jefferiah

Funny thing, I have seen you post in the US Politics forum. You have no problem sharing your views on America.

That makes no sense. Being against a religion or burning it's holy book does not mean you are against freedom to practice that religion or freedom of expression. If you are against freedom of expression you attempt to curtail expression. He has not done that by simply burning a book he possessed. Burning a book could be an expression of disagreement with its contents. You don't get to decide what it symbolizes for him or what certain actions mean. So there is no way to know his personal opinion on freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Furthermore, even if you could download his personal thoughts to view in a pdf file and see that he is against free speech, it does not mean he is not entitled to it.

Excellent post, AW. It is nice to see someone who understands the importance of defending one of the most fundamental human rights. In Canada, it seems, that in order to stifle free speech all you have to do is threaten those who practice it with violent consequences. The legal offensiveness of speech is directly proportional to how violent the opponents of that speech are willing to be.

So, you think that Marilyn Manson should be barred from performing in Canada?

Not perhaps. I am right. If he owned the Korans he burned he was not barring anyone else from reading theirs. No one's free speech was violated by his burning of a Koran. Muslim's can still freely practice their religion, whether or not Jones burns Korans he obtained. If you purchase a book, you own it. You can use it as firewood, you can use it as a door stop, you can use it as something to level out an old table with uneven legs.

I thought the moderator was really fair and did an excellent job. And especially patient, since Biden was seemed to be taking out a lot of his anger on her rather than Ryan, at least when he wasn't laughing at serious issues.

Is the one who burns a book a threat to security, or the one who commits the violent act in response? Maybe we should reconsider who we bar from the country.

That is an incorrect assessment. If he banned others from having access to a Koran, he would be against freedom of speech. Simply burning a book he possesses is not anti-speech.

That's still nonsense. Why would it matter if you've got a business or not? If you've got a business, you didn't build that? But if you don't you did?

I will point out for you the difference once again, Punked. You keep saying we need the full context of the speech. But it doesn't matter how much of the speech you quote.... "If you've got a business, you didnt build that." You assert that by that he meant "infrastructure". But that doesn't make sense at all. It's not a matter of whether he used the word 'those' or not.....it's just an odd sentence all together (the one you assert he was saying). Why would you say "If you've got a business, you didn't build roads or bridges." It's nonsense. So if you don't have a business, you built roads and bridges? What if you are in the business of building roads and bridges? No matter how much of the speech you quote....that's one hell of a clumsy sentence. Anyone with half a brain, can determine that the most logical meaning of "that" is the aforementioned business. Now you mention two distinct cases. The firing one is a deliberate misquote because what he said was "I like to be 'able' to fire people." The other case is actually affected by the words in the next sentence. He is not worried about the poor because he thinks the social safety net can handle it. You criticize us for analyzing this statement to the umpteenth degree. But really we just think Obama meant what he said. The reason we have taken this to the umpteenth degree is because you keep running from the obvious meaning of a simple English statement, and thus we are required to explain it to you.

The thing is, it's not actually a grammatical error that makes the argument against the back-pedal. It's the fact that no matter which way you slice it, and no matter how much of the speech you include, "If you've got a business, you didn't build roads and bridges." is a nonsensical sentence -- (not to mention one that he didn't say).

Once again, you can quote Obamas entire speech, but it still sounds ridiculous to assert that "If you've got a business, you didnt build that." actually means "If you've got a business, you didnt build roads and bridges." That statement just doesnt make sense. Romney's actually does change meaning.

Now, in that case, what he said was he is not concerned because there is a social safety net. You will no doubt repeat your tired argument about how I am not quoting Obama's entire speech again. But once again, I would point out a distinction. Even if you add the surrounding words, beginning to end, your assertion that the "that" in "you didnt build that" means roads and bridges, is still nonsensical.

You are right. That is a sentence. Brilliant.

He said he likes to be 'able' to fire people. If I were businessman, I would probably appreciate that freedom as well. So in your case, you actually are misquoting Romney, whereas in mine, I am correctly quoting Obama.