Koran burning

[gturner]

Um, I don't think burning a book is quite the same as...

Maybe not to you...then again it isn't your holy book.

And that's why free speech is so important. Did you know that you shouldn't ever throw away a newspaper because a guy in Montana thinks they're all printed by God? Did you know that some people in Indonesia think McDonald's hamburger wrappers are printed with the words of almighty God ("Bless Mr Cheeseburger and Peace Be Upon Him") and that if you throw away a McDonalds wrapper you'll burn in the fires of Hell? Did you know that in many religions criticizing any word spoken by a conservative Republican is heresy and apostacy? Did you know that Ann Coulter is worshipped by a small tribe in the Central African rainforest and voicing disagreement with anything she prints about Democrats is completely off limits on religious grounds? Did you know that a religion in Wyoming believes that marking a vote for a Democrat on any election ballot is the same as defacing the written word of God?

I'm sure that you're new-found multi-cultural religious sensibilities will compel you to vote Republican from now on, and that you'll seek Republican approval for every word you write from this day forward.

 

[Rii]

I like how you literally have to invent folks to rail against. In this case, an imaginary cohort of libruhls desiring to suppress free speech.

Maybe you could go on record as opposing slavery next?

 

[gturner]

I don't have to invent liberals opposed to free speech, because most of the assaults on free speech for the past thirty years have come from liberals, with their campus speech codes, their continual lobbying of the FCC to ban conservative talk radio, their constant denunciations of any news organization who doesn't parrot their narrow minded views, and their obsession with sexual orientation that ignore the fact that most of the Earth's organisms (by population count) are asexual and couldn't give a shit.

To the other point, as a Republican, I'm already on the record as opposing slavery. In fact, my great great grandfather served in the Union Army in one of the bloodiest regions of the war. In contrast, this board is filled with Democrats, a party founded on the preservation of race-baced human slavery, and still largely committed to preserving the lofty perks of elitist slave owners by treating minorities as a subservient voting block, to the point of refusing to let anyone with slave ancestry become their Presidential candidate.

 

[Rii]

It's like a wind-up toy.

 

[Kirkman1987]

I don't have to invent liberals opposed to free speech, because most of the assaults on free speech for the past thirty years have come from liberals, with their campus speech codes, their continual lobbying of the FCC to ban conservative talk radio, their constant denunciations of any news organization who doesn't parrot their narrow minded views, and their obsession with sexual orientation that ignore the fact that most of the Earth's organisms (by population count) are asexual and couldn't give a shit.

To the other point, as a Republican, I'm already on the record as opposing slavery. In fact, my great great grandfather served in the Union Army in one of the bloodiest regions of the war. In contrast, this board is filled with Democrats, a party founded on the preservation of race-baced human slavery, and still largely committed to preserving the lofty perks of elitist slave owners by treating minorities as a subservient voting block, to the point of refusing to let anyone with slave ancestry become their Presidential candidate.

That explains why minorities are known to vote for the Republican party in record numbers. Oh wait...

The parties from back then have no relation to thier counterparts today. The abolitionlists of Lincoln's time were progressives, as The Democrats became in the 20th century. It is clear which party cares about minorites, and it's not the Republican party, who cut important social programs vital to those groups prosperity.

Almost no one on this board is saying the burning should be forcefully stopped, we just recognise evil and it pains us.

I suppose it's useless to even respond...

 

[JarodRussell]

I like how you literally have to invent folks to rail against. In this case, an imaginary cohort of libruhls desiring to suppress free speech.

Maybe you could go on record as opposing slavery next?

How about holy cows? Every time you eat a steak you insult the entire Hindu religion. But the thing is that they are cool about it.

 

[Rii]

How about holy cows? Every time you eat a steak you insult the entire Hindu religion. But the thing is that they are cool about it.

Well that's the thing, isn't it? You're probably not eating that steak because you're trying to piss Hindus off, it probably has rather more to do with the fact that you're hungry, you like steak, and the fact that you're not sitting around a table with your Hindu in-laws who might be offended.

The act itself is almost irrelevant, it's the motivation behind it that determines the level of douchebaggery or lack thereof. If you find yourself caught outdoors on a winter's night with naught but a Koran to keep you company, then by all means burn it. Some Muslims will still be offended, but that's their problem. This pastor, OTOH, wants to burn the Koran because he's a wanker, case closed. Forget Muslims, I'm offended by this douchebag. And the glorious thing about western civilisation is that we can call such things as we see 'em.

 

[Marc]

A South African (Muslim business man has been stopped by the county's High Court. There was opposition on the grounds that a) there are Muslims who consider the Bible a sacred text and b) the Koran contians elements of the Tora and the Bible (which goes back to my point about all 3 religions worship the same God) so that burning a bible would be just as offensive as burning the Koran.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/11/3009229.htm?section=justin

 

[Haggis and tatties]

Well i see he did it....personaly i think he's a friut loop.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEmiq90hqVY[/yt]

 

[Davros]

What is supposed to be actually achieved by burning a Koran?

 

[Haggis and tatties]

^^^He achieved the very same thing that the feminists did in the 60s when they burnt their bras, and that is that both acts revealed tits.

 

[omgahitsbritt08]

I think they have right to do, because of free speech. But, I think its the most horrible thing to do, to burn someones religious holy book. What message is that sending?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Wow, that was awesome. It's like a parody from The Onion or SNL. I wonder if they can get him for Copyright infringement for stealing the music to "We Are The World."

 

[gturner]

I don't have to invent liberals opposed to free speech, because most of the assaults on free speech for the past thirty years have come from liberals, with their campus speech codes, their continual lobbying of the FCC to ban conservative talk radio, their constant denunciations of any news organization who doesn't parrot their narrow minded views, and their obsession with sexual orientation that ignore the fact that most of the Earth's organisms (by population count) are asexual and couldn't give a shit.

To the other point, as a Republican, I'm already on the record as opposing slavery. In fact, my great great grandfather served in the Union Army in one of the bloodiest regions of the war. In contrast, this board is filled with Democrats, a party founded on the preservation of race-baced human slavery, and still largely committed to preserving the lofty perks of elitist slave owners by treating minorities as a subservient voting block, to the point of refusing to let anyone with slave ancestry become their Presidential candidate.

That explains why minorities are known to vote for the Republican party in record numbers. Oh wait...

Blacks don't vote Republican because Democrats don't allow them to. That's why Democrats had all the Latin and Greek literacy tests for black voters, and that's why Democrats still warn minorities that Republicans will cut off their Democrat-provided free slave food and burn their churches if they don't vote for Democrats. Even Daniel Patrick Monihan finally denounced welfare as a failed experiment that trapped blacks into generational poverty, yet Democrats are still convinced that cutting minorities off from Democrat benefits is just as evil as when Republicans did it during the Civil War.

The parties from back then have no relation to thier counterparts today. The abolitionlists of Lincoln's time were progressives, as The Democrats became in the 20th century.

Abolitionists were evangelical, not progressive, and although the Democrats became progressive (communist) early in the century, they South didn't start voting Republican until 1994 - so they squeeked in under the wire, but barely.

It is clear which party cares about minorites, and it's not the Republican party, who cut important social programs vital to those groups prosperity.

Aside from the Wall Street bankers that got massive TARP funds and government bureaucrats who get twice the private sector wage, the government doesn't provide anything remotely approaching prosperity to any group. American workers get very irate at the thought that they're being taxed into poverty so that someone who doesn't have a job, doesn't want a job, and doesn't even like the idea of working is living high on the hog. That's why any news story about a "welfare queen" sparks outrage.

Convincing any minority to be content on government aid is to condemn them to a life of poverty and desperation. The only reason any human would do such a thing is the knowledge that the very and fear and desperation they're inflicting makes the victim pull the "D" lever every election.

The parties remain the same. Set the people free.

 

[gturner]

Oooo.... We have motion on the legal front.

Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer suggests that the First Amendment doesn't protect blasphemy and insults to Islam. George Stephenopolis reports:

But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

ABC News link

His logic is sound, but the government can't single out Islam for protection against blasphemy and insults, so the Supreme Court will have to ban insulting any religion. Just the insults against Christianity posted on the TrekBBS will keep lawyers employed for years.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Blacks don't vote Republican because Democrats don't allow them to. That's why Democrats had all the Latin and Greek literacy tests for black voters, and that's why Democrats still warn minorities that Republicans will cut off their Democrat-provided free slave food and burn their churches if they don't vote for Democrats. Even Daniel Patrick Monihan finally denounced welfare as a failed experiment that trapped blacks into generational poverty, yet Democrats are still convinced that cutting minorities off from Democrat benefits is just as evil as when Republicans did it during the Civil War.

This is the breaking point in a long line of comments by you in this and other threads meant to provoke an angry reaction from other posters. This entire thread has essentially been an exercise is baiting people, and that's a regular occurrence for you.

If you can't handle posting reasonably and with facts that can be backed up with reputable sources, you need to take your act on the road elsewhere. But be aware that if you continue this kind of behavior in Miscellaneous it will result in warnings.

We've given you a wide latitude in what you're allowed to say because a lot of times you hide your more inflammatory comments amidst humor, but it's gotten really out of hand as of late. You take over and dominate any attempt at reasonable political discourse here and quickly turn it into a sideshow.

Thread closed.