I'll give you credit for bravery, but in the interest of public decency I'll pass this soapbox.

Our values are but memories of the illusions of our past. It's every man for himself.

He is referring to the manure that all those foxwatchers suck up every day.

One of my friends on Facebook mentioned that his little girl came home from school yesterday and told him they had no moment of silence nor any mention of the events of September 11, 2001. One of his friends commented that, "Ten to one, a liberal made that decision."

WTF? I had to comment that the right has no monopoly on patriotism in spite of that diarrhea that is spewed from fox.

I'd vote for this post 100 times if I could.

American Values? According to Romney POTUS campaign slogan "We Believe in America", but put his money in Swiss, Cayman Island and Bermuda bank accounts. How unpatriotic can you be and still run to be the POTUS?

I think today I heard the sound of Mitt Romney flushing what remained of his presidential hopes straight down the crapper. What an ignorant asshole. Obviously has had a lot of foreign policy coaching from John McCain and Sarah Palin.

"Those aren't my values, or the values of most people I know or care to associate with."

How about the value of freedom of speech?

Was the video hateful? Probably. Haven't seen it, and I don't care to see it.

Was the cross in piss that everybody on here would probably defend as protected under freedom of speech, could that be considered hate speech?

No doubt to some.

So based on your logic, those who were offended would have been justified in torching a museum of art and killing a museum official?

Since the message of OWS could be considered hate speech against a certain class of people in this country, when the offended mobs go into the protestors with clubs, would those people be defended because they were "offended?"

I don't like much of the crap that's promoted in Hollywood, Madison Ave., or a lot of other places expressed as "speech."

But I do believe that it's protected, nonetheless.

Start trying to choose what is protected and what's not, and you will regret that day that starts.

Whatever happened to "I disagree with what your saying, but I would fight to defend your right to say it?"

Is it now "I disagree with what your saying, but I would fight to defend your right to say it, as long as a group of people NOT even living in our country isn't offended?"

Nobody is trying to keep Romney (or these other bigots) from exercising his right to say whatever unpatriotic or stupid thing he wants to say. What is being pointed out is the heresy of a man who claims to be a Christian lying about statements from President Obama and interjecting himself into a strategic and highly flammable foreign policy issue in a manner that harms the efforts of his own country.

Romney gave us a two-fer plus. He lied about what was said, demonstrated his complete incompetence on international issues(again), and show his lack of patriotism at the same time.

So based on your logic, those who were offended would have been justified in torching a museum of art and killing a museum official?

Where did I say that violence is justified as a response?

Start trying to choose what is protected and what's not, and you will regret that day that starts.

Happens in U.S. courts every day - libel, slander, defamation, incitement, obscenity, etc. That horse is already out of the barn, and for good reason.

Romney had an opportunity to condemn hate speech and religious intolerance as well as the violence and murders. Instead he chose to condemn the President.

Romney had an opportunity to condemn hate speech and religious intolerance as well as the violence and murders. Instead he chose to condemn the President.

I'm totally stealing that line!

“The party considers the film a racist crime and a failed attempt to provoke sectarian strife between the two elements of the nation: Muslims and Christians,” a statement said on the FJP’s English-language website. “Moreover, the FJP considers this movie totally unacceptable, from the moral and religious perspectives, and finds that it excessively goes far beyond all reasonable boundaries of the freedoms of opinion and expression.”

The film is certainly a blatant violation of religious sanctities, international norms and conventions on human rights which emphasize that freedom of expression with respect to religion must be restricted by controls within the law that safeguard public interest, in order to protect lives, morals, rights and freedoms,” the statement said.

(link...)

I'm against putting the Ten Commandments in the classroom and the courtroom. Prayers at football games? Kind of devalues prayer in my opinion, and it's probably hard on those fans who have had pre-game refreshments to stand their with their eyes closed and not get dizzy.

And remember these groups promoting the riots may despise Christians, but they despise non-believers even worse. They live in an age nowhere near the modern era.

And the women in Iran who've been covertly wearing make up beneath the veils for years now, and the kids listening to bootleg copies of Western music and showing PDA at risk of being jailed, and gays who can suffer much worse treatment than that, only dream of more open and democratic societies.

We should be standing up for them. Not their oppressors.

Hey, now, let's please keep the incivility civil.

...that the maker, promoter, and/or distributor of the video is a Coptic Christian with a history of anti-Muslim rhetoric. And I'm sitting here, trying to figure out how such a video advances the cause of Christ.

Ponder.

Ponder.

Ponder.

Nope. Still can't figure it out.

http://alterx.blogspot.com/2012/09/guest-post.html

I think this is a good analysis.

I would respectfully request those blaming a video producer for these riots watch this video. It's not from Fox so no one should break out in hives.

Engel earlier said on Rockefeller Center said that "the video is not to blame."

(link...)

Although Maddow doesn't seem to have listened to Engel.

I pretty much figured when the Arab Spring started, it would not be good.

It is not the same as those East Berliners popping champagne bottles open on what was left of the Berlin Wall.

Algeria was smart to halt the elections in the '90s.

Remarks by the Secretary of State

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.

To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms, and we greatly appreciate that many Muslims in the United States and around the world have spoken out on this issue.

Violence, we believe, has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. These are places whose very purpose is peaceful: to promote better understanding across countries and cultures. All governments have a responsibility to protect those spaces and people, because to attack an embassy is to attack the idea that we can work together to build understanding and a better future.

Now, I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. Now, I would note that in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible. But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be.

There are, of course, different views around the world about the outer limits of free speech and free expression, but there should be no debate about the simple proposition that violence in response to speech is not acceptable. We all – whether we are leaders in government, leaders in civil society or religious leaders – must draw the line at violence. And any responsible leader should be standing up now and drawing that line.

What she said.

Obama must be really pissed.

I think there's 2 tracks of thought on this.

Richard Engel said that the video was kind of just an excuse to attack American interests.

But there is also the theory that the protestors are really upset with their own governments, but with the government's control of media and groups, the government knows how to re-direct and transform that anger to US.

Is the anger really about Muslim Brotherhood's hesitancy in dealing with a number of domestic and international (aka-Israel) in a way that the public wants?

And in the other countries that are seemingly mired in economic and political stagnation?

Nevertheless, Obama went out on a limb to be supportive of the Arab Spring, and now it looks like it may end up really hurting him.

But it was never going to be the self liberation of the East Bloc, and I think State and the Administration failed to have a contingency plan if it went south.

Couldn't have stopped it, but like I said, I don't think they had any contingency plans.

And with Muslim Brotherhood, which is pretty public, although not necessarily transparent about all of its stands, it's dealing with an organization that could wind up like the PLO, when we had PFLP, PLFLP-GC. In a struggle to run the country, they, and we, don't want that.

In the other countries, like Libya, the groups are shadier and more dangerous ( Talibanish).

Couldn't have stopped it, but needs to get on top of it. Soon.

Somehow post twice. Didn't mean to.

Amid your non sequiturs, KC, can you share your or Romney's contingency (or other) plan to "get on top of it"?