Muhammad Cartoon Contest in Garland Tx. Hundreds of ISIS In America (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

The universe does not give a #### about our first amendment rights. Act accordingly.

not with that attitude, it won't.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

 

[Willie Neslon]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

I believe this was the winner

another from the contest

 

[timschochet]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

 

[moleculo]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNCrMEOqHpc

 

[rockaction]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

At least on the first page you really didn't. You came out firing about how irresponsible it was and how it put security guards and others in harm's way. You declared the intent was to offend; you never issued a caveat about humor or legitimate commentary anything subjective. You also didn't stress the thankfulness for the legality of it even if it was dumb.

 

[Zow]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

I believe this was the winner

another from the contest

Not funny. 2/10.

 

[timschochet]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

At least on the first page you really didn't. You came out firing about how irresponsible it was and how it put security guards and others in harm's way. You declared the intent was to offend; you never issued a caveat about humor or legitimate commentary anything subjective. You also didn't stress the thankfulness for the legality of it even if it was dumb.

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

At least on the first page you really didn't. You came out firing about how irresponsible it was and how it put security guards and others in harm's way. You declared the intent was to offend; you never issued a caveat about humor or legitimate commentary anything subjective. You also didn't stress the thankfulness for the legality of it even if it was dumb.

It was irresponsible and it did put people in harms way. And the intent was to offend. Later on, I used The Satanic Verses as an example of how a work of art could also offend, but that I had no problem with that; it depends on the intent and quality of the art. If the sole purpose was to insult people, then I think that's rotten, as in this case.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Tim, are you hitting the quote button twice? You've been double-quoting people a lot lately.

 

[rockaction]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

At least on the first page you really didn't. You came out firing about how irresponsible it was and how it put security guards and others in harm's way. You declared the intent was to offend; you never issued a caveat about humor or legitimate commentary anything subjective. You also didn't stress the thankfulness for the legality of it even if it was dumb.

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

i seem to recall making this exact same argument yesterday and being taken to task for it.

At least on the first page you really didn't. You came out firing about how irresponsible it was and how it put security guards and others in harm's way. You declared the intent was to offend; you never issued a caveat about humor or legitimate commentary anything subjective. You also didn't stress the thankfulness for the legality of it even if it was dumb.

It was irresponsible and it did put people in harms way. And the intent was to offend. Later on, I used The Satanic Verses as an example of how a work of art could also offend, but that I had no problem with that; it depends on the intent and quality of the art. If the sole purpose was to insult people, then I think that's rotten, as in this case.

Fair enough. I missed that. My apologies.

 

[rockaction]

Tim, are you hitting the quote button twice? You've been double-quoting people a lot lately.

I've noticed this in the Baltimore thread.

 

[timschochet]

It's a problem with my new laptop. The cursor is too sensitive. I'll fix it, sorry.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

The cursor is too sensitive.

Try drawing cartoons of it.

 

[General Tso]

Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham both came out tonight strongly against what Pamela Geller did.

 

[timschochet]

Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham both came out tonight strongly against what Pamela Geller did.

Good for them.

Sean Hannity had her as a guest.

 

[General Tso]

Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham both came out tonight strongly against what Pamela Geller did.

Good for them.Sean Hannity had her as a guest.

Yeah I saw it. Did you? What do you think of her?

 

[timschochet]

Bill O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham both came out tonight strongly against what Pamela Geller did.

Good for them.Sean Hannity had her as a guest.

Yeah I saw it. Did you? What do you think of her?

I did not see it. I've seen her before though. And I already know what I think of her.

 

[Apple Jack]

I'm sure this has already been asked (haven't read the whole thread) how would people have felt about this event if it innocent people would have lost their lives. Just seems like a ridiculous unnecessary event to me.

Definitely putting innocent bystanders in harms way. One can live a prosperous, enjoyable, dignified life without going out of your way to provoke homicidal people. Totes cowardly to huckleberry farmfella, for whom this is all a muscle-flexing thought exercise in the abstract, but some of us live in reality and learned to chose our battles wisely at a young age. Some of us lived through 9/11 and don't really have the luxury of living in an imaginary world.

 

[cstu]

The cursor is too sensitive.

Try drawing cartoons of it.

<=

 

[beerbarron]

So.. Has a cartoon drawing winner been announced yet?? .. and what did the cartoon look like?

Where there newspapers interested in printing the winning cartoon in their newspaper?

If the artists didn't finish the contest due to the interruption is a make up event scheduled?

 

[Clifford]

Any thoughts on the fact that Simpson was an American who converted to islam? He's not Arab, not raised muslim, he had a job. He's the son of a dentist, pretty much from a good background and good family.

My thoughts: Poverty and hopelessness, not Islam, is the reason young men become extremists, is utter horse####.

 

[Willie Neslon]

So.. Has a cartoon drawing winner been announced yet?? .. and what did the cartoon look like?

post 403

 

[Clifford]

Are we all missing the big picture here? There should be an event like this in every town in America. Get well trained officers on each one, and let the freaks come to us. Drop the mother####ers like its hot. We got draw these idiots out of hiding, cops get valuable target practice dropping these ####tards like its hot, and the problem of homegrown extremism solves itself via natural selection.

 

[timschochet]

Any thoughts on the fact that Simpson was an American who converted to islam? He's not Arab, not raised muslim, he had a job. He's the son of a dentist, pretty much from a good background and good family.

My thoughts: Poverty and hopelessness, not Islam, is the reason young men become extremists, is utter horse####.

I disagree.

There are always going to be middle class and wealthy people who become attracted to extremist movements. Often that's due to romantic idealism. In my thread I'm narrating the Russian Revolution and it's striking just how many of the leading Communists were from either the lower or upper middle class. It was the same with the Nazis. It was the same with many of the 9/11 hijackers, and of course the mastermind of 9/11, Osama Bin Ladin, was a wealthy man. So people are always going to be able to point at these examples and call the poverty and hopelessness theory "utter horse####", as Clifford does here.

But- in all 3 movements- the Communists, the Nazis, and the radical Islamists- the MASS of the movement is made up of people who faced poverty and economic despair. The vast majority of those who join up in each case faced economic calamity and no hope: it's the same pattern over and over. The romantic idealists from better circumstances are outliers in each example (though due to their better education and leadership abilities, they often rise to leadership roles and become the "face" of the movement.) It's not horse####; for the vast majority it's true.

 

[CBusAlex]

Gay Couples Kiss In Front Of Westboro Protest

Is this equally as distasteful as the cartoon event? The intent to offend is pretty much the same in both cases.

 

[Clifford]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.

The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

 

[shader]

So apparently ISIS has come out and threatened to slaughter the organizer of this event. If I were her, I wouldn't be sleeping well at night.

 

[Willie Neslon]

So apparently ISIS has come out and threatened to slaughter the organizer of this event. If I were her, I wouldn't be sleeping well at night.

Yeah but she is so brave. It was so worth it. Those cartoons are so important. She may have to look over her shoulder for the rest of her life but memories of that event will be forever treasured.

 

[Clifford]

Two of their "mujadeen" got dropped by a single officer with a pistol while armed with body armor and assault rifles. I can't believe these ISIS pieces of #### even claimed this. They should be embarrassed. I'd be sleeping just fine if I were her.

These morons remind me of the genius jihadists who blew themselves up while making a video threatening to hlow someone else up.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

The shooters acted inappropriately. That's obvious.

Whether the cartoonists acted inappropriately really depends on how funny their drawings were. If you can make fun of Mohammed or Muslims in a legitimately funny way, I have no problem with it, and in fact consider the cartoonists to be admirably courageous (though perhaps suboptimally cautious). If the cartoons were just un-funny insults meant to offend rather than to entertain or enlighten, that seems kind of dumb. Legal, thank goodness, but dumb.

I believe this was the winner

another from the contest

The winner looks like one of MC Gas drawings

ETA the runner up shouldn't be hard for ISIS to find, all of his info is on the picture.

 

[timschochet]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.

The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion.

However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

 

[timschochet]

So you can't take belief in radical Islam out of the equation, any more than you can take belief in Communism or belief in Nazism out of the equation for the evil that were committed in the name of those two awful movements. Islam, however, is a larger movement of which radical Islam, or Islamism, is only a small part.

 

[Clifford]

Not true at all. 100% of people who kill in the name of Islam share a fervent belief in Islam. What percentage of every known perpetrator of terrorism in the name of Islam are poor? The unifying factor is a fervent belief in Islam first and everything else a distant second. The only reason we talk about anything but Islam is the idiotic notion that this religion deserves a degree of respect no other religion in the world is afforded.

 

[Clifford]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.

The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Also your 1% radical figure is directly contradicted by the Pew data we all know so drop this bsOne more question: are you honestly saying that everyone who participated in the communist system we saw in the Slavic countries of Eastern Europe did so out of a fervent belief in the system? I mean you can't possibly be that disconnected from reality could you?

 

[timschochet]

No it isn't. I'm talking about the Muslims who affiliate themselves with radical groups like ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Harum, the Taliban or al Qaeda. All combined about 1%. And in this country far far less than that.

 

[timschochet]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.

The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Also your 1% radical figure is directly contradicted by the Pew data we all know so drop this bsOne more question: are you honestly saying that everyone who participated in the communist system we saw in the Slavic countries of Eastern Europe did so out of a fervent belief in the system? I mean you can't possibly be that disconnected from reality could you?

Of course not. How did you come to that conclusion by what I wrote?

 

[Clifford]

So when you say "ally themselves with radical Islam" you only mean in a literal, not ideological way. So only those who join, fight, or fund?

Regardless you explanation that poverty is really the root cause ignores the fact that many who were well off choose to kill and die. My explanation ignores none of those who do.

 

[Clifford]

It's utter horse#### to take the written precepts of Islam out of the equation. Is there any other religion which dictates killing people not of the religion for violating its religious principles?

Following the religion to the letter dictates killing. I'm really tired of this fact being ignored and glossed over in the name of liberal ideals.

The unifying factor is not poverty or hopelessness. It is a fervent belief in Islam.

To your question, the answer is no. But that wasn't your assertion. However, again I disagree. Let's look at the numbers again. There are at latest count 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. Of these, perhaps half are "fervent believers" to use your words.Of those fervent believers, perhaps 1% ally themselves with radical Islam. Now, that's still 9 million people, a reasonably large number. Of those 9 million, there are perhaps 5% of them actually willing to commit violence and terrorism. So that's around 45,000 people, still a dangerous number for us.

But let's go back to the 9 million or so Muslims who align themselves with radical ideas. What separates them from the other 1.695 billion? I know you don't want to hear it, but for the vast majority it's economic poverty. So yeah, I gotta say it is a unifying factor.

Also your 1% radical figure is directly contradicted by the Pew data we all know so drop this bsOne more question: are you honestly saying that everyone who participated in the communist system we saw in the Slavic countries of Eastern Europe did so out of a fervent belief in the system? I mean you can't possibly be that disconnected from reality could you?

Of course not. How did you come to that conclusion by what I wrote?

I read it:

So you can't take belief in radical Islam out of the equation, any more than you can take belief in Communism or belief in Nazism out of the equation for the evil that were committed in the name of those two awful movements.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

Are we all missing the big picture here? There should be an event like this in every town in America. Get well trained officers on each one, and let the freaks come to us. Drop the mother####ers like its hot. We got draw these idiots out of hiding, cops get valuable target practice dropping these ####tards like its hot, and the problem of homegrown extremism solves itself via natural selection.

Take the lead. Go public and organize it. Take your kids and make it a family affair!

 

[timschochet]

So when you say "ally themselves with radical Islam" you only mean in a literal, not ideological way. So only those who join, fight, or fund?

Regardless you explanation that poverty is really the root cause ignores the fact that many who were well off choose to kill and die. My explanation ignores none of those who do.

Well, when you say "in an ideological way" you're getting into the deep woods.

There are Muslims who approve of terrorist and radical actions against the West, but would never engage in such actions themselves.

There are Muslims who don't approve of terrorism, but are sympathetic to the ideology behind some of the extremist movements.

There are Muslims who don't approve of terrorism OR the ideology, but who are automatically defensive anytime a Muslim group is criticized.

...and so forth. There's an awful lot of Muslims out there, and thus a lot of different points of view on all of these subjects. The ones I'm concerned about are those who actually join up and commit evil. Those are the ones who are a threat to us. The others, not so much, whatever they might think.

 

[timschochet]

Regardless you explanation that poverty is really the root cause ignores the fact that many who were well off choose to kill and die. My explanation ignores none of those who do.

I'm not ignoring anything. I actually made a point of mentioning the ones who are not poor, why they get involved (usually romantic idealism) and how they often form the leadership of extreme movements.

But- for any extreme movement to become a mass movement, most of the people involved have to be in economic dire straits. This is historically true of every extreme movement that has ever existed, and radical Islam is no exception.

 

[Clifford]

First two groups, not the third, are radical. Easy.

 

[timschochet]

BTW- just to clarify- it doesn't have to necessarily be poverty. Economic dire straits can also mean a perceived threat to an existing middle class economic position: let's say that the lower middle class doesn't want to see themselves get tossed into the lower classes. Fear of poverty can just as easily lead to extremism as actual poverty. Two clear historical examples of this are Nazism and ISIS.

 

[timschochet]

First two groups, not the third, are radical. Easy.

Well, that's your opinion.

But personally, I never put people who don't commit crimes in the same category as those who do, no matter what they might be thinking about in their heads.

 

[Clifford]

Look, this really is easy.

If you are a fervent believer of any religion, but can accept that your beliefs are yours alone and should not be forced on others, you are not radical.

If you believe that your religion represents some sort of universal divine law that you should force on others, either by laws or violence, you are an extremist and a stupid piece of ####.

 

[Clifford]

First two groups, not the third, are radical. Easy.

Well, that's your opinion.But personally, I never put people who don't commit crimes in the same category as those who do, no matter what they might be thinking about in their heads.

So the nazis who were members of the party and believed that all Jews should die but did not actually kill any Jews are at least by degrees better people than those that actually killed Jews?

 

[squistion]

Gay Couples Kiss In Front Of Westboro Protest

Is this equally as distasteful as the cartoon event? The intent to offend is pretty much the same in both cases.

Not everyone is offended by two dudes kissing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/04/gay-kiss-cam-dodgers_n_7209626.html

Gay Kiss Cam Moment Has Dodger Stadium Crowd Cheering

Some of the biggest cheers at Dodger Stadium on Saturday were for a moment that took place off the field and in the stands.

During the traditional "kiss cam" at a game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and Arizona Diamondbacks, the camera settled on two men who happily did the honors as the fans erupted in applause and cheers.

Check it out in the clip above. The couple appears on camera at the 27-second mark.

 

[Clifford]

BTW- just to clarify- it doesn't have to necessarily be poverty. Economic dire straits can also mean a perceived threat to an existing middle class economic position: let's say that the lower middle class doesn't want to see themselves get tossed into the lower classes. Fear of poverty can just as easily lead to extremism as actual poverty. Two clear historical examples of this are Nazism and ISIS.

ISIS Is a religious death cult that has nothing to do with anything other than trying to bring about the Islam version of end times. Not similar to nazism at all.

 

[CBusAlex]

Gay Couples Kiss In Front Of Westboro Protest

Is this equally as distasteful as the cartoon event? The intent to offend is pretty much the same in both cases.

Not everyone is offended by two dudes kissing.

Not everyone is offended by Mohammed cartoons, either.

 

[timschochet]

First two groups, not the third, are radical. Easy.

Well, that's your opinion.But personally, I never put people who don't commit crimes in the same category as those who do, no matter what they might be thinking about in their heads.

So the nazis who were members of the party and believed that all Jews should die but did not actually kill any Jews are at least by degrees better people than those that actually killed Jews?

Actually yes.

Back in college I wrote a long essay on this subject, concluding that the Nuremberg court that sentenced Julius Streicher to death was wrong. Streicher was a hideous anti-Semite who encouraged the Holocaust to happen, but he never participated in any actual crimes related to the Holocaust. Therefore, his punishment (hanging) was unjust, IMO. I've never changed my view on this.