I know, you're pretty much looking at one, though I guess I'm more of an areligionist than an atheist. My grandmother would have a heart attack.
That's because you are not a relative or friend of one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, of Kurt Westergaard, or even the father of a high school student in a majority Muslim school in Paris or Berlin. Or a Jew in France. Or a creator of South Park. Or German comedian Dieter Nuhr, who has received threats. And the list goes on. Like everyone else, you see the world through your own glasses. And as long as you are not personally affected, you don't care. That's your prerogative. Your whole argument circles around "if they had just kept quiet, they would never have been under threat", "why did they even go to that event", which is basically saying they brought it onto themselves, just in other words (you constantly assuming that none of them had ever been threatened because of something they said, which is completely wrong, by the way).
There are a lot of assumptions in this post. All to come to a conclusion that seems to be just you wanted it to be regardless of actual intent from the person you quoted.
Pam Geller, staunch advocate of the Constitutional rights of Americans - no matter who it offends - as guaranteed by the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment: ... unless, of course, we're talking about the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment (a mere half-sentence earlier) and she's the one being offended, then all bets are off: Basically: "You shouldn't exercise your first amendment right because it offends me, but I must exercise my first amendment right precisely because it offends you." Just another data point to show that this lady's actions have nothing to do with Constitutional rights, and that she may be just as crazy as the two idiots that ran to her, guns blazing.
She does. She should allow other people the freedoms she claims to care about so much and not try to stop people from exercising them. I will give her extra points for not shooting at someone, though. Not really the highest bar though, is it?
I'm pretty sure everyone here agrees with that sentiment. 1. Pam Geller is a idiotic bigot. 2. She has the freedom to be a hateful idiotic bigot 3. Her expression of her bigotry in the form of speech and 'art exhibitions' does not in any way warrant violent retaliation nor should it be suppressed. Let everyone hear her idiocracy. The whole notion about the character and intent of Pam Gellar issue rose up in this thread because I believe you specifically stated that her intentions were honorable and that she wasn't an idiot bigot. I see you changed your mind on that notion NVM. It was tallnover who believed her intentions were of good nature. Ignore this statement Mr. Clutch.
Can you link me to the part where Geller said if the mosque was indeed built those attending should be murdered?
Just a casual observation... How do they get so fat? That gear is as high speed as the stuff we wore in Afghanistan, only difference was that we had 30 pounds of less fat on us. His gut is literally in the way of him slinging his weapon properly. Also, why does his rifle need a peq-16 AND a tactical light? These guys just want to pretend they are SEALS.
So she wants to ban a mosque being built because it offends and then goes around touting that she is some protector of the Bill of Rights. And you don't see the hypocrisy in that because she doesn't want to murder?
So in your warped view of the world, offending people makes someone "just as crazy" as trying to murder people with guns because of a drawing. Alright. Whatever little credibility you might have had left - gone.
Or who sympathize with people who do such things, which negates the "it's just a tiny number of crazies" argument.
You're conflating "crazy" with "violent." as are you. You guys pick some of the weirdest people to defend. At best, the lady's a crazy, hypocritical liar. At worst, she's a bigot in addition. Not sure why you want her on your team, but whatever floats your boat. bigots also? ... who are you arguing against?
He's arguing against those who are attacking the intended victim of terrorism simply because they don't share the same political ideology. It's pretty disgusting, but par for the course.
You were 19 and they are 45? You were humping 80 miles a week and he works 60 hours a week? Outside of that yeah they are fat asses with free **** from the government they don't need. Even the ones who have some sort of steroid addiction are fat as hell.
They all want to be Arnold. Only problem is, people in this country tend to neglect their body in favor of comments like "muscle", "cultivating mass", "mommy's just thick", etc. It's not just an ultra-fascist hard-on thing to be fat. Clutchfans would come together to discuss this more often, but it's easier for people to make excuses than it is to deal with reality. That's what the gunmen could never do - face reality.
No, that's not my argument at all. I'm not even trying to make an argument. I'm merely giving my own perspective, starting from my very first post where I said something like: I don't understand people trying to intentionally offend other people. Particularly when the overwhelming majority of those people would never hurt them. I don't understand people shooting at people (except for self defense stuff). My point about this particular event is that the people attending were not the people who had been so directly threatened by this kind of stuff...like the people you mentioned in the post, above. I do not believe these people brought it on themselves. I never said that, and I don't believe it to be true. I just don't understand thinking, "Hey, I can't wait to attend an event where the sole purpose of attending is to seek to offend people, particularly on something that's meaningful to them." Particularly when I know there are good people here in the US and elsewhere who share those religious beliefs, but would never harm someone. I'm not saying I'm right and they're wrong...I'm saying I find it unrelateable...on both counts.
