Obama's speech at the UN

[NLT]

It's The Future MUST NOT belong to those who slander the prophet of islam speech.

It was a good campaign speech. Worthy of the DNC convention.

Nice tribute but still with the video angle in a subtle way:



That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.


Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

I think the video angle matters, insofar as people outside of the U.S. in these regions don't even understand the concept of free speech.

Funny after finally admitting that the attack on the ambassador was a planned terrorist attack, he now goes back to blaming the video. No mention of a terrorist attack at all.

 

[AmyNation]

Embassy soldiers carry real bullets.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nice tribute but still with the video angle in a subtle way:



That is what we saw play out in the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.

There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.


Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than 10 Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.

I think the video angle matters, insofar as people outside of the U.S. in these regions don't even understand the concept of free speech.

Funny after finally admitting that the attack on the ambassador was a planned terrorist attack, he now goes back to blaming the video. No mention of a terrorist attack at all.

He tried to take our second amendment away failing so far. Now he's going after our first. This piece of crap is going after our bill of rights and yet half of this country wants to reelect him.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

it's pretty obvious the UN is more important to him than the U.S....

“The attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America. They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded…

If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis. Because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart, and the hopes we hold in common.

Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.”

 

[Liability]

"The road is hard . . . the destination is clear . . . . "

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KtScrqtbc]THE HOLLIES - He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vel]

Would real bullets have made the situation better?

Kent State had real bullets

No comparison. Kent State has nothing to do with dirtbags attacking an embassy and guards with no way to defend.

Get real.

What was the reaction to National Guard troops firing on students?

What would the international reaction have been if Marines had fired on the protestors and killed 20-30? Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. We might have felt better if armed guards had killed some protestors....but it would have escalated the situation and we would have played into AlQaedas hands

So in your opinion, it's better that OUR people died because otherwise some of those attacking our consulate might have died and it would have been bad public relations?

Maybe our consulate should have had enough security to deter an attack and then no one would have had to die.

 

[Vel]

Embassy soldiers carry real bullets.

Maybe Obama should station them at embassies.

 

[AmyNation]

Embassy soldiers carry real bullets.

Maybe Obama should station them at embassies.

It seems to me that the embassy had lax security. Which I find extra shocking considering it went through and passed a pre 9-11 health check.

Perhaps someone should be fired, perhaps not, I would appreciate an investigation into embassy security.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

O decided to carry out the lie.

 

[Ravi]

A beautiful tribute to Chris Stevens. And, a decided lack of apology for America's values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

I thought it was flawless. I normally don't listen to president's speechs, in fact I think the last one I heard was Bush after 9/11.

He hit it out of the ballpark.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

A beautiful tribute to Chris Stevens. And, a decided lack of apology for America's values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

I thought it was flawless. I normally don't listen to president's speechs, in fact I think the last one I heard was Bush after 9/11.

He hit it out of the ballpark.

yes he was quite in his perceived element...obviously they worked hard on this speech.....after his stint as prez he will probably apply for a job heading up the UN....

 

[Ravi]

A beautiful tribute to Chris Stevens. And, a decided lack of apology for America's values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html

I thought it was flawless. I normally don't listen to president's speechs, in fact I think the last one I heard was Bush after 9/11.

He hit it out of the ballpark.

yes he was quite in his perceived element...obviously they worked hard on this speech.....after his stint as prez he will probably apply for a job heading up the UN....

He could after his next term. That would be pretty cool.

 

[Stephanie]

it made me sick

send this man back to peddling his crap back on the community level

 

[nodoginnafight]

Embassy soldiers carry real bullets.

Never try to stop a good rant with facts.

 

[Ravi]

it made me sick

We all know you hate blacks, Stuphie.

 

[catzmeow]

it made me sick

We all know you hate blacks, Stuphie.

Imagine...an uppity negro talking like that at the UN. He has a lot of nerve.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Obama's speech at the UN

A beautiful tribute to Chris Stevens. And, a decided lack of apology for America's values.

....And...as usual.....Porky Limbaugh, FAUX Noise & The Teabaggers are.....​

.....full-of-SHIT!!http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19709969​

 

[Stephanie]

it made me sick

We all know you hate blacks, Stuphie.

Imagine...an uppity negro talking like that at the UN. He has a lot of nerve.

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, He be uppity.
the only uppity ones I see is you and your buddy, Ravi

 

[catzmeow]

A beautiful tribute to Chris Stevens. And, a decided lack of apology for America's values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html

Here in the United States, countless publications provoke offense. Like me, the majority of Americans are Christian, and yet we do not ban blasphemy against our most sacred beliefs. As President of our country and Commander-in-Chief of our military, I accept that people are going to call me awful things every day -- (laughter) -- and I will always defend their right to do so.

Americans have fought and died around the globe to protect the right of all people to express their views, even views that we profoundly disagree with. We do not do so because we support hateful speech, but because our founders understood that without such protections, the capacity of each individual to express their own views and practice their own faith may be threatened. We do so because in a diverse society, efforts to restrict speech can quickly become a tool to silence critics and oppress minorities.

We do so because given the power of faith in our lives, and the passion that religious differences can inflame, the strongest weapon against hateful speech is not repression; it is more speech -- the voices of tolerance that rally against bigotry and blasphemy, and lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

Now, I know that not all countries in this body share this particular understanding of the protection of free speech. We recognize that. But in 2012, at a time when anyone with a cell phone can spread offensive views around the world with the click of a button, the notion that we can control the flow of information is obsolete. The question, then, is how do we respond?

And on this we must agree: There is no speech that justifies mindless violence. There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There’s no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There’s no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.

I thought it was flawless. I normally don't listen to president's speechs, in fact I think the last one I heard was Bush after 9/11.

He hit it out of the ballpark.

I don't usually listen to speeches, either. I think he has Reagan's gift with the spoken word, though.

 

[Ravi]

A beautiful tribute to Chris Stevens. And, a decided lack of apology for America's values.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/w...the-united-nations-general-assembly-text.html

I thought it was flawless. I normally don't listen to president's speechs, in fact I think the last one I heard was Bush after 9/11.

He hit it out of the ballpark.

I don't usually listen to speeches, either. I think he has Reagan's gift with the spoken word, though.

Exactly. And yet he has something Ronnie didn't have. Sanity.