Israeli extremists to burn Obama in effigy

[Bill Thompson]

I don't believe it because you have given me no reason to.

Don't take sentences out of context. That is rude. I do not need to give you "reason to believe" a famous well-known speech. If you did not catch the speech, I am not a librarian to provide it to. That is rude too and also belittling and uncalled for.

But anyway is is rude to respond to someone one sentence at a time just because you feel you need to attack what they say and you do not want to read or grasp their complete thought or statment.

It also makes you look desperate. It makes you look defeated. You do not give your side of the argument weight by parsing out someone elses words and try to make it look like they said something they did not.

And, by the way, taking 3 seconds to search on YouTube for "Obama Speech In Cairo" gave me the whole speech. Watch and learn:



Still, it is not my duty to educate you. You have to do that for yourself.

The world you live in, where famous historic events are not to be believed unless proven is not how things work in the real world. Are you going to tell me that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon and it is my burden to prove it to you? The burden of proof is on you to show me that commonly accepted history did NOT occur. Not the other way arround.

You could have googled Obama's speech on Cairo. You could have looked it up on youtube. Why didn't you?

Why do you assume that I work for you?

Also slicing up people's post in order to take their individual sentences out of context is a game people play when they do not like what the other person is saying and they just want to personally attack them, rather than the point they are making. It is because the point is a truth too bitter for them to believe.

Your theology blinds you.

 

[bigjelmapro]

i consider hanging someone in effigy, or burning someone in effigy, to be a call for murder.

whether its from Tea-Baggers, Islamists, or jewish extremists.

Yet somehow in the beginning of this thread have presented the situation as somehow being restricted and unique to Israel and Islamist countries when you stated:

Just like the Islamo-fascists do in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, etc.

Perhaps Israelis will be showing their true nature, this coming holiday.

Glad to see that you're now pedalling something different.

What's a tea-bagger? I think the running international definition of a 'tea-bagger' is something completely different that what you're probably referring to. Perhaps you can refer to them as Leftist extremists? American/atheist/christian extremists? Since obviously the other terms readily identify these other loonies. No need to whitewash the other term...

 

[bigjelmapro]

i guess if we in the USA burn Netanyahu in effigy, we would be labeled anti-Semites.

Aww, whinge, whinge. Actually, you wouldn't. But thanks for playing yet again this anti-semite card. Never gets boring....

 

[bigjelmapro]

#1. Israel is not the USA and is not governed by the US Constitution.

So freedom of speech doesn't exist anywhere in the world, especially Israel, since its not the US constitution. Interesting...
[/sarcasm]

#2. The USA is under no obligation to be friendly to countries that allow its people to make violent threats against our leaders.

Then there goes the EU, South America, Africa, SE Asia, err.....the whole world. There exist elements in every single country of which the US has relations with that are hostile to each and every US administration. This is never going to disappear.

Any more hypocrisy to shovel through Parky?

 

[332nd]

Don't take sentences out of context. That is rude. I do not need to give you "reason to believe" a famous well-known speech. If you did not catch the speech, I am not a librarian to provide it to. That is rude too and also belittling and uncalled for.

OMG! I'm So sorry! I had no idea I was asking you to back up your claims! How dare I ask for evidence an not take you at your word!?!?!

But anyway is is rude to respond to someone one sentence at a time just because you feel you need to attack what they say and you do not want to read or grasp their complete thought or statment.

Well then it's a good thing I don't respond to someone one sentence at a time because I feel the need to attack what they say.

It also makes you look desperate. It makes you look defeated. You do not give your side of the argument weight by parsing out someone elses words and try to make it look like they said something they did not.

Or I'm addressing things point by point.

And, by the way, taking 3 seconds to search on YouTube for "Obama Speech In Cairo" gave me the whole speech. Watch and learn:



Still, it is not my duty to educate you. You have to do that for yourself.

GREAT! Now what did he say in that speech that was incorrect? (and yes. you have to show what he got wrong, how it was wrong, and the evidence that shows it was wrong. Remember YOU brought up the point. YOU have to defend it.)

The world you live in, where famous historic events are not to be believed unless proven is not how things work in the real world. Are you going to tell me that Apollo 11 did not land on the moon and it is my burden to prove it to you? The burden of proof is on you to show me that commonly accepted history did NOT occur. Not the other way arround.

Ur doin it wrong. YOU claimed that

Obama made some big speech in Egypt (I think) shortly after taking office praising all the wonderful things Islam has done for mankind and history. Too bad everything he said was not true.

Where is your proof that everything he said is not true?

You could have googled Obama's speech on Cairo. You could have looked it up on youtube. Why didn't you?

Because you brought it up. I figured that if you were so confident as to claim everything he said about the wonderful things Islam has done you would present the speech and point out why everything he said was wrong. Yet you haven't.

Why do you assume that I work for you?

Awwww who's outraged?

Also slicing up people's post in order to take their individual sentences out of context is a game people play when they do not like what the other person is saying and they just want to personally attack them, rather than the point they are making. It is because the point is a truth too bitter for them to believe.

What have I taken out of context? Again, I addressed your posts point by point. (except the first one because the parts I quoted were the only ones i was interested in since the Draft was on.)

Your theology blinds you.

What theology?

 

[Skeptic]

If an allied state permits some extremists to exercise their freedom of speech in a way that offends us, the state should be severely punished! We should never meddle in internal affairs of any state that doesn't permit free speech, though, because it only gives them a reason to hate us more.

Yeah, that's essentially the obvious double standard used here.

And, to the point -- Kach is about as influential in Israel as, say, the KKK in the USA. Perhaps both have some minor influence, but its actual numbers and influence are very small.

 

[MikeMangum]

But we should definitely engage our enemies and work with them and avoid any actions which might seem mean-spirirted or unfriendly; we should come to the table and talk to them without preconditions.


Maybe the lesson we're sending out there is finally getting through to everyone.

And we have a winner!

Perverse incentives produce perverse results.

 

[The Fool]

Hands up all those who want to attack Iran?

come on....its not attacking that causes all this sort of trouble...

 

[McHrozni]

you consider the call for the assassination of our President, to be a simple act of freedom of speech??

Burning an effigy is not a call for assassination.

i bet your views would be slightly altered..if this was Bush or Reagen.

Not really. I never protested any of these, for example:









Did you? If you did, please give me links to where you did. In case you didn't, please post a through explanation why this case is different.

McHrozni

 

[Thunder]

It is not anti-american to burn Obama in effigy.

I wonder how many liberal amerians were ok with Palistinians dancing in the street after 9-11, by the way.

Anyway, it is not like Obama is a real president anyway.

 

[McHrozni]

Parky - now known as Thunder - when will you reply to my question?

McHrozni

 

[Thunder]

Parky - now known as Thunder - when will you reply to my question?

McHrozni

what is your ?

 

[carlitos]

the question, quoted for clarity

here you go

I never protested any of these, for example:



Did you? If you did, please give me links to where you did. In case you didn't, please post a through explanation why this case is different.

McHrozni

 

[Doctor Evil]

Parky - now known as Thunder

Really? I was wondering who generates all these posts which I can not read. (Due to ignore.)

That explains it. Can safely continue to ignore, problem solved.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Anyway, it is not like Obama is a real president anyway.

Wrong, Bill.

He's our president, for real, and I'll thank you to remember that. I don't know what you do, but he's trying to do the hardest job in the world (as I see it) well. Results so far a mixed bag.

I can only hope you do your job real well. Your political analysis won't make for a second career that'll keep you in beer, beef, and beans.

DR

 

[rwguinn]

Wrong, Bill.

He's our president, for real, and I'll thank you to remember that. I don't know what you do, but he's trying to do the hardest job in the world (as I see it) well. Results so far a mixed bag.

I can only hope you do your job real well. Your political analysis won't make for a second career that'll keep you in beer, beef, and beans.

DR

^^
That. I don't like his policies nor do I care for his agenda, but he is President of the United States.

 

[Thunder]

He's our president, for real, and I'll thank you to remember that. I don't know what you do, but he's trying to do the hardest job in the world (as I see it) well. Results so far a mixed bag.

if he is not our real President, does that mean its therefore ok to threaten him?

is this what Bill is getting at?

 

[Darth Rotor]

if he is not our real President, does that mean its therefore ok to threaten him?

is this what Bill is getting at?

Ask Bill, not me, Parky.

Are you afraid to engage him?

DR

 

[Thunder]

Bill- since Obama is not our "real" President, do you think it is therefore ok for folks in other countries, and especially in the USA..to threaten him?

 

[carlitos]

second attempt, since the first one missed

the question, quoted for clarity

i bet your views would be slightly altered..if this was Bush or Reagen (sic).

Parky - now known as Thunder - when will you reply to my question?

McHrozni

what is your ?

the question, quoted for clarity

I never protested any of these, for example:



Did you? If you did, please give me links to where you did. In case you didn't, please post a through explanation why this case is different.