>> ^MINK:
i actually couldn't remember the Bush Doctrine. Just so you know.


I always thought calling it a "doctrine" was a way of making you think there was something intelligent about it.

And Palin. I don't mind the right-wing loonies but they should at least be able to remember their bullshit and talk about it. She's a disgrace.

And I'm in agreement with the view that Hilary should have been running mate. She would become an asset as the campaign rolled on. I guess their contest had just become too personal.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'maher, rushdie, garofalo, fund, palin' to 'maher, rushdie, garofalo, fund, palin, bush doctrine' - edited by swampgirl

>> ^blahpook:
Also, I'm glad Rushie made the point I've been thinking for so long. How can anyone in the incumbent party run on a campaign of change?!

Totally agree. That's something that the Obama campaign should focus on as the election draws near.

In the very same breath, the GOP is saying that Bush has done a great job, but they're not going to be anything like him anyway.

Mr. Fund is a more polished version of O'Reilly and Limbaugh, spreading rightwing propaganda to the upper-classes instead of the hoi polloi.

He's quick to spread the voter fraud myth while completely ignoring the much more prominent instances of election fraud because the GOP has turned election fraud into a sinister art form.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'maher, rushdie, garafelo, fund, palin' to 'maher, rushdie, garofalo, fund, palin' - edited by blahpook

yes, yes I do. Fortunately videosift posting has yet to be equated with stalking. But just for the record, I am independently fascinated by Mr. Rushdie.

Is that Salman Rushdie at 1:13?!

I'm going somewhat against the tide here as well. The presentation was very prejudiced. To suggest Iraq is a Christian war is ridiculous. In the past, Christianity has been the justification for horrible things. However, the great majority of these atrocities were political or fascist in nature, not intrinsic to the religion. The corrupt hid behind the Cross, just as criminals hide behind Allah. There are many good Christians and many good Muslims in the world. There are also bad apples in both camps. (In my community lives one of the great, so called "Christian," fruitcakes of all time, so I should know.)
However, the US is not a theocracy. Our foreign and domestic policy is not controlled by the church, and let's all PRAY, (to whomever you choose), it never becomes so. Theocracies are dangerous and represent the greatest threat to personal freedom imaginable.
Is it a good idea to be trying to convert Muslims in combat zones? No, it isn't. But, even as looney as some evangelical Christians can be, they generally profess, (and believe), they want to "save" people, not kill them. As the man, formerly known as Cat Stevens, said about the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, paraphrased, "it's easy to see how this could happen, because the Koran is quite clear on this matter....he who defames the prophet must die." Radical Muslims are much more dangerous than radical Christians because of this distinction between us and the "infidels." During the Barbary Coast piracy crisis, George Washington wanted to know why Muslim pirates thought they could seize sovereign ships;
In 1786 Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli's envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman or (Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Mohammed), that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (or Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven. [2]

This battle between free-peoples and theocracy has been going on for a long time. Unfortunately, it probably has a long way to go.

Krupo, avoid the movie for any reasons whatsoever, but honestly, the book is good. I think Catholics objecting to the book, and especially the watered-down movie, are nutty ont he same order as the Muslims who objected to Salman Rushdie. I don't mean to pick on Islam: we can find plenty of other religion-based objection to art.

Well, pity that suddenly ended. I always like listening to Rushdie being interviewed.

The tag "Rushide" should be "Rushdie".

Uh, was that Salmun Rushdie (sp?) sitting there?

as long as any lunatic can say what he wants we call that free speech

I didnt really get this post, but just to be clear on what I mean, "free speech" doesnt mean any idiot should deserve to speak unchallenged about whatever, Criticizing Rushdies books, picking apart his argument, or calling him an outright fool is as much free speech as anything, what I am talking about is outright death threats, death sentences in the form of fatwas. That, is what is indefencible, it is undemocratic, it is cruel, primitive and an insult to human intelligence to condemn people TO DEATH for writing a book or drawing cartoons or having sex with consenting adults.

People who condone and excuse these things are no better than nazi collaborators, and I am a principle opponent of capital punishment, but they do need a good smack in the face, if nothing else but to wake them up.

Rushdie deserves, like every one of us to live in a free world, with free speech.

Yup, that's it isn't it - as long as any lunatic can say what he wants we call that free speech. And the poor and hungry of all countries are really happy about that, since they can say what they mean and starve to death .



Yes, and I'll try to discredit myself with bufoonery in the future.

There hasn't been a really good book in print since the 1950s.

Lol, really? Guess its no surprise that Rushdie sucks so much then. I havent read any of his books, but I dont really care how good or bad they are. Rushdie deserves, like every one of us to live in a free world, with free speech.

And Fatwa's , if they ever warrant a distribution, should be reserved for people who murder, rape, degrade, torture and oppress women, children and innocent, all in the name of the Prophet. But alas, they seem to be reserved for cartoonists, writers and people who like stuff like freedom and free speech too much.

Nice appeal to authority. For your information there's a surfeit of serious literary criticism casting doubt upon the merit of Rushdie's abilities. As much as I'd like my own soon-to-be-finished novel to be shortlisted for the Booker you have to remember that such hackery as "Vernon God Little" and "The Life of Pi" have won in recent years.