281 Thank you for the clarification on the 'secret Muslim' Obama speech, Oregon Muse. Useful to know the whole context. I wouldn't know because I make a point of not listening.
Prolonged hissing sibilants go poorly with tinnitus.
Much like Bush's "mission accomplished" speech. The person bringing it up to mischaracterize the president, cartoonize the party under discussion, flatly does not know what they are talking about, by being unfamiliar with the speech. For they too cannot bear to listen to one.
This provides a response whenever "mission accomplished" comes up, and it does come up. They say, "mission accomplished," you say, "the future must not belong to those who insult Islam."
What?
You're doing with "mission accomplished" what they're doing "must not insult Islam." Lying.Obama, The Secret Muslim [OregonMuse]
Oregon Muse relates the context of Obama's speech for the oft-repeated line, "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." But where was that?
This is where we guess. Since we do make a point of not listening to speeches and do make a point of relying on what we are told about them, if this were Jeopardy! I would rely on the photos accompanying the stories to guess the speech, I'd see familiar green marble background and know the UN. So, he said that along with a bunch of other vapid poo to our enemies in that sinkhole of the world, where people pull all kind of things out of their butts. It is a very ugly background. It looks like they got a box of marble tiles on sale from Home Depot. It could be checkerboard mirrors. You see that background and it actually hurts, and you think, "Man, this whole stage is a really bad idea. *vacant gap* In fact, so is the whole UN."
Am I right? Am I right? *click* Ugh. See?
If you were doing a flip that green tile would be the first thing you'd tear out.
But I am grateful for knowing the context.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs; workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.In rhetoric that type of conduplicatio (repetition) is called anaphora (word or phrase repeated at the beginning), you hear it all the time. "You can wear this watch with a suit. You can wear this watch with Levis. You can wear this watch to church. You can wear this watch digging in the garden. You can wear this watch diving for oysters." Anaphora. He goes on. And on, and on, and on, along this same line applying "the future must not belong to" formula. He invites us to condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shia pilgrims. See? Talking to our enemies in a pit (of deplorable design), pulling things out his butt. He evokes Gandhi. Obama said Americans embody what Ghandi said, and I am reminded again why I don' t listen.
He applies his 'future must not belong to ____' formula to Israelis and Palestinians. He applies the formula to Syria. He goes on exhaustingly. I scanned the rest, there is nothing that jumps out, there is noting interesting apparent, and I mean nothing. It is a dry arid speech given in a desert, a sunken desert of despairingly aggressively bad design. It is punishment to be there. Punishment to read. It is no wonder attendees so often escape by nodding off.
I am glad Oregon Muse pointed to this. I would not have known, and now I do. And I do characterize the two speech-related incidents as the same sort. When either one is brought up for its surface to characterize it means the person does not know what they are talking about because neither incident does any such thing.
I must have read a thousand times in posts and especially in comments, because it says so much, "What difference does it make?"
It makes no difference at all to the people who would vote for Hillary, and it means a complete characterization of Hillary Clinton for the people who wouldn't.
