Pam Geller is technically right .

a reply to: introvert

'That's not what I said. What I did say is basically what you said, but more wordy.'

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: real_one
a reply to: Greathouse

Pam Geller is technically a racist bigot who fuels hatred worldwide with lie upon lie within the propaganda which she subjects the gullible to.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwe....you fell for it

Let me get this straight ?

As apparent by your post, you approve of people murdering others because they don't agree with what they said? I agree with you Pam Geller is a hateful bigot. All I'm saying is that no one should kill her for it .

By the way apparently you didn't even read the OP many more people are under death threats from radical Islam for what they say or draw . Do they all fall under your same hate filled post ?

You obviously know nothing about Pam Geller, or pick and choose your "knowledge".

The way you twisted my words and implied that I meant something totally different than I actually typed is a very obvious precursor not to attempt in any civil, intelligent debate with you as you are clearly incapable of doing so.

Take my post, present it as something it is not, then accuse me of supporting murder? Sorry bud, not my cup of tea. You have been exposed for everyone to see - someone who uses unjust deflections to get their biased opinion across.

I'll have to watch your posts going forward.

Pamella Geller is a fraud. She could care less about freedom of speech. Her job is to incite hatred of Muslims all around the world for the betterment of that terrorist state called Israel, which is also a fraud. (Jews from Brooklyn and Russia have nothing to do with middle east what so ever).

If Spamella Geller wants to defend freedom of speech let her start with her own tribe. Lets see how she reacts to people who have questions about the Holocaust (whole burnt offering -Greek ).

It is illegal to question the holocaust in 15 countries! Address that Spamella!

Thought crime??? Its not even illegal to not believe in god in those same countries.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

'That's not what I said. What I did say is basically what you said, but more wordy.'

You don't seem to be understanding.

Free speech is not even the issue here. No one has said that she should not have been able to hold this contest.

What I was saying is that it was her intent to provoke Muslims, she accomplished that goal, and I do not feel sorry for her one bit.

Free speech is a great thing, but we have to take personal responsibility for it when we use our rights with bad intentions.

a reply to: real_one

I gave you a star and I apologize for the sound of the reply . But the intent remains the same. You attack one person for exercising her write and drawing cartoons. While you champion another cause who's form of protest is chopping off heads and shooting people .


It's pretty obvious in a freedom of speech platform who is right .

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: introvert

'That's not what I said. What I did say is basically what you said, but more wordy.'

You don't seem to be understanding.

Free speech is not even the issue here. No one has said that she should not have been able to hold this contest.

What I was saying is that it was her intent to provoke Muslims, she accomplished that goal, and I do not feel sorry for her one bit.

Free speech is a great thing, but we have to take personal responsibility for it when we use our rights with bad intentions.

However, in the West at least, we do not tolerate violence as a response to speech. The Westboro Baptist people are abhorrent and they say evil things, but at their next roadside protest, the shouldn't have a bus plow into them, as funny as I may think it is. Part of freedom is protecting speech that we may find awful and when someone threatens you with violence to shut you up, that is usually the time to speak louder.

originally posted by: introvert
You don't seem to be understanding.

You keep using that phrase...

My suggestion is that you re-examine your own understanding of the 1st amendment. If we follow your logic, sooner or later we will be saying 'he should have known better than to say bad things about the government.'

originally posted by: samjonesy
It is illegal to question the holocaust in 15 countries! Address that Spamella!

The United States is not among those 15 nations. That's because such a law would violate the right to free speech.

Think about that.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: real_one

I gave you a star and I apologize for the sound of the reply . But the intent remains the same. You attack one person for exercising her write and drawing cartoons. While you champion another cause who's form of protest is chopping off heads and shooting people .


It's pretty obvious in a freedom of speech platform who is right .

Even though I disagreed with your implications, I could have perhaps been more polite. That being said, you are still twisting my words.

You said:

"You attack one person for exercising her write and drawing cartoons. While you champion another cause who's form of protest is chopping off heads and shooting people ."

I criticized Geller due to the fact that I have been following her and her agenda for years now and know her deal, I did not champion anyone who chops people's heads off, please show where I have done so.

See what I mean?

YOU MAKE STUFF UP TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS!

That is all.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

Edited:

Let me try one last simple approach to see if I can get you to understand what I'm saying.

Let's say two people are having an argument. Man A and Man B.

Man A is not doing so well in the debate, gets frustrated and calls Man B's mother a (snip).

Man B is very insulted by this and decides to pop Man A right in the mouth.

Who's right in this situation?

I can't fault Man B because anyone that calls someone's mother a (snip) deserves to get popped in the mouth.

And I can't support Man A. Even though he has the right to free speech, he deserved to get hit and shouldn't have been stupid enough to call Man B's mother a (snip).

That's a simple way of looking at this entire situation. Geller was Man A. She deserves to get popped in the mouth for calling Islam's mother a (snip), even though she has the right to say what she wants.

a reply to: real_one

Look dude, this is an old threat I was surprised when I saw it on the front page. On this issue you do realize I talked with many members . If I got your post confused with someone else I apologize .

I criticized Geller due to the fact that I have been following her and her agenda for years now and know her deal, I did not champion anyone who chops people's heads off, please show where I have done so.

I have thoroughly researched Geller I know exactly what she's up to. All I've been trying to say is when exercising free-speech rights.

She is far more justified in her stance than radical Islam is in theirs. Both issues are free speech issues I just happen to believe the least violent position is the proper position .

She's not speaking out against RADICAL Islam, she's promoting hate towards ALL Muslims.

Therein lies the flaw in your theory.

If all she were doing were speaking out against radicals, Most wouldn't have a problem.

BIG difference between speaking out against radicals and driving the conversation towards hating an entire ideology just because you don't like their beliefs.

She claims that she's doing this in support of American freedoms. OK, what about the FIRST freedom, the freedom to practice religion.

Along with the freedom to practice religion comes the understanding that people many have different religious views than yourself, and these need to be respected.

The second that you say "well, actually it's really only the freedom to practice Christianity", you're throwing the US Constitution right out of the window. The second you try and claim that the USA is a "Christian country" you're also throwing the Constitution out too.

Yeah, that Constitution that she claims to love.

Christians love the First Amendment when they try and use it to promote hate against other religions, but hate the first Amendment for the freedom it gives those other religions.

That same freedom to be able to practice your religion is what gives people like Pamela Gellar the ability to speak out and support their horrific hate speech.

a reply to: introvert

I am not sure why you think I don't understand your point, but there is no need to keep repeating yourself.

You believe people should not be held responsible for flying off the handle.
I disagree, and so does the law.

'He called me a name' will not get you a pass in court. It's called assault, brotha.

a reply to: babybunnies

WE don't have or promote FACTIONS all over the world standing by to assault ANYONE who defiles the image of Christ now DO WE?
AGAIN if it attracts these clowns bring MORE to kill.
I'll be GLAD to help.

The differences ARE BEYOND obvious, DUH.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

Muslims and Islam are a problem...especially when they are trying to populate and change other countries to follow their laws.

This nation wouldn't happen to be a nation that the Christians are busy trying to force their laws on would it? In many other nations other religious groups are allowed to have their own laws so why it is ok for them to do it but not Muslims. Here in America we don't have to worry about that because the Constitution stops that nonsense.

And while it is entirely true that not all Muslims are radical, it is also true that if no Muslims were allowed in America, there wouldn't be Islamic terrorists in America.

BS There is no way that you can stop people from converting to another religion. And eventually some psycho would would use joining that religion to take his hate out against someone.

If you want to be part of a group and call yourself part of that group, you are responsible for everything that group does.

This is just simple ignorance. Are all Christians responsible for the pedophile priests? no Are all Jews responsible for the terrorist acts that the Zionist commit? no

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

You believe people should not be held responsible for flying off the handle.
I disagree, and so does the law.

No, I didn't say that. What I said is that I can see why they flew off the handle.

If someone punches another person in the face because of something they said, that is assault and will be taken care of accordingly. That doesn't mean I can't sympathize with why they punched the person, and that doesn't mean I'm trying to restrict free speech by calling the person a douchebag for saying what they said.

Geller is a douchebag for doing what she did. She's within her right, but still a douchebag.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: samjonesy
It is illegal to question the holocaust in 15 countries! Address that Spamella!

The United States is not among those 15 nations. That's because such a law would violate the right to free speech.

Think about that.

Uh... you completely missed the point.

a reply to: samjonesy

That makes two of us.

a reply to: introvert

...fail to give the slightest damn for her...

I don't feel one bit sorry for her...

I feel no pity for Geller...

But it's hard for me to support them (Geller) or feel bad...

I do not feel any pity for her...

I do not feel sorry for her one bit...

I don't have to feel sorry when her...

You don't feel sorry for her... we got it...

a reply to: Greathouse

I wonder what would happen if somebody drew a gay Mohammed ?

I got you covered man.