Anyone want to predict how this goes down?

[Andy9o8 0]

quade

***Looks like an overwhelming FAIL for the bigots/morons.

I'm not sure they would see it that way in their minds. I'm fairly certain they're celebrating they've been able to be complete assholes without any repercussions. This might embolden them to commit further acts until we end up with our own version of Kristallnacht.

Those people are the moral equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church and their vile protests. But also the legal equivalent. Who cares whether they deem themselves to have won or list?. From society's standpoint, if they fail to have effect, they lose.

[cvfd1399 0]

But the people at CH in France were heros in this forum for standing up to Muslims, and posting insensitive cartoons on a daily basis ..... Consistency problems much?

[quade 3]

cvfd1399

But the people at CH in France were heros in this forum for standing up to Muslims, and posting insensitive cartoons on a daily basis ..... Consistency problems much?

I think the main difference is Charlie Hebdo did it with ink and paper alone. They forced nobody to buy the magazine. They didn't force anyone at any mosque to have to deal with it in any way if they didn't want to.

The guys in Arizona actively encouraged people to bring guns to a mosque.

Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

quade

***But the people at CH in France were heros in this forum for standing up to Muslims, and posting insensitive cartoons on a daily basis ..... Consistency problems much?

I think the main difference is Charlie Hebdo did it with ink and paper alone. They forced nobody to buy the magazine. They didn't force anyone at any mosque to have to deal with it in any way if they didn't want to.

The guys in Arizona actively encouraged people to bring guns to a mosque.

Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict?

Question for you. Do you think they would have armed themselves if their wasn't a real threat against them?

Remember, they just got through attacking a "Draw Muhammed" seminar a couple of weeks ago, they have attacked Charlie Hebdo, they are still trying to kill the guy that did the "draw Muhammed" contest in the Danish paper, and if I remember rightly, their is still a fatwa on the guy that wrote the book "Satanic verses."

Even though they were armed, did anyone get shot? No. Do you know why? I think it was Marcellus Wallace that said "Don't start no trouble, there won't be no trouble."

Even Matt Parker and Trey Stone were censored from showing a depiction of Muhammed in one of their South Park episodes. It was the moral equivalent of slapping your wife for saying something that might upset some asshole.

All I'm saying is that in a free secular society you have to assimilate and let some ideas go. If you don't, it's not a free secular society, it's a Shia ran society.

And if they decide to ban Bacon next, I will let loose the dogs of war! I will mount a pale horse and hell will follow with me!

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Coreeece 2]

quade

Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict?

I'm thinking that the atheist organizing this protest would have the same expression as Lard-Ass after the pie-eating contest...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Bolas 5]

jgoose71

Question for you. Do you think they would have armed themselves if their wasn't a real threat against them?

The better question is is the reason were they not injured or killed just because they were so well armed?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 212]

Bolas

***Question for you. Do you think they would have armed themselves if their wasn't a real threat against them?

The better question is is the reason were they not injured or killed just because they were so well armed?

They must not have been dark enough.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[GESAFFELSTEIN 0]

wolfriverjoe

***I find it interesting that people can be just fine with motorcycle clubs not putting bottom rockers on their vests out of fear of the one percenters, but don't want anyone to kowtow to Muslims.

Wendy P.

I'm not aware of any bike clubs publicly stating that they will kill anyone who puts a bottom rocker on their colors.

And the three element patch is a hallmark of the outlaw clubs, although there are lots of "non-one-percent" clubs that wear it.

But many (most?) people who know clubs and the protocols know perfectly well that a bottom rocker "claims territory." And if you're going to claim it, you'd better be prepared to defend it.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Hey! Here's a great example of verbal expression that apparently can get a person jailed in the UK that I doubt would be unlawful in the US:

Woman in Birmingham [UK] jailed after making 'loud sex noises'

[quade 3]

Dafuq? Who outlaws screamers?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Driver1 0]

quade

Dafuq? Who outlaws screamers?

That would just be wrong... Wouldn't have this would they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DuBpDS005k

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[Andy9o8 0]

quade

Dafuq? Who outlaws screamers?

Apparently The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[kallend 1,618]

Andy9o8

Hey! Here's a great example of verbal expression that apparently can get a person jailed in the UK that I doubt would be unlawful in the US:

Woman in Birmingham [UK] jailed after making 'loud sex noises'

"A civil court judge concluded she had breached an anti-social behaviour order by "screaming and shouting whilst having sex" at a "level of noise" that annoyed a neighbour."

Well, we have noise ordinances in the USA too, and one can be jailed for violating a court order in the USA.

realestate.findlaw.com/neighbors/what-to-do-about-a-neighbor-s-noise-faqs.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

one can be jailed for violating a court order in the USA.

And court orders in the US sometimes violate the Constitution.
In this case, freedom of screech.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

Quote

one can be jailed for violating a court order in the USA.

And court orders in the US sometimes violate the Constitution.
In this case, freedom of screech.

Is he no longer free?

I know he was in trouble, but . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,618]

Andy9o8

Quote

one can be jailed for violating a court order in the USA.

And court orders in the US sometimes violate the Constitution.
In this case, freedom of screech.

"Sometimes" is not "always" or even "mostly" or "frequently".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[champu 1]

Andy9o8

Hey! Here's a great example of verbal expression that apparently can get a person jailed in the UK that I doubt would be unlawful in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4CQin03MDQ (borderline/NSFW)

[Andy9o8 0]

kallend

***

Quote

one can be jailed for violating a court order in the USA.

And court orders in the US sometimes violate the Constitution.
In this case, freedom of screech.

"Sometimes" is not "always" or even "mostly" or "frequently".

No doubt. IMPO, though, in the US, a court order that had the practical effect of prohibiting a person from vocalizing loudly during sex, and especially one that imposed not just criminal sanctions, but actual incarceration, for doing so, would not survive appellate court review.

[lawrocket 3]

quade

***But the people at CH in France were heros in this forum for standing up to Muslims, and posting insensitive cartoons on a daily basis ..... Consistency problems much?

I think the main difference is Charlie Hebdo did it with ink and paper alone. They forced nobody to buy the magazine. They didn't force anyone at any mosque to have to deal with it in any way if they didn't want to.

The guys in Arizona actively encouraged people to bring guns to a mosque.

Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict?

But the President blamed a film on YouTube for the death of an ambassador. Nobody forced anyone else to watch it. And in Texas it was a private event where the offended came from a distance to kill people in a parking lot and you were critical.

It seems like you are critical of any Christian protest or mockery but supportive of a secular/atheist protest or mockery. I'm seeing the difference to you being who is protesting. Not the nature or the protest but who is doing it.

It's just an observation and my perception. I am getting the sense that the line is drawn on whether you like the people doing it. Nog on the actions themselves.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 185]

lawrocket

******But the people at CH in France were heros in this forum for standing up to Muslims, and posting insensitive cartoons on a daily basis ..... Consistency problems much?

I think the main difference is Charlie Hebdo did it with ink and paper alone. They forced nobody to buy the magazine. They didn't force anyone at any mosque to have to deal with it in any way if they didn't want to.

The guys in Arizona actively encouraged people to bring guns to a mosque.

Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict?

But the President blamed a film on YouTube for the death of an ambassador. Nobody forced anyone else to watch it. And in Texas it was a private event where the offended came from a distance to kill people in a parking lot and you were critical.

It seems like you are critical of any Christian protest or mockery but supportive of a secular/atheist protest or mockery. I'm seeing the difference to you being who is protesting. Not the nature or the protest but who is doing it.

It's just an observation and my perception. I am getting the sense that the line is drawn on whether you like the people doing it. Nog on the actions themselves.

You just figured that out? I'm serious.

I try to distinguish between the person and the argument.

There are people I absolutely loathe, but with whom I have had to agree upon occasion. Michael Moore, who I think is a despicable piece of shit, penned an article with was spot on a while back; even a broken clock is right twice a day...

There are people who I like a lot, but have opinions with which I strongly disagree.

FWIW, the one time I read something Paul wrote that sounded balanced and reasonable, I found that I had misread it in the first place. It may yet happen.


BSBD,

Winsor

[jclalor 12]

lawrocket

******But the people at CH in France were heros in this forum for standing up to Muslims, and posting insensitive cartoons on a daily basis ..... Consistency problems much?

I think the main difference is Charlie Hebdo did it with ink and paper alone. They forced nobody to buy the magazine. They didn't force anyone at any mosque to have to deal with it in any way if they didn't want to.

The guys in Arizona actively encouraged people to bring guns to a mosque.

Can you imagine if the relationship were turned around and armed Muslims started standing outside any church in the US and actively attempting to goad the church members into armed conflict?

But the President blamed a film on YouTube for the death of an ambassador. Nobody forced anyone else to watch it. And in Texas it was a private event where the offended came from a distance to kill people in a parking lot and you were critical.

It seems like you are critical of any Christian protest or mockery but supportive of a secular/atheist protest or mockery. I'm seeing the difference to you being who is protesting. Not the nature or the protest but who is doing it.

It's just an observation and my perception. I am getting the sense that the line is drawn on whether you like the people doing it. Nog on the actions themselves.

It seems to me, sooner or later, the offended Islamiic extremists will just kill a bunch of innocent people hundreds of miles away from the actual "contest".

This will work out nicely for both cowardly parties concerned.