Pamela Geller is nuts

[Anonymous]

Oooh a real hotbed of radicals:

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You said that "Islam kills gay men daily" was true? You are the one accusing all of Islam and not radical Muslims. You were quite clear about that and had several chances to clarify. It is not hairsplitting to point it out.

[Muslima]

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.

Are you for real? Geller supports mass murder and praised the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people .

She justifies Breivik’s attack on the Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp because she says the camp is part of an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center.” She says the victims would have 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.”

To get her point across, Geller posts a picture of the youth camp children Breivik targeted. The picture was taken on the Utøya island camp about 24 hours before Breivik killed over 30 children, so it is likely Geller is mocking many of the victims. Under the picture, Geller writes: “Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.”

Source: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/muslim-hating_wingnut_pamela_geller_justifies_mass_murder_in_norway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, quite clear

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/sharia-law-comes-to-walmart/

"There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.”

I pointed the sign out to Aubrey and her response was a simple question, how is it that this Muslim employee could refuse service to customers based on his religious beliefs, but Christians are being forced to participate in specific events contrary to their religious beliefs?"

[Anonymous]

^^the "Muslim" was under 21 and was not legally allowed to sell alcohol or cigarettes. But don't let that stop you from peeing your pants over creeping Sharia!

[Anonymous]

Even the Jewish Anti-Defamation League disagrees with her on Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, quite clear

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/sharia-law-comes-to-walmart/

"There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.”

I pointed the sign out to Aubrey and her response was a simple question, how is it that this Muslim employee could refuse service to customers based on his religious beliefs, but Christians are being forced to participate in specific events contrary to their religious beliefs?"

Col. West is right. Why are Muslims are protected class in this country?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, quite clear

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/sharia-law-comes-to-walmart/

"There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.”

I pointed the sign out to Aubrey and her response was a simple question, how is it that this Muslim employee could refuse service to customers based on his religious beliefs, but Christians are being forced to participate in specific events contrary to their religious beliefs?"

Col. West is right. Why are Muslims are protected class in this country?

The article goes on to state that checkers under 21 are not allowed to ring up alcohol. So in other words, this is a total bust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, quite clear

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/sharia-law-comes-to-walmart/

"There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.”

I pointed the sign out to Aubrey and her response was a simple question, how is it that this Muslim employee could refuse service to customers based on his religious beliefs, but Christians are being forced to participate in specific events contrary to their religious beliefs?"

Col. West is right. Why are Muslims are protected class in this country?

Yes, so protected. Meanwhile the poor persecuted Christian majority is denying miscarrying women their medication because they don't believe in abortion. Do you really buy your own bullshit?

[Anonymous]

I feel like this is some sort of Kundera or Orwell novel, when someone can try to shut down a church and a school and call themselves a Free Speech Advocate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, quite clear

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/sharia-law-comes-to-walmart/

"There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.”

I pointed the sign out to Aubrey and her response was a simple question, how is it that this Muslim employee could refuse service to customers based on his religious beliefs, but Christians are being forced to participate in specific events contrary to their religious beliefs?"

Predictable comments under that blog post...

1. Let's get the Mozlums with pork and bacon! Pork is to Mozlums what garlic is to vampires
2. All Mozlums lie about everything so never believe anything a Mozlum says, not even when you know he's lying because that could also be a lie. A lie within a lie within a lie...taqqiyah! Damn dhimmi!
3.Sharia Law! It's coming for ya! Thanks libtards!

So many spelling and grammatical errors I want to find a dull number 2 pencil and gouge my eyes out. And English isn't even my first language! Arrrghh!!

[Anonymous]

It is amazing how a bigot will jump to conclusions. Oh his name tag looks Muslim so it's because of his religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oooh a real hotbed of radicals:

Lots of violence there that a photo op can't cover up

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You said that "Islam kills gay men daily" was true? You are the one accusing all of Islam and not radical Muslims. You were quite clear about that and had several chances to clarify. It is not hairsplitting to point it out.

What makes it splitting hairs is you do it to distract from the fact that Islamists kill gay people. It doesn't. Furthermore, this is very typical of progressives like yourself and it shows conservatives like myself that the compassionate left is a myth. The more you push on this point, the more your true colors show

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, quite clear

http://allenbwest.com/2015/05/sharia-law-comes-to-walmart/

"There was a young man doing the checkout and another Walmart employee came over and put up a sign, “No alcohol products in this lane.” So being the inquisitive fella I am, I used my additional set of eyes — glasses — to see the young checkout man’s name. Let me just say it was NOT “Steve.”

I pointed the sign out to Aubrey and her response was a simple question, how is it that this Muslim employee could refuse service to customers based on his religious beliefs, but Christians are being forced to participate in specific events contrary to their religious beliefs?"

Predictable comments under that blog post...

1. Let's get the Mozlums with pork and bacon! Pork is to Mozlums what garlic is to vampires
2. All Mozlums lie about everything so never believe anything a Mozlum says, not even when you know he's lying because that could also be a lie. A lie within a lie within a lie...taqqiyah! Damn dhimmi!
3.Sharia Law! It's coming for ya! Thanks libtards!

So many spelling and grammatical errors I want to find a dull number 2 pencil and gouge my eyes out. And English isn't even my first language! Arrrghh!!

Huh... at least he didn't say Guam would tip over.