She's an extremist???
Posted by AmericanGreatness 8 years, 11 months ago to Politics
So terrorists attempt to kill hundreds of Americans at a CARTOON contest on US soil, and the organizer of the event is the extremist???
Texas: 2... terrorists: 0
Texas: 2... terrorists: 0
There should be a plethora of these contests...with police units undercover near each of them. This is an effective way to eliminate only the Muslims who are extremists: If you attack the contest, you get dead.
Jan, fond of Darwinism
employer is fond of bait-and-switch; this is parallel.
they want a mosque next to the 9/11 memorial; we
put up an exhibit of cartoons next to their mosque.
they say that a particularly radical one is situated
in Brooklyn; Rudy G could guide us. -- j
.
Let's make pepper cookies, johnpe!
Jan
.
Jan
.
The 1st amendment would have no purpose if it were not to protect unpopular, provocative and antagonistic speech. Popular, benign speech needs no such protection. Who are the real provocateurs and antagonists? Those that would exercise their outrage at attacks on their rights by expression, cartoons or satire or those that would use force, attack and behead hundreds of Christians and others because they do not bend to their beliefs? If you wish to live in America you must tolerate free but unpopular speech. Physical force is another thing altogether.
It is true that Ms. Geller was provocative, but her gathering was in reaction to a trend of anti-free speech movements in this regard. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/02/1...
Sometimes it is better to leave a sleeping dog lie. I would not be so provocative, but she has the right.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I think you may have mixed my post with "number6". I completely agree that unpopular speech is the reason for the 1st Amendment. Speech that everyone agrees with needs no protection.
Geller did not poke a sleeping dog. Radical Islam has become a rabid attack dog, and it needs to be put down. How pathetic an ideology must it be to be threatened by cartoons and women showing their faces?
These events are necessary to demonstrate with a unbridled confidence that western civilization will not cower when challenged by savages.
I intended my comment to be a general thesis on the subject. It was not addressed or intended as a criticism to you. My apologies for the lack of clarity. I quite agree with you on who is the most radical and incendiary party.
Respectfully,
O.A.
built at private expense, or public?
(I haven't seen the video. I don't usually watch
videos on the library computer, too much hassle
about headphones, etc).
I read the short article at "Galt's Gulch". I
certainly cannot agree with her on all points, for
instance, prohibiting "devout Muslims" (who de-
cides, for instance, what is devout?--&what a-
bout Amendment #1?) from joining the military;
still, she makes some good points. Anyway, the
attackers have no room to talk about "extrem-
ism". And look at the violence!
What we need here is more intolerance of their radical beliefs!
"If this be extremism, make the most of it!"
[/sarcasm]
What is most telling to me about this is that there has been made mockery of every other religion - from portraits with dung and bottles of human waste to broadway musicals and HBO specials. But you didn't see those targeted religions or ideologies turn to violence.
Is she wrong? NO! Do I support her? ABSOLUTELY!
cause, I contend, and Pam was doing just that!!! -- j
p.s. we're doing it here, too!
.
EDIT: spelling correction
the answer is to turn the desert to glass.
Jan
Somehow, I doubt you'd want the job...
world into their own. -- j
.
This "contest" was not about "free speech"
The followers of Islam have NO entitlement to not be offended. This was entirely about free speech and the fact that Geller is being attacked demonstrates how morally inverted the issue has become.
I don't recall any Christians shooting up the art gallery during the "Piss Christ" exhibit or Virgin Mary covered in feces exhibit.
Free speech is free speech, and Islam is not above it.
"... a debate does not exist when one side is trying to kill the other. " -- j
.
since they entice women to become scantily clad
and entice men into irrational actions. . wonder
what a muslim beach would look like, in july? -- j
.
Geller is a baby killing, gay marriage supporting self promoter who cared nothing about "free speech", she only wanted to get some nut case to react so she could say "see I told you they were all violent."
Interesting you bring up the feces covered Virgin Mary exhibit. There was great opinion piece about that : http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0999/vi...
Of course the contest was about free speech. It was not a contest to see who could have the free-er speech.It was an event held to expose those who would impose their views over and above anybody else's views and their right to speak those views. The fact that somebody (s) attempted to use violence to interfere with or kill people who were expressing their views should speak volumes about the actual intent of those who would initiate that violence. To lend any support in the form of trying to cast blame on the people trying to expose that intent speaks volumes about the person who is giving that support.
So what about the views of Islamic people? Did Geller not ignore their views and impose her views over them?
As the answer to both questions is NO, I'm not quite sure how she imposed her views on anyone.
In no way did Gellar impose her views over anyone. How could you possibly justify such a statement on a site like this?
And, the rape comment is a perfect analogy, as it demonstrates the victim being put on trial for being raped. Free speech is exercised and savages attempt to commit mass murder. What's the reaction, those engaged in free speech are accused of bringing it on themselves.
.
Perhaps you have your premises reversed?
You are not a free man.
Jan
.