Should we stifle freedom of speech for fear of muslims?

[Si modo]

umm...wrong most of Dearborn is not muslim, i'd say maybe 30% at most.

My bad. It just looked that way to most of us Grosse Pointers.

Yeah.. i know what you mean. If you only go to east Dearborn you would get a scewed perspective.

True.

Anyway, does anyone know if this guy is appealing the decision to bar him from peacefully protesting? He should.

 

[sparky]

I don't understand how the pseudo-cons who wholeheartedly supported President Bush who also forced protester into "Free Speech" zones could be against Dearborn for allowing this freaky pastor from Fla. to protest in one of the Free Speech Zones?

Any of the connies going to pony up and admit that they supported the Free Speech Zones when it came to protests against President Bush and the invasion of Iraq?

nail/head BB

you see, moral turpitude is only as valid as who definies it's parameters

free speech? would anyone here like to tell me just what that is?

(hint> the 1st has been in front of the scotus multiple times)

and so we have yet another southern fried friar foaming at the podium of his position, obviously utilizing it for his own gain

but what if that gain is at the expense of our troops in the field you say?

that is the nemisis of the scotus argument btw, i.e.- free speech being a death wish and all

otoh, free speech isn't free , is it?

meanwhille those very troops are fighting for the right of Satan himself to spew his vile lies on the floor of Congress with the aclu in his (her, why kid ourselves) back pocket

 

[Si modo]

I don't understand how the pseudo-cons who wholeheartedly supported President Bush who also forced protester into "Free Speech" zones could be against Dearborn for allowing this freaky pastor from Fla. to protest in one of the Free Speech Zones?

Any of the connies going to pony up and admit that they supported the Free Speech Zones when it came to protests against President Bush and the invasion of Iraq?

nail/head BB

you see, moral turpitude is only as valid as who definies it's parameters

free speech? would anyone here like to tell me just what that is?

(hint> the 1st has been in front of the scotus multiple times)

and so we have yet another southern fried friar foaming at the podium of his position, obviously utilizing it for his own gain

but what if that gain is at the expense of our troops in the field you say?

that is the nemisis of the scotus argument btw, i.e.- free speech being a death wish and all

otoh, free speech isn't free , is it?

meanwhille those very troops are fighting for the right of Satan himself to spew his vile lies on the floor of Congress with the aclu in his (her, why kid ourselves) back pocket

Free speech is free speech. Some things hold a higher priority than party, and free speech is one of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The pastor has said he fears for his life and now carries a firearm at all times. Now he wants to go to a predominantly muslim area and protest them. This does not make for peaceful demonstrations. Even if he does not take his weapon with him what is he trying to prove? What is he trying to say that hasn't already been said? Without a doubt he has the right to go anywhere and say anything he wants as long as he follows the law.

My problem would be, if I lived there, why do I have to foot the bill to provide protection for him so he can try and pick a fight? If he does end up getting assaulted he should call 911 like everyone else. No one else gets police protection before they pick a fight.

You sure whine a lot.

First you wanted him to come to Deareborne, now you are complaining because he is.

 

[The T]

I don't understand how the pseudo-cons who wholeheartedly supported President Bush who also forced protester into "Free Speech" zones could be against Dearborn for allowing this freaky pastor from Fla. to protest in one of the Free Speech Zones?

Any of the connies going to pony up and admit that they supported the Free Speech Zones when it came to protests against President Bush and the invasion of Iraq?

nail/head BB

you see, moral turpitude is only as valid as who definies it's parameters

free speech? would anyone here like to tell me just what that is?

(hint> the 1st has been in front of the scotus multiple times)

and so we have yet another southern fried friar foaming at the podium of his position, obviously utilizing it for his own gain

but what if that gain is at the expense of our troops in the field you say?

that is the nemisis of the scotus argument btw, i.e.- free speech being a death wish and all

otoh, free speech isn't free , is it?

meanwhille those very troops are fighting for the right of Satan himself to spew his vile lies on the floor of Congress with the aclu in his (her, why kid ourselves) back pocket

Obviously YOU haven't READ the Constitution there sparky.

 

[Hot Wire]

Let me get this straight.

You are totally for freedom of speech.

But want to ban Islam's freedom of speech.

Got it.

Its because muslims are bloodlusting savages hell bent on destroying
our freedoms.Iam PROUD to HATE islam!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pastor denied permit ahead of mosque protest
It's possible Rev. Terry Jones could be arrested if he carries through with the protest Fri., says Dearborn, Mich. spokeswoman

DEARBORN, Mich. - Dearborn has denied a permit to a Florida pastor who plans to protest outside a mosque in the Michigan city.


Dearborn spokeswoman Mary Laundroche tells The Detroit News it's possible the Rev. Terry Jones could be arrested if he carries through with the protest Friday outside the Islamic Center of America. Jones has said he plans to demonstrate outside the mosque with or without a permit.


Wayne County prosecutors say they fear the protest could lead to violence, and a judge has ordered Jones to appear Thursday to answer questions about the event. Prosecutors want him to post a "peace bond" to pay for additional police officers during the demonstration.


Pastor denied permit ahead of mosque protest - CBS News

ok he made his point the first time now he's going to the extreme. Now he is border line attention whore. I will neither condemn him for his action nor will I support him for his action.

But it is his right.

 

[Hot Wire]

Finally, wish more would listen when these guys speak up.

Yeah, especially Muslims.

Yeah, especially idiot bigotted islamophobes

Hey liberal muzzie lover,Iam a PROUD infidel who HATES islam.I taunt you,
What are you going to do about it?,lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well the simple solution is to pass a law to say he has the right, but it has to be in a special zone 5-10 miles away from the site.

You know like the RNC and DNC have during their conventions.

More laws? More reaching out from the government to get permission for a right we already have? NO

 

[spectrumc01]

The simple solution would be to tell him he is on his own. Protest all you want, say anything you want but don't expect us to defend you.

This is the type of shit you see on the playground from instigators. They pick and they pick and then hide behind the playground monitor crying. "help me, help me, he's going to hit me."

Didn't care for it on the playground, and I don't like it now.

 

[Hot Wire]

muslims are filthy evil pigs who are as bad as they smell!

 

[Londoner]

No.

Here is what we should do.

We should hate the 15 guys who attacked us.

BUT

We should laugh at anyone who conflates 15 guys with over a billion people.

Timothy McVeigh was politically motivated to attack government. The unifying obsession of his life was his hatred for government.

Does this mean that all the folks on the anti-government Right are evil murderers?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well the simple solution is to pass a law to say he has the right, but it has to be in a special zone 5-10 miles away from the site.

You know like the RNC and DNC have during their conventions.

More laws? More reaching out from the government to get permission for a right we already have? NO

all legal....everyone does it. you have a problem with states choosing to do this?
odd how non con of you

No more infringment no way no how. I would have a problem with my state doing it

 

[bigrebnc1775]

all legal....everyone does it. you have a problem with states choosing to do this?
odd how non con of you

No more infringment no way no how. I would have a problem with my state doing it

but they are not infringing on your rights. You still get to speak your mind. just over there behind a fence.

you can still speak your mind on here on the net. Nobody is stopping your right to assemble either. If you where to assemble infront of a school during regular hours, you would be most likely asked to leave.

this it not even getting into the fact you dont really have the right to free speech. You ave the right to certain types of speech.

But then again this will never affect you, so, i can understand your fakerage.

What part of creating a law is not an infringment to you?

well the simple solution is to pass a law to say he has the right, but it has to be in a special zone 5-10 miles away from the site.

You know like the RNC and DNC have during their conventions.

Basic text book infringment to me.

 

[Zona]

If a person does something knowing it will get people killed (and we all agree, them killing someone because they burned a book is insane), isn't he just as guilty as the nuts who commits the murders?

We cant control them, but we can control this media whore.

 

[The T]

More laws? More reaching out from the government to get permission for a right we already have? NO

all legal....everyone does it. you have a problem with states choosing to do this?
odd how non con of you

No more infringment no way no how. I would have a problem with my state doing it

Statists have YET to read the Constitution...ODD that they feel that they DON'T have 'RIGHTS' when all they have to do is read tthe Document.

And what's more ODD? They already HAVE the right...but despise it so much that they MUST deprive others of it *BY LAW*

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If a person does something knowing it will get people killed (and we all agree, them killing someone because they burned a book is insane), isn't he just as guilty as the nuts who commits the murders?

We cant control them, but we can control this media whore.

Next time we have a flag burner, burning an American flag let's put it into practice what you seem to want to happen.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

all legal....everyone does it. you have a problem with states choosing to do this?
odd how non con of you

No more infringment no way no how. I would have a problem with my state doing it

Statists have YET to read the Constitution...ODD that they feel that they DON'T have 'RIGHTS' when all they have to do is read tthe Document.

And what's more ODD? They already HAVE the right...but despise it so much that they MUST deprive others of it *BY LAW*

A post worth repeating^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[The T]

If a person does something knowing it will get people killed (and we all agree, them killing someone because they burned a book is insane), isn't he just as guilty as the nuts who commits the murders?

We cant control them, but we can control this media whore.

Next time we have a flag burner, burning an American flag let's put it into practice what you seem to want to happen.

But...but...that's an abridgement of SPEECH...

 

[The T]

If a person does something knowing it will get people killed (and we all agree, them killing someone because they burned a book is insane), isn't he just as guilty as the nuts who commits the murders?

We cant control them, but we can control this media whore.

NO, we Don't 'ALL KNOW' it's insane...ONLY Certain types of speech carry the moniker of 'INSANE'?