Our wonderful leader

[railbird]

Slander’ and free speech are one and the same



The Mercury 1 October 2012
By Diana West



Who said the following: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Iran’s Ahmadinejad? Egypt’s Morsi? Some little-known, fatwa-flinging cleric increasing the bounty on Salman Rushdie’s head?

None of the above. The words are President Obama’s, and he spoke them this week to the U.N. General Assembly.

Real nice ...........

[bigmack]

What Mu or Mo or Muhammad needs is good representation for when he's slandered.

No need for protests & killings when you have people like G-L-O-R-I-A that will take on the case providing he has a SIZABLE retainer.

http://images.businessweek.com/cms/2012-07-18/feature_allred30__01__630x420.jpg

[ArlJim78]

according to the president the future doesn't belong to me. oh well.

I'm waiting for Obama to characterize the middle east as people "clinging to their guns and religion"

[johnhannibalsmith]

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

This is the one cases where I think some context helps. That excerpted sentence on its own allows for a lot of interpretations. To be honest, knowing that the guy takes enough crap for "being a muslim" - my assumption the first time I read the line like that, I figured he was being a little loosey-goosey with the use of "slander" and trying to condemn violence in the name of Muhammed (or Mohammed or whatever). When I read the whole relevant passage, it seemed like he was going in a different direction - that he was affirming that people need to be, or should be, more respectful of the religion and beliefs of others, but that the idea is a two-way street, Mohammed doesn't get any special treatment on this front, and some of you chowderheads are a bunch of hypocrits.

[ArlJim78]

the problem is he lumps in slander of the prophet, which I construe as free speech, with real violence against church's, coptics, women, etc. So we must give up free speech in order to not be killed by religious nuts?

[Show Me the Wire]

The president is supposedly a constitutional expert yet, he does not understand you cannot slander a dead person. Sheesh give up the freedom of speech, in order to, not to do something you cannot do.

[Tom]

That was the Hussein in him talking.

[mostpost]

The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.

This is the one cases where I think some context helps. That excerpted sentence on its own allows for a lot of interpretations. To be honest, knowing that the guy takes enough crap for "being a muslim" - my assumption the first time I read the line like that, I figured he was being a little loosey-goosey with the use of "slander" and trying to condemn violence in the name of Muhammed (or Mohammed or whatever). When I read the whole relevant passage, it seemed like he was going in a different direction - that he was affirming that people need to be, or should be, more respectful of the religion and beliefs of others, but that the idea is a two-way street, Mohammed doesn't get any special treatment on this front, and some of you chowderheads are a bunch of hypocrits.

Looking at the entirety of Obama's speech it is clear that-as you say-he is calling for mutual respect. My main problem here is that looking at the entire segment you get a very different picture than you do by only seeing the one statement given in the original post.
This is why I have no respect for Republicans. I am sure that Diana West was familiar with the entire speech, yet she took one sentence and took it out of context in order to build a case against Obama. This is something Republicans do all the time. They either flat out lie or the misrepresent. If there positions were so good they would not have to lie in order to gain the support of the voters.

[PaceAdvantage]

This is something Republicans do all the time. They either flat out lie or the misrepresent.As opposed to Democrats? :lol:

Romney doesn't care about half the country? Yet he implements a health care reform program in Massachusetts that benefits everyone in the state? Poor and non-poor alike? Old and young? Black, white and every color in between?

Doesn't much compute.

[bigmack]

This is why I have no respect for Republicans. I am sure that Diana West was familiar with the entire speech, yet she took one sentence and took it out of context in order to build a case against Obama.
Okie dokie, here's the deal...

You have CONSTANTLY POO-POO'ED the videos of Brietbart & Co., for not being complete. Dived into the most microscopic of minutia to defend words like "you didn't build that", quote and support your positions with material ripped from MSNBC who are FULL-TIME PRO'S at cherry picking quotes - (Let alone LYING in the Georgie Z case, & on & on).........

And you went NUTS over the 47% hidden video with 2 minutes missing??

Why so selectively obtuse?

[ElKabong]

They either flat out lie or the misrepresent. If there positions were so good they would not have to lie in order to gain the support of the voters.

Then you DVR'd the healthcare insurance negotiations on CSPAN, I take it....

[lsbets]

Beyond hearing on the news that the movie insulted Mohamed, how did it actually insult him? I'm sure it pointed out some unflattering truths - that Mohammed married a 9 year old, that he slaughtered people who wouldn't convert when he conquered their cities. It probably called him a pedophile for marrying the 9 year old. All of the things I mentioned are pretty insulting to Muslims, but are also factually correct. Does anyone know what else this film may have said that was so bad? Obviously things were presented in an unflattering light, but how was this film unique compared to other works that have discussed these issues?

That's a serious question on my part. What was slanderous about this film? Has anyone actually seen it?

[bigmack]

That's a serious question on my part. What was slanderous about this film? Has anyone actually seen it?
Don't even botha. Much of its entirety was posted by yours tooly in some thread. Puts 'Mo' as a ladies man & a homo or somethin'.

Point is, the vid has been UP since something like July/Aug.

The video may have been a spark for some but CERTAINLY not all the unrest.

Let me hear ya now --- OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD & GM IS ALIVE!

http://geeksontheinside.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/its-alive.jpg

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's not slanderous. It was obviously a very intentional use of a word that has become misused so often that it has become almost synonymous with "insulting". But he couldn't say "insulting", because then he has to dance the line with first amendment rights, a protection obviously that doesn't extend to real slander. So, rather than just use direct language and make his reasonable point, he has to pander to both sides of the equation with a carefully selected word that he knows only the opposition would call him out on - which he can then turn on its head into the "Republican War on Mohammed", or some such shit.

For what I perceive to be a very calculated sentence, probably the most refined in the entirety of the context, it is detestable in its use and only distracts from the point he was shooting for.