Dutch MP who was banned from Britain for his anti-Islam...

... film is welcomed in the US by (surprise!) Republican Senator Jon Kyl.

Link

The Dutch MP also called Koran a 'fascist book' and said it should be banned.

The Dutch MP is guilty of cognitive dissonance, at the very least.

How so TC?

TerryRC wrote:... film is welcomed in the US by (surprise!) Republican Senator Jon Kyl.

Link

The Dutch MP also called Koran a 'fascist book' and said it should be banned.

The Dutch MP is guilty of cognitive dissonance, at the very least.

Perhaps, but then I wonder why you elsewhere consider yourself "not intolerant enough."

Aaron: How so TC?

He calls for a book to be banned so he comes to a place that values free speech and abhors bans upon it.

I can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

Sheik: Perhaps, but then I wonder why you elsewhere consider yourself "not intolerant enough."

I'm not calling for the banning of your religious texts, am I...

5 months?

Really.

So?

Mike brought this topic back up and I saw that you had asked a question that I didn't respond to, so I fixed that.

Sorry. I won't bother next time.

TerryRC wrote:So?

Mike brought this topic back up and I saw that you had asked a question that I didn't respond to, so I fixed that.

Sorry. I won't bother next time.

First, Mike brought up every topic back up. Something about being home, alone, bored and broke.

I didn't understand why you were bringing it up again. Now I understand as I too have missed post.

And second, you didn't answer my questiong. You accused this gentleman of cognitive dissonance but you didn't make your case.

Yes, America values free speech but we are certainly not innocent regarding the banning part. We do it in our every day life in many forms. You call for it yourself when religion comes into the equation. Hence my reply.

It is ironic though that this would come to light on the same day that you had no problem with a mall in Charlotte censoring a small business owner and his right to free speech because of his criticizing of President of Obama.

By your reasoning that would make you guilty of cognitive dissonance, at the very least.

Well Aaron do you think the gvt. should compel the mall owner to display a political message against their will?

To me, a person has freedom of speech, but not the right to make someone else spread it.

If you own a paper, print what you want.

Or if you own the mall put up whatever political sign you want.

Freedom of speech does not apply to private enterprizes. The mall owner can do as he likes but he will suffer the consequences for his actions.

And for the record, the second one was spot on.

Yes, America values free speech but we are certainly not innocent regarding the banning part. We do it in our every day life in many forms. You call for it yourself when religion comes into the equation. Hence my reply.

Do I? Where have I called for bans on religion? Religion all you want. Just don't do it with public money or property.

It is ironic though that this would come to light on the same day that you had no problem with a mall in Charlotte censoring a small business owner and his right to free speech because of his criticizing of President of Obama.

Where did I say I had no problem with it?

Just to play devil's Advocate, however, is a mall "public property"? Was it owned by the person exercising his right to free speech?

Inquiring minds want to know...

TerryRC wrote:Yes, America values free speech but we are certainly not innocent regarding the banning part. We do it in our every day life in many forms. You call for it yourself when religion comes into the equation. Hence my reply.

Do I? Where have I called for bans on religion? Religion all you want. Just don't do it with public money or property.

You JUST called for a ban. Do as I say, not as I do, huh.

As for the rest, I would have to go back 9 months and it's just not worth it to have to wait until winter for you to reply. I know your busy but that's a little much for even me to argue.

You JUST called for a ban. Do as I say, not as I do, huh.

Prove it.

Bans mean banning. The ONLY thing I have called for is not to allow public money or property to be used for proselytizing.

Hardly a ban.

As for the rest, I would have to go back 9 months and it's just not worth it to have to wait until winter for you to reply. I know your busy but that's a little much for even me to argue.

So is it that you are lazy or just that you have no attention span? It has been a month since your last post. I was out of state for three of those weeks. Sorry that my schedule is inconvenient for you.

Remember, I'm not the one that resurrected this topic.

BTW, "your" is a possessive. I think you should be using the contraction "you're" when you are describing an action phrase like, "I know you're busy...".

Sorry. I have this bad habit of trying to fix ignorance when I see it.

Your not worth it TC.

TerryRC wrote: Sorry. I have this bad habit of trying to fix ignorance when I see it.

Your not worth it TC.

Ah, the willfully ignorant...

You can't back up your assertion that I have called for religious bans so you chicken out by insulting me (..."your" not worth it...).

How first grade of you, Aaron...

I'm not insulting you TC. When you came around, I enjoyed correcting you and putting you in your place and occasionally, having a decent debate. At least until you would get your panties in a wad. It was fun and easy and I do enjoy a good conversation.

But now that you only come around once a month or so, drop in, hit a few threads and then expect debate and response, it's no fun and simply put, this type of interaction is not not worthy of my attention or my time, thus, you're simply not worth it.

I do hope all is going well for you though.

Cheers.