Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I don't believe that to be true.No. It is too stupid.
You think condemning a film is condemning free speech. You will claim victory based on that colossal falsehood. It is just too stupid.
No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.
You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.
Obviously you care some... If you didn't you wouldn't have replied. Right?I don't believe that to be true.No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.
You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.
I don't care.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
becasue its just driving the meme that the video was the driving force, and some video speaks for us all via collective guilt mewling, and we ostensibly agree its worth using our highest offices to denigrate, that just feeds their angst imho.
Here's the thing.
The video didn't cause the attacks on the embassies - but that doesn't mean that the video hasn't "outraged" millions of people.
I see no reason that the State Dept. shouldn't publicly state that we as a country don't stand behind the film.
This isn't about "principles". This is about diplomacy.
Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
I couldn't agree more.
They didn't denounce freedom of speech or the movie. They denounced having any part of making or promoting of it. There is a pretty big difference there.Human lives > "Principles".
I'm completely in favor of unregulated free speech, and I don't think there should be any laws restricting it - but there's no reason why the State Dept. shouldn't have the same freedom of speech to denounce the film.
I couldn't agree more.
Freedom of speech does not apply to the government, since the Constitution does not grant the government any powers, but rather limits the governments powers. Civics 101.
The fact that anyone would agree with this is ridiculous. We, as Americans, have the right to make any film we want so long as it does not denigrate others, and the government has no right to go denouncing the films-- especially not in foreign countries where they'd love for nothing more than to watch us die painful deaths.
Why would the administration be obligated to oppose or condemn the content of the movie?
They're not.
You're claiming they've done something wrong by taking the position that they disagree with the content of the movie.
What have they done wrong.
No, I am saying they were wrong for taking a position at all. They would be just as wrong if they came out and said they support the content of the movie. It is not the government's job to take any position on religion.
Period.
End of story.
Can we bet on that?
No. It is too stupid.
You think condemning a film is condemning free speech. You will claim victory based on that colossal falsehood. It is just too stupid.
No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.
You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.
Obviously you care some... If you didn't you wouldn't have replied. Right?I don't believe that to be true.
I don't care.
They didn't denounce freedom of speech or the movie. They denounced having any part of making or promoting of it. There is a pretty big difference there.I couldn't agree more.
Freedom of speech does not apply to the government, since the Constitution does not grant the government any powers, but rather limits the governments powers. Civics 101.
The fact that anyone would agree with this is ridiculous. We, as Americans, have the right to make any film we want so long as it does not denigrate others, and the government has no right to go denouncing the films-- especially not in foreign countries where they'd love for nothing more than to watch us die painful deaths.
They're not.
You're claiming they've done something wrong by taking the position that they disagree with the content of the movie.
What have they done wrong.
No, I am saying they were wrong for taking a position at all. They would be just as wrong if they came out and said they support the content of the movie. It is not the government's job to take any position on religion.
Period.
End of story.
They have every right to do so.
No. It is too stupid.
You think condemning a film is condemning free speech. You will claim victory based on that colossal falsehood. It is just too stupid.
No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.
You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.
Is calling binge drinking an abuse of alcohol a condemnation of alcohol?
Let me see if this tracks with your complete misunderstanding of rights. The State Department is the government, the government does not have rights, it has powers granted to it voluntarily by the people of the United States, therefore the State Department does not have rights.
Powers and rights are interchangeable words in many circumstances; this is one of them.
The power of the president, for example, to veto a bill, is the right of the president to veto a bill.
Rights and powers are only interchangeable if you have never studied constitutional law. Anyone that got through high school civics should understand that the government has the power to enforce laws, it does not have the right to do so. People have the right to stand on a street corner and yell that the world is going to end in fire because of the Mayan calendar, they do not have the power to do so if they are smaller than the guy that is annoyed with them.
The power of the president to veto a bill has nothing to do with rights, it is spelled out in the constitution, and basically amounts to nothing more than a refusal to sign the bill. He must then return the bill to the chamber in which it originated along with a statement containing his objections.
A signing statement is not a right either, so stuff that one up your ass.
After you fold it with a lot of sharp corners.
No, I think calling the film an abuse of free speech is condemning free speech. Since that is exactly what the Embassy in Cairo said, they were condemning free speech. Feel free to argue the State Department, which represents the United States, is not representing the United States.
You obviously agree, or you would have bet me.
Is calling binge drinking an abuse of alcohol a condemnation of alcohol?
Does the constitution specifically forbid the government from taking a position on binge drinking?
Didn't think so.
Powers and rights are interchangeable words in many circumstances; this is one of them.
The power of the president, for example, to veto a bill, is the right of the president to veto a bill.
Rights and powers are only interchangeable if you have never studied constitutional law. Anyone that got through high school civics should understand that the government has the power to enforce laws, it does not have the right to do so. People have the right to stand on a street corner and yell that the world is going to end in fire because of the Mayan calendar, they do not have the power to do so if they are smaller than the guy that is annoyed with them.
The power of the president to veto a bill has nothing to do with rights, it is spelled out in the constitution, and basically amounts to nothing more than a refusal to sign the bill. He must then return the bill to the chamber in which it originated along with a statement containing his objections.
A signing statement is not a right either, so stuff that one up your ass.
After you fold it with a lot of sharp corners.
That is all nonsense. By your logic there is no such thing as state's rights, because as the term is used,
those rights belong to state governments. If, as you claim, governments cannot have rights,
then state's rights can't exist.
Is calling binge drinking an abuse of alcohol a condemnation of alcohol?
Does the constitution specifically forbid the government from taking a position on binge drinking?
Didn't think so.
It was a yes or no question. Do you need help? The answer is 'no'.
And similarly, to express the opinion that a film is an abuse of free speech is not a condemnation of free speech.
No, I am saying they were wrong for taking a position at all. They would be just as wrong if they came out and said they support the content of the movie. It is not the government's job to take any position on religion.
Period.
End of story.
They have every right to do so.
As I have already explained, the government does not have rights.
Second, the 1st Amendment specifically forbids the government from taking a position in religious discussions.
They have every right to do so.
As I have already explained, the government does not have rights.
Second, the 1st Amendment specifically forbids the government from taking a position in religious discussions.
No it doesn't. If what you say were true, then the President has done what? commit an impeachable offense?
Rights and powers are only interchangeable if you have never studied constitutional law. Anyone that got through high school civics should understand that the government has the power to enforce laws, it does not have the right to do so. People have the right to stand on a street corner and yell that the world is going to end in fire because of the Mayan calendar, they do not have the power to do so if they are smaller than the guy that is annoyed with them.
The power of the president to veto a bill has nothing to do with rights, it is spelled out in the constitution, and basically amounts to nothing more than a refusal to sign the bill. He must then return the bill to the chamber in which it originated along with a statement containing his objections.
A signing statement is not a right either, so stuff that one up your ass.
After you fold it with a lot of sharp corners.
That is all nonsense. By your logic there is no such thing as state's rights, because as the term is used,
those rights belong to state governments. If, as you claim, governments cannot have rights,
then state's rights can't exist.
Damn, you caught me, I don't believe in states having rights. They do, however, have constitutionally defined areas of responsibility that the federal government has usurped.
As I have already explained, the government does not have rights.
Second, the 1st Amendment specifically forbids the government from taking a position in religious discussions.
No it doesn't. If what you say were true, then the President has done what? commit an impeachable offense?
The 1st Amendment allows the government to favor one religion over another? Since when? have you told the supreme court they got it wrong?
