I agree with all of this.

Once again, your behavior is odd. If you really think I'm so unreasonable or intolerable just put me on ignore. Why you keep commenting on my posting is weird. Are you developing some sort of infatuation with my views? I've been posting in the same style for years.

Then what is the issue? That Geller is a bad person? That there are some racists in the crowd? What is your actual issue here?

Agree with Hueh said as well. But that is not to say that in some police cases sometimes the use of force is justified and in those case the person shot/tackled etc. has responsibility for what was done.

So it is fine taking a stand and indicating that so and so brought this action on themselves and are responsible. But when you do that you are also indicating that to a degree the person performing the action is not totally at fault or 100% responsible. That their actions were somewhat justified or at least partially understandable given the circumstances.

You can say what you want about Pams message but in no way was she anyway responsible for the shooting.

Yes, that's my issue and that's all I've ever said. I've never said anything about banning their contest, I just think it's a terrible idea.

This is what I was alluding to when I said sympathy. You people react as if there is some sort of crime going on here. It's described as "a bad idea", but there's this constant apologist attitude going on here, like if they didn't express those ideas, the "crazy" Muslims wouldn't have come out and tried to kill them. To avoid the situation in the future, the artists should stop what they are doing and not provoke them into reacting the way they did.

It's a defeatist attitude, and it's wrong.

I did not expect to find myself in this company

7 Conservatives Who Surprisingly Have Refused To Stand Behind Pam Geller

Bill Donahue

Van Susteren

It seems clear that not only can responsibility be apportioned between the actors but is being done not just by the left and not one of these commentators would argue that the shooters were in anyway justified.

lol ikes trying to justify any speech as "fine" because it's legal. Could you imagine applying this same logic if the stunt were instead a bunch of people chanting the n-word over and over? "How do these people think they live in a world where it's fine to do this?" Never fear, ikes is here to carry that water: "lol because the first amendment exists, pathetic"

He did say the SAE students would have borne no responsibility had another passenger punched one.

Bill O'Reilly's take (sorry, there's a bit of The Donald)



Megyn Kelly goes off on him

Swing and a miss until you can tell us who the people are ITT that want to make drawing Mohammed illegal

Maybe he's drunk. What do you think?

No, he's not misusing the English language in ways that you have in the past that led me to conclude you were probably drunk posting your hot takes.

Maybe it's his meds. My bad.

Could be medication. Have you found any posters that your argument about restricting freedoms is actually valid against yet?

It's blatantly obvious who sympathizes with the "oppressed" Muslims who have to deal with something that could drive them to commit murder.

Like, you know, a cartoon.

You said they want to restrict others' freedoms with zero evidence that anyone in that group has called for making that cartoon drawing illegal. That's some clown posting, bro.

This argument is going on everywhere. The UN has a blasphemy proposal out there. People argue over it on cable TV. Famous people have fatwahs against them for it. Cartoonists are shot. Embassies are burned. People are killed.

What's so clownish about this argument, "bro"? Are you ignorant to whats going on in the world? Or do all of you guys really agree with me but want to ensure everyone knows how bad of a person Geller is?

Who here is supporting the UN's blasphemy proposal? What relevance does your post have to this discussion, with this group of people?

Just because everyone else is stupid doesn't mean Americans are. Muslims aren't bringing Sharia any more than the Papist brought us under Rome's control.

I wonder if wills casual Anti Muslim attitude falls under the category of white privilege , will so casually says


Why should non-Muslims have their freedoms infringed upon because Muslims are "offended"?

Imagine Wil saying


Why should non-Jews have their freedoms infringed upon because Jews are "offended"?

This attitude comes off as suspicious at best. The thing is I'm not a Muslim, I'm not a Jew but I take offense to anti Muslim and or Anti Jewish views.

Wil, how do you know that non Muslims are not offended by the Anti Muhammad cartoons?

I agree that the 2 shooters were in the wrong. I would also say Geller does not have a right to use tax payer dollars for a federally funded security detail, which is what Geller has asked for.

Yes you have the freedom of speech to draw Muhammad or whatever but if the sole purpose is to provoke people then you shouldn't be doing it. Weren't Christians getting up in arms about "piss Christ" or whatever that artwork was called? Just follow the golden rule: Treat others like you would want to be treated. i.e. Don't be an *******.

It's the same sort of sentiment. People are catering to these ideas that infringe on other people's rights. Freedom of speech is something we believe in, its a right. It doesn't mean you have to believe in what is being said. In this particular instance the crowd just wants to, you know, make sure we know Geller is a bad person. But they support the idea and all that.

It's not about the law. It's about intimidation, it's about fear or reprisal and that changing our attitudes.

I've said the western media showed nothing but cowardice years ago when the Danish embassy was attacked because of a printed cartoon. This is why there are movements like "Draw Mohammed Day", to show solidarity and support for freedom of speech. Some Muslims find it offensive. So what? Should we be able to criticize and make fun of every religion but one because they may get mad?

I think anti-semitism is awful. I don't agree with it at all. But if there was a proposal to ban anti-semitic writings, I'd vote against it. People have the right to believe in nonsense.

Which ideas should or shouldn't be explored? It's about as anti-intellectual as you can get. Throughout history there have been so many ideas that could come under that category. It wouldn't be hard to come up with countless examples, and many of them could have gotten you killed.

I'm sure we could make a very solid argument that many of those ideas that "shouldn't" have been explored wound up being the best ideas that humans have ever come up with.

In no way should what I just said be interpreted as support for bigotry or racism, I think those ideas have been proven to be unwarranted and pointless. You can't have one without the other though, and some people realize that.