Shooting at Wilders speech in Texas

[Timsup2nothin]

Ok, I see. In future we'll just go around banning people from the planet without giving any reasons, as this would only reveal their true nature to the world. And we sure don't want that to happen!

I hope you realize how ridiculous this whole line of thought is. Anyway, I've had enough amusement for now, I'm off to bed.

G'nite.

Anyone who doesn't understand why I would not want to spread her poison can certainly find hate filled Pam spewing her venom. She has her own website, unfortunately.

 

[Farm Boy]

Hey Tim, if you go to cnn.com at the moment you can get the latest update in how the power of the pen is upheld.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given the security, the power of the pig pen is showing as viable too.

 

[Berzerker]

But I don't complain about quote mining, I just laugh at those who think it demonstrates anything.



For those who missed the joke, the little arrow provides links to the complete posts being quoted so that you can immediately see how "of course not" was snipped out to make a totally false presentation. Although a quote miner with even a bare minimum of skill wouldn't try to mine a quote off the very same page, making the arrow unnecessary.

Desperate much, Berzerker?

No, I'm laughing, not complaining. There's a difference. It is no surprise that you don't see the joke though, even though it is pretty obvious.

The arrow is also very obvious, but I can't think of a clever way to point at it...

If it was so obvious why are you alerting those who missed it? I dont see a joke or arrow in your post. I dont see a joke or arrow in any of your posts involving me or on the same page.

If you're referring to a previous post to someone else, thats twice you've done that. I dont read all of your posts before asking about the one I quoted. Why dont you just clarify what you said instead of getting defensive and offensive.

I wasn't complaining, I was ridiculing. Effectively, I assume, since you haven't dropped it.

All you've done is complain about quote mining

I'm biased as well. I just don't let that bias make me say things like "western culture is clearly superior, just ask any westerner," because I recognize that saying things like that would make me look silly.

Then accuse the person of being silly if thats your nature and be prepared to explain why. That doesn't make them a bigot worthy of removal from the world. Not that I care if she's a bigot, that dont matter to me. Free speech matters. And blaming the victims because you dont like what they said is not supportive of free speech.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I just have to ask...does the little icon you click on to link to the source post in a quote change to something other than an arrow if you choose a different forum skin? Anybody?

@Berzerker...if me ridiculing your quote mining (or complaining about it, if you insist) really bothers you, here is a tip: don't quote mine. If you feel like you just can't help yourself and you simply have to, then do a better job of it.

 

[Berzerker]

@Tim

And why exactly should she be banned? Can you give me a single quote or action you consider so outrageous that you would have her banned?

Of course not. You clearly agree with her, so I couldn't provide anything remotely resembling "outrageous" without you discarding it. Just like the fact that billions of people don't agree with your biased view doesn't slow either one of you down at all in your blind righteousness.

He asked for a quote or action you considered outrageous enough to be banned. You said "of course not" and proceeded to blame his bias for your failure.
Maybe you shouldn't have answered with "of course not"? Maybe you shouldn't have blamed him either, or do you want people ignoring your requests for evidence because you have a bias?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

He asked for a quote or action you considered outrageous enough to be banned. You said "of course not" and proceeded to blame his bias for your failure.
Maybe you shouldn't have answered with "of course not"? Maybe you shouldn't have blamed him either, or do you want people ignoring your requests for evidence because you have a bias?

He asked if I could give him something, and I said that I couldn't. And told him why.

If you look at my thousands of posts I doubt you will find any "requests for evidence". I don't do that, generally. If someone says something I think is dubious as if it were fact, I do a web search...even when they have already "provided links to evidence". This is the internet. Why would I ask for a couple links to things that support a dubious position when I have the ability to look for myself and get a wide angle view of the issue? You can find a couple links to things that "prove" literally anything, so what is the point.

As to "provide a link that supports an opinion," I see absolutely no merit in a request like that. Why should anyone have to justify having an opinion? It's their opinion.

I think that most reasonable people who take a minute with a search engine will see why I say hate filled Pam is a good candidate for a planetary ban, and at the very least see why the UK doesn't want her.

 

[Berzerker]

I apologize for giving you excessive crap

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I apologize for giving you excessive crap

Accepted. Respectfully. Apologies are spread exceeding thin upon the internet, where crap is very common.

 

[Funky]

Good morning, Tim! I must say, your perserverance impresses me.

Why should anyone have to justify having an opinion? It's their opinion.

You're right, noone has to justify their opinion. They just shouldn't expect anyone to take their opinion seriously if they don't provide good reasons for it.

I think that most reasonable people who take a minute with a search engine will see why I say hate filled Pam is a good candidate for a planetary ban, and at the very least see why the UK doesn't want her.

Well, a planetary ban is a pretty severe measure, is it not? I mean, someone must have done pretty horrendous things to justify such a punishment, no? I just can't seem to find anything she did that would suffice to treat her like that. But perhaps I just overlooked it?
Come on, help me out! I don't expect you to give me all your "thousands" of reasons, just give me one of the really strong ones! If this woman is really so terrible, that shouldn't be so hard to do. Show us all how "hate-filled" she is! If you continue to dodge, then I'm afraid I'll have to conclude you are merely slandering her without any basis.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Good morning, Tim! I must say, your perserverance impresses me.

You're right, noone has to justify their opinion. They just shouldn't expect anyone to take their opinion seriously if they don't provide good reasons for it.


Well, a planetary ban is a pretty severe measure, is it not? I mean, someone must have done pretty horrendous things to justify such a punishment, no? I just can't seem to find anything she did that would suffice to treat her like that. But perhaps I just overlooked it?
Come on, help me out! I don't expect you to give me all your "thousands" of reasons, just give me one of the really strong ones! If this woman is really so terrible, that shouldn't be so hard to do. Show us all how "hate-filled" she is! If you continue to dodge, then I'm afraid I'll have to conclude you are merely slandering her without any basis.

Conclude whatever you want. The fact remains that anyone with a minute and a search engine will see that she is a venom spewing clown who we would be better off without.

As to whether my opinion is taken seriously, I trust that enough people will take that minute with a search engine for my credibility to come through undamaged.

On the severity of a planetary ban, let's put that comment in context. You started out with the disingenuous claim that you just couldn't understand why sweet little Pammy would be banned from the UK while someone else was allowed. I did my own research and very quickly saw that if I were in charge of a country I would call them both venomous hate spewers that I had no use for. Hence they would both, one country at a time, merit a "planetary ban"...but, by right of birth the UK is stuck with one, and the US is stuck with the other. Them's the breaks.

I wouldn't try to arrange a trade, since they are both about the same, but I certainly see no merit in "as long as we are stuck with one hate spewer may as well let in another." So the position of the UK makes sense to me.

 

[Funky]

Conclude whatever you want. The fact remains that anyone with a minute and a search engine will see that she is a venom spewing clown who we would be better off without.

Ok,you're done. I gave you plenty of opportunities to back up your claim, yet you failed to provide a shred of evidence. All you did is say that it was obvious. Well, apparently it isn't obvious. And accusing someone without any evidence is the very definition of slander. You're done, mate.

 

[Borachio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller

I don't like the look of her. Not one little bit.

The British government designated Geller's organizations hate groups and barred Geller's entry into the UK in 2013

But she may, of course, be a perfectly nice person who wishes only the very best for all of humanity.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I am 100% skeptical about Britain banning someone being an indicator of radical viewpoints.
They just pluck names out of hats for political reasons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...k-jock-Michael-Savage-U-K-ban-reaffirmed.html

Controversial 'shock jock' radio presenter Michael Savage, who was barred from entering the UK two years ago for his extreme views, has had the ban reaffirmed.

The Conservative-led British government announced in July it would only lift the ban initiated by the previous Labour leadership if Savage took back statements he had made on his broadcasts that were deemed a 'threat to national security'.

And while the U.K has never specified which comments it found so dangerous, an attorney for the British government has stayed true to its threat, reaffirming the ban.

Sir, you are accused of thought crimes.
A threat to national security.
You are now banned from our country.

What?
You want to know which statements we found so offensive?
Impossible.

The Right-wing radio presenter, whose hardline views on Islam, rape and autism have caused outrage in the US, was identified in May 2009 by then U.K. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith as one of 16 people barred due to their political views.

The list also included hate preachers, Hamas terrorist leader Yunis Al-Astal, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe.

Now Michael Atkins, writing on behalf of the U.K.'s treasury solicitor, has told Savage's London-based attorney the ban had to stick because Savage had not gone back on his 'extreme' comments.

'Your client has not provided any evidence to show that he did not commit the unacceptable behaviour [that prompted the] decision to exclude him, nor has your client provided any acceptable evidence to show his repudiation of those unacceptable behaviours,' World Net Daily reported Atkins as having written.

Savage must now wait to appeal until December, when the decision will again be reviewed.

You have not provided any evidence that Mr. Savage did not commit the thought crimes that we won't tell you about!

'Why does the Cameron government protect Muslim terrorists and Muslim hate-preachers who espouse the overthrow of the British government, democracy itself, while banning Michael Savage from entering the land of their better forefathers?'

He added that he had hoped the new British government would have removed his name 'from their list of actual murderers and terrorists'.

Republican Congressman Allen West supported Savage, telling WND: 'For a nation who believes in freedom of speech and press I have a hard time understanding why such a high level, government department would release this statement when there has not been one incident recorded in the United States regarding Dr. Savage instigating violence, let alone serious criminal acts.'

Speaking at the time of the original ban in 2009 Mr Savage claimed his name had been 'plucked out of a hat' because he was 'controversial and white'

Plucked out of a hat?
Surely the decision to ban this guy wasn't so arbitrary.
He has 8 million radio listeners in the USA.

The Home Office at the time said Savage's views on Islam, immigration and autism amounted to fostering hatred.

Smith said it was 'important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country.'

U.K government correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act suggests Savage was initially put on the barred list because it contained so many Muslim extremists and needed 'balance'.

'We will want to ensure that the names disclosed reflect the broad range of cases and are not all Islamic extremists,' a draft recommendation read.

Another email from an unnamed Home Office official in November 2008, said, with regard to Savage: 'I can understand that disclosure of the decision would help provide a balance of types of exclusion cases.'

Ok, the decision to ban him was arbitrary
For diversity reasons.

I view the ban of Pam Geller under similar skepticism.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, now this is interesting Sir B. If wiki -keeper of all knowledge- is to be believed, it seems like a part of the reason the UK doesn't want her is her insistence that terror, murder of the helpless, and war against the unbeliever are core tenants of the correct way to practice of Islam. She is then loud about this belief. Which seems to be the primary characteristic of people the US tends to send drones to visit in slightly different contexts. I wouldn't want her in the UK either. Which is fine. I don't want the wannabe gay-murdery fella with the beard over here. Nor anyone who is quotable in this thread as informing teh world that the mooslims are a murdery ideology when they're doin' it right. All hewn from the same rock, as it were.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Here is the winning drawing for reference.

Spoiler :

The guy who drew this has now been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-usa-shooting-texas-cartoonist-idUSKBN0NP1ZS20150505

Fawstin's winning entry depicts a sword-wielding Prophet in a turban shouting, "You can't draw me." In reply, a cartoon bubble portrays the artist, his hand grasping a pencil, as saying, "That's why I draw you."

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), sponsor of the Sunday night event, gave Fawstin, a Bronx, New York-born, former Muslim, $12,500 in prize money and introduced him to the crowd as a courageous and righteous man.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which includes AFDI on its annual list of U.S. hate groups, plans to add Fawstin to its 2016 report, Heidi Beirich, director of the tracking effort, told Reuters on Monday.

She said he would have been listed previously, but the center did not know Fawstin's location. The organization has since learned that his website is registered in New York City.

“He’s like the artist of the movement,” Beirich said. “His views, they are hate views.” She said his website is "virulently ugly" in its anti-Muslim views.

When reached by phone on Monday night, Fawstin said Sunday's incident made him fear for his safety, but he would continue his work.

"It definitely is concerning. You do your work and people out there want to kill you for it," he said. "I understand the threat, but I'm not going to be cowed by it. I still intend to go up there and I still intend to speak out."

Fawstin, who said he is atheist, laughed when asked about the law center's report: "So they want to put a cartoonist on there who doesn't act out violently? Go for it."

I used to pay attention when SPLC declared someone a hate group, but now I'm starting to wonder.
Mere jerks are slowly being added to the lists of hardcore racists and violent activists.

 

[Funky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Geller

I don't like the look of her. Not one little bit.


But she may, of course, be a perfectly nice person who wishes only the very best for all of humanity.

I suggest you listen to what she actually says. There is plenty of material on youtube. Being from Germany, I hadn't heard of the woman before the terrorist attack in Garland. So I listened to some of the videos featuring her. As so often with critics of radical Islam, I found the disparity between what she says and how she is depicted in large parts of the media astonishing. But make up your own mind.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I suggest you listen to what she actually says. There is plenty of material on youtube. Being from Germany, I hadn't heard of the woman before the terrorist attack in Garland. So I listened to some of the videos featuring her. As so often with critics of radical Islam, I found the disparity between what she says and how she is depicted in large parts of the media astonishing. But make up your own mind.

Wait, what? Plenty of material on youtube you say? But why are you not providing us with links to back up what you say? I thought someone was just saying that a suggestion that people can see for themselves is outright admitting that your opinion has no basis? Who was that?

As to listening to what she actually says, great idea. Just don't let it influence your thinking about all the people she hates. By the way, I would skip youtube and just go to her own website.

 

[Funky]

Wait, what? Plenty of material on youtube you say? But why are you not providing us with links to back up what you say? I thought someone was just saying that a suggestion that people can see for themselves is outright admitting that your opinion has no basis? Who was that?

You are indeed a funny guy! So now you believe that me suggesting to someone to watch some vids in order to "make up his own mind" is on par with you not providing evidence for your claim that the woman should be banned from the planet.

I wonder what's next, keep it coming!

 

[Farm Boy]

I'd be flattered Tim. He hasn't called you a liar yet. You must have a certain aura of honesty to you.