• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two Shot at Muhammad Art Exhibit [W:439, 529, 978, 1489]

Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
There are thousands of pictures of Mohammed and this idea that no one can draw him is a recent phenomenon, much like the Burka in Iran or the west. Mohammed Image Archive
Click to expand...

Pictures of Mohamed, are not the same as ridiculing caricatures of Mohamed. Why do you insist on diminishing yourself before this board?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Grant said:
So "Liberty on a Leash" applies then.

It seems to me you're applying Taqiyya and Kitman on these boards and, if you live in the US, are relatively new there.
Click to expand...

Wrong. American citizens, and I'm trying to be patient with you, understanding that your unfamiliar with the benefits and the responsibilities of it, have plenty of limitations and restrictions upon their liberties, even though our liberties are greater than that of citizens in most countries, we don't live by anarchy here, regardless of what you may have heard. We have hate speech laws here, yes, there are things that you cannot say to a person based upon his sexual orientation, his faith or his race. And I would point out again, there's things on this forum that we cannot say to one another because of restrictions placed upon our speech here. Deal with it Grant. Geller's our problem, we'll deal with her. That is, unless some Muslim extremist kills her before we can reason with her.
 
US Conservative said:
Ah yes the "Christians did it too (1000 years ago)" argument.

Leftists and Islamic theocracies go together like peanut butter and jelly.

If they didn't-we wouldn't even be discussing an attack by ISIS on American soil.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have a bigoted moron with redneck racist followers poking a stick at an entire religion, we wouldn't be talking about this attack.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
And in the almighty name of the first amendment. As though abusing the intent of our bill of rights to engage in hate and mean spirited expression makes them patriots, and brave.
Click to expand...

Twice now, I have challenged you to explain to us what speech anyone involved with the contest in Garland engaged in that was not protected by the First Amendment, and why. I now ask you once again.

You have no answer, and neither your lame attempt to mock the First Amendment nor your prattling about "abusing the intent of the bill of rights" can hide that fact. Apparently you imagine the freedom of speech only allows other people to say things you approve of. I am glad to see you show everyone reading this thread just how illiberal your views really are, and just how much contempt you have for one of our most fundamental individual rights.

Probably the only part of the Bill of Rights fake liberals despise as much as the First Amendment is the Second.
 
Montecresto said:
If we didn't have a bigoted moron with redneck racist followers poking a stick at an entire religion, we wouldn't be talking about this attack.
Click to expand...

No, they would still hate you.

Look at other nations subject to islamic terror-some have absolutely nothing to do with world leading events.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Pictures of Mohamed, are not the same as ridiculing caricatures of Mohamed. Why do you insist on diminishing yourself before this board?
Click to expand...

The fact is any pic of muhammad is threatened with death lol that's the point
 
Montecresto said:
If we didn't have a bigoted moron with redneck racist followers poking a stick at an entire religion, we wouldn't be talking about this attack.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight it's racist to draw pictures if muhammad. Ummm.... Islam is not a race, it's a religion. And moron redneck? Who sounds like a racist bigot? And the fact that you shouldn't have ANY attack over this stick poking is the issue.
 
JFish123 said:
Riiiiight it's racist to draw pictures if muhammad. Ummm.... Islam is not a race, it's a religion. And moron redneck? Who sounds like a racist bigot? And the fact that you shouldn't have ANY attack over this stick poking is the issue.
Click to expand...

True, there shouldn't be an attack over this, read the thread before you start posting and familiarise yourself with a posters position before you start ignorantly attacking, hear? And apparently you've missed it, but attacks have been happening against cartoon drawings that ridicule and mock Mohamed, and that IS THE ISSUE!!
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

JFish123 said:
The fact is any pic of muhammad is threatened with death lol that's the point
Click to expand...

Yes, and you just have to stick your dick out with a cartoon of Mohamed hanging from it, why exactly? Because you have a right to!!
 
Montecresto said:
True, there shouldn't be an attack over this, read the thread before you start posting and familiarise yourself with a posters position before you start ignorantly attacking, hear? And apparently you've missed it, but attacks have been happening against cartoon drawings that ridicule and mock Mohamed, and that IS THE ISSUE!!
Click to expand...

Come on, you know better. Anyone who dares criticize the brave freedom warrior Pam Geller thinks the attack was just hunky dory.
 
I posted this the other day. This is the person conservatives are tripping over each other to defend and misrepresenting "leftists" positions to do so:

Kobie said:
One of her NYC bus ads (linked earlier in the thread) read: "Today's Moderate; Tomorrow's Headline." That's basically claiming that every Muslim is a terrorist in waiting. Let's take a gander at some of her other freakouts:

-- she lost her mind when TV's Rachael Ray appeared in a Dunkin' Donuts ad wearing a patterned scarf similar to one worn by Muslims.

RACHAEL RAY, DUNKIN DONUTS JIHAD TOOL | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs: Islam, Jihad, Israel and the Islamic War on the West

-- she flipped out when Campbell's (which makes Kosher products) released a line of halal soups in Europe.

M-M-M-M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good? | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs: Islam, Jihad, Israel and the Islamic War on the West

-- she went bananas when the United 93 memorial in Shanksville, Pa. was kinda sorta shaped like (gasp) a crescent.

The Other Ground Zero Mosque: Flight 93 Islamic Crescent Memorial | Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs: Islam, Jihad, Israel and the Islamic War on the West

Does this look like work of someone who is just against radical Muslims?
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
I posted this the other day. This is the person conservatives are tripping over each other to defend and misrepresenting "leftists" positions to do so:
Click to expand...
So you go to the trouble of looking up incidents of where Pamela Geller was 'inflammatory' or 'provocative' or whatever in order to do what?

You don't have to agree with what she says in order to defend her right to say it. Despite pages of discussion that easily understood point still hasn't reached whatever gray cells leftists might have!
 
Grant said:
So you go to the trouble of looking up incidents of where Pamela Geller was 'inflammatory' or 'provocative' or whatever in order to do what?
Click to expand...

In the context of the thread I originally posted it in, it was in response to a request for evidence that Geller was anti-Muslim, as opposed to just "anti-jihadist."

You don't have to agree with what she says in order to defend her right to say it. Despite pages of discussion that easily understood point still hasn't reached whatever gray cells leftists might have!
Click to expand...

I HAVE defended her right to say it. Repeatedly. As have many, many other "leftists" in numerous threads. Every instance of which you've summarily ignored.
 
Kobie said:
In the context of the thread I originally posted it in, it was in response to a request for evidence that Geller was anti-Muslim, as opposed to just "anti-jihadist."I HAVE defended her right to say it. Repeatedly. As have many, many other "leftists" in numerous threads. Every instance of which you've summarily ignored.
Click to expand...
I have seen your protests and then you post something abut Geller being anti Muslim rather than anti Jihadi, which is entirely beside the point. None of that matters! Geez!
 
Grant said:
I have seen your protests and then you post something abut Geller being anti Muslim rather than anti Jihadi, which is entirely beside the point. None of that matters! Geez!
Click to expand...

Tough nuggets. It came up in the context of a different conversation. Don't like it? Take it up with someone who cares.
 
Kobie said:
In the context of the thread I originally posted it in, it was in response to a request for evidence that Geller was anti-Muslim, as opposed to just "anti-jihadist."



I HAVE defended her right to say it. Repeatedly. As have many, many other "leftists" in numerous threads. Every instance of which you've summarily ignored.
Click to expand...


To the bolded. Which strikes me as odd. Just as we might support her right to say stupid, even though we don't agree with it, we can disagree and criticise her expression, though we acknowledge the right to say it. What the heck is the difference. Other than focusing on the undisputed right keeps the attention away from the contempt of her expression.
 
Montecresto said:
[/B]

To the bolded. Which strikes me as odd. Just as we might support her right to say stupid, even though we don't agree with it, we can disagree and criticise her expression, though we acknowledge the right to say it. What the heck is the difference. Other than focusing on the undisputed right keeps the attention away from the contempt of her expression.
Click to expand...

Certain conservatives have decided that "the left hates free speech," so they intentionally ignore when people reaffirm Geller's right to free speech (even if some of what she says is abhorrent) so they can maintain the claim. Such is life when dealing with people whose sole goal on this forum is to demonize. I don't expect honesty out of these people.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
I haven't ever said that. In fact, just once while you're here participating, actually pay attention. I've clearly stated that I don't want government restrictions on Geller or anyone else. I just want her to be responsible with her liberties.
Click to expand...

Can we use the responsibility notion elsewhere. Such as, sure that black man the right to eat at the lunch counter, but he to be responsible with his liberties. He can't expect to eat at the counter without consequences.

That was somewhat the way Democrats treated people they didn't like in the Jim Crow era. Some things never change
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Yes, if you were an American you would understand the responsibilities that accompany our People's Bill of Rights. Nobody can do whatever they want here, there are restrictions, rules and limitations, even to the things we say. And there's even limitations on my freedom of speech right here at DP where yourself and I are communicating. I can't simply call you what I'd like to call you...................not without paying a price anyway, eh? A security guard paid the price for Geller's irresponsible manner of expressing her liberty. She has the "right" to be ugly, provocative, mean spirited in her little amateurish display, but she has to reap the consequences. Wonder if she's been to see the injured guard and his family or not. If so, I really wonder what she told them.
Click to expand...

Let's try another example. Sure that baby killer has the right to open and abortion clinic, but he has to reap the consequences
 
Mohammad was a murderer who had sex with a girl when she was 9. If he cannot be mocked, who can?


It's amazing, the mental gymnastics people are capable of performing as long as something is called "religion". Just because a warlord created a manifesto in order to bind his warriors to him, should people living 1400 years later be restricted in their ability to call it what it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom