http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=booed Tue, 21 May 2013 07:24:52 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=booed Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:08:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bd7_1367248047 NYork54 Ron Paul booed for telling 9/11 truth. CIA and Military agree with him, that isn't http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bd7_1367248047 NYork54 Ron Paul <span class="highlight">booed</span> for telling 9/11 truth. CIA and Military agree with him, that isn't Ron Paul booed for telling 9/11 truth. CIA and Military agree with him, that isn't Fri, 03 May 2013 11:06:40 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2a_1367593429 star53 May he burn in eternal Hell http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e2a_1367593429 star53 Casket Carrying Body Of Death Boston Jihadist <span class="highlight">Booed</span> Casket Carrying Body, Of Death Boston Jihadist, Booed crowd Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:49:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=538_1366814700 Moron Watch After the September 11th attacks, many Americans wondered, "why do they hate us?" President George Bush gave his now famous explanation: "They hate our freedoms." Radical Islam, we are told, is to blame . When someone dares counter this argument by pointing out that "Muslim rage" is due to U.S. foreign policy, accusations of disloyalty quickly abound. We all remember what happened to Ron Paul when he had the audacity to claim that they didn't hate us for our freedoms, but rather "they attack us because we've been over there ." In other words, they terrorize us because we've been terrorizing them. Ron Paul was booed and his explanation was dubbed "absurd," to the glee of the audience. Yet, the terrorists themselves consistently explain why they attack us. Osama bin Laden himself responded to George Bush: Contrary to what Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, "Why did we not attack Sweden?" ... Bush is...misleading you and not telling you the true reason. The real reason, explained Bin Laden, was that we had to destroy the towers in America so that they taste what we tasted, and they stop killing our women and children ... Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked. Subsequent terrorists have consistently confessed similar motivations, whether it be the Times Square bomber or the Fort Hood shooter. Time and time again, the terrorists give the same explanations: they attack the United States because the United States is attacking Muslims. With the Boston Marathon bombings, once again Americans repeat Bushian explanations. The vapid radio personality Adam Carolla explained: They hate our culture. They hate our way of life. Why Americans simply can't fathom that it is U.S. foreign policy that motivates terrorists is understandable: it would be too difficult on the American psyche to admit fault--to admit that our own foreign policy is criminal and the source of the legitimate grievance. It is far easier to lay the blame on another religion. So, once again, we are told that the Boston Marathon bombers were "motivated by religion." This is what "anonymous U.S. officials" told the media, who then unthinkingly regurgitated it: Two U.S. officials say preliminary evidence from an interrogation suggests the suspects in the Boston Marathon attack were motivated by their religious views but were apparently not tied to any Islamic terrorist groups. The two brothers, from southern Russia, practiced Islam. The U.S. officials spoke Monday on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation. Notice that the U.S. officials "were not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation"--but they discussed it with reporters anyways. This is typical of the U.S. government-media relationship: journalists grant anonymity to government officials, who can then freely spread their propaganda while at the same time hiding behind the wall of anonymity when challenged. ( Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on this practice.) And so, Americans will continue to believe the myth that the terrorists attack us simply because of their religious views. This successfully shrouds the real underlying reason: U.S. foreign policy. "Muslim rage" toward the United States has to do with the fact that the United States has been continuously bombing, invading, and occupying multiple Muslim countries. This is a process that began in the early 1990's--over two decades of U.S. warmongering in the region. (And actually, U.S. interference in the Middle East begins way before that.) The Tsaernev brothers may well have been becoming more religious. But, that's only half the story--and it's the half that's less important. The more important half is what the government and media isn't telling. The Tsaernev brothers were ethnically Chechen. As has been pointed out by many in the media, Chechens don't necessarily have a particularly antagonistic view towards the United States. Why should they? Their "beef" is with the Russians. However, the Tsaernev brothers were becoming more religious. As such, it is only natural that their affiliation and self-identity became closer tied to Muslim. Once they started identifying themselves more as Muslims, they naturally grew closer in affiliation to the Muslim community worldwide (the Ummah). This sensitized them to conflicts in the Muslim majority world, including the U.S.-led incursions in the region. Therefore, the turn to religion did facilitate their eventual commission of the terrorist attacks, but only because it caused them to identify with the people who are being attacked by the United States. It is true that the Koran commands believers to come to the defense of other Muslims: And why should you not fight in God's cause when defenseless men, women, and children are being oppressed and cry out, "Lord, rescue us from this land whose people are oppressors! By Your Grace, give us a protector and give us a helper." (Koran, 4:75) But, is this not a universal moral principle? Few people, aside from extreme pacifists, would argue that it is immoral to defend "defenseless men, women, and children who are being oppressed." That the Tsaernev brothers would respond to this call means that they identify the United States as the oppressor. It is less that the religion itself caused the Tsaernev brothers to plan these attacks, and more the fact that the U.S. is bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands. If this weren't the case, the Tsaernev brothers would hardly have identified the U.S. with the oppressors mentioned in the Koranic verse. Islam does advocate fighting oppressors to save the oppressed, but this is hardly something immoral. Rather, it would be immoral to deny the right of the oppressed to defend themselves against the oppressors. Where the Tsaernev brothers left the Koranic injunctions and Islamic tradition was in their targeting of civilians instead of military targets. The Koran declares: Fight in God's cause against those who wage war against you, but do not commit aggression, for surely, God does not love aggressors. (Koran, 2:190) The Prophet Muhammad is said to have explicitly forbidden the targeting of non-combatants, specifically women and children. Islamic extremists like the Tsaernev brothers are not following the Koran or Islamic teachings when they commit acts of terrorism against innocents. Rather, they areflouting long-held Islamic prohibitions against targeting non-combatants. The extremists justify this departure from Koranic and Islamic law by claiming that the times are so exigent that an emergency suspension of this prohibition must be declared, i.e. the only way to stop them from killing our civilians is by killing theirs. This twisted logic is the same used by many in the West to justify nuclear warfare. Other Muslims counter the Islamic extremists by invoking Koranic and Islamic injunction, declaring such suspension of the religious law to be religiously baseless. So, it is misleading to say that the Tsaernev brothers were motivated by religion and just leave it at that. Islamic extremists like the Tsaernev brothers follow the Koranic injunction to come to the defense of the innocents (at least in their minds that's what they are doing), but they suspend and flout the religious laws regarding the conduct of such defensive war. In other words, they uphold (part of) the Islamic jus ad bellum (right to wage war) but refuse to follow the Islamic jus in bello (conduct of war). It is thus important to remember that: (1) the right to wage war that these Islamic extremists invoke is rooted in not just Koranic scripture, but is part of universal moral principles (and is enshrined in the Just War Theory). (2) The U.S.'s actions, not religious scripture (since, as discussed in point #1, it is a shared universal moral principle), are the ultimate cause of inspiration for terrorists. If, for example, the Koran still existed but the U.S. hadn't been continuously bombing, invading, and occupying Muslim lands, it is very unlikely that the Islamic extremists would have selected the U.S. to target. (As Osama bin Laden asked, "Why did we not attack Sweden?") On the other hand, if the Koran and Islam never existed, the people in the Muslim world would still seek to defend themselves against U.S. aggression, the only difference being that their resistance would be colored in national or ethnic instead of religious colors. (One could reasonably argue that religious motivation instills greater fanaticism to resistance movements, but nonetheless, people of any or no religion would seek to defend themselves against invaders.) (3) The Tsaernev brothers may have been motivated by religion, but they ignored that same religion when it came to the conduct of war, which reinforces point #2: resistance is colored by religion only, but really it is a universal human desire to fight back against invaders. Of course, it's more reassuring to Americans to think that these terrorists keep attacking us because of their religion. It's far easier to point the finger at some other extrinsic cause rather than at oneself. This makes us feel good about ourselves: we are the good guys being attacked by the bad guys. It's hard to accept that the pan-ultimate motivator for why they attack us is our own actions in their lands: bombing, invading, and occupying them for over two decades. One could argue that I don't know for certain that U.S. foreign policy is the ultimate motivator for the Tsaernev brothers because this information has yet to be released, but it's a matter of such obviousness--and it has been proven over and over again once the motivations of previous Muslim terrorists were revealed--that I say it with utmost certainty. It's a simple answer to the question "why do they attack us", as opposed to the simplistic answer that they hate us for our freedoms or because of their religion. The Boston Globe declared: " It doesn't matter why they hate us, they just do ." If fellow Americans really don't think it matters why they hate us--or think "they just do" for no legitimate reason at all--we shouldn't expect an end to such horrific terrorist attacks, and we can't just keep claiming to be absolutely flabbergasted when the next attack comes. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=538_1366814700 Moron Watch Bomber Motivated by Religion?: Media Regurgitates Government Propaganda US, Islamic Attacks, Causes Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:38:33 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=780_1364751419 mtnmanx Maybe Americans finally waking up--at least its basketball fans. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=780_1364751419 mtnmanx obama <span class="highlight">booed</span> at NCAA game in Washington DC (the belly of America's big government liberal beast) obama booed, obama, booing, ncaa Wed, 17 Apr 2013 09:20:34 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=646_1366204189 anglosaxonwarlord More vid of the only group of protesters on the route of the funeral procession.2X http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=646_1366204189 anglosaxonwarlord Thatcher's Coffin <span class="highlight">Booed</span> at her Funeral .Different footage Thatcher,milk,snatcher,ding,dong,thatcher,funeral,protesters Fri, 22 Feb 2013 14:31:42 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d41_1361560891 dcmfox by Andrew Kirell 10:19 pm, February 21st, 2013What do you get when you invite outspoken conservative firebrand Ann Coulter to debate outspoken libertarian John Stossel in front of an audience of 1,000+ libertarian students? Fireworks, that's what. On tonight's episode of Fox Business Network's Stossel , Coulter got into a heated debate with Stossel and the students over a variety of social issues, in the process calling libertarians "pussies" and receiving lots of jeering for her remarks. Once a year, Stossel (full disclosure: my former boss) tapes a show at the International Students for Liberty Conference in Washington, D.C. He typically brings on friendly libertarian guests, like presidential candidate Gary Johnson , Reason magazine star Nick Gillespie , Cato Institute VP David Boaz , or up-and-coming Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI). But just to show that the 1,400+ students are not beholden to either major political party, a liberal and a conservative will also join the show and mix things up. This year, Coulter was that conservative. And boy, did things get heated. The initial conversation between Stossel and Coulter began as a light squabble over whether the War in Iraq was truly justified. The war was certainly worth the cost because Saddam Hussein was "definitely looking for uranium from Niger," she said. Her remarks were met with tepid boos and confusion, but the room was mostly pleasant at that point. But when the subject turned the the legalizing drugs, things quickly became tense. "Libertarians and pot," Coulter said with a dismissive laugh. "This is why people think libertarians are pussies," she said. Yes, it was bleeped. But I was there in person, so I know she said it. Her explanation: "We're living in a country that is 70-percent socialist, the government takes 60 percent of your money. They are taking care of your health care, of your pensions. They're telling you who you can hire, what the regulations will be. And you want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, 'Oh, but we want to legalize pot.' You know, if you're a little more manly you would tell them what your position on employment discrimination is. How about that? But it's always 'We want to legalize pot.'" Stossel then asked: "Why can't gays get married?" "Well, they can," Coulter replied. "They have to marry a member of the opposite sex." The room filled with boos. "This is another one where you're just sucking up to liberals when there are big fights," Coulter explained. "No, we believe the individual should be left alone," Stossel shot back. "Marriage is the most important institution to civilize young people. I'd make divorce a lot more difficult," she said. "Liberals want to destroy the family," she continued, eliciting jeers and mocking laughter from the students. "How is it any of your business what I choose to put in my body if I'm not affecting anyone else?" one student asked during the Q&amp;A, prompting the crowd to give a standing ovation. "First of all, for alleged individualists, you're very mob-like," Coulter snarked. "Second of all, it is my business because we are living in a welfare state ... Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can't hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it's my business!" Stossel and the student eventually got Coulter to concede that if the welfare state were rolled back, she'd maybe consider legalizing marijuana. Later on, a recently-divorced student asked Coulter why she wants to "make divorce more difficult" when it is already an incredibly cumbersome and taxing process. The conservative author's response provoked more booing: "When you buy a refrigerator, to break a contract to return your refrigerator, is more difficult in most states than to break a marriage contract." One student, off-camera, shouted: "They're human beings!" The crowd applauded. After the segment wrapped, Coulter smiled and the crowd gave respectful applause. Seeing as how Coulter is a well-known good sport about engaging hostile environments, it's no surprise she was game for the whole experience. But on her "libertarians are pussies" point, since neither Stossel nor the students had the opportunity to fully respond, let me give it a brief whack: The economy may be more important than the the war on drugs or gay rights, but that's a subjective valuation. Either way, libertarians care so much about those social issues not only because the former is rife with injustice, wastefulness, and abuse, but because they serve as a litmus test of sorts, separating those who are serious about limited government from those who pick and choose when they want to be skeptical of government power. If you truly care about personal responsibility, limited government, and freedom of choice, then you should oppose government involvement in your personal life as much as in your economic life. Watch the segment below, via Fox Business Network: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d41_1361560891 dcmfox Ann Coulter Battles Stossel, Calls Libertarians 'Pussies,' And Gets <span class="highlight">Booed</span> By Room Full Of Students Ann Coulter, Gay Marriage, John Stossel, Libertarian, students for liberty, War on Drugs Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:33:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a34_1365409483 Ultraexe Cape Town - Two video clips have revealed how a woman was injured as she tried to stop a fight during the recent Stormers and Crusaders match at Newlands, it was reported on Monday.The beginning of one clip shows a woman trying to intervene and reason with the hostile spectators at the Easter weekend match, according to the Cape Argus. The fight escalates within seconds and at least eight men can be seen throwing punches, with one burly man punching from behind. The burly man is seen hitting the woman in the face as she tries to stop the fighting by pushing him away. The impact of the blow sees her body bouncing back and her head hits a chair. She was later put in a neck brace and a stretcher used to carry her away. ER24 spokesperson Vanessa Jackson told the newspaper they had been at the scene but that she was unable to give details on the severity of the incident. Western Province Rugby spokesperson Howard Kahn said he was aware of the video clips but unable to comment. Last week, the Stormers were booed as they exited their team bus before the match. Western Cape sports MEC Ivan Meyer was previously quoted in the newspaper as saying he had proposed strict new measures to deal with unruly sporting fans. He proposed more security at rugby venues, a year-long ban for unruly fans and CCTV cameras to monitor the crowd, identify bad behaviour and stop potential confrontations before they escalated. Source: http://www.sport24.co.za http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a34_1365409483 Ultraexe Rugby Fan fight at Newlands South Africa fight, scum, vans, sport, Sat, 09 Mar 2013 05:08:21 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f2_1362823289 Setanta Comic Relief has apologised to its supporters after Frankie Boyle caused controversy at a charity gig with a string of gags about the Queen of England. The Scottish comic was reported to have been booed by the audience at the Give It Up for Comic Relief concert at Wembley Arena after launching into a routine which included jokes about the Queen's recent illness, the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy and the Jimmy Savile sex scandal. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9f2_1362823289 Setanta Frankie Boyle - Banned from Comic Relief Frankie Boyle Banned Comic Relief Funny Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:35:45 -0500 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00e_1362504740 smyle Four years ago, Tucker Carlson went before the audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and told them that instead of creating more media forums to talk to each other about what a bunch of jerks liberals are, they ought to nurture outlets that actually report news, with a commitment to accuracy. For his trouble he was booed vigorously, and I guess he learned his lesson about what conservatives are interested in, because instead of creating a newsgathering organization he created the Daily Caller. I'm sure it's doing quite well with it's target audience, and I couldn't help but think about Carlson upon seeing that Erick Erickson, proprietor of RedState.com and CNN talking mouth, issued a plea to conservatives to come work for him and actually do journalism. First though, he identified the problem: "I think conservative media is failing to advance ideas and stories. Certainly part of that is because the general media has an ideological bias against conservatives, which makes it harder for the media to take our views seriously. But many conservatives are, instead of working doubly hard to overcome that bias, just yelling louder about the same things. The echo in the chamber has gotten so loud it is not well understood outside the echo chamber in the mainstream press and in the public. It translates only as anger and noise, neither of which are conducive to the art of persuasion." You think? It's a bit of a surprise to see this coming from Erickson, who in the past has had, shall we say, a taste for bombast and insults (he called David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester" and Michelle Obama a "Marxist harpy"; see here for more). But hey, people change. I completely understand how somebody can spend some time playing the role of shouting partisan, then decide it really isn't accomplishing much and there might be a better way of accomplishing your ideological goals. Erickson went on: "Educating conservatives is a critical component of our mission. We have never viewed RedState as a site engaged in reporting, but as a site engaged in activism. Though occasionally we do break news, it has not been central to our existence. But, an honest accounting of facts and news is important and mission critical. Consequently, I would like to hire some reporters who can help educate conservative activists - who will not be focused on the outrage du jour, but focused on the daily grind of Washington and how the sausage being ground out in Washington will affect the conservative movement and the nation. Over time, I would like to expand this to covering governmental sausage making in the states too." Good for him, I suppose, though I'll admit I'm skeptical. There are certainly conservative reporters out there-heck, there are even some real reporters at Fox News-but the question is just how much of an audience there is for what they produce. The problem isn't just that the really successful conservatives are bloviators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, it's that the entire movement seems content to treat their constituents like they're a bunch of idiots who want only to nod their heads and mutter about how Barack Obama is a socialist and liberals are evil. Consider the recent case of Jeff Sessions' GAO report. The Alabama Republican senator asked the GAO to give him a report on how much Obamacare would add to the deficit if all the spending stayed in, but all the ways to pay for the bill, from cost savings from innovation, to reduced payments to providers, to tax increases, were taken out. The GAO has to respond to these kinds of requests, so it did. And then Sessions went in front of the cameras proclaiming that the GAO says Obamacare will increase the deficit by eleventy bazillion dollars, and one conservative news organization after another (here's an example) picked it up, saying, "See! See! See!" As Steve Benen said, the whole exercise was "roughly the equivalent of the Boston Celtics' coach asking someone on his staff, 'Figure out what our record would be if our opponents' points didn't count.' Then, soon after, the coach called a press conference to declare, 'Good news everyone! We're undefeated! And every game was a shutout!'" My point is, this is not how serious people who respect their constituents act. But Sessions knew that conservative media outlets would run with his ridiculousness, and they in turn knew that their audiences would eat it up. In the end, the whole thing did nothing but make conservatives a little dumber on the issue of health care. And you know what? They don't care. Oh sure, there are some conservatives who are embarrassed by that kind of thing, but they're the quiet ones, and they're outnumbered. And that's what Erick Erickson will be confronting if he really wants to hire real reporters to do real reporting: there just aren't enough people on his side who want it. http://prospect.org/article/how-much-market-there-right-real-reporting http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=00e_1362504740 smyle How Much of a Market Is There on the Right for Real Reporting? Educating conservatives, conservative media, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Erick Erickson Sun, 28 Oct 2012 21:49:02 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=abd_1351474407 Bob_Lablaw Madonna was loudly booed when she said "I don't care who you vote for as long as you vote for Obama." Saturday night at her New Orleans concert.They boo'd her in Houston last week also. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=abd_1351474407 Bob_Lablaw MADONNA <span class="highlight">BOOED</span> After Endorsing Obama at New Orleans Concert MADONNA BOOED,New Orleans ,nasty old skank Sat, 29 Oct 2011 17:39:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=290_1319923925 star53 Gay guy gets booed for making a gay joke about a straight man. gotta love it. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=290_1319923925 star53 Maher <span class="highlight">Booed</span> For Marcus Bachmann Gay Joke Maher, Booed, Marcus Bachmann, Gay, Joke Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:32:31 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82a_1288225835 The_Illuminati Meg Whitman BOOED http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82a_1288225835 The_Illuminati Meg Whitman <span class="highlight">BOOED</span> after refusing to take down attack Ads Meg Whitman BOOED after refusing to take down attack Ads