Has PC gone too far??

Donkey

Donkey

Active member
I don't get why we worry about PC crap towards people that don’t hesitate to decapitate...

An article on the canceling of an Opera in Berlin written by Mozart (scene added by someone else) because it portrayed Muhammad... Not to mention the heads of many other gods and prophets including Jesus...But it isn't Jesus or Buddha they are worried about...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15013716/

And why should the Pope apologize??? Do Muslims apologize for their offence?

We are changing our lives for them just as the terroists wanted therefore the war on terror is becoming a losing battle...

In the words of Ben Franklin "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The essential liberty here is the freedom of speech and expression, or even the gift of god’s free will....
 
Last edited:
Yup, PC has gone to far.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


Expect I'm not PC.



7448320_l.jpg


3871624_l.jpg


7472891_l.gif
 
Last edited:
Portrayal inaccurate .....

Sorry 5.56
Not sure I can support your portrayal of Cindy Sheehan as a terrorist supporter ... being against the war doesn't automatically mean you support the terrorists (if that were the case, you'd have to place my mug on your poster right next to Bin Laden and Cindy Sheehan).

AND BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO TAKE A SHOT AT ME - I DO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, I just have a heartburn where GW is concerned.



Cindy has NEVER come out in support of ANY terrorist or ANY terrorist act. She just thinks that GW is a 'murderer' and a 'liar', something that many Americans agree with. She has has just been 'unfortunate' enough to be in the MSM headlines because of the death of her son in Iraq.

YOUR 'A VIRTUAL DUET' IS NOTHING BUT A LIE AND PROPAGANDA AT IT'S WORST, and in very poor taste. And this has NOTHING to do with PC (something I personally detest).
 
Last edited:
She might not support terrorism but she sure as heck doesn't support the troops either. She is a disgrace to her son and to all the fallen American heroes in the War on Terror.
 
Donkey said:
I don't get why we worry about PC crap towards people that don’t hesitate to decapitate...

An article on the canceling of an Opera in Berlin written by Mozart (scene added by someone else) because it portrayed Muhammad... Not to mention the heads of many other gods and prophets including Jesus...But it isn't Jesus or Buddha they are worried about...
Click to expand...


Hang on a sec this isnt a case of PCer's attacking Mozart at all...
The disputed scene is not part of Mozart’s original staging of the 225-year-old opera, but was an addition of Neuenfels’ production, which was last performed by the company in March 2004.
Click to expand...

What you have is a case of artistic license vs security.

I tend to find these arguments on promoting free speech and stamping out PC kind of amusing because in every case it is the same people spouting on about how ludicrous it is and how the right to free speech is paramount and yet the very same people are present in other threads (ie people protesting the war etc.) complaining that these people shouldnt be protesting and if they were there they would be sorting out the protesters.
For example take 5.56's views above he manages to be on both sides of a fence at once.

So which is it guys free speech tempered with PC or some form of police state where you only have the right to agree with the majority or who ever is in charge?
 
MontyB said:
Hang on a sec this isnt a case of PCer's attacking Mozart at all...


What you have is a case of artistic license vs security.

I tend to find these arguments on promoting free speech and stamping out PC kind of amusing because in every case it is the same people spouting on about how ludicrous it is and how the right to free speech is paramount and yet the very same people are present in other threads (ie people protesting the war etc.) complaining that these people shouldnt be protesting and if they were there they would be sorting out the protesters.
For example take 5.56's views above he manages to be on both sides of a fence at once.

So which is it guys free speech tempered with PC or some form of police state where you only have the right to agree with the majority or who ever is in charge?
Click to expand...

I made refrence to the fact it was an added scene...

No it relates to PC for that it is only the Islam religion they are worried about no one seems to care the Jesus, Buddha, and Poseidon are portrayed...And that is the point I was trying to make....Because you see, for when some one talks about Muhammad wack-os fire bomb a embassy...

This cracks me up http://www.zipperfish.com/free/yaafm12.php (foul language)

Finally I have no problem with a peaceful protest...However not one where you chain yourself to a fence and cause a disturbance...And not when you are being disrespectful of a funeral and saying how that soldier should go to hell for fighting for his country...

Yes limitations to freedom of speech exist for good reason....ie you cant run around screaming fire...That would cuase physical injury...
 
Last edited:
Donkey said:
I made refrence to the fact it was an added scene...

No it relates to PC for that it is only the Islam religion they are worried about no one seems to care the Jesus, Buddha, and Poseidon are portrayed...And that is the point I was trying to make....Because you see, for when some one talks about Muhammad wack-os fire bomb a embassy...
Click to expand...

I dont disagree but then fanatics will be fanatics hell just look at some anti-abortionists blowing up clinics and killing doctors etc, I recall the catholic threats and outcry over Madonna's music and the movie "passion of Christ" and at one point I was advised to leave a town in Missouri because I pointed out I had no intention of going to church.

What it boils down to is that it is stupid to go around antagonising people just because you have a right to do so especially when those people dont take a joke so well.

This cracks me up http://www.zipperfish.com/free/yaafm12.php (foul language)
Click to expand...

Hehe some of that is funny but sadly a lot of it is situational and on the whole it is a fairly heavy generalisation.


Finally I have no problem with a peaceful protest...However not one where you chain yourself to a fence and cause a disturbance...And not when you are being disrespectful of a funeral and saying how that soldier should go to hell for fighting for his country...

Yes limitations to freedom of speech exist for good reason....ie you cant run around screaming fire...That would cuase physical injury...
Click to expand...

But this is just my point where you draw the line on free speech happens to be on your side of the argument when in reality free speech etc. says that I have the right to say what I like no matter how distasteful to you. So if you are serious about it then you have to accept peoples right to be disrespectful at funerals etc, you dont have to like it and you would hope people had enough class not to do it but you have to accept their right to protest.
 
Chief Bones said:
Sorry 5.56
Not sure I can support your portrayal of Cindy Sheehan as a terrorist supporter ... being against the war doesn't automatically mean you support the terrorists (if that were the case, you'd have to place my mug on your poster right next to Bin Laden and Cindy Sheehan).

AND BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO TAKE A SHOT AT ME - I DO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, I just have a heartburn where GW is concerned.



Cindy has NEVER come out in support of ANY terrorist or ANY terrorist act. She just thinks that GW is a 'murderer' and a 'liar', something that many Americans agree with. She has has just been 'unfortunate' enough to be in the MSM headlines because of the death of her son in Iraq.

YOUR 'A VIRTUAL DUET' IS NOTHING BUT A LIE AND PROPAGANDA AT IT'S WORST, and in very poor taste. And this has NOTHING to do with PC (something I personally detest).
Click to expand...

What I detest is people that are openly critical of the president (any president) of our country. You don't have to agree with their policies nor their political affiliation. But you should respect the position and the office. No other American has the responsibilities of the president. Regardless of his actions and how you feel about them he is the elected leader of our country and our military. It's not a respector of a person but of the country. Other people see what we say and do and come to the conclusion that America can't be very good because a portion of the people are publicly attacking the leader of the most free nation in the world. Shameful.

As stated before, I did not ridicule Clinton while he was in office and I will follow the same set of rules for our current president as well as the next president whomever that may be.
 
Senior Chief said:
What I detest is people that are openly critical of the president (any president) of our country. You don't have to agree with their policies nor their political affiliation. But you should respect the position and the office. No other American has the responsibilities of the president. Regardless of his actions and how you feel about them he is the elected leader of our country and our military. It's not a respector of a person but of the country. Other people see what we say and do and come to the conclusion that America can't be very good because a portion of the people are publicly attacking the leader of the most free nation in the world. Shameful.

As stated before, I did not ridicule Clinton while he was in office and I will follow the same set of rules for our current president as well as the next president whomever that may be.
Click to expand...

Where on earth does it say one cannot criticize the POTUS? That is completely contrary to the tenents of the First Amendment, and frankly sounds more like rules that would be applied under a dictatorship. And yes, that means I respect every rightwing blowhard right to criticize Bill Clinton.

Teddy Roosevelt once wrote (I'm paraphasing here, but its something like)
"Its is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government"
 
Last edited:
MontyB-

I guess the line is drawn at causing physical harm or emotional harm since that does and can go hand and hand with physical harm. But I guess I am kind of confusing morals with that. Then again defamation of character is also against the law so the line is pretty fuzzy. DO NOT get me wrong I feel everyone should be allowed to protest and to say what they want to say. However people need to assert more self control and think things through a little more.

People that protest at a funeral are low life scum bags, seriously how disrespectful and hurtful could one be. No matter how you look at it no matter what your view is that is WRONG period.

A great moral to live by would be to treat others as you would like to be treated; I bet those people would not want their families put through that at their funeral.

Then also I recall an adage that is fitting; Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me....WTF happend to that????????
 
mmarsh said:
Where on earth does it say one cannot criticize the POTUS? That is completely contrary to the tenents of the First Amendment, and frankly sounds more like rules that would be applied under a dictatorship. And yes, that means I respect every rightwing blowhard right to criticize Bill Clinton.

Teddy Roosevelt once wrote (I'm paraphasing here, but its something like)
"Its is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government"
Click to expand...

I have a question for you:

Where in the world did you get the idea that MY personal opinion about how we should speak, or not speak about the President, has anything to do with criticizing the First Amendment?

You need to get your head out of the clouds and realize that every one in the country doesn't think it's cool to slam the leader of the most Free country in the world. You are not attacking the man, you are attacking the office and the country when you do that.

You are free to do so, but I still feel it is not correct. You paraphrased TR by saying:

Its is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government.

How about giving us the actual comment so we can interpet it as he probably meant it.

Your stand point is disturbing at the least.
 
mmarsh said:
Where on earth does it say one cannot criticize the POTUS? That is completely contrary to the tenets of the First Amendment, and frankly sounds more like rules that would be applied under a dictatorship. And yes, that means I respect every right-wing blowhard's right to criticize Bill Clinton.

Teddy Roosevelt once wrote (I'm paraphrasing here, but its something like)
"It's is the patriotic duty of every American to criticize ones government"
Click to expand...

Sorry Senior
I agree with MM on this one ... I have a Constitutional right to disagree with my political leaders (and that includes POTUS). Where you and I have a problem is ... Is the man the office (or) is the office the man?

I agree the office SHOULD be respected, but when the President hides behind the office, then sometimes you have no choice but to treat the office with the disrespect that the holder of the office has earned.

Sometimes you can't separate the two.

*Edit* corrected misspelled words in quote.
 
Senior

You seem to think the president (any president) is to be shielded to criticism simply because he is the president. As I said, that is the arguement of any two-bit dictator around the world. There is no free democracy in the world that bans criticism of the head of state. To list a few that do; North Korea, China, Syria, Cuba, Myanmar, Burma are all places where it is illegal to criticize the Head of State. Do you really want us to join their company? How much of a 'free country' would we be if we did? Do you really think you can keep a free democracy by silencing political dissent? I'm sorry to say that you have no clue how democracy really works.

But if you really are after people desrespecting the Office of President then you should start with George W Bush. I am not talking about his policies. I'm talking about how he acts as the President. For example, his ignoring of the system of checks and balances, by his contempt of the US Constitution, and for the disregard he holds for Congress and U.S and International Law, I think he is an absolute disgrace.
 
mmarsh said:
Senior

You seem to think the president (any president) is to be shielded to criticism simply because he is the president. As I said, that is the arguement of any two-bit dictator around the world. There is no free democracy in the world that bans criticism of the head of state. To list a few that do; North Korea, China, Syria, Cuba, Myanmar, Burma are all places where it is illegal to criticize the Head of State. Do you really want us to join their company? How much of a 'free country' would we be if we did? Do you really think you can keep a free democracy by silencing political dissent? I'm sorry to say that you have no clue how democracy really works.

But if you really are after people desrespecting the Office of President then you should start with George W Bush. I am not talking about his policies. I'm talking about how he acts as the President. For example, his ignoring of the system of checks and balances, by his contempt of the US Constitution, and for the disregard he holds for Congress and U.S and International Law, I think he is an absolute disgrace.
Click to expand...


Guys,

There is a difference between criticism and hatred. From what I've read and seen in the media as well as on this board it is less criticism and more from the "I've been programmed by the media" hate mongering.

As far as an absolute disgrace, the fact that most of the laws that you have inferred as the president breaking are allowed under the constitution and or were written into law by other administrations.

It seems as if revisionist history lives in your head.

I guess you are both saying that I don't have a constitutional right to my belief. That seems like a very left wing comment from you both!
 
Wow, getting rather defensive arn't we? Thats usually the sign of a weak arguement.

Where did Chief Bones or I state your arn't entitled to your opinion?

What you fail to understand (or tolerate), is that while your are entitled to your opinion, we too have have the right to ours. This includes our opinion that you are wrong. Nor are we going to stop criticizing the President just because you don't think we should. If you dont wish to criticize the President thats your business, but don't expect that others (Bones and I) share or honor your values.
 
If you think one man, G.W. Bush in this case, runs the USA....Well I just don’t know what to say.....If you think we are not still seeing repercussions that have finally come around from previous administrations....Well again I don’t know what to say....

But you are def smoking some good (expletive)
 
Senior Chief said:
Guys,

There is a difference between criticism and hatred. From what I've read and seen in the media as well as on this board it is less criticism and more from the "I've been programmed by the media" hate mongering.

As far as an absolute disgrace, the fact that most of the laws that you have inferred as the president breaking are allowed under the constitution and or were written into law by other administrations.

It seems as if revisionist history lives in your head.

I guess you are both saying that I don't have a constitutional right to my belief. That seems like a very left wing comment from you both!
Click to expand...

What he said.:thumb:

All that comes from attacking any President personally is adding fuel to the fire for your country's enemies. The North Vietnamese often spoke of the protesters who blamed President Johnson for the ongoing war and used every film clip and headline to bolster the confidence of their own soldiers and demoralize our own, effectively causing more deaths of our own forces.
 
mmarsh said:
Wow, getting rather defensive arn't we? Thats usually the sign of a weak arguement.

Where did Chief Bones or I state your arn't entitled to your opinion?

What you fail to understand (or tolerate), is that while your are entitled to your opinion, we too have have the right to ours. This includes our opinion that you are wrong. Nor are we going to stop criticizing the President just because you don't think we should. If you dont wish to criticize the President thats your business, but don't expect that others (Bones and I) share or honor your values.
Click to expand...

I think it's best if you read what you wrote and look at the context of how it reads. You are slamming me for "taking away your right to b***h about the president and at the same time telling me that it is against your civil rights.

Just for the sake of argument, it's not Bones, it's CHIEF Bones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top