obama to condemn Christian film maker before UN

[hipeter924]

*yawn* Next he will be crawling on his hands and knees and begging for forgiveness. Doesn't he realize that the Middle East hates America and the West, and will do so for the next thousand years.

Doesn't he even think for a minute that Muslims might be pissed because they hate the sort of society America has (women's rights, drunkenness, legal homosexuality), and that any slight offense to Muslims will spark violence. He can keep apologizing, or he can commit foreign policy heresy and condemn Middle Eastern nations for systematic human rights abuses. But clearly apologizing to Muslims is more important, than standing up for victims of human rights abuses.

Its not like colonial misgivings, the crusades, and US support of Israel are going to fade from their minds just because Obama says 'I am sorry' or condemns a film because it leads to embassy burnings, death of US citizens abroad and Muslim outrage.

 

[Bfgrn]

Try following links, you are using the internet.

I have, the links I've found don't say anything about condemnation or apology (apart from the Breitbart blog).
So you can understand my confusion.

Funny, the link you found is actually in the available if you follow the link in the OP.

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor previews the president's speech to the UN General Assembly next week:
"UNGA always provides an opportunity for the President to put the international situation in context, and to put forward a vision of US leadership. I would certainly expect the President to address the recent unrest in the Muslim world, and the broader context of the democratic transitions in the Arab World."
"As he has in recent days, the President will make it clear that we reject the views in this video, while also underscoring that violence is never acceptable[.]

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Once again somehow someway it's America's fault. Always funny how it always turns out this way.

Like I said, you are using the internet.

Hey quantum wind, WHO authored this sentence you added emphasis to?

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

It is nowhere to be found in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. And it is no where to be found in the Politico article you imbedded in that sentence.

The headline of the Breitbart article says: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Where does the word 'condemn' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Where does the word 'Filmmaker' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

 

[Steelplate]

I have, the links I've found don't say anything about condemnation or apology (apart from the Breitbart blog).
So you can understand my confusion.

Funny, the link you found is actually in the available if you follow the link in the OP.

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Once again somehow someway it's America's fault. Always funny how it always turns out this way.

Like I said, you are using the internet.

Hey quantum wind, WHO authored this sentence you added emphasis to?

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

It is nowhere to be found in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. And it is no where to be found in the Politico article you imbedded in that sentence.

The headline of the Breitbart article says: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Where does the word 'condemn' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Where does the word 'Filmmaker' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Wait. a second.....You mean to tell me that this 30 page thread is based on bullshit rhetoric from Breitbart? wow....looks like we've all been "duped". This thread is now dead to me....Time to move on to more FACTUAL stuff. After Obama addresses the UN, then perhaps someone will start a real thread based on what was SAID, not innuendo.

Typical Conservative tripe.....outrage over nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have, the links I've found don't say anything about condemnation or apology (apart from the Breitbart blog).
So you can understand my confusion.

Funny, the link you found is actually in the available if you follow the link in the OP.

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Once again somehow someway it's America's fault. Always funny how it always turns out this way.

Like I said, you are using the internet.

Hey quantum wind, WHO authored this sentence you added emphasis to?

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

It is nowhere to be found in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. And it is no where to be found in the Politico article you imbedded in that sentence.

The headline of the Breitbart article says: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Where does the word 'condemn' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Where does the word 'Filmmaker' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Hey, idiot, the story quoted Tommy, and he said that Barry will make it clear we reject the views in the video.

 

[Plasmaball]

Funny, the link you found is actually in the available if you follow the link in the OP.





Like I said, you are using the internet.

Hey quantum wind, WHO authored this sentence you added emphasis to?

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

It is nowhere to be found in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. And it is no where to be found in the Politico article you imbedded in that sentence.

The headline of the Breitbart article says: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Where does the word 'condemn' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Where does the word 'Filmmaker' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Wait. a second.....You mean to tell me that this 30 page thread is based on bullshit rhetoric from Breitbart? wow....looks like we've all been "duped". This thread is now dead to me....Time to move on to more FACTUAL stuff. After Obama addresses the UN, then perhaps someone will start a real thread based on what was SAID, not innuendo.

Typical Conservative tripe.....outrage over nothing.

Well it is quantum....the male version of political chic..

 

[idb]

Funny, the link you found is actually in the available if you follow the link in the OP.





Like I said, you are using the internet.

Hey quantum wind, WHO authored this sentence you added emphasis to?

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

It is nowhere to be found in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. And it is no where to be found in the Politico article you imbedded in that sentence.

The headline of the Breitbart article says: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Where does the word 'condemn' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Where does the word 'Filmmaker' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Hey, idiot, the story quoted Tommy, and he said that Barry will make it clear we reject the views in the video.

I didn't see "condemn" or "denounce" anywhere in the press release.
They were only used in Breitbart's opinion piece.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hey quantum wind, WHO authored this sentence you added emphasis to?

Next week, Obama will denounce the film in a speech before the United Nations General Assembly:

It is nowhere to be found in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. And it is no where to be found in the Politico article you imbedded in that sentence.

The headline of the Breitbart article says: Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Where does the word 'condemn' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Where does the word 'Filmmaker' appear in the press release by National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor?

Hey, idiot, the story quoted Tommy, and he said that Barry will make it clear we reject the views in the video.

I didn't see "condemn" or "denounce" anywhere in the press release.
They were only used in Breitbart's opinion piece.

I didn't see it either, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to understand that the US government taking a stance that we do not support free speech is wrong. Or do you not care about the fact that the government is willing to renounce your rights in front of the world?

 

[idb]

Hey, idiot, the story quoted Tommy, and he said that Barry will make it clear we reject the views in the video.

I didn't see "condemn" or "denounce" anywhere in the press release.
They were only used in Breitbart's opinion piece.

I didn't see it either, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to understand that the US government taking a stance that we do not support free speech is wrong. Or do you not care about the fact that the government is willing to renounce your rights in front of the world?

That isn't how I read the press release.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.

 

[kaz]

Obama to Condemn Christian Filmmaker Before United Nations

Once again somehow someway it's America's fault. Always funny how it always turns out this way.

I condemn Obama and the UN...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't see "condemn" or "denounce" anywhere in the press release.
They were only used in Breitbart's opinion piece.

I didn't see it either, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to understand that the US government taking a stance that we do not support free speech is wrong. Or do you not care about the fact that the government is willing to renounce your rights in front of the world?

That isn't how I read the press release.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.

There was no press release,m there was an interview with an administration official. Since you are not talking about the same thing I am using as a reference your points have no reference to me.

 

[idb]

I didn't see it either, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to understand that the US government taking a stance that we do not support free speech is wrong. Or do you not care about the fact that the government is willing to renounce your rights in front of the world?

That isn't how I read the press release.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.

There was no press release,m there was an interview with an administration official. Since you are not talking about the same thing I am using as a reference your points have no reference to me.

That isn't how I read the interview with an administration official.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.


Your pedantry for accuracy of language seems to change depending on whether it assists your argument or not.
Consistency would make discussion a lot easier.

 

[Plasmaball]

Hey, idiot, the story quoted Tommy, and he said that Barry will make it clear we reject the views in the video.

I didn't see "condemn" or "denounce" anywhere in the press release.
They were only used in Breitbart's opinion piece.

I didn't see it either, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to understand that the US government taking a stance that we do not support free speech is wrong. Or do you not care about the fact that the government is willing to renounce your rights in front of the world?

you speculated and used your own words in order to sum up the events.
No different from what Rush, hannity, Matthews does.

it doesn't make you right in any sense of the term.

See there you go again about free speech. Nobody's free speech has been violated. No laws, no arrests.......But far from you to actually admit you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That isn't how I read the press release.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.

There was no press release,m there was an interview with an administration official. Since you are not talking about the same thing I am using as a reference your points have no reference to me.

That isn't how I read the interview with an administration official.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.


Your pedantry for accuracy of language seems to change depending on whether it assists your argument or not.
Consistency would make discussion a lot easier.

That brings us back to what I keep saying, and you keep pretending is irrelevant, the government should not take a position in a discussion about religion. That makes Obama wrong to go before the UN and announce that the US makes judgements on the content of speech. Especially when the same government does not condemn people who issue bounties for the murder of American citizens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't see "condemn" or "denounce" anywhere in the press release.
They were only used in Breitbart's opinion piece.

I didn't see it either, that doesn't mean I am not intelligent enough to understand that the US government taking a stance that we do not support free speech is wrong. Or do you not care about the fact that the government is willing to renounce your rights in front of the world?

you speculated and used your own words in order to sum up the events.
No different from what Rush, hannity, Matthews does.

it doesn't make you right in any sense of the term.

See there you go again about free speech. Nobody's free speech has been violated. No laws, no arrests.......But far from you to actually admit you are wrong.

I speculated? I have a link that shows that the US voted for a resolution that condemns blasphemy. I then stated that the US condemns blasphemy. Where, exactly, is the speculation and any summation of events to which you are referring?

 

[idb]

There was no press release,m there was an interview with an administration official. Since you are not talking about the same thing I am using as a reference your points have no reference to me.

That isn't how I read the interview with an administration official.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.


Your pedantry for accuracy of language seems to change depending on whether it assists your argument or not.
Consistency would make discussion a lot easier.

That brings us back to what I keep saying, and you keep pretending is irrelevant, the government should not take a position in a discussion about religion. That makes Obama wrong to go before the UN and announce that the US makes judgements on the content of speech. Especially when the same government does not condemn people who issue bounties for the murder of American citizens.

Which all goes to show that we have a fundamental difference in interpretation and opinion..

I don't see a problem with pointing out that the opinion of one or more citizens of the United States does not represent the position of the country - but (and, I admit, this is my interpretation derived from implication) it's the right of those citizens to express views contrary to national policy.
That's free speech.

Likewise, the US will not accept that attacks are justified on it's overseas interests if others disagree with those individuals.

I don't see that as apology, condemnation of US citizens or wiping his arse with the First Amendment or whatever.
After all, it's a fairly topical subject in parts of the world that are considered vital to American interests and worth mentioning.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That isn't how I read the interview with an administration official.
I see it as informing the world that the US doesn't agree with the sentiments in the film but the country won't accept that violence is the right response.
The implication is that the producers of the film have the right of free speech even though their opinions don't reflect the country's position.
I think it can be read as the encapsulation of the right to free speech in the US.


Your pedantry for accuracy of language seems to change depending on whether it assists your argument or not.
Consistency would make discussion a lot easier.

That brings us back to what I keep saying, and you keep pretending is irrelevant, the government should not take a position in a discussion about religion. That makes Obama wrong to go before the UN and announce that the US makes judgements on the content of speech. Especially when the same government does not condemn people who issue bounties for the murder of American citizens.

Which all goes to show that we have a fundamental difference in interpretation and opinion..

I don't see a problem with pointing out that the opinion of one or more citizens of the United States does not represent the position of the country - but (and, I admit, this is my interpretation derived from implication) it's the right of those citizens to express views contrary to national policy.
That's free speech.

Likewise, the US will not accept that attacks are justified on it's overseas interests if others disagree with those individuals.

I don't see that as apology, condemnation of US citizens or wiping his arse with the First Amendment or whatever.
After all, it's a fairly topical subject in parts of the world that are considered vital to American interests and worth mentioning.

Except that is not what they are saying, is it? Obama said that the "United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." He called Google and asked them to remove the video.

When did we start doing that? If that is out official position why did Hillary go to "The Book of Mormon" and take part in a standing ovation? Why didn't Obama call the theater and ask them not to do the play? Doesn't that seem a tad unusual to you?

Why would the government take sides in any religious dispute?

 

[Bfgrn]

That brings us back to what I keep saying, and you keep pretending is irrelevant, the government should not take a position in a discussion about religion. That makes Obama wrong to go before the UN and announce that the US makes judgements on the content of speech. Especially when the same government does not condemn people who issue bounties for the murder of American citizens.

Which all goes to show that we have a fundamental difference in interpretation and opinion..

I don't see a problem with pointing out that the opinion of one or more citizens of the United States does not represent the position of the country - but (and, I admit, this is my interpretation derived from implication) it's the right of those citizens to express views contrary to national policy.
That's free speech.

Likewise, the US will not accept that attacks are justified on it's overseas interests if others disagree with those individuals.

I don't see that as apology, condemnation of US citizens or wiping his arse with the First Amendment or whatever.
After all, it's a fairly topical subject in parts of the world that are considered vital to American interests and worth mentioning.

Except that is not what they are saying, is it? Obama said that the "United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." He called Google and asked them to remove the video.

When did we start doing that? If that is out official position why did Hillary go to "The Book of Mormon" and take part in a standing ovation? Why didn't Obama call the theater and ask them not to do the play? Doesn't that seem a tad unusual to you?

Why would the government take sides in any religious dispute?

Links, sources, proof?

 

[American_Jihad]

Nothing To Do With This Movie​

Posted by Lloyd Billingsley
Sep 24th, 2012

Those in shock and disbelief over U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s apology over a movie about Muhammad and Islam might ponder this scenario:

November 25, 1940. Roosevelt Administration Disowns “The Great Dictator” Movie.By Vernon T. Dinsdale

WASHINGTON DC – U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull yesterday issued a disclaimer to German foreign minister Joachim Von Ribbentrop for “The Great Dictator,” a Hollywood movie protestors in the United States and abroad say ridicules German Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Germany’s National Socialist government.

“Let me make it perfectly clear that the United States government had nothing whatsoever to do with this film,” Hull said in a statement. “The United States government regrets that some individuals have abused their right to free speech by showing disrespect for other nations, governments and leaders with which the United States is at peace and wishes to remain at peace.”

The German-American Bund and similar groups in other countries have been protesting the “The Great Dictator,” a film produced, written and directed by comedian Charlie Chaplin.

---
Nothing To Do With This Movie | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which all goes to show that we have a fundamental difference in interpretation and opinion..

I don't see a problem with pointing out that the opinion of one or more citizens of the United States does not represent the position of the country - but (and, I admit, this is my interpretation derived from implication) it's the right of those citizens to express views contrary to national policy.
That's free speech.

Likewise, the US will not accept that attacks are justified on it's overseas interests if others disagree with those individuals.

I don't see that as apology, condemnation of US citizens or wiping his arse with the First Amendment or whatever.
After all, it's a fairly topical subject in parts of the world that are considered vital to American interests and worth mentioning.

Except that is not what they are saying, is it? Obama said that the "United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." He called Google and asked them to remove the video.

When did we start doing that? If that is out official position why did Hillary go to "The Book of Mormon" and take part in a standing ovation? Why didn't Obama call the theater and ask them not to do the play? Doesn't that seem a tad unusual to you?

Why would the government take sides in any religious dispute?

Links, sources, proof?

Read the thread, or use Google.

 

[Bfgrn]

Except that is not what they are saying, is it? Obama said that the "United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others." He called Google and asked them to remove the video.

When did we start doing that? If that is out official position why did Hillary go to "The Book of Mormon" and take part in a standing ovation? Why didn't Obama call the theater and ask them not to do the play? Doesn't that seem a tad unusual to you?

Why would the government take sides in any religious dispute?

Links, sources, proof?

Read the thread, or use Google.

Translation: another bunch of LIES