Trent

What does that have to do with anything? If visiting Mexicans are offended, they will eventually go home where they can be not-offended. If they're here legally, they should be happy that Texas won its independence as it is currently providing them with their homes and jobs. Mexican-Americans in Texas should also be proud that we kicked Santa Ana's ass because many of their ancestors fought alongside the Texan army. We can't apologize when it is our very existance that is offensive to someone. (That goes for more situations than just this) So again, what did this have to do with Mexicans leaving? Oh, hello again!

but but but... then the Canadians' very existence would offend us former Americans and something would just HAVE to be done so no one was offended. Maybe then Canada could hand us back over to the French, British, and Mexicans... who in turn would have to hand us back to the Indians, who in turn would have to wait for the landbridge to be uncovered again so they could leave and have the former Canadian-American-Mexican-French-British territories turned back over to the animals and trees who were here first. Of course, then someone will start worrying about those damned dinosaurs and their delicate sensibilities. Oh, hello again!

Yeah, I feel the same way, but I'm an evil whitey oppressor so you never know... I was thinking that maybe we should stop celebrating the 4th of July since it might offend some British people. We should also rename Houston since it is offensive that we have a city named after the guy who defeated Santa Ana... shit... guess we'll have to rename Washington too. Oh, hello again!

So I was listening to the radio this morning and they were talking about how the new Houston soccer team had to be re-named because it was deemed (by whom, I'm not sure) that their first name was offensive to someone. Yeah, that's right... a soccer team. Apparently, the original name "1836" (kinda like the 76ers) is offensive to Mexicans since that is the year that Sam Houston defeated Santa Ana and won independence for Texas. So they're actually changing the name because actual history is offensive to them. Is this just ridiculous or what? Oh, hello again!

That's the second time you've posted that picture. Obsessed with butt-bottle sex? Oh, hello again!

Do you reference the context of your discussion in every sentence that you say? Or is it understood that when you're talking about roaches that when you say, "ANY TIME I see one of the little brown fuckers, I'll kill him." that you're talking about roaches and not brown dogs, deer, or people with brown skin? If you guys are fine with being disingenuous, okay. Your arguments would be better served by finding another "gotcha" point to harp on though. What you consider me explaining away, I consider you to be stretching for a point. Oh, hello again!

Oops, you're right. We SHOULD take the quote out of context. I noticed that you didn't dispute that the discussion where you got this quote was a discussion specifically about the Patriot Act. But hey, if it makes your argument look good... why care about it, right? As for the "why bother" comment... I guess reality isn't important to you, so, indeed, why bother? Oh, hello again!

Or how about posting quotes out of context? Should we believe YOU when you do that? The "evidence" that Bush was lying that you posted was from a news conference about the Patriot Act. I SAW it. He was SPECIFICALLY talking about the Patriot Act which concerns people HERE in the US. The new controversy involves wiretapping conversations with 1 party outside of the US. It is not the same thing. But I can see how people who are already frothing at the mouth use it to try to convince themselves that Bush is pure evil. Oh, hello again!

Just a point here, but didn't islam come quite a while after christianity which came quite a while after judaism? It would seem only naturaly that a "new" religion would have to have some degree of acceptance of its predecessors in order for it to be spread among people who would convert. Otherwise, it wouldn't be very easy to have the masses accept it. As far as really "accepting" things that differ from a religion's view of the world. I've never heard any non-whacko christian or jewish service that preached anything but understanding and cooperation with people of other faiths. However, you must admit that the recent mohammed cartoons is a SMALL sign of islam's lack of acceptance of the way many other countries live. We could go back and forth pointing out more examples, but the point here is that many people in the wester countries are increasingly seeing the lack of tolerance from the islamic countries. That deserves an explanation, not just a brush off saying, "Islam is VERY tolerant, you don't know what you're talking about!", because people are SEEING what is going on. Oh, hello again!

Have to disagree here. Denmark's been a good friend, and even if they hadn't been... I think the US should stand up for what we beleive in regardless of politics. Just a simple statement saying that freedom of the press is crucial to democracy and freedom and that calls for violence and censorship just because one group is offended is unacceptable would suffice. Apparently that has happened now according to a post above this. Good. Oh, hello again!

Noted. I know that you're bashing the governments and not the people, however I was pointing out that even on a government level... the US has had its allies turn their backs when our flags are burned and we are scorned for simply being the US. Has Denmark done this? I dunno, but judging from what the people there told me... probably not. Has the US issued any statements that said we SHOULD censor our media? Has GWB said anything about the incident? (not being sarcastic, I'm asking because I haven't heard) All I've heard is that the state department thinks papers shouldn't print inciteful things like the cartoons. "Shouldn't" and "can't" are pretty different. Like I've said though, what the US SHOULD HAVE said was, "Denmark is a free country. Their papers can print whatever they want. Don't like it? Don't read it." ... but very few politicians have the balls to do that, unfortunately. Oh, hello again!

See my post above... http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2061170#2061170 While I don't agree that the US (since I'm American and can't speak for the UK) doesn't take a more solid stance on telling the muslim world that what they're angry about is WRONG and the free world will never let their delicate sensibilities govern our press or our laws, I DON'T think bashing the US for being moderate is right either. How many times have we stood alone with the criticism of the world while our "allies" slinked off into their corners or joined the world in berating us? Again, that's not justifying the US stance here, but it isn't the first time it's happened to someone who is ostensibly trying to stand up for what they think is right. I still think it'd be nice to have the leaders of the free world get into a conference room to take a group photo of all of them flipping the bird. Publish that in the papers. Oh, hello again!

Except now, from what I hear from people and media, it seems the people of Iran are largely pro-western. It's the government (that was overthrown by the religious nut-jobs) that can't seem to get along with the world, not the people. But that's just what I hear. Hmmm... off the top of my head? The US, some EU countries, Israel, Russia, China... A lot of non-nuclear countries also voted to refer Iran to the UN security council. Oh, hello again!

It IS interesting to see who voted against the referral... namely Venezuela and Cuba. Not surprising though. It's also interesting to see that Russia and China want any discussion delayed until March. Add that extra month to the 2 years it'll take the UNSC to get anything together and the Iranians will have the bomb soon enough. The only hope here is that a UN embargo COULD incite a revolution in Iran that ends in a better government. Not likely, but we can hope. Oh, hello again!

To the credit of the US and UK, most of our "allies" denigrate us or stand quietly when we are boycotted, threatened, and have our flags burned. While I don't think it's right that we stand idly in this issue, I think it's no worse than what many countries have done to the US and UK on many occasions. I just expected that the US would make a more emphatic statement that we, nor any free country, can let any religion dictate what our press gets to say. For that, I am sorry and saddened. There will come a time when we will all come to the conclusion that this widespread intolerance of free democratic ideals is unacceptable. I thought this issue would be one step towards that day of understanding that there are people (seemingly a lot more than people thought) who hate us (the civilized world) because we are not like them. Time will tell I guess. Oh, hello again!

Where can we find the Democrat plan to save Social Security? Oh, hello again!

Awesome. All this over a cartoon. There's no way anyone can defend this child-like reaction. It's almost like we don't need to call the nut-jobs "radical muslims" anymore... we can just call them "muslim" and we'll have to specify when we're talking about the "non-radical muslims" since it seems that they're either invisible, in the minority, or scared to defend their religion. Oh, hello again!

Unfortunately, the "friends of islam" type folks out there will not realize this until their friends saw their heads off (figuratively or literally). It is a real shame that it is starting to look like there are less and less modern, moderate muslims out there. Eventually, EVERYONE will have to face this problem... it will just take some longer to realize it. Oh, hello again!

If I had a dime for every time someone used that pot-kettle shit as a "burn" here... Sure, people die by US hands and munitions in Iraq and we DON'T HEAR THE END OF IT. People rant, rave, prod, make-fun-of, and ridicule the US all the time without fear of us running through the streets burning embassies and calling for journalists to be killed. Hmmmm... Are you saying that it's okay for muslims to demand that we censor our presses and adhere to THEIR law? Are you really okay with that? I have a feeling that people who are so up the ass of islam will have a nice surprise waiting for them if people don't stand up to this bullshit now. Oh, hello again!

It's almost as if it were an islamic crusade, maybe? Send millions of immigrants out who in turn are offended by the rest of the world's heathen ways, then guilt our dumb-asses into accommodating for them by building mosques and making law to protect them and make it easy to spread their religion. Sure, it's on one end of the spectrum but it's starting to walk like a duck... I wonder why we don't hear too many of the liberals jumping up and down trying to convince the world that WE are wrong and THEY are right. Could it be that it would further point out their hatred of Judeo-Christian religions? I mean, it's okay to attack and mock Christianity because they don't have a right to be offended, but when millions of muslims go up in arms wanting blood over a CARTOON... it's our fault because we've offended them? I would like to add my apology to the Danes for the US's lack of support here. That really pisses me off. If people don't stand up, we'll constantly be walking on eggshells with the muslim world. Eventually, we may find ourselves in REAL trouble. Oh, hello again!

So if people had been asked to leave in the past, it should have been known that they'd probably be asked to leave as well. Many restaurants and clubs would ask t-shirt wearers to leave as well... even though I've never seen the establishment rulebook saying they can't be worn. I think the very fact that both ladies were asked to leave shows that it isn't a partisan issue here. Now the arrest? If she refused to leave or something, I can see how it went down... but if she left with a nice "fuck you" to the security staff like the other lady did... that's not cool. I never said arresting that woman was right. Oh, hello again!

Just sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, but... Just because someone disagrees with you EVEN THOUGH the issue may be close to home for you, doesn't mean they're being an asshole. There seems to be a lot of that BS floating around here lately. You keep talking about these reasons that people gain excessive weight. No one is disagreeing with their existence (that I've seen). What people are saying is that the simple fact is that more energy burned than consumed will lead to weight loss. It IS harder for some people to lose or keep weight off due to their various metabolisms and other illnesses, but it does not change that simple fact. Some people will have to vary their diet and stick to an exercise regimen because of their conditions if they want to stay in their healthy weight range. We're all dealt different cards and we have to play them differently. No one said it would be easy and I respect those that work hard to look and feel how they want to feel. I can also respect that some others are comfortable with how they are and don't go too far out of their way to look like an athlete. Why, I wonder, does the US have so much more obesity than other nations? It's hard to imagine that it is just due to more of us having thyroid problems or other illnesses, but maybe... Oh, hello again!

The conversation will be where it has been. Both women were removed because their attire was deemed inappropriate by the security personnel at the event. Apparently, it's always been that way and traditionally is a more "formal" event. Back to the point of decorum. From the same article you quoted... Oh, hello again!

So should we or shouldn't we use other people's past actions as an excuse for us doing something? The dems got their chance to hoot and holler with the mention of voting down the SS reform bill. So let's say that negates the booing from the past. (If you want to really use that logic, anyway) Do you really think that Bush told the security people to kick anyone out that disagrees with him? Almost 40% of congress despises the man and you think he is insulated from hearing dissent? Really? That's a good stretch. If people want to be taken seriously, they should act decently. Sure, ranting and screeching like many activists (and some politicians) do will get you some media attention here and there, but no one will take you seriously. And still, BOTH ladies may have been escorted out because they were wearing t-shirts, which I would think is inappropriate for such an occasion. Until proven otherwise, it makes as much, if not more sense than your "control freak" argument. Oh, hello again!

I thought the speech was pretty good. He addressed most of the issues that we bitch an moan about here in SC. He also took a few nice shots at those who oppose just about everything. Sure they're allowed, but there's a time and a place. The SOTU is the president's turn to talk, not a place for a protest. Sometimes I think that those who bitch most about free speech feel like that free speech only applies to them and all others should be shouted down. They probably didn't want to have any confrontation in the gallery, so they took preventative action. Or maybe there was a dress code since the "Support Our Troops" shirt had to leave too. Yeah, you'll say I'm making excuses, but there is a time and place for people to rant and rave... and the SOTU isn't it. People have lost their sense of decorum, and would probably be taken more seriously if they hadn't. Oh, hello again!