Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/6/2015, 3:26 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:



It might be a good idea to organize more of these cartoon contests in order to draw the cockroaches out into the light, where they can be more easily squashed.

Yes that's an absolutely brilliant idea, given that this attack was so spectacularly successful, I'm sure more highly trained idiots  like these two will try it again.
Ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is even more brilliant.



Yeah, maybe you have a point. Why risk inciting even more violence based upon insults to a particular religion while the nation is still trying to recover from the widespread Christian rioting caused by the Piss Christ and Holy Virgin Mary exhibits?



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

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/global-culture/identity-body/identity-body-europe/a/chris-ofili-the-holy-virgin-mary
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/6/2015, 3:54 pm

Stop alienating Muslim good guys

We in the west often say the Muslim world needs to strongly condemn ISIS. Then we have Muslims who do condemn them, like the professor. And they’re willing to do so out loud, in public, to an audience of non-Muslims. They should be applauded for that. Instead, some are challenged and ridiculed by morons using their ignorance to prove a flawed point.

Plenty of Muslims are good guys. We’re fighting on the same side, against a common enemy. When Muslim good guys condemn Muslim bad guys, let them. Support them. Stand with them. Don’t insult and berate them, simply because you can’t tell the difference between good ones and bad ones.


http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2015/02/18/stop-alienating-muslim-good-guys/

Indeed.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/6/2015, 4:33 pm

edge540 wrote:
   
Plenty of Muslims are good guys. We’re fighting on the same side, against a common enemy. When Muslim good guys condemn Muslim bad guys, let them. Support them. Stand with them. Don’t insult and berate them, simply because you can’t tell the difference between good ones and bad ones.



I agree 100%.
And what the event in Texas did was separate the good guys from the bad guys. In case you hadn't noticed, there's not a lot of condemnation out there against Muslims who did not open fire on innocent people.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/6/2015, 8:23 pm

happy jack wrote:

And what the event in Texas...

LOL, the "event" in Texas is nothing more than juvenile level nonsense aimed at appeasing simple minded islamophobic morons, which of course is why it took place in Texas.
Speaking of morons, Texas as is full of them.

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/6/2015, 10:53 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

And what the event in Texas...

LOL, the "event" in Texas is nothing more than juvenile level nonsense aimed at appeasing simple minded islamophobic morons, which of course is why it took place in Texas.



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

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/global-culture/identity-body/identity-body-europe/a/chris-ofili-the-holy-virgin-mary







Do you hold the same opinion of the above (insert Christophobic morons in lieu of islamopbobic morons), or do they serve a higher purpose?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/7/2015, 7:57 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:

And what the event in Texas...

LOL, the "event" in Texas is nothing more than juvenile level nonsense aimed at appeasing simple minded islamophobic morons, which of course is why it took place in Texas.



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

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/global-culture/identity-body/identity-body-europe/a/chris-ofili-the-holy-virgin-mary







Do you hold the same opinion of the above (insert Christophobic morons in lieu of islamopbobic morons), or do they serve a higher purpose?

No I don't, I could care less what some artist creates and calls art.
From what I have read in your two sources, those two pieces of art do not make fun of and ridicule religion like those cartoons. That crap is entertainment for right wing simple minded islamophobic morons dreamed up by an extremist xenophobic hate monger, who it seems you greatly admire, for some reason.
A cartoon making fun of a religion IMO is not art, your bullshit false equivalence does not work, sorry.


The Woman Behind Texas' Muhammad Cartoon Contest Compares Herself to Rosa Parks

After two gunmen opened fire at a Muhammad drawing contest in Texas over the weekend, the head of the group that organized the controversial event has appeared on several television programs explaining the legitimacy of the contest.  Today, Pamela Geller's defense reached a new height of tone-deafness when she compared herself to civil rights activist Rosa Parks.

Fox News host Martha MacCallum asked Geller how she felt about criticism from conservatives including Donald Trump, who condemned Sunday's contest as a "taunting" tactic solely used to incite Muslims. Geller dismissed Trump's comments, saying, "He sure flaps his tongue and uses free speech and wishes to silence others. What would he have said about Rosa Parks? Rosa Parks should never have gone to the front of the bus. She’s taunting people."

Shocked, MacCallum responded, "No, no, no. How do you make the Rosa Parks comparison?"

Geller refused to back down, and in fact seemed to be gaining steam, pledging she would not "abridge" her freedom for the sake of "savages"—a description she has used in past anti-Islam campaigns.

Insulting Donald Trump, Muslims, and the memory of Rosa Parks in one brief segment does demonstrate the unusual range of Geller's ability to be downright offensive. Who needs the Southern Poverty Law Center when there's material like this?
http://www.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2015/05/pamela-geller-rosa-parks
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/7/2015, 4:31 pm

happy jack wrote:
   
Do you hold the same opinion of the above (insert Christophobic morons in lieu of islamopbobic morons), or do they serve a higher purpose?

edge540 wrote:
No I don't, I could care less what some artist creates and calls art.



Then why do you care what some cartoonist creates and calls a cartoon?



edge540 wrote:
   
From what I have read in your two sources, those two pieces of art do not make fun of and ridicule religion like those cartoons.



Which cartoons, specifically, are you talking about? I haven’t seen any of them. Do you have a link?



edge540 wrote:

…. an extremist xenophobic hate monger, who it seems you greatly admire, for some reason.



Good strategy, edge – when the truth doesn’t seem to be furthering your argument, throw in a lie or two.



edge540 wrote:
   
A cartoon making fun of a religion IMO is not art, your bullshit false equivalence does not work, sorry.



You contend that a cartoon that makes fun of religion is not art.
I don’t consider a display of human and animal waste to be art.
Apparently, you do.
I’d hate to see what’s hanging on the walls of your home.




edge540 wrote:
   
Geller refused to back down, and in fact seemed to be gaining steam, pledging she would not "abridge" her freedom for the sake of "savages"—a description she has used in past anti-Islam campaigns.



Do you have some sort of problem with calling those who gun down innocent people for no reason “savages”?
Or do you believe that their reaction to some cartoons was perfectly reasonable and legitimate?
What would you call them?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/8/2015, 1:14 pm

happy jack wrote:


Then why do you care what some cartoonist creates and calls a cartoon?

Because needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is stupid and puts lives at risk and in danger.
Even the clowns at Fox News agree with me:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/06/oreilly_on_pamela_geller_mohammed_drawing_contest_insulting_the_entire_muslim_world_is_stupid.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/05/06/fox-newss-greta-van-susteren-scolds-pamela-geller/

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/even-laura-ingraham-thinks-pamela-gellers-anti-islam-event-went-too-far/comments/#disqus


happy jack wrote:
Which cartoons, specifically, are you talking about? I haven’t seen any of them. Do you have a link?
yes:
Quote :
The Muhammad Art Exhibit at the Curtis Culwell Center featured a contest for the best caricature of the prophet, complete with a $10,000 top prize. Entries rose to the level of junior high school notebook doodles pumped out by pimply, insecure adolescents.

They included images of the prophet impaled on a pencil; sporting a beard filled with teeming snakes; juggling severed heads while riding a unicycle; and, defecating and urinating on the Koran while sporting a toilet-paper turban.

The winner of this hard-fought contest was Bosch Fawstin, an Ayn Rand-besotted, ex-Muslim cartoonist who once created an anti-Islam comic book character named Pigman.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-knight-texas-shooting-20150505-column.html#page=1

Like I said, this event in Texas was juvenile level nonsense aimed at appeasing simple minded islamophobic morons.

happy jack wrote:
Good strategy, edge – when the truth doesn’t seem to be furthering your argument, throw in a lie or two.

I always tell the truth, what "lie" are you talking about?


happy jack wrote:
You contend that a cartoon that makes fun of religion is not art.
I don’t consider a display of human and animal waste to be art.
Apparently, you do.
I’d hate to see what’s hanging on the walls of your home.
Fact is many people who know something about art do consider it art and it's why it's in art galleries. But then again I wouldn' t expect hicks in Indiana to know any better.


happy jack wrote:
Do you have some sort of problem with calling those who gun down innocent people for no reason “savages”?
Or do you believe that their reaction to some cartoons was perfectly reasonable and legitimate?
What would you call them?
No, I have no problem calling terrorists “savages.”
I do have a problem with ignorant, right wing extremist hate mongers like Ms. Geller:
Quote :
Pamela Geller is the anti-Muslim movement's most visible and flamboyant figurehead. She's relentlessly shrill and coarse in her broad-brush denunciations of Islam and makes preposterous claims, such as that President Obama is the "love child" of Malcolm X. She makes no pretense of being learned in Islamic studies, leaving the argumentative heavy lifting to her Stop Islamization of America partner Robert Spencer. Geller has mingled comfortably with European racists and fascists, spoken favorably of South African racists, defended Serbian war criminal Radovan Karadzic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps. She has taken a strong pro-Israel stance to the point of being sharply critical of Jewish liberals.

In Her Own Words
"Islam is not a race. This is an ideology. This is an extreme ideology, the most radical and extreme ideology on the face of the earth."
— Pam Geller On Fox Business' "Follow the Money," March 10, 2011

"Obama is a third worlder and a coward. He will do nothing but beat up on our friends to appease his Islamic overlords."
— Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 13, 2010

"Hussein [meaning President Obama] is a muhammadan. He's not insane … he wants jihad to win."
— Pam Geller, AtlasShrugs.com, April 11, 2010

"I don't think that many westernized Muslims know when they pray five times a day that they're cursing Christians and Jews five times a day. … I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam."
— Pam Geller, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2010

"Now do I see everything through the prism of Israel? No, I don't, but I do think it's a very good guide. It's a very good guide because, like I said, in the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man. … If you don't lay down and die for Islamic supremacism, then you're a racist anti-Muslim Islamophobic bigot. That's what we're really talking about."
– Pam Geller, The New York Times, Oct. 8, 2010
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/8/2015, 3:04 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:


Then why do you care what some cartoonist creates and calls a cartoon?

Because needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is stupid and puts lives at risk and in danger.



So if, as you claim,  “…. needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is stupid and puts lives at risk and in danger”, then creating and displaying the Piss Christ and the Holy Virgin Mary works of “art” also put "lives at risk and in danger".
You would have to agree with that, wouldn’t you?
If not, why not?
Or, to put the question more directly:
Who would be more likely to be in fear for his life - one who criticizes Islam, or one who criticizes Christianity?
And why?








edge540 wrote:
I always tell the truth, what "lie" are you talking about?

Right here.

edge540 wrote:

…. an extremist xenophobic hate monger, who it seems you greatly admire, for some reason.

I never said anything at all to the effect that I “admire” this woman.







happy jack wrote:
Which cartoons, specifically, are you talking about? I haven’t seen any of them. Do you have a link?    
edge540 wrote:
yes:



You haven’t shown me any cartoons. Which ones, specifically, are you talking about?








edge540 wrote:
 Fact is many people who know something about art do consider it art and it's why it's in art galleries.  



Actually, those two works of “art” are in art galleries because they were designed for the specific purpose of “needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate” Christians.
Playing with feces and urine is something that a curious 1 or 2 year-old child might do, but it is not something that any serious artist would do.
(Incidentally, unlike the excremental "art" that you so love, the cartoons in question were not government subsidized.)
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/8/2015, 8:15 pm

happy jack wrote:


Then why do you care what some cartoonist creates and calls a cartoon?

edge540 wrote:
Because needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is stupid and puts lives at risk and in danger.



happy jack wrote:
So if, as you claim,  “…. needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate Muslims all over the world is stupid and puts lives at risk and in danger”, then creating and displaying the Piss Christ and the Holy Virgin Mary works of “art” also put "lives at risk and in danger".
You would have to agree with that, wouldn’t you?
If not, why not?

No I would not agree because most Christians as far as I know don't give a flying fuck about the Piss Christ and the Holy Virgin Mary. They don't give a shit.



happy jack wrote:
Or, to put the question more directly:
Who would be more likely to be in fear for his life - one who criticizes Islam, or one who criticizes Christianity?
And why?


I suppose one who criticizes Islam because extremist Muslims are very sensitive and touchy when comes to ignorant, right wing extremist hate mongers like Ms. Geller poking fun at their religion.
 

edge540 wrote:
I always tell the truth, what "lie" are you talking about?

happy jack wrote:
Right here.


edge540 wrote:

…. an extremist xenophobic hate monger, who it seems you greatly admire, for some reason.


happy jack wrote:
I never said anything at all to the effect that I “admire” this woman.

You're agreeing with what she did and gallantly defending her, do you not admire her?..you seem to be admiring her.



happy jack wrote:
Which cartoons, specifically, are you talking about? I haven’t seen any of them. Do you have a link?    

edge540 wrote:
yes:


happy jack wrote:
You haven’t shown me any cartoons. Which ones, specifically, are you talking about?
I'm talking about this:

Quote :
The Muhammad Art Exhibit at the Curtis Culwell Center featured a contest for the best caricature of the prophet, complete with a $10,000 top prize. Entries rose to the level of junior high school notebook doodles pumped out by pimply, insecure adolescents.

They included images of the prophet impaled on a pencil; sporting a beard filled with teeming snakes; juggling severed heads while riding a unicycle; and, defecating and urinating on the Koran while sporting a toilet-paper turban.

The winner of this hard-fought contest was Bosch Fawstin, an Ayn Rand-besotted, ex-Muslim cartoonist who once created an anti-Islam comic book character named Pigman.


edge540 wrote:
 Fact is many people who know something about art do consider it art and it's why it's in art galleries.  


happy jack wrote:
Actually, those two works of “art” are in art galleries because they were designed for the specific purpose of “needlessly ridiculing, pissing off and alienating moderate” Christians.

No they were not. Doesn't say anything like that IN YOUR TWO SOURCES. Please show me where they were designed for that specific purpose.

happy jack wrote:
Playing with feces and urine is something that a curious 1 or 2 year-old child might do, but it is not something that any serious artist would do.


Ah, so you're a professional art critic? LOL. Why were they in an art gallery? Did you ever study art? you have a degree in it?
Jack, you don't know shit about art so please don't lecture me about it. You really don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



happy jack wrote:
(Incidentally, unlike the excremental "art" that you so love, the cartoons in question were not government subsidized.)




So?...I could care less....I never said I loved it. Stop lying.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/9/2015, 11:31 am

happy jack wrote:
Or, to put the question more directly:
Who would be more likely to be in fear for his life - one who criticizes Islam, or one who criticizes Christianity?
And why?


edge540 wrote:
I suppose one who criticizes Islam because extremist Muslims are very sensitive and touchy when comes to ignorant, right wing extremist hate mongers like Ms. Geller poking fun at their religion.



Halle-fucking-lujah!!!!

You finally honestly acknowledge what normal people have known for decades.
So, which party do you feel  bears the most responsibility for the deaths in this case: Ms. Geller or the gunmen?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/11/2015, 8:16 am

happy jack wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Or, to put the question more directly:
Who would be more likely to be in fear for his life - one who criticizes Islam, or one who criticizes Christianity?
And why?


edge540 wrote:
I suppose one who criticizes Islam because extremist Muslims are very sensitive and touchy when comes to ignorant, right wing extremist hate mongers like Ms. Geller poking fun at their religion.



Halle-fucking-lujah!!!!

You finally honestly acknowledge what normal people have known for decades.

Normal people also have known for decades that inciting needless violence accomplishes nothing.

Quote :
So, which party do you feel  bears the most responsibility for the deaths in this case: Ms. Geller or the gunmen?

The two geniuses who tried the attack are 100% responsible for their own deaths just like Ms Geller the hate monger is 100% responsible for inciting the needless violence. The idiot is lucky nobody else was killed.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/11/2015, 9:34 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
happy jack wrote:
Or, to put the question more directly:
Who would be more likely to be in fear for his life - one who criticizes Islam, or one who criticizes Christianity?
And why?


edge540 wrote:
I suppose one who criticizes Islam because extremist Muslims are very sensitive and touchy when comes to ignorant, right wing extremist hate mongers like Ms. Geller poking fun at their religion.



Halle-fucking-lujah!!!!

You finally honestly acknowledge what normal people have known for decades.

Normal people also have known for decades that inciting needless violence accomplishes nothing.




You consider a disrespectful portrayal of an icon of one major religion to be “inciting needless violence” while you consider disrespectful portrayals of two icons of a different major religion to be “art”.
Sounds like one of us is wildly full of shit, and it ain’t me.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/11/2015, 10:59 am

happy jack wrote:




You consider a disrespectful portrayal of an icon of one major religion to be “inciting needless violence”...
Yep that 's right. I'm not the only one who calls it “inciting needless violence”. There are many normal sane people including the clowns on Fox News who agree with me and and just about anybody who has a functioning brain.

Quote :
..while you consider disrespectful portrayals of two icons of a different major religion to be “art”.

Again, I'm not the only one who calls it art. If it was not art it would not be in an ART gallery. And of course that art was not created for the sole purpose of instigating violence.
Unlike Ms. Geller, those are artists not extremist hate mongers.

Quote :
Sounds like one of us is wildly full of shit, and it ain’t me.
Nah, anybody who defends an extremist islamophobic hate monger like Ms. Geller and condones needless violence is not only wildly full of shit, they have a mental problem, LOL.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/11/2015, 12:57 pm

edge540 wrote:


Again, I'm not the only one who calls it art.



No argument there.
The world is full of misguided and pretentious idiots.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/11/2015, 4:10 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:


Again, I'm not the only one who calls it art.



No argument there.
The world is full of misguided and pretentious idiots.

Indeed, just like the world is full of clueless morons who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 7:33 am

edge540 wrote:
 
Fact is many people who know something about art do consider it art and it's why it's in art galleries. But then again I wouldn't expect hicks in Indiana to know any better.


Indiana hicks?
I'm picturing edge, the cosmopolitan aesthete, in his tweed jacket with the elbow patches, smoking a briar pipe and discussing the work of a new artist with a renowned art critic:


edge: Hmmmm .... why, yes, viewed from this angle, the turd catches the light in just the right manner.

Art Critic: Yes, it does, and the angle also helps to highlight the kernels of embedded corn, the corn, of course, being representative of man's struggle to rise from his humble agrarian origins and into the new age of mass social media.

edge: Why, yes. Yes, it does; I see what you mean.

Art Critic: Hmmmm.

edge: Hmmmm, indeed, my good fellow.



I’ll leave the fine art to you and the other really sophisticated folk, edge; you apparently really know your shit.
Us Indiana hicks will just have to be careful walking through the cow pastures so we don’t step in a masterpiece.

Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 8:11 am

Jacks idea of fine art hanging in his family room...or is it in the living room?

Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 8:53 am

edge540 wrote:
Jacks idea of fine art hanging in his family room...or is it in the living room?





edge's idea of fine art hanging in his family room...or is it in the living room?


Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 10:17 am

happy jack wrote:


edge's idea of fine art hanging in his family room...or is it in the living room?
Neither one.
happy jack wrote:
(Incidentally, unlike the excremental "art" that you so love, the cartoons in question were not government subsidized.)


edge540 wrote:
So?...I could care less....I never said I loved it. Stop lying.

Never said I liked it.
Anyway, If you're ever in Tasmania you might want to check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_of_Old_and_New_Art
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 11:01 am

edge540 wrote:
   
Never said I liked it.



But you do consider it to be art.
Why?
Because it, for some reason, found its way into an art gallery and all the right people say that it’s “art”?
It occurs to me that if you can’t differentiate between art and shit, then perhaps you shouldn’t be questioning anyone else's taste in art.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 12:50 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
   
Never said I liked it.



But you do consider it to be art.
Why?Because it, for some reason, found its way into an art gallery and all the right people say that it’s “art”?
Sure, why not? Who do YOU think should decide what is in an gallery or an art museum?  

Try this, it's a pretty good explanation of what is "art."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

If it's beyond your intellectual level I can't help you, but I do understand the limitations of conservatives. Just because YOU don't like it and do not consider it to be art does not mean that it's not art. That's your opinion and that's fine. Try going to the Art Institute in Chicago, you might find something more to your liking there, maybe not.
http://www.artic.edu/
It boils down to a subjective opinion and as we all know, it's like assholes, everybody has one.


Back on topic...
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/07/pamela-geller-calls-on-obama-to-protect-her-after-being-ignored-by-fbi-homeland-security-202253
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 4:22 pm

edge540 wrote:
  .... it's like assholes, everybody has one.



And, according to you, they all produce "art".
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 4:26 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
  .... it's like assholes, everybody has one.



And, according to you, they all produce "art".

No, I said everybody has opinions.
Try and stay on topic.
Do you think Ms. Geller should be provided security by the FBI and homeland security?
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5953

PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   5/12/2015, 5:03 pm

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
  .... it's like assholes, everybody has one.



And, according to you, they all produce "art".

No, I said everybody has opinions.
Try and stay on topic.



The last dozen posts have been about how you consider shit to be art, so I am pretty much directly on topic.





edge540 wrote:
   
Do you think Ms. Geller should be provided security by the FBI and homeland security?



She should be treated the same as anyone else who has received death threats, no more, and no less. I believe that means that the authorities should look into the death threats to ascertain their credibility and, if found to be credible, should look into those who made the threats. I don’t believe that she is entitled to have security provided for her, unless that is standard operating procedure for everyone who gets death threats. I don’t think that is the case, however.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize   

Back to top Go down
 
The Religion of Peace - Too Dangerous to Criticize
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: