• 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

Andalublue said:
What she was doing in Garland was looking to provoke a response that would justify her prejudices and, given that the people she was provoking are even more brain-dead and fanatically prejudiced than she is, she got it. Bravo! Of course to her, the fact that the method she used to provoke was also deeply insulting to the vast majority of peaceful, law-abiding Moslems doesn't bother her in the slightest, and that's because she hates peaceful, law-abiding Moslems as much as she hates the violent extremist ones. See it's not about a hatred of violence and extremism for her, it's about a hatred of Islam.
Click to expand...
I'm more pragmatic in my thoughts concerning Ms. Geller's motivations.

I believe she is selling fear to make a buck - greed driven, even as far as to risk having the blood of innocent Americans on her hands.

Pandering-for-profit is what I see, no different than Mr. Cruz, Mr. Limbaugh, Ms. Bachman, et al - the whole clown car of hucksters fleecing the fearful, xenophobic, naive & uninitiated, while they live the good-life off of other's dimes.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Chomsky said:
I'm more pragmatic in my thoughts concerning Ms. Geller's motivations.

I believe she is selling fear to make a buck - greed driven, even as far as to risk having the blood of innocent Americans on her hands.

Pandering-for-profit is what I see, no different than Mr. Cruz, Mr. Limbaugh, Ms. Bachman, et al - the whole clown car of hucksters fleecing the fearful, xenophobic, naive & uninitiated, while they live the good-life off of other's dimes.
Click to expand...

And you call this "pragmatic"?
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

LeoVlaming said:
And you call this "pragmatic"?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe she's in it for the money - perhaps one of the most basic motivators.

Nothing tricky or complicated to understand here - pure Occam's razor.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Chomsky said:
Yes, I believe she's in it for the money - perhaps one of the most basic motivators.

Nothing tricky or complicated to understand here - pure Occam's razor.
Click to expand...

I was mainly referring to the rest of your rant.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

LeoVlaming said:
I was mainly referring to the rest of your rant.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I'm no fan of the motivations of the other's I've mentioned - fear is a powerful motivator, and this crowd really seems to know how to play it & foster it.

I'll also add: There's a subset on the left that does the same, but the guys/gals I mentioned strike me as particularly egregious at the game.

Then again, this seems to be standard to some degree amongst those in the political arena ...
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Hah, so you ARE saying that it should be "restricted". Hilarious.

And I seem to understand free speech much better than you do.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that liberals "understand" that free speech and the free exercise of religion come with restrictions, and they are the ones best suited to define those restrictions
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Blemonds said:
You have to remember that liberals "understand" that free speech and the free exercise of religion come with restrictions, and they are the ones best suited to define those restrictions
Click to expand...

Case in point:

“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer :lamo
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

LeoVlaming said:
The right to freedom of speech is, like all rights and freedoms, not unlimited and absolute. But it should be limited only by the most necessary and obviously reasonable restrictions, i.e. restrictions having to do with direct calls for violence or other serious crimes; libel and slander against individual persons; treason.

That is the ideal. Obviously every country is different and many make choices according to their specific circumstances. But in principle, any infringement of freedom of speech, except for the above-mentioned logical limits, is to be deplored.
Click to expand...

And Mrs. Geller's was a direct call for violence, and guess what, it worked.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Apocalypse said:
Hah, so you ARE saying that it should be "restricted". Hilarious.

And I seem to understand free speech much better than you do.
Click to expand...

Yes, OF COURSE it most definitely is restricted. You do not understand free speech in America, stop talking about it.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Yes, OF COURSE it most definitely is restricted. You do not understand free speech in America, stop talking about it.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stop lying.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Some people's inability to deal with reality is really pretty pathetic.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Since the more ludicrous posters in this thread have now decided to call for those who oppose them to "take a bullet", I think we have reached a new low.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Yes, OF COURSE it most definitely is restricted. You do not understand free speech in America, stop talking about it.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly fine, very unlike you considering the insanely ignorant remarks you've been making here.
Please do refer to how the American constitution or American law in general restricts free speech in the case of the mockery of a religion, either do so or admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Maybe you should join Geller next time and take a bullet.
Click to expand...

If anyone ever needed a proof to the ridiculous immorality of your positions I think this statement here would do the work.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

LeoVlaming said:
Since the more ludicrous posters in this thread have now decided to call for those who oppose them to "take a bullet", I think we have reached a new low.
Click to expand...


and here, I was under the impression that suggesting the death of other posters was considered at least slightly objectionable.

My bad, I guess.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Montecresto said:
Really, her charade didn't bring in violence?
Click to expand...



Much like a woman walking down the street brings rape, yes.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

Gardener said:
Much like a woman walking down the street brings rape, yes.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the short skirt.

Glad to see you back by the way.
 
Re: Shooting at Muhammad Art Exhibit in Texas

LeoVlaming said:
Since the more ludicrous posters in this thread have now decided to call for those who oppose them to "take a bullet", I think we have reached a new low.
Click to expand...

It's not a call. If you incite violence, you will fall victim to it. Its a logical observation. So if your "right" to offend the sensibilities of an entire religious group are that important to you, join Geller, and accept the risk of reprisal for your "freedom".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom