Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:44 pm
Tours the world.
That entire article is full of people that need slapping until reason takes hold of them.
That entire article is full of people that need slapping until reason takes hold of them.
Page 3 of 4
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:54 am
This is actually an excellent point.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:56 am
I never thought I'd say something like this, but I guess things like "Project Runway" and "Keeping up with the Kardashians" actually do count as having something better to do when compared to what the extremist islamists think typical Americans spend their time doing.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:58 am
Neither one of those things have anything to do with "glorifying the prophet," therefor they are forbidden.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:11 am
And we don't give a flying shit what the prophet thinks. Ain't it great?
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:15 am
There is an incarcerated filmmaker in California who doesn't think it is great.TPRJones wrote:And we don't give a flying shit what the prophet thinks. Ain't it great?
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:47 am
He wasn't arrested because he didn't love the prophet, he was arrested because he's a felonious tool that violated the shit out of his parole.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:49 am
Gotcha.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:48 pm
Hey, if he wanted to keep a low profile, he went about it a pretty dumb fucking way.GORDON wrote:Gotcha.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 1:50 pm
Yep, totally got what was coming to him. The fact that millions of people are calling for his arrest, and the white house took steps to shut down the video has nothing to do with it.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 3:14 pm
He violated the basic Hobbesian tenet of, "If you're going to talk shit, expect pain." Furthermore, a judge in Cali just blocked an actor's attempt to get the vid yanked. She was pissed about the number of death threats she received, but I suppose those don't matter.GORDON wrote:Yep, totally got what was coming to him. The fact that millions of people are calling for his arrest, and the white house took steps to shut down the video has nothing to do with it.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:27 pm
Depends on the contract she signed when she took the role. It will outline how much of her performance she still has control over and if she can get it pulled. Odds are she can't though because she signed those rights away.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:56 pm
Olivia DeHavilland successfully sued the entire movie industry claiming the old school contracts were a form of indentured servitude. It wouldn't be the first time some agent's bullshit was overruled.TPRJones wrote:Depends on the contract she signed when she took the role. It will outline how much of her performance she still has control over and if she can get it pulled. Odds are she can't though because she signed those rights away.
This is a fraud-prone, proven asshole who has made a financial living lying to people. If he had the balls to stand up on YouTube and personally recite a monologue, or some other such direct shit promoting his beliefs, then fine, I'd be defending him to the hilt. He chose to be a fucking lying bastard about it. I will give him no benefit of any doubt.
Normally, I'd defend someone who speaks their mind from any retribution from the masses. This fucko, not so much. Not on a legal or moral basis, but just because he acted like a dumb-ass. In spite of the psychotic reaction of certain religious folk, the fact remains lives were lost. The parchment and ink that the Bill of Rights was written on didn't stop it from occurring. John Locke loses yet again to Thomas Hobbes.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 8:59 pm
It's the assholes that need their speech defended.
edit - Well, their freedom of speech protected, I mean to say.
Edited By GORDON on 1348189241
edit - Well, their freedom of speech protected, I mean to say.
Edited By GORDON on 1348189241
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:09 pm
I'll wait to see what this dude thinks when someone makes "The Innocence of Coptic Christians."GORDON wrote:It's the assholes that need their speech defended.
edit - Well, their freedom of speech protected, I mean to say.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:18 pm
I would be curious to see the outcome of that. I bet a dollar that nothing would happen. There would be no Coptic Christian Rage.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 9:43 pm
"It's best not to upset a Wookie..." As absurd as that analogy seems, why the FUCK would you provoke someone that doesn't have much to live for because they live in a shitty third-world country ruled by fundamentalist dictators? Why the fuck would you provoke folks whose hardline members entertain hobbies like blowing shit up by using themselves as crude, oversized blasting caps? Were the fuckwads that stormed the embassy ultimately responsible for killing people? Sure. Do I approve of giving fuckwads more yet another reason to express misdirected indignation? If there's a decent enough cause.
Edited By Malcolm on 1348191854
Edited By Malcolm on 1348191854
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:20 pm
They live in a poor, fucked up country because of their islamism. Cure it.
Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:58 pm
Your cure involves embassies getting torched?GORDON wrote:They live in a poor, fucked up country because of their islamism. Cure it.
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:22 am
i am done arguing this circular bullshit with you. either live in fear of upsetting someone insane and restrict behavior, or dont.