1 posted on
02/05/2006 8:17:55 AM PST by
SmithL
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
To: SmithL
They also guaranteed that many millions of people would quickly go to the Internet to see what the fuss was all about. Heaven forfend!
"We (the MSM) have worked very hard to suppress the fact that Muslims are batsh*t crazy. Please DO NOT go to the internet and find out for yourself!"
BTW, there's some great fun going on over here. (Warning: image heavy with some slightly offensive content.)
33 posted on
02/05/2006 8:37:26 AM PST by
Drew68
To: SmithL
True evil hates nothing so much as being mocked. It is an insult that evil cannot resist.
34 posted on
02/05/2006 8:37:51 AM PST by
Camel Joe
(WANTED: Hot Tar and Feathers... I've Got a Rail)
To: SmithL
Maybe Christians should burn something down when they get insulted. (Though there would hardly be any major newspaper left standing I fear) I know beyond a doubt they would not receive the same calls for cultural senstivity.
35 posted on
02/05/2006 8:38:02 AM PST by
Ma3lst0rm
(Assumptions are often like jumping out of a plane with a backpack while thinking it is a parachute.)
To: SmithL
I haven't heard a word from the ACLU liberals defending freedom of speech and the press.
To: SmithL
no doubt this editor finds nothing reckless insensitive etc etc in say, the emersion of a crucifix in urine..
41 posted on
02/05/2006 8:43:36 AM PST by
Cyphas
To: SmithL
That the San Francisco Chronicle would bewail disrespect for the sacred with a straight face is a mockery of credulity.
43 posted on
02/05/2006 8:48:07 AM PST by
Carry_Okie
(The fourth estate is the fifth column.)
To: SmithL
Have the cartoons been posted on FR? Also Have they been shown in US papers or on tv? Where's our freedom of the press?
45 posted on
02/05/2006 8:57:07 AM PST by
pangaea6
To: SmithL
What basis does the San Francisco Chronicle have for giving serious consideration to:
"the global reaction is far more disturbing than the editors' great lapse in taste and cultural sensitivity"? None.
When, it is entire existence have the editors of that rag ever demonstrated serious consideration to "culteral sensitivity" to the religious sensibilities of a majority of Americans? Never.
Every new event simply provides another occasion for the LameStreamMedia to demonstrate its natural moral state - hypocrisy.
46 posted on
02/05/2006 8:58:25 AM PST by
Wuli
To: SmithL
These were the same guys who think portraying the crucifix in a glass of urine is just fine and dandy.
To: SmithL
Not an editorial, but:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/03/08/DD43307.DTL&hw=serrano+piss+christ&sn=001&sc=1000
....In ``Piss Christ'' (1987) and related works that use religious icons, Serrano equates the persuasive force of highly finished photographs with that of sacred symbols. In that, if anywhere, lies his insult to piety: to suggest that we can no longer distinguish between spiritual response and consumer frisson.
One look at his 10-year retrospective and you can see that whatever people make of it, Serrano's work is a private research into beauty and symbolism, almost academically methodical and neat....
49 posted on
02/05/2006 9:01:45 AM PST by
JoJo Gunn
(Help control the Leftist population. Have them spayed or neutered. ©)
To: SmithL; All
50 posted on
02/05/2006 9:03:15 AM PST by
toldyou
To: SmithL
Did someone fail to mention that Islam is a religion of piece.
Cut off a head here and head there and pretty soon no Christians to stand in the way of world domination.
51 posted on
02/05/2006 9:04:02 AM PST by
OKIEDOC
(There's nothing like hearing someone say thank you for your help.)
To: SmithL
Funny article title for a San Franfreakshow newspaper.
52 posted on
02/05/2006 9:10:47 AM PST by
Millee
(I've got FRiends in low places..)
To: SmithL
THE CARICATURES of Muhammad that have ignited an international furor are offensive and recklessly off base in portraying the prophet as a terrorist. The cartoons lacked artistic merit or satirical sophistication. We have to wonder: What were the Danish cartoonists and the newspapers that originally decided to publish them thinking?All right, who allowed Achmed into the Chronicle editorial offices?
As a lead-in paragraph for a supposedly adult coomentary on world event this displays a breathless level of ignorance expected only from a rabid sandmaggot.
Where has the writer been the last few years?
In addition to the crime waves in European cities which can be attributed to the imported animals, how about this, as to what they were thinking?
Muslim Atrocities too Numerous To Cut and Paste
To: SmithL
The ignorance of this editorial is glaring.
Hey, editors, read the Koran, Suras and Hadiths and then tell me what you think.
This is the writing of those that have not spent one moment trying to learn about what they write.
To: SmithL
Didn't read the whole article. These nuggets are plenty:
Is nothing sacred? ... recklessly off base in portraying the prophet as a terrorist ... a religion of peace
Is it too much to ask these clowns to actually think before they type?
55 posted on
02/05/2006 9:14:43 AM PST by
watchin
(Facts irritate liberals)
To: SmithL
Absolutely NOTHING in Islam-or about it- is sacred.
Especially not life.
Why are people working so hard to find reasons to respect
that which will destroy us?
57 posted on
02/05/2006 9:15:56 AM PST by
ClearBlueSky
(Whenever someone says it's not about Islam-it's about Islam. Jesus loves you, Allah wants you dead!)
To: SmithL
Censorship, even when unleashed under the well-intentioned guise of sensitivity, has a way of turning into tyranny. No law, of state or religion, should be allowed to become the ultimate arbiter of freedom of expression.And that's the lesson the mohammed followers need to learn.
58 posted on
02/05/2006 9:20:21 AM PST by
MarMema
(Steelers favorite local seafood - mud eel chowder)
To: SmithL
The protests by Muslims demanding violent revenge against the cartoonists -- or, in some cases, against Denmark generally -- are an affront in their own right to a religion of peace.Can't make it up.
61 posted on
02/05/2006 9:31:05 AM PST by
jordan8
To: SmithL
Is nothing sacred? Ask Ted Rall.
63 posted on
02/05/2006 9:36:42 AM PST by
Fido969
("Everybody out of the pool!")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-48 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson