Have you noticed that the left won’t take a stand against the Al Qaeda and ISIS even when they are here in The U.S. and actively attacking us?

It seems that they consider it a political issue and since conservatives (and most Americans) want the Islamic Extremist Terrorists dealt with directly the liberals have to be against defending the country.
Ms. Geller is a much easier target.

Patriotism just doesn’t fit their agenda.

Have you noticed that the left won’t take a stand against the Al Qaeda and ISIS even when they are here in The U.S. and actively attacking us?

It seems that they consider it a political issue and since conservatives (and most Americans) want the Islamic Extremist Terrorists dealt with directly the liberals have to be against defending the country.
Ms. Geller is a much easier target.

Patriotism just doesn’t fit their agenda.

That's funny. I've been reading posts in this forum for years, and with the possible exception of Gina, I can't remember anybody saying that they are pro Al Qaeda or ISIS. I would hardly consider Gina leftist. Not sure what patriotism has to do with it. Heck, we have conservatives in Texas that are afraid that the United State will invade, but somehow they are patriotic. Um, ... yeah.

Have you noticed that the left won’t take a stand against the Al Qaeda and ISIS even when they are here in The U.S. and actively attacking us?

It seems that they consider it a political issue and since conservatives (and most Americans) want the Islamic Extremist Terrorists dealt with directly the liberals have to be against defending the country.
Ms. Geller is a much easier target.

Patriotism just doesn’t fit their agenda.

That's funny. I've been reading posts in this forum for years, and with the possible exception of Gina, I can't remember anybody saying that they are pro Al Qaeda or ISIS. I would hardly consider Gina leftist. Not sure what patriotism has to do with it. Heck, we have conservatives in Texas that are afraid that the United State will invade, but somehow they are patriotic. Um, ... yeah.

______________________________________________________________________

You really need to learn to read son.
No one said “that they are pro Al Qaeda or ISIS”

My post accurately said the “the left won’t take a stand against the Al Qaeda and ISIS”.
The liberals don’t seem at all concerned that there are Islamic Extremist Terrorists on American soil. The left is more than happy to go after American Citizens standing up for their Constitutional rights.

Patriotism is absent from the liberals agenda.

Texans are very patriotic and do stand up to protect their country as evidenced by their deploying National Guard to the border when Obama refused to do his sworn duty: National Security.

For whomever asked for a reason why Pam Geller is considered a racist bigot (beyond the Momhamid cartoon contest-which seems like the equivalent of organizing an anti-Semitic cartoon contest in some ways) Geller is the person behind those NYC subway ads that said "Islamic Jew Hatred: it's in the Quran!" with a picture of Hitler sitting with an Arab. I find anti-Semitic and events like Hellers vile.

For whomever asked for a reason why Pam Geller is considered a racist bigot (beyond the Momhamid cartoon contest-which seems like the equivalent of organizing an anti-Semitic cartoon contest in some ways) Geller is the person behind those NYC subway ads that said "Islamic Jew Hatred: it's in the Quran!" with a picture of Hitler sitting with an Arab. I find anti-Semitic and events like Hellers vile.

___________________________________________________________________

Can we assume you are all good with your free speech right to say so?

100%. Offensive speech needs to be protected because otherwise we find ourselves in a system where a specific group decides what speech is protected and what speech isn't. That leads to surprising dissent.

Having said that here's an analogy for you: although it is apparently perfectly legal to f*ck a goat in several states, and doing so would undoubtably provoke impassioned and perhaps violent objections from onlookers, I don't think humping a farm animal is necessary to demonstrate that we as citizens are free to do so.

100%. Offensive speech needs to be protected because otherwise we find ourselves in a system where a specific group decides what speech is protected and what speech isn't. That leads to surprising dissent.

Having said that here's an analogy for you: although it is apparently perfectly legal to f*ck a goat in several states, and doing so would undoubtably provoke impassioned and perhaps violent objections from onlookers, I don't think humping a farm animal is necessary to demonstrate that we as citizens are free to do so.

______________________________________________________________________

A goat eh?
I could make a joke about a middle-eastern fellow but...

I s the dude humping the goat married to the goat?
Now that uTube video would go viral!

Having said that here's an analogy for you: although it is apparently perfectly legal to f*ck a goat in several states, and doing so would undoubtably provoke impassioned and perhaps violent objections from onlookers, I don't think humping a farm animal is necessary to demonstrate that we as citizens are free to do so.

Let's not get personal... 😛

Have you noticed that the left won’t take a stand against the Al Qaeda and ISIS even when they are here in The U.S. and actively attacking us?

Have you noticed that certain people like to say despite the fact that it is just about the farthest thing from the truth?

See what happens Larry? See what happens when you f*ck a stranger, er, a goat?:

By the way Muleman you gave me some great Gov Mule discs last year in a B&P which I super appreciate so I hope there are not hard feelings if, um, the name.... you know, MuleMan is ...uh...

😉

By the way Muleman you gave me some great Gov Mule discs last year in a B&P which I super appreciate so I hope there are not hard feelings if, um, the name.... you know, MuleMan is ...uh...

😉

____________________________________________________________________________

Ain’t nuttin’ but a thing.

Everyone should get to hear the music that moves us.
Sadly this site has slowed down in a big way but the family of the band is still making some great music!

Respectfully Muleman, Pam Geller is a race-baiter. How is this a free speech issue? No one is saying she doesn't have the right to say this stuff so please explain how this is a free speech problem.

Am I supposed to go defend neo-nazis for holding a holocaust-celebration and ridicule people who condemn them because they have a right to free speech?

Am I supposed to go defend neo-nazis for holding a holocaust-celebration and ridicule people who condemn them because they have a right to free speech?

If you understand the intent of the 1st Amendment, absolutely. It's designed to protect the most inflammatory speech imaginable. That's what it's for.

No one is saying this sort of speech should not be allowed.

What I do not understand is why people are defending WHAT Pam Geller is saying NOT her right to do so. These are two separate issues.

Respectfully, do you see the distinction?

Am I supposed to go defend neo-nazis for holding a holocaust-celebration and ridicule people who condemn them because they have a right to free speech?

If you understand the intent of the 1st Amendment, absolutely. It's designed to protect the most inflammatory speech imaginable. That's what it's for.

We do not have to defend their 1st amendment rights, that is the government's role. And we can certainly condemn them, even if it is their right to express their views. That is our 1st amendment right.

No one is saying this sort of speech should not be allowed.

What I do not understand is why people are defending WHAT Pam Geller is saying NOT her right to do so. These are two separate issues.

Respectfully, do you see the distinction?

DING DING DING!! This is exactly what I have been saying all along! Glad to see at least one other person around here gets the concept.

Am I supposed to go defend neo-nazis for holding a holocaust-celebration and ridicule people who condemn them because they have a right to free speech?

If you understand the intent of the 1st Amendment, absolutely. It's designed to protect the most inflammatory speech imaginable. That's what it's for.

We do not have to defend their 1st amendment rights, that is the government's role. And we can certainly condemn them, even if it is their right to express their views. That is our 1st amendment right.

Kind of goes without saying, but thank you.

Respectfully, do you see the distinction?

Yes and no. If I don't like what some people choose to say, my choices are to not listen, or disagree. Censorship, is not an option for me.

Kind of goes without saying, but thank you.

Sadly, it doesn't. The very next post after yours brings "censorship" right back into the conversation.

quote:
Respectfully, do you see the distinction?

Yes and no. If I don't like what some people choose to say, my choices are to not listen, or disagree. Censorship, is not an option for me.

Not saying Big V is of this camp - truly - but there is plenty of discussion that seems to deliberately try to provide cover for Pam Geller's hate-provacations by making this a first ammendment/censorship issue.

Am I supposed to go defend neo-nazis for holding a holocaust-celebration and ridicule people who condemn them because they have a right to free speech?

If you understand the intent of the 1st Amendment, absolutely. It's designed to protect the most inflammatory speech imaginable. That's what it's for.

We do not have to defend their 1st amendment rights, that is the government's role. And we can certainly condemn them, even if it is their right to express their views. That is our 1st amendment right.

Kind of goes without saying, but thank you.

Lol. I gues I misinterpreted what you meant by "absolutely". Lol.

Kind of goes without saying, but thank you.

Sadly, it doesn't. The very next post after yours brings "censorship" right back into the conversation.

quote:
Respectfully, do you see the distinction?

Yes and no. If I don't like what some people choose to say, my choices are to not listen, or disagree. Censorship, is not an option for me.

Not saying Big V is of this camp - truly - but there is plenty of discussion that seems to deliberately try to provide cover for Pam Geller's hate-provacations by making this a first ammendment/censorship issue.

How do you "provoke" someone who is offended by almost everything you believe in?

In Pam Geller's case, it's coming up deploying subway ads that say "Islamic Jew Hating: It's in the Koran" over a picture of Hitler next to an arab or holding a "Mohamed drawing contest" which is apparently extremely offensive not just to psychotic Koran quoting lunatics but to regular people of the Muslim faith. These are exactly the kind of stunts Joseph Goebels pulled in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

I don't think you really "believe in" this kind of garbage do you?

In Pam Geller's case, it's coming up deploying subway ads that say "Islamic Jew Hating: It's in the Koran" over a picture of Hitler next to an arab or holding a "Mohamed drawing contest" which is apparently extremely offensive not just to psychotic Koran quoting lunatics but to regular people of the Muslim faith. These are exactly the kind of stunts Joseph Goebels pulled in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

I don't think you really "believe in" this kind of garbage do you?

There have been so many depictions of Jesus that I and most other Christians would consider derogatory and offensive there is no way to count them all. There have been books, plays, movies, etc. that also fall into this category. I've seen some posted on this website over the years. I honestly cannot remember anyone being killed over them. Are you going to categorize ll the people who would do so in your above statement? I fully believe those people have the right to engage in such activity, even if I don't agree with what they are doing mo matter which faith, law, or political party they target.

There have been so many depictions of Jesus that I and most other Christians would consider derogatory and offensive there is no way to count them all. There have been books, plays, movies, etc. that also fall into this category. I've seen some posted on this website over the years. I honestly cannot remember anyone being killed over them. Are you going to categorize ll the people who would do so in your above statement? I fully believe those people have the right to engage in such activity, even if I don't agree with what they are doing mo matter which faith, law, or political party they target.

DM - Unclear on what you mean by "Are you going to categorize ll the people who would do so in your above statement?"

Also, the debate we are having is NOT whether Pam Geller has the right to make bigoted and hateful comments. She 100% does. The question is whether you AGREE with her. People seem to think, and are saddly succeeding as seen here on this thread, that by simply framing this as a free speech issue, people will support what she is doing which is promoting cultural bigotry on a level that matches the worst kind of racism.

Do you see the distinction?

How did Ms. Gellar even become the point of discussion with this matter? Nobody would
have ever heard of her except for the fact that two Muslim terrorists drove 1,000 miles to
kill people at an art contest. That point seems lost while Gellar is the big story?

In Pam Geller's case, it's coming up deploying subway ads that say "Islamic Jew Hating: It's in the Koran" over a picture of Hitler next to an arab or holding a "Mohamed drawing contest" which is apparently extremely offensive not just to psychotic Koran quoting lunatics but to regular people of the Muslim faith. These are exactly the kind of stunts Joseph Goebels pulled in Nazi Germany during the 1930s.

I don't think you really "believe in" this kind of garbage do you?

There have been so many depictions of Jesus that I and most other Christians would consider derogatory and offensive there is no way to count them all. There have been books, plays, movies, etc. that also fall into this category. I've seen some posted on this website over the years. I honestly cannot remember anyone being killed over them. Are you going to categorize ll the people who would do so in your above statement? I fully believe those people have the right to engage in such activity, even if I don't agree with what they are doing mo matter which faith, law, or political party they target.

DM - Unclear on what you mean by "Are you going to categorize ll the people who would do so in your above statement?"

Also, the debate we are having is NOT whether Pam Geller has the right to make bigoted and hateful comments. She 100% does. The question is whether you AGREE with her. People seem to think, and are saddly succeeding as seen here on this thread, that by simply framing this as a free speech issue, people will support what she is doing which is promoting cultural bigotry on a level that matches the worst kind of racism.

Do you see the distinction?

Absolutely-and thus my post. Are you going to include the myriad of people who have depicted Jesus, Christianity, and Judaism in a less than flattering manner, including those who have done so on this site, as promoting cultural bigotry on a level that matches the worst kind of racism, and equate them as engaging in exactly the kind of stunts Joseph Goebels pulled in Nazi Germany during the 1930s?

Still not sure I understand, but on the groups you mentioned here is what I think: 1) I think anti-semetic and and the type of anti-christian behavior you are referring to is equally as vile and reprehensible as Pam Geller and 2) like Pam Geller's bile it is, and should be, protected speech.

There are comments on this thread and in the media that seem to have confused the issue of supporting Pam Geller's RIGHT to say bigoted culture-baiting things with supporting WHAT Geller is saying/doing. Two separate issues. She CAN say what she wants but WHAT she is saying is hate-baiting on the level of the worst racism and ought to be condemned.

The confusion on this point seems to be why a vile bigot like Pam Geller is an issue here.

The confusion on this point seems to be why a vile bigot like Pam Geller is an issue here.

No confusion at all. I draw the line at killing over things you disagree with. You draw your line at "provocation". I'll take "bigotry" over murder all day long.