- WARNING TIGHT-ASSED LIBS: IF YOU CAN'T TAKE A JOKE, DON'T READ THIS BLOG!
- JOHN F. KERRY'S COMMENTS REFLECT WHAT THE DEMOCRATS TRULY THINK ABOUT OUR TROOPS
- WE ARE "pro-America" "pro-Wal-Mart" & "pro-Israel" BLOGGERS
- HOW MANY DAYS UNTIL THE LIBERAL MEDIA REPORTS ON LIBERAL SENATOR "DINGY" HARRY REID AND HIS LAND SCANDAL AND ILLEGAL USE OF CAMPAIGN FUNDS?
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
Attacking Non-UH liberalism 'NY Times Withholds Showing Cartoon of Prophet Muhammad' (Reprints photo of Ofili's dung smeared "Holy Virgin Mary")
Ofili's painting was at the center of controversy in 1999 when it was shown at a Brooklyn museum but not before being pelted with dung.
I originally wasn't going to run the below picture but since the liberals insult me and my Christian god, it's my prerogative to insult them and their islamic god.
If Michael Kimmelman is fired from the New York Times I will remove the below picture.
FUCK THE LIBS!
The violent reaction to the cartoons is frightening, but so is the governments' steps into press rooms around the globe.
Although Bush did get on the papers that ran the cartoons a little bit, I do not believe his comments in anyway placed any inhibitions on what those papers should print now or in the future.
To my understanding the Danish paper that started this mess had a grip against Muslims, and the was their way of getting back at them.
Now if the cartoons wouldn't have run again across Europe then the riots may not have happened, but this crisis has been brewing since before the new year when the cartoons originally ran.
I'm still wondering how the obscure Danish flag got into the hands of so many Muslim rioters. It looks to me that the democratic party may have been involved.
Having said that, those who created the cartoons had a larger purpose than just comment, they wished to see if they could have some of the Islamo-fascists to react in the exact way that the cartoons depicted Mohammad, and probably use the controversy for some free publicity of their own. Given the current world situation obviously this was a bad idea in many ways, but they had an absolute right to do it and the only legitimate way to fight back would to be for those who disagree with it to use their free speech to promote their criticisms of it.
Even more than we need a free market of goods and services we need a free market of ideas. If you want someone to "purchase" yours it is up to you to be the best salesman. Laws against hate speech only serve to set the stage for politically motivated censorship, no small problem in the Middle East. The First Amendment is absolute; it is protected by the Second Amendment.
Even though I completely disagree with so much the liberals say, they do have an absolute right to say it, and we should all defend this right, even the rights of the liberals in this respect, even if we do not like the content of their speech. However conservatives should get to enjoy the same rights as well. That is what having a free society means, which is what America is supposed to be about.
I’m sure the censorship of the American press is because so many have had the case made to them that publishing the cartoons is only going to cause more bloodshed and that in our case it may put our troops in more harm in the Middle East, break new and perhaps in sometimes fragile alliances, and spawn more sleeper agents like those responsible for the London bombings who were not imports, but had lived in England nearly all their lives or all of their lives.
However, if you feel that the freedom of the press is being squashed, first and foremost you should blame the terrorists, not our government. If it had not been for the 9/11 nutjobs all of these curtailments of civil liberties that are taking place would never have happened in the first place.
if it had been some regular hamas terrorist with a bomb turban, there would have been no controversy. it can be equated to calling Jesus something he wasnt. And i'm not saying that Islam is a religion that you cannot attack. you can. but in good taste. criticizing terrorists and bombs is good, but then taking that image and essentially putting it on a person that muslims revere kind of tells the world that 'if their leader was a terrorist, they all are' and it doesnt further any cause.
the violence provoked by it was not justifiable, and i condemn it. but portraying every muslim as a terrorist is also wrong, and i think everyone should agree on that as well.
hip hop jewelry
wholesale hip hop watches
hip hop rings
Links to this post: