freecounterpoint: Hey! What the Hell?

Friday, October 27, 2006

Hey! What the Hell?

I am in a rush, but if the gov't is telling this idiot to shut up, I'm pissed.

8 comments:

Tecumseh said...: Hey, JJ! You beat me to the punch on this story!

BTW, IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!! Indeed, the guy says he will quit only "... after we clean the world of the White House first."; 10/27/2006 10:21 AM
Tecumseh said...: "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside ... and the cats come to eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat's? The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred."

Music to pepe's ears. To find any fault whatsoever with this statement is ipso facto proof positive of racism, yes?; 10/27/2006 10:23 AM
Mr roT said...: You're out of line, AI. We've said before that that stupid woman that got raped while jogging in Central Park at 3 a.m. brought some of that on herself. What's the difference between what we have said and what this guy has said?
If this were a Catholic priest saying this stuff, the Erica Jongs would raise hell and all, but no one would move to censure him (partly out of relief the priest understood animal attraction for women, but I digress). It's only right that the imam be allowed to say the same thing and I would rather Christian clerics said more of this.
Yes, we're back to Dinesh d'Souza.
About getting rid of the White House, that doesn't constitute a threat and even less so a threat to Australia. If I say we should get rid of the Matignon here in Boston, I would hope some people would agree that Domme de Villepin is a worthless piece of meat that should be left out for the cats.
This is just a stupid kerfuffle and the Muslim High Command is trying to make this guy some sort of example of some purported reasonableness.
Best way to remind him of Egypt.
This is sickening kowtowing of a religious body to idiots in government that want to silence dissent.

I am shocked you would approve. My Harvard political idiot group met last night for pizza. They want him expelled for not being PC to women. That should give you pause.; 10/27/2006 12:33 PM
Tecumseh said...: JJ, JJ, JJ. Where did I say anything about expelling the good imam, or any of the other imaginary offenses you accuse me of? C'mon, all I was commenting on is the irony of the situation, whreby Pepe jumps at anyone daring to criticize ever so slightly anyone wrapping himself in the mantle of sharia, with wild-eyed accusations of racism, or worse.

As for IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!!!!! As you well know, this is a running gag for us -- it's the Pavlovian reflex of the pinko-lefty set to blame it all on Bush, even the ingrown nails they get from wearing their bierkenstocks. What I found rather amusing in the story is how the good imam, when caught with his pants down, resorted to the tried-and-true method on blaming it all on the WH, basically saying that, since W is so evil (in the well known view shared by the NYT, BBC, NPR, Binnie, Pepe & Co), he can say and do whatever he pleases, since W is even worse. Ergo. Follow me now?; 10/27/2006 1:11 PM
Mr roT said...: OK, I understand now. Sorry I doubted your libertarianism.

IT'S PEPE'S FAULT!!!!!!!!; 10/27/2006 3:18 PM
Tecumseh said...: OK. Having said that -- i.e., yes, this is free speech, though of an obnoxious sort, which of course is the whole point of protecting speech, who needs to protect pap? -- there is still another issue here. Namely, this whole fixation on dress code -- burkha, hijab, naqib, whatever -- is also an indication of how non-integrated (and non-integrable) people who subscribe to this ideology (and it is an ideology) are. In his diffident, extremely gentlemanly way, that was the point Jack Straw was trying to make. And, look at the reaction he got.

At any rate, going back to other free speech discussions we had before (eg, about Ward Churchill, Adam gadahn, etc, etc), one should at the very least come down and say whether one approves of that speech (and, why exactly is that speech protected), before one mounts on his high horse about it. In case at hand, to sum up where I come down: (1) speech is disgusting; (2) it's still within bounds of free speech; (3) yet the guy should still feel the heat somehow -- if nothing else, vigorous denunciations and/or ostracism. Just whitewashing it by saying "everyone else does it"/"it's all Bush's fault" is not good enough, methinks.; 10/27/2006 4:20 PM
My Frontier Thesis said...: I love this guy's statements, and here's why. It's great to allow Muslim clerics and Imams to say all the crazy things they want to as wide an audience as possible because it tends to save me alot of time.

I don't have to continue explaining to my friends why they are utterly nuts. I can just point them to the crazy talk and say, "When you have a second, read that..." and go get a cup of coffee, or do whatever else it is I could be doing.; 10/28/2006 1:04 PM
Mr roT said...: Where's the stupid woman in Central Park test, AI? The guy could be right, you know. And has nothing to do with whether he's assimilated or not.
You could say these Russians in Brookline that want their own school for their kids instead of using our stupid PC American schools are unassimilated.
I say they are right and we stupid Americans ought to do as they say.
Why then is this different?; 10/28/2006 3:04 PM