Well if posting in all caps and name calling aren't "snit-worthy" I don't know what is. There is just a whole lot of energy being wasted on someone that is being almost unanimously derided here as a bimbo. I was simply pointing out how ironic that is. If she truly is as stupid and backwards as people here think then it really shouldn't matter what she says, right? She isn't an elected official. She's not all that important. This "story" was posted here to intentionally inflame people.
Standing up for America? What does that even mean. Denigrating someone you don't know for pretty benign comments you don't agree with isn't some act of patriotism. I really wish you would get your dander up over something that actually matters, not an intentionally inflammatory non-news story.
If she's so vapid and inconsequential then why are so many people getting so upset? Typical tilting at windmills.
I am glad you're all putting so much energy into what is essentially a non-story. It's almost as if this story was put here intentionally as a catch basin for all this ignorant, racist drivel. Liberals may be bad but you all are no better.
And this has to do with Conan how? Beyond your shaky premise about liberal comedians...How is your comment relevant?
I thought the whole point was to be better than the people we're fighting. Why would we even refer to their handbook when deciding what we're going to do? That seems like a great way to get a lot of people to hate us for more than just our freedoms (And I know most here don't care about our image around the world, but that hate adds up to us being attacked, everyone admits that). So the new rules should be: see what the enemy does and use that as your limit? That isn't America. We're better than that. We set our own standard and we always have. Using our enemies techniques as a benchmark is an ignorant way to persecute a war, and a lot of real progress is made through interrogative methods that don't involve badly treating someone. Wouldn't we rather, just for our own peace of mind, be that country and not the one that "tortures" people?
Is it not possible that torture is an umbrella term for all manner of abusive treatment? From waterboarding to dismemberment? Not to equate the two, but to sort of put them all in a zone civilized people won't approach?
I can appreciate sarcasm, so I do hope you're joking. But I like to cover my bases. So here's my response.
Dude, it's only a cartoon. Call me when you make a terse, ignorant comment on a story about a real movie.
Misleading title. It says in the first line and then in the words of his spokesperson, that he is making a personal commitment to bridging the differences with Muslims, and engagement based on mutual interests. Not, as the title suggests, a "personal commitment to Muslims". And why wouldn't he commit to bridging that gap? I would think, on a rational level, that if all Muslims hated us, or let's say even half of the world's Muslims hated us to the point where they would do something about it, we would be in a lot more trouble security wise than we are now. It sounds like we have a public image problem, and speeches and gestures like this are the solution. Who we are dealing with are groups of radicals adhering to an extremist branch of Islam called Wahabism. And as for Islam being a violent religion, Jesus brings a sword. It's a metaphorical one, a sword of division between the believer and the non-believer, but in Matthew he says he brings a sword. And if Obama's birth place is in question, I would like to think that since the highest power in the land rested with a member of an opposing political party, that this information would have been found out, and sought no matter the cost to his image. Or maybe, just maybe, nobody substantial sought this information out because they knew Obama was legitimate.
You like the suffix tard.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Experiment