Disappointed at Fox News Analyst

[Guest]

I'm watching Fox News right now where they had the conservative news analyst on the left side and the liberal news analyst on the right side both of them taking turns commenting on the news story that Pam Geller is putting her Muhammad cartoon drawing contest winner on Washington DC buses.

Predictably - the conservative analyst defends Pam Geller to the max citing her freedom of speech and how the problem is the Muslims wanting to kill her. The liberal one states that he agrees that she has the right to speech and the Muslim trying to kill her for it needs to be put to justice but that Pam Geller's provocation is wrong and that we should all rise up in condemnation of such an action instead of expressing support for her actions because we are too focused on her freedom of speech. He stated that 99.9% of Muslims in America are peace-loving and has stayed silent in response to her provocation and we should be able to simultaneously condemn the 0.1% of Muslims who plot to behead Geller and condemn Geller for the disrespect of a group of people that are peacefully exercising their freedom of religion.

Of course, the conservative stuck to her narrative and expressed that it is okay to run a contest to draw Muhammad cartoons.

You know what I see here? The conservative cannot take off the jersey of the "Conservative Home Team" as she treats the issue like a political football game. Okay, either that, or she's one that would do the exact same thing Geller did if she had the guts to do so (this is statistically unlikely I think). The liberal at least has the ability to get out of the sports game, shed his jersey, and analyze the story as a real person instead of a cardboard caricature of a liberal.

This is a prime example of why people who watch Fox News thinks it's a cesspool of conservative numskulls.

Yes, this was during American Newsroom - the news section rather than the commentary section like Hannity, Van Susteren, etc.

[Just_A_Guy]

In a perfect world, you'd be 100% right.

 

But most of these liberal schmucks whining about "Pam Geller has free speech, but . . ." had no problem chortling their way through a performance of The Book of Mormon Musical (I'm lookin' at YOU, Hillary Clinton) and just last week were perfectly happy to force multiple sexual assault victims to relive their experience in a publicly humiliating way because they saw a chance to cut some obnoxious Evangelical Christians down to size.

 

This, and similar incidents, tell me that most of these folks don't really respect religions or the beliefs of the people who affiliate with those religions.  They're just afraid of Islam, which benefits from having a numerically sizable (if statistically infinitesimal) portion of its membership that is willing to kill--in an abnormally painful, gruesome, and visible manner--anyone who doesn't give Islam the respect they think it is due.

 

An individual who mocks as "enemies" some of the few people who would actually give their lives for that individual's freedoms, while simultaneously kowtowing to that individual's true enemies, is both morally despicable in his own right and is writing a prescription for suicide of the free democratic republic in which he lives.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

In a perfect world, you'd be 100% right.

 

But most of these liberal schmucks whining about "Pam Geller has free speech, but . . ." had no problem chortling their way through a performance of The Book of Mormon Musical (I'm lookin' at YOU, Hillary Clinton) and just last week were perfectly happy to force multiple sexual assault victims to relive their experience in a publicly humiliating way because they saw a chance to cut some obnoxious Evangelical Christians down to size.

 

This, and similar incidents, tell me that most of these folks don't really respect religions or the beliefs of the people who affiliate with those religions.  They're just afraid of Islam, which benefits from having a numerically sizable (if statistically infinitesimal) portion of its membership that is willing to kill--in an abnormally painful, gruesome, and visible manner--anyone who doesn't give Islam the respect they think it is due.

 

An individual who mocks as "enemies" some of the few people who would actually give their lives for that individual's freedoms, while simultaneously kowtowing to that individual's true enemies, is both morally despicable in his own right and is writing a prescription for suicide of the free democratic republic in which he lives.

The problem with this post is the broad brush it uses.

This is really the crux of the matter relating to the OP. My OP was a specific conservative and a specific liberal.

But we are all just so happy to paint all liberals and all conservatives with what caricature we think they fall under... when, just like Islamic extremists or gay rights activists, - they are only a very small representation of their respective population.

Hence propagating the automatic donning of our Political Football Game team jersey.... which, in turn, makes us fit the exact caricature those guys in the other team's jerseys are painting us as.

It all just goes in circles achieving absolutely nothing. Somebody has to break it. And in the case of that particular Fox News section - the liberal is the one that broke it while the conservative just kept on making like a hamster.

Edited June 5, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

You know what I see here? The conservative cannot take off the jersey of the "Conservative Home Team" as she treats the issue like a political football game. Okay, either that, or she's one that would do the exact same thing Geller did if she had the guts to do so (this is statistically unlikely I think). The liberal at least has the ability to get out of the sports game, shed his jersey, and analyze the story as a real person instead of a cardboard caricature of a liberal.

 

I am disappointed but not really surprised that you see things this way.

 

Did this clear-headed lefty say anything about rising up in condemnation of the Book of Mormon musical? I am willing to bet he did not. Until he does, he is just another liar and hypocrite, and his words mean no more to me than a pile of dog vomit.

 

At least the conservative, cheerleader though she might be, is standing on real principle and not manufactured piety.

[Guest]

I am disappointed but not really surprised that you see things this way.

 

Did this clear-headed lefty say anything about rising up in condemnation of the Book of Mormon musical? I am willing to bet he did not. Until he does, he is just another liar and hypocrite, and his words mean no more to me than a pile of dog vomit.

 

At least the conservative, cheerleader though she might be, is standing on real principle and not manufactured piety.

Of course not... the topic was Pam Geller not the Book of Mormon musical. Do you really think with the time they allot for these discussions, that the Book of Mormon musical would come up? Even Westboro did not come up.

You cannot tell me what he would have said about the Book of Mormon musical (if he even knew what that is) and just automatically assume that he would be just fine with it... and even go so far as to call him a liar and a hypocrite just because... gasp... he's a liberal.

And the conservative is a moron in that particular section. I don't know what she would be outside of that section. I don't know her well enough. I can't just assume that she's not a moron outside of that section either, just because she happens to be a conservative.

So yeah, this thread started off proving my point to a T.

Edited June 5, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

Of course not... the topic was Pam Geller not the Book of Mormon musical. Do you really think with the time they allot for these discussions, that the Book of Mormon musical would come up? Even Westboro did not come up.

 

If the lefty's thesis was that it's wrong intentionally to insult religion just to be provocative, he's a liar for ignoring the Book of Mormon musical, something that openly profanes and distorts the representation of a significant percentage of Americans (roughly 5% -- about EIGHT TIMES MORE than the US Muslim population of around 0.6-0.7%), while Geller's promotion is all about -- drawing a picture. The two are in no way comparable insults, yet this lefty gets all high and mighty about the rudeness of someone drawing a picture.

 

Has he EVER condemned the Book of Mormon musical, in ANY public context? If not, my judgment stands. He is a liar and a hypocrite.

 

You cannot tell me what he would have said about the Book of Mormon musical (if he even knew what that is) and just automatically assume that he would be just fine with it... and even go so far as to call him a liar and a hypocrite just because... gasp... he's a liberal.

 

But this is a blatant misrepresentation of my point. (Has this lefty been giving you secret lessons on the side?) He is a liar and a hypocrite, not because he's a lefty, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite. His actions, not his politics, bear this out.

 

I am happy to be corrected. Tell me who the lefty is, then point me to some public statements he has made in condemnation of a production that is approximately 1000 times more offensive than drawing a picture, and that ridicules and offends more Americans by an order of magnitude. If he is as deeply concerned with religious mockery as he pretends to be, this will be easy for you. The Book of Mormon musical is neither obscure nor unnewsworthy.

 

(It is also worth noting that Geller's motives appear to be motivated by politics and the ideals of free speech, while Parker and Stone's motives were to make a pile of money. So even though her cause is much more noble, she still deserves the hate the left gives her, while the other two get off with a pat on the back for their cleverness and a fat deposit to the bank from all the laughing leftys paying them to watch their garbage.)

 

I can't just assume that she's not a moron outside of that section either, just because she happens to be a conservative.

 

What a dishonest comparison, anatess. I honestly expected more of you.

 

To be crystal clear about this: I did not condemn the man for being a "liberal". I condemned him for being a liar and a hypocrite. You can prove me wrong, simply by showing where this man has taken a strong, principled stance against the Book of Mormon musical.

 

So yeah, this thread started off proving my point to a T.

 

Well, some point has certainly been proven by this thread, but it doesn't look much like the point you made.

[The Folk Prophet]

his words mean no more to me than a pile of dog vomit.

 

Now let's not mince words here. Say what you really think.

Edited June 5, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

The problem with this post is the broad brush it uses.

 

Mais, oui.  But one might counter that your own OP levels a similarly broad brush against FoxNews, if not conservatives or our partisan society generally.  To which you would naturally reply "no, my post is just something I see as illustrative of a larger problem".  To which I would say "Yeah, mine too."  :)

 

Just to scramble the ideological boundaries even more--how many of the people condemning Gellar have ever uttered the phrase je suis Charlie?

Edited June 5, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[pkstpaul]

I no longer view the News as anything more than the entertainment media. There is no such thing as a journalist anymore.

 

As for the cartoon issue, there are more than 5,000,000 muslims in the US. I wouldn't want to provoke even .1% of them.  A group with a proven track record of extreme violence should not be provoked.

[Guest]

If the lefty's thesis was that it's wrong intentionally to insult religion just to be provocative, he's a liar for ignoring the Book of Mormon musical, something that openly profanes and distorts the representation of a significant percentage of Americans (roughly 5% -- about EIGHT TIMES MORE than the US Muslim population of around 0.6-0.7%), while Geller's promotion is all about -- drawing a picture. The two are in no way comparable insults, yet this lefty gets all high and mighty about the rudeness of someone drawing a picture.

 

Has he EVER condemned the Book of Mormon musical, in ANY public context? If not, my judgment stands. He is a liar and a hypocrite.

You are assuming that he didn't. And this assumption came from nothing more than that I said he is liberal. What other source could it have been?

I've seen this guy on Fox before. I can't remember what they were talking about then but it wasn't anything to do with Book of Mormon musical because then I would have remembered it.

I tried looking at the website to see if I can find his name so I can read up on him but there are so many people listed in their On Air Personalities and there's no "search" function where I could search for a good-looking young black man who wears rimless eyeglasses.

And besides... just because he has not said anything about the Book of Mormon musical does not mean he is "okay" with it. If he has not said anything about the musical then it is most likely because he was not asked about it - he is a Fox Analyst... he doesn't have his own show on that channel. I've never seen Fox have a news piece about the controversy of the Book of Mormon musical, let alone have analysts debate it, let alone choose him specifically to comment on it. You're a man of logic, let it not fail you now. He was asked about Pam Geller, so he told us what he thought about Pam Geller.

 

But this is a blatant misrepresentation of my point. (Has this lefty been giving you secret lessons on the side?) He is a liar and a hypocrite, not because he's a lefty, but because he's a liar and a hypocrite. His actions, not his politics, bear this out.

What in my OP made you conclude that he is a liar and a hypocrite? I didn't even give you his name. And you didn't provide any indication that you know exactly who it is I am talking about. Ergo - the only identification presented was that he is on Fox and he is a liberal which is the only reasons you could have used to conclude that he is a liar and a hypocrite.

I am happy to be corrected. Tell me who the lefty is, then point me to some public statements he has made in condemnation of a production that is approximately 1000 times more offensive than drawing a picture, and that ridicules and offends more Americans by an order of magnitude. If he is as deeply concerned with religious mockery as he pretends to be, this will be easy for you. The Book of Mormon musical is neither obscure nor unnewsworthy.

And here's an admission that you don't even know who it is I'm talking about yet he is already guilty of being a liar and a hypocrite before proven innocent. Why is that?

 

(It is also worth noting that Geller's motives appear to be motivated by politics and the ideals of free speech, while Parker and Stone's motives were to make a pile of money. So even though her cause is much more noble, she still deserves the hate the left gives her, while the other two get off with a pat on the back for their cleverness and a fat deposit to the bank from all the laughing leftys paying them to watch their garbage.)

Again... "the left" broad brush. Playing the game of Political Football and you're wearing the team jersey.

What a dishonest comparison, anatess. I honestly expected more of you.

Where is the dishonesty? That she portrayed a moronic position on that section or that I couldn't, in all honesty, conclude she is not a moron just because she's conservative?

To be crystal clear about this: I did not condemn the man for being a "liberal". I condemned him for being a liar and a hypocrite. You can prove me wrong, simply by showing where this man has taken a strong, principled stance against the Book of Mormon musical.

And you concluded that he is a liar and hypocrite because... he's on fox or he's a liberal. I mean, what else could it be? You didn't even know who I was talking about.

Well, some point has certainly been proven by this thread, but it doesn't look much like the point you made.

It is EXACTLY the point I made. And this is EXACTLY what is wrong with American politics.

[Guest]

Mais, oui.  But one might counter that your own OP levels a similarly broad brush against FoxNews, if not conservatives or our partisan society generally.  To which you would naturally reply "no, my post is just something I see as illustrative of a larger problem".  To which I would say "Yeah, mine too."  :)

That particular section is endemic in all major news outlets. I did not write a post when I see this stuff on CNN (that idiot news anchor interviewing Pam Geller yesterday, for example)... because most people on lds.net would just brush that aside as... I know, right? The Left are idiots!

Using this Fox incident, specifically, will illustrate my Political Football analysis more distinctly because from what I've experienced her on lds.net, most of you guys wear the conservative team jersey... so, it would be very very clear that you do have that political sports mentality... as the first page of this thread has shown.

 

Just to scramble the ideological boundaries even more--how many of the people condemning Gellar have ever uttered the phrase je suis Charlie?

The Political Football Game is alive on both sides.

I only know of one sure personality who doesn't play the game - Jamie Dupree.

Edited June 5, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

Now let's not mince words here. Say what you really think.

 

This is a weakness of mine. I need to learn to quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

[Just_A_Guy]

Using this Fox incident, specifically, will illustrate my Political Football analysis more distinctly because from what I've experienced her on lds.net, most of you guys wear the conservative team jersey... so, it would be very very clear that you do have that political sports mentality... as the first page of this thread has shown.

 

So . . . the conservatives at LDS.net all have a problem in that they tend to paint other people with an overly broad brush?

[Guest]

So . . . the conservatives at LDS.net all have a problem in that they tend to paint other people with an overly broad brush?

No, whether they are conservative or liberal, in this forum or out... they tend to treat politics like a game of football... the home team is always good, the away team is always the enemy and needs to be crushed.

Edited June 5, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

What in my OP made you conclude that he is a liar and a hypocrite? I didn't even give you his name. And you didn't provide any indication that you know exactly who it is I am talking about. Ergo - the only identification presented was that he is on Fox and he is a liberal which is the only reasons you could have used to conclude that he is a liar and a hypocrite.

[...]

And here's an admission that you don't even know who it is I'm talking about yet he is already guilty of being a liar and a hypocrite before proven innocent. Why is that?

 

[...]

It is EXACTLY the point I made. And this is EXACTLY what is wrong with American politics.

 

Your argument is not without merit. Specifically, your argument toward me is not without merit.

 

But you are missing what I see as the central point. Let me put it this way:

 

Show me the talking heads on the Left, the politicians or political pundits, who are openly condemning Geller for her misguided contest AND who vocally declaimed the Book of Mormon musical. Just list them on out. There must be thousands. Give me a dozen.

 

What? You can't?

 

Behold (what I see as) the central point. Prejudice against the political Left, whether or not it's harmful, is not mere blind bias. It exists for valid reasons. For the most part, the same is not true of the overwhelming prejudice against the political Right.

 

This is not a football game. If that is what you are seeing, you are missing the underlying realities. This is a schism in our very society, and will lead to schism in our nation. We are not cheering for a side; we are creating a bulwark against the storm that is currently raging and will only get much worse.

[Guest]

Your argument is not without merit. Specifically, your argument toward me is not without merit.

 

But you are missing what I see as the central point. Let me put it this way:

 

Show me the talking heads on the Left, the politicians or political pundits, who are openly condemning Geller for her misguided contest AND who vocally declaimed the Book of Mormon musical. Just list them on out. There must be thousands. Give me a dozen.

 

What? You can't?

Like I said... the game of Political Football is alive on both sides.

The point is not that the liberals are playing. The point is that YOU are playing... and that specific conservative analyst on Fox. Somebody needs to break this cycle for American politics to have a chance at redemption.

 

Behold (what I see as) the central point. Prejudice against the political Left, whether or not it's harmful, is not mere blind bias. It exists for valid reasons. For the most part, the same is not true of the overwhelming prejudice against the political Right.

The Political Right just has as much prejudice against the Political Left. They just have only one major news station on TV where you can see it... so it gets drowned out by the left.

 

This is not a football game. If that is what you are seeing, you are missing the underlying realities. This is a schism in our very society, and will lead to schism in our nation. We are not cheering for a side; we are creating a bulwark against the storm that is currently raging and will only get much worse.

You are creating a bulwark by playing the game. In my opinion, lining up linebackers on the field is not the way to bulwark it. Get off the field is more what I'm going for.

Edited June 5, 2015 by anatess

[Windseeker]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to "get off the field"

 

You need to understand that one group bases their ideas on Principles and the other bases their ideas on Feelings.

So when you call for people do drop their teams you are asking them to let go of their principles or their feelings which is not an easy thing to do. 

 

If this is some round about way of requesting more compromise between the two sides then your not alone. 

 

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/david-b-magleby_the-necessity-of-political-parties-and-the-importance-of-compromise/

 

But unfortunately the "Game" is necessary.

 

..and I quote again

 

 

While science, medicine, art, poetry, architecure, chess, space, sports, number theory and all things hard and beautiful promise purity, elegance and sometimes even transcendence, they are fundamentally subordinate. In the end, they must bow to the sovereignty of politics. Politics, the crooked timber of our communal lives, dominates everything, because in the end, everything--high and low, and especially, high--lives or dies by politics. You can have the most advanced and efflorescent of cultures. Get your politics wrong, however, and everything stands to be swept away. This is not ancient history. This is Germany 1933....

 

Turns out we need to know one more thing on earth: politics--be-cause of it's capacity, when benign, to allow all around it to flourish, and it's capacity, when malign, to make all around it wither. 

 

This is no abstraction. We see it in North Korea, whose deranged Stalinist politics has created a land of stunning desolation and ugliness, both spiritual and material. We saw it in China's Cultural Revloution, a sustained act of national self-immolation, designed to dethrone, debase and destroy the highest achievements of five millennia of Chinese culture. We saw it in the Taliban Afghanistan, which, just months before 9/11, marched it's cadres into Bamiyan Valley and with tanks, artillery and dynamite destroyed it's magnificent clif-carved 1,700-year-old Buddahs lest they--like kite flying and music and other things lovely--disturbe the scorched-earth purity of their nihilism. Of course, the greatest demonstration of the finality of politics is the Holocaust, which in less then a decade destroyed a millennium-old civilization, sweeping away not only 6 million soluls but the institiutions, the culture, the very tongue of the now-vanished wolrd of European Jewry. 

 

The only power comparably destructive belongs to God....The most considered and balanced statement of politics' place in the heirarchy of human disciplines came naturally, from an American. "I must study politics and war" wrote John Adams, "that my sons may have the liberty to study mathmatics and philosophy, geography, natural history, and naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study paiting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain".

 

Adams saw clearly that poltics is the indispensable foundation for things elegant and beautiful. First above all else, you must secure life, liberty and the right to pursue your own happiness. That's politics done right, hard-earned, often by war. ~ Charles Krauthammer

 

 

[Traveler]

The only reason that I can think of that it might be necessary to use the force of law to guarantee free speech is to protect the right of someone to speak about something that someone else believes (for whatever reason) to be offensive.

[The Folk Prophet]

anatess,

 

I'm not sure I understand the point here. Is it (forgive me if I'm misunderstanding):

 

We need to compromise our core values so we can all just get along.

 

??

 

'Cause....yeah....I don't think so.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I don't think that Americans need to cower when simply drawing a picture of the prophet Muhammad.  This is not Iran, it is America.  We don't put people to death for leaving a faith or simply drawing a picture.

 

I think it is sad that there are so many people in this country who are afraid of offending people for fear of injury or death over freedom of speech.

[bytor2112]

The Fox news format seems to work pretty doggone well as it is the most watched news network for ....14 years? The lefties call it Faux News, maybe that is why it is so watched because even the left watches it. 

 

Me? I watch CNN for entertainment and get the hard, honest no-spin news from Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes....( I know one of a very modest number and shrinking group of folks)

 

There is no such thing as news anymore....it is all editoralizing and debate. The format is designed for that to happen and while the lib may have briefly jumped out of his jersey, that is petty rare. No $$ if we are all "me too".

 

The conservaytive position resonates with the majority of Americans, that is why Fox is more popular than all of the other networks combined.

 

I suspect the Fox host (or guest) like most of the Fox audience and probably the majority of Americans are just repulsed by all things Muslim and the way our President and the left kow tows to them. The attack outweighs ands overshadows the conversation as to whether Geller was dumb for holding the event or not.

 

The real conversation should be not whether what she did was rude etc, but, how easily provoked to violence some claiming Islam as their religion  seem to be.

Edited June 6, 2015 by bytor2112

[hagoth]

I no longer view the News as anything more than the entertainment media. There is no such thing as a journalist anymore.

 

I agree with the first statement. I disagree with the second.

 

I consider John Oliver a journalist, and a very thorough one at that. But it's rare when I take time to listen to him nowadays. He insists he's a comedian rather than a journalist, but I think he doth protest too much.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/john-oliver-jorge-ramos-journalist-last-week-tonight_n_7275990.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/john-oliver-journalism_n_5888184.html

 

I also consider Jon Stewart a journalist, and a very thorough one. It's also rare when I take time to listen to him nowadays. He also insists that he's a comedian rather than a journalist. But he is also very effective at both.

(I highly recommend reading this brief insight to gain a small glimpse of what I mean) http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/04/jon-stewart-journalist/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/jon-stewart-journalism-real-news-leaving-daily-show_n_6658320.html

 

During Jon's appearance on CNN's Crossfire over a decade ago, he held the newscasters there to account: “You are doing theater, when you should be doing debate....It’s not honest. What you do is partisan hackery.” 

 

Which speaks to Anatess' OP.

 

As a caveat, both John and Jon swear on their shows. So avoid their content if you're convinced clean language is more important than what they have to offer. To sum up, in response to pkstpaul above, I am convinced there still is such thing as a journalist, and I think Jon's pending departure is unfortunate.

[Traveler]

I agree with the first statement. I disagree with the second.

 

I consider John Oliver a journalist, and a very thorough one at that. But it's rare when I take time to listen to him nowadays. He insists he's a comedian rather than a journalist, but I think he doth protest too much.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/13/john-oliver-jorge-ramos-journalist-last-week-tonight_n_7275990.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/john-oliver-journalism_n_5888184.html

 

I also consider Jon Stewart a journalist, and a very thorough one. It's also rare when I take time to listen to him nowadays. He also insists that he's a comedian rather than a journalist. But he is also very effective at both.

(I highly recommend reading this brief insight to gain a small glimpse of what I mean) http://blogs.mprnews.org/newscut/2015/04/jon-stewart-journalist/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/jon-stewart-journalism-real-news-leaving-daily-show_n_6658320.html

 

During Jon's appearance on CNN's Crossfire over a decade ago, he held the newscasters there to account: “You are doing theater, when you should be doing debate....It’s not honest. What you do is partisan hackery.” 

 

Which speaks to Anatess' OP.

 

As a caveat, both John and Jon swear on their shows. So avoid their content if you're convinced clean language is more important than what they have to offer. To sum up, in response to pkstpaul above, I am convinced there still is such thing as a journalist, and I think Jon's pending departure is unfortunate.

 

Interesting post - but I would like to put forward some ideas.  I have some training in propaganda as a means to change culture and individual morals.  Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister under Hitler, said that the best and most effective propaganda is entertainment and by far the most effective entertainment for propaganda purposes is humor.  In essence he said if one can be enticed to laugh they will believe anything they will allow themselves to laugh at.

 

For this reason I am far more critical of those that use humor as a means to effect what is "thought" or presented as an accurate representation of human affairs.  You may have noticed that this post is made with deliberate soberness and lack explicit of humor.  I am not trying to "trick" you into how to think but to be very careful what swallow as TRUE.  Every one has a bias - as well as my self.  If you do not understand the bias - you are less like to be able to decipher what truth there is in the things you like laughing at.

[jerome1232]

On one hand I agree, it is a disrespectful move. But freedom protects disrespectful things. Perhaps it will take time for some newcomers to adjust to living in a free and diverse society. Perhaps they will not need to adjust because we are moving away from the whole, free, thing.

Edited June 6, 2015 by jerome1232

[bytebear]

I don't get this notion that somehow murdering someone because of a cartoon is somehow less egregious than one who draws a cartoon.  The fact is, cartoonists are not a threat to anything other than those who wish to censor ideas.  And to bring up a question posed earlier, has anyone on the left ever condemned the Book of Mormon musical as offensive (or any other offense done by liberal  types?)

Edited June 7, 2015 by bytebear