Satan Won't Go There

[mossrose]

Who cares who voted for whom at this point?

Where is the outrage from Tweb liberals about this stupid stunt from one of their ilk?

[rogue06]

It was not ok from any perspective. Can you document this where liberals endorsed this.

I believe that Satan would be vary happy with this, but fortunately Satan does not exist.

Off the top of my head Molly Ball, a staff writer with the Atlantic made it clear that she didn't have any issues with it while she was on CNN's The Lead. She even tried to turn it around and accused Trump of trying to play the victim.

Looks like the quasi-news site Vox is defending her, complaining about the backlash "despite its artistic roots": https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/869981834301407232 And later doubled down with "Believe it or not, Griffin joins centuries of women artists who symbolically beheaded powerful men": https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/870139094029934595

The problem, according to Vox, is that the slack-jawed, unsophisticated public is too stupid to understand feminist protest art.

Source: Kathy Griffin, political protest art, and the backlash over �beheading� Donald Trump

Source

© Copyright Original Source

As the concluding sentence reveals, Gifford's despicable stunt is more than justified because of talks of defunding the abortion mill that is Planned Parenthood.

And it looks like the Daily Beast's primary concern was what Griffin did was "bad politics" and will "feed a Fox News marketing machine."

And as I noted yesterday she has at least one U.S. Senator publicly supporting her

It looks like Al Franken (the guy who wanted to do a comedy skit on Saturday Night Live where he pretends to rape CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl) is already working on the rehabilitation saying that he plans to appear with her at an event in early July because she deserves forgiveness since she was open about having gone too far.

[rogue06]

Who cares who voted for whom at this point?

Where is the outrage from Tweb liberals about this stupid stunt from one of their ilk?

Interesting to read about and hear a number of liberals bringing up free speech when over the past seven months they have been rioting against the concept.

[Roy]

Who cares who voted for whom at this point?

Where is the outrage from Tweb liberals about this stupid stunt from one of their ilk?

Haven't seen it. Don't know what it is. Don't want to.

Also, suspect the person involved disaligns from me more than they align.

[rogue06]

Is that 20% the percentage of the population, or the % of the eligible voters?

It's no criticism of Trump that he failed to attract the votes of three-year-olds.

Considering that Starlight cited the total population of the U.S. it is fair to say that he blames Trump for not attracting the votes of three-year-olds

[mossrose]

Haven't seen it. Don't know what it is. Don't want to.

Also, suspect the person involved disaligns from me more than they align.

Did you even read the link in the op?

Surely you are aware of the photo and resulting firestorm, even if you haven't seen it.

[Starlight]

Who cares who voted for whom at this point?

Where is the outrage from Tweb liberals about this stupid stunt from one of their ilk?

I thought you banana-brains loved free speech, and were fine with cartoons depicting Muhammad and thought Muslims should suck it up and shut up. Now you're outraged over a photo? I can't tell if you're faking the outrage, or if you really are such hypocritical snowflakes... I'm leaning toward a bit of both.

[Sparko]

I'm sure she didn't believe she'd get the blowback that she's received.
It is common before doing a crazy stunt to make those sorts of claims.

I think she (and many others) don't understand Trump supporters.
She lives in a bubble on the coast and thinks that 4 people in Iowa voted for Trump and that is about it.

I don't think she understood the Liberals. They are making the big stink about this. Her own has turned against her. At least for now (and for show)

[Roy]

Did you even read the link in the op?

No.

Surely you are aware of the photo and resulting firestorm, even if you haven't seen it.

Only vaguely. Not everything that happens in America makes the news elsewhere. All I know about it is from this thread.

[mossrose]

I thought you banana-brains loved free speech, and were fine with cartoons depicting Muhammad and thought Muslims should suck it up and shut up. Now you're outraged over a photo? I can't tell if you're faking the outrage, or if you really are such hypocritical snowflakes... I'm leaning toward a bit of both.

In other words, you think this stunt was just tremendously funny and echoes your own sentiments exactly.

Got it.

Otherwise you'd actually answer my question without deflecting.

Let's try again.

Do you (and your buddies here) think that what Griffin did was ok? Simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

[Sparko]

He says that 80% of American citizens didn't vote for Trump. That's just another way of saying that 80% of American citizens didn't vote for anybody.

What conclusions can be drawn from that? Nothing really. You could conclude that they didn't like any of the choices, or perhaps they liked all the choices and were fine with whoever won, or they simply don't care and just go on living their lives regardless of who is in the White House.

or they are ineligable to vote: children under age, felons, illegal aliens, legal aliens, dead people (oh wait, scratch that last one)

[Sparko]

Looks like the quasi-news site Vox is defending her, complaining about the backlash "despite its artistic roots": https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/869981834301407232 And later doubled down with "Believe it or not, Griffin joins centuries of women artists who symbolically beheaded powerful men": https://twitter.com/voxdotcom/status/870139094029934595

The problem, according to Vox, is that the slack-jawed, unsophisticated public is too stupid to understand feminist protest art.

Source: Kathy Griffin, political protest art, and the backlash over �beheading� Donald Trump

Source

© Copyright Original Source

As the concluding sentence reveals, Gifford's despicable stunt is more than justified because of talks of defunding the abortion mill that is Planned Parenthood.

And it looks like the Daily Beast's primary concern was what Griffin did was "bad politics" and will "feed a Fox News marketing machine."

And as I noted yesterday she has at least one U.S. Senator publicly supporting her

Can you imagine their (and all people's) outrage if there was a photo of Trump holding Hillary's decapitated and bloody head after the election?

[Starlight]

Do you (and your buddies here) think that what Griffin did was ok? Simple yes or no answer is sufficient.

Yes. I think it was funny. If you snowflakes can't handle it, that is your problem.

[Starlight]

Can you imagine their (and all people's) outrage if there was a photo of Trump holding Hillary's decapitated and bloody head after the election?

I am sure the Hillary media-machine would have manufactured all sorts of fake outrage. Personally I would not have cared.

[Sparko]

I thought you banana-brains loved free speech, and were fine with cartoons depicting Muhammad and thought Muslims should suck it up and shut up. Now you're outraged over a photo? I can't tell if you're faking the outrage, or if you really are such hypocritical snowflakes... I'm leaning toward a bit of both.

Being outraged by "free speech" isn't the same as trying to shut it down. I already said she had a complete right to tank her own career by taking that photo. People also have a right to use free speech to counter her free speech. What the liberals try to do though is disallow free speech that they don't like from ever even happening, either by protesting, rioting, or shouting down the person while they are trying to speak or express themselves.

see the difference?

Also, if it could be shown that she was using her free speech to threaten the President (I don't think she was) then she could be charged with a crime.