Burn-A-Koran Day to be held on anniversary of 9/11, tension mounts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The point is that he is very vocal about his view and he is expressing it. I'd dispute the liberal point, it's more the libertarian faction in modern terms who are the defenders of freedom of speech and civil liberties - the liberal elite pretend to be in favour of freedom and democracy yet do everything that goes against that belief.

If it leads to a terrorist attack then we should be even more resolute in defending our freedom - the threat of terrorism is over stated anyway hence why we are so afraid to upset everyone and everything nowadays.

---

firstly, idk if we just have different views of liberals in the u.s., but here liberals are always fighting for free speech, its conservatives who want to infringe it. it was them who wanted to ban burning the american flag, block papers from releasing military information, and want to keep the "don't ask don't tell" policy. but in general, politicians only tend to agree with free speech as long as they agree with whats being said. they're all scumbags.

secondly, i understand your point, i completely agree with the fact that he has a right to burn the koran legally, but that doesnt mean he should. we are well aware of the repercussions of those actions, and the repercussions far outweigh any point it could possibly make. i could call some big burly man's mother a gigantic *****, and he'll punch me in the face. now i might think he overreacted to a simple insult that i had every lawful right to say, but really what did i accomplish? who won there? im an advocate of free speech but im an even stronger advocate of being reasonable and conscious. i wouldnt be right in the head if after i got punched in the face, i took that to mean i should keep suggesting that this man's mother has blown every man in the telephone book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

firstly, idk if we just have different views of liberals in the u.s., but here liberals are always fighting for free speech, its conservatives who want to infringe it. it was them who wanted to ban burning the american flag, block papers from releasing military information, and want to keep the "don't ask don't tell" policy. but in general, politicians only tend to agree with free speech as long as they agree with whats being said. they're all scumbags.

secondly, i understand your point, i completely agree with the fact that he has a right to burn the koran legally, but that doesnt mean he should. we are well aware of the repercussions of those actions, and the repercussions far outweigh any point it could possibly make. i could call some big burly man's mother a gigantic *****, and he'll punch me in the face. now i might think he overreacted to a simple insult that i had every lawful right to say, but really what did i accomplish? who won there? im an advocate of free speech but im an even stronger advocate of being reasonable and conscious. i wouldnt be right in the head if after i got punched in the face, i took that to mean i should keep suggesting that this man's mother has blown every man in the telephone book.

---

The real defenders of free speech here in the United Kingdom are the likes of Nigel Farage, Lord Pearson, David Davis(?), John Redwood(?) who can be classed under the Thatcherite-Libertarian wing whereas the 'Liberals' such as Nick Clegg, David Cameron + most of the politicians claim to be for free speech yet do everything to step all over it (European Arrest Warrant, Detention without trial - the list goes on). The view i've taken of the United States can be seen in the likes of Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones who again, belong to the Libertarian faction rather than the 'Liberal' faction. In many ways Liberalism has lost its meaning, it remains to the left and is not what its name suggests; just like the Liberal Democrats who are neither liberal or democratic.

The second part, the repercussions - if repercussions such as violence follow then they should be judged within their area of the law. To stop free speech or limit it because of fear of upsetting/irritating/annoying people makes free speech worthless and prone to abuse by politicians. If you trace back through history, every dictatorship/autocratic state has used fear as a weapon for eroding civil liberties and free speech.

I'd burn it, idc what any of you guys say lol.

Would have been a good idea in the long run. Turn Islam against Christianity, everyone wins. Christians will survive, Muslims are gone.

Not a fan of theism, especially not Islam, bad system if you ask me.

Anyone who calls me an Atheist will be thoroughly slapped.

Dan please learn what "Libertarian" means. It's an economic stance meaning capitalist free markets and has nothing to do with social liberalism. As for the Liberal Democrats being illiberal...errm...what? They have created a coalition with their natural opponents in the name of democracy because it is what the people voted for, they support a fully proportional electoral system and after just a few weeks as the junior partner in the coalition they announced the greatest liberal shake up in many many decades (The Great Repeal Act). You seem to be a little confused there my friend, you have cited "Thatcherites" as liberals? How liberal was the crushing of mining communities? How liberal was the introduction of Presidentialism in the UK? You complain about the EU so much but was it not the "Thatcherites" who signed Maastricht and enabled the EU to move towards a political union without public consent? If memory serves me correctly (which it does) it was the Labour party who organised a referendum on Europe in 1975 and not the Conservative party despite being in government when Britain first joined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The real defenders of free speech here in the United Kingdom are the likes of Nigel Farage, Lord Pearson, David Davis(?), John Redwood(?) who can be classed under the Thatcherite-Libertarian wing whereas the 'Liberals' such as Nick Clegg, David Cameron + most of the politicians claim to be for free speech yet do everything to step all over it (European Arrest Warrant, Detention without trial - the list goes on). The view i've taken of the United States can be seen in the likes of Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones who again, belong to the Libertarian faction rather than the 'Liberal' faction. In many ways Liberalism has lost its meaning, it remains to the left and is not what its name suggests; just like the Liberal Democrats who are neither liberal or democratic.

The second part, the repercussions - if repercussions such as violence follow then they should be judged within their area of the law. To stop free speech or limit it because of fear of upsetting/irritating/annoying people makes free speech worthless and prone to abuse by politicians. If you trace back through history, every dictatorship/autocratic state has used fear as a weapon for eroding civil liberties and free speech.

---

libertarians here are a strange but sensible mix of both social liberalism and economic conservatism. meaning they have a view of the government completely staying out of the public's business in all areas, unlike either liberals or conservatives. mainstream conservatives here always talk about how the government should stay out of our lives but at the same time tell us who we can marry and fight to make sure public schools teach christian values. and the meanings of political parties are constantly changing with time. during the civil war, it was the republicans who made up the north and were fighting for emancipation of slaves, and democrats who made up the south fighting to keep them. but by the 60's, it was democrats who made up the north fighting for civil rights and republicans who made up the south fighting for segregation.

again, im not for stopping free speech. this goes beyond "annoying" people, as we've seen since two people have been killed in protests at just the IDEA of burning the koran. im against this in the same way i don't think i should go around provoking touchy people with insults that i know will cause a bad or possibly violent reaction, even though its my right to do so. i'm not against his right to do it, im not saying this doesnt qualify as free speech, im saying it's not sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrPinkPanther

Dan please learn what "Libertarian" means. It's an economic stance meaning capitalist free markets and has nothing to do with social liberalism. As for the Liberal Democrats being illiberal...errm...what? They have created a coalition with their natural opponents in the name of democracy because it is what the people voted for, they support a fully proportional electoral system and after just a few weeks as the junior partner in the coalition they announced the greatest liberal shake up in many many decades (The Great Repeal Act). You seem to be a little confused there my friend, you have cited "Thatcherites" as liberals? How liberal was the crushing of mining communities? How liberal was the introduction of Presidentialism in the UK? You complain about the EU so much but was it not the "Thatcherites" who signed Maastricht and enabled the EU to move towards a political union without public consent? If memory serves me correctly (which it does) it was the Labour party who organised a referendum on Europe in 1975 and not the Conservative party despite being in government when Britain first joined.

---

I do know what libertarian means, its you Liberal Democrats who have no idea of what liberalism/libertarian is or are. Labels change over time but libertarianism is thatcherism full stop. The 'crushing of the coal miners' - no, the freedom of the markets and end of state subsidies to hot beds of militant socialism - I agree not all the mines needed to close, but sadly the likes of Arthur Scargill and Derek Hatton ruined the last profitable mines with their egotisical missions of which people such as yourself still after all this time cannot see through.

But hey, lets look into the 'Liberal' 'Democrats' firstly shall we?

- They claim to be democratic with their stance on 'in or out the EU' yet have not pushed for a referendum on our membership with the EU (strangely they dropped this just after the European Elections 2009 ha!) - it would have cost mere buttons to add the EU question to the ballot paper yet they did not do so and why? because just like the other two main parties they know what the answer would be thus they are not democratic in the slightest.

- They claim to be liberal with their stance on civil liberties yet have put forward no moves on CCTV in this country, they also have not opposed the European Arrest Warrant which is one of the most dangerous acts ever put onto this country via unelected officals and they actually voted for it would you believe. Did they also not make some noise and disagreement over the Sovereignty Act that was to be introduced?

- The 'Great Repeal Act' as I understand doesn't actually repeal anything, it just replaces one piece of legislation with another piece (with with the various old english laws that exist, that process could go on forever without any real effect). The 'Great' repeal act also does not include EU legislation as I understand it, so again - a total sham and a total waste of time as most legislation now comes from Brussels.

- How 'liberal' is going back on pledges before the election and proposing the AV+ system which is not proportionally representative of votes and in some cases and studies it has been found to be a worser system.

- The smoking ban, one of the most draconian and autocratic laws passed ever and what does Nick Clegg think on this subject, here is what he thinks "Smoking ban? I'd leave it as it is," - yes, thats it just like all 'Liberals' a Liberal and a Democrat through and through. If you think the Liberal Democrats are Liberal or Democratic in the least then you are as blinded as the Labourites who think the Labour Party is for the hard workers of this country and those millions who vote Conservative because they think the Tories are hard on crime, eurosceptic and a whole manner of issues.

Secondly, why are you [a Liberal Democrat of all people] lecturing me on the European Union. Unlike yourself, I saw what a sham the Conservative Party was as one of the main parties and want nothing more to do with it hence why I openly criticise them just as I do with the Labour Party. The Conservative Party have been the worst party on Europe because they have turned out to be the biggest liars of the lot. The difference is, with Thatcher (because she did not sign the Maastricht Treaty - she actively campaigned against it and John Major famously called us the 'those Eurosceptic *******s') she woke up to the realities of Europe and it is what brought her down with the snarling, dribbling europhiles in her cabinet who wanted nothing to stand in the way of their European Superstate dream.

So while you act concerned on the subject of Europe (as most wet Liberals do so) you are not concerned at all, like all the main parties it is about tribalism and aslong as 'our lot' are in power then it doesnt matter. Here is the 'Liberal' 'Democrat' who I believe helped create the EAW;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0pOxvCZ_4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedStratocas

libertarians here are a strange but sensible mix of both social liberalism and economic conservatism. meaning they have a view of the government completely staying out of the public's business in all areas, unlike either liberals or conservatives. mainstream conservatives here always talk about how the government should stay out of our lives but at the same time tell us who we can marry and fight to make sure public schools teach christian values. and the meanings of political parties are constantly changing with time. during the civil war, it was the republicans who made up the north and were fighting for emancipation of slaves, and democrats who made up the south fighting to keep them. but by the 60's, it was democrats who made up the north fighting for civil rights and republicans who made up the south fighting for segregation.

again, im not for stopping free speech. this goes beyond "annoying" people, as we've seen since two people have been killed in protests at just the IDEA of burning the koran. im against this in the same way i don't think i should go around provoking touchy people with insults that i know will cause a bad or possibly violent reaction, even though its my right to do so. i'm not against his right to do it, im not saying this doesnt qualify as free speech, im saying it's not sensible.

---

I agree with the top post, but I think the Libertarian strand really is creeping back in because in Britain it has always been the battle between the One Nation Conservatives (in other words Fabians) and the Thatcherite (Libertarian) Conservatives - to echo Youtube comments, I would love to see a Paul-Ventura 2012 ticket win and Farage as PM in the UK. No more big autocratic governments and no more crippling debts - the Western world would be a true beacon of freedom and democracy.

The second point I agree, it just gives impression from many on here that they disagree with him being allowed to stage this protest which is what i'm defending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agnostic Bear

Would have been a good idea in the long run. Turn Islam against Christianity, everyone wins. Christians will survive, Muslims are gone.

Not a fan of theism, especially not Islam, bad system if you ask me.

Anyone who calls me an Atheist will be thoroughly slapped.

---

Taking your opinion into account I'm assuming you know both the Christian religion and Muslim religion very well?
I don't see how Islam can be a bad system when the teaching are very similar to that of the Christian religion?
I don't even get the point your trying to make, apart from wanting to star a religious war and end the Muslim religion which would only occur in a bad action film.

Anyone seen this video yet?
I'd be surprised if it isn't on the news soon as it's getting more popular on youtube with a few copies of it too

contains swearing btw..

Show Hide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrZYrNDgZM&feature=related

I find it really disturbing and kinda change my views on the whole thing..
they're all joking about but it's not at all funny :S

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [Jay]

Taking your opinion into account I'm assuming you know both the Christian religion and Muslim religion very well?
I don't see how Islam can be a bad system when the teaching are very similar to that of the Christian religion?
I don't even get the point your trying to make, apart from wanting to star a religious war and end the Muslim religion which would only occur in a bad action film.

---

Me thinks he was joking, but as far as I remember Christianity/the Bible mentions alot about equality such as women's rights, but not sure if Islam teaches it. Judging by the way Islam works I'm slightly sceptical it actually teaches much with regards to women, and it seems to suggest strict control over what you can and can't do, while Christianity is pretty open, seeing as it's mostly used for illustrative purposes :P It's why you get many forms of Christianity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storking

Anyone seen this video yet?
I'd be surprised if it isn't on the news soon as it's getting more popular on youtube with a few copies of it too

contains swearing btw..

Show Hide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrZYrNDgZM&feature=related

I find it really disturbing and kinda change my views on the whole thing..
they're all joking about but it's not at all funny :S

---

People like them should be set alight. It's not funny, it doesn't prove a point and you're coming off worse than the people you're mimicking, especially when you dress like them. Well done to them, for over-exaggeration and a loss cause *claps slowly*