Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:57
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
^^not looking for -- Your original statement was a blanket conservatives are opposed to, yet you ignored the democrats in opposition and the conservatives who were not opposed. Funny how you tried to skew the facts by making a blanket statement.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:53
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:No one said a majority of democrats wee opposed. The fact that you ignored the democrats in opposition while only focusing on the republicans indicated that you are looking for honesty, only biased rhetoric.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I see you conveniently ignored the polls showing up to 70% opposition across the board...I didn't realize the nation was 70% republican.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware that this was a "conservative" issue--although once again, there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views. A quick internet search found that the opposition was widespread across among groups. At one time, pills were showing between 60-70% opposition to the mosque. Do you think conservative affiliation is that high? I didn't follow it because I didn't care--imagine that! The only people that I personally know who opposed it were those personally effected by 911 (eg, loss of loved one), some in in the neighborhood and those who somehow tied it into the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church reconstruction--those friends are uber liberal. I know many liberals default to "conservatives" did it, but life is rarely that cut and dry.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Great, so I looked it up and it says that 88% of Republicans opposed. I guess it's not lock step though.
BTW ou know one other person opposed to it. She organized the Mosque protest. And she also organized the Draw Muhammad contest. Her name is Pam Geller.
It's not. 40% of democrats said it should not be built. Last I checked, that is not a majority.
I think you are spinning in circles. Are you saying that there is a vocal group of conservatives that support the Draw Muhammad contest, but whom are in the mere 12% of Republicans who were OK with the Mosque? Could you please point them out to me?
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:49
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
No one said a majority of democrats wee opposed. The fact that you ignored the democrats in opposition while only focusing on the republicans indicated that you are looking for honesty, only biased rhetoric.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I see you conveniently ignored the polls showing up to 70% opposition across the board...I didn't realize the nation was 70% republican.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware that this was a "conservative" issue--although once again, there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views. A quick internet search found that the opposition was widespread across among groups. At one time, pills were showing between 60-70% opposition to the mosque. Do you think conservative affiliation is that high? I didn't follow it because I didn't care--imagine that! The only people that I personally know who opposed it were those personally effected by 911 (eg, loss of loved one), some in in the neighborhood and those who somehow tied it into the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church reconstruction--those friends are uber liberal. I know many liberals default to "conservatives" did it, but life is rarely that cut and dry.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Great, so I looked it up and it says that 88% of Republicans opposed. I guess it's not lock step though.
BTW ou know one other person opposed to it. She organized the Mosque protest. And she also organized the Draw Muhammad contest. Her name is Pam Geller.
It's not. 40% of democrats said it should not be built. Last I checked, that is not a majority.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:44
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:I see you conveniently ignored the polls showing up to 70% opposition across the board...I didn't realize the nation was 70% republican.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware that this was a "conservative" issue--although once again, there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views. A quick internet search found that the opposition was widespread across among groups. At one time, pills were showing between 60-70% opposition to the mosque. Do you think conservative affiliation is that high? I didn't follow it because I didn't care--imagine that! The only people that I personally know who opposed it were those personally effected by 911 (eg, loss of loved one), some in in the neighborhood and those who somehow tied it into the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church reconstruction--those friends are uber liberal. I know many liberals default to "conservatives" did it, but life is rarely that cut and dry.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Great, so I looked it up and it says that 88% of Republicans opposed. I guess it's not lock step though.
BTW ou know one other person opposed to it. She organized the Mosque protest. And she also organized the Draw Muhammad contest. Her name is Pam Geller.
It's not. 40% of democrats said it should not be built. Last I checked, that is not a majority.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:39
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
I see you conveniently ignored the polls showing up to 70% opposition across the board...I didn't realize the nation was 70% republican.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware that this was a "conservative" issue--although once again, there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views. A quick internet search found that the opposition was widespread across among groups. At one time, pills were showing between 60-70% opposition to the mosque. Do you think conservative affiliation is that high? I didn't follow it because I didn't care--imagine that! The only people that I personally know who opposed it were those personally effected by 911 (eg, loss of loved one), some in in the neighborhood and those who somehow tied it into the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church reconstruction--those friends are uber liberal. I know many liberals default to "conservatives" did it, but life is rarely that cut and dry.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Great, so I looked it up and it says that 88% of Republicans opposed. I guess it's not lock step though.
BTW ou know one other person opposed to it. She organized the Mosque protest. And she also organized the Draw Muhammad contest. Her name is Pam Geller.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:34
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:I wasn't aware that this was a "conservative" issue--although once again, there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views. A quick internet search found that the opposition was widespread across among groups. At one time, pills were showing between 60-70% opposition to the mosque. Do you think conservative affiliation is that high? I didn't follow it because I didn't care--imagine that! The only people that I personally know who opposed it were those personally effected by 911 (eg, loss of loved one), some in in the neighborhood and those who somehow tied it into the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church reconstruction--those friends are uber liberal. I know many liberals default to "conservatives" did it, but life is rarely that cut and dry.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Great, so I looked it up and it says that 88% of Republicans opposed. I guess it's not lock step though.
BTW ou know one other person opposed to it. She organized the Mosque protest. And she also organized the Draw Muhammad contest. Her name is Pam Geller.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:31
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
That's all very unfortunate for them. However they have options besides murder. They may decide to not seek out things to be offended by, they may write an op-Ed, or they may choose to insert themselves into a different country that will condone murder over a cartoon. We don't do that here.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:27
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
There were/are dozens of mosques accross the 5 boroughs that could be expanded to fill the needs of Islams faithful.
The majority of the people did not a brand new mosque so close to the twin towers site. So they used lawful means to protest. That's how we do things in America.
Look - you ever been to the university of Munich? I have. The massacre site was repurposed into student housing. If someone proposed building a mosque on that site and naming it "mosque to honor the martyrs who bravely slaughtered the filthy Israeli athletes" - I woul oppose that by lawful means (legal protests for example).
There are other places you are free to buy and build mosques; the 9/11 site isn't one of them (neither is the site so close by). The sight was chosen for its symbolism.
The majority of the people did not a brand new mosque so close to the twin towers site. So they used lawful means to protest. That's how we do things in America.
Look - you ever been to the university of Munich? I have. The massacre site was repurposed into student housing. If someone proposed building a mosque on that site and naming it "mosque to honor the martyrs who bravely slaughtered the filthy Israeli athletes" - I woul oppose that by lawful means (legal protests for example).
There are other places you are free to buy and build mosques; the 9/11 site isn't one of them (neither is the site so close by). The sight was chosen for its symbolism.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 16:09
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
I wasn't aware that this was a "conservative" issue--although once again, there is that conservative lockstep claim ignoring that conservatives hold a wide range of views. A quick internet search found that the opposition was widespread across among groups. At one time, pills were showing between 60-70% opposition to the mosque. Do you think conservative affiliation is that high? I didn't follow it because I didn't care--imagine that! The only people that I personally know who opposed it were those personally effected by 911 (eg, loss of loved one), some in in the neighborhood and those who somehow tied it into the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church reconstruction--those friends are uber liberal. I know many liberals default to "conservatives" did it, but life is rarely that cut and dry.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Anonymous
05/05/2015 15:17
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
You mean like building a Mosque in Lower Manhattan? Then why were conservatives fighting it?
Anonymous
05/05/2015 15:12
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
If they don't condone idolatry, they don't have to look. They don't have to own any. They don't have to finance any. What they cannot, and we cannot allow, is to prohibit anyone else from looking, owning or financing.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 11:08
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
Why do you think the opinion of "a billion peaceful Muslims" matters? It does not matter.
Fact is, there are a billion peaceful atheists who are offended on a daily basis by your ridiculous beliefs in fictitious deities and false prophets. But they tend not to go around murdering people over that.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 10:45
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:
....But do not mess with our founding principles. I love this country; I love what we stand for; and I'm willing to put my life on the line to defend America, just like most Americans. Let's roll.
Well said!
I don't give 2 sh1ts if some Muslims are offended by what is allowed in the USA. For those of you who don't know [or care] about Let's Roll it was what Beamer on Flight 93 said to the 911 operator . Here she is at the 4 minute mark:
http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks/videos/the-todd-beamer-story-lets-roll
Anonymous
05/05/2015 10:31
Subject: Re:Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous
I for one can't wait to find out how these guys on terror watch list were able to obtain AK-47s.
I bet they bought the weapons from some conservative gun nut.
I was thinking they bought at a gun show. Those things are free for alls.
Anonymous
05/05/2015 10:07
Subject: Two shot dead after they open fire at Mohammed cartoon event in Texas
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
I think we all know that what they did is protected by law. That doesn't make it admirable, or even advisable.
I think it would be blasphemous to *not* draw the cartoons. As Americans we are taught not to bow down to kings, or to warrior dudes that lived 1400 years ago.
There is nothing hateful or racist about the cartoons. Consider the winning entry with a picture of Muhammed saying "You can't draw me" with the caption "That is why I draw you." Except for the name of the person, this is the sort of mild satire that one finds daily in political cartoons in newspapers across America. I hope we will be able to see the full collection of entries.
So yes I do think what the cartoonists did in Texas was very admirable.
Yet there are a billion peaceful muslims whose religious beliefs you are offending. They aren't asking you to "bow down". In fact, quite the opposite, they oppose "graven images". It is a biblical command against idolatry.
Those billion peaceful Muslims have many countries with intolerant Sharia laws where they can ban freedom of expression and supress religious freedom (or freedom from religion - ie atheism which is not uncommon in the west). America isn't one of those places.
One of our founding principles is tolerance - including peaceful tolerance of things you personally find "offensive."
The fact that "one billion peaceful Muslims are offended" is completely irrelevant to the question of our founding principles; our fundamental rights are more important than one religion's opinion or offense. As long as you disagree in a peaceful lawful manner, you are within your rights to do so; in fact I encourage that (it's the American way)
But the second you resort to violence or urge others to do so, we will punish you to the fullest extent of our laws (as you will soon see in the Boston marathon case).
If you are still struggling with the concept of religious tolerance, I yet again invite you to move someplace less tolerant.
But do not mess with our founding principles. I love this country; I love what we stand for; and I'm willing to put my life on the line to defend America, just like most Americans. Let's roll.
Well said!