The winning entry from the Garland event perfectly captures this ethos.
Posted on 03/15/2016 8:11:01 AM PDT by raptor22
Donald Trump, who denies that his provocative and sometimes profane rhetoric (particularly against Muslims_ has anything to do with violence and protests at his University of Illinois-Chicago rally, once blamed conservative activist Pamela Geller for provoking an attempted armed assault by – wait for it – unnecessarily provoking Muslims.
As Gideon Resnick noted last December in the Daily Beast, pre-candidate Trump was not as passionately concerned with Pamela Geller’s First Amendment free speech rights as he now is about his own:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
And you also accepted the risk, that something MIGHT happen, I applaud your determination.
That was my ONLY point.
I get your point, thanks for taking the time to write it.
Yes I did, and it was a miserable evening, but worth it. When the news lady asked me if I was scared I just said no, and she looked surprised. I feel the same way about free speech no matter who gets insulted.
Ah, now that's an interested possibility! Because there is a big difference between saying "She should not have done that", and "It was a bad idea, but I fully support her right to do it".
That's why I mentioned earlier that Trump needs to clarify his comments on this.
The winning entry from the Garland event perfectly captures this ethos.
That's really not the point.
Cruz didn't say that he wanted Trump's event shutdown.
Supporters don’t care if he is pro-Islam, or what he did to Carrie Prejean.
That's an excellent example right there. Those pictures are meant to provoke, and rightly so. I guess that's "inflammatory". The libs would love to ban them.
Cruz said that it was not a good idea to say that protestors should be punched in the face, that you create an environment of violence.
Trump said that you should not draw Muhammad cartoons, that you invite violence.
Cruz at least criticized the protestors first, while Trump didn't.
They both handled things poorly, in my opinion. But the booby prize in this instance goes to Trump.
We are in full agreement.
Trump has switched and spun his positions throughout his career faster than a whirling dervish and the Trumpkins either don’t see it or they just move along like the famous three monkeys: see no evil; speak no evil; and hear no evil of their beloved Dear Leader. Meanwhile Hilary is salivating to have Trump as her opponent where 65% are already on record saying they’d never vote for the con artist and snake oil salesman.
While I disagree with Trump’s opinion on Pam Gellar’s cartoon contest, we can all be great full that only two terrorist died that day instead of two terrorists and an unknown number of American citizens.
Isn’t this also an expression of free speech? Luckily only the terrorists died that day.
-----
It is not an anti 1st ammend. He stated his opinion that it should not be used as an official flag for state govt functions. You can personally fly it without a problem. Nor did he advocate legislation for banning it. Just his opinion.
So do you defeat them like Geller? Provoke them in America by staging religious sacrilege, , draw out the extremists and kill them with American LEO’s ? Strategically sound policy for the president of the U.S.?
Just curious about a solution to the problem, not a statement of the problem
You do realize the irony of the GOP flying a confederate flag? Hello?
Plenty of Trump supporters have said they disagree with what he said. I’m one of them. Funny how free speech is always only toward the one agreed with.
If this issue is why you will no longer consider Trump, who is stronger amongst his competitors on halting Muslim immigration?
(I know, it’s just talk...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.