Article: LA TIMES SCOFFS: GELLER BELIEVES ‘VERBAL ATTACKS ON RADICAL ISLAM’ ARE FREE

Progressives hate free speach. Just like every other iron fisted totalitarian ideology.

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Pro - typos are from the GD auto correct unless they are funny substitutions those I'll take credit for.
 
I may not approve of everything Gellar is doing, in the same way I don't approve of what the NAACP, NARAL or any number of groups I don't agree with are doing.

But

When it comes to speech, I will gladly DIE for their right to say what they want. We either have free speech or we don't - liberals need to remember, its freedom OF speech, not from it. So in tribute, I say draw Muhammad.
 
The message the paper is missing is that muslims will kill you or beat you if you do not comply with their rules and laws. In this case they tried to kill people for drawing Mohammed. When they are stronger, they'll start beating women on the street for not wearing a hijab. Will they find that acceptable?
 
I agree with the LA Times. Slandering a religion is simply hate speech, nothing less.

That's why I also shared the Times' outrage at The Last Temptation of Christ and The Book of Mormon.

Oh, wait...
 
Blooglo said:
The message the paper is missing is that muslims will kill you or beat you if you do not comply with their rules and laws. In this case they tried to kill people for drawing Mohammed. When they are stronger, they'll start beating women on the street for not wearing a hijab. Will they find that acceptable?
Click to expand...

Not to mention what happens to gays.
 
I find it ironic how liberal "news" rags will come out with arguments justifying clamping down on criticism of Islam - when making fun of Nazis is "free speech", an art exhibit featuring Jesus in a bucket of piss would run with a glowing review in the Arts and Leisure section about how it "pushes boundaries" - and in the Literature section there would likely be dozens of book reviews about the subjugation of "sexual minorities" by "religious zealots" - as well as the latest sordid tale of butt rape of little boys by Catholic priests.

After a few decades of watching this all unfold - the overall take-away I have come back with from the progressives is: " Don't listen to us - we're basically a bunch of children distracted by squirrels at every turn and you shouldn't take anything we say seriously - because we're full of crap".
 
Blooglo said:
The message the paper is missing is that muslims will kill you or beat you if you do not comply with their rules and laws. In this case they tried to kill people for drawing Mohammed. When they are stronger, they'll start beating women on the street for not wearing a hijab. Will they find that acceptable?
Click to expand...

Within every problem lies the solution.

What needs to happen here is that a propaganda campaign needs to happen - call it a disinformation campaign if you want - where all the typical leftist support groups, lesbians, minorities, transgenders - etc. .... All start having anti-Muslim campaigns.

The Muslims will respond in kind by blowing them up.

Maybe then they'll wake up.
 
She is trying to make a point:

A violent minority will not be allowed to dictate a speech code in the US.

If nobody was interested in retaliation for drawing pictures of Mohammed, she wouldn't be doing this.
 
Bill O'Reilly said something similar like she shouldn't have said it. I was border line on him before. Now I think he's a POS!

This is the same thing as when a woman accuses rape and people ask "what were you wearing?" Instead of going and arresting the perp.

It's not what you say or what you wear it's the people who commit the violence.
 
So it's ok if we go over there and bomb them, shoot them, set their asses on fire , but whatever you do don't insult them?
If you got an issue with how we do things here, there's the door .., and that goes for the muzzies too.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
She is trying to make a point:

A violent minority will not be allowed to dictate a speech code in the US.

If nobody was interested in retaliation for drawing pictures of Mohammed, she wouldn't be doing this.
Click to expand...
As long as she is not trying to shut up others who have a cause she is not agreeing with.
Unfortunately, she has a history of attempts to prevent others from free speech.
Therefore, anything she does is hypocrisy.

She does not have the class or guts to say:
"I may disagree with you, but will defend to the death your right to say it"

It would not fit her political goals
 
Gay pride parades, bacon, dogs, and women in bikinis are offensive to fundamentalist Muslims too. I guess we need to ban them to avoid provocation. [rolleyes]

The media is a bunch of morally bankrupt weasels. If the attack had been on one of their favorite people at a liberal art show it would be wall to wall 24/7 positive coverage.
 

Similar threads

Article: Veterans Day 2017
Replies
5
Views
542
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Article: 24 Times Citizens Used Guns to Save Lives in Last Six Weeks
Replies
7
Views
780
LLF
LLF
Article: California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill on Saturday that guarantees that t
Replies
17
Views
1K
Shootist
S
Article: Texas AG: Response to Church Shooting Should Be More Armed Law-Abiding Citiz
Replies
5
Views
776
KBCraig
KBCraig
Article: Nevada AG: Bloomberg-Backed Background Checks Would Not Have Prevented Las V
Replies
2
Views
522
Massbirdhunter
M
Back
Top Bottom