BREAKING NEWS!!!!! A real shocker

[PredFan]

Rioting and destroying property is now free speech? Sit down you low info buffoon

You're much too dumb to understand, I guess....You conclusion is a stupid as you surely are...

What I AM stating is that what starts out as free speech has consequences as one then shouting, "let's break into a drugstore."

Geller is basically inciting a riot THROUGH her free speech and had she NOT surrounded herself with 50 armed guards, the murderous riot by those crazed terrorists could have turned out a lot different.

Idiot, free speech should never have "consequences", it's a given right. Sit down, commie

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

Sure but death, death threats or bodily harm should not be one of them. You don't get to break the law because someone insulted you. And before you deny you are saying that, you are blaming the victim and the result is the same.

Ummm.

I have made exactly two posts in this thread. It should not be too hard for you to find where I've "blamed the victims".

Well, you supported the post of someone who is blaming the victim.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Idiot, free speech should never have "consequences", it's a given right. Sit down, commie

The radical left, as represented by the filthy democratic party, is dedicated to eradicating civil liberty. Nate fights to stop freedom of speech because that is the goal of his party. The Anti-Liberty left opposes all civil rights. Speech, religion, expression, etc. is viewed as privilege reserved for the groups favored by the party, not as rights that accrue to all citizens.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You're much too dumb to understand, I guess....You conclusion is a stupid as you surely are...

What I AM stating is that what starts out as free speech has consequences as one then shouting, "let's break into a drugstore."

Geller is basically inciting a riot THROUGH her free speech and had she NOT surrounded herself with 50 armed guards, the murderous riot by those crazed terrorists could have turned out a lot different.

Idiot, free speech should never have "consequences", it's a given right. Sit down, commie

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

Sure but death, death threats or bodily harm should not be one of them. You don't get to break the law because someone insulted you. And before you deny you are saying that, you are blaming the victim and the result is the same.

Ummm.

I have made exactly two posts in this thread. It should not be too hard for you to find where I've "blamed the victims".

Well, you supported the post of someone who is blaming the victim.

I did? How so?

As far as I'm concerned, my only actions in this thread have been to reply to a single, asinine post. I don't believe that I have "supported" anything.

 

[PredFan]

I'm all too aware of the difference. The dead security guard's corpse is lying in it. And violence is exactly the kind of reaction Pamela was trying to provoke.

Its unreasonable and foolish to intentionally try and provoke folks to violence.

I agree with that 100%. She walked into that event knowing full well and with ample evidence to support a reasonable expectation that it would cause the irrational crazies to come out.

I fully support free speech, but she should be held culpable at least and maybe even legally liable for the results of her ignorance and intolerance. Sure, I have the right to walk through the streets of Oakland in blackface. Is there any doubt that someone wouldn't add a little blue and red to it? Maybe the real tragedy here is that a security guard caught a bullet that should have found Pamela - at least then she would have been held personally accountable for her insanity.

Complete and utter bull shit. If free speech is curtailed for any reason then we don't have free speech. If I walk down the street in black face, NO ONE has the right to lay a finger on me.

If I decide to draw a picture of Mohammed giving blow jobs to pigs the n I gave that right and no one has a right to shoot me. Nor should they receive sympathy from freedom loving people.

Let's try this from another angle then. The SCOTUS recently decided that 1st amendment protections could be conveyed onto tangible items (such as political fundraising donations). One could then pose the argument that the response to Geller's ignorance would also be so protected.

Here's something that isn't bullshit: if you showed up in Oakland wearing blackface and were hospitalized for 2 weeks after a gang beating, do you really think that people would be carrying signs denouncing your beating as a violation of your 1st amendment rights or would it be more credible that people would simply shake their heads, call you a fool, and decide you got what was coming to you? Sure - they had no RIGHT to beat you up, but you had no REASON to expect anything different.

They should not. If you did it, I would come to your defense. People who would shake their heads and blame you are cowards who don't deserve their freedoms.

I'd believe that only if I saw it. Common sense has to trump individual rights - otherwise it would perfectly fine to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. Your freedom ends when it impinges on someone else. This is why the Muslim's right to expression by shooting and bombing or flying planes into buildings isn't supported. Yet, if you have a reasonable expectation of that outcome - and Geller surely did as seen by her forethought in providing a large security detail - why poke someone in the eye if not to simply provoke such an action? This isn't an exercise in free speech so much as one in thumbing one's nose at another's moral base. That, to me, is inexcusable.

Common sense says that drawing Mohammad isn't impinging on anyone's rights.

You are blaming the victim. THAT is what's inexcusable.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You can support free speech without supporting the morons that abuse it.

Pamela had every right to draw despicable cartoons of another religions prophet. Doesn't make it a cause I have to support.

And yet you fail to condemn the bitch. Your silence is consent.

That is all it takes for hate groups to succeed. Consent by silence.

The next time you find yourself whining that someone failed to condemn a bad act, remember on which side of that line you stood today.

Blow me Mr Wannabe King. Fuck her, fuck you & fuck everyone who is as childish as you are with your parcing of my words.
When you drive down to Fox News to give her a piece of your mind I MIGHT take notice. Until then I'll just recognize you as the blow hard troll pretending to be a conservative that you are

 

[PredFan]

Idiot, free speech should never have "consequences", it's a given right. Sit down, commie

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

Sure but death, death threats or bodily harm should not be one of them. You don't get to break the law because someone insulted you. And before you deny you are saying that, you are blaming the victim and the result is the same.

Ummm.

I have made exactly two posts in this thread. It should not be too hard for you to find where I've "blamed the victims".

Well, you supported the post of someone who is blaming the victim.

I did? How so?

As far as I'm concerned, my only actions in this thread have been to reply to a single, asinine post. I don't believe that I have "supported" anything.

Really? You don't see it even if you read this line of discussion again?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can support free speech without supporting the morons that abuse it.

Pamela had every right to draw despicable cartoons of another religions prophet. Doesn't make it a cause I have to support.

Were the cartoons more or less "despicable" than the "Book of Mormon" that Hillary declared "delightful?"

Explain your answer....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Free speech always has consequences. That's the whole point.

Freedom comes with responsibility.

Sure but death, death threats or bodily harm should not be one of them. You don't get to break the law because someone insulted you. And before you deny you are saying that, you are blaming the victim and the result is the same.

Ummm.

I have made exactly two posts in this thread. It should not be too hard for you to find where I've "blamed the victims".

Well, you supported the post of someone who is blaming the victim.

I did? How so?

As far as I'm concerned, my only actions in this thread have been to reply to a single, asinine post. I don't believe that I have "supported" anything.

Really? You don't see it even if you read this line of discussion again?

Of course I don't "see" it, it's not there. You're seeing what you want to see.

The only thing that I have said in this thread is that the idea that "speech doesn't have consequences" is simply ludicrous.

I have not even mentioned anything about the events at the "cartoon contest", or anything close to it.

 

[natstew]

So it's OK to piss off nut-jobs if you KNOW they are going to retaliate by murdering innocent people?

Don't tell me that we need to support free speech at all costs, tell the victims families.

What victims?

The only dead people are the terrorists

Maybe not in this case, but do you remember the Koran-burning douche, Terry Jones?

Afghan mob kills at least 12 UN workers in protest over Terry Jones’s Koran-burning

“Wait,” you say, “since when did Terry Jones burn a Koran?” Turns out he did it 12 days ago after some sort of kangaroo court/mock trial. I didn’t know about it until today; apparently, after being savaged last fall for condemning Jones’s provocation while devoting saturation coverage to it, most of the national media wisely decided to ignore him this time. Most, but not all: Someone must have picked up the story because, by last Thursday, our “friend” Hamid Karzai had formally denounced Jones’s act. Then, a week later, our “friends” in the Pakistani government denounced it too, replete with an open letter to the head of Interpol asking him to arrest Jones for the “violent crime” he supposedly committed. In other words, faced with a choice between pleasing local fundamentalists by publicizing a provocation they were trying to demagogue and alienating the fundies by ignoring it in order to avert a violent backlash, our “allies” decided to cover their own asses by stirring the pot. And let’s face it: Given the consequences these days in AfPak for being seen as soft on blasphemy, that’s a perfectly rational decision. Someone’s going to die....

Afghan mob kills at least 12 UN workers in protest over Terry Jones s Koran-burning Hot Air


Technically, I should be able to go up to an old lady who just lost her husband and call her a slut. Would you support THAT kind of free speech?

I wouldn't, If I ever saw that, I'd punch the stupid bastard in his face.

"Afghan mob kills at least 12 UN workers in protest over Terry Jones’s Koran-burning"

We should have killed 12,000 muslims in response.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You can support free speech without supporting the morons that abuse it.

Pamela had every right to draw despicable cartoons of another religions prophet. Doesn't make it a cause I have to support.

Were the cartoons more or less "despicable" than the "Book of Mormon" that Hillary declared "delightful?"

Explain your answer....

All religion is despicable. Mocking the religions is just as pathetic.
But I digress. Much like I have the right to be a complete asshole on USMB that stupid twit had the right to do as she did.

Anyone who completely supports her should run through Harlem or Ferguson screaming the word nigg3r. I support your right to do that too of course

 

[oldernwiser]

You can support free speech without supporting the morons that abuse it.

Pamela had every right to draw despicable cartoons of another religions prophet. Doesn't make it a cause I have to support.

Despicable? No not despicable, just cartoons. All Americans who oppose her are gutless cowards who have already surrendered to islam.

I prefer to think of myself as a person who has accumulated a little common sense and tolerance towards people who have a different culture than I. But that's just me. If you want to draw cartoons of Mohammed after Charlie Hebdo and Geller's stunt, we can write on your headstone how you had the constitutional right to do so.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Then what ARE you saying, Comrade?

You're getting your biases mixed up with that "comrade" stupidity.....

Listen moron......Were those rioters in Baltimore exercising "free speech"???

Sure they were.....but when free speech evolved into rallying to riot, then the free speech right bore consequences...

Geller had more than 50 body guards surrounding the venue...Why was that?.

.....and if those two terrorists had managed to kill a dozen "participants" to that drawing contest stunt, would Geller bear ANY responsibility?

Rioting and destroying property is now free speech? Sit down you low info buffoon

I am getting the feeling you think you are somehow important here.

You are not.

Now, you can say stupid stuff like "Sit down you low info buffoon" all you want - but no one is going to obey. Because you are unimportant.

So, please, keep on being as stupid as possible. We are enjoying this.

 

[natstew]

What "despicable cartoons", got a link? I'd like to see the cartoons and judge for myself whether they're despicable or not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

All religion is despicable. Mocking the religions is just as pathetic.
But I digress. Much like I have the right to be a complete asshole on USMB that stupid twit had the right to do as she did.

Anyone who completely supports her should run through Harlem or Ferguson screaming the word nigg3r. I support your right to do that too of course

Leftists mock religion every day. Mocking the Mormons is celebrated at the highest levels of the party.

{The Associated Press reported soon after The Book of Mormon's opening that "[t]he show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim." Indeed, the show has been the biggest hit on Broadway these past two seasons, winning nine Tony Awards along the way.}

So the Hildabeast is really good with trashing other peoples religion - I mean - we must understand that some people are WAY more equal than others - Muslim terrorists for instance are so much more important than Mormons, we really need to have different standards and even laws when dealing with them.

Oh, in case you think this isn't a fair match, because drawing the Warlord is "blasphemy,"

{
True, when the show premiered in 2011, the media were shocked. NPR accurately called it "blasphemous." The Washington Post called it "acidic." The New York Times called it "more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak."

But the media did not stop there -- not at all. In context, NPR called The Book of Mormon "blasphemous, hilarious and oddly endearing." The Post called the show "one of the most joyously acidic bundles Broadway has unwrapped in years." And the Times called it, foul-mouthed or not, "a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical."

Although some likely found The Book of Mormon as "offensive and reprehensible and disgusting" as White House spokesman Jay Carney found Innocence of Muslims, the Obama administration chose not to denounce it. Nor could I find any protest from Carney when his former employer, TIME Magazine, praised The Book of Mormon as "bright and enjoyable, and good enough to make even a grumpy critic's 10 Best list."



Read more: Articles Hillary Cheered Broadway s Book of Mormon Condemns Innocence of Muslims
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook}

But hey, Muslim terrorists contribute so much to America - it's only right that the party give them special privilege and trash the rights of Americans.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

[A security guard's life was too high a price to pay for it.

Servant of the jealous God Yahweh, whose name is Jealous, tell me, which security guard lost their life?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I prefer to think of myself as a person who has accumulated a little common sense and tolerance towards people who have a different culture than I. But that's just me. If you want to draw cartoons of Mohammed after Charlie Hebdo and Geller's stunt, we can write on your headstone how you had the constitutional right to do so.

What on earth would make you think you have common sense?

Pissing yourself in fear of offending the democrats beloved terrorists is cowardice - the opposite of common sense.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

All religion is despicable. Mocking the religions is just as pathetic.
But I digress. Much like I have the right to be a complete asshole on USMB that stupid twit had the right to do as she did.

Anyone who completely supports her should run through Harlem or Ferguson screaming the word nigg3r. I support your right to do that too of course

Leftists mock religion every day. Mocking the Mormons is celebrated at the highest levels of the party.

{The Associated Press reported soon after The Book of Mormon's opening that "[t]he show has been greeted not by protests but rhapsodic reviews and standing ovations from crowds that have included celebrities as diverse as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, actor Jack Nicholson and composer Stephen Sondheim." Indeed, the show has been the biggest hit on Broadway these past two seasons, winning nine Tony Awards along the way.}

So the Hildabeast is really good with trashing other peoples religion - I mean - we must understand that some people are WAY more equal than others - Muslim terrorists for instance are so much more important than Mormons, we really need to have different standards and even laws when dealing with them.

Oh, in case you think this isn't a fair match, because drawing the Warlord is "blasphemy,"

{
True, when the show premiered in 2011, the media were shocked. NPR accurately called it "blasphemous." The Washington Post called it "acidic." The New York Times called it "more foul-mouthed than David Mamet on a blue streak."

But the media did not stop there -- not at all. In context, NPR called The Book of Mormon "blasphemous, hilarious and oddly endearing." The Post called the show "one of the most joyously acidic bundles Broadway has unwrapped in years." And the Times called it, foul-mouthed or not, "a newborn, old-fashioned, pleasure-giving musical."

Although some likely found The Book of Mormon as "offensive and reprehensible and disgusting" as White House spokesman Jay Carney found Innocence of Muslims, the Obama administration chose not to denounce it. Nor could I find any protest from Carney when his former employer, TIME Magazine, praised The Book of Mormon as "bright and enjoyable, and good enough to make even a grumpy critic's 10 Best list."



Read more: Articles Hillary Cheered Broadway s Book of Mormon Condemns Innocence of Muslims
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook}

But hey, Muslim terrorists contribute so much to America - it's only right that the party give them special privilege and trash the rights of Americans.

WTF does any of that gibberish have do do with my op?
I support her right but not her endeavor.

Where is the problem? Or is the problem that many of you confuse common sense with liberalism?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I don't see the need to elevate stupid people up on a pedestal. If I did then Fred Phelps would be my hero too. Along with the Piss Christ dude of course

 

[Uncensored2008]

WTF does any of that gibberish have do do with my op?
I support her right but not her endeavor.

Where is the problem? Or is the problem that many of you confuse common sense with liberalism?

Everything. You are applying standards based on the political favor of those involved, Geller is "despicable" for offending Muslims. The "Book of Mormon" is "delightful" for offending Mormons. Why? Well, Muslims hate America and engage in acts of terrorism, Mormons do not - so the democrats love the Muslims and hate the Mormons.

You see nothing spurious in that reasoning?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

WTF does any of that gibberish have do do with my op?
I support her right but not her endeavor.

Where is the problem? Or is the problem that many of you confuse common sense with liberalism?

Everything. You are applying standards based on the political favor of those involved, Geller is "despicable" for offending Muslims. The "Book of Mormon" is "delightful" for offending Mormons. Why? Well, Muslims hate America and engage in acts of terrorism, Mormons do not - so the democrats love the Muslims and hate the Mormons.

You see nothing spurious in that reasoning?

Omfg.

How the fuck do you get ANY of that out of My posts? I don't respect Hillary for ANYTHING much less her idiotic ideas of Mormonism or any other stupid religion.
The left mocked Romney for his religion and you all bitched about it, and rightfully so. No everyone has decided that hypocrisy is the word of the day and is now praising someone else for their disrespectful message.

More & more I am finding myself alone on this site when it comes to NOT BEING A FUCKING HYPOCRITE