U.N. to make ban on criticizing Islam mandatory?
- Thread starter stampede2873
- Start date
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
This is about Freedom of speech. I won't hold my tongue.
Come and arrest me, if you can.
This is America, I will say what I want.
The UN can't make rules in this country.
We already have a law about this.
A law like they are proposing is against our already established laws.
Come and arrest me, if you can.
This is America, I will say what I want.
The UN can't make rules in this country.
We already have a law about this.
A law like they are proposing is against our already established laws.
So this would mean the Christian countries won't be able to criticise any religion whilst in U.N countries but those outside of it and not part of a U.N country (many being muslim) will be able to continue telling us that we are inferior and believe in something wrong?
Don't hate...
If Facial King and others can post articles for the left. Then by all means I can do the same for the opposite views.
You don't like it... don't click on the link.
Plain and simple.
*** Who said I was neutral????****
Violator79
Take a Hit, Spunker!
I say what I want, to who I want, whenever I want and no law, no person is going to shut me up.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Hate? Geez...that seems extreme. The stuff in the "article" is really too laughable to be taken seriously enough to hate, my friend.
Of course you can post off-the-wall articles from the right. I can also make the comments I made about same. That's what the forum is for. However, as I said, if you want to be taken seriously by those who might tend to take an alternative stance on certain issues then don't use sources like worldnetdaily.com. If you don't care and all you want to do is post extreme right-wing propaganda then by all means go for it.
Just giving you some insight from my past experience here. Take it for what it's worth or ignore it as you choose....
Hate? Geez...that seems extreme. The stuff in the "article" is really too laughable to be taken seriously enough to hate, my friend.
Of course you can post off-the-wall articles from the right. I can also make the comments I made about same. That's what the forum is for. However, as I said, if you want to be taken seriously by those who might tend to take an alternative stance on certain issues then don't use sources like worldnetdaily.com. If you don't care and all you want to do is post extreme right-wing propaganda then by all means go for it.
Just giving you some insight from my past experience here. Take it for what it's worth or ignore it as you choose....
"Don't hate" is a just a figure of speech. I'm not implying that you are or were.
As for WorldNetdaily... I consider it a valid news source.
Is some of it propoganda? Of course it is. But some of it isn't, either.
However, it does give information that some news sources do not dish out.
What do you consider neutral news sources? ABC, CBS, NBC? Errr.... not quite. But please tell me where you get yours. I can't get enough news, and I am being serious.
As for some people taking me seriously.... I would wish some would. But I think you know that that line has already been crossed in the minds of a few left slanted individuals.
So, I will just have to live with it. :dunno:
I suddenly have the chorus of "We Are The World" running in my head.
It's gonna be there for a while now! :rofl:
Thanks. :thefinger: :weeping:
No doubt these guys can fuck up a wet dream.... can I say that, oh wait I did nevermind. :rofl:
I am an American, Not Canadian, or Mexican, or Global Citizen..... Sorry my colors don't run... shoot me and I bleed red, white, and blue.
I know you were joking, but hey had to put that out there :thumbsup:
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Considering worldnetdaily.com a legitimate news source is fine if there are other corroborative sources that would have an opposite slant but the basic news story is the same (i.e. if freerepublic.com and huffingtonpost.com both run opposing views on the same basic story, that legitimizes the source but not the slant). I did a quick Google search on the title of your post and couldn't find any source that was anywhere near to being left of the philosophies of Genghis Khan that backed it up. Therefore, it qualifies as extreme propaganda in my view and I dismiss it. It works the same the other direction as well (extreme right or left-wing dogma is there to try to control the way you think....I'm not going to let that happen to me).
Also, from my experience, usually anything Reuters, AP or UPI can be trusted as being fairly objective as far as the basic facts of any given story as long as the stories are not marked as "analysis" or "op/ed":
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.ap.org/
http://www.upi.com/
I am a total news junkie and weeding through the bullshit on both sides is a chore. One of the things I love to do is watch Olberman and Maddow and then immediately watch O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes. It's amazing to see the opposite spins on the same information....but the basic content of the story is what is important from my perspective. After hearing both sides, I can make up my own mind on which side of the fence I will stand.
Anyway....you asked, I answered. Now, back to work I must go.....
Considering worldnetdaily.com a legitimate news source is fine if there are other corroborative sources that would have an opposite slant but the basic news story is the same (i.e. if freerepublic.com and huffingtonpost.com both run opposing views on the same basic story, that legitimizes the source but not the slant). I did a quick Google search on the title of your post and couldn't find any source that was anywhere near to being left of the philosophies of Genghis Khan that backed it up. Therefore, it qualifies as extreme propaganda in my view and I dismiss it. It works the same the other direction as well (extreme right or left-wing dogma is there to try to control the way you think....I'm not going to let that happen to me).
Also, from my experience, usually anything Reuters, AP or UPI can be trusted as being fairly objective as far as the basic facts of any given story as long as the stories are not marked as "analysis" or "op/ed":
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.ap.org/
http://www.upi.com/
I am a total news junkie and weeding through the bullshit on both sides is a chore. One of the things I love to do is watch Olberman and Maddow and then immediately watch O'Reilly and Hannity/Colmes. It's amazing to see the opposite spins on the same information....but the basic content of the story is what is important from my perspective. After hearing both sides, I can make up my own mind on which side of the fence I will stand.
Anyway....you asked, I answered. Now, back to work I must go.....
What's your trick? how can you do it without sending your remote flying at the television, I would...it's all about freaking mind games, making news it's what's all about.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
LOL....I go through lots of remotes. And actually, it isn't about making news, it's about ratings. That's why Rush is digging the shit out of all this controversy. His Arbitron numbers continue to climb, he makes more money, blah blah blah.
Anyway, I'm going to get fired if I don't get off this forum until I get home....:1orglaugh
Yep ratings means more money that's what that I meant....
People our country belongs to the world, we all citizens of the world that will put science in it's rightful place and harness the power of the sun while goverment will be our only solution!
Similar threads
