General Discussion

Buzz Clik

(38,437 posts)

68. "Defend her" as in provide security against the predictable violence? Ok.

Reply to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #5)

Mon May 4, 2015, 04:52 PM

May 2015

Defend her philosophically? Not. Much.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

130 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pam Geller does not support the First Amendment. [View all] Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 OP

While that may be true... NaturalHigh May 2015 #1

Of course. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #4

Nor need it be Jackpine Radical May 2015 #60

Agreed. nt awoke_in_2003 May 2015 #59

And? Scootaloo May 2015 #76

And...a good morning to you Scootaloo. NaturalHigh May 2015 #96

I support the 1st Amendment, do you? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #2

Naturally. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #3

Which has no bearing on the fact she was the target of a terrorist attack. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #5

I'm not going to defend her. Sorry. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #8

That's ok. Plenty of us do understand free speech and will defend Bonx May 2015 #10

You would leave her to be killed by terrorists? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #13

No. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #17

Defending her doesn't mean agreeing with her. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #29

I wouldn't take a bullet for her JustAnotherGen May 2015 #30

"Take the hit" as in the bullet? alp227 May 2015 #66

Nope JustAnotherGen May 2015 #72

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with 'being killed by terrorists'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #28

Explain that to the BUT-monkeys. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #35

If I understand how you're using that insult, I'm a 'but' monkey. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #37

I'm one of those silly, muddle-headed milennials but I remember the Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #44

If you don't think she was provoking you are just too nice. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #49

The would-be killers were not automatons. They had a choice. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #58

Cause and effect Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #73

So, what you're saying is -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #78

No. Try again. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #79

This is what I'm saying... Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #81

Okay. And. Jihadists are an anti-everybody-but-them hate group. However -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #82

You are either being purposefully obtuse, or just don't get it. Have a great day! Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #83

I don't want to "get" nonsense. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #85

Have a nice day! Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #86

Snide salutations and rofl smilies don't turn nonsense into non-nonsense. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #87

You're the nonsensical one, not me. You are very confused. So please let's agree to disagree. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #88

I take it you don't believe one person can convince another person to do anything. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #51

The would-be killers were not automatons. They made a choice. They could have chosen to Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #61

Nothing to be done. But if you don't think she instigated this you are wrong. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #80

What absolutely, unequivocally, without peer, instigated this is -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #84

You may need to look up "instigate" in the free online dictionary. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #89

I know exactly what it means and I used it correctly. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #90

No, she arranged the function that SHE KNEW would instigate. Please argue with someone else. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #91

How could she know that would be the reaction? Because the jihadists HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #92

Because the jihadists HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. - NOW YOU GET IT!!! Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #101

Why are you advocating for a heckler's veto where the heckler's use murder? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #104

Insanity doesn't become you. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #109

That's not a refutation. If you concede to the violent heckler you enable them in the future. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #112

Appease? Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #115

Yes, appease; as in -- Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #117

I have no fear. What are you afraid of? Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #118

You say you're not afraid now but your argument is based on Geller not holding her event Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #122

You don't seem to understand. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #126

And short skirts incite rape 'cuz some people just can't help themselves. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #127

I'm not playing those games. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #128

How many times have you said that now? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #130

You have no credibility on this issue. phil89 May 2015 #113

How clever you are, little one. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #116

"Defend her" as in provide security against the predictable violence? Ok. Buzz Clik May 2015 #68

Which is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #70

Ok. You and I agree. Buzz Clik May 2015 #71

The real 1st amendment test for her HappyMe May 2015 #6

She's ugly, so lampooning her is a cakewalk even for amateurs. closeupready May 2015 #12

People publicly ridicule Christianity all the time. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #18

I want her personally to sponsor HappyMe May 2015 #23

People aren't allowed to ridicule things they don't believe in until the ridicule their own beliefs? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #39

Not a rule at all. HappyMe May 2015 #42

Okay, maybe not a rule but certainly one of the sillier ideas to be put forward. Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #45

Well, exuuuuse me! HappyMe May 2015 #57

Because her being a hypocritical dolt has nothing to do with anything The Green Manalishi May 2015 #64

People that purposly kick laying dogs deserve to get bitten. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #103

Bullshit The Green Manalishi May 2015 #108

I do not support or condone violence of any kind. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #110

I did not say you did The Green Manalishi May 2015 #111

Yes, you are wrong. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #114

IF you can be incited you are the problem. The Green Manalishi May 2015 #119

Are you inciting them because you are just speaking your mind.... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #120

The 1st doesn't require equal opportunity hate... Oktober May 2015 #129

But people aren't killed over drawing cartoons of Jesus oberliner May 2015 #41

Really? HappyMe May 2015 #43

Do you have evidence to the contrary? oberliner May 2015 #46

This message was self-deleted by its author HappyMe May 2015 #48

Read your post wrong. HappyMe May 2015 #54

I hear ya oberliner May 2015 #62

I have no problem with any of that either. HappyMe May 2015 #63

Really.... EX500rider May 2015 #52

Sure. I enjoy those cartoons. HappyMe May 2015 #55

She's even worse than Breitbart was. If that's possible. Elmer S. E. Dump May 2015 #50

She is worse than Breitbart. HappyMe May 2015 #56

I'd enter that The Green Manalishi May 2015 #53

She doesn't have to be a supporter of the 1st Amendment to be protected by it. Goblinmonger May 2015 #93

Post removed Post removed May 2015 #7

If she can gin up a 'war' with some scribbles of Muhammad Bonx May 2015 #15

that is hadly all she's done. cali May 2015 #19

So she's regularly breaking the law in some manner ? Bonx May 2015 #20

just go to SPLC and see what shit she's pulled cali May 2015 #25

I defend free the right to free speech. Bonx May 2015 #31

No, she just wants money Capt. Obvious May 2015 #27

It still applies to her. Brickbat May 2015 #9

Of course. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #11

You know who else isn't about the 1st Amendment? Nuclear Unicorn May 2015 #21

Of course. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #24

But I do. Codeine May 2015 #14

KNR joeybee12 May 2015 #16

Who gives a fuck what she supports? melman May 2015 #22

I do. So does the southern poverty law center. she's dangerous. cali May 2015 #33

And? Goblinmonger May 2015 #94

Pam Geller's not the victim of what happened Sunday. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #95

Her group is. Goblinmonger May 2015 #97

Pam Geller didn't "get" anything except lots of media attention and a bully pulpit. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #98

So if someone is doing something to get media attention and be a bully Goblinmonger May 2015 #99

Whether or not she's 1st Amendment protected is secondary. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #100

The First Amendment is key to whether we blame her or not. Goblinmonger May 2015 #102

The fine line between legal and ethical behavior demands further discussion. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #105

So this gets to the next point. Offending Muslims means you risk violence? Goblinmonger May 2015 #106

Intentionally going out of your way to provoke someone..... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #107

"Please tell me at least that you find Geller's actions here highly unethical." EX500rider May 2015 #121

So organizing an event in the hope that there may be a violent reaction to that event.... Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #123

I have no idea if anybody "hoped for a violent reaction", nor do you. EX500rider May 2015 #124

Pam Geller's entire M.O. has been to paint Muslims as blood thirsty savages. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #125

I do. She is a hate mongering bigot who would love nothing better than a boots on cbayer May 2015 #40

I do. Buzz Clik May 2015 #69

I try to keep an eye on bigoted demagogues. Seems prudent. Scootaloo May 2015 #77

The 1st amendment doesn't care who supports it.nt sufrommich May 2015 #26

I don't care what she supports. I support it. PeaceNikki May 2015 #32

Could care less what she thinks. NCTraveler May 2015 #34

I do support it. But she doesn't. Tommy_Carcetti May 2015 #36

She was expressing her right to free speech, by calling for the denial of that right to others. Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #38

You shouldn't need protection to draw cartoons oberliner May 2015 #47

She is an ignorant, condescending, self-righteous Christian a$$hole vlyons May 2015 #65

I cannot tell if she is a seething hypocrite or so blinded by hate... Buzz Clik May 2015 #67

She's also a stupid Cha May 2015 #74

Pam Gellar is an ignorant, hateful bigot. theboss May 2015 #75