caroljane

Whoa. I was responding to Robert in his own mode of diametric opposites. Why should the Egyptian president be involved in the rantings and threats of a two-bit mullah? If I "make clear" that I think the Prez should be personally involved then I am an even worse communicator than I thought, because I don't. That was your subjective inference. But even you would agree, that as the hub of a political firestorm which has been fanned into violence, Nakoula is a person of interest, and a President trying to fight the firestorm would be a fool not to be fully informed about him.

To be clearer: I do not think Nakoula should go to jail for making a movie,even that one. Film buffs might disagree with me though.

The president wouldn't be and I'm sure he isn't.. I don't think Nakoula should be arrested for parole violations either, unless he violated his parole, which obviously his parole officers have determined he didn't as he is still free.

For making the movie? No. It is interesting that Nakoula, as a three-time loser, only got 21 months for stealing nearly 800 grand. He escaped the three-strike penalty by informing on his colleagues and his boss in the fraud op, one Elad Salameh, an intriguing character in his own right. At his trial his lawyer Henderson (rumoured to have mob connections) said that Nakoula's actions had been stupid, that he could not imagine anything stupider, and that "I doubt he will ever do anything this stupid again." (via Smoking Gun)

The American president is so weak that he disavowed Mr. Nakoula's movie --without removing him from his paroled liberty.

Great definitions both. My recent samplings of the SLOP pail (much like my past ones) show that with exceptions, the site is characterized mostly by guilt by free association and a lack of, even a hostility towards, assembled reason. Not to mention james' "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds." But the crowd isn't all that big, is it?

Carol, Considering Romney's deficiencies regarding the vision thing and incomplete command of policy details, I thought and still think that Ryan was an excellent choice. He may also be helping to put some Midwestern states in play. Beyond that, who knows? The choice of a running mate has only a very small effect on electoral outcomes. And the legacy media are so busy trying to convince themselves that it's game over, Romney is toast, don't even bother to hold the election 'cause our guy will be re-coronated, that I wouldn't know where Ryan is speaking and what he's saying unless I kept scanning local newspapers and TV. Let's see what happens when Ryan "debates" Joe Biden. Robert Campbell I agree with your assessment here. Running mates don't much influence the voters. Quayle was one of the weakest vp candidates in living memory, but Bush still won. (Poor DQ was not helped by the fact that Bush was so obsessively secretive that he did not even tell him he was chosen, so he had no way to prepare for the media onslaught) Compared with him Sarah Palin was over-prepped. (I read Bob Woodward's book). I am looking forward to the debate too, though again, everything I read says it will make no difference, each side's supporters will conclude that their guy won. Biden is the more experienced debater, but he's Biden. Ryan is very personable. It could be a Nixon/Kennedy moment,

It's because he created two threads, and the one he wanted to keep has no replies. Carol decided to mess with him, now the whole thing's going to hell. Hopefully they can agree to split the revenue and release the thing. Huh? How are Brant and Carol going to make any revenue from Brant's dup thread? Isn't it already "released"? If not, how is it that I can read it and post on it?!!! J J, you will be as shocked as I was, but apparently people are willing to pay good money to see Brant being messed with. Who knew?

It's because he created two threads, and the one he wanted to keep has no replies. Carol decided to mess with him, now the whole thing's going to hell. Don't mind me, Your Worships, I'll just retrieve me auld handbasket and be out of yer way in no time, Humbly, Carol PS that debate sounds like a fun brawl. Were any OLers actually present at it?

jts, you too are real (I assume) but sometimes you are too cartoonish. Don't you ever think about anything except according to the JBS catechism?

who are you to give orders. You are not the boss of us!

kewl! Can't wait to see your vision of MEM's CYP bizcard. Or was that it?

Rothbard warned us about Mozart but we didn't listen. No wonder the world is in the state it's in.

One of the comments on that review struck a chord with me. "Ayn Rand's book only has two characters, herself and the people she despises." I have noticed myself that there is a sameness among her heroes, while the villains have an interesting variety.

Well, Schiller's words or Goethe's or somebody's. Those German commies are all the same.

He was a communist too, and so obviously is Perigo==" alle menschen werden bruder" - it is right there in their own words being promoted openly!

Robert, "political correctness", to me, is a tired catchphrase used mostly in debates on social, not political issues. I don't know who invented it but I suppose it denotes a liberal mindset. You demonstrate that the US army in this case certainly acted as "liberal enablers". Their treating it as an individual crime rather than a conspiracy (who were his co-terrorists?), as if he were a suicide bomber who survived, does not necessarily constitute an appeasement of Islamist extremism though, in my judgment. His personal motivations to murder cannot justify murder, ever.

Carol, Really. That's the extent of the enabling? Beside, if it had a /sarc/ marker, I'd take you to mean that anything short of preemptively rounding up and imprisoning all Muslims constitutes enabling of the militants among them. Are you familiar with the career of Nidal Malik Hasan? Would you say there was any "enabling" along the way—before he did anything his superiors might actually have considered arresting him for? Robert Campbell I looked up Hasan, of course I recognise the case. I am not familiar with his career. I take it that you are identifying the US Army as "liberal" in this instance. If his superiors knew he was a threat and did nothing to get him disarmed or rendered harmless, they most certainly did enable him.

Yeah, I get that a lot, too.

Huh? He's probably just trying to maximize revenue. Why's it sad? I don't know really. It just feels sad to me, maybe that he is trying to maximise revenue, from the long past intellectual exuberance of his salad days.

Thank you for the info, jts.

That is kind of sad. in those lectures should be the best of his "sense of life". He said recently, that his great pleasure was in teaching and talking, whereas writing was a torture, even though apparently his latest book is an essentialization of his lectures over many years,

Please explain what and whose is Agenda 21. In writing, I do not come on OL to watch videos chosen by others.

Let me see if I can paraphrase your remarks accurately: — No one in the United States or Canada can have an effect, for good or ill, on Islamic Imperialists and other militant religious bigots, unless these militants and bigots are located in the United States or Canada — And no one in the United States or Canada should be trying to have an effect, for good or ill, on Islamic Imperialists and other kinds of militant religious bigots, unless said imperialists and bigots are located in the United States or Canada — With this small exception: Nakoula Basseley Nakoula or Steven Klein or Roy Spencer or Pam Geller definitely should not be trying to have any such effect, because they have attained the special power to reach out from the United States and make Islamic Imperialists go out and kill in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. Indeed, they have the unique power to take ordinary Muslims and turn them into Islamic Imperialists at the touch of a button or the click of a mouse: one upload to YouTube, and, presto, instant conflagration — No one in the United States or Canada should ever presume to say how Muslims in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, ought to conduct themselves; only other Egyptians, Libyans, Pakistanis, Indonesians must ever be concerned with any Islamic militants or bigots in their midst — Actions taken by Islamic militants and bigots in Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc., are never of real concern to persons in North America, even when these militants and bigots set kill North Americans, burn the buildings they are occupying, run Islamic Imperialist flags up over foreign embassies, and so on — Exception: when such actions were puppetmastered by American and Canadian Jewish, Christian, or Hindu bigots wielding their extraordinary powers, swift action is imperative—by North Americans—to put an immediate stop to those non-Muslim bigots and their operations — Further exception: any other North Americans who make calls for actions against Islamic Imperialists and Supremacists in any other country instantly fall into the same category as Messrs. Nakoula, Klein, and Spencer, or Ms. Geller Question: Is there any way "liberals," "progressives," or hard Leftists in North America could be lending encouragement to violent acts by Islamic Imperialists in other countries—by means other than distributing inflammatory propaganda among them with the stated purpose of getting them to go out and kill? Or is any such thing impossible on the face of it? Robert Campbell PS. Is any criticism, by any North American, of the Qur'an, of the Prophet Muhammad, or of any Islamic belief or practice ipso facto inflammatory? Robert, You lost me somewhere between "can" and "should". I will try to relocate myself in the somewhere and answer rationally. It might take awhile

This far into the campaign, how do you think Ryan's objective virtues are holding up? He hasn't helped himself by exaggerating his athletic accomplishments, and calling Romney "inarticulate"was not the most graceful moment--do you still think he was the right choice?