"Charlie Hebdo" Comes to Garland.. Fatalaties..

My biggest concern is that the Muslims who claim to be good people do not denounce the radicals; or aid CIA or FBI or local police with intel. WE segregated the American Japanese and others after WW2 Pearl Harbour.

Oh I forgot: no balls. Bruce Jenner's promise to donate his balls to Obama was rejected. Originally Posted by doug_dfw

Muslim clerics in Dallas promptly r ounces the attacks. You are wrong. Of course the corporate media doesn't like to cover that.

You are full of shit. In today's world it has been liberals (Progressives) who have been intolerant of free speech. Liberals are afraid of open exchange of ideas - Just look at our college campuses. It was Obama who delivered a rebuke of the Supreme Court for protecting free speech in Citizens United v. FEC; and the Obama IRS inquired of citizens what books they are reading and what is the content of their prayers. It was the Senate Democrats who overwhelmingly vote to limit free speech (Udall Amendment). It is Harry Reid who uses the Senate well to attack private citizens for exercising their right to free speech. It is Democrats who want return of the Fairness Doctrine in controlling our media (Media Reform Ownership Act). It is the uber-left wing Climatistas (Al Gore and friends) who say climate change deniers should be punished.

If you want more recent proof, read yesterdays Editorial from the NYTs....they side with muslims extremists in their condemnation of Geller and her Draw Mohammad event.

Freedoms that are not exercised are lost...the NYTs is leading the fight to the loss of free speech (along with other new age Democrats).

And your above post proves my point; the (conservative) Dallas muslim clerics supported Geller's constitutional right to hold the Draw Mohammad Convention; and the very liberal NYTs did not!

But with respect to the ACLU, you are correct. Thank god they exist.

You're full of shit when you say liberals are the enemy of free speech. The ACLU -- an organization of which I am proud to be a member -- fights harder than any organization I know for free speech. It has traditionally been Republucan administrations that opposed free speech (see Texas v. Johnson -- where the Reagan/Bush Justice department lost seeking to criminalize flag burning as not being political speech with three REPUBLICAN Justices dissenting). The only dissent in Snyder v. Phillips, the Westboro church case you cite, was Republican Justice Alito.

For those claiming the the nut job who organized this event was trying to be provocative, no shit! Of course she was. And what she did may well be viewed as in poor taste. But popular speech needs no Constitutional protections. That's why the ACLU is typically standing up for folks like the Nazi Party, claiming that while their views are abhoent, that they still have a right to march in a Jewish suburb. Once the government can talk the right of speech away from those outside the mainstream, the next target us those within the mainstream. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

No matter how you look at it the demographics of our country are changing at a rapid pace. Good or bad, one day we will wake up and not recognize it until too late. I don't care if you are Liberal, Conservative, Independent, Libertarian, tea Party, Jewish, Christian, Wiccan, etc.

I am now Conservative but I have voted all colors of the Political rainbow. I voted for Bush Sr, Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, Bush Jr(against Gore) Did not vote in the next one because I could not decide between Bush & Kerry, McCain, Romney. This time around, we'll see. But I am not voting with my vagina, I'm using my head.

I am not one to fall into the conspiracy theories, but. One day we will have another event like 9/11 or World Trade Center Bombing from the early 90's. With our winds in the Spring, a dirty Bomb in a van in DT ft Worth or Dallas could create massive disaster for North Tx.

The extremists who hate us who demand we convert or be killed like they are doing to Christians overseas can slip thru our Southern Border.

I have 1 question. Mexico is majority Christian/Catholic. Why do the Islamic Extremists NOT attack Mexico? That's a shitload of Virgins for those crazy fools with all the Christians in Mexico who we all know will not convert from Christianity. Do they think they could make Mexican Catholics in Mexico convert to Islam?

I understand why you try to deflect with some comment about me getting a blow job......you are a loser.

BTW, still waiting on you to provide that link backing up your ridiculous claim that "depicting a religious figure, when that religion is against it , falls under the (legal) definition of "incitement".

Run and hide if you want.

Your lame attempt to characterize the Islamic Garland shooters as being justifiably incited to kill by the Draw Mohammad Convention is repulsive to clear thinking men. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're begging me for a link? To prove my quote?? Did I ask you to prove your quote in your post #43? Hold both hands out...beg in one hand, jack off in the other, enjoy the one that gets filled...!

You don't get SHIT from me, you self-righteous, pompous, holier-than-thou, fat bag of hot air...yeah...let's all bow down to your pathetic, morally superior "I am the expert on free speech" attitude!

Put your balls where your beliefs are:
Tell that crazy bitch and her crew you want to host a "cartoon contest"...right in the privacy of your home. She'll handle the details: invitations, publicity, security (hopefully enough!). Hey, you might make a few grand! Then, when the bullets are flying, the two of you can wrap yourselves up in the American flag, sing the national anthem and masterbate to a poster of the Bill of Rights! Sounds like fun!

I love exercising my free speech rights!

I'm finished with you and this thread...continue on with your boring, self-indulgent, "I'm right, you're wrong" posts, Kommandant...I'm done.

Happy fucking, everyone...and, thanks to Whirlaway's warning, watch out for Mormans with machetes!!

Denial is a sad thing to observe. The longer an individual is in denial the emotional reaction when denial fails increases.

Hard facts mean nothing to a person in denial.

Or

A propagandist can create doubt and confusion by introducing never ending side issues and prevarication. This has an errosive water like effect. Continuous pressure from propaganda minded media will erode understanding, if not balanced by opposing views.

You need a link for the Snyder v. Phelps Scotus decision?

Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps

I can understand why you are shutting down; you don't want to be held accountable for your nonsensical bloviating........now runaway.

No it doesn't......you don't know the law or our Constitution.

SCOTUS decided. The decision issued in 2011, 8-1, a nearly unanimous supreme court, the liberals and conservatives joining together, saying notwithstanding the fact that the Westboro Baptist Church, as hateful as they come, offered hurtful and speech which did not contribute hardly all to the public discourse. It was negligible value. Nevertheless, free speech still supposed allowing them to do it.

And the Mohammad Cartoon event was political and religious sarcasm/satire. So again, you contradict your self.

You don't really support free speech as you said; you only support free speech you agree with. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You're begging me for a link? To prove my quote?? Did I ask you to prove your quote in your post #43? Hold both hands out...beg in one hand, jack off in the other, enjoy the one that gets filled...!

You don't get SHIT from me, you self-righteous, pompous, holier-than-thou, fat bag of hot air...yeah...let's all bow down to your pathetic, morally superior "I am the expert on free speech" attitude!

Put your balls where your beliefs are:
Tell that crazy bitch and her crew you want to host a "cartoon contest"...right in the privacy of your home. She'll handle the details: invitations, publicity, security (hopefully enough!). Hey, you might make a few grand! Then, when the bullets are flying, the two of you can wrap yourselves up in the American flag, sing the national anthem and masterbate to a poster of the Bill of Rights! Sounds like fun!

I love exercising my free speech rights!

I'm finished with you and this thread...continue on with your boring, self-indulgent, "I'm right, you're wrong" posts, Kommandant...I'm done.

Happy fucking, everyone...and, thanks to Whirlaway's warning, watch out for Mormans with machetes!! Originally Posted by Prolongus

You're begging me for a link? To prove my quote?? Did I ask you to prove your quote in your post #43? Hold both hands out...beg in one hand, jack off in the other, enjoy the one that gets filled...!

You don't get SHIT from me, you self-righteous, pompous, holier-than-thou, fat bag of hot air...yeah...let's all bow down to your pathetic, morally superior "I am the expert on free speech" attitude!

Put your balls where your beliefs are:
Tell that crazy bitch and her crew you want to host a "cartoon contest"...right in the privacy of your home. She'll handle the details: invitations, publicity, security (hopefully enough!). Hey, you might make a few grand! Then, when the bullets are flying, the two of you can wrap yourselves up in the American flag, sing the national anthem and masterbate to a poster of the Bill of Rights! Sounds like fun!

I love exercising my free speech rights!

I'm finished with you and this thread...continue on with your boring, self-indulgent, "I'm right, you're wrong" posts, Kommandant...I'm done.

Happy fucking, everyone...and, thanks to Whirlaway's warning, watch out for Mormans with machetes!! Originally Posted by Prolongus

Nothing like personal attacks and avoiding the issue

Those who are hue listing controversial religeous pictures up is incitement are showing their legal ignorance. First, under Brandenburg v. Ohio, it has to be incitement to illegal action. Showing a controversial picture doesn't urge someone to act illegally. Second, the incitement has to be such that the incitement would lead to "imminent" illegal action. Here, the shooters weren't incited in the heat of passion. The made a considered and systematic decision to attack something they didn't like.

You can make a better case -- though still a very poor one -- the my statement "You should immediate'y go hire a prostitute to have sex with you" is imminent incitement to illegal action than cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

For those silly enough to think that free speech is a conservative issue, read this quote from perhaps THE most liberal justice ever to sit on the Supreme Court, William O. Douglas:

"A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purposes when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."


Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).

Free speech isn't a conservative or liberal issue; but in current times the serious attacks on free speech are coming from the progressive left wing of the Democratic party, who embrace political correctness and put multi-cultural sympathies ahead of the 1st amendment.

Hmm.. isn't this interesting?

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/commu...ting-in-10.ece

.
Yes, Eric Holder and his lame brain boss helped those Mexican drug lords a lot.