Random facts

Discussion in 'New Roundtable' started by martin, Jan 12, 2013.

  1. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    Should the dead children in Connecticut be considered inflammatory because they were hated by some idiot? I mean he was so pissed he shot them in the face?
     
  2. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    When you are a cop and show up and a man beat the shit out of his wife, do you ask if she was talking back to him?

    It is never relevant what words "caused" violence. Never.
     
    shane0911 and mctiger like this.
  3. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Who knows? If he was offended, it is stupid to simply ignore that. No one has advocated censorship. No one has questioned the right to be offensive. But the government of the United Stated of America does not have to endorse everything that originates in America, especially from foreigners trying to foment foreign trouble. It is important to disassociate the nation from the acts of an individual. Especially if people like Atta are out there looking for a cause.

    We don't know what angered him. If he was angered because the red, white, and blue in our flag dishonored Mohammad, then he can kiss our broad yankee asses. But if people attack multiple US embassies because some fucking Egyptian living in California made an inflammatory video, then HELL YES we disassociate the nation from that individual action. It all blew over pretty quickly after we disassociated the nation, too.
     
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    What a stupid-ass comment. It is only irrelevant to someone who just doesn't give a shit about reality and is concerned only with his personal philosophy.

    McTiger and shane liked your comment because they act before they think, but I guaran-goddamn-tee you that if you come up to either one of them on the street and insulted them personally you would receive a violent ass-whipping and learn the lesson that most men learn before 20 . . . There is a direct relevance between incitement and violent reaction.
     
    shane0911 likes this.
  5. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    You and I have vastly different ideas about the extent to which we should cater to the feelings of terrorists who murder our ambassadors.
     
  6. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    Exactly so why the fuck is our government endorsing your idea that this video was offensive? I don't think it was offensive, and you do. So why is the government taking fucking sides? Why are they agreeing with you and not me? Why have they even commented at all on a religious fucking issue when the issue is terrorism?
     
  7. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    That's not at all what it was about! What horseshit! The disassociation happened before the embassy assault. It was about letting the world know that it was the act of an individual not the USA.

    Why are you in love with this raghead who is responsible for stirring up all the trouble for the US?

    The world thinks it is offensive and you don't.

    The government is doing its job of protecting the best interests of America. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your opinions or mine. How naive can you get?

    You are making a religious issue out of it because of your personal obsession. They commented on an internationally inflammatory issue and clairified the position of the nation, as was proper. But it offends the atheist ideals of the foolish, petty, and self-centered.

    Why are you kissing the ass of the foreigner that intentionally set about to create an incident that caused American interests to be attacked all over the middle east?
     
  8. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    Clarified the position of the nation? On what? A movie? How do we feel as America feel about the new die hard movie? Worth killing over, or maybe just inflammatory? This is what you think governments should do, fucking movie reviews when terrorists kill us?
     
  9. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,733
    Governments are going to do the right thing, which is to protect it's own best interests. What the fuck is wrong with letting an angry middle east population know that we allow all free expressions but don't endorse them? They come from a place where the government controls all media and they assume that this video was an expression of American policy, which it wasn't! It was expression of an Egyptian Coptic radical! That is the bullshit you are defending here. It is disgraceful, but typical.

    Look we have argued this topic before and are just rehashing old shit. If you got nothing new, we are done here.
     
  10. martin

    martin Banned Forever

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
    Messages:
    19,026
    Likes Received:
    934
    Because that isn't what we did, it is what we should have done.
    Also this Coptic radical isnt doing anything radical, he is making movies, it's a fairly common thing to express views throughout film and various other means.
     

Share This Page