Mona Eltahawy, CNN and MSNBC news pundit and former Rueters correspondent, apparently is a little confused about the difference between speech and action. SPEECH is free, Mona. It's the ol' "sticks and stones may break my bones" idea. It's actions that are illegal. Actions like defacing property. That action is called vandalism, and it's not speech - free or otherwise. Might want to look up that little distinction. It will save you a trip downtown in the patrol car. And no, you don't get to keep the fancy bracelet the nice police officer gave you.
What a nasty, mean little piece of work.
The rise in rage and intolerance should not surprise anyone. It is the left that has always protested any opposition to its worldview with rage and destruction.
Burning flags.
Vandalizing businesses.
Screaming threats.
Murder.
All from the left.
The face of tolerance.
Take a good look. You're going to see more of this. It is no coincidence that she feels justified in taking this action as our president apologizes before the UN for our freedom to speak in this country. It is no coincidence that her rage is so openly directed at Israel even as our current administration publicly distances itself from Israel and Netanyahu. It is no coincidence that she expresses such self-righteous arrogance as Ahmadinejad and Iran furiously proceed to develop a nuclear weapon.
The left is on the march. And it always marches toward war.
Barbarians. They may sometimes be well spoken and well dressed but they're still barbarians. They want the benefits of western civilization while working to destroy the foundations that created it.
Yes. To me, barbarism is expressed in the willingness to use force to demand compliance with your will. I don't care what the circumstances are or the time in history or what you think is right or wrong. If you are willing to torture, destroy and murder to get your way, you are a barbarian.
Seems like that description fits Muslims. As you point out, how you dress doesn't mean a damn thing.
Considering the amount of vandalism, violence and mayhem accepted in much of the Middle East, this is probably considered a milder form of disagreement.
They may accept it, but we don't. Using violence, which she exhibited, to demand attention is unacceptable in the United States. That's why the U.S. draws people: they can express their opinion, without the threat of injury. We demand it. If they don't agree, the door is always open and they are invited to leave. I hope they coerce a few of the progressives that pollute our Republic to leave, also.
Jess, yes, I'm sure she thought she was being very "moderate". Remember, a moderate Muslim is one who has just run out of bullets. Or has a spray can instead of a gun.
The idea that she is entitled to REMOVE someone else's free speech as an exercise of her own is so deeply rooted in leftist thought. Their free speech is intended to REMOVE yours. Not to simply disagree. Not to offer a different opinion. Not to persuade or to convince, but to ELIMINATE YOUR SPEECH.
Demographically, Israel is doomed. Too bad it didn't vacate the West Bank and Samaria when it could have perhaps stayed on good terms with its neighbors, by around 1990 or so.
Really? Which neighbors were those? Since the state of Israel was created in 1948, her "neighbors" have been trying to destoy her. If Israel had vacated the West Bank and Samaria, the Islamists in the area would have demanded more and more, and continued to fire rockets into Israel. Israel has made concession after concession to the Pali's, trading land for peace, and they found out it doesn't work with the paleosimians.
This is exactly true. When you are dealing with a situation where the two parties have VERY different ideas of a successful outcome (Israelis wants to live; Arabs want them all dead), but refuse to acknowledge that vital difference, then assessments of outcomes are impossible. To say that the Arabs would have settled down if Israel had just done this...or that...and all this unpleasantness would have been avoided is to completely ignore that the Arabs want them dead and have wanted them dead since 1948.
The only land that will satisfay the Arabs is ALL OF IT.
Did you see the Samuel L Jackson ad? Apparently O supporters are little children who need fairy stories to be convinced to support him this time. I don't suppose that was the message he intended to give.
I always thought the Supreme Court's decistion that burning a flag was protected speech was asinine. Burning a flag or a police car or an embassy, are all actions, not speeches. But, if the SC thinks that flag burning is speech, then beating the living crap out of a flag burner should also be protected speech. One standard applied equally.
Prediction: if Obama gets re-elected, hell, if Romney gets elected, we will see continued outrage from the Religion of Perpetual Peace and attempts at lawsuits to enforce blasphemy laws. They don't give a damn about "free speech", never have...never will. It fact, free speech is against their god, so it's impossible for them to support it and be good Muslims. (WAIT? IS there such a thing as a "good" Muslim...? hmmm....better say PRACTICING Muslim instead.)
I fucking know exactly what fuckin' shit you are spoutin' here dammit. (I would have added 'my white nigga bitch', but I don't think I know you well enough...)
Do you ever have problems keeping things appropriate?
I came across a link to 'Teabilly Dictionary' on a lib friend's facebook and followed it back to the Duchess of St Rollins blog. I commented a 'conservative list of definitions' and got published. Then others commented after mine trying to make fun of them and mock me, and all my replies have been moderated out.
Libs laugh derisively when you point out to them that they are themselves for speech suppression on a number of fronts(talk radio, for instance), but if you comment on many lib blogs they moderate them out. They don't see any correlation...
I saw a car the other day with two bumperstickers right NEXT to each other. One was the ubiquitous CELEBRATE DIVERSITY. And the other one said: WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFUL IF CLOSED MINDS CAME WITH CLOSED MOUTHS?"
I laughed all the way to my car. A MASSIVE contradiction within two inches of each other, proudly displayed for all to see. You just can't make this stuff up...and sadly, you can't cure it, either.
Barbarians. They may sometimes be well spoken and well dressed but they're still barbarians. They want the benefits of western civilization while working to destroy the foundations that created it.
ReplyDeleteYes. To me, barbarism is expressed in the willingness to use force to demand compliance with your will. I don't care what the circumstances are or the time in history or what you think is right or wrong. If you are willing to torture, destroy and murder to get your way, you are a barbarian.
DeleteSeems like that description fits Muslims. As you point out, how you dress doesn't mean a damn thing.
Considering the amount of vandalism, violence and mayhem accepted in much of the Middle East, this is probably considered a milder form of disagreement.
ReplyDeleteThey may accept it, but we don't. Using violence, which she exhibited, to demand attention is unacceptable in the United States. That's why the U.S. draws people: they can express their opinion, without the threat of injury. We demand it. If they don't agree, the door is always open and they are invited to leave. I hope they coerce a few of the progressives that pollute our Republic to leave, also.
Jess, yes, I'm sure she thought she was being very "moderate". Remember, a moderate Muslim is one who has just run out of bullets. Or has a spray can instead of a gun.
DeleteThe idea that she is entitled to REMOVE someone else's free speech as an exercise of her own is so deeply rooted in leftist thought. Their free speech is intended to REMOVE yours. Not to simply disagree. Not to offer a different opinion. Not to persuade or to convince, but to ELIMINATE YOUR SPEECH.
Always. That's why they always start screaming.
Demographically, Israel is doomed. Too bad it didn't vacate the West Bank and Samaria when it could have perhaps stayed on good terms with its neighbors, by around 1990 or so.
ReplyDeleteReally? Which neighbors were those? Since the state of Israel was created in 1948, her "neighbors" have been trying to destoy her. If Israel had vacated the West Bank and Samaria, the Islamists in the area would have demanded more and more, and continued to fire rockets into Israel. Israel has made concession after concession to the Pali's, trading land for peace, and they found out it doesn't work with the paleosimians.
DeleteThis is exactly true. When you are dealing with a situation where the two parties have VERY different ideas of a successful outcome (Israelis wants to live; Arabs want them all dead), but refuse to acknowledge that vital difference, then assessments of outcomes are impossible. To say that the Arabs would have settled down if Israel had just done this...or that...and all this unpleasantness would have been avoided is to completely ignore that the Arabs want them dead and have wanted them dead since 1948.
DeleteThe only land that will satisfay the Arabs is ALL OF IT.
Did you see the Samuel L Jackson ad? Apparently O supporters are little children who need fairy stories to be convinced to support him this time. I don't suppose that was the message he intended to give.
ReplyDeleteI always thought the Supreme Court's decistion that burning a flag was protected speech was asinine. Burning a flag or a police car or an embassy, are all actions, not speeches. But, if the SC thinks that flag burning is speech, then beating the living crap out of a flag burner should also be protected speech. One standard applied equally.
ReplyDeletePunch a hippie! LOL HAHAHA!
DeleteWonderful, NYC subways declared free speechless zone. Mustn't hurt anyone's dewicate widdle feewings.
ReplyDeleteThat didn't take long, did it?
DeletePrediction: if Obama gets re-elected, hell, if Romney gets elected, we will see continued outrage from the Religion of Perpetual Peace and attempts at lawsuits to enforce blasphemy laws. They don't give a damn about "free speech", never have...never will. It fact, free speech is against their god, so it's impossible for them to support it and be good Muslims. (WAIT? IS there such a thing as a "good" Muslim...? hmmm....better say PRACTICING Muslim instead.)
I've seen the articles and know about it's "content", but haven't seen the actual ad on video.
DeleteDon't think I care to. I don't mind swearing, engage in it myself, but vulgarity for its own sake is pointless and frankly tedious.
I fucking know exactly what fuckin' shit you are spoutin' here dammit. (I would have added 'my white nigga bitch', but I don't think I know you well enough...)
DeleteDo you ever have problems keeping things appropriate?
I came across a link to 'Teabilly Dictionary' on a lib friend's facebook and followed it back to the Duchess of St Rollins blog. I commented a 'conservative list of definitions' and got published. Then others commented after mine trying to make fun of them and mock me, and all my replies have been moderated out.
ReplyDeleteLibs laugh derisively when you point out to them that they are themselves for speech suppression on a number of fronts(talk radio, for instance), but if you comment on many lib blogs they moderate them out. They don't see any correlation...
Strange that, huh? And it is definitely their MO.
DeleteI saw a car the other day with two bumperstickers right NEXT to each other. One was the ubiquitous CELEBRATE DIVERSITY. And the other one said: WOULDN'T IT BE WONDERFUL IF CLOSED MINDS CAME WITH CLOSED MOUTHS?"
I laughed all the way to my car. A MASSIVE contradiction within two inches of each other, proudly displayed for all to see. You just can't make this stuff up...and sadly, you can't cure it, either.
HAHAHA. No correlation whatsoever! Obviously, if you know what you are talking about...and I agree, you can talk all you like.
Delete