May 7, 2015 8:30 am -


Al Sharpton has it right on Pamela Geller’s Texas event that led to violence.

He clarified that there’s never an excuse for violence and the group run by Pamela Geller absolutely “had the right to do so,” but argued “just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should.”

“There are about 3400 Muslims on active duty in the United States military,” he said, “risking their lives to defend our rights, including our right to free speech. We shouldn’t let that free speech turn into hate speech.”



D.B. Hirsch
D.B. Hirsch is a political activist, news junkie, and retired ad copy writer and spin doctor. He lives in Brooklyn, New York.

45 responses to Sharpton To Geller: What About Muslims In The Military Defending Your Speech?

  1. Anomaly 100 May 7th, 2015 at 9:24 am

    Facts shmacts!

  2. William May 7th, 2015 at 9:56 am

    Good Question.

    • John Tarter May 7th, 2015 at 9:08 pm

      So we should dishonor their sacrifice by limiting what we say or do because we want to exercise the rights we have under the U.S. Constitution? And by the way, I see they died fighting in Iraq. Weren’t you against that little escapade?

      • arc99 May 7th, 2015 at 9:43 pm

        Leftists learned from the mistakes made with returning VietNam veterans.

        Criticism of the policy that sends people to war in no way justifies denigration of the service of people in uniform. So dispense with the lame straw man argument.

        As far as exercising our rights, you right wingers are the loudest proponents of curtailing the protections of the first amendment. Just ask Janet Jackson’s breast.

        • whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 9:59 pm


        • John Tarter May 7th, 2015 at 10:10 pm

          Now that is really reaching. There are FCC rules and they were duly violated. Janet Jackson could have exposed her whole body – on cable TV or in a private rental hall and no one would have attempted to stifle her 1st Amendment protections.

          • arc99 May 7th, 2015 at 10:35 pm

            Of course, there are FCC rules. I never said there weren’t.

            OK so if I understand correctly, it is your belief that restricting expression you disagree with is wonderful or at least entirely justifiable.

            But restricting expression you agree with dishonors our veterans.

            Let me know if I missed anything.

      • burqa May 7th, 2015 at 11:47 pm

        Exercising discretion dishonors no one, but failing to have this quality shows one to be a dunce.

        * It is those who fail to have any discretion when it comes to freedom of speech who won’t shut the hell up in the movie theater.
        * It is those who fail to have any discretion when it comes to freedom of speech who use vulgar and profane speech around children and ladies.
        * It is those who fail to have any discretion when it comes to freedom of speech who not only don’t put their phone ringers on mute or vibrate, but who answer the damned thing and hold loud conversations on the phone during a funeral, wedding or other public event.

        If it wasn’t so late, I’d call my mama and thank her for raising me to have good manners and it was exposure to someone who did not have such a benefit who reminded me of the value of the quality of upbringing I was blessed with.

      • William May 8th, 2015 at 1:27 am

        Yes I was against it. What’s your point?

        • fahvel May 8th, 2015 at 7:02 am

          c’mon, tooth decay can’t explain- he can only sputter.

  3. illinoisboy1977 May 7th, 2015 at 11:45 am

    We can opine, all day, that she shouldn’t have held the contest. However, the only one who can decide whether something gets expressed is the person who chooses to express himself/herself. I, too, believe the contest wasn’t a good idea. However, I’m going to make a distinction, so there’s no misunderstanding of my position, and say that the reason she shouldn’t have held it has NOTHING to do with the possibility of violent retribution. To make that the reason, is to say the terrorists have won and you live in fear of them. They haven’t and I don’t. I think she’s mistaken in her assumption of Muslims, as a whole and she’s painting the entire religion with the same broad brush, based on the actions of SOME of it’s followers. I think it’s unfair of her to do so. I DO NOT believe that you should ever consider the danger of violent revenge, when making a decision on whether something should be said. What happened to those two gunmen is EXACTLY what should have happend. They’re dead, no one else died and that’s the happiest ending I can imagine.

    • thinkingwomanmillstone May 7th, 2015 at 12:14 pm

      I disagree…I think one should always think about the impact of one’s speech in whatever form it takes. It is called being a productive member of a community. If someone is hurt through something I said or did, I bear some responsibility for it….especially if what I did or said was deliberately provocative. I feel bad when I say or do something when I meant no harm and didn’t know what I was doing was hurtful. The two men got what they were seeking…but if someone who had nothing to do with the contest of free speech had been injured or killed, the responsibility would have been shared by the organizers and participants. The police who had to kill these two men will have to live with this too…I don’t think even a necessary and lawful killing leaves the one who has to do it unscathed (unless that person is a sociopath).

      • tracey marie May 7th, 2015 at 1:44 pm

        very good millie

      • Pottering May 8th, 2015 at 2:54 am

        Your concern for the feelings of others seems based on a kind of cultural relativism, that any offence taken is automatically justified and therefore must be avoided at all costs. This gives people carte blanche to claim they’re being vilified on any grounds they care to bring up, whether those grounds are valid or not. The validity is most often in the eye of the beholder and while we’ve seen changes of view from things that were once considered reasonable to now being viewed as unacceptable can anyone seriously suggest that a cartoon of Mohammed is an unacceptable practice? Rather than trying to stop some cartoons being drawn shouldn’t we be trying to point out the absurdity of murdering people because of those cartoons? Rational thinking would suggest the latter rather than the former.

        • fahvel May 8th, 2015 at 7:00 am

          go back to pottering around – your logic outside the garden is pathetic.

          • Pottering May 8th, 2015 at 8:52 pm

            Thanks for that detailed evaluation of my logic, very hard to argue against the specific points you raised!

    • Bunya May 7th, 2015 at 3:23 pm

      I, too, disagree – and here’s why:
      If you know that your exhibit is going to incite violence, and a riot erupts, innocent people, who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, may be killed. And for what? Because you have the “freedom of speech”? If one decides to hold a controversial exhibit (or whatever), they must be ready to bear the burden of the backlash and, unfortunately, folks harboring extreme hatred, usually don’t think of the consequences their actions may have on innocent bystanders.

      • Pottering May 8th, 2015 at 2:45 am

        Totally wrong, because what you’re essentially espousing is that if it’s possible somebody may react to your exhibit by murdering people, no matter how unjustified that may actually be, then you “bear the burden” for those murders. That is simply rolling over and caving in to threats and abrogating the responsibility of the killers. Once this becomes the norm it will lead to more and more threats of deadly retribution based on perceived insults and lo and behold the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of violence.

      • illinoisboy1977 May 8th, 2015 at 1:21 pm

        We cannot place culpability for the actions of criminals on the people who pissed them off, no matter how purposely it was done. Pissing someone off doesn’t make you responsible for the fallout, should they decide to become violent. The blame rests 100% on the people who decided that they weren’t civilized enough to handle it in a peaceful manner.

    • Kick Frenzy May 7th, 2015 at 7:07 pm

      The problem is that she aims to incite controversy and has no problem that violence could easily be a part of it.
      She wasn’t trying to exercise free speech.

      She was trying to spread bigotry and hatred.

      It’s what she does, over and over.
      It was an exercise in hate speech and that crap needs to stop.
      Free speech should not cover bigotry that incites violence and hatred.

      • John Tarter May 7th, 2015 at 9:05 pm

        The violence is only coming from one side, and it isn’t the folks who draw the cartoons.

        • Kick Frenzy May 7th, 2015 at 9:16 pm

          The violence was wrong.

          But we can’t just give Geller a pass when she’s purposely espousing bigotry and inciting hatred.
          I would see it differently if this was the only thing she had done or if it were truly about free speech, but it’s not.
          Her whole purpose is to inflame tensions and to spread bigotry and hatred.

          If we can have a society that doesn’t see bullying as acceptable, then her actions are far beyond what’s acceptable.

        • arc99 May 7th, 2015 at 9:38 pm

          If a Muslim fanatic went to a mall and killed a bunch of innocent people, I would say it is a crime against humanity to use the same violent tactics as right wing anti abortion extremists.


        • whatthe46 May 7th, 2015 at 9:50 pm

          you mean like the crimes against Americans by Americans. blowing up buildings with babies, walking into a movie theatre killing people, going into a school and killing babies and high schoolers and teachers? and then there are more where that came from? you can always google. number of Muslims attacking American citizens compared to the number of Americans killing Americans? i’m here all night.

        • burqa May 8th, 2015 at 6:41 am

          We already found out the answer to your question when they attacked the World Trade Center and CIA headquarters in 1993.

          The LIBRULS will go after the terrorists with a greater vengeance than the conservatives will and will secure more severe sentences than conservatives will. The military courts pursued by Bush resulted in only a few trials, with at least 1 acquittal, a 5-year sentence that was later thrown out and an 18-year sentence. Contrast that with the results of the following terrorism prosecutions under Clinton:

          1993 WTC BOMBING:
          Mahmoud Abouhalima – Life + 240 years
          Mohammed Abouhalima – 8 years
          Ahmad Ajaj -Life + 240 years
          Nidal Ayyad – Life + 240 years
          Eyad Mahmoud Ismoil – Life
          Alah Jobroni – Life + 240 years
          Bilal al Kaisi pled guilty but I don’t have the sentence.
          Eyad Mahmoud Ismail Najim – Life + 240 years, $10
          million restitution, $250,000 fine
          Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – Life plus 240 years
          Mohammad Salameh – Life + 240 years
          Ibrahim Ahmad Suleiman – 10 months

          Amir Abdelgani – 30 years
          Fadil Abdelgani – 25 years
          Mahmoud Abouhalima – life plus 240 years
          Siddig Siddig Ali
          Victor Alvarez – 35 years
          Ibrahim el-Gabrowny – 57 years
          Earl Grant – 3-1/2 months plus 3 years probation
          Abdo Haggag – charges dropped in exchange for his cooperation
          Clement Rodney Hampton-El – 35 years
          Tarig El-Hassan – 35 years
          Bilal al-Kaisi – 20 months
          Fares Khallafalla – 30 years
          El Sayyid Nosair – life in prison
          Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – life in prison
          Mohammad Salameh – life plus 240 years
          Matarawry Mohammed Said Saleh – convicted, deported to Egypt in 1996
          Mohammed Saleh – 35 years

          Mir Aimal Kansi – executed.

          BOJINKA PLOT:
          Eyad Ismoil 240 years, fined $250,000 fine, $10,000,000 restitution.
          Abdul Hakim Murad – Life without parole plus 60 years and a $250,000 fine
          Wali Khan Amin Shah – Life in prison
          Ramzi Yousef – 240 years in solitary confinement

          Timothy McVeigh – executed
          Terry Nichols – 161 consecutive life sentences without parole
          Michael Fortier – 12 years in prison, $200,000 fine

          1998 EMBASSY BOMBINGS:
          Wadi el Hage – life in prison
          Khalfan Khalis Mohamad – life in prison
          Mohammed Sadeek Odeh – life in prison
          Mohammed Rashad Daoud al-Owhali – life in prison

      • burqa May 7th, 2015 at 11:14 pm

        Did she say that was her intent?
        I’ll admit, I’ve been away for a couple of weeks and have missed a lot of the news and am not fully caught up on this one.
        So are you basing your claim on what she has said? Can you give the specific quote?

        I go back and forth on this one. On one hand, something like this has a good chance of stirring up anger or violence, but on the other, it seems having such a contest should be protected.
        While we may say it was a bad idea to have the contest now, when would be a good time, …………. ever?

        You say freedom of speech “… should not cover bigotry that incites violence and hatred.”
        The first thing that comes to mind are the lyrics to many songs I know that seem to celebrate violence, including murder. A few that come to mind immediately are “Stagger Lee,” “Mack the Knife,” “Midnight Rambler,” and “I Shot the Sheriff.”
        If you are king, those all get banned?
        How about gangster movies or westerns? Would you ban James Bond, because he’s “licensed to kill”?

        • Kick Frenzy May 8th, 2015 at 1:29 am

          None of your examples are what I would consider inciting violence.

          As for Pamela Geller, here’s the intro from Wikipedia:

          “Pamela Geller (born June 14, 1958)[5] is an American political activist[6] and commentator. She is known for her anti-Islamic positions and opposition to Islamic activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center. Her viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic[7] or Islamophobic.[1][8] She says her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms “creeping Sharia” in the country. She is described as a critic of radical Islam[9] and self-described as opposing political Islam.[1]

          She is currently the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative which she co-founded with Robert Spencer.[10][11] The American Freedom Defense Initiative has been designated an anti-Muslim hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization known for tracking hate groups.[12] The British government designated Geller’s organizations hate groups and barred Geller’s entry into the UK in 2013.[7] She and Spencer co-authored the book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America in 2010.[4]”

          There’s a ton of information on her bigotry and racist activity.
          Just Google her name or AFDI and you’ll see more info than you’ll be able to read.

          • burqa May 8th, 2015 at 3:31 am

            Making violence acceptable, if not praiseworthy can be seen as inciting it.
            Like I said, I’ve been away and need to catch up.
            Did this Geller woman tell people to react with violence?

            And sorry, I don’t view wiki as being credible, not since it said former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s middle name is “Whoop-Dee-Do.”
            There are countless better sources out there by respected authorities. Wiki, on the other hand, is in a state of flux and contains info posted by anonymous amateurs who often have an agenda.

            Presuming what you posted from wiki is accurate, which of her statements would you censor and which of her activities would you outlaw?

          • Kick Frenzy May 8th, 2015 at 11:50 am

            First, I get what you mean about Wiki, I usually refuse to use it, but it had a good amount of info and links, so I just used that at the time.
            (That’s where I find most of the worth in Wikipedia, is the related links section.)

            I haven’t seen her say “Kill all Muslims”, but her message is one of intense bigotry/racism and is colored by violent imagery and references.
            For instance, the NYC ads/signs she got on buses and subways.
            One of which has a quote from Hamas MTV (next to the image of a Muslim), “Killing Jews is Worship that draws us close to Allah,” followed by “That’s his Jihad. What’s yours?”

            Another example is when she defended Anders Behring Breivik when he mass murdered 30 kids at that Norwegian campground.
            (Breivik heavily referenced her and her posts in his manifesto for the killings.)
            She justified his actions by saying the camp was anti-Israel indoctrination training center.
            She said that the victims would’ve grown up to become “future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole.”

            She’s also the one behind demonizing and fighting against the “Ground Zero Mosque” or “Victory Mosque”, as she called it.
            (Even though it was several blocks away and had been in the works previous to 9/11.)

            Another ad her group posted as a Billboard reads:

            *19,250 deadly Islamic attacks since 9/11/01
            *and counting

            It’s not Islamophobia
            It’s Islamorealism

            I could go on, but I imagine you get the picture by now.
            (And can easily use Google if you want to know more.)

          • burqa May 8th, 2015 at 12:32 pm

            From what I can see, I imagine we have about the same opinion of this woman and her kook beliefs. She’s obviously got it in for the Muslims and I take the transportation ads as trying to make them all look like jihadists, rather than endorsing the message of killing Jews.
            So at this point, it looks to me as if she’s a troublemaker and that’s what she was trying to do – stir up trouble.
            So she is not the best person to have such an art show, not by a long shot. But still, she should be able to do it and say what she’s said, and someone should be able to have such an event. If they can then this woman should be able to, also.
            This is the bug-a-bear about defending free speech – one ends up defending some loathesome creature who needs a good spanking.

            I don’t know the details of the “show,” but hope they had good security and that this was not just dumb luck that they were able to shoot the 2 bad guys before they could get their attack under way. The woman deserves to be closely questioned about putting the lives of po-lice or security guards working the gig.

          • Kick Frenzy May 8th, 2015 at 3:45 pm

            The show was protected by a police presence, but it was a traffic cop in the area who took down the jihadist imbeciles.
            So, kind of dumb luck, but was covered in case dumb luck didn’t work.

            But yeah, she wasn’t having an art show.
            She was intentionally sticking a finger in the eye of Muslims and has since said we should be holding those shows at least once a month because we shouldn’t be giving any leeway to those “savages” (as she refers to Muslims).
            She knows full well that Muslims find a visual representation of Mohammed to be extremely sacrilegious and that’s the only reason she had for that show.

            And as I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t think inciteful bigotry should have the same equal protection under freedom of speech as posting a dissenting opinion (for example) and should be treated more like shouting fire in a theater.
            It’s one thing to be crass or insensitive, it’s another thing to encourage violence and hatred against a set group of people.
            We, as a country, say we want to combat bullying… well, this is a chance to do that, in my eyes.

      • illinoisboy1977 May 8th, 2015 at 11:53 am

        This speech did not “incite” violence. The courts have ruled that “inciteful” speech is the kind of speech where someone explicitly tells others to attack and cause harm. This speech may have PROVOKED them into committing violence, but the terrorists didn’t have to give in to their urge to become violent. Violece that is caused by someone being offended at another’s speech is caused by the criminality of the individual and nothing more. Just because someone doesn’t like what is said, doesn’t mean it justifies their actions or that the speaker is in any way culpable for those actions. The 1st Amendment was designed to protect inflammatory and offensive speech. The more offensive the speech, the greater protection it requires.

        • Kick Frenzy May 8th, 2015 at 12:29 pm

          Personally, I think there should be a limit to speech that incites hatred, bigotry and violence against others.
          Which, by the way, I didn’t say she incited violence, I said she incited controversy… but that she doesn’t mind violence being a by-product.

          When she says Muslims want to kill Jews and that’s their jihad. What’s yours?”, that is encouraging violent behavior.
          I don’t think those subway ads should’ve been allowed under free speech (or under anything).

  4. John Tarter May 7th, 2015 at 9:14 pm

    What a joke! The man who has made a living inciting others to violence (Freddy’s, Crown Heights incidents) coming out against people inciting others to violence. Unbelievable!

    • burqa May 7th, 2015 at 9:28 pm

      Your response is even more juicy.
      First you are against the man for inciting violence.
      Then he comes out and is opposed to people inciting violence and you oppose that, too. What, do you wish he had not changed and was still trying to stir up violence?
      Is that it?

      It appears at first you would prefer he not incite people to violence, but when he does what you want him to, you are against it.
      So you’ve basically said he’s wrong because he agrees with you.


      • John Tarter May 7th, 2015 at 10:06 pm

        Oh I see, all is forgotten and forgiven with Sharpton, eh? Forgiveness begins with repentance and Sharpton has never repented for his past misdeeds. He still inserts himself where he has no business in order to keep people riled up. “No justice, no peace” – and in Baltimore this time they certainly lived up to the slogan.

        Now, when is he going to be put in jail for refusing to pay the millions he owes the Federal Government in taxes? You or me could never get away with what he is getting away with, right?

        • burqa May 7th, 2015 at 10:29 pm

          Sharpton? Who cares about Sharpton with the show you’re putting on, telling everyone you disagree with yourself?

          It’s as if you’re informing everyone that you think your opinion is not worth paying attention to because you disagree with it as well as the opposite of what it is.

          So far you have not been able to untangle this.
          Please continue to entertain on this matter.

          By the way, I gave you a “like” on the first post by you I replied to, above. The palm of my hand put a red mark on my knee when I saw it.

        • Dwendt44 May 8th, 2015 at 11:45 am

          It isn’t Sharpton that owns the taxes, it’s an organization that’s behind in it tax payments. Not that you really care about facts and such.
          If Wall Street can get away with fudging on taxes, why can’t an individual?

    • mrbigstuff May 8th, 2015 at 6:52 am

      The joke is the rightwingers candidates for President once again you have norhing but your racist and bigoted post

  5. Kick Frenzy May 8th, 2015 at 12:04 pm

    I disagree that the bigger problem are the ISIS/Daesh inspired Americans shooting at people who are committing something they consider intensely sacrilegious.
    I think the bigger problem are bigots who stoke the flames of anger and give meaningful reason to whatever agenda the murderers and terrorists are following.
    It’s a bigger problem because she is creating animosity amongst thousands of people and creating deeper tensions and hatred for America as a whole.
    We already know dumb-ass terrorists will shoot people, that doesn’t create a growing dynamic of terror, if anything it encourages anti-terrorism.

    There’s also a big difference between railing against religious followers (for things you perceive are an affront to your ability to live free and happy) and purposely taunting an entire religion, as well as a terrorist group that uses that same religion.
    That being said, sometimes the rhetoric does go further than I like… but not to the point where I would be concerned for someone’s safety, which is a glaring difference between Geller and people on this site.

    • burqa May 8th, 2015 at 12:44 pm

      We’ll just have to agree to disagree on your first point. Yes, stoking the fires is bad but actually planning, equipping ones self with weapons and attempting to commit mass murder is worse in my book because they actually take lives, and at fairly close range. They often make “martyr’s videos” that the flacks publicize with the rest of the propaganda. One is really really horrid and the other is really horrid in my view.

      But on the other hand, I’d say bin Laden was worse than a single suicide bomber because of not just his rhetoric, but the active steps he took to recruit, train and fund terrorists. I don’t see this Geller woman going that far.

      I agree with most of what you said, and appreciate that yopu see things in terms of degrees rather than lumping all together. As far as what gets posted here, people see moderators all over the place and that tends to give pause. Still, there have been some pretty awful things posted. Here are 2 examples from the last few weeks:

      Cogitoergodavesum calls for mass murder using nukes on the

      Bunya “has no sympathy for” 148 college students murdered in
      their dorms by al Shabab. He thinks it was ok because they were practicing freedom of speech and religion, so they should have been murdered:

      Also note how many objected. I think it was just me.
      Like I said, this kind of talk gets a pass from the Left and we’re hypocrites if we criticize it on the Right and let it slide on the Left.

      • Kick Frenzy May 8th, 2015 at 4:56 pm

        Those examples are apples and oranges.
        The first one wasn’t a serious suggestion to nuke the south, it was a tongue-in-cheek expression of exasperation with the stupidity that comes out of the mouths of some people (in that case, particularly from the South).
        And Bunya didn’t say they “should be murdered”, he basically said that they knew the risk they were taking, so violence wasn’t a surprise or unexpected.
        It would be like suggesting I think police deserve to be murdered, because I say I’m not surprised if they get into violent conflicts in dangerous areas that they have to patrol.

        Going back to the top, you brought up a great point with bin Laden!
        He is worse than rank and file jihadists, because he gave them a collective purpose and directive to act on hate and bigotry by using violent means.
        And while Geller doesn’t go as far as bin Laden, she does have a very similar effect… except her effect is vicious on both sides of the problem instead of just the terrorist side.
        Now, she isn’t arming anyone (as far as I know), but she is encouraging masses of people to act with bigotry and hatred, inferring (instead of insisting) on using violence.

        So you’re right, she’s not as bad as bin Laden… but she is similar in effect.
        And that’s the problem I have with her being granted free speech protection.
        Would we grant free speech protection to a follower of Daesh who calls for the destruction of Christian infidels?
        Because that’s what she’s doing… she’s just being more sly about it so she doesn’t get in serious trouble.

        • burqa May 9th, 2015 at 3:46 pm

          I don’t think they were apples and oranges at all, though it is possible with the first example I gave.
          For years I tried to toss it off as you do, but there camr a time when I began to analyze things I noticed that bigots I have known had in common and it occurred to me that I was making a mistake just playing along, not wanting to look thin-skinned or humorless, because I realized I was dealing with bigotry as nasty as racism or other forms of bigotry just about everyone here recognizes and condemns.
          Bunya said the 148 murder victims were to blame for “inciting” the murderers and declined a chance to just say that murdering 148 people was a bad thing.
          Like I said, there once was a time when that sort of thing would get a number of negative replies here just as they would if someone posted we should nuke Syria or if they justified the mass murder of 148 gays.
          My preference would be for the Right to have a monopoly on extremism and I see no need for the Left to have a bunch of scowling, nasty, hateful people from the fringe getting safe harbor from the rest of us just because they dislike the same policies we do.
          I’ve been here since 2007, near as I can recall and have seen things change with the casual acceptance of those who appear to want a Tea Party of the Left. Had I been taking notes I could have given you scores of examples like those two. After seeing so many for so long it just can’t be laughed off, ignored or chalked up to hyperbole.
          I happen to know several high-ranking people in the GOP here and have socialized with their leaders here for years. They too, tried to minimize what the Tea Party really was because they wanted their votes and agreed with them on many issues.
          A couple of years ago they realized they had just been feeding the alligator and discovered to their dismay it was too late, that the TP had gotten so interwoven into the party the top people were seriously considering starting a whole new party.
          I would hate for that to happen to the Left and for us to one day look up and see a bunch of fringe kooks had taken over the Democratic Party because we sloughed them off the way the GOP did.

          Thanks for the compliment on my bin Laden point. He and other leaders like him can be more dangerous because they can inspire many in the rank and file.
          Right now, my opinion on this Geller woman is malleable. I don’t like what I see so far but I don’t know if she has any sort of following.
          I kinda go back and forth on the free speech issue here. Sometimes when it is someone just trying to stir up trouble I am less tolerant because of that, and other times I am more tolerant and more adamant on the free speech angle. Some of it is my mood, some is the details and some may just be the timing, I don’t know.

          I don’t know where the line is when it comes to violent speech. There’s the legal line and the moral one. Shoot (sorry), with the legal one we see people threatening to kill the president get Secret Service visits but that’s all. Occasionally, but very seldom, there is a prosecution.
          It seems that simple incitement to commit an ordinary crime is more easily prosecuted.
          It’s kind of a nebulous issue but it can be interesting to talk about. ,

          • Kick Frenzy May 9th, 2015 at 4:24 pm

            Oh, Geller absolutely has a following.
            That entire “art” show was full of them.
            You can check her website or her facebook page or whatever and see plenty of (sick and twisted) supporters.

            She commands an “army” of people who giddily attack Muslims and Islam right along with her.
            It’s not reasonable wariness or anything, it’s outright bigotry.

            And I still disagree with you about Bunya’s intent on what he was saying, but it seems like something that we would just in circles over.
            I see someone saying they don’t have sympathy for people who knowingly put themselves in a geographic and social position of danger, because they knowingly put themselves there.
            While I can see what Bunya was saying and I don’t think it’s a position of attacking them, I also differ in that I hate to hear about anyone being killed or dying.
            (Well, almost anyone, there are a few out there I don’t have sympathy for… but those are obvious, like bin Laden or when fighting against murderous terrorists.)

  6. Warman1138 May 8th, 2015 at 12:30 pm

    Free speech, we may like or dislike what is said and done but in end it’s better the none.