kraychik

Sorry to break it to you, but the people in that video certainly don't represent "the average" Israeli.

In other words, you're engaging in apologism for murder and terrorism from Islamists allegedly in response to an obscure YouTube film trailer by describing it as "backlash". In a free and civilised society, "backlash" doesn't include murder and storming of embassies. We don't have any "holy grails" that compel us to engage in such behaviour as "backlash" when freedom of speech is exercised, contrary to your false assertion.

Iran has been threatening the destruction of Israel almost daily for years. This isn't news.

I should add that the publication of these cartoons was connected to violence. There was a bombing of a Dutch embassy in Pakistan, and other attacks on American embassies in other Muslim majority countries. So your statement is inaccurate. You're trying to separate the republication of these cartoons in two Canadian media outlets from the broader context of violent response we saw in other parts of the world.

It's not prejudicial, by definition, if it's a judgment made after examination of facts. He didn't just throw a dart onto a dartboard with various ethnicities and cultures and choose to label Islamic cultures as more uncivilised and infantile. It doesn't require much research or experience to realise that without exception, Muslim majority countries have much less freedom of speech and expression than is enjoyed by America and the West. Of course there are many other countries that fall on the list: Cuba, China, North Korea, etc. The difference is that ex-patriates from these countries don't bring those values with them into our countries, and don't storm embassies and consulates to murder diplomats when their cultures are criticised.

The more appropriate way to look at it is that the Islamists enjoyed a small victory, by intimidating so many news outlets from actually reporting news that was central to the controversy. CBC, to use an obviously leftist example, refused to publish the cartoons. Most other outlets in the American and Canadian media landscapes also refused to reproduce the cartoons. There are many examples of this, but the Islamists have been very effective in bullying our societies (specifically our resident leftists) in not only fearing open and critical discussion of Islam and Muslims, but actually supporting the Islamist narratives that such dialogue constitutes "hate speech" or "Islamophobia". Two semi-recent developments that I can recall are the OiC's push to pass a UN resolution obligating member nations to take steps towards combating "defamation of religion" (literally, criticisms of Muslims or Islam), and the Comedy Network's refusal to allow the South Park guys to depict Muhamad in one of their episodes. The bottom line is that the Islamists, aided by the left, have effectively instilled a great degree of hesitancy and fear in our society about discussions pertaining to Muslims and Islam via mass murder terror campaigns.

So, this Jeremiah Goulka fellow is what, in his thirties? And he's notable for what reasons? I suppose he was a Republican for a few years, in his own mind? His "reformation" is supposed to make for compelling reading over at everyone's favourite leftist rag The Nation? What a worthless post.

While that's true, the question is what percentage of the population consumes more money via government-provisioned "services" than it contributes via taxes? That number is a lot higher than 15%, and it's only growing as America accelerates its economic decline with a socialist President.

That information is missing a lot of context. We need to look at which states have higher proportions of people dependent on welfare programs. Also, which states get more federal funding in absolute and per-capita terms? Also, which states have the worst debt ratios (hint, they're all Democratic strongholds)? These are just a few pieces of missing information from this article. This is a misleading article from the disgraceful Washington Post.

In the words of the SCOTUS from 1949 (emphasis mine), “Accordingly a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.” Of course, the left (represented by esteemed MLW contributors such as waldo) has nothing but contempt for the basic freedoms of speech and expression.

It was a political apology, and is part of a broader policy of appeasement that Obama kicked off when he started the infamous "Apology Tour" with his speech at the American University of Cairo (a hotbed of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism) "seeking a new beginning" with the "Muslim world". Just because Obama and Clinton didn't use the words "sorry" or "apologise" doesn't mean it wasn't an apology.

In other words, you have such contempt for Muslims that you believe they cannot control themselves if someone lampoons their prophet and religion. Perhaps we should criminalise females from wearing short skirts when walking within five hundred metres of a mosque, for fear that it will "provoke" Muslims into another rage? You want a double standard, because we all know you would never suggest that an obscure YouTube film trailer ridiculing Jesus be seen as a "provocation". Your comment above constitutes a teachable moment. It reveals the contempt the left has for the very groups of people it claims to care about. And for that I thank you.

I think Obama is so narcissistic that he actually believes he can "reset" relations with Muslim-majority countries. He is so enamoured with his own charisma, so fooled by the cult of personality of yes men and yes women that surrounds him, that he thinks flashing his white teeth and making a speech will entice Muslims to love him and, by extension: America. He has no grasp of what he's dealing with: an ideology committed to conquest wrapped up as a religion and based on a set of values completely antithetical to those enshrined in the American constitution. Trying to explain freedom of speech and expression to Islamists? A futile endeavour to a sensible person, but not to Obama.

In other words, the Obama administration has continued its policy of appeasement of Islamism, and as Romney said, apologise for American values. Reagan said something along these lines, and forgive me for paraphrasing, but if you want peace you can have it right now... all you need to do is surrender. America and the broader free world are dealing with sharks who smell blood (weakness), and as Obama and his team continue to bend over backwards to tolerate the intolerable, we shouldn't be surprised to see our enemies emboldened.

What's ironic is that bleeding heart made a comment about "gender roles" with the usual contempt we see from the left regarding cultural/traditional concepts (even though they are more often than not grounded deeply in biology), but then talks about "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman". G_bambino is correct to call him out on this stupidity. In one breath he expresses contempt for tradition and cultural norms, and in the next he embraces those same traditions and cultural norms when subscribed to by mentally disturbed individuals who are obsessed with their genitalia and want to crossdress.

You're wrong. Again.

You mentioned one "investment". Roads. Nobody is opposing construction and maintenance of roads. So is your solution to current economic troubles to simply build more roads, perhaps even where they are unnecessary? The refrain of the left is always, "Roads! Teachers! Police! Firefighters!", as if anyone on the right wants to privatise those services. So is that your solution to addressing the problem of insufficient economic growth and employment? Just get more of the basics?

Nobody's debating whether or not the government should construct and maintain roads. That's yet another strawman argument. You can keep pretending I'm an anarchist, but it won't make it true. You're trying to present a false choice, between your socialist utopia and an anarchy. You're not too good at this "political debate" thing, it seems.

Typically, when replying to someone in a discussion forum, you address things they've said. In your case, it tends to be an irrelevant stream-of-consciousness.

I agree 100%.

Of course there are. There is a lot of deceit regarding this from the usual suspects on the left. Pedophiles tend to have preferences for male or female children, which often parallels their preference in adults. In other words, a man who is a heterosexual who is also a pedophile will tend to prefer female girls.

And movie rights.

As I stated earlier, the government isn't in the business of making investments for profit. They don't have the expertise, and most importantly, they don't have the incentives or disincentives to do so. This is elementary.

That much is obvious within a short time of reading your posts. Which was my point. This is true of most people, although the left loves believing that is is nuanced, layered, complex, and beyond labels. I pegged you accurately, and many others on this forum in a very short time. It's not "stereotyping", either, it's a recognition of leftism by reading your posts.

It could be another case of Canadian freeloading off of American security guarantees.