Learning From History...or Not.

[tjvh]

The facts for that remain to be established.

If the current facts about the dubbing being done without the actor's knowledge, and he didnt have a contract with them stating he could do it (he probably did) then they could go after him civilliy for fraud.

Dubbing what the actors say and subjecting them to possible attacks is reprehensible

Which should remind people to always read what you sign. If this guy is a shifty as people are saying, I am almost sure he had a clause allowing him to modify the film as to content, without the actor's consent.

Still buying into that violence was caused by a Movie nonsense?

 

[martybegan]

Dubbing what the actors say and subjecting them to possible attacks is reprehensible

Which should remind people to always read what you sign. If this guy is a shifty as people are saying, I am almost sure he had a clause allowing him to modify the film as to content, without the actor's consent.

Still buying into that violence was caused by a Movie nonsense?

I'm sure there are some people in those crowds who are using the movie to feed thier muslim angst. However this has no bearing on whether he should have made the movie, and defintitely no bearing on deciding if the government should try to censor it.

And the answer to "should the government try to sensor it" is, no

 

[Wry Catcher]

Directly provoking a crazy person is one thing. It involves a direct confrontation with said person, and then directly antagonizing them into a given action.

Making a movie that you dont have to watch is a provocation only in the minds of those provoked. Or are you saying any Muslim who responds poorly to this movie is crazy?

The movie is provocative; I surmiss the producers had no other motive for its production. Of course they cannot be held responsible for the reaction - criminally or civilly - and they have every right to produce it. And, the Federal Government has no authority to surpress it.

Of course those demonstrating in the street are not (all) crazy; no more so than any participant in any massive demonstration or those fans (for fanatics) who cheer at an NFL game. Go to an NFL game in Philly and wear the colors of the NYG or Dallas Cowboys. The reaction of some Philly Fans will be loud and profane; common sense suggests the Philly Fanatics won't ignore it and will respond to the provocation. Common sense also suggests that the majority of Eagle supporters won't.

Those who attacked our diplomats are not crazy either. They are criminals who believe they have the right of enforcement, using extreme violence. Common sense suggests you do not poke a tiger with a stick, stare down a bear, grab an eagle from its nest or insult the religion of a Muslim. Of course not all Muslims will react violently; but some will and have in the past killed innocents as well as provocateurs.

Why would anyone do so? Why would anyone defend them? And why would anyone but a partisan hack suggest a critique of someone who provokes others is a defense of the few who act out violently?

This isnt about critiquing the creator of the video, it is about people wanting the government to censor them, or even the government "suggesting" they be censored.

Congress could censor them, the USSC would decide if such a law met the test of Constitutionality. People want to censor them and many others. Have you read posts on this forum wherre people are told to STFU?

You can go blue in the face calling this guy an asshole, you can even arrange a boycott of his business, or those who support him.

Good idea, sadly he appears to be a bum and has no legit business. I do hope his Probation Officer found cause to file a notice of violation, and he is returned to prison.

The second you ask the government to silence him, however, due to the perceived risk of what he is saying, then that is the point we part ways.

Notice I did not "ask the government to silence him"; I simply said that he and the internet provider should have used common sense. The First Amendment limits federal power, it does not restrict a private business from denying any person a vehicle to express their opinion.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wasn't there interference on the part of politically interested parties with the negotiations with Iran regarding the hostages?

Couldn't the present problems be similar?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wasn't there interference on the part of politically interested parties with the negotiations with Iran regarding the hostages?

Couldn't the present problems be similar?

No. There wasn't.

Is this what you mean?

"...Democrats were dumbstruck that they lost the 1980 election. (Nor could they understand why gas prices, inflation and interest rates shot down and the nation enjoyed peace and prosperity soon after Reagan became president.) Naturally liberals asked themselves” What other than a dirty trick could explain Carter’s loss?

The Left’s theory was that in October, one month before the 1980 presidential election, members of Reagan’s campaign clandestinely met with representatives of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and offered to sell him weapons in exchange for his promise not to release the hostages before the election. By delaying the release of the hostages, the theory went, Reagan would deprive Carter of a triumphant victory on the eve of the vote.

In other words, liberals believed the Islamofascist cutthroats who had been toying with Carter like a cat with a ball of yarn for the past year wanted Carter replaced by someone stronger, like Reagan.
But it seemed like a perfectly plausible theory to the editorial board of the New York Times.”
Coulter, “Demonic,” p. 84-85

 

[there4eyeM]

Wasn't there interference on the part of politically interested parties with the negotiations with Iran regarding the hostages?

Couldn't the present problems be similar?

Ronald Reagan interfered with President Carter’s Iran Hostage Negotiations |

Updated: Ron Paul Tears Down Saint Ronnie While Debating Hostage Negotiation Issue | Video Cafe

The Consortium

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/xfile1.html

Is it as clear as all that?

Couldn't a trick like it be tried again?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wasn't there interference on the part of politically interested parties with the negotiations with Iran regarding the hostages?

Couldn't the present problems be similar?

Ronald Reagan interfered with President Carter’s Iran Hostage Negotiations |

Updated: Ron Paul Tears Down Saint Ronnie While Debating Hostage Negotiation Issue | Video Cafe

The Consortium

The Consortium

Is it as clear as all that?

Couldn't a trick like it be tried again?

Just another one of those apocryphal bed-time stories that Liberals tell each other.

 

[there4eyeM]

Wasn't there interference on the part of politically interested parties with the negotiations with Iran regarding the hostages?

Couldn't the present problems be similar?

Ronald Reagan interfered with President Carter’s Iran Hostage Negotiations |

Updated: Ron Paul Tears Down Saint Ronnie While Debating Hostage Negotiation Issue | Video Cafe

The Consortium

The Consortium

Is it as clear as all that?

Couldn't a trick like it be tried again?

Just another one of those apocryphal bed-time stories that Liberals tell each other.

Perhaps....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ronald Reagan interfered with President Carter’s Iran Hostage Negotiations |

Updated: Ron Paul Tears Down Saint Ronnie While Debating Hostage Negotiation Issue | Video Cafe

The Consortium

The Consortium

Is it as clear as all that?

Couldn't a trick like it be tried again?

Just another one of those apocryphal bed-time stories that Liberals tell each other.

Perhaps....

"According to the allegation, the Reagan Administration rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in US banks.

After twelve years of mixed media attention, both houses of the US Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that the allegations lacked supporting documentation."
October surprise conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[martybegan]

The movie is provocative; I surmiss the producers had no other motive for its production. Of course they cannot be held responsible for the reaction - criminally or civilly - and they have every right to produce it. And, the Federal Government has no authority to surpress it.

Of course those demonstrating in the street are not (all) crazy; no more so than any participant in any massive demonstration or those fans (for fanatics) who cheer at an NFL game. Go to an NFL game in Philly and wear the colors of the NYG or Dallas Cowboys. The reaction of some Philly Fans will be loud and profane; common sense suggests the Philly Fanatics won't ignore it and will respond to the provocation. Common sense also suggests that the majority of Eagle supporters won't.

Those who attacked our diplomats are not crazy either. They are criminals who believe they have the right of enforcement, using extreme violence. Common sense suggests you do not poke a tiger with a stick, stare down a bear, grab an eagle from its nest or insult the religion of a Muslim. Of course not all Muslims will react violently; but some will and have in the past killed innocents as well as provocateurs.

Why would anyone do so? Why would anyone defend them? And why would anyone but a partisan hack suggest a critique of someone who provokes others is a defense of the few who act out violently?

This isnt about critiquing the creator of the video, it is about people wanting the government to censor them, or even the government "suggesting" they be censored.

Congress could censor them, the USSC would decide if such a law met the test of Constitutionality. People want to censor them and many others. Have you read posts on this forum wherre people are told to STFU?

You can go blue in the face calling this guy an asshole, you can even arrange a boycott of his business, or those who support him.

Good idea, sadly he appears to be a bum and has no legit business. I do hope his Probation Officer found cause to file a notice of violation, and he is returned to prison.

The second you ask the government to silence him, however, due to the perceived risk of what he is saying, then that is the point we part ways.

Notice I did not "ask the government to silence him"; I simply said that he and the internet provider should have used common sense. The First Amendment limits federal power, it does not restrict a private business from denying any person a vehicle to express their opinion.

Thats a weasely way to introduce censorship. Youtube has to follow a set of guidelines, and if they are met, they have to allow the video.

What if the provider decided "common sense" meant banning any pro-obama video?

 

[Wroberson]

Not. The past, present and future were created at the same time. This is why they do not exist. I really think a lot of people are wasting time that could have be but to better use. Myself included. Most of us have already moved on because this issue was not the cause of some direct or immediate threat to them personally. Sure we had a moment of silence for the deceased and their families, but we've moved on. If the attack happened in America, then sure a debate can appease the fears. Since they're pretty much destroying their own lands, who really cares.

 

[Annie]

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day.

Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens | World Affairs Journal

Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens

18 September 2012

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day.

Cairo has issued international arrest warrants for eight Americans—seven of them Coptic Christians from Egypt—who are allegedly involved with the anti-Mohammad video everyone’s rioting over. The prosecutor’s office also issued a warrant for Terry Jones, the Koran-burning nutjob in Florida, just because, and says if convicted the defendants may get the death penalty.

Mahmoud Salem (aka “Sandmonkey”) was interviewed on CNN yesterday. He says the new Muslim Brotherhood government is much more oppressive than the Mubarak regime. That should have been obvious to everyone in advance, though astonishingly it was not. And Mahmoud is hardly a Mubarak apologist. He was one of the most outspoken critics of the ancien régime in the world, and he was arrested and beaten for it.

He also says explicitly that Egypt’s government isn’t an ally and that “if the United States wants to cut the aid [money], please, do it…The majority of the aid goes to the military anyway. We don’t see it.”

Egypt's threat is most likely an empty one, but don't be so sure. Anti-Islamic blasphemers in the West have been hunted or even killed a number of times. Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh are just the most famous cases. Just yesterday Iran upped the bounty on Rushdie's head to 3.3 million dollars.

Either way, how long is the United States going to pretend that Egypt is still friendly? The government just threatened individual American citizens by name with arrest and execution. Will the Muslim Brotherhood regime have to take hostile action against American citizens before something changes?

Perhaps. But even Barack Obama has figured out that Egypt is no longer an ally. He said so on television. He’s having a hard time standing by that statement because he’s Obama, but he knows. He knows. We’re bound to break off with Cairo at some point whether we like it or not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day.

Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens | World Affairs Journal

Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens

18 September 2012

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day.

Cairo has issued international arrest warrants for eight Americans—seven of them Coptic Christians from Egypt—who are allegedly involved with the anti-Mohammad video everyone’s rioting over. The prosecutor’s office also issued a warrant for Terry Jones, the Koran-burning nutjob in Florida, just because, and says if convicted the defendants may get the death penalty.

Mahmoud Salem (aka “Sandmonkey”) was interviewed on CNN yesterday. He says the new Muslim Brotherhood government is much more oppressive than the Mubarak regime. That should have been obvious to everyone in advance, though astonishingly it was not. And Mahmoud is hardly a Mubarak apologist. He was one of the most outspoken critics of the ancien régime in the world, and he was arrested and beaten for it.

He also says explicitly that Egypt’s government isn’t an ally and that “if the United States wants to cut the aid [money], please, do it…The majority of the aid goes to the military anyway. We don’t see it.”

Egypt's threat is most likely an empty one, but don't be so sure. Anti-Islamic blasphemers in the West have been hunted or even killed a number of times. Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh are just the most famous cases. Just yesterday Iran upped the bounty on Rushdie's head to 3.3 million dollars.

Either way, how long is the United States going to pretend that Egypt is still friendly? The government just threatened individual American citizens by name with arrest and execution. Will the Muslim Brotherhood regime have to take hostile action against American citizens before something changes?

Perhaps. But even Barack Obama has figured out that Egypt is no longer an ally. He said so on television. He’s having a hard time standing by that statement because he’s Obama, but he knows. He knows. We’re bound to break off with Cairo at some point whether we like it or not.

1. Wow....that was great!


Seems that both of us see a truth that evaded Barack Hussein Obama (peace be on him)!


2. "...more oppressive than the Mubarak regime."

Another similarity?

"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

 

[gipper]

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day.

Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens | World Affairs Journal

Egypt Threatens to Execute American Citizens

18 September 2012

Egypt is looking more like post-1979 Iran every day.

Cairo has issued international arrest warrants for eight Americans—seven of them Coptic Christians from Egypt—who are allegedly involved with the anti-Mohammad video everyone’s rioting over. The prosecutor’s office also issued a warrant for Terry Jones, the Koran-burning nutjob in Florida, just because, and says if convicted the defendants may get the death penalty.

Mahmoud Salem (aka “Sandmonkey”) was interviewed on CNN yesterday. He says the new Muslim Brotherhood government is much more oppressive than the Mubarak regime. That should have been obvious to everyone in advance, though astonishingly it was not. And Mahmoud is hardly a Mubarak apologist. He was one of the most outspoken critics of the ancien régime in the world, and he was arrested and beaten for it.

He also says explicitly that Egypt’s government isn’t an ally and that “if the United States wants to cut the aid [money], please, do it…The majority of the aid goes to the military anyway. We don’t see it.”

Egypt's threat is most likely an empty one, but don't be so sure. Anti-Islamic blasphemers in the West have been hunted or even killed a number of times. Salman Rushdie and Theo Van Gogh are just the most famous cases. Just yesterday Iran upped the bounty on Rushdie's head to 3.3 million dollars.

Either way, how long is the United States going to pretend that Egypt is still friendly? The government just threatened individual American citizens by name with arrest and execution. Will the Muslim Brotherhood regime have to take hostile action against American citizens before something changes?

Perhaps. But even Barack Obama has figured out that Egypt is no longer an ally. He said so on television. He’s having a hard time standing by that statement because he’s Obama, but he knows. He knows. We’re bound to break off with Cairo at some point whether we like it or not.

History is bound to repeat itself when the American people continually elect elitist idiots to the office of POTUS.

Many people predicted that dumping Mubarak would be trouble...its not rocket science....just as many predicted trouble with the dumping of the Shah.

But, those damn elitists NEVER learn from history.

 

[whitehall]

How did Mark Twain determine that "history rhymes"? I'll tell you what does rhyme and it's probably the only time in history that the American people tolerated treason. Democrat activists bought a $10,000 full page ad (that might have been discounted but that's another story) in the NY Times calling the US Commander of front line Troops in combat ...."BETRAY-US" and they snickered because it rhymed with the commander's last name which was Petraius and for no other apparent reason. They never apologized and the democrat senate majority leader doubled down by trying to influence the morale of the Troops when he told Americans "the war is lost" just before the Troop surge was underway in Iraq. In any other era in American history senator Reid would have been hauled off in handcuffs for psychiatric evaluation but sadly the whole freaking democrat party was as crazy as he was.