Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (854922)	5/7/2015 10:55:12 AM
From: joseffy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

The suicidal Jews. The same ones who climbed onto the boxcars. And who vote for Jew Hater Obama.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (854922)	5/7/2015 11:05:02 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1575939

U.S. Pays $3B for UN--More Than 185 Other Countries Combined ................................................................................ cnsnews.com ^ \| 5/7/2015 \| Patrick Goodenough

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (854922)	5/7/2015 11:35:53 AM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

Respectable opinion can’t bear the idea that Pam Geller has become a symbol of free speech. ................................................................................... By RICH LOWRY May 06, 2015 How dare Pamela Geller get targeted by terrorists bent on committing mass murder. That’s been the reaction of a portion of the opinion elite to news that Geller’s “draw Muhammad” contest in Garland, Texas, was (unsuccessfully) assaulted by two heavily armed Muslim men in an attack the Islamic State took responsibility for. The Washington Post ran an article on Geller headlined, “Event organizer offers no apology after thwarted attack in Texas.” News that the Post has yet to break about other terrorist targets: “Malala Yousafzai refuses to admit fault for seeking an education”; “Coptic Christians won’t concede error for worshiping wrong God”; “Unrepentant Shiites continue to disagree with Sunnis.” Yes, these are more sympathetic cases, but it is no more legitimate to shoot someone for drawing Muhammad, than it is to shoot a girl for going to school, or a Copt or a Shia for his or her faith. Expecting apologies from these victims would be almost as perverse as expecting one from Pamela Geller. Respectable opinion can’t bear the idea that she has become a symbol of free speech, which once upon a time was — and still is, when convenient — one of the highest values of the media and the left. If Geller were a groundbreaking pornographer like the loathsome Larry Flynt, someone would already be planning a celebratory biopic of her life. If she were a gadfly sticking it to a major Western religion rather than to Islam, she might be considered more socially acceptable. Instead, her provocations are deemed almost as shameful as the intentions of the men who wanted to kill her and her cohorts. To say the reaction to Garland has been confused is charitable. On “Hardball,” NBC terrorism analyst Evan Kohlmann descended into a morass of contradictory clichés when discussing Garland. He said Geller and her ilk are “trying to provoke a response from the Muslim community, and unfortunately, this was predictable.” Then he maintained that the ensuing inevitable attack from the sorely provoked Muslim community had “nothing to do with Islam.” The perpetrators and supporters of the attack would beg to differ, but what do they know? They aren’t terrorism analysts on a broadcast TV network. Linda Stasi wrote a column for the New York Daily News titled, “With Pamela Geller’s Prophet Muhammad cartoon stunt in Texas, hate rears its ugly face again.” The hatred referred to wasn’t that of the attackers who wanted to murder people for attending an uncongenial art contest but of Geller. In perhaps the most obtuse and least grammatical sentiment committed to print in the aftermath of Garland, Stasi argued that “Geller, like ISIS and al Qaeda, revel [sic] in hate…” This is a little like saying that the Finns and the Red Army both reveled in shooting guns during the Winter War, without taking account of who invaded and occupied whom. Geller holds events and writes blog posts deemed offensive by many, all of which are fully protected by our laws. ISIL beheads people and blows them up, all of which is criminal by any civilized standard. “While we have freedom of speech,” Stasi continued, “we also have freedom of religion, which shouldn’t be impinged upon.” This is both a truism and a non sequitur: Tasteless speech doesn’t impinge upon anyone’s freedom of conscience or religion. The glory of the First Amendment is that it guarantees freedom of both speech and worship. Taking a similar tack in a piece on CNN’s website, Haroon Moghul said Geller is “using one democratic value to subvert other democratic values,” namely by polarizing America and alienating Muslims. Yet scurrilous, scatological and, yes, hateful speech and cartoons — many of them involving religion — have featured in Anglo-American history going back centuries. They are part of the warp and woof of a free society. In this context, a drawing of Muhammad is mild. The only reason it seems different is that there is a small class of Muslim radicals willing to kill over it. Which is exactly why Pamela Geller’s event wasn’t purposeless. The event was placing a stake in contested ground, in a way it wouldn’t have if it had offended Quakers or Roman Catholics, who don’t massacre people who insult them. It was a statement of defiance, of an unwillingness to abide by the rules of fanatics. “I feel that sometimes Muslims in America have become the last group in which public officials, organizations and others are allowed to publicly demean, ridicule this group, in ways we don’t do it with other groups per se,” NBC reporter Ayman Mohyeldin opined the other day. What country does he live in? The new atheists merrily deride Christianity with no worries for their health or safety. Meanwhile, cartoonists who draw Muhammad have to go into hiding. Even the otherwise fearless “South Park” has had to back off, because no one wants to get threatened or killed. For better or worse, we live in a society in which nothing is sacred. If we are to accept the assassin’s veto, the only exception (for now) will be depictions of Muhammad, which would be perverse. A free society can’t let the parameters of its speech be set by murderous extremists. Give her this: Pamela Geller understands that, whereas her scolds don’t. Some of them can’t even tell the difference between her and her would-be killers. Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. Read more: politico.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (854922)	5/7/2015 1:54:23 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575939

Doesn't matter, the jihadis want to kill all you Jews anyway. You think you can be safe by only wearing a ball cap, but you've already revealed on social media that you're a relative of arch-Zionist fighter Mickey Marcus. Remember the Hebdo attacker's second target for mass murder was a Jewish store.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (854922)	5/7/2015 1:59:38 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Respond to of 1575939

.... of every masterpiece displayed at the event, not one was a frivolous cartoon drawn with the simply goal of insulting Muslims or putting Muhammad in some sort of “bad light.” There were no drawings of Muhammad as a pig or dog, or the prophet being sodomized or molested, as much anti-Muhammad art is angrily done. The art served a much more important purpose. Each piece told a story of Muhammad’s life, as told by the Quran and Hadith. Each one was a historically accurate representation of his actions throughout history and his powerful and dangerous influence even to this present day. Many of the pieces captured Muhammad’s murderous actions, shedding light on his violent expeditions against Jews and Christians. These two particular works bring to life the Islamic violence that has touched and continues to infiltrate every country on earth. This care and purpose was not only demonstrated by the artists’ themselves, but also by Pamela Geller and the AFDI, by whom these specific pieces were chosen to be displayed. Now that you know the setting of the gallery portion of the event, know that the purpose of our gathering was not a provocation aimed at Muslims, but a response. Immediately after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, Muslims gathered at the Curtis Culwell center in a distasteful and selfish move against free speech that criticizes Islamic ideology and the Prophet Muhammad. While the bodies were still fresh in the ground, these “moderates” showed America that the only concern they have after Islamic terror is for future opposition to remain silent. One artist compared Muhammad’s maniacal commands to slaughter to those of Charles Manson. [ This one ought to have been a second place winner ... for what is the difference between the two leaders, both of whom fostered violence and sent out followers to kill? Other than that one has much much more blood on his hands. ] ............ In an attempt to dictate what we as a nation can and cannot say, draw, or do, these American Muslims united to reach this common goal. In response to their endeavor to undermine our constitutional rights, we gathered to say to them, “You will not dictate what we criticize. A foreign ideology that refuses to coexist with democracy and freedom does not define our already outlined rights. And we will not remain silent and compliant while you try to do it.” Just as ex-Muslim Bosch Fawstin’s winning piece demonstrates, we must defy tyrannical opposition for the sake of freedom. What they say we must not do, we must do. When they threaten us with violence, we must not cower and comply. Bosch Fawstin’s winning piece might not have been the most detailed, but it represents our gathering best. “You cannot draw me,” shouts Muhammad as he raises his sword against the artist. “That’s why I draw you,” responds the artist, unfazed by the threat. ................ http://madworldnews.com/media-muhammad-cartoon/