quote:

Appeals court sides with Google in anti-Muslim film case

20 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video...

...The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Or, Free Speech dodges another leftist attack

quote:

Appeals court sides with Google in anti-Muslim film case

20 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video...

...The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down.

Liars!

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Or, Free Speech dodges another leftist attack

quote:

Appeals court sides with Google in anti-Muslim film case

20 minutes ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — YouTube should not have been forced to take down an anti-Muslim film that sparked violence in the Middle East and death threats to actors, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a victory for free speech advocates.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal sided with Google, which owns YouTube, after free speech advocates urged the court to overturn a 2-1 decision by three of its judges. The three judges had ordered YouTube to take down the video...

...The film inspired rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad and President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down.

Liars!

I like how you tailored the last sentence there to push your ideology. Last I checked President Obama is not a religious leader; therefore, can not consider something blasphemous. Let's look at the ORIGINAL WRITING...

"The film sparked rioting by those who considered it blasphemous to the Prophet Muhammad. President Barack Obama and other world leaders asked Google to take it down."

Notice there is not a "..."? This usually implies there is more information proceeding what is being quoted. According to the Yahoo article, that sentence has nothing proceeding it. In fact there are two sentences being quote. That why we have a period ( "." ) at the end of the first quoted sentence.

Normally I'm not a Grammar Nazi here. But you left that period out on purpose. An dont have balls between your legs to admit it. Since a 'cut/paste' would have left the period in place.

So you are a LIAR on three accounts.

An why was it taken down Sanity?

"...based upon a dubious and unprecedented theory of copyright..."

Two correct uses of "..." in a quote. That there is information before and after what I am quoting. An its important not to take the quoted part of of context. The quote above was from the original three judge panel. So something very different from what your trying to insinuate.

Maybe you should try...READING...the article minus the political bullshit slant. You just might understand things better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
World leader not equal religious leader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
World leader not equal religious leader.

Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world.

To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you

That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread

That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread

If you need another clue check the thread headline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you

That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread

That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread

If you need another clue check the thread headline

The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE....

'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded.

President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium!

You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it!

Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN?

An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites!

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you

That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread

That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread

If you need another clue check the thread headline

The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE....

'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded.

President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium!

You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it!

Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN?

An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites!

Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you

That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread

That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread

If you need another clue check the thread headline

The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE....

'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded.

President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium!

You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it!

Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN?

An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites!

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
World leader not equal religious leader.

Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world.

To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either.

You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Because Bush never excused the attack with a bogus claim about a youtube video.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
World leader not equal religious leader.

Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world.

To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either.

You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today.

Major Dick Winter (deceased) one stated "we salute the rank, not the person wearing it" as a way of showing respect even if we dislike the individual. The President of the United States of America, is a world leader. Just because you dislike Mr. Obama, does not mean he is not a world leader.

Does the man push religion like Mike Huckabee? Not even close. But he is a Christian. So he is a world leader with religion; but not a religious leader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
The lie is the point joether. The Benghazi attack wasnt ever started by a protest about a YouTube video, it was a planned terrorist attack from the very beginning. The video lie was Susan Rice, your government, your president, IS the leftist media, lying to you

That Barack doesnt understand or doesnt care that the constitution that he swore to defend includes a clause protecting free speech is another thread

That they found a way to remove the video and jail the artist, is another thread

If you need another clue check the thread headline

The problem you have Sanity is....YOU DONT HAVE ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE....

'Conspiracy rantings' is all you have. Most of them have been debunked. A Republican study on the issue found that everything was in order as far as Benghazi is concern. Yes, it sucks. People died. But there was no wrong doing on anyone's part that could have prevented or mitigated the series of events that unfolded.

President Obama understands the 1st amendment just as he understands the other twenty-six. He's a Constitutional Scholar! Maybe you should look up the guy's background sometime! I would bet money he could school your ass on US Constitutional law any day of the millennium!

You lied three times in your OP. I took you to task for them. That you can not even form an ounce of defense on any of them speaks much on your credibility. An you cant even take responsibility for it!

Here's a lie for you to 'chew on': Why did we not see one group of Republicans clawing over each other to attack President George W. Bush when seventeen 'Benghazi' attacks took place on his watch? Because we saw group after group after group of Republicans, claw, spit, attack, and rip apart to be the first to find evidence that the President or Hillary Clinton was 'in the wrong'. Yet, the history books didn't show one of these sort of events? Maybe it's because George W. Bush....WAS REPUBLICAN?

An that Republicans....ARE....hypocrites!

Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway?

Cite it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
World leader not equal religious leader.

Some religious leaders have been world leaders in history. World leaders could behave like religious leaders in the world.

To say that world leaders have to be religious leaders, is rather limiting. Stating world leaders have to have some religion to them is also rather limiting. Not all religious leaders are world leaders either.

You are the one who equated him being call a world leader to him being called a religious leader. That big brain of yours must not be working today.

Major Dick Winter (deceased) one stated "we salute the rank, not the person wearing it" as a way of showing respect even if we dislike the individual. The President of the United States of America, is a world leader. Just because you dislike Mr. Obama, does not mean he is not a world leader.

Does the man push religion like Mike Huckabee? Not even close. But he is a Christian. So he is a world leader with religion; but not a religious leader.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
Hum, you mean Obama is a constitutional scholar that said, in public, 25 times that it would be illigal for him to change illigal immigration by Presidential fiat and then did it anyway?

Cite it.