because in the world of message boards when you make the assertion you may need to back up that claim. It helps provide substance to your post, instead of you just shouting out unclaimed crap.
In the real world, which includes internet message boards, people pay attention to things other than internet message boards. I keep over estimating your intelligence and your interaction with real people, and you keep acting like I am insulting yo when I do. Frankly, you should take it as a compliment.
I was wondering if you where going to link to the 2008 non-binding U.N resolution Which we don't actually see as law.
I see what you are doing here. You are taking the U.N resolution and Obama condemning the movie maker and making it into one giant issue. You see them as linked when really they are not. [/quote]
What I am doing here is pointing to the fact that, for the first time in history, the US voted in support of said resolution under Obama. For some reason, you end up talking about something that happened when Bush was president. What's the connection?
Again no laws have been made here in the United states ( U.N doesnt count as an authority here) no has The president restricted the mans freedom of speech.
You certainly have the straw man argument down, don't you. By the way, just to prove that actual laws have been passed while Obama is president that restrict constitutionally protected speech, I will point to the Honoring American Veterans Act which was signed by Obama on 6 August 2012. Being that we both live in the real world, unless you are actually a sotware bot that exist only on USMB, I will let you look it up for yourself.
Come to think of it, you being a bot would explain a lot.
So again what laws have been passed that will make what this man said illegal?
What things has Obama done to restrict this man freedom of speech?
I never said any of that, which makes this entire line of questioning a logical fallacy.
You could finally just admit you have nothing but your bias opinion and loose ended connect the dots ala Political Chic pathetic threads.
You think the fact that, for the first time in history, the US voted to support a blasphemy resolution in the UN is not evidence that the government thinks Islam should be protected from insult? Can you explain that, or are you going to default back to the argument about laws?
I doubt you will, your not that type to admit you are wrong. You will either punt, deflect, or just ignore the questions like usual.
Its amusing when people link shit and i actually take a moment to read it. The difference from what actually is happening and the spin is also fun stuff.
You keep on trying with that non-binding resolution.
My guess is I have admitted I was wrong more often this year than you have the entire time you nave been a bot on this board. The rest of your post would be projection if you were a human being.
