Pamela Geller is nuts

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.

So you either do not live here in America, or you were born here. But if you were born here, then you would have said so outright.

Give it up! I have been asked this same question a zillion times on this forum and I stopped answering after the 100th time. Unless I show you my birth certificate, I wouldn't be American enough I guess, and even then you'd find a way to say it was fake. Move the heck on !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DNA of victims was found on the Freedom Tower site, yet the Freedom Tower was allowed to be built.

It's a tribute. Not a 'cultural center' reflecting the very religion who's zealots murdered those victims.

I guess we shouldn't have any Christian, Jewish, or Atheist cultural center anywhere in this country

How about the Jews build a temple right alongside a site where Palestinians are massacred. You'd welcome that I'm sure ... something tells me you'd be screaming 'occupation'

They built a Jewish settlement on the site of the Deir Yassin massacre.

You might want to learn the other side of that story here:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html

I am familiar with that side, trust me. But even the Haganah condemned it, and the Jewish Agency apologized on behalf of the movement. So don't try to defend it.

It's clear that there is some propaganda involved. And that needs to be acknowledged.

I'm not sure whose propaganda you are referring to. If the Jewish groups of the time condemned it, even the Haganah, then it stands condemned.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.

I care because you see fit to disparage this country and it makes me wonder why you don't move to the country of your ancestors. Wouldn't you be as free there?

Because being patriotic means to agree with what every other American is doing

Again, would you have the same freedoms in your own ancestral country that you have here? I can say, being of Russian heritage, that I would decidedly not. By realizing that, it makes me appreciate the freedoms I have here that much more.

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.

So you either do not live here in America, or you were born here. But if you were born here, then you would have said so outright.

Give it up! I have been asked this same question a zillion times on this forum and I stopped answering after the 100th time. Unless I show you my birth certificate, I wouldn't be American enough I guess, and even then you'd find a way to say it was fake. Move the heck on !

You are decidedly full of crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So can anyone tell me how a First Amendment proponent can try to block a house of worship, of any religion, on private property? Even if you really, really, don't like the idea? Is there an exception to the First Amendment that I haven't heard of, one which makes Pam Geller something other than a hypocrite?

I'm all ears.

Wasn't the school using public funds?

Regarding the 'cultural center', the government did not try to block the house of worship. Those that protested it did so due to what they perceived as cultural insensitivity. That's their right by law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can anyone tell me how a First Amendment proponent can try to block a house of worship, of any religion, on private property? Even if you really, really, don't like the idea? Is there an exception to the First Amendment that I haven't heard of, one which makes Pam Geller something other than a hypocrite?

I'm all ears.

Wasn't the school using public funds?

Regarding the 'cultural center', the government did not try to block the house of worship. Those that protested it did so due to what they perceived as cultural insensitivity. That's their right by law.

HAHA what a dodge.

The question is whether Pam Geller is an advocate of the First Amendment, or whether she is an opponent of Islam. I gather you think she is the latter. A First Amendment advocate would not try to block someone from exercising their constitutional rights.

[Muslima]

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.

I care because you see fit to disparage this country and it makes me wonder why you don't move to the country of your ancestors. Wouldn't you be as free there?

Because being patriotic means to agree with what every other American is doing

Again, would you have the same freedoms in your own ancestral country that you have here? I can say, being of Russian heritage, that I would decidedly not. By realizing that, it makes me appreciate the freedoms I have here that much more.

Maybe if I were "allowed" to live in my ancestral country, I'd have something to compare to Where my great grandparents hail from is irrelevant to this discussion. It is great that you are enjoying our American freedom and i stand for those some values and that is the reason why I can never support bigots and islamophobes like Pam Geller, not in my DNA or my upbringing. I value, embrace and adore my American Freedom, I have never said otherwise and don't know why you felt the need to bring it up? Being patriotic doesn't make you an imbecile who just nods, agrees and smiles at everything that your country does ....

[Anonymous]

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.

I care because you see fit to disparage this country and it makes me wonder why you don't move to the country of your ancestors. Wouldn't you be as free there?

Because being patriotic means to agree with what every other American is doing

Again, would you have the same freedoms in your own ancestral country that you have here? I can say, being of Russian heritage, that I would decidedly not. By realizing that, it makes me appreciate the freedoms I have here that much more.

Maybe if I were "allowed" to live in my ancestral country, I'd have something to compare to Where my great grandparents hail from is irrelevant to this discussion. It is great that you are enjoying our American freedom and i stand for those some values and that is the reason why I can never support bigots and islamophobes like Pam Geller, not in my DNA or my upbringing. I value, embrace and adore my American Freedom, I have never said otherwise and don't know why you felt the need to bring it up? Being patriotic doesn't make you an imbecile who just nods, agrees and smiles at everything that your country does ....

You might think you do, but your preaching here signifies otherwise. I don't think your realize how insulting and arrogant you come off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can anyone tell me how a First Amendment proponent can try to block a house of worship, of any religion, on private property? Even if you really, really, don't like the idea? Is there an exception to the First Amendment that I haven't heard of, one which makes Pam Geller something other than a hypocrite?

I'm all ears.

Wasn't the school using public funds?

Regarding the 'cultural center', the government did not try to block the house of worship. Those that protested it did so due to what they perceived as cultural insensitivity. That's their right by law.

HAHA what a dodge.

The question is whether Pam Geller is an advocate of the First Amendment, or whether she is an opponent of Islam. I gather you think she is the latter. A First Amendment advocate would not try to block someone from exercising their constitutional rights.

She is a very vocal opponent of radical Islam. She is not an opponent of Islam, much to the left's chagrin. I think sane people are opponents of radical Islam. Doesn't the first amendment give both of them the same rights? Or does it only count if you support those rights? Seems to me, you feel the latter.

By the way? If you think we should be upholding the rights of radical Islamists, you're insane.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
She is a very vocal opponent of radical Islam. She is not an opponent of Islam, much to the left's chagrin. I think sane people are opponents of radical Islam. Doesn't the first amendment give both of them the same rights? Or does it only count if you support those rights? Seems to me, you feel the latter.

By the way? If you think we should be upholding the rights of radical Islamists, you're insane.

Neither the school nor the cultural center involved "radical" Muslims. You can't run from the truth. Even you have said that the difference between "Islam" and "radical Muslims" is hair splitting. So, your attempt to distinguish in this manner is not very credible.

[Anonymous]

I think that many of you do not know what the first amendment actually says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

This says that the federal government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Frankly, private entities are perfectly within their rights to abridge the freedom of speech within their areas. So, private business owners can control what is said or done within the walls of their establishments. And even within the control of the government are certain restrictions based on concerns for public safety. For example, there are laws that prohibit yelling "Fire" in a crowded space like a movie theater. You cannot yell within a convened court of law.

The only protections that the first amendment makes is that the federal government shall hot make laws abridging the freedom of speech. End of section.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
She is a very vocal opponent of radical Islam. She is not an opponent of Islam, much to the left's chagrin. I think sane people are opponents of radical Islam. Doesn't the first amendment give both of them the same rights? Or does it only count if you support those rights? Seems to me, you feel the latter.

By the way? If you think we should be upholding the rights of radical Islamists, you're insane.

Neither the school nor the cultural center involved "radical" Muslims. You can't run from the truth. Even you have said that the difference between "Islam" and "radical Muslims" is hair splitting. So, your attempt to distinguish in this manner is not very credible.

The ties are up for debate. The hair-splitting comes from the attempts of the left to accuse those who oppose radical islam of opposing all islam; conservatives are quite clear on the fact that they differ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that many of you do not know what the first amendment actually says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

This says that the federal government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Frankly, private entities are perfectly within their rights to abridge the freedom of speech within their areas. So, private business owners can control what is said or done within the walls of their establishments. And even within the control of the government are certain restrictions based on concerns for public safety. For example, there are laws that prohibit yelling "Fire" in a crowded space like a movie theater. You cannot yell within a convened court of law.

The only protections that the first amendment makes is that the federal government shall hot make laws abridging the freedom of speech. End of section.

Sorry but your knowledge of constitutional law is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So can anyone tell me how a First Amendment proponent can try to block a house of worship, of any religion, on private property? Even if you really, really, don't like the idea? Is there an exception to the First Amendment that I haven't heard of, one which makes Pam Geller something other than a hypocrite?

I'm all ears.

Wasn't the school using public funds?

Regarding the 'cultural center', the government did not try to block the house of worship. Those that protested it did so due to what they perceived as cultural insensitivity. That's their right by law.

HAHA what a dodge.

The question is whether Pam Geller is an advocate of the First Amendment, or whether she is an opponent of Islam. I gather you think she is the latter. A First Amendment advocate would not try to block someone from exercising their constitutional rights.

She is a very vocal opponent of radical Islam. She is not an opponent of Islam, much to the left's chagrin. I think sane people are opponents of radical Islam. Doesn't the first amendment give both of them the same rights? Or does it only count if you support those rights? Seems to me, you feel the latter.

By the way? If you think we should be upholding the rights of radical Islamists, you're insane.

The left is not chagrined, nor are we fooled. She has protested Islam itself.

I think she has the right to run a stupid contest that will probably get her shot at.

She also believes she can block someone's free exercise of religion on private property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that many of you do not know what the first amendment actually says.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

This says that the federal government shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Frankly, private entities are perfectly within their rights to abridge the freedom of speech within their areas. So, private business owners can control what is said or done within the walls of their establishments. And even within the control of the government are certain restrictions based on concerns for public safety. For example, there are laws that prohibit yelling "Fire" in a crowded space like a movie theater. You cannot yell within a convened court of law.

The only protections that the first amendment makes is that the federal government shall hot make laws abridging the freedom of speech. End of section.

Which leaves Geller well within her rights, as well as the Imam. So it comes down to public pressure. The Imam caved. Live with it.