right. You might think they’re wrong, but they have the freedom to entirely disregard your opinion.

We also have the freedom to combine opinions that others might think incompatible or uncharacteristic of us. For example, we believe the riots, however insensitive the comments that started them, are unjustified, and symptomatic of a problem. We also believe that those people who made the comments should not be forced to limit their expression for the rioter’s sake.

So what do we believe? We believe that those people must be brought to understand where the limits are in what they can demand of us. We freely choose not to offend them. And freely choose to defend the rights of expression for those who did.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #122643

Eric and Rich,

This incident and this article are both highlighting many things.
1) The Middle East and the West are not even close to being on the same page.
2) Our intrinsic values clash with their religous values.
3) Our focus on Western importance of “Freedom of the Press” turned this from an insult from just the Danish press into an international insult to their religion.
4) The Islamic Fundamentalists are using this incident to rally more into the anti-West fold.
5)Because we don’t see the harm, “It’s only a cartoon”, we feel they are getting “carried away”, once again displaying the arrogance of the west and further angering the people in the Middle East.
6) This could be a trigger for major events between the West and Middle East.
7)Eric still grasps at straws every chance he gets.
8)Eric loves to twist facts and create reality.
9)He’ll always find someone to jump off the reality cliff with him.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at February 9, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #122645

Rich,

“The point I took from Eric’s post is highlighting the hypocracy of the liberal media. They’d show other “works of art” that may be considered a sacrilege to Christians or Jews, but refuse to show something that may be sacrilegious to Muslims.”

Did it ever occur to you, that by protesting the exibition of these “works of art” (and I use that very loosely), you just bring more attention to the “artist” (another a loose term), and that the media’s coverage was more about the outrage than it was about the “artist”?
With the internet I am sure that anybody that was interested in seeing the offending caricatures, has already seen them.
Is it nescessary to print them again, just to spit in the eye of those that might be offended?

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 10:26 AM
Comment #122646

Eric,

Do you have any liberal friends?

Posted by: jeez at February 9, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #122648

Joseph Ragsdale,

It’s easy to tell poorly educated Muslims, many of whom cannot read, that the US is responsible for their plight. How are they to know the difference? They have little knowledge of Western civilization. Go ahead and ask someone in Afghanistan or Somalia who George Washington is.

Woa. Many of westerneers have as little knowledge of Muslims civilization too. Go ahead and ask someone in America or Europe who’s Egypt current leader? I think lack of knowledge is well shared on both side.

Those who are calling for an end to these cartoons and depictions of the Muslim world are doing so because these depictions don’t have the desired affect. The desired affect is to show the Muslim world how the West views them. A cross in a jar of urine doesn’t result in violence in the US because we’re educated people.

So you mean that West views of Muslim world is not muslims = terrorists but muslims = uneducated people? I wonder which point of view is less offensive and which one is less oversimplified…

The West didn’t wait for these cartoons to establish long ago an oversimplified link between islam and terrorism. This link was often made already just after first Palestinian territories occupation, expanded into europe and tchecheny during the 90’ but it came really global after 9/11.
Unfortunatelly, the moderate muslims world failed so far to figthback this link. They failed to massivelly express disgust after 9/11, beheaders and usual human bombers. This have contribute largely to the violent image of islam worldwide as well as cartoons…

After all, just a few condemn the rioters violence but many found very offensive that we may find islam violent. Ironic, isn’t it?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at February 9, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #122651

I don’t know that I ever heard eric specifically refute the claim that he gets paid to write these articles. Curious.

Funny thing is, usually when I read the displayed portions of articles on the Watchblog homepage, I can’t necessarily tell who the authors are until I’m done with the first paragraph and read who in fact wrote it. I read the first sentence of this and didn’t even have to scroll down to know this was vintage eric.

The behavior his side is so willing to decry in Muslims is different only in degree from the behavior of their Christian fundamental base. Wasn’t it recently the case that some guy from Focus on the Family or some similar nutjob organization got a television show preemptively cancelled because it depicted a priest with a drug problem having conversations with jesus?

I know, I know — not the same as having riots and mob murders. But it’s not categorically different, just a difference of degree. It still amounts to outraged theocrats attempting to silence viewpoints that they don’t like. At bottom, they’re pretty similar.

And, for the record, I’ve not heard a single liberal yet defend the actions of the Muslim mobs. Not to say there might not be a few, but I haven’t heard it.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 9, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #122654

John Back,

You sound like a libertarian, at least in the making.

And you sound like someone who likes to put people into tidy little boxes with labels on them. :-)

(Reminds me of Mel Brooks: “You look like the piss boy!” “And you look like a bucket of shit!”)

I try to avoid labels whenever possible. There’s such a broad spectrum out there that it seems wrong to lump certain people in the same category (like George W. Bush and John McCain, or Teddy Kennedy and Evan Bayh). I hate seeing people dismiss perfectly valid arguments simply because they think the speaker is a “liberal” or a “conservative”.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #122657

How, but with violence, can the Muslim world expect to enforce a Muslim rule ,i.e., NO IMAGES OF MUHAMMED, on non-Muslims? This is really what is being attempted here. To do so is extreme arrogance in my opinion.
Do they, Muslims, have any regard for or even recognize the 10 commandments?

Posted by: clydeb at February 9, 2006 11:25 AM
Comment #122659

Having “rights” carries with it the overall responsibility to exercise them in a manner that demonstrates that you have both the character and compassion to realize the impact of those rights on others and, the message it sends about you.

Posted by: steve smith at February 9, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #122662

If Christ in a jar of urine is freedom of speech so is Mohammed with a bomb for a turbin. I find both distastful and disrespectful of both religions.
While I don’t agree with anything that the Muslims beleive, I do respect their right to believe it. Even though they don’t respect my right to believe what Baptist teach.
I do find it interesting though that the left is screaming for tolorance of the Muslim religion while they practice intolorance of the Christian. But it’s not the only double stanard they have.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 9, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #122672

Rob C-

I don’t put labels on people for any reason. I let their words speak for them. I only meant that your words are quite close to the libertarian point of view. And, I am able to separate out individuals from groups. I believe I made that clear. If not, I will repeat it: there are people on both sides who are honestly interested in the good of the country. Unfortunately, they get boxed in by the power structure and wind up being ineffective.

Posted by: John Back at February 9, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #122682

I have read some dumb comments on this message list and I have read some thoughtful and smart comments. And I have to admit that it has been on both sides.
First I would like to say, I have heard no one tell the newpapers involved that they were wrong. Don’t know what sources you are looking at that somehow the “liberals” (ooooh bad word) are defending this extreme reaction. If you can point us to some news sources that say, “the free press should not have printed offensive cartoons in their newspaper” or some Big time Liberal saying that.
I find it very curious that until today we had not heard from American Muslims. I think that they have a unique view in that many of them are born into this culture and understand the editorial cartoon in a different context than say, a muslim that lives in a country where there is no freedom of the press. Those muslims from those countries where there is no freedom of the press honestly believe that the Danish gov’t approves of those cartoons and has the ability to shut down that newspaper if they want to. Those muslims do not understand that our gov’ts really do not have that power.
This is another thing that bothered me until today and I saw in the news the following- it does not say in the Koran that you cannot make images of the Prophet Mohammed. So where did that come from? It seems that the most extreme teaching of Kawariri (sp?) said that there should be no depictions of the prophet. I know that just as we had monks that copied our biblical texts with rich drawings in the margins, the same was happening in Persia, and they did depict the prophet either in beautiful drawings accompanying the text or in the margins.
I would hope that our american muslims could reach out to their brethren in other countries and have a dampening effect on the anger out there. And I would hope that we could now see that maybe to win the hearts of the muslim people they need education, now. Not later.
I would also like to see our foreign aid go to positive activities for the young men full of testosterone in those countries, something like soccer teams and games. Those young men have nothing to do with their time and energy and so when incited into violence, find an outlet for those energies. If it was re-directed into sports, perhaps we could live a less worried life that muslims were not joining al Qaeda and were joining in sports instead.
Just a novel idea, instead of bashing stupid conservatives or stupid liberals…just a thought…

Posted by: Antonia Reed at February 9, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #122684

John Back,

Sorry ‘bout that. I think I’ve had one too many people on this ‘blog try to categorize me, so they can determine whose opinions I’m holding (other than my own). I’ve been called a “right wing freak” and a “left wing commie” on several occasions here. (In fact, I was once called BOTH in response to the SAME POST!) :-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #122689

Look,

guys I have seen marines blown up, shoot at trying to save and give freedom to these people could muslims. They don’t care who gets in there way they want what they want and they will die getting it.

This mohammed they think the world of was nothen but a killer and raped who he wanted to.HE MARRIED A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL. He went from land to land killing, burning homes and familys and he mad up this ali becouse the romans were in power and he wanted a piece. So he made up this hole thing,HE WAS A KILLER!

LAST THING, if you think IRAN has nothing to do with adding fuel to the fire you are wrong.

Posted by: Dom at February 9, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #122692

There’s definitely a double standard with the libs on this political cartoon issue. Look at the ACLU, they defended the artist’s right for the Virgin Mary in dung; however, they are not for the Danish press to print this. What about their right to free press and speech?! Total hypocracy. And, this is just one example; a very big example, but just one of many…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #122697

rah,

Plese tell me what you expect the American Civil Liberties Union to do for a Danish newspaper? Can you tell me anything concrete and reasonable? Or do you just want to take potshots at your enemies?

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #122699

rahdigly,

You are absolutely right that the “libs” have a double-standard here. But do you not also see the double-standard from the Right as well? The Right was horribly upset by the Virgin Mary in dung and Christ in urine, but apparently has no problem with these depictions of Mohammed. The messages I’m getting here from many Republicans is “Be respectful of MY religion, and piss on anyone else’s.”

The two parties have completely switched sides on the issue.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #122700

To follow up, the ACLU acts to support individuals and groups when the government has overreached (compared to their understanding of the Constitution). Even if they had a role to play in Denmark (which they don’t), there’s nothing for them to protest in Denmark; the Danish government is showing full respect for press freedoms. It’s individuals that are causing the problems, and that’s outside the ACLU’s charter.

The only role the ACLU plays in this debate so far is to be an innocent punching bag for you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #122704

Why do animal rights activists toss red paint on old ladies wearing furs, but leave bikers in leather coats alone?

When you answer that question, you know why people feel free to attack Western values and not the others.

There is a great deal of hypocrisy in most protestors, and a good share of cowardice.

People on this blog like to compare Bush to Hitler. They do this because they know they are not telling the truth. If we really had a dictatorship, they would be hiding in their houses or mouthing pro-government slogans.

Re lynching somebody mentioned. More people were killed in the violence relating to these cartoons than were lynched in the twenty years between 1950 and 1970. Some perspective from the Tuskegee Institute.


Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #122717

Lawnboy,
“Plese tell me what you expect the American Civil Liberties Union to do for a Danish newspaper? Can you tell me anything concrete and reasonable? Or do you just want to take potshots at your enemies?”

They don’t have to go to Denmark to defend them; they can defend the newspapers here in the US that won’t run them. Heck, there’s only a handful (throughout the entire Nation) that do run them. The NY Times won’t dare run it; however, they ran the Virgin Mary in elephant dung YESTERDAY!!!!


Why can’t the ACLU step in a defend the newspapers right to run it? They did it for the Virgin Mary!!!!!

The bottom line is, the press and the politically correct (PC) crowd are a bunch of cowards. They only take a stand when they know the outcome won’t be severe, or when the law will protect them. In this case, the islamofascists are too (oooo) volatile and there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.


Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #122720

To all the libs out there,
there’s a HUGE difference between the response of Muslims to the cartoons and conservative Christians to “Piss Christ.” I’m an Evangelical Christian, and there is NO cartoon out there, no matter how offensive, that would make me want to riot, burn down buildings, take hostages, slit throats, etc. We usually believe in freedom of speech. If someone presents a piece of art that offends me, I might peacefully protest, write letters, arrange a boycott, pray for the perpetrators, etc. I also might not want my tax dollars to support art that offends me; actually, I don’t believe in government sponsored art at all. That’s how civilized people behave. Unfortunately, many libs and Muslim apologists (but not all) are making excuses for these barbarians—“Oh, but you have to see, those cartoons are REALLY offensive to Muslims.” By doing so, they are tacitly admitting a belief that Muslims are like children, not to be held responsible for their actions. They’re not children, and it’s high time the world started holding them accountable. This moral equivalency game is getting pretty old.
Okay, done with my rant.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #122721

To all the libs out there,
there’s a HUGE difference between the response of Muslims to the cartoons and conservative Christians to “Piss Christ.” I’m an Evangelical Christian, and there is NO cartoon out there, no matter how offensive, that would make me want to riot, burn down buildings, take hostages, slit throats, etc. We usually believe in freedom of speech. If someone presents a piece of art that offends me, I might peacefully protest, write letters, arrange a boycott, pray for the perpetrators, etc. I also might not want my tax dollars to support art that offends me; actually, I don’t believe in government sponsored art at all. That’s how civilized people behave. Unfortunately, many libs and Muslim apologists (but not all) are making excuses for these barbarians—“Oh, but you have to see, those cartoons are REALLY offensive to Muslims.” By doing so, they are tacitly admitting a belief that Muslims are like children, not to be held responsible for their actions. They’re not children, and it’s high time the world started holding them accountable. This moral equivalency game is getting pretty old.
Okay, done with my rant.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #122723

rah,

The reason that ACLU isn’t involved here is that the newspapers decision not to show the cartoons isn’t based on gevernment censorship. They aren’t showing it for other reasons (safety, propriety, whatever).

If the NY Times weren’t showing it because the city, state, or federal government were prohibiting it, either the ACLU would be all over the case or you’d have a point. Since that’s not the case, you have no point.

Maybe the NYTimes editors are being hypocrites - I can’t say because I don’t know their reasons for not showing the cartoons. However, the ACLU is doing exactly what should reasonably be expected of them.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #122724

In what respect do you expect the ACLU to defend newspapers here? There is no legal action pending against them regarding the cartoons, so it’s not really clear what kind of “defense” you are thinking of.

“In this case, the islamofascists are too (oooo) volatile and there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.”

Probably because they’re sandpigs, right Rah?

Posted by: Yossarian at February 9, 2006 1:38 PM
Comment #122727

Jack,

It looks to me that you’re the one in your house hiding and mouthing pro-government phrases.

Posted by: jeez at February 9, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #122735

keithb,

As you may know if you spend time around here, I’m pretty liberal, but I largely agree with you.

While I understand that the cartoons are offensive, I don’t think that the offense justifies the reaction, and I don’t excuse the rioting because of the offense.

The relationship between religion and society is much different in the West than it is in most of the muslim world. I, for one, am very glad that the western world went through the enlightenment and came to realize that theocracy is not the answer.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #122742

“there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.”

From salon.com this morning:

“The Moroccan street: No to violence, no to Western disrespect

From taxi drivers to professors, Moroccans weigh in on the cartoon controversy.

In the past few days, I’ve talked to a variety of Moroccans whose views stretch from conservative to liberal. They are tradesmen, academics, officials, students and journalists. The consensus, contrary to the apocalypse on television, is that the cartoons are highly disrespectful, but violence is neither warranted nor part of Islam. The consensus has become a unifying force.”

Man, those sandpigs and their decision that “violence is neither warranted nor part of Islam.”

Stupid sandpigs.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 9, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #122743

Jeez

That is a clever comeback. I generally support the President, so yes I am usually on the postive side. But I also don’t pretend I live in a police state where nobody can say negative things. I always find it ironic we hear so much from people who say they can’t talk.

You have to admit that I am right about the bikers and right about the hypocrisy. You obviously fear no police state in voicing an opinion.

The Economist summed up the courage of many free speech advocates in the cartoon case with a variation on Voltaire, “I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.”

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #122745

First off, let me just say, well said on the part of Keithb. Nice post.


Ok, now, to all you ACLU apologists, they can certainly speak out against this, they’re just scared just like the newspapers are. It’s hypocrisy to the utmost. The NY Times won’t touch this cartoon b/c of “poor taste” with religion; however, they just re-ran the Virgin Mary dung yesterday. It’s total cowardice on the part of the NY Times, La Times, Washington Post, etc. They’re only brave when it comes Christianity it seems. Have some backbone and stand up for what is right, not for what gets publicity.

And, to all those who want to get on the right with this issue, first attack the left who is totally caught in hypocracy with this one. The right didn’t riot and burn flags to protest. The left totally needs to stand up for freedom of speech, like they do when it comes to Christianity. Period.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 2:06 PM
Comment #122746

Here ya go, Max:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=22037
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=22097;
How do you like your crow, boiled or fried?

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #122748

squared,
“From salon.com this morning:

“The Moroccan street: No to violence, no to Western disrespect”

I say good for Morroco, it’s good to know that some muslims are speaking out against violence. If only the muslims throughout the middleast and Europe can follow Morroco’s lead, that would be a step in the right direction. Don’t you think?!

And, finding one paper in one country proved my point, by the way. The fact is squared, there’s just not enough influence from the moderates to get a hold of the crazy “sandpigs” - I mean, “Hitler in headscarves”. Sorry, I forgot how sensitive you were with names. :o)


Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 2:15 PM
Comment #122751

rah,

I’m really curious how you’ve made your decision on the ACLU motivation here. You’ve decided that they’re scared, but I would bet you’re not in any meetings. So how do you know? Or have you just decided that it’s ok to make things up about groups you don’t like?

The issues involved here have nothing to do with the issues that the ACLU works on. Just because you want to beat up on them doesn’t mean you have any logical basis upon which to do so.

Sure, they could say something, but what would they say? They could also put out a press release on the officiating at the Super Bowl, the latest episode of American Idol, and the latest version of the iPod nano.

They don’t issue press releases on those issues because none of those issues involve protecting Americans from governmental violations of the First Amendment. Just like this.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #122753

Jack,

If you wish to single out a few indiviuals for cowardice actions why don’t you look at yourself. Gloating and boasting over how were winning a war that we’re actually losing and not even being over there fighting for the cause is a hypocrisy that can only be created by intentional ignorance. If you’re to old to join Uncle Sam why don’t you become a private contractor?

Posted by: Jeez at February 9, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #122755

JACK!

Holy crap! Are you angry because we don’t fit neatly into your made-up stereotype??? Who the F**K is defending the extremist Islamic protestors? Who on this thread is throwing red paint on little old ladies in fur in their time off? Where are you getting this stereotype of what liberals are? I have never heard Bush compared to Hitler on this site. Are there any libs who would like to call Bush Hitler so we could have this just once, for Jack’s sake he needs a day brightener to reinforce his Limbaugh-esque presumption.

And the lynching stuff; well given that as far as I know only a Dutch photographer was beaten mistakenly thinking he was a Dane—Um you are wrong, there were lynchings up until 1962 (the last documented one happened in Indiana—not to say there weren’t others). In the fifties there were numerous Klan actions that resulted in murders as well. One over a black teen who reportedly whistled at a female storeclerk.

—Keith B.

Who is doing this apologism? You are so expecting us to have these replies, you are blinded by the facts that we know full well that those radicals are bonkers—jeez pray for the ability to pay attention!

Yes you wouldn’t burn buildings and the like as a Christian. The problem is crazy-ass Islam and what it stands for yes we know.

—Dom, Muhammad married a nine year old.

—RAHDIGLY YOU MORON!

“American” Civil liberties Union—“AMERICAN”—AMERICAN Diggly, over there THOSE ARE DANES YOU BUFOON! Why would they react??????????? HELLO!

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #122754

Rah,

I think you’re missing something here. The ACLU acts and handles legal defense when citizens of the United States have their civil liberties infringed. That simply is not the case here.

Of course, the ACLU CAN speak out on this issue, anyone CAN speak out about it, but there is no reason for them to. The Wisconsin Dairy Council COULD speak up about it too, but, like the ACLU, have no reason to.

Damned Wisconsin Dairy Council cowards! All you WDC apologists need to sack up and take a stand against Islam!

Moreover, if you think publicity has somethign to do with the motives of the press, in what parallel universe do you live in where this issue isn’t getting publicity?

But I do enjoy when you say “period”. Almost as good as when you used to say the score between you and liberals. Funny.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 9, 2006 2:22 PM
Comment #122757

Jack,

You have to admit that I am right about the bikers and right about the hypocrisy. You obviously fear no police state in voicing an opinion.

Actually, I just asked a couple of animal rights activists about your “biker” theory. They claim that the main reason they don’t target bikers is because they’re not out to attack the “lunatic fringe” — they’re attacking animal products in the mainstream. That’s why they go after little old ladies, celebrities, and Old Navy. Attacking the Hell’s Angels won’t get them the press they want. Of course, I can’t speak to the truthfulness of the statement, but I thought it best to go to the source for an answer.

As for your theory about why people are willing to attack Western values… I can’t speak for everyone, but I focus my criticisms on the United States for one reason — because it’s the only country that’s doing anything in MY name. What the U.S. does, right or wrong, is more important to me than what ANY other country does, because I live in the U.S., so I am partially responsible for whatever the U.S. does. Even if dictators in Third-World-istan are sauteing babies in butter, they didn’t come to power through my vote, and they aren’t doing it using my tax dollars. I focus my attention on the problems that I have some control over.

The alternative, of course, is to complain about what other countries do wrong, while ignoring what my country does wrong. That may work for politicians in Washington, but it doesn’t work for me.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #122758

keithb,

Those articles are from Lebanon. Max said that no Democrats (you know, Americans) defended the behavior.

Please try again.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #122759

Lawnboy,

They could certainly speak out on all other religious issues, but not this one. They are the ones that challenge everything from Christmas displays in public to removing crosses from grave sites. They’ve posted these issues in the past on their website, yet they won’t give their point of view on this religious situation. Why? Have you been to their meetings to know why they don’t?! We both have nothing else to go on except assumption, facts and just overall, gut feeling.


I believe they are cowards b/c they defended the “Piss Christ” and “Virgin Mary dung” yet they won’t even come close to speaking out on the islamic prophet cartoons. They won’t touch it. Again, why???!!!

I also believe that (most) of the newspapers are a bunch of cowards for not printing this. Let’s here your answer why the NY “treasonous” Times won’t run this cartoon, yet they will re-print the Virgin Mary covered in dung piece yesterday? Answer it!!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #122762

Excellent article Eric.

As a graduate from the Naval Academy I’m usually proud of that accomplishment until Carter is brought up. (Of course my West Point friends like to bring him up all the time.) He trashed our military in 4 years what it took Clinton 8 years to accomplish. I’m sure that’s a private dig from Carter to Clinton every time they get together.

Although I’m certainly not a psychologist, I did certainly have the Academy experience. It’s my utmost belief that Jimmy had a very rough Plebe Year … and a Naval career in general. It was so much so that he suffered emotional and mental setbacks. Some get so depressed they kill themselves. But he barely held on and stuck with academics (classes offered a vacation from other pro-American activities one might experience in the U.S. military). Some charity neurons still survived the chemical imbalance in his brain. But his bad naval experience coupled with his current senility (reference the rabble rousing … at a funeral for God’s sake) is leading to his embarrassing last stretch. I expect a tea party with his closest buddies (Castro, Chavez) any day now.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 9, 2006 2:36 PM
Comment #122764

rahdigly,

Let’s here your answer why the NY “treasonous” Times won’t run this cartoon, yet they will re-print the Virgin Mary covered in dung piece yesterday? Answer it!!!!

Because they’re catering to a customer base which is mostly left-wing, politically-motivated hypocrites. You know, the same way Fox News caters to right-wing, politically-motivated hypocrites. It’s nothing new.

The right thing for them to do would be to run neither, and more consistently show respect for the beliefs of others. But, when politics are involved, respect goes right out the window.

Now please answer a question for me. After years of bad behavior by the “liberal press” (publishing things like the “Piss Christ” and “Virgin Mary dung”), some of them finally do something right and choose NOT to publish religiously offensive material. Isn’t this something we should ENCOURAGE? Isn’t the idea to reward GOOD behavior and punish BAD behavior? If showing these things was bad before, shouldn’t the “religious right” be rejoicing that the liberal media finally got something right?

Again, I’m fully willing to admit that the NY Times has a double-standard. Are you willing to admit the same of the right-wing press?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #122767

Rah,

You know what? Never mind. We’ve explained this to you enough. You’re right. The ACLU is a bunch of cowards. They should totally take up the banner of a Danish newspaper for conduct in Denmark. And they should be suing the Iranian government for its prominent displays involving symbols of Islam.

And, just to take it to the next level of nonsense, let’s not forget that they should be suing God for allowing bad things to happen to good people. And where were they that time I got a public urination ticket in the Czech Republic?

One reason: cowardice. Period.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 9, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #122768
They are the ones that challenge everything from Christmas displays in public to removing crosses from grave sites.

Yes, they speak out when individual religions are promoted directly or indirectly by the government. That’s their job. Those are cases that involve their charter. This case doesn’t.

yet they won’t give their point of view on this religious situation. Why? Have you been to their meetings to know why they don’t?! We both have nothing else to go on except assumption, facts and just overall, gut feeling.

No, I’m also using the ACLU’s self definition.

The mission of the ACLU is to preserve all of these protections and guarantees:
* Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
* Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
* Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
* Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

This issue has nothing to do with their mission. This isn’t my assumption or gut feeling. This is a fact based on evidence.

Again, why???!!!
If you’re talking about the ACLU, we’ve answered this question many times. It’s not our fault you refuse to accept it.
Let’s here your answer why the NY “treasonous” Times won’t run this cartoon, yet they will re-print the Virgin Mary covered in dung piece yesterday? Answer it!!!!

No. For two reasons:

  • I already told you what I think about the NYTimes reaction in this thread
  • I don’t appreciate you yelling at me, demanding that I answer your questions that I’ve already answered. When you can show others a bit of respect, I’ll answer your question. The more exclamation points you put on your demands, the less of a response you’ll get. Further, when your question includes a slander, you show that you don’t care what I or anyone else thinks; why the hell should I tell you anything?
Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 2:48 PM
Comment #122774

I wonder if the artist of these cartoons thought it would create such a stir. I bet he or she is dumbfounded.

Posted by: Joseph Ragsdale at February 9, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #122775

Rahdigly,

If the ACLU were to counter-sue who would be the claimant? No rights were infringed upon—CNN and others did not show the cartoon because like everything else they cater to advertizers. They don’t want to come off as too left or too right and this is a hotbutton, which summarily is why with punditry shows they usually have left and right represented (whether that accurately represents the two parties is up for dispute).

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 3:02 PM
Comment #122779

Folks-
Let’s put it out there:
1)A legitimate gripe can be the motivation for an illegimate, or even counterproductive reaction. The Rioters likely gave license to those who fear and hate Muslims to do it further.

2)But the same applies on the other side of things. We are responsible for our responses, and if we choose to disrespect other people’s beliefs, we shouldn’t expect cooperation and respect in return.

3)We all have our choices, and in this country, the freedom to make them as we see fit. Some conservatives choose to see not reprinting the cartoons as evidence that they allow the Muslim fanatics to censor them, but seeing as how we live in a free society, even if the choice is made out of fear, it is still the free choice of those involved. I myself think that this a choice that can be made out of respect and expedience: Either you don’t want to offend people, or you just don’t want the trouble.

Personally, If I wouldn’t publish them on my blog. I have nothing to prove, and no malice towards those who peacefully object to the representation of Mohammed’s features in a work of art. They probably have the better idea, as these rioters have made it forbidden fruit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #122781

Ahhh the angst!!

Interesting that an Iranian newspaper, Hamshari, plans to run an international competition seeking cartoons about the Holocaust. Their stated aim is to see how tolerant people will be about these cartoons.

So…..in essence, they are saying that two wrongs might just make a right? Or that since the Danish paper ran intolerant cartoons, they will do so as well, committing the same kind of offense that they are decrying?

If and when these pictures are run, there will undoubtedly be those against them, but there will be no riots, deaths, or threats. That will easily identify the difference between the Islamic radicals and the rest of us.

Interesting also that Danish flags are so easily available in Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East. A Danish flag would be difficult to get in the United States, but in the Middle East, I doubt there is a ‘Flags-R-Us’ anywhere within walking distance. Gives some credence to the notion that this is a precipitated action.

We all know the feeling. We get angry about something with someone, but its not enough just yet….so we wait…and wait, and voila!!! A minor thing happens and we UNLOAD on them. Its really just holding a grudge and then unveiling it at the first opportunity, whether the opportunity called for such action or not.

In this case, the Islamic radicals fueling this are 100% wrong. Is there anyone….anyone at all…who will disagree with that?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 9, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #122782

Digly,

This is why it’s difficult to have any respect for you; you constantly move the goalposts, and you do it evey time you’re confronted with evidence.

You said, “there are no moderate muslims that will speak up (or out) against the crazies.”

I provided evidence that this is not the case.

You replied, “finding one paper in one country proved my point.”

No, it COMPLETELY REBUTS your point. Salon is the second place I look at for news evey day, and JUST THIS MORNING, they had THIS SPECIFIC ARTICLE that completely refutes your argument. The average Moroccan, a nation that is virtually 100% Muslim, is specifically refuting violence and extremism. It is not my job to provide you an exhaustive list - if you had ANY intellectual honesty, you’d say, “Damn, ok, things might not be quite as bad as I thought.”

You did the same thing in the cartoons thread. You asked why I didn’t support Catholics against “Piss Christ.” I explained that I _did_ support them. You replied, “Well, why didn’t they protest?” See, you just moved the goalposts.

The fact seems clear that no evidence whatsoever will sway you on any issue, because you won’t even look at it. Stephen King, sage of our time, had it right: an asshole is someone who refuses to accept the world around them.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 9, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #122785

a simple note about Jimmy Carter:

Habitat for Humanity

Dayton Peace Accords -1995

Camp David Peace Accords - 1978

halt in N. Korea’s nuclear program - 1995

Why bust the guys balls ‘cause you don’t agree with him?

Posted by: tony at February 9, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #122786

views,

But I do find it amazing that the people who scream the most about the NEA funding are big rednecks like yourself who wouldn’t know culture if it bit you in the ass.

And no…PissChrist is not culture…although it is a well taken photograph. I disagree with the content, but technically it’s well done.

alright…i’ve said my piece….you may now rant about something which will make me hate you more.

Sort of a geeky redneck I guess. Actually, you probably need to broaden your views a bit on who has culture and who doesn’t.

I thought the left didn’t hate?


Joseph Ragsdale,

After reading your writings here, I’ve come to the conclusion that you only want to create more animosity between liberals and conservatives. Why don’t you go ahead and say liberals are responsible for 9/11?

I’m not sure what your point is because the left has been blaming Bush for 9/11… so is that a bad position to take?

The problem isn’t with religion. It’s economical.

Uh, huh. Poverty is to blame? Please— do some research. Poverty doesn’t create hate. Poverty is not an indicator of terrorism. But ideas are. WOW! What a concept! Ideas cause hate? Say it aint so.

You are proving my premise. There is no Islamic threat in liberal minds because it’s not a problem of religion… it’s poverty. Poverty no doubt created by our wealth. Isn’t that right Joseph? They have so little because we are greedy and selfish? Therefore they are uneducated and naturally turn toward terrorism and burning embassies because we are rich?

Posted by: esimonson at February 9, 2006 3:23 PM
Comment #122788

JOEBAGODONUTS

Exactly my point about Islam wanting dominion, the Danes print offensive material so in retalliation they attack the Jews because they want that dominion in that region—this is all cock and bull to get what they desire. That’s proof that it’s not about the cartoons or the Danish illustration it’s being used to get what radical Islam in that region really wants, conquest and control.

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #122790

AAA troll,

Eric you have outdone yourself this time! Wow!

You’re welcome. Enjoy.

Okay first of all what freakin’ liberals?

Just look at the comments… Joseph for one. There is no problem. Jimmy Carter for another.

Okay in the Southern United states when there were lynchings of blacks that was not a dumbness factor that was a cultural and cultural belief/tradition factor.

See, we agree on something here. This is something I’ve said myself that Islamofascism is alot like the Klu Klux Klan in the south at it’s height. In fact there are anti-semitic similarities galore.

The hatred and willingness to kill for the cause are exactly the same.


Bob Kelley,

Right on. I play the guitar myself and it can be fun to see the reaction when politics comes up in this kind of crowd. If you contrast the kind of reaction (mostly venom and sputtering hatred) you get from liberals who learn you are a Bush supporter and what a liberal in a crowd of conservatives would experience (possible questions but polite ones) the difference is like night and day.

Posted by: esimonson at February 9, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #122792
If you contrast the kind of reaction (mostly venom and sputtering hatred) you get from liberals who learn you are a Bush supporter and what a liberal in a crowd of conservatives would experience (possible questions but polite ones) the difference is like night and day.

Funny. Very funny.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #122795

Good one, AAA the Troll……you know they(Muslims)are crazy, so why are we liberating them?Well uh, how else are you going to accomplish educating the uneducated unless you bring them democracy.You just claimed they hate us because they are poor and uneducated…so tell us…how would YOU educate them without democracy?(yeeesh)

Posted by: S.Jew at February 9, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #122796

The ACLU is run by Muslims.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 9, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #122797

My guess, Eric, is if you encountering venom and hatred, it’s likely because once you’ve told the liberals what they think, they’re a little irritated.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 9, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #122800

If you contrast the kind of reaction (mostly venom and sputtering hatred) you get from liberals who learn you are a Bush supporter and what a liberal in a crowd of conservatives would experience (possible questions but polite ones) the difference is like night and day.



I’ve actually seen such situations with those reactions as well as the reverse, I don’t think either side has a monopoly on sputtering idiots or on inquisitive thoughtfull people.

Posted by: SirisC at February 9, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #122802

Could anyone explain to me how these empoverished people living in third world countries have access to so many Danish flags???? I am pretty sure I would have a hard time finding one in the states, but they seem to be burning all over Afganistan. Some of the banners people carry looked like they were made at Kinkos… These are not random uprising, but extrememly well organized well planned and well executed protests designed to destablize the region and show the power of the clerics in the churches.

Posted by: gary at February 9, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #122805

Rob,

So, if an American artist wanted to depict Mohammed in a jar of urine, or whatever, and had legitimate reason to request NEA funding, then the NEA would be required to fund it despite any objection that some may have to the content.

Do you really not understand the difference here?, Eric? Do I need to teach an online Government 101 class to explain the difference between private corporations and government entities?

No, I disagree. It appears to be you who does not understand this issue. The left says not funding ‘works of art’ like the Piss Christ is censorship. The NEA is not required to fund any particular artist, or even all artists who meet basic criteria. NEA funding is not a right. Ask yourself, does every artist get funded? No, someone makes a value judgement about what is worthy art to be funded and what is not. Therefore NEA grants are not an issue of ‘rights’. Because an NEA grant is not an entitlement like Social Security which must be provided to every American who qualifies, it is a discriminatory privilege.

Who decided what an artist is? Who decides what is worthy art?

In the first place the government should not be in the business of funding art in this manner. As an artist I should not be discriminated against because the NEA decides what I do is not art. So when we are talking about the public funding of art we are talking about a frivolous excuse for state socialism in art.

Unless government is commissioning a statue, or a mural, it should stay out of the art funding business.

Posted by: esimonson at February 9, 2006 3:49 PM
Comment #122810

Eric,

Unless government is commissioning a statue, or a mural, it should stay out of the art funding business.

That is another argument entirely. You might be surprised that I’d agree with you on it, too…

… however, since the Government IS in the business of funding art, it has to abide by certain rules. One of those is “Separation of Church and State”… the Government shouldn’t be basing its decision on religious objections. If the government decided not to fund “Piss Christ” for other reasons, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But the Government choosing what to fund and what not to based upon religious objections would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Now, as for the artistic value of the “Piss Christ”, I consider it on par with the Mohammed bomb-turban cartoon — they’re both tasteless. But CNN’s decision not to show the cartoon was a free choice on their part. It was most definitely NOT censorship.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #122811

LawnBoy, Yossarian,

My guess, Eric, is if you encountering venom and hatred, it’s likely because once you’ve told the liberals what they think, they’re a little irritated.

I’m not even talking about details, just revealing the fact that you support Bush and the Iraq war can send some liberals into a hatefilled tirade. That’s just been my experience. Maybe all the conservatives I know are just good people. But I’ve seen it happen with an extremely liberal person in the midst of a half dozen conservative friends and the same is not true in reverse. (At least not where I am.)

Liberal’s learn you are a conservative and the next sentence out of their mouths are that, “Condi Rice is the devil.” Where does that come from?


Stephen,

2)But the same applies on the other side of things. We are responsible for our responses, and if we choose to disrespect other people’s beliefs, we shouldn’t expect cooperation and respect in return.

Part of my point about Bush NOT being divisive. Just look at what happens to Bush when he goes to Corretta King’s funeral. Is Bush’s attendence divisive? Yet, the left woudl say it was, despite the fact that it is the left who cannot let the opportunity to be mean and nasty go by even at someone funeral.

Posted by: esimonson at February 9, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #122812

It is interesting that these same countries that promise free press do not include any hate speech. Articles in Austrian newspapers that deny the halocost ever took place are currently in court with the writer facing 10 years in prison for the statement. Every group has their scared cow that you do not make fun of or dengrate. The UK is kicking clerics out of their country for encited hate speech. For americans it is a race issue. Comics and comedy that play to black stereo types can receive the same level of attention. The difference is that we typically do not encite rioting and street violence anymore. We have other channels to address our problems. A question that we have to ask is whether this is just an organized stage show for the media. If it was not covered would it still happen. If we take away the cameras does the show goes away. While I refuse to blame the media for the actions of others (except for creating the liberal mindset permiating our culture) it seems like the do it for the cameras.

Posted by: gary at February 9, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #122815

Eric,

I’m not even talking about details, just revealing the fact that you support Bush and the Iraq war can send some liberals into a hatefilled tirade. That’s just been my experience. Maybe all the conservatives I know are just good people. But I’ve seen it happen with an extremely liberal person in the midst of a half dozen conservative friends and the same is not true in reverse. (At least not where I am.)

Wow! I’m not sure where you’re located, but the political climate there is MUCH different than it is here. I’m not even a liberal, but as soon as I mention in public that I was opposed to the Iraq war, I have half-a-dozen people telling me I’m in bed with the terrorists! I’ve seen more abusiveness from Conservatives than I’ve EVER gotten from Liberals. (And, believe me, I’ve debated both quite frequently.)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #122819

Eric,

I’m not even talking about details, just revealing the fact that you support Bush and the Iraq war can send some liberals into a hatefilled tirade. That’s just been my experience. Maybe all the conservatives I know are just good people. But I’ve seen it happen with an extremely liberal person in the midst of a half dozen conservative friends and the same is not true in reverse. (At least not where I am.)

Wow! I’m not sure where you’re located, but the political climate there is MUCH different than it is here. I’m not even a liberal, but as soon as I mention in public that I was opposed to the Iraq war, I have half-a-dozen people telling me I’m in bed with the terrorists! I’ve seen more abusiveness from Conservatives than I’ve EVER gotten from Liberals. (And, believe me, I’ve debated both quite frequently.)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #122820

Eric trolls. He doesn’t write thought provoking articles like an adult, he writes spitballs to aim at Liberals like a mean-spirited child.
Since this particular spitball was soaked in urine, I intend to stay well away from it.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 9, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #122821

S. Jew,

I didn’t make the case that they burned down the embassy and other acts of extremism because they were “poor and/or uneducated” I said the culprit was the religion and the culture that seeks dominion and has to foment hate and hostility to get that. In other words hate is being used as a tool to unite Islam.

How would I educate them (as if i said this was the culprit) without invading them, hmmm. I think the only way to change the religion and social attitudes has to come from within. We don’t have to go in and educate anyone. The real way to do it is working diplomatically to bring them closer to the west and little by little cull back the extremism. But see theiy are using all of these things to create divisions with the west. The west would mean a lack of power to the theocracies as they would have to give up the extremism that put them in place to be able to negotiate. they do not want to moderate themselves to do so would be the end of their Islamic empire so they foster hate (whether by wahabism or other things) to bring Islam under their tent hating the west. The west is theocracy’s enemy as it gains them no extremist control of which they want to maintain.

How do we change it, right? Well first get out of Israel tis is a stumbling block open more trade hence better negotiations (once they show a weakness in their tyrranical reign—Katami would have been a great entrance point) we bring them into the concensus west and make them to some extent accountable to what their new trade partners and neighbors think of their stances. I don’t care if the mainstream of their countries remain dumb, whatever education is a forced means of doing this what has to happen is we need to make them responsible to garner more trade opportunities. this type of thing has worked before, look at China currently but it is not an overnight thing—it never is. So I hope that answers your question.

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 4:22 PM
Comment #122823

I just tried to buy a Danish flag at Flag/ print shop They do not hace any, And they never had any in stock in the 15 years in Business. So where did all those happy 15 year old Muslim kids get them.. HMMMM! Also Jimmy Carter Good fund raiser horrible Pres.

Posted by: Philipz at February 9, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #122830

Free speech is Free Speech.
Closed minds are closed minds.
Never the two shall meet.

Crappy post, examples closed mind thinking.
Close of response. (not worth effort to Haiku)

Let the spit fly.

Posted by: Dave at February 9, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #122834

philpz:
“I just tried to buy a Danish flag at Flag/ print shop They do not hace any, And they never had any in stock in the 15 years in Business. So where did all those happy 15 year old Muslim kids get them.. HMMMM!”

Hmmm! I just searched for Danish flags online and found them at flags-online.co.uk - cost: 7.95 Euros (about 10 dollars U.S.). I could buy them using credit card, paypal or by check. They had some in stock, and I could return them and get a full refund if I was not satisfied with my order.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 9, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #122835

Is anyone forgetting the Dutch filmaker Van Gohg (relative of vincent) who was killed b/c he made a move critical about the way muslim men treated muslim women. How about “Satanic Versus” by Salaman Rushdi… What about the rioting in France b/c the cops chased car thieves….

Maybe people will start to see the truth about the “Religion of Peace”…

(oh yes honor killings are protected by the us constitution too, you just have to read between the lines!)

Posted by: Joe at February 9, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #122837

Oh and by the way the poor and uneducated argument is becoming quite old… In Saudi Arabia every man gets to go to college and what do the get to study ISLAM.

So the country chooses to have a couple of million experts on Islam and not one to open a spigot to control oil… Actually that job is beneath them lets bring in a philipino christian to do that.

Posted by: Joe at February 9, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #122838

Sorry it took so long to respond to Max, Lawnboy, and AAA Troll. To Lawnboy, it is true that the links I gave were to Lebanese writers. It’s also true that the viewpoint that they’re expressing is common from the Left: the West has oppressed the Arab/Muslim world, so obviously we can’t expect them to behave better than savages. In response to your claim that NO democrat has excused the violence, would you consider Pres. Clinton prominent enough for you? Here’s the link: http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19013_Clinton-_Totally_Outrageous_Cartoons_Against_Islam&only Here’s a major problem with the Left, namely moral equivalency. “Sure, the Muslims are rioting, beheading, buring down building, etc., but on the other hand, someone printed AN OFFENSIVE CARTOON!”
In response to AAA Troll, I’m really glad that you can tell the difference between Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists. The first group will try to persuade you, gather together with like minds to change laws, and pray for their opponents. The second group prays OVER people who disagree with them, shouting “God is great!” while they behead them. If you can tell the difference between these two groups, I wish you’d let Pres. Carter know, since one of the main themes of his new book blurs the difference between the two. Again, that moral equivalency game. To the degree you don’t indulge in this, I applaud you.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #122840

I’m starting to think that the “critique the messege and not the messenger” is a bunch of crap. Eric’s whole article has no critique over an argument, but, rather, he writes an article that attacks people personally with no substance behind it. There is no message I can critique except the hate that is expressed by the messenger.

Posted by: Jeez at February 9, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #122842

Keithb,

In the quote you linked to, Clinton said that the cartoons were outrageous and appalling. He didn’t say that the reaction was justified. Your characterization of his comments as examples of Sure, the Muslims are rioting, beheading, buring down building, etc., but on the other hand, someone printed AN OFFENSIVE CARTOON! isn’t at all supported by the link.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #122845

Jeez,

There is no message I can critique except the hate that is expressed by the messenger.

Even if it’s a message of hate, it’s still a message….

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 9, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #122848

Aderienne……… Yeah your right. Do you think all those Muslims ordered their flags? Yeah i am sure they have credit cards in Iran and pay pal. Also i said a local store, You can get anything off the computer you want? My point is that i highely doubt those protesters ordered theirs..

Posted by: Philipz at February 9, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #122849

So obviously the point of this artice is:

Current event + Private coporation censorship + compare to government decision + blame liberals for everything =profit?

Posted by: chantico at February 9, 2006 5:11 PM
Comment #122851

Phillipz,

A lot of the flags look homemade to me.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #122852

Lawnboy, uh, yes it is. When someone focuses on the offensiveness of the cartoons, yet make no mention of the violence being perpetrated, in my book that’s making excuses. I don’t care HOW offensive a cartoon is to anyone, no matter what their viewpoint. That’s no excuse for the violence. I’m glad you agree with me. Is that what you hear from Clinton’s speech? I stand by my quote.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #122855

Keithb,

I think you’re reading a lot more into Clinton’s meaning than is justified by the small quote given.

He didn’t rail against use of steroids in athletics in the quote we’ve been given, but we can’t assume that he thinks it’s ok. Similarly, we can’t turn the lack of reporting of his saying something as proof that he believes the opposite.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #122856

Philipz, you think it would be hard for one politically motivated person to buy a bunch of flags online with a credit card and pay a bit extra to get them quickly? I think it would be so easy.

Lawnboy:
“A lot of the flags look homemade to me.”

Could be. Piece of red cloth, can of white paint, presto, instant Danish Flag.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 9, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #122857

The subject in his speech is not steroids, but the cartoons which have supposedly provoked Muslims worldwide into violence. He rails against the cartoons, (again, making them morally equivalent to anti-Semitic cartoons), yet never mentions the violence. When someone gets caught being a mass murderer, suddenly a bunch of Lefties come forward to spin sob stories about how he was abused as a child. Why do they do this? To make excuses for the murderer. Don’t think I’m reading anything into this. Nice try, though.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #122858

KeithB-
Never give total trust to a quote in ellipsis, especially when the flow of thought is so broken.

That said, the notion that we shouldn’t trade anti-semitism for anti-arabism makes perfect sense. It doesn’t help the cause of western society if what the average real world arab or muslim sees from our media is a bunch of racist and sectarian stereotypes.

I don’t advocate censorship to achieve this, but I’d tell every one of you that this “I tell it like it is because I’m politically incorrect” is bullshit. You can be wise or foolish while offending somebody. You don’t have to be right. If we want respect, if we’re demanding it, we should give it, even if that seems to leave us vulnerable. We can stand firm in the face of their hatred and ignorance, and not be swayed. As for that EU stuff? I agree, they’re taking the wrong route. They must respect our values, and earn respect for theirs under a free system. In America, nobody can demand respect of you, and that’s the way it should be.

As for the NEA thing, I don’t mind people being offended by a person’s art, I mind people using that offense as a weapon against government funding of the arts. Government have long been patrons of the arts, and though I personally wouldn’t find a jar of urine with a cross in it artistic, I would say that if that’s the way a person chooses to express themselves, that’s them. If urine filled cross jars were everything about this program, I’d be concerned, but there are other works of art that likely never get the publicity of that one, which balance it out.

Maybe the problem is, conservatives no longer value art as much if its not some kind of commodity. If they want art to carry their meaning, they should encourage more artistic talent among their own.

My response to artI don’t like: create other art that disagrees and makes up its own damn mind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #122860

Rob

Thanks for the decent response.

I seem to have really annoyed AAA, who must be new to blogging if he has not seen Bush compared to Hitler (or a chimp, or a fascist, or an … )

I am not sure that is really the motive for the animal rights folks. Old ladies in fur are probably less common than people in leather. Many people wear leather coats with impunity.

I also disagree about the publicity thing. I am convinced that if a group of PETA activists threw red paint on a bunch of Hells Angels, there would be plenty of press, although I believe the report would start, “among the injured were …”

BTW AAA

I was counting Muslims killed in the riots in Afghanistan. I read the reports of several deaths. Like many protests, they are more dangerous to the people nearby than the ostensible object of their ire.

And I didn’t bring up the lynching thing. I was just adding in some statistics because someone else brought it up.

I have noticed an interesting pattern when I write. I can write all kinds of outrageous things. Sometimes I am surprised that something I think is provocative gets no response, but if I make fun of protestors I get a really vitriolic reaction. Does the act of protest put you above criticism of ridicule? Maybe the protestors own fur coats.

Posted by: Jack at February 9, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #122864

Stephen, good point about the ellipsis. I’ll make a deal with you. You show me the quote to show that I’m wrong (in other words, Clinton railing against the violence more than against the cartoons), and I’ll admit it. The problem with this is that this behavior is very much in sync with the mindset of the Left, as I pointed out before. If Ann Coulter supposedly made a quote like this, I would be sceptical of it as well. Until you prove me wrong, I’ll stand by the quote, and I still claim that Max and Lawnboy were wrong.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 5:38 PM
Comment #122868
Nice try, though.

I respond to a quote by saying that we should actually look at the quote and not make up meanings to the quote that are not contained anywhere in the quote, and all I get is a “Nice try”?

Wow. Tough room.

Never give total trust to a quote in ellipsis, especially when the flow of thought is so broken.

So true.

yet never mentions the violence

Because of how the article is written, we don’t actually know that. Even if it’s true, though, my earlier point holds.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #122872

Lawnboy, I guess we’re talking past one another here. Apparently, you’re looking for a quote from a prominent Democrat saying the exact words, “The Muslims are completely justified in their violence.” I provided a quote where Clinton focuses on the supposed offensiveness of the cartoons without mentioning the violence, which I guess doesn’t meet your criterion. I think it does. When person A commits a horrible crime, and person B comes along and says, “He was abused as a child,” that’s making excuses for his behavior. Again, I’m waiting for someone to show how this quote was taken out of context.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 5:52 PM
Comment #122873

Yes, we are talking past each other. I’m looking (actually, it was Max. I’m really just being pedantic) for a link from A to B. You’re finding A in a quote possibly taken out of context and assuming B.

You might be right about what Clinton actually meant, but really you’re trying to prove your assertion (“Liberals will excuse violence”) by assuming that your assertion is true (“Clinton didn’t explicitly say it, but I’m reading between the lines”).

What you’re engaging in can be called begging the question or circular reasoning. It’s not logically valid, and I don’t think anyone can take your assumption of what Clinton meant as proof that Clinton meant what you assume he meant.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #122879

I don’t think it’s circular reasoning at all, and I don’t think I’m reading between any lines. Let me try to put it in other terms. An anti-abortionist bombs a clinic, killing hundreds. Person B comes along and says, “Of course, abortion is the modern holocaust” in the context of talking about the incident in question. Let’s assume, for a moment, that you read the entire speech, and NOWHERE in the entire speech does person B condemn the actual bombing. Wouldn’t you, in interpreting the speech, normally assume that the person is, to some degree at least, making excuses for the bomber? Wouldn’t that be the way most people would interpret it? You can dodge all you want by saying, “But maybe he doesn’t REALLY mean that.” Possibly, but I think most people would agree with me on the interpretation, especially if you’re dealing with a person who has had a history of making excuses for abortion clinic bombers.
By the way, thanks for admitting that I might be right on this. I’ll admit that you POSSIBLY (as in 5%) might be right on this as well, but I seriously doubt it.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #122882

I guess I’ll just have to stop trying. You insist that a statement means something other than what is said without having the full context. I can’t convince you that your assumption is not valid evidence to support itself.

I’ll withdraw to spar another day.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #122884

By the way, looking over your last response, I think you might have misunderstood my purpose. My thesis was not that “Liberals will excuse violence,” but that a prominent Democrat was making excuses for the violence perpetrated by Muslims. I think I provided a quote that proved it, but apparently it wasn’t good enough for ya. I think excusing bad behavior IS a quality shown more and more as one travels to the left of the spectrum, but never would I say that ALL Democrats or ALL liberal would excuse violence (Joe Lieberman, my fav Democrat comes to mind).

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #122885

Sorry, didn’t mean to respond after you withdrew. Unlike some (on both sides) I try not to talk about someone when they’re not there.

Posted by: Keithb at February 9, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #122886

No problem, keithb.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #122892

Eric Simonson,

You certainly have set off quite a fuss with your article.

I would like to toss in my opinion. Seems to me the Danish may have used poor judgement with their cartoons.

I know many Fundamentalist Christians who would be enormously upset if the same cartoon were published in American papers.

I was not pleased myself with the “piss Christ” funding, however, not so much because I believe in censorship, ( I DON’T) but the lack of good manners with which it was done.

The same is true of the cartoons. They are and were in poor taste, and frankly not very funny. They were not even very good political cartoons, as they did nothing to show anything new. All it truly did was add gas to the fire.

They did however manage to incite more anger from the Moslem community, and I can’t help but wonder why they would have wanted that. (I can’t believe that someone didn’t realize these cartoons would cause more anger and more tension)

To me the fuss on both sides (here) is rather useless, as it’s the Danish who actually screwed up, and I don’t see how what anyone here writes will change that.

It’s a nothing topic.

Posted by: Linda H at February 9, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #122896

Linda,

I don’t know if you heard about this, but the whole fracas started with someone investigating the question “Why is the western media willing to censor itself with regard to images offensive to Islam but not to images offensive to Christianity or Judaism?”.

The editor commissioned the 12 cartoons to see if he could find cartoonists that would be willing to critique Islam as much as we critique other religions. Many cartoonists refused (out of safety or propriety, I don’t know). Some replied with cartoons that criticize the paper. And some critiqued Islam.

I think the editor has admitted that he wouldn’t have published them if he had any idea the commotion it would all cause. However, his initial intent was to see how Westerners self-censor.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #122898

Eric,
You quote Jimmy Carter saying “The fact is that, unlike during other times of national threat or crisis, the United States of America is not at war.”

I’ve said something similar, many times. For all practical purposes, the War on Terror ended in 2003. Perhaps you heard President Bush today? He touted successes in the War on Terror, and named 10 examples, including a plot to fly planes into West Coast buildings, similar to 9/11:

“The plot was set in motion by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, a month after the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Bush said. It involved terrorists from al Qaeda’s Southeast Asia wing, Jemaah Islamiyah.

All examples of terrorist plots in the US occurred in 2003 or earlier. The two plots from 2004 involved the US helping Britain against their cells.

Years from now we’ll have a very hard time explaining to each other why we stayed terrorized after 9/11.

The fog of fear…

Posted by: phx8 at February 9, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #122899

Lawnboy,

““Why is the western media willing to censor itself with regard to images offensive to Islam but not to images offensive to Christianity or Judaism?”.

I’m thinking that those newspapers that refused to publish the “cartoons” realized what poor taste is and came to their senses.

“The editor commissioned the 12 cartoons to see if he could find cartoonists that would be willing to critique Islam as much as we critique other religions.”

Actually, I think that this all started with a woman that wanted to publish a childrens book on Islam and was bemoaning the fact that there were no images of Muhmmad, and because she felt that children related to picture books better.

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #122902

phx8,

“He touted successes in the War on Terror, and named 10 examples, including a plot to fly planes into West Coast buildings, similar to 9/11”

This from AP;

“L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa Says White House Communication ‘Nonexistent’ on Details of 2002 Terror Plot
2/09/06 10:52PM GMT
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD , Associated Press Writer

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by President Bush’s announcement of new details on a purported 2002 hijacking plot aimed at a downtown skyscraper, and described communication with the White House as “nonexistent.”

“I’m amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,” the mayor told The Associated Press. “I don’t expect a call from the president -but somebody.”

Go figure.

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #122912

—Keith B,

Those people who defend mass murderers are called defense attorneys (for the most part) and individual supporters we don’t know if they are left, apolitical or what they are. But ofcourse you mean Islam as a whole, now I have talked to Europeans on other sites who argue for them (liberalists, socialists in Europe and also those who deride them) but for the most part I would say there is a clarion across the board on Islam as fundamentally detrimental to social change needed. Very few leftists are avid supporters of Islamic law or any such nonsense most I would say find it outrageous and rediculous as does the right. the issue is in some ways poverty (though mosty social conditioning) because there are many unintended victims of this type of violence that are not in the extremist groupings. There are those that get caught up in it because of social acceptance of it in their countries and no one there sees it as back-asswards and primative (a throw-back to Medeival dogma). See they just go on like this (Islam) without any cognizance that it is something primative and counterproductiv in theis day and age and they don’t care what the west thinks. They move isolationist for the sake of maintaining their religious power clutch, sadly that’s it.

WE need to bring them into the west and start working upgrading them into the 21st century and out of the extremism. But as one poster had mentioned they send them to Islamic schools so you have half a million little cleric wannabe’s upholding a dumb and outmoded ancient theological catastrophy. I don’t know how else to put it.

I have immense sympathy for the unintended victims of such extremism but at the same time I know that change has to come and it won’t if they have more reason to remain isolated keeping their medieval piety and misplaced anger at maximum. There is alot of brainwashing that begins at an early age that leads to this too but there are also choices that people can make too.

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 9, 2006 7:28 PM
Comment #122925

Rocky,

The mayor screwed up. Turn the news back on. Changes like the weather.

Posted by: dawn at February 9, 2006 7:47 PM
Comment #122930

Lawnboy, the ACLU is supposed to be about “Liberty” and “Freedom”; if they truly are about that, which I don’t believe they’re even close to that, then they would speak out against it. Period. I’m not going there with these idiots (ACLU) anymore.

As for the NY “Treasonous” Times it’s just despicable and they debunk themselves everytime. The people in this country are not fooled by either of those two; so you can stick up for them all you want, at least we’ll know where you stand.


Squared, my point about the islamic moderates is that there’s not enough of them to supercede the fanatics. That’s what I said originally and then you responded to that. These (so called) islamic “Peace” leaders are a joke; they don’t breed peace, just hatred. So, don’t try to say that I “changed goal post” on you, when I originally said that these moderates are not making a dent with the “Hitlers in headscarves”. :o)


Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #122940

rahdigly,

“These (so called) islamic “Peace” leaders are a joke; they don’t breed peace, just hatred. So, don’t try to say that I “changed goal post” on you, when I originally said that these moderates are not making a dent with the “Hitlers in headscarves”.

So, what you’re saying is that all 1 billion Muslums should be condemned for the actions of what, the .001% of them that are running amok?

So realisticly what percent of the Christians do you think protested the NEA over the controvercial art?

Care to compare apples and oranges?

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #122943

Rock,

What I’m saying is that the 99.99% needs to get a grip on the fanatics that are hi-jacking their culture. Period. Read the genesis of the arguement Rock before you jump in. And, worry about the muslims before you go (trying) to change the subject; it’s not apples to oranges, I’m talking “sword of the prophet” to “sword of the prophet”.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 8:45 PM
Comment #122946

Rahdigly-
The thing about moderates is that they tend to be less willing to stick their heads into other people’s business. In places where sticking your head into other people’s business can result in the part turning up missing, moderates develop that habit even more so.

You know what I hear in all this stuff about Hitlers in Headscarves? Pessimism. You approach the real moderates out there with that kind of rhetoric dominating our society, and they’ll tell us to take a hike. Your kind of pessimism in all this is a guaranteed loss in the war on terror. You can’t ask people to help you after you just slapped them in the face. Be a friend if you want a friend.

As for the New York Times, your commentary has a considerable lack of detail, so I don’t why I should share your belief.

KeithB-
He did not say it was justified. He said that being hateful to the arabs and encouraging prejudicial material is no better than doing the same about the Jews. If you want me to believe otherwise, please point out where he says that Muslims should inflict violence on those who disrespect their religion.

This is what concerns me about the ellipsis: it hides a great deal of information. I count two or three, and the the point is too consistent. People tend to digress a little, and this seems like somebody pulled out bits and pieces that were consistent with the article they thought it necessary to write.

Looking at that, I can’t help but wander whether we’re missing just lines, or paragraphs. The distinction is important.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #122947

rahdigly,

“I’m talking “sword of the prophet” to “sword of the prophet”

And I am talking about .001% of a mostly peacefull religion.

Oh, I forgot you lump everybody that dissents as “Bush haters”.

What was I thinking?

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 9:03 PM
Comment #122950

Keithb,
Your vaunted speech by Clinton, (which I have seen repeated ad nauseum on right-wing blogs as an example of the tendancy of liberals to be weak and appease) took place on Jan 30th, before there was any widedespread violence (the violence started Feb 3rd). Therefore, there was nothing to condemn, and your attempt to make liberals look bad is nothing more than a sad attempt at twisting the truth.
Pathetic, really, but not unexpected coming from the right-wing slime machine.

Posted by: Brian Poole at February 9, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #122953

Stephen, that’s insane. You’re blaming the “Hitler in headscarf” comments on the reason why the moderates aren’t coming to the table?! That’s just flat out wrong! The muslims won’t condemn this radical behavior and it’s ridiculous. According to Rocky, 99.99% of them are “peaceful” and they still (STILL) can’t control the .01%. Let the peaceful muslims (if they really do exist) get control of the fanatics and then you can take back the religion.


The PC crowd fails to see that they don’t hate us for what we do, they hate us for who we are. Period.


And, I’ll bet you won’t touch the Treasonous Times b/c they are a joke and completely worthless; it’s a shame what happened to that (once) great and powerful paper. It’s just disgusting.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 9:13 PM
Comment #122956

Stephen,

“As for the New York Times, your commentary has a considerable lack of detail, so I don’t why I should share your belief.”

The point about rahdigly is that no one shares his belief.

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 9:16 PM
Comment #122959

Wait, you mean him saying “period” in each post hasn’t convinced you yet?

Posted by: Yossarian at February 9, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #122960

Digly,

“when I originally said that these moderates are not making a dent with the ‘Hitlers in headscarves’”

Um, please read your posts this thread. You’ve never said anything of the sort.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 9, 2006 9:26 PM
Comment #122961

I find the original post, written by Eric, to be the truth and very bold.

It perplexes me that liberals will continue to defend the rights of terrorists, while complaining we are loosing our constitutional rights, and at the same time talk about fundamentalist christians with such hatred. I have read hundreds of these very attacks on christians in the very pages of this blog.

There is not a single liberal writing on this web site who has the moral character to whole heartedly agree with Eric. Even when you do somewhat agree, it is easy to see that it goes against your liberal, elitist, confused minds.

Perplexed

Posted by: Perplexed at February 9, 2006 9:32 PM
Comment #122962

Perplexed,

“It perplexes me that liberals will continue to defend the rights of terrorists, while complaining we are loosing our constitutional rights, and at the same time talk about fundamentalist christians with such hatred.”

Not one of the posts on this thread defends the rights of terrorists.
Not one.

These are the standard right wing debate tactics;

1)Never admit you’re wrong,
2)If you’re ever proved wrong, change the subject,
3)If all else fails, refer to #1.

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 9:37 PM
Comment #122964
Lawnboy, the ACLU is supposed to be about “Liberty” and “Freedom”; if they truly are about that, which I don’t believe they’re even close to that, then they would speak out against it. Period. I’m not going there with these idiots (ACLU) anymore.

rah,

So, basically, you will continue to hate the ACLU because they choose to act according to their own standards instead of acting according to standards you would impose on them. That’s your right, of course, but don’t expect me to agree with your accusations of hypocracy for their being consistent with themselves (it’s not their fault that your impression of them is inconsistent with reality).

You’re wrong. Period. Exclamation point. Semicolon. Em dash.

I’m kidding, of course. Please stop with the “Period.” You may think sprinkling it in helps your argument, but it really shows that you don’t have the logical foundations to support your position, and you are trying to make up for it by being emphatic.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #122965

Brian Poole,

Excellent point. Thanks.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #122969

Sqaured,

check out the 1:33pm post and then the 2:15pm post; in both, I clearly explain how the moderates aren’t getting to the radicals. Heck, look at since 9/11; have the muslims even attempted to close the hatred gap? They want it there way or no way at all. You muslim apologists are going to find that out the hard way; but keep sticking up for them, it’s entertaining as heck.

Lawnboy,

The illogical fallacy resides with the ACLU. They’re the ones that portray themselves to be fighting for liberty and freedom and, when it comes in to question, they won’t come out against it.


The muslims are using Western democracy and then codemning free speech; and you apologists are (actually) trying to defend them. Nice. We’ll remember your names when you’re proven wrong (once again and again).

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 9:52 PM
Comment #122970
There is not a single liberal writing on this web site who has the moral character to whole heartedly agree with Eric.

Just out of curiosity, how would it exhibit moral character to claim agreement with something I find completely inaccurate, produced by someone who regularly disregards logic in order to be able to insult me?

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #122971

rahdigly,

“We’ll remember your names when you’re proven wrong (once again and again).”

Is that a threat?

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 9:56 PM
Comment #122972

Nope, I’m way ahead of you… Period! Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #122973
The illogical fallacy resides with the ACLU. They’re the ones that portray themselves to be fighting for liberty and freedom and, when it comes in to question, they won’t come out against it.

No, they portray themselves as defending against governmental overreaching that violates the First Amendment. In that regard, they are fighting for liberty and freedom, so your impression of them is correct. That doesn’t mean that they do or must fight for anything that anyone might consider liberty or freedom.

I’ll say it again; the issue of newspapers chosing for themselves not to publish something has nothing at all to do with the mission of the ACLU. They never say anything to imply that it does. You can look at their mission statement and their web page. In no way is their behavior inconsistent, illogical, or hypocritical.

That you want to attack them for invented faults is not something that they can control. Only you can prevent rehdigly from making illogcial demands and unreasonable attacks; I hope you’ll live up to that potential at some point.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 10:05 PM
Comment #122974

Sorry for misspelling “rahdigly” there at the end.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #122976

KeithB
Wow, I sounded grumpy, didn’t I? I’m sorry. I’ve reread your posts and found them to be very civil, and I’m sorry for not responding in the same vein. My anger was more directed against your source, who I read more carefully than I did your stuff. Anyway, I’m sorry about the tone.

Posted by: Brian Poole at February 9, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #122982

Lawnboy,
“No, they [ACLU] portray themselves as defending against governmental overreaching that violates the First Amendment.”

This muslim cartoon is about freedom of speech and freedom of press (you know the first amendment); if the ACLU is truly for freedoms, why don’t they take a stand against it?! They did for the Virgin Mary dung; that went against a religion. Why would they stick up for one religion and not another?!


The fact is, they are not for freedom and liberty as they are for their secular agenda. The muslim cartoons don’t fall into their agenda, that’s why my friend. But, you can try and continue to defend them; it’s not going to work though. The ACLU has made their bed a long time ago and now they must lie in it; many Americans have noticed this.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #122990

rahdigly,

“The fact is, they are not for freedom and liberty as they are for their secular agenda. The muslim cartoons don’t fall into their agenda, that’s why my friend.”

However if you had actually read their mission statement, you would understand (this might be an overstatement), that their mission is to defend the AMERICAN Bill of Rights, not a Muslum cartoon in Denmark.
Had the said cartoon been published by you here in AMERICA, and had the same Muslims filed suit against the you, the publisher, the ACLU would do it’s best to see that your 1st Amendment right to free speech wasn’t violated in an AMERICAN court.

Now that we have established that the cartoons, because they were puplished in Denmark, fall out of the jurisdiction of the AMERICAN Bill of Rights, what is your point.

I don’t know if I can make it any clearer for you.

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #122993

rah,

This muslim cartoon is about freedom of speech and freedom of press (you know the first amendment)

But not about governmental overreaching. Therefore, it’s outside the realm of the ACLU’s mission.

if the ACLU is truly for freedoms, why don’t they take a stand against it

Because it has nothing to do with their mission, protecting American from governmental overreaching.

They did for the Virgin Mary dung; that went against a religion.
Because the Virgin Mary incident involved the government making artistic decisions. That involved the ACLU mission. This case doesn’t.
Why would they stick up for one religion and not another?!

They stick up for Christianity all the time:
ACLU supports baptisms in parks.
ACLU fights to keep a church from being closed.
ACLU worked with JERRY FALWELL to make sure churches can incorporate.

The fact is, they are not for freedom and liberty as they are for their secular agenda.
That’s a common accusation by people who hate the ACLU, but the links above and many, many other cases, show it to be false.
The muslim cartoons don’t fall into their agenda, that’s why my friend.

You’re right, they don’t fall into the agenda of preventing the American government from overstepping American rights.

And don’t call me friend. I prefer friends capable of listening and learning.

But, you can try and continue to defend them; it’s not going to work though. The ACLU has made their bed a long time ago and now they must lie in it; many Americans have noticed this.

Perhaps you’ve been lying to yourself for a long time. That doesn’t changes the truth about them or their role in this issue one bit.

All the facts are against you. All you have is your hatred of an organization that wants to protect you.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 9, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #123003

Lawnboy, it’s not my hatred it’s theirs. They are the ones that hate and I’m not going to stand idly by and watch them; I’ll keep my distance and let those snakes bite someone else, then bite back when necessary. And, our fellow Americans are seeing this each and everyday. Your facts seem to miss how they reach out to the illegals and tell them to fein illness so they can get medical attention. Then the illegals usually escape from the ambulance or at the hospitals. They tried to take crosses off grave sites; yet, they want to save baptisms in parks. What the heck is that?!


IMO, the ACLU is a terrorist organization. You say they respond to governmental overreaching; well, I say they act as the de facto fourth branch of gov’t. They are not for liberties and freedom, they’re against them. It’s a shame you can’t see that. Oh well, some have to learn the hard way.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 11:22 PM
Comment #123005

Bottom line, if they truly were for liberty and freedom they would have a say in this. This cartoon is about freedom of speech and freedom of press; they stay mute in this. Nice. Actually, I wouldn’t mind a (permanent) reticent aclu. Later, I’m out…

Posted by: rahdigly at February 9, 2006 11:28 PM
Comment #123008

rahdigly,

“Bottom line, if they truly were for liberty and freedom they would have a say in this. This cartoon is about freedom of speech and freedom of press; they stay mute in this. Nice. Actually, I wouldn’t mind a (permanent) reticent aclu. Later, I’m out…”

On your world, are there any colors besides black and white?

Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 11:31 PM
Comment #123017

I haven’t heard and Liberals come out and say the Muslims are right for rioting. But I haven’t heard any condem the muslims for it either. Just like whem they were butning Paris down.
I’d almost be willing to bet that if Christians rioted over the unine Jesus or the dung Mary that the Liberals would be leading the charge to condem them for it.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #123022

It’s a toss-up as to whether Carter was more damaging to American interests while in office or now as a former president. I can’t think of anything kind to say about the peanut pundit.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 9, 2006 04:51 AM


If it’s the interest of the Republican “rat” wing’s version of America, I support any American who leads the total destruction of it by any means necessary….such a sincere act of patriotism that would be.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at February 10, 2006 12:29 AM
Comment #123025

expatUSA_Indonesia
You wouldn’t be a tad bit partisan would you?

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #123034

Ron,
This story is about as fake as it gets. A small number of people are doing their absolute best to stoke the fires of hate- Muslims in Europe and Asia, as well as their Christian counterparts in Europe and here. The story is nearly devoid of content or import; it is a naked emotional appeal to hate, a polarizing provocation, an invitation by extremists to abandon the middle, forego tolerance, insult ‘the other,’ and whip up the worst parts of our nature in order to go to war.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2006 1:51 AM
Comment #123043

Rob said that the cartoons were on par with the art of a cross in a jar of urine. Only if the cartoons depicted mohhammed being pissed on would they be on par.
Linda said she found none humorous, I thought the one where they they had ran out of virgins was kind of funny.

Posted by: andy at February 10, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #123048

Another thing, rahdigly you’re getting a lot of crap but keep it up. The ACLU does suck.

Posted by: andy at February 10, 2006 2:40 AM
Comment #123057

“The ACLU does suck.”

wow…we’ve reached the pinnacle of political discourse…..

way to raise the bar andy…..

Posted by: views at February 10, 2006 3:05 AM
Comment #123060

I just assumed that the people who would view this would be informed as to what cases the ACLU decides to take on. With this information some see the ACLU as an ally, I on the otherhand think that they suck eggs. sorry mr. view

Posted by: andy at February 10, 2006 3:41 AM
Comment #123062

mr. views

Posted by: andy at February 10, 2006 3:43 AM
Comment #123063

adrienne,

Eric trolls. He doesn’t write thought provoking articles like an adult, he writes spitballs to aim at Liberals like a mean-spirited child.

Since this particular spitball was soaked in urine, I intend to stay well away from it.

Just doing my part to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. I assume from your response that you are in the latter category.

Think of me as a voice crying out in the liberal wilderness, “Repent! Repent!” Calling you to wash away that old socialist philosophy and look at the world anew.

Question your assumptions, Adrienne, that’s all I’m saying.

Posted by: esimonson at February 10, 2006 3:49 AM
Comment #123090
Question your assumptions, Adrienne, that’s all I’m saying.

That’s a very noble goal, Eric… but are you willing to do the same?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 10, 2006 6:52 AM
Comment #123110

“Linda said she found none humorous, I thought the one where they they had ran out of virgins was kind of funny.”

I totally agree, that was clever.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 10, 2006 8:27 AM
Comment #123132

Republicans here seem to be of two minds. They expect Muslims to respect freedom of speech, but they fill the airwaves with hateful generalizations about the Arabs. Were you a moderate Arab, would you feel like working with rightwingers to curb all this, even if you resented what they were doing yourself?

The bind here is that these people don’t want to take on the appearance of betraying their own people. If we’re going on about what hateful, violent, and automatically radical people Arabs and Muslims are, just how will it look for an Arab to back us? It would be like advocating that we back HAMAS without them abandoning their hateful position on Israel. No self-respecting American would allow that.

We want to make it easier for them to agree with us. If we make accepting such digusting, prejudiced rhetoric part of that bargain, then we’ve got another thing coming if we think that’s going to encourage them to strongly denounce their fellow Muslims.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 10, 2006 9:53 AM
Comment #123136
IMO, the ACLU is a terrorist organization.
I believe this is the first time I’ve ever seen defending the U.S. Constitution characterized as terrorist activity. Wow.

Even if you don’t agree with the positions the ACLU takes (which you obviously don’t), calling them a terrorist organization shows a complete lack of understand of what terrorism is. Terrorism involves abandoning the legitimate processes in place and using violence to scare the public enough to achieve one’s goals. The ACLU, in contrast, works within the legitimate processes in place and in no way supports or condones violende. Thanks for being so clear in your confusion now; it’ll make my life easier later when you’re saying completely inaccurate things about terrorism; I’ll know you don’t know what you’re talking about.

It must be tough in your world. Everyone that disagrees with you is either treasonous (the NYTimes) or a terrorist (the ACLU). It must be difficult for you to live in a country where people are guaranteed the right to disagree with you; perhaps that’s why you hate the ACLU so much - they defend the rights of people to disagree with you. Remember, though, the ACLU also defends your right to disagree with me.

Perhaps it would be easier for you if you didn’t live in a country like America that defends ones rights to disagree with you. Perhaps you should start a country of your own where everyone agrees with you. I think it’ll be difficult, though, to find many people to join you. After all, there can’t be that many people willing to disregard all facts when coming to an opinion and instead rely 100% on your unsupported prejudices and preconceived notions.

Lawnboy, it’s not my hatred it’s theirs. They are the ones that hate

I’m curious if you have any idea how ridiculous you sound:

“When I call a group hypocrites for following their own principles, when I ignore factual arguments that disagree with my preconceived anger, when I label a peaceful legal advocacy group as terrorists, when I regularly show ignorance about the situtation at hand, I’m not being a hater. No, the group that I habitually lie about are the haters.”

Your facts seem to miss how they reach out to the illegals and tell them to fein illness so they can get medical attention. Then the illegals usually escape from the ambulance or at the hospitals.

This is, I think, what Arr-squared meant about you moving the goalposts. The issue of illegal immigration has absolutely nothing to do with your inaccurately calling the ACLU hypocrites over the cartoon riots. Do you think so little of us that you think we won’t notice the weakness of your argument if you throw a bit of distraction in?

Rocky’s comment from February 9, 2006 09:37 PM isn’t true for all of the right wing, but it definitely hits the nail on the head for you.

They tried to take crosses off grave sites; yet, they want to save baptisms in parks. What the heck is that?!

It’s just one fact in a long chain of evidence that shows that your preconceived notions don’t match reality. Perhaps you’ll learn from this and realize that both are cases of the ACLU protecting our first amendment rights instead of blindly and inaccurately accusing them of hating Christianity.

I doubt it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #123151

LawnBoy,

In the few months rahdigly has been posting here his modus operandi has been to harangue and hassle. His style of debate is to throw out the most outrageous claims, and then troll for someone to flame him.
He asks you to prove your point, and then takes the smallest thread of something that might help him, and totally ignores everything else.
Most of what I have seen him post has been wildly inacurate, and apparently he belives his opinions are fact. When he is asked to back up his claims he disappears and and then re-appears around 11:00pm est re-asserts his position, laughs and goes away.

I hope this helps

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #123153

Rocky,

I think you’re right about him. I shouldn’t bother, but there’s just a stubborn streak in me that hates ignorant obstinacy.

If he had as weak a grasp on the English language as some of the trolls around here, I’d just ignore him. Unfortunately, he can actually string together enough sentences to look like a reasonable argument, so I fall for the bait.

Oh well.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 10:34 AM
Comment #123164

How do you spell evil - ACLU.

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #123167

“How do you spell evil - ACLU.”

Wow, now that’s original!

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #123169
Wow, now that’s original!

Intellectually satisfying, too!

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #123174

As a practicing American, and independent thinker, I will say that mature arguments that generate thought are needed to achieve dialog between those who base their lifestyles on faith versus rational thought. I cherish our right to generate animosity as a way to open our minds to other points of view. Even though they mat not be our own.We as Americans are famous for constantly joining in a dialog which sadly generates polarization rather than a discourse which is what we migrated to this country in the first place. I thought that freedom of thought and expression is one of the things that separates us as a civilized nation, from those who would force their beliefs upon us as the “only way to achieve redemption”. I respect all religions, whether they conflict with my own or not. Even those who practice cannibalism have a cultural structure that provides guidance and wisdom even though the act itself, in my eyes is appalling. We cannot allow one group of zealots (Muslim, Christian, Buddhist Hindu, Ogalala AIM, Paganism, Atheism ACLU, 700 club, KKK Crips, Bloods Black Panthers, Palestinian Authority, Hamas or any of the other thousands of other spin offs) to dictate to the rest of us how to conduct our daily lives. We need to identify those who would harm anyone in the name of religion and attempt to reeducate them as to their own Icon’s intent. Which for a few exceptions is peace and prosperity. Even within each others groups there is no real peace, they unite like the Mongols to fight a common enemy, and then once satisfied that the goal has been attained, they start to fight and squabble among themselves. We see it every day, here in America between different religious as well as political groups and economic classes. I say post it all, you cannot satify everyone and we, as adults can use this opportunity to educate the future leaders of this country and the free world as to what is considered acceptable versus crude an lacking class or good judgement.

“It’s not what you say, but what people hear that counts”.

Posted by: Kip at February 10, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #123178

Kip,

““It’s not what you say, but what people hear that counts”

But if there is no understanding, there is no communication, and if there is no communication there is no education.

So, what’s the point?

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #123179

JD ARNOLD,

Is that what passes as humor at RNC conventions—my God you people are easy to amuse. Go find something shiny to stare at will ya’?

Posted by: AAA the troll at February 10, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #123182

“You people”?! Clarify yourself.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #123183

I’m not sure about the RNC comment, but I do agree, comunication is of the utmost importance. I try to educate myself whenever possible so I can dialogue in an intelligent resourcefull way. Ilisten to Randi Rhodes and Pat robertson with the same open mind, how many other people can sy that?

Posted by: Kip at February 10, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #123186

That would seem to be a pretty wide spectrum.

Personally I find that listening to either one of them is sort of like hitting yourself in the forehead, over and over, with a ballpeen hammer.
I mean no disrespect to either of them, it just feels so good when I stop.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #123188

Gleen a little info and change the dial, even Michael Savage can be tolerated in short bursts of pain, kind of like S&M for a couple of hours between friends :{)

Posted by: Kip at February 10, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #123191

Hello troll. I have an issue with the ACLU and it’s “ist” problem. If one is a terrorist or a communist or a socialist or an atheist - “hey, no problem, we’ll help ya”, If one is a Baptist, it’s ACLU becoming blind a deaf. Selective ACLU enforcement. Not a crime, but I believe that thet are called the AMERICAN civil liberties union. Imagine that. If I want to watch something “shiny”, I’ll just watch the ACLU shine everybody….

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 11:35 AM
Comment #123197

JD Arnold,

The premise of your complaint is false. Check out the links I provided at February 9, 2006 10:48 PM.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #123198

Kip,

Robertson and Rhodes are wackos; they’re both at the far end of their political ideologies. But it’s good that you can listen to both sides and still be neutral.

JD,

I agrgued that same point, about the ACLU, yesterday; however, lawboy and others tried everything in their powers (to no avail) to stick up for that organization. So, be prepared to hear the ACLU apologists on this site defend them to the utmost.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #123200

I remember when even Limbaugh used to be entertaining. Alas then he just became another hack, spewing vitriol. Perhaps that plays well in the trailer parks, but it doesn’t raise the level if dialogue at all.
The overall level of negative discourse has become too painfull to listen to any more. All this screeching back and forth, from both sides, gives me pause.
What really amazes me, is that these folks think that there are sides at all.

Yelling louder doesn’t make it easier to understand.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #123202

I agree with you Kip. I read the papers, watch MSNBC to see what old Hardball has to say (his slant is always interesting) and I try to watch the alphabet news medias. They usually are all carbon copies in their reporting. Lastly I turn to Fox News for a fair and ballanced report.My how the libs hate that fair and ballanced stuff. I’m not an intellectual - just an intelligent American. By the way. God bless America.

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #123203

You know, all things being equal, I think I’d much rather have the poke-in-the-eye.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #123204
however, lawboy and others tried everything in their powers (to no avail) to stick up for that organization.

Actually, we were completely successful in sticking up for the organization. Our effort that met with no success was to get you accept anything other than your pre-conceived notions, no matter how much logic and evidence we provided.

Really, the failure was yours.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 11:50 AM
Comment #123207

No you didn’t; but you can keep thinking you did, if that helps you any…

Posted by: radigly at February 10, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #123210

LawnBoy,

Have you ever heard the adage about teaching a pig to sing?

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #123211

“I’m not an intellectual - just an intelligent American.”

Gotta love that neocon political culture has turned “intellectual” into an epithet.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 10, 2006 11:59 AM
Comment #123212

Yossarian,

“Gotta love that neocon political culture has turned “intellectual” into an epithet.”

Hey, it worked for the word “liberal”.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #123213

Sigh…

I give up.

We merely provided a factual basis to successfully rebut your every unsupported claim. When we answered your claims with facts, you responded by reasserting your claim, not addressing the facts. When that failed, you resorted to insults.

I’m done debate with you on this because you don’t care to debate. If you want to think you won because you were playing your own childish game instead of debating, go on ahead.

Rocky’s right.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #123216

LawnBoy,

Thanks.

Gotta go, I can’t seem to find my hammer.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #123220

Lawnboy,


Look, you need to learn how to debate. Yeah, that’s right, you read that correctly. You think that b/c Rocky’s on your side, teaming up against me, that your arguement is legit. That’s not how debate works. And, if I read it correctly, it was you two that kept name calling and talking about me to each other. It doesn’t bother me at all, you actually prove my point about not knowing how to (properly) debate. Here are some example of what I’m talking about:

“On your world, are there any colors besides black and white? Posted by: Rocky at February 9, 2006 11:31 PM “

“LawnBoy,

In the few months rahdigly has been posting here his modus operandi has been to harangue and hassle. His style of debate is to throw out the most outrageous claims, and then troll for someone to flame him.
He asks you to prove your point, and then takes the smallest thread of something that might help him, and totally ignores everything else.
Most of what I have seen him post has been wildly inacurate, and apparently he belives his opinions are fact. When he is asked to back up his claims he disappears and and then re-appears around 11:00pm est re-asserts his position, laughs and goes away. I hope this helps. Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 10:29 AM”

“Rocky,

I think you’re right about him. I shouldn’t bother, but there’s just a stubborn streak in me that hates ignorant obstinacy.

If he had as weak a grasp on the English language as some of the trolls around here, I’d just ignore him. Unfortunately, he can actually string together enough sentences to look like a reasonable argument, so I fall for the bait. Oh well. Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 10:34 AM “

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #123224

Thanks rahdigly. Lawnboy you are mislead my friend. It’s okay - that is what makes America so great. I don’t need a link. All I have to do is watch ACLU go against Christians on a daily basis. It isn’t hard to miss. I said that “I” was no intellectual. Intellectuals are okay. I was just giving my opinion as an average American. Hey, Rocky - what is wrong with “trailer parks” by the way? They work, vote and pay taxes as well. YOU may live in a trailer park some day. By the way - if telling you the truth is a problem ya just have to deal with it.

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #123225

Yes, the ACLU sux. My preconceived notion was arrived at by observing the court cases they CHOSE to take and THOSE cases they DECLINED to accept over the last 52 yrs. As in which ‘Americans’ deserve to be represented and which deserve to be denied representation, in the view of the ACLU. The reaction over the cartoons in the middle east is merely a piece of the puzzle in the world wide organiztion of islamist terrorists. One whipped back to a frenzy by the media 5 mo. after the fact. Initial publication did not acheive the reaction we now see. So the cartoons were re-published and the mullahs pounced on the chance to psyche up their ‘troops’ and maintain power.

Posted by: pige at February 10, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #123226

JD Arnold,

I provided you with facts that run counter to your preconceived notions. I will rely on the facts of the matter over what you think you see on a daily basis.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #123228

rahdigly,

A debate usually requires a “logical argument”.

From wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument

“In logic, an argument is an attempt to demonstrate the truth of an assertion called a conclusion, based on the truth of a set of assertions called premises. The process of demonstration of deductive (see also deduction) and inductive reasoning shapes the argument, and presumes some kind of communication, which could be part of a written text, a speech or a conversation.”

So far the presumption of communication has all been on our part.

Have a day!

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #123229

Interesting. One may not believe ones own observations per Lawnboy. They don’t match his and of course he would determine what one might believe or disbelieve.

Posted by: pige at February 10, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #123230

thanks lawnboy. What I see on a daily basis is a lot of snow coming from the left. Whatever you think may be facts are alright with me. You are just mislead. That is okay too. Have a good day. An old axiom goes - believe half of what you hear and everything that you see. It works for me. The ACLU is dangerous for true freedom. They play with good people’s rights. They aren’t fair and ballanced…… smile

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #123231
One may not believe ones own observations per Lawnboy.

No, you misunderstand. He can believe whatever he wants, though I’d like to think that new facts might affect his preconceived notions.

However, I, for one, choose to rely on the objective facts of the matter over what someone else tells me he sees on a daily basis.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #123234

Rock, nowhere in that definition does it say to team up with someone else and ask “what color is the sky” and so on. And, it doesn’t say to bring up facts and then attack somebody b/c they have their own facts that prove otherwise.


You and lawnboy should look up ad hominen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Yet, keep it up though, that’s what I was referring to when I said “some people debunk themselves and let us know who they really are”.
:o)

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 12:32 PM
Comment #123235
They aren’t fair and ballanced

Considering that your standard of “fair and balanced” is the news reported by Fox, I don’t consider this a problem.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #123238

rahdigly,

I know what and ad hominem attack is, and it’s completely irrelevant to our discussion.

I’m not saying your assertions are wrong because they are being made by you (the essence of ad hominem). I’m saying your assertions are wrong because they are in conflict with established and demonstrable reality.

We don’t come to the conclusion that we did our best because we outnumbered you; it’s because we actually attempted to demonstrate the truth of an assertion based on the truth of a set of supportable premises.

That I later come to the conclusion that you refuse to engage in honest debate has nothing to do with it.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 12:37 PM
Comment #123243

I haven’t read all 170 posts but I have a few comments.

First, I don’t think the left is taking the stance that you are ascribing to them. You are portraying the left as you want other people to see them. If you can get them to see the left in the light you want them to see it, then by default they see the right in the light you want them to see it as well.

The position I see people on the left taking is that this is a case of free speech. Yes, it was insensitive to publish the cartoons, but it was also within the right of the publisher. It is wrong of Muslims to riot and kill over this. We have free speech and we are going to keep it whether what we say angers Muslims or not.—(Or anybody else for that matter)

I do see other governments around the world capitulating and this is exactly what they should not do. Malaysia just made such caricatures illegal. That is the wrong answer and just makes the problem worse. I saw on the news that some newspaper in Europe is going to publish the cartoons everyday. That is the right answer. Muslims have to understand that people are going to say what they want and that all their rioting is not going to stop them. Such pictures will probably always anger people of Muslim faith. But, if they are going to riot and threaten death over this then these pictures should be run until they cease to provoke them to violence.

It is also clear that these people are being maniuplated. The pictures have been around since September 2005. Why are they just getting made now? Could it be because someone tricked them into getting mad?

Posted by: Darrius Cole at February 10, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #123245

Lawnboy,

Ad hominem means attacking someone’s characteristics rather than their arguement. True you did present facts, then when I presented mine; you and Rocky started talking about me instead of continuing with facts; or just dropping the arguement altogether.


And, the fact is that at least three other people have similiar arguements against the ACLU and you just won’t listen. You think we have hatred when we just disagree with them with the actions they have presented and the arguements they defended over the years. Period.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #123246

JD,

At least get the quote right.

“BELIEVE ONLY HALF OF WHAT YOU SEE AND NOTHING YOU HEAR - “Question everything, especially rumors. The proverb has been traced back to ‘Proverbs of Alfred’ (c. 1300). First attested in the United States in 1770. In 1845, it was used by American poet Edgar Allen Poe (1809-49).”

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #123247

Gee Lawnboy, I appreciate the compliment. First Fox and before long other news media will someday be fair and ballanced. We are taking the country back buddy. By the way, I am a Viet Nam veteran. I was a sniper. My eyes are quite good. I know what I see. I see my country slowly recalling where it used to be. The country isn’t shifting back to the right. It is moving away from the left.

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #123249
Hello troll. I have an issue with the ACLU and it’s “ist” problem. If one is a terrorist or a communist or a socialist or an atheist - “hey, no problem, we’ll help ya”, If one is a Baptist, it’s ACLU becoming blind a deaf. Selective ACLU enforcement. Not a crime, but I believe that thet are called the AMERICAN civil liberties union. Imagine that. If I want to watch something “shiny”, I’ll just watch the ACLU shine everybody….

Wow. You are just wrong. You really aren’t acquainted with the work of the ACLU at all, who are constantly defending the rights of pro-life protestors, etc.

Anyhow - the premise of this thread is rather sad. Using the Arab reactions to the cartoons to unfairly attack democrats. Eric’s first reaction to any piece of news must be to put it into partisan syntax. Exactly what America doesn’t need right now.

Another big problem I have with this thread is it’s simultaneous support of the cartoons and attack on artistic expression in this country.

Eric, you really don’t understand what it means to support free speech do you? You are out of touch with the American values at stake in this situation you decry.

Posted by: Max at February 10, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #123254

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language

de·bate (d-bt) KEY

VERB:
de·bat·ed , de·bat·ing , de·bates
VERB:
intr.

To consider something; deliberate.
To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
VERB:
tr.

To deliberate on; consider.
To dispute or argue about.
To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
NOUN:

A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
Obsolete Conflict; strife.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 10, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #123255

This is proof you can take anything and use it as fuel for petty partisan warfare.
And there are no shortage of those that want to wallow in it.
I have to give it to incumbents and hacks from both parties. The seduction into the circular partisan warfare is amazingly effective, while successfully distracting voters from the real root of the problems.
As for these cartoons, it is dumb for people to publish them, and dumb for people to get upset about them, and dumb for parties to use them to fuel more partisan warfare.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 10, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #123256

I got the quote correct Rocky. It wasn’t the one that you mentioned. I got it from my Dad circa 1960’s. He had a 4th grade education and survived the depression to become a very successful family man. He was right in my book.
Feel free to correct me when necessary. I know that it will have a huge impact on my life. smile

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #123264

What about the TV series “The Book of Daniel”?

Written by a homosexual, was promoted as the only show on television in which Jesus appeared as a recurring character and the only network prime-time drama series with a regular male “gay” character, a 23-year-old Republican son. The main character, Daniel Webster, was a troubled, pill-popping Episcopal priest.

Touted as the riskiest show of the year, it included a wife who relied on midday martinis, a 16-year-old daughter who was a drug dealer and a 16-year-old adopted son who was having sex with the bishop’s daughter. At the office, the priest’s lesbian secretary was sleeping with his sister-in-law.

The Christian right protested. The American Family Association launched a national boycott, and some NBC local affiliates dropped the program. After 3 episodes the only sponsor left was Burlington Coat Factory. NBC was losing millions of dollars every time it aired an episode, so they abruptly cancelled the series.

So, the right wing gets all upset when the “liberal” free media decides not to publish something offensive to Muslims, calling it censorship, but when the “liberal” free media shows something offensive to Christians then the right wingnuts attack them and their sponsors until it is censored right off the air. It seems like a catch-22 when dealing with the right to me. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #123270

Jayjay,

The show just stunk, they didn’t get good ratings at all, that’s why it was pulled. The same with the female president show; all that hype and no ratings to keep it afloat. Don’t blame the right and left, they each have a right to protest and boycott.

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #123276

Jay jay,

That’s the show I was talking about a while back. Thanks for the specifics.

Posted by: Yossarian at February 10, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #123277

phx8
It’s usually that small number that gets all the press.
At any rate rioting over a cartoon is just as stupid as rioting because your team won the championship.

Posted by: Ron Brown at February 10, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #123285

JD,
“An old axiom goes - believe half of what you hear and everything that you see. It works for me.”

Axiom,

from;

http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/axiom

axiom

Main Entry: ax?i?om
Pronunciation: ‘ak-sE-&m
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin axioma, from Greek axiOma, literally, something worthy, from axioun to think worthy, from axios worth, worthy; akin to Greek agein to weigh, drive — more at AGENT
1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth”

No offence to your dad, but I wasn’t aware that his saying were established as maxims established on their intrinsic merits.
He may have been a wise man, but his home spun sayings don’t fall under the definition of “axiom”.

“I got the quote correct Rocky. It wasn?t the one that you mentioned. I got it from my Dad circa 1960?s. He had a 4th grade education and survived the depression to become a very successful family man. He was right in my book.

Typical gotcha posting.

You want to quote your dad, fine, but you might cite your source a bit clearer before calling something an “old axiom”.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #123288

I continue to see and hear reference to “the Christian right” or, “Fundamental Right Evangelical Christians”.

Would someone please give an explanation/example as best they can of “the Christian left and/or whatever they consider the opposite of a FREC might be.

Posted by: steve smith at February 10, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #123290

Rah,

Let me get this right: Because Rocky and I had a side discussion about your debating techniques in addition to addressing your assertions with logic and evidence, we are guilty of ad hominem attacks?

No, no, no. We argued to the debate, we didn’t dismiss your arguments automatically because of the source. That’s the meaning of ad hominem.

Look at my comment from at February 9, 2006 10:48 PM. I addressed your argument (not you personally) point by point dissecting it. It’s true I expressed exasperation at the end, but that doesn’t mean that the preceding debate points didn’t happen.

Aye carumba. I’m not sure which is more exasperating; your stubborn inaccuracy about the ACLU, or your stubborn inaccuracy in how a debate works.

And, the fact is that at least three other people have similiar arguements against the ACLU and you just won’t listen.

No, I listen, but I explained why I find the arguments you and your friends present incomplete to the point of being irrelevant. No one has yet addressed my counter-arguments or explained why the counter-examples are invalid. Instead, you and others tell me that I’m mislead and simply ignore the facts I present because they are inconvenient to your beliefs.

If someone actually gave a plausible explanation why a supposedly anti-Christian organization supports baptisms in parks, fights to keep a church from being closed, and worked with Jerry Falweel to make sure churches can incorporate, then I’d have something to respond to.

If someone actually said how their lack of position on the cartoon riots what inconsistent with their actual mission (instead of an invented an imposed mission), then I’d have something to respond to.

Instead, I’m just told that I’m wrong despite the facts that we present. I’m sorry, but holding your hands on your ears and repeating your beliefs is not convincing.

You think we have hatred when we just disagree with them with the actions they have presented and the arguements they defended over the years.

I have no problem with you disliking what they do. I don’t see hatred in that. Where I see hatred is in your insistence on calling them anti-Christian and hypocrites despite presented, objective evidence to the contrary.

Period.

Oh, I guess it’s settled, then.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #123294
The show just stunk, they didn’t get good ratings at all, that’s why it was pulled. The same with the female president show; all that hype and no ratings to keep it afloat. Don’t blame the right and left, they each have a right to protest and boycott.

rahdigly,

The “Book of Daniel” was only aired 3 times and was cancelled because sponsors pulled ads under the pressure of the Christian right. Yes, it did have low ratings, even shows with low rating have more than 1 sponsor by the 3rd episode. “Commander in Chief” on the other hand was cancelled because of low ratings and I agree that show just stunk. It started out really good and had a lot of potential, but wound up being the same episode every week.

I never said that anyone didn’t have the right to protest and boycott. That was my point. The “free” press has the right to show what it wants, and what they don’t want, they don’t have to. That doesn’t make it censorship as the right tries to portray it. If you don’t like something that the media portrays then don’t buy their product, don’t support their sponsors, but don’t call it censorship when they don’t print something to avoid controversy.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #123296
Would someone please give an explanation/example as best they can of “the Christian left and/or whatever they consider the opposite of a FREC might be.

steve,

Sure: God is Still Speaking

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 2:17 PM
Comment #123301

phx8:
“He touted successes in the War on Terror, and named 10 examples, including a plot to fly planes into West Coast buildings, similar to 9/11”

Rocky:
“This from AP;

“L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa Says White House Communication ‘Nonexistent’ on Details of 2002 Terror Plot”

Time article: The Finer Points of the L.A. Terror Plot
The President revealed new details of the foiled 2002 terror plot to show off how well he works with allies. With 13 Al Qaeda prisoners on the loose from Yemen, Bush needs all the help he can get.

Quote from the article:

But at the same time the Administration was chest-thumping about this victory in the war on terror, Townsend had to acknowledge that it is grappling with one of the worst examples of non-cooperation. Over the weekend, 13 convicted Al Qaeda members being held in a Yemeni jail escaped, including the reputed mastermind of the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Townsend acknowledged that the jailbreak is “of enormous concern to us, especially given the capabilities and the expertise of the people who were there.” All 13 had been housed together, she said, and “we are disappointed that their restrictions in prison weren’t more stringent.” When asked why the U.S. wasn’t keeping closer tabs on how the Al Qaeda prisoners were being incarcerated in Yemen, a U.S. law enforcement official said, “that assumes the Yemenis care what we think.”
Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 2:39 PM
Comment #123305

Sorry, link didn’t work. Here it is again:
The Finer Points of the L.A. Terror Plot

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #123307

Adrienne,
The announcement about the LA plot in 2002 is a pretty transparent attempt to distract people from headlines; yet another person steps forward with information on the lies surrounding the US invasion of Iraq; Senator Reid asks again about the Senata’s investigation of intelligence surrounding Iraq; Libby seems to be offering up Cheney; Brownie is pointing fingers; a series of horrifying economic numbers concerning debts and deficits keep coming…

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #123309

Thanks Rocky. I think that the difference between a homespun saying and an axiom is probably the length of time that something has been around.(My opinion). I wouldn’t know a “gotcha posting” as this is my 1st day of posting. I have been enjoying reading these posts for a while. You always seem to be prominently around. You were respectful to my Dad so you are okay in my book. I have been watching conservatives and liberals going at it and thought I’d play too. You gotta admit that this is one helluva great country to be able to express views. As for me, John Wayne “ruled” and here in Texas he still does. The greatest president in modern times was Ronald Reagan. Fox News is my news of choice. Patriotism is a beautiful thing. And I have a deep love for Jesus Christ. He loves me too I think. I’ve been watching the battles in social discourse here. I was a conservative Democrat at one time. I am a Republican since Reagan. Apparrently the Democrats hate conservativism nowadays. We don’t have a 2 party system anymore. Just Republicans and a fringe liberal element. Perhaps we will all be on the same page one day. Imagine a world of Republicans. Works for me. By now readers hate or love me. But what the heck. I will be around here from time to time to chime in. Peace friends.

Posted by: JD Arnold at February 10, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #123312
The “free” press has the right to show what it wants, and what they don’t want, they don’t have to. That doesn’t make it censorship as the right tries to portray it.

But what’s next? No book review of the next Last Temptation of Christ? No review of the next Da Vinci Code because it may be offensive to Catholics? The media certainly has to make judgement calls on what’s news; however, when they start including what may offend people into their criteria, it undermines their credability.

By all means, defend the NY Times right not to publish the cartoons, but don’t defend them as being reasonable journalist in the meantime. The decision not to publish newsworthy political stories because they are politically incorrect, they have undermined their mission of “All the news that’s fit to print”. They are then no better than Fox news who chooses stories because they are politically convienant.

Posted by: Rob at February 10, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #123318

JD,

Thanks for the compliment, I think.

My hero has always been the the worlds greatest philosopher, Groucho Marks, who in his great wisdom once observed, “I wouldn’t want to join an club that would have me as a member”.

Posted by: Rocky at February 10, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #123319

phx8,
I know, it’s been quite a steady stream lately, hasn’t it? Sometimes it almost feels like we’re on a sinking ship. With some of us trying our best to alert everyone and get out the lifeboats, while all the others declare that everything is fine, and start another game of shuffleboard…

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 3:22 PM
Comment #123321

Rob,

But what’s next? No book review of the next Last Temptation of Christ? No review of the next Da Vinci Code because it may be offensive to Catholics? The media certainly has to make judgement calls on what’s news; however, when they start including what may offend people into their criteria, it undermines their credability.

It’s not like the media is refusing to cover the story. They’re not really covering much EXCEPT this story right now. They’ve just chosen not to show the specific pictures in question. CNN has opted to cover the story in a less-offensive way. What’s wrong with that?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 10, 2006 3:26 PM
Comment #123323

(btw Rob… you might want to consider adding a last name, so others won’t think I’m talking to myself. Not that I don’t, but that’s not really the point.) :-)

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 10, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #123324

It was a compliment Rocky. I enjoy your posts.

Posted by: JDArnold at February 10, 2006 3:27 PM
Comment #123330

Ahhh come off it you whiny Liberals. Again it seems just overwhelmingly obvious that all you can do about something is wait for Republicans to make the first move and then criticize it as wrong every way that you can.

Y’all need to seriously adjust this tactic if you want to field any decent canidates in the next election. The transparancy of your party rhetoric is obvious to the American public. They know that you don’t have any solutions, that you don’t have your finger on the pulse of American views. Everyone (with the exception of the Liberal leadership) knows that the Democrats are incapable of doing anything but whining.

Y’all kepp caterwauling and let me know if something ever gets done by your side.

Posted by: Shining Truth at February 10, 2006 3:36 PM
Comment #123338

Rob,

Once upon a time news outlets wern’t run by partisans, they were run by companies that wanted to make money. The one that made money was the one that had credibility, and that credibility came from consistantly and reliably “breaking” the story. There also used to be such a thing as investigative reports. Now everything is centralized. Gone are the days when every news outlet had investigative reporters in the four corners, now everything comes from outsourced and centralized agencies, that have allowed for partisan bias.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 3:51 PM
Comment #123340

Shining Truth,

Those are some bizarre comments for a “whining about liberals” post like this.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 3:55 PM
Comment #123351

Shining,
You’re right. I’m critical of the following:

Record setting trade deficits
Record setting budget deficits
Record setting national debt
Worst job creation numbers since Herbert Hoover
First negative savings numbers since 1933
Five year performance of stock market: roughly even
Record setting profits for Exxon
Inaction on Global Warming

In the interests of time, let’s stop with the domestic issues mentioned.
Clinton, a Democrat, led an administration which created budget surpluses, a booming stock market, and record setting job creation; his VP, Gore, continues to address the critical need to address Global Warming.

Do you benefit from record deficits & debts, a flat stock market, pathetic job creation, outsourcing, or Global Warming? If so, keep voting Republican.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #123352

Yeah, that’s right Shining, we’re all just a bunch of needless whiners. It has nothing to do with the fact that the president is a liar and a sneak.

Bush:
“we took dangerous terrorists off the streets. By working together, we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland.”
U.S. Intelligence Officials Doubt Seriousness Of Terror Scheme Described By Bush

Bush on Abramoff:
“I don’t know him. I frankly don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy.”
E-Mail Notes Say Lobbyist Met President Many Times

Bush: “I support the free press, let’s just get ‘em out of the room.” Ooops! Nobody was supposed to hear that one!

Just keep playing your shuffleboard righties…

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #123354

You all are funny.
Who cares about what other countries put in their papers?
Who cares about Jimmy Carter? The man is farting dust and is pissed off because he sucked so bad at being President.
The aclu is partisan. Why else would the left love them and the right not trust them.
Most of the media is liberal, so why get all upset when on station, FOX, is not. You still have all the rest, especially on TV.
Muslims have no one but themselves to blame for ALL of their bad reputation.

To millions of Americans, at least half of us, our flag is just as sacred to us as mohammed is to them.
They gather by the hundreds of thousands in order to burn our flag. Why? Because they know it is a sign of disrespect and that it will upset us.
They do NOT respect us but yet they demand that we respect ALL that concerns them.

Sorry about the rant, I’m done.
Gotta go draw a picture of mohammed, wipe with it, burn it and then post it on the internet.
Whats good for them, is good for me.

Posted by: kctim at February 10, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #123370

Rob C.,

I have added an initial to make it more easy to differentiate between us.

The pictures while offensive also seem like important context to the story. Just as showing the virgin mary in dung picture is important context to explain why some might be offended. When writing to a story that has art as a central theme, it seems incomplete to me to leave the pictures out just because they are politically incorrect.

J.J.

Once upon a time, news organizations also clearly labeled opinion as opinions of the author or the paper. Those opinions were relegated to the opinion section. Now we have U.S.A. Today and other papers running stories on page 1 under the heading “commentary”. Some how the opinion of the story became more important than the story itself. Blame CNN, satellites, the Internet, or talk radio, if you like. I’m sure they are all partially to blame. Probably some of the same symptoms that have contributed to declining profitability in newspapers.

But in this case, I can only assume that the NYT had the pictures and chose not to publish them. As I said above, this smacks more of a decision made as a result of editorial control based on political correctness rather than a quest for the jounalistic truth.

Posted by: Rob P. at February 10, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #123387

Rob C.

‘CNN has opted to cover the story in a less-offensive way. What’s wrong with that?’


It’s wrong because they have no problem being ‘offensive’ about everything else.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 10, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #123388

bugcrazy,

It’s wrong because they have no problem being ‘offensive’ about everything else.

So, after years of offensive behavior, they finally get it right, and that upsets you?? You should be applauding them for finally learning some decency.

I don’t like the fact that they ran the Virgin Mary dung pictures or the Christ in urine pictures. But I’ll attack them for what they did WRONG, not for what they’re finally doing RIGHT.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at February 10, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #123390

From now on then we need to hear all stories about pictures without seeing the pictures.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 10, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #123391

I guess you don’t have to be too brilliant to respond. I’ll risk it. I write to you from the much-maligned south, from Mountain Home, Arkansas. I just came from the funeral at my church of an officer of the law who was gunned down in the line of duty. The positions on this issue are pretty much laid out. I agree that the liberal hypocrisy is pretty obvious. Now that we’ve called them on it, aren’t they more likely to change if we … point it out, make sure they get it, and then drop it?
Confrontation is good, but too much confrontation makes people dig in their heels. Let’s draw back and give the left time to rethink this stance, rather than pressing the attack. Are we sure that all this continual blogging and news barrage is not driving the left and right farther and farther apart? Is what we want the kind of chaos that you see in French history, revolution upon revolution upon revolution? That seems to be where we’re headed.
It seems like if we really want to change our country, we’d be better off taking the logs out of our own eyes, no matter whether they are tiny or large, no matter how obvious the other side’s hypocrisy seems or what we’d rather do. Then, once we’ve gotten on good praying ground, let’s release the mountain-moving power of the Almighty God, who does not need or call us to defend Him, only to share Him. Let’s strap on the armor that God calls us to: the girdle of truth, the breastplate of His righteousness, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith in His control not our own, and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God. As to all these words: “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.” (Prov. 10:19)
In response to Joseph Ragsdale’s response to your post: I’m not sure I feel qualified to voice an opinion on much, but … please don’t say “economical.” If that’s in the dictionary, it shouldn’t be. The suffix -ic means pertaining to. The suffix -al also means pertaining to. Economical can be defined as “Pertaining to those things which pertain to economics.” Please don’t say that. OK, it’s in my Webster’s dictionary. Still, it’s a really … . redundant word. Please don’t do that. We make English look really bad in the international community when we do allow such nonsensical words. (If you don’t think words are important, go back and read Orwell’s 1984 again.)

Posted by: Carla Vornheder at February 10, 2006 6:36 PM
Comment #123392

Lawnboy,

It was ad hominem for you guys to stop submitting facts and start gabbing amongst yourselves about how bad I am. I never stopped giving facts; I submitted the attacks against Christmas in the town square, crosses on gravesites, helping illegals beat our system, and so forth. Your facts didn’t override my facts, so my opinion was not overturned. So, you and Rocky decided that attacking me was the way to go; it was then when you went from debate to ad hominem.


Remember, debate is about facts and opinions from those facts; you’re not always going to change someone’s opinion no matter how good your facts are. I should know. :o)

Posted by: rahdigly at February 10, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #123399

Max,

I don’t have a problem with anyone making blasphemous art, actually. I don’t think government should be in the business of funding any art - with the exception of statues and monuments in town squares etc.

The issue to me is two fold: the left has spent a great deal of time being insensitive to christians in this country, but seems quite ready to kow-tow to violent muslims in the case of cartoons that aren’t even provacative besides the fact that they were drawn.

Secondly, kow-towing is essentially giving in to terrorists. Where does that get us?

Posted by: esimonson at February 10, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #123428

Eric,

Wow, you’re actually on the left of me on an issue! I never thought that would happen. I don’t think the government should be in the business of financing any art, no exceptions.

please don’t say “economical.”…

Carla,

Jeez, who cares? Is jeez in the dictionary?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 10, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #123435

Carla Vornheder:
“Let’s strap on the armor that God calls us to: the girdle of truth, the breastplate of His righteousness, the shoes of the gospel of peace, the shield of faith in His control not our own, and the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God.”

Wow. Strap-on armor: girdles, breastplates, gospel shoes, shields and swords! Your God seems to call for a lot of imaginary accoutrements — and rather violent ones at that.
My idea of an all powerful deity would never make anyone schlep so much metaphorical gear… :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at February 10, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #123441
It was ad hominem for you guys to stop submitting facts and start gabbing amongst yourselves about how bad I am.

No, you’re wrong once again. If we had said your arguments were a priori invalid because of who was presenting them, then it would be ad hominem. Instead, we had a side conversation complaining about your inability to debate. While it may have been rude on our parts, it has nothing to do with an ad hominem attack because we weren’t dismissing your arguments out of hand due to the source.

Complaining about the obnoxiousness of the source of an argument doesn’t imply ad hominem. Only dismissing the argument out of hand does.

I submitted the attacks against Christmas in the town square, crosses on gravesites, helping illegals beat our system, and so forth. Your facts didn’t override my facts, so my opinion was not overturned.

You’re right that our facts didn’t overrule your facts. Both are sets of facts. However, our facts showed that your interpretation of the facts was incorrect.

That ACLU protested Christmas in town squares and crosses placed by the government on gravesites of non-Christians can be explained equally well by two different agendas:

  • ACLU hates Christianity
  • ACLU protests government interference in individual religious practice

Both explanations are equally consistent with those two facts. Which is correct? We can’t say yet.

So, let’s add more facts:

  • ACLU supports baptisms in parks.
  • ACLU fights to keep a church from being closed.
  • ACLU worked with Jerry Falwell to make sure churches can incorporate.

What do these uncontested facts tell us about the two interpretations? They tell us that the first interpretation (yours) can no longer be supported by an honest investigation of the facts, while the second interpretation is still consistent with the facts.

The point about the illegal immigrants is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So, we provided facts that disproved your preconceived notions about the ACLU. Your facts didn’t convince us of anything simply because they did not in any way suggest that our interpretation was wrong.

So, you and Rocky decided that attacking me was the way to go; it was then when you went from debate to ad hominem.

Nope, it’s when we went from debate to rude asides. In contrast, you never actually debated us. Instead, you simply returned to your assertion more loudly each time it was rebutted.

Remember, debate is about facts and opinions from those facts; you’re not always going to change someone’s opinion no matter how good your facts are. I should know. :o)

Obviously.

Oh, is that not what you meant?

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 10, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #123464

I do not have all that much to add to this thread, but I thought this cartoon sums things up pretty well.

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 11, 2006 12:01 AM
Comment #123467

son of a gun- lets try again- http://volokh.com/files/davidb-20060204.gif

Posted by: Misha Tseytlin at February 11, 2006 12:04 AM
Comment #123566

Overnight, I thought of an addendum to my last comment.

After we presented our facts that proved to be inconsistent with your interpretation, there were three things you could have done that would have been examples of valid debating:

  • Concede to our facts and accept that our interpretation best fits reality. Acknowledge that you had been wrong. Wrestle with yourself over the question of whether changing your mind makes you treasonous or a terrorist or both
  • Concede to our facts but present a counterargument explaining why your interpretation is still valid and ours isn’t. I don’t know that this would have been possible.
  • Dispute our facts. Present some evidence to establish that we were arguing based on bad information, thereby reviving your interpretation. I don’t know that this would have been possible.

Unfortunately, you chose none of these options. Instead, you adopted the technique described so well by Rocky on February 9, at 2006 09:37 PM:

1)Never admit you’re wrong,
2)If you’re ever proved wrong, change the subject,
3)If all else fails, refer to #1.

This is not a valid debate technique. This is just a childish game of ignoring anything you don’t want to hear and sticking to your assertion despite the facts at hand.

As I said yesterday,

If someone actually gave a plausible explanation why a supposedly anti-Christian organization supports baptisms in parks, fights to keep a church from being closed, and worked with Jerry Falweel to make sure churches can incorporate, then I’d have something to respond to.
If someone actually said how their lack of position on the cartoon riots what inconsistent with their actual mission (instead of an invented an imposed mission), then I’d have something to respond to.

Sadly, you and your friends have decided it’s better to be stubborn than to be serious about the debate.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 11, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #123629

JD Arnold said:

All I have to do is watch ACLU go against Christians on a daily basis.

Lawnboy said:

That ACLU protested Christmas in town squares and crosses placed by the government on gravesites of non-Christians can be explained equally well by two different agendas:

ACLU hates Christianity
ACLU protests government interference in individual religious practice

The ACLU clearly does not hate Christianity, but does protect us against government interference in religion:

ACLU Defends Religious Freedom Of West Virginia Minister

ACLU seeks to uphold the right of an elementary school student to sing a religious song in a voluntary, after-school talent show.

ACLU-NJ Successfully Defends Right of Religious Expression by Jurors

ACLU of Nebraska Defends Church Facing Eviction by the City of Lincoln

Following Threat of ACLU of Virginia Lawsuit, Officials to Agree Not to Ban Baptisms in Public Parks

In Win for Rev. Falwell (and the ACLU), Judge Rules VA Must Allow Churches to Incorporate

After ACLU Intervention on Behalf of Christian Valedictorian, Michigan High School Agrees to Stop Censoring Religious Yearbook Entries

ACLU of MA Defends Students Punished for Distributing Candy Canes with Religious Messages

ACLU Defends Church’s Right to Run “Anti-Santa” Ads in Boston Subways

ACLU Supports Right of Iowa Students to Distribute Christian Literature at School

Bottom line, if they truly were for liberty and freedom they would have a say in this. This cartoon is about freedom of speech and freedom of press; they stay mute in this. Nice. Actually, I wouldn’t mind a (permanent) reticent aclu. Later, I’m out…

Rah,

I don’t understand your logic, who’s liberty and freedoms have been violated in this case? Not the newspaper’s. If the government had forbid them to run the cartoon, then there would be a case.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 11, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #123967

JayJay,

I don’t know if you’re reading the Eurabia thread, but Rahdigly says “I’m not going back to that thread; I’m done with that.”

I guess we’ll never find out why the Christian-haters keep defending Christianity.

So sad. I wanted to know.

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 12, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #124045
You blatently skipped my response where I listed Ramsey Clark defending Saddam and how they don’t go after the Muslim religion as they do the Christian religion.

Yes, because the first part was irrelevant (he’s not acting as a representative of the organization) and the second part is untrue, as shown by the facts we produced.

Those are not factually incorrect!

You’re right, as we have agreed. However, we explained repeatedly why your interpretation of them is incomplete when taken into consideration with other uncontested facts.

Facts do not live alone. Just because some facts in isolation support an interpretation does not mean that the overall weight of facts do.

If you think we’re wrong, explain why. Otherwise, you just look like you’re stubbornly holding onto a position no matter the factual basis. If you explain why either our facts are wrong or your interpretation explains all the facts better than ours does, then we have a debate. Without that, it’s just rahdigly being stubborn, afraid to admit he’s wrong.

Also, the immigration thing is irrelevant to the topic of whether the ACLU is anti-Christian or being hypocrites on this matter.

they just weren’t enough to change my mind.

Even though the uncontested facts were completely inconsistent with your interpretation? So is this an admission that you’d rather hold to your pre-conceived notion when it’s shown to be untrue than to change your mind to something that better fits the data?

My facts were enough to warrant the “immense” dislike I have for the aclu.

That’s fine. But don’t lie about them.

Also, please explain why they are insufficient to disprove the notion that the ACLU is anti-Christian. We have presented at least 10 specific examples of the ACLU working to defend the rights of Christians. If that’s not sufficient to shake your confidence in your pre-conceived notion that the ACLU hates Christianity, what would be? At this point, I suspect that you are so invested in your opinion that no amount of evidence and no collections of facts would shake it from you. If so, I wonder why you bother debating with people; if you refuse to consider that you may be wrong, why open yourself up to criticism of your positions?

then you got mad b/c you didn’t change my mind.

No, I get frustrated that you ignore facts that don’t fit conveniently in your pre-conceived notions. The facts we presented disprove or at least significantly damage your notion that the ACLU hates Christianity. In contrast, the facts you presented are consistent with our notion that the ACLU works to prevent governmental overreaching into religion (either too much or too little).

When there are two competing interpretations, and one interpretation fits all the facts and the other fits only some of the facts, the complete interpretation wins. This is a basic principle of logic.

So, I get frustrated that you refuse to work based on this basic principle of logic, particularly when you are quick to demand in many arguments that your opposition “Prove” that you are wrong. When you don’t use basic logic as your standard, what hope do we have of proving anything to you? How do we do it?

Just out of curiosity, when was the last time that you learned from someone else? What approach did they use? I ask because talking to you from the perspectives of logic, reason, facts, evidence, and knowledge doesn’t do any good. How does one go about trying to change the mind of rahdigly? Is it even possible?

that’s when the ad hominem attacks kicked in.

Oh Lord. I guess Yossarian wasted his time, too.

And, keep this in mind, the moment you got frustrated with me and stopped presenting facts and started with your insults; that, my friends, is ad hominem. Period.

I’ll keep in mind that you’re wrong, and that you choose to bring up a latin phrase you don’t understand instead of continuing the debate because you’re afraid to admit you’re wrong.

So, fine, if I plead guilty to ad hominem, will you look past it and try to continue the debate? I’m still waiting for an answer to the questions and challenges JayJay and I posed at February 10, 2006 10:39 PM, February 11, 2006 09:36 AM, and February 11, 2006 12:52 PM.

In short, how do you reconcile your claims that ACLU is anti-Christian with the many instances of pro-Christian work that the ACLU has done?

This isn’t simply a matter of you giving your opinion and facts and us giving our opinion and facts, and the opinions and facts being unrelated. If true, the facts we presented significantly challenge your interpretation. You haven’t contested our facts, so under what logical system can you hold firm to your opinion?

Posted by: LawnBoy at February 12, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #378236

Emporio Armani AR0100 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0101 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0106 Subdial Silver Bracelet Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0115 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Brick Link Bracelet Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0121 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0137 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0141 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0142 Men’s Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0148 Men’s Watch Men’s Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0257 Classic Black Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0154 Classic Rectangle Face Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0259 Men’s Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0264 Brown Leather Strap Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0266 Black/Brown Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0273 Classic Silver Dial Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0283 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0284 Mens Classic Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0285 Classic Leather Strap Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0286 Mens Classic Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0292 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0293 Black And Gold Leather Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0294 Chronograph Designer Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0297 Solid Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0298 Stainless Steel White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0299 Stainless Black Dial Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0308 Gold-tone Steel Black Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0310 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0311 Leather Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0315 Mens Stainless Steel Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0320 Mens Rose Gold Plated Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0321 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0168 Rose Gold Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0180 Men’s Classic Black Leather Band Watch
Emporio Armani AR0186 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0187 Classic Chronograph Men’s Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0203 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0206 Men’s Classic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0235 Tan Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0241 Stainless Mens Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0322 Classic Chronograph Rose Gold Men Wrist watch
Emporio Armani AR0333 Classic Chronograph Champagne Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0334 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0337 Men’s Classic Brown Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0362 Men’s Classic Black Dial Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0363 Men’s Black Crocodile Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0402 Classic Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0403 Men Classic Brown Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0405 Mens Black Dial Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0406 Men’s Black Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0407 Mens Analog Watch Brown Leather Band
Emporio Armani Men’s AR0409 Large Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0410 Men’s Stainless Steel and Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0412 Womens Brown Croc Leather Classic Watch
Emporio Armani AR0425 Classic Leather Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0426 Brown Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0427 Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0428 Men’s Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0429 Men’s Classics Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0431 Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Band Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0433 Classic Silver Dial Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0430 Classic Collection Men’s Quartz Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0455 Classic Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0456 Brown/Rose Gold Analog Watch
Emporio Armani AR0457 Classic Rectangular Watch Stainless Steel Case
Emporio Armani AR0458 Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0463 Men’s Classic Leather Quartz Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0464 Mens Classic All Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR0465 Mens Classic Black Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0466 Two Tone Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0470 Women’s Champagne Dial Gold Tone Ion Plated Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0472 Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0473 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0474 Chronograph Quartz Men’s Silver Watch
Emporio Armani AR0475 Classic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0477 Classic Amber Dial Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR0478 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0479 Men’s Classic Chronograph Leather Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0480 Men’s Classic Chronograph Stainless Steel Blue Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0482 Gents Classic Watch Stainless Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0483 Classic Chronograph Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0484 Men’s Dress Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0486 Men’s Classic Silver Dial Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0487 Men’s Digital Silver Dial and Black Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0489 Men’s Classic Taupe Textured Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0490 Classic Mens Brown Leather Dress 30MM Watch
Emporio Armani AR0492 Men Large Classic Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0493 Men’s Stainless Black dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR0498 Classic Quartz White Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0499 Mens Classic Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0506 Men’s Black Dial Black Canvas Watch
Emporio Armani AR0508 Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0525 White Leather Unisex Watch
Emporio Armani AR0526 Sport Analog Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0527 Black Mens Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0528 Sports Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0531 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Strap Quartz men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0532 Men’s Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0534 Stainless Steel Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0539 Classic Black Face Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0540 Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0546 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0547 Sports Style Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0552 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0548 Men’s Watch Men’s Rubber Strap
Emporio Armani AR0549 Black Rubber Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0555 Men’s Black Sport Watch
Emporio Armani AR0560 Black Dial Stainless Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0563 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0566 Mens Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0571 Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0572 Men’s Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0573 Classic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0574 Rose Gold Mens Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR0575 Watch Men’s Steel Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR0576 Gents Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0577 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0578 Leather Collection Quartz Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0580 stainless silver watch
Emporio Armani AR0581 Classic Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0582 Men’s White Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0583 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0584 Black GOLD Rubber Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0585 Men’s Classic Stainless steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0586 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0587 Quartz World Time Watch
Emporio Armani AR0588 Black Rubber Band Bold Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0589 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0590 Unisex Black Rubber Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0591 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0592 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0593 Black Rubber Strap Designer Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0594 Men?s Chronograph Mango Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0595 mens sports style rubber strap designer watch
Emporio Armani AR0597 Men’s Sport Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0599 Mens Sport Rubber Strap Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0619 Leather Gents Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0624 Stainless Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR0627 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0628 Sports Divers Mens Quartz Movement Watch
Emporio Armani AR0629 Unisex Rubber Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR0630 Mens Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0631 Men’s Sport Black Textured Dial Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0632 Classic Mens Designer Posh Watch
Emporio Armani AR0633 Sport Analogue Stainless Steel Bracelet Silver Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0634 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0635 Quartz Gunmetal Gray Dial Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR0643 Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0646 Classic Womens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0649 Sport Chronograph Blue Rubber Band Blue Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0653 Sport Analogue Black Rubber Strap Black Dial Series Watch
Emporio Armani AR0654 White Silicon Strap SPORT WATCH
Emporio Armani AR0655 Orange Rubber Strap Designer Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0656 Men’s Classic Silver Stainless Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR0658 Mens Chronograph Rubber Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR0660 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watc Watch
Emporio Armani AR0661 Men’s Black/Grey Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0662 Mens Sports White Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Chronograph Watch Silver Dial Mens Quartz
Emporio Armani AR0665 Men’s Chronograph Black Rubber Watch
Emporio Armani AR0666 Mens Sports Chronograph Divers Watch
Emporio Armani AR0667 Men’s Gunmetal Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0668 Women’s Leather Chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR0671 Mens Classic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR0677 Men’s Brown Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR0683 Rubber Sport Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0684 Quartz Date Watch
Emporio Armani AR0685 Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR0686 Grey Sport Strap Gunmetal Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0687 Sport Blue Man Watch
Emporio Armani AR0696 Classic White Leather 2-Hand Silver Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0926 Quartz Black Dial Stainless Steel Case Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR0932 Stainless Silver Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0933 Classic Leather Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR0934 Mens Amber Brown Watch
Emporio Armani AR0936 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR0937 wrist watch man black steel chronograph watch
Emporio Armani AR1400 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1403 Men’s Ceramica White Dial Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR1404 Ceramic Mens Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR1406 Mens Marco Black Watch
Emporio Armani AR1408 White Ceramic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1410 Men’s Ceramic Black Chronograph Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1411 Women’s Ceramica Chrono Watch
Emporio Armani AR1412 Women’s Ceramic Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR1413 Sport Watch Quartz Chronograph Black Analog Mens
Emporio Armani AR1416 Quartz White Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2006 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2007 Slim Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2008 Men’s Classic Roman Numerals Silver Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2010 Men’s Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2011 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2012 Silver Strap Black Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2014 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2016 Men’s Classic Mesh Goldtone Mother-Of-Pearl Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2020 Round Case Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2022 Super Slim Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2023 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2026 Men’s Classic Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2027 Men’s Classic Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2028 Gents Classic Watch Black Stainless Steel Mesh Bracelet
Emporio Armani AR2030 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2032 Men’s Rectangular Amber Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR2034 Men’s Quartz Watch Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2036 Gents Stainless Steel Watch with White Dial
Emporio Armani AR2041 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2043 Super Slim Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2053 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2055 Super Slim Silver Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2411 Men’s Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR2413 Watch Men’s Brown Leather Strap
Emporio Armani AR2415 Mens Classic Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2417 Classic Silver Dial Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR1700 Mens Black Valente Watch
Emporio Armani AR2421 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Quartz Watch Black Dial
Emporio Armani AR2423 Men’s Silver Stainless-Steel Analog Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2425 Gold Plated Stainless Steel Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2427 Classic Men’s Leather Dress Watch
Emporio Armani AR2429 Men’s Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2430 Men’s Stainless Steel Bracelet Watch
Emporio Armani AR2431 Men’s Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2432 Men’s Chronograph Stainless Steel Black Leather Watch
Emporio Armani AR2433 Classic Mens Chronograph Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR2434 Classic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2435 Men’s Chronograph Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2436 Unisex Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR2440 Men’s Black Dial Stainless Steel Watch
Emporio Armani AR2442 Classic Leather Strap Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2444 Classic Black Leather Date Strap Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR2447 Men’s Renato Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR2448 Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR2452 Stainless Steel Pink Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR3151 Diamond Mother Of Pearl Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4200 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4201 Meccanico Automatic Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4203 Mens MECCANICO Leather Strap Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4204 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4205 Mens Meccanico Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4206 Mens Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4207 Mens Meccanico Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4208 Meccanico Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4209 Meccanico Small Seconds Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR4210 Brown Leather Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4213 Classic Chronograph Black Dial Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4214 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4218 Mens MECCANICO Stainless Steel Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4219 Mens Rose Gold Classic Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4224 Meccanico Open Heart Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4226 Black Rubber Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4228 Meccanico Automatic Black Leather Black Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4229 Meccanico Automatic Brown Leather Yellow Dial Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4231 Mens Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4601 Jungle Combat Mens Leather Wrist Watch
Emporio Armani AR4602 Black Leather Mens Designer Meccanico Watch
Emporio Armani AR4603 Men’s Watch Automatic Chronograph Watch
Emporio Armani AR4604 Meccanico Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4606 MECCANICO Leather Strap Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4607 Men’s Black Leather Quartz Watch
Emporio Armani AR4608 Meccanico Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4609 Mens Meccanico Automatic Dk Blue /Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4610 Meccanico Mens Stainless Steel Automatic Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4611 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4612 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4613 Meccanico Gents Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR4619 Meccanico Men’s Automatic Rose Gold Watch
Emporio Armani AR4620 Men Meccanico Calendar Watch
Emporio Armani AR4625 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4627 Meccanico Mens Automatic Watch
Emporio Armani AR4628 Men’s Meccanico Black Leather Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4630 Meccanico Rubber Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4633 Gents Automatic Strap Watch
Emporio Armani AR4634 Meccanico Automatic Mens Designer Watch
Emporio Armani AR4635 Meccanico Automatic Black Men’s Watch
Emporio Armani AR4643 Men’s Meccanico Brown Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR4644 Men’s Meccanico Brown Leather Strap Silver Dial watch
Emporio Armani AR5300 Striking gents dress watch
Emporio Armani AR5316 Mens Chronograph Sports Watch
Emporio Armani AR5321 Black Leather Chronograph Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5324 Men’s Stainless Steel Dial Watch
Emporio Armani AR5327 Stainless Large Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5328 Black Leather Mens Watch
Emporio Armani AR5329 Leather Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5330 Classic GMT Dual Time Gents Watch
Emporio Armani AR5331 Stainless Gents Watch

Posted by: burberry watch steel at May 8, 2014 8:24 AM
Post a comment