Free speech, Garland Tx.

[Lurker66]

Wow....we have reached the point that we chastise those who dare offend muslims. They are winning.......

Chastising, yes, kinda. Its because some people hide behind rights. It reminds me of lil kids who talk tough then hide behind mommy or teacher or big brother.

 

[Glocktogo]

So Gellar should take her act overseas before a huge bomb blows misguided people up.

That's pretty un-American of you Lurk. I'm disappointed in you.

I don't think anyone is placating Muslims or avoiding free speech. Nobody on this board went to the cartoon show.

It doesn't serve any good whatsoever to draw cartoons that's ment as an insult. Its same with burning a flag.....burn it on the Capitol steps if ya want, but burning a flag in street by Hoddy s house is gonna illicit a response ya might not want.

Nobody on this board can give a good legitimate reason for doing what Gellar did......there's no good reason for it, other than putting people's lives in danger.

Its a douche move on anyone's part to attempt incite a bunch of people who have no problems building a bomb big enough to destroy a city block.

If people of Gellar ilk keep on screwing around, there will be another Murrah type event......it's needless and pointless.

You're continuing to show that you don't understand America, how it was founded or what it stands for. I'm flabbergasted that you don't get it.

I can see how "poking the bear" might be exhilarating, but the consequences can spill beyond the person doing the poking.

How different this conversation would be if they shot up a daycare in retaliation.

As had already been said, it is certainly your right to offend, but be ready to reap the repercussions.

You can protest something you strongly believe in while being tactful.

Transmitted via Tactical Telecommunications Device

Do you somehow think that hasn't been tried? How tactful should we be to keep terrorists from committing violence?

No I completely understand and agree with the committed to violence philosophy, I simply think it's reckless and absurd for those unwilling to enact violence to provoke those who will. The Geller scenario would be like me taking my family to the woods(all of us unarmed) and hiring a few hunters to come along with. Let me poke the bear and hope the hunters can protect us. Sure it will probably work out okay, but that doesn't dismiss my stupidity.

So you're essentially saying that these Muslims are devoid of the ability to reason and are merely slaves to their animalistic urges? Are they subhuman in your eyes?



All in all, I think the exercise in this thread has born fruit. We've discovered that at least a few OSA'ers would've proudly stood with those who didn't want to declare America's independence, because it might've offended King George III and he might resort to violence. They would've stood proudly with Neville Chamberlain, because speaking German and tossing undesirables into ovens would be less objectionable than preparing to repel violent men.

I fully understand practicing non-violence, because I do it every day. However, I would NEVER call someone who was exercising their free speech rights against violent thugs, stupid. If they're brave enough to stand up and be counted, and they do what is necessary to prepare for the consequences (which Geller fully did), they're free to navigate in my book. If I disagree with what they say or the underlying foundation of it, I may choose to stay home and see what happens. If I go and get hurt by evil savages, well I'm not so foolish as to blame the person exercising their natural rights as enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.

No, I think I'll hold the evil savages responsible instead. I respect your right to disagree with that, but I don't respect your position if you do. My respect for you is diminished in direct proportion to what extreme you go to in defense of such silly notions.

 

[Wheel Gun]

Given the number of terrorist attacks that the US will be experiencing over the next decade, it's going to get really old hearing the media (and some of our neighbors) blame it on us each time.

 

[Glocktogo]

What she did and what members of this board are doing/saying is the equivalent of sacrificing babies at the alter of Christians because it's our right.

Its forcing an issue and hiding behind the right to free speech, same as westboro. Rights are not meant to be hidden behind. Most understand this.....but a few are vocal and like to be perceived as patriots.......that's ignorant pride. But they can buy lil flags and tie lil yellow ribbons on their car......but they won't attend a Gellar art show.

That's quite possibly the stupidest thing you've ever said. Magnificently stupid. You also just called everyone on OSA who disagrees with you a coward. From the safety of your keyboard in Pink. Feel manly now? Did that help your low self-esteem?

I'll tell you what. Even though I don't agree with Geller's baseline, I agree with her stand against violent extremism. PM me your email address and I'll copy you when I invite her to my AOR for one of her contests. If she comes, I'll suit up, strap on my gear and go stand watch for free (because I actually do that). When I get there I'll email you a picture of me standing guard. Will that put an end to your silly trash talk?

Jump if you feel froggy...

 

[dennishoddy]

PLEASE keep the discussion on track and not have personal comments against other members in the discussion. It serves no purpose and is against forum rules. Thank You.

 

[MadDogs]

... and as Lurker said, eventually they will retaliate with far more aggression and innocent people will get caught in the crossfire. Yes, we know terrorists want to kill us and they will likely attempt attacks regardless. Does that simple fact somehow condone giving them a target where innocent people could die?

Around 240 years ago, had others thought like you and Lurker66 we would not have a country.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

...

And when some "hero" firefighter digs yalls remains out of some podunk county barn, I'll write a thread about yall were cool and stood up for what ya believed in.

And when some future archeologist descendant of mine discovers you in the mass grave full of the remains of those bound in chains who stooped to the demands of their Islamic masters, my descendant will not wonder why you weren't remembered as a countryman of ours.

Woody

 

[MadDogs]

Who gets to define legitimate? Just like owning a gun, she doesn't need a "good legitimate reason". She simply can because it's her right.

The cartoons are an excuse for an attack. They already hate us for who we are. If we ban cartoons, they will keep finding other excuses until we are them, and even when we are them them they will still find reasons to kill us, as evidenced by their stellar performance against fellow Muslims for not being Muslim enough.

Personally I think she is very close to yelling fire in a crowded theater, but she isn't there yet.

Well stated.

 

[MadDogs]

What she did and what members of this board are doing/saying is the equivalent of sacrificing babies at the alter of Christians because it's our right.

Wow. This gem is ever better than “caojyn’s” efforts trying to prove that a straw man argument is valid discourse. Speaking on behalf of my brothers and sisters in Christ who have never sacrificed a baby (or any small furry farm animals) at any altar … when you say things like this you really do not do your integrity any good.

Its forcing an issue and hiding behind the right to free speech, same as westboro. Rights are not meant to be hidden behind. Most understand this.....

First off, no one was hiding. The “cartoon contest” was part of the meeting that discussed Islamic intolerance around the world. Secondly, to make a comment like this, you are sharing that you have zero understanding what our rights are. So you don’t have to enroll in a remedial high school civics class, here is yesterday’s post from “1krr”. This post describes the issue perfectly (emphasis in bold mine).

1krr said, “The freedom of speech is specifically crafted not to protect popular speech but to protect controversial speech. It's specifically designed to allow non-populist messages to be spoken and information to be given to the listener who then has the responsibility to digest and decide whether they agree or not. I think the position I hear often through the media is blaming the victim. They rail the event holders for holding an event "offensive to islam" and for inciting violence but they can't turn it inward. I'm often offended by what I hear in the media but does that give me the right to kill them for it or does it give them the responsibility to stop saying those things that offend me? It's ridiculous. If Muslims are offended, they have plenty of avenues granted them as citizens. They could protest. They could have a contest depicting Jesus in some less than honorable light. They have all kinds of options that do not involve terrorism or murder. Bottom line is no one has the right to suppress any speech. The start and end to the story in Garland is two islamic terrorists were thwarted by the heroic skill of a police officer while attempting to murder innocent citizens practicing their 1st amendment rights.”

 

[caojyn]

Can't we all just get along