Obama may make criticism of Islam illegal

[DogOnPorch]

Right. Affirmative action would have meant that my colleague in Vancouver, when we worked for the BC government, would have received preferential treatment should a better position become available. He owned two houses on the west side of Vancouver and had a wife earning twice as much as both of us put together, while I lived in Surrey with a huge mortgage. It was a running gag between us.

Affirmative action is not the way to end discrimination. Ending discrimination is the way to end discrimination.

I agree. Plus Michael Hardner's condescending attitude is annoying.

[Michael Hardner]

I agree. Plus Michael Hardner's condescending attitude is annoying.

I get that, but imagine how annoyed I must be asking for cites, sweeping up strawmen... 24/7. It's especially annoying when I can see some valid points in the other person's points but they never formulate an argument well enough to let it out. ( That's not you btw)

There are plenty of posters who can provide a coherent and challenging argument from the right-of-centre and I value their posts.

[Michael Hardner]

I, of course, would actually like to see discrimination ended.

Thank you. We're the same. The difference is that I am on record as supporting some kind of organized approach to actually doing so, however flawed it might be.

[Michael Hardner]

of course it is. if it's not the Presidents position to try and make it illegal to criticize Islam why didn't he just come out and say so

Uh... Mr. Canada - that WASN`T the president.

See my previous post for response by the way.

[Guest American Woman]

of course it is. if it's not the Presidents position to try and make it illegal to criticize Islam why didn't he just come out and say so instead he was skirting the question until the Rep ran out of time.

I posted what Obama had to say about freedom of speech in the U.S., specifically in regards to religion. Does it sound as if he wants to make criticism of religion illegal? Or have you not even bothered to find out and/or read and/or pay any attention to what he has actually said?

[Guest]

Thank you. We're the same. The difference is that I am on record as supporting some kind of organized approach to actually doing so, however flawed it might be.

No difference, except that I don't see one form of discrimination as a valid approach to ending another.

[Guest American Woman]

Is that what this babbling about Obama turning the U.S. into a Muslim nation is all about?

Apparently that's the proof that "Obama may make criticism of Islam* illegal" - in spite of what Obama himself has actually said regarding the issue.

*It's actually "religion," not Islam - evidently not being able to criticize Islam is all that Mr.Canada is upset about.

[Guest]

I posted what Obama had to say about freedom of speech in the U.S., specifically in regards to religion. Does it sound as if he wants to make criticism of religion illegal? Or have you not even bothered to find out and/or read and/or pay any attention to what he has actually said?

I think we can all agree though, that what a politician says before an election has no bearing on what (s)he does after the election.

[Guest American Woman]

I think we can all agree though, that what a politician says before an election has no bearing on what (s)he does after the election.

What reason would we have to believe he's going to do anything totally different from what he's said and done this time around?

[Guest]

What reason would we have to believe he's going to do anything totally different from what he's said and done this time around?

None at all. I wouldn't presume to know what he's going to do, and I certainly wouldn't assume that what he says he's going to do has any bearing on what he actually does.

[Mr.Canada]

Uh... Mr. Canada - that WASN`T the president.

See my previous post for response by the way.

If Obama's DOJ does something while Obama is the sitting President, he's to blame. It's under his watch, unless of course you'd like to admit that Obama doesn't have control over his own staff.

[Mr.Canada]

Apparently that's the proof that "Obama may make criticism of Islam* illegal" - in spite of what Obama himself has actually said regarding the issue.

*It's actually "religion," not Islam - evidently not being able to criticize Islam is all that Mr.Canada is upset about.

It's Obama's DOJ thereby it's the under Obama's power. Are you trying to say that parts of Obamas staff can act without the orders from the President? That's interesting.

If you listen to the question the asker said any religion Afaik, Islam is still a religion and would fit under that umbrella. Are you arguing that Islam/Muslims isn't/aren't part of a religion now?

[Michael Hardner]

It's under his watch, unless of course you'd like to admit that Obama doesn't have control over his own staff.

If he didn't have control over his own staff, then this guy would have been free to dictate what his boss' future policy decisions might be.

[Mr.Canada]

If he didn't have control over his own staff, then this guy would have been free to dictate what his boss' future policy decisions might be.

No amount of fancy talk by you is going to take away from the fact that this guy didn't say that Obama wouldn't try to restrict free speech. So keep skirting the issue and keep trying to attack me personally, it just doesn't change the fact that the DOJ refused to answer the question.

keep cherry picking my posts as well, I love it.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[cybercoma]

Fancy talk. Haha

[Michael Hardner]

No amount of fancy talk by you is going to take away from the fact that this guy didn't say that Obama wouldn't try to restrict free speech.

Fancy talk ! Well, thanks for the compliment I guess.

As for the whimpering around personal attacks - I went back and the last few posts at least have been corrections to your posts. Don`t let your self-esteem flag, Mr. Canada, just try harder. I taught you a great lesson earlier today, and there`s no reason you can`t continue to improve as a poster.

As for the other points, I tell you for the third time that I addressed them below. If you have something new please go ahead and post it.

[Mr.Canada]

Fancy talk ! Well, thanks for the compliment I guess.

As for the whimpering around personal attacks - I went back and the last few posts at least have been corrections to your posts. Don`t let your self-esteem flag, Mr. Canada, just try harder. I taught you a great lesson earlier today, and there`s no reason you can`t continue to improve as a poster.

As for the other points, I tell you for the third time that I addressed them below. If you have something new please go ahead and post it.

And now you're going to talk down to me? very nice. You're supposed to set the example here.

just so I understand you. You're saying the by not giving an answer this Obama staffer is protecting free speech in the future and you guarantee that the Obama administration will never try to limit criticism of any religions. is this correct?

In addition the Obama staff continually blaming an anti Islam video for the attacks is an attack on free speech. I'm sure you'll say that blaming the video is in support of free speech right MH? You say the opposite of whatever I say.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

And now you're going to talk down to me? very nice. You're supposed to set the example here.

I deny talking down to you. I am serious. You posted evidence when called upon to do so. In years gone by you just ignored such requests.

I am surprised that you are not more pleased with yourself.

You're saying the by not giving an answer this Obama staffer is protecting free speech in the future and you guarantee that the Obama administration will never try to limit criticism of any religions. is this correct?

The Obama administration may indeed limit criticism of religion somehow. Maybe they want to reserve the right to pursue that legislation. Maybe the person did not have leeway to make promises for his bosses. Maybe he was playing politics as was the asker of the question.

Why should we spend so much effort trying to make hay out of nothing though ? As I said, you deserve a gold star for providing the basics of an argument here today, even if the evidence was slight.

[Mr.Canada]

Why do you continue to talk down to me? You continually take this position of being superior to me. Why?

Edited November 4, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you continue to talk down to me?

I do not. I am glad that you are posting evidence for claims, that's all. I didn't mean to offend, apologies if I did.

[BC_chick]

Affirmative action is not the way to end discrimination. Ending discrimination is the way to end discrimination.

Well, until you come up with a way to end discrimination, you'll have to be stuck with affirmative action.

[BC_chick]

In this video the person for Obama's DOJ is refusing to answer NO. he is refusing to rule out that they wouldn't try to do just that. He could've put all this bed right away but obviously has an agenda that may include trying to limit free speech where criticism of religion is concerned.

That would include the left criticizing Christianity as well so they should be equally concerned.

He is saying no such thing.

He is simply not being given a chance to explain that certain speeches, such as threatening people of a religion, will never be covered under free speech.

How many times did he get talked over when he tried to explain?

[Guest American Woman]

It's Obama's DOJ thereby it's the under Obama's power. Are you trying to say that parts of Obamas staff can act without the orders from the President? That's interesting.

I'm saying that Obama has said nothing to indicate that he is going to make it illegal to criticize religion - quite the opposite.

If you listen to the question the asker said any religion Afaik, Islam is still a religion and would fit under that umbrella. Are you arguing that Islam/Muslims isn't/aren't part of a religion now?

I'm saying that it's telling that you only seem to have an issue with the idea of not being able to criticize Islam.

[Guest]

Well, until you come up with a way to end discrimination, you'll have to be stuck with affirmative action.

Affirmative action is discrimination. Can't end it while you practice it openly.

[BC_chick]

Affirmative action is discrimination. Can't end it while you practice it openly.

Study after study show that the 'white' sounding name on a resume will get you more interviews and more jobs even when the qualifications of the candidate are the same. I've see it first-hand, unforuntately, where HR throws out 'ethinic' sounding resumes.

The road may be getting paved, but it's still very uneven my friend.