Leftist Squelch Free Speech

[SFC(R)L]

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/immigration/story/1486087.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=9010527#Comments_Container

Here's yet another heart-warming story of how the tolerant, progressive leftists turn everything into racism and hate.

While physically threatening those with whom they disagree, they completely ignore that illegal aliens are in violation of the law in at least 2 countries with their presence here.

Rather than enforce the law and support their country, they choose to support illegal aliens and brand anyone who disagrees with them "racists".

By using these tactics, the leftists use the time-honored weapon of political correctness to silence dissent and squelch debate. Not to mention physically threatening peaceful citizens. How "American".

The passive-aggressive intolerance of liberals has boiled over here as they continue to get away with violating the basic principles of our republic, and have the nerve to wrap themselves in "patriotism", or "civil rights". Well, illegal aliens have no civil rights in our country as they are here illegally.

The penchant for liberals to devolve into name-calling, passive-aggressive behavior, denigrating the intellect of their opponents, and using words like "they". "them" and "ilk", breed only contempt from their opponents and add to the vitriolic nature of today's society.

[Charlie A]

Chapel Hill is loaded with socialist students from wealthy families who distract themselves from their challenge-free lives and expunge their white guilt by acting like they're oppressed and require a revolution.

Of course they could care less about middle class and poor Americans (native born and legal immigrants) who wouldn't be getting to go to UNC because their slots are being taken by illegal immigrants. Actual compassion would encompass all the students who want to go to UNC. They don't care about illegal immigrants, they only care about their cause celebre.

[55SFSDefender]

This example shouldn't be used as a condemnation of liberals everywhere as the article itself states there were attempts to allow Rep. Trancredo to speak from others in attendance.

It is however disturbing that those who are so vehemently defending the rights of illegal aliens are completely oblivious to the fact that they are trampling the rights of others. What is even more mind boggling is the fact that they do not understand it.

Freedom of speech is akin to the human reproductive system, just because you have it doesn't mean you should carelessly use it.

Good article.

[ModerateVoice]

It is however disturbing that those who are so vehemently defending the rights of illegal aliens are completely oblivious to the fact that they are trampling the rights of others. What is even more mind boggling is the fact that they do not understand it.

Oh they understand their hypocrisy, they just don't care.

[Charlie A]

Oh they understand their hypocrisy, they just don't care.

Actually I was a lot more liberal when I was in college than I am now. Not a socialist, but I didn't understand how conservatives could be so heartless. Now I can't understand how liberals (older ones at any rate) can be so brainless...

[55SFSDefender]

Oh they understand their hypocrisy, they just don't care.

It is possible that its just a case of rationalizing their actions for a 'greater good' or some other thing. Either way it flabbergasts me.

[Vaard]

once again it is demostated that republicans dont have any real grasp of what "freedom of speech" means.........


unless tancredo was arrested and jailed or fined, his free speech rights were not violated........

[Lost Soul]

once again it is demostated that republicans dont have any real grasp of what "freedom of speech" means.........


unless tancredo was arrested and jailed or fined, his free speech rights were not violated........
So you call trying to start a riot, throwing rocks and attacking police freedom of speech? Typical of liberal thugs.

[Dim Reefer]

once again it is demostated that republicans dont have any real grasp of what "freedom of speech" means.........


unless tancredo was arrested and jailed or fined, his free speech rights were not violated........

Did he get to speak? Was he being violently intimidated and pressured to leave? Damn man... yank the OBOT B.O.R.G cerebral connector interface from of your brain.

[WhiteHatBobby]

One thing I've learned of liberals is that their hatred of the Earnhardtian attitude of intimidation of terrorists is their MO; they'd rather 'rattle the cage' of those who are tough and prefer very feminine softies who coddle everyone into socialism instead of those who fight. They would rather be the weaklings at the opera who are punished instead of the tough guys.

[Vaard]

Did he get to speak? Was he being violently intimidated and pressured to leave? Damn man... yank the B.O.R.G cerebral connector interface from of your brain.

that you for the perfect example of a republicans being unable to understand what the "right to free speech" means......

[Charlie A]

once again it is demostated that republicans dont have any real grasp of what "freedom of speech" means.........

unless tancredo was arrested and jailed or fined, his free speech rights were not violated........

His rights were not violated by the government, that's true.

It would appear, however, that the right of the Students of Western Civilization to peaceably assemble was violated by a mob. I wonder if the the mob will be prosecuted for violating other students civil rights?

They very idea of "hate speech" is such a crock.

[SFC(R)L]

once again it is demostated that republicans dont have any real grasp of what "freedom of speech" means.........


unless tancredo was arrested and jailed or fined, his free speech rights were not violated........

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of your own kind and the Constitution as you support their threats of violence against someone you don't like, and pretend that running someone off with violence is not a violation of their right to peaceably assemble and speak freely.

Then you have the temerity to suggest that since the victim was not arrested, his rights were not violated.

You have sided with the mob, not the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson spins in his grave.

[SFC(R)L]

that you for the perfect example of a republicans being unable to understand what the "right to free speech" means......

Why do you assume the poster to be a "republican"?

I am not a "republican".

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of ability to understand the Constitution, and your liberal intolerance for views that are not yours.

[stodr]

"We're very sorry that former Congressman Tancredo wasn't able to speak," Chancellor Holden Thorp said in a prepared statement. "We pride ourselves on being a place where all points of view can be expressed and heard, so I'm disappointed that didn't happen tonight. I think our Public Safety officers appropriately handled a difficult situation."

About 200 protesters reconvened outside the building. "We shut him down; no racists in our town," they shouted. "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!"


UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. "He was not able to practice his hate speech," said Oakley. "You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."

You were saying Vaard?

[SFC(R)L]

Did he get to speak? Was he being violently intimidated and pressured to leave? Damn man... yank the OBOT B.O.R.G cerebral connector interface from of your brain.

If the poster fails to condemn the mob, you then understand the agenda as the poster denigrates the intellect of those with whom he disagrees.

[SFC(R)L]

You were saying Vaard?

He is saying that there is something wrong with US, the Real Americans, as he ignores the barbaric behavior of leftists that support his agenda.

Classic intolerant liberal passive aggessiveness.

[55SFSDefender]

once again it is demostated that republicans dont have any real grasp of what "freedom of speech" means.........


unless tancredo was arrested and jailed or fined, his free speech rights were not violated........

A typical response that fails to note the true issue at hand, the hypocrisy of those who claim to be for freedom of speech but prevent others from having the same right.

[SFC(R)L]

A typical response that fails to note the true issue at hand, the hypocrisy of those who claim to be for freedom of speech but prevent others from having the same right.

classic liberal tactic

intolerance of all views not theirs

waiting for vaard to condemn the mob....

didn't think so.

[Vaard]

You were saying Vaard?

i was saying that same i said form the beginning...

tancredos rights were not violated.........


the crowd shouting him down was rude, yes... but no rights of his were violated.....

[Vaard]

classic liberal tactic

intolerance of all views not theirs

waiting for vaard to condemn the mob....

didn't think so.

sure, i will condem the mob for being rude, but not for violating any right to free speech of tancredos.....


classical republican (or whatever you want to call yourself) view...... make up violations of rights that dont exist and then just make up your own scenarios in your head to how others will respond.......


seems you havent learned a thing since returning......

[Vaard]

tancredos right to free speech were no more violated than phelps right to free speeech were violated when the GOE's parked a bus in front of phelps protesting funerals.........

[SFC(R)L]

sure, i will condem the mob for being rude, but not for violating any right to free speech of tancredos.....


classical republican (or whatever you want to call yourself) view...... make up violations of rights that dont exist and then just make up your own scenarios in your head to how others will respond.......


seems you havent learned a thing since returning......

I see

this is your response to the threats of liberals

and as you have mentioned a moderator action here, I have reported this post of yours to the moderators for action.

Good day.

[SFC(R)L]

form you, that is a compliment since you never had any credibility or integrity to begin with.......


when a troll calls says that i lost credibility and integrity, then that is a compliment........

This post is in violation of the TOS

and this appears to be your only cogent response

thanks for making my point so eloquently

[SFC(R)L]

tancredos right to free speech were no more violated than phelps right to free speeech were violated when the GOE's parked a bus in front of phelps protesting funerals.........

They were allowed their say and were not threatened

so basically you're completely wrong

what a shock

Thomas Jefferson spins again...perhaps you should actually read that quote in your sig.

[55SFSDefender]

tancredos right to free speech were no more violated than phelps right to free speeech were violated when the GOE's parked a bus in front of phelps protesting funerals.........

Where in the OP does anyone mention a rights violation? I believe the conversation was about squelching debate and silencing opposing views.

[stodr]

Where in the OP does anyone mention a rights violation? I believe the conversation was about squelching debate and silencing opposing views.

What is funny is it is the liberal protesters that are bragging about shutting down his speach in the article.

[Vaard]

Where in the OP does anyone mention a rights violation? I believe the conversation was about squelching debate and silencing opposing views.

"squelching free speech" would have to mean he had some right to the free speech that was being squelched.........


but you enjoy moving those goalposts......

[TheModerateOne]

Of course they squelch free speech. Now, they'll welcome ol' Mahmoud from Iran with open arms.

[stodr]

"squelching free speech" would have to mean he had some right to the free speech that was being squelched.........


but you enjoy moving those goalposts......

Are you saying he did not have a right to speak therefore his right to free speech was not squelched?

[SFC(R)L]

"squelching free speech" would have to mean he had some right to the free speech that was being squelched.........


but you enjoy moving those goalposts......

When you are run off by an angry leftist mob this is called "debate".

[DaGooseMon]

Easy Boys... It's just a message board. - Goose

[55SFSDefender]

"squelching free speech" would have to mean he had some right to the free speech that was being squelched.........


but you enjoy moving those goalposts......

Squelching debate, please refer to the OP before moving to goalposts to suit your purpose.

[Miss America]

The Left’s response to Tax Day Tea Party events has been pure Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals: Ridicule. But in the Chicago socialist’s day, the tool kit did not include embedding bogus newsie posers at opposition events. Beware such chicanery today. From DKos via MM:

“Tomorrow, my husband and I will be venturing into the wilds disguised as a news crew to do some in person interviewers with teabaggers here in Rhode Island (if we can find any) … We’re going to ask open ended questions that seem to have a slight conservative bent to (hopefully) get them to open up and just start ranting. Then, we take any examples of racism, hatred, ignorance, and stupidity that we catch on camera and make a little movie out of it. Probably a YouTube special. Here’s the list we have so far

* What are you celebrating (The Boston Tea Party), and can you explain its historical relevance? [We're hoping to get some hilarious flubs from this one]

* Do you approve of Michael Steele’s plan to expand the GOP through a “hip-hop urban-suburban marketing strategy”? [hoping to get some juicy racist stuff from this question]

* (as an intentional misunderstanding/follow up, presuming that someone complains about wasteful government spending) “So you disapprove of your tax dollars going to the Iraq War?” [should elicit some confusion]

Anyways, it’s a start… but I’d love to have some suggestions for questions that sound fine, but should prompt an outpouring of crazy.”

http://taxdayteaparty.com/

We should know better...It's only ok to protest..if you are a liberal...

[Gh0sTeR]

<snip>

classical republican (or whatever you want to call yourself) view...... make up violations of rights that dont exist and then just make up your own scenarios in your head to how others will respond.......


<snip>


That is a common LIBERAL tactic...

[E7ALR]

When you are run off by an angry leftist mob this is called "debate".I actually have other names for it.......Disorderly Conduct and Destruction of Public Property (State University). I think arrest, charges, bail, trials and fines would have been in order.

[SFC(R)L]

That is a common LIBERAL tactic...

"That's what I've been SAYING...." (best inspector clousseau voice)

:) ;)

[Maelstrom]

Actually I was a lot more liberal when I was in college than I am now. Not a socialist, but I didn't understand how conservatives could be so heartless. Now I can't understand how liberals (older ones at any rate) can be so brainless...

Consider the implications with one given: They aren't brainless. The know full well the results of their desired policies and hope for those consequences for their own political purposes.

CONSIDER IT CAREFULLY

[SFC(R)L]

I actually have other names for it.......Disorderly Conduct and Destruction of Public Property (State University). I think arrest, charges, bail, trials and fines would have been in order.

Can you just hear the wailing and cry we would get if these students were arrested for this?

They would cry that THEIR right to speech was violated.

[jmb6]

I read this far:

unauthorized immigrants

:roll:

[SFC(R)L]

The Left’s response to Tax Day Tea Party events has been pure Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals: Ridicule. But in the Chicago socialist’s day, the tool kit did not include embedding bogus newsie posers at opposition events. Beware such chicanery today. From DKos via MM:

“Tomorrow, my husband and I will be venturing into the wilds disguised as a news crew to do some in person interviewers with teabaggers here in Rhode Island (if we can find any) … We’re going to ask open ended questions that seem to have a slight conservative bent to (hopefully) get them to open up and just start ranting. Then, we take any examples of racism, hatred, ignorance, and stupidity that we catch on camera and make a little movie out of it. Probably a YouTube special. Here’s the list we have so far

* What are you celebrating (The Boston Tea Party), and can you explain its historical relevance? [We're hoping to get some hilarious flubs from this one]

* Do you approve of Michael Steele’s plan to expand the GOP through a “hip-hop urban-suburban marketing strategy”? [hoping to get some juicy racist stuff from this question]

* (as an intentional misunderstanding/follow up, presuming that someone complains about wasteful government spending) “So you disapprove of your tax dollars going to the Iraq War?” [should elicit some confusion]

Anyways, it’s a start… but I’d love to have some suggestions for questions that sound fine, but should prompt an outpouring of crazy.”

http://taxdayteaparty.com/

We should know better...It's only ok to protest..if you are a liberal...

I mentioned this in another thread....the words "insane" and "glue sniffers" were used.

[Vaard]

That is a common LIBERAL tactic...

yeah, a common liberal tactic is to actually understand what the constitution says and who it applies to and is protection from.........

[Vaard]

when it was shown that rpeublicans who voted for the bailouts were going to speak at the tea parties, the suggestion.. by conservatives... was to shout him down during his speech.......


was that also to be considered "leftist squelching speech" as well?

[penner01]

It is possible that its just a case of rationalizing their actions for a 'greater good' or some other thing. Either way it flabbergasts me.Well, someone would have to straighten me out then regarding exactly which side of the aisle was spewing "hate". And that is the way it generally occurs. The ones who feel they are fighting the battle for tolerance are the least tolerant. The ones who feel they are fighting the battle for free speach shout down any speach that disagrees with them. The ones that feel they are fighting the battle for compasion are the ones that turn ugly. Their rationalizing is seriously flawed.

[Guvnah]

I think the question here is not a matter of free speech rights.

No government authority is stopping Tancredo. (One MIGHT argue that government -- in the form of local police perhaps -- didn't protect his right to speak at that particular time in that particular place where he had local permission and was scheduled to speak.) But the First Amendment right to free speech is really about preventing the government from stopping an entity saying what the government doesn't like.

What is really at stake in this incident is an example of the left bullying an entity into silence. That they can't see the irony in their followup statement that this enabled free assembly is telling.

[DaGooseMon]

when it was shown that rpeublicans who voted for the bailouts were going to speak at the tea parties, the suggestion.. by conservatives... was to shout him down during his speech.......


was that also to be considered "leftist squelching speech" as well?

Will the shout down actually happen? And was it ever suggested that Republicans should damage property, shout profanities and accusations of racism, and ignore lawful orders from police?


No, I don't believe it was.

ETA: See, while it MAY have been suggested by some, according to you, it hasn't actually been done. In the case of this incident, the actions of leftists actually happened. It's not a crime to suggest someone rob a bank. But it is a crime to actually rob one. Actions speak louder than words, an all that...

So the answer to your question is no. Those tactics carried out at this event were examples of leftists squelching speech.

But you already knew that didn't you Vaard...

[DaGooseMon]

And while it is true, no violation of the First Amendment actually took place in this story, in that it wasn't the gooberment that prevented Tancredo from speeking, the whack jobs at this event actually did prevent a United States Congressman from speakin at a Political function. It was Political speech that was prevented.

And it wasn't prevented by the gooberment. It was prevented by little punk hippies that wouldn't know freedom if I beat them over the head with it.

[DaGooseMon]

And one more thing...

The same punks that pulled this kind of crap in the 60's now wear suits and have haircuts and are running our gooberment now. So make no mistake. These punk hippies, that so desperately need their ass whipped by a Righteous Marine with an attitude, and showed a willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent the opposition from speaking, will too someday find their way into our gooberment and do whatever it takes to prevent the opposition from speaking.

And that Vaard, is the point.

[DaGooseMon]

Oh Vaard? Where are you Vaard? Can you hear me Vaard? :whistle:




:lol:

[PAmoderate37]

The two most important paragraphs from the article:

"We are the children of immigrants, and this concerns us," said junior Lizette Lopez, 22, vice president of the Carolina Hispanic Association. "So we would at least like to hear what he has to say if you want to hear what we have to say."

Lopez said she had mixed emotions about how the event ended.

"We were more interested in an intellectual conversation instead of a shouting match," she said. "Ironically, the people that are trying to get our voices heard silenced us."

[ModerateVoice]

Oh Vaard? Where are you Vaard? Can you hear me Vaard? :whistle:




:lol:

Yeah, don't hold your breath. I challenged Vaard to substantiate one of his claims in another thread at 9:30am, and I am still waiting for him to back up his drive-by attack.

[Flipple]

Actually I was a lot more liberal when I was in college than I am now. Not a socialist, but I didn't understand how conservatives could be so heartless. Now I can't understand how liberals (older ones at any rate) can be so brainless...

MANY of us were more liberal in college than after we got out into the real world. Academia allows that luxury. Further, as many professors are liberal in their viewpoints, they cannot help but to encourage liberal behavior in their students, even if it is not volitional.

[SFC(R)L]

Oh Vaard? Where are you Vaard? Can you hear me Vaard? :whistle:




:lol:

snort

[Lost Soul]

Funny how Vaard believes starting a riot, throwing rocks and attacking the police is freedom of speech.

He has yet to defend these tactics and explain, in his vast understanding of the Constitution, where it reads its your right to scream down, hurl stones and physically attack a local peace keeper as your freedom of speech.

The day has come to fight fire with fire. Tonight here in Atlanta I would love for a anti tea protester to try anything like shown in this video. I have a size 12 Nike Shox waiting boot some retard.

[Gh0sTeR]

yeah, a common liberal tactic is to actually understand what the constitution says and who it applies to and is protection from.........


No, sorry. Not even close LOL!!!

[Vaard]

And one more thing...

The same punks that pulled this kind of crap in the 60's now wear suits and have haircuts and are running our gooberment now. So make no mistake. These punk hippies, that so desperately need their ass whipped by a Righteous Marine with an attitude, and showed a willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent the opposition from speaking, will too someday find their way into our gooberment and do whatever it takes to prevent the opposition from speaking.

And that Vaard, is the point.

if that is your point, then it is completely different than the point the OP was making.......


if you want to make that point, you should start a new thread that discusses this new point instead of hijacking the OP which was claiming that tancredo lost some right he didnt......

[Gh0sTeR]

Vaard? Are YOU calling someone else out, for "hijacking" a thread? :))

[Vaard]

Will the shout down actually happen? And was it ever suggested that Republicans should damage property, shout profanities and accusations of racism, and ignore lawful orders from police?


No, I don't believe it was.

ETA: See, while it MAY have been suggested by some, according to you, it hasn't actually been done. In the case of this incident, the actions of leftists actually happened. It's not a crime to suggest someone rob a bank. But it is a crime to actually rob one. Actions speak louder than words, an all that...

So the answer to your question is no. Those tactics carried out at this event were examples of leftists squelching speech.

But you already knew that didn't you Vaard...


i never said these people were nto being rude... and would even agree they should have been arrested.....


my point from the beginning was that tancredos free speech rights were not violated......


but you knew that was my point and choose instead to create your own strawman to argue against.......


but you already knew that as well, didnt you?


so claim your victory against your own made up argument you assigned ot me and enjoy it.......

[Vaard]

Yeah, don't hold your breath. I challenged Vaard to substantiate one of his claims in another thread at 9:30am, and I am still waiting for him to back up his drive-by attack.

sorry, my life doesnt revolve around you and i dont always remember all the threads i posted in......


so link the thread you claim i did drive by attack in and i will go back to it.......


and i will keep in mind for the future that any post of mine you dont respond to i will consider you to be running away from......

[Vaard]

oh goose? where are you goose? can you hear me goose? :whistle:

:))

[Vaard]

oh goose? where are you goose? can you hear me goose? :whistle:

:))

<snort>

[Guvnah]

<snort>

Uh ... Dude...

Goose isn't logged on now. You can tell that by looking at the little online/offline tag next to any post he makes.

You were logged on when he was calling for you.

Hope that helps.

[Vaard]

Uh ... Dude...

Goose isn't logged on now. You can tell that by looking at the little online/offline tag next to any post he makes.

You were logged on when he was calling for you.

Hope that helps.

online/offline can be masked........


besides, i doubt goose is taking this anymore seriously than i am......


it is just a message board after all.......

[stodr]

my point from the beginning was that tancredos free speech rights were not violated......


We know that is your point. However you have never explained how you came to that conclusion. Especially when the organizer of the protest disagrees with you.

[Vaard]

We know that is your point. However you have never explained how you came to that conclusion. Especially when the organizer of the protest disagrees with you.

actually i did explain.. in small words that can be somewhat easily understood by republicans....... a couple times in this thread......


the fact that the organizers dont undertstand what the purpose of the constitution is and who it protects us from is not my problem........

[DaGooseMon]

i never said these people were nto being rude... and would even agree they should have been arrested.....


my point from the beginning was that tancredos free speech rights were not violated......


but you knew that was my point and choose instead to create your own strawman to argue against.......


but you already knew that as well, didnt you?


so claim your victory against your own made up argument you assigned ot me and enjoy it.......


Oh no, I never created any straw man there Vaard. That was all you...

when it was shown that rpeublicans who voted for the bailouts were going to speak at the tea parties, the suggestion.. by conservatives... was to shout him down during his speech.......


was that also to be considered "leftist squelching speech" as well?

I responded to your claim of republicans "suggesting" they shout down speakers. That was your claim, not mine. That was your strawman, not mine.


And I didn't hijack any thread. I read through this thread, commented on it in response to your smarmy post, and was completely on topic. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I hijacked it.

You have a very interesting style of revising written history Vaard. Perhaps that's why so many people treat you with such disdain.

[DaGooseMon]

Uh ... Dude...

Goose isn't logged on now. You can tell that by looking at the little online/offline tag next to any post he makes.

You were logged on when he was calling for you.

Hope that helps.


Thanks Guvnah, but I was tied up with a childish Avatar fight with another mod, as you can probably see... :D

But I'm here now... :twisted:

[Vaard]

Oh no, I never created any straw man there Vaard. That was all you...



I responded to your claim of republicans "suggesting" they shout down speakers. That was your claim, not mine. That was your strawman, not mine.


And I didn't hijack any thread. I read through this thread, commented on it in response to your smarmy post, and was completely on topic. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I hijacked it.

You have a very interesting style of revising written history Vaard. Perhaps that's why so many people treat you with such disdain.


yeah, the people that treat me with disdain are usually not worth worry about their opinion anyway........


and i can just claim that you created the strawman and not me........ and go around with this all day........

[DaGooseMon]

online/offline can be masked........


besides, i doubt goose is taking this anymore seriously than i am......


it is just a message board after all.......


Exactly right. When I was calling out Vaard, he knew what I was doing. And he returned in kind. I would expect nothing less from him. It's kind of our style.

Ain't that right Hippie?

[Vaard]

Thanks Guvnah, but I was tied up with a childish Avatar fight with another mod, as you can probably see... :D

But I'm here now... :twisted:

it still says you are offline now tho......

[Vaard]

Exactly right. When I was calling out Vaard, he knew what I was doing. And he returned in kind. I would expect nothing less from him. It's kind of our style.

Ain't that right Hippie?

bah, go monger some war, jarhead.......

[Vaard]

to paraphrase homer simpson........

he calls me hippy.. i call him tony randall......


it was a thing we had........



war monger.. tony randall.. same thing.......

[DaGooseMon]

yeah, the people that treat me with disdain are usually not worth worry about their opinion anyway........


and i can just claim that you created the strawman and not me........ and go around with this all day........

Oy... :wall:


I simply asked, will, what you suggested would happen, happen? Did Republicans destroy property at tea parties? Did they shout profanities at speakers? Did they accuse speakers of racism? Has any of that happened?

Because it did happen at the Tancredo event.

See the difference? You were trying to equate the two. They are not even close to the same thing.

[Vaard]

Oy... :wall:


I simply asked, will, what you suggested would happen, happen? Did Republicans destroy property at tea parties? Did they shout profanities at speakers? Did they accuse speakers of racism? Has any of that happened?

Because it did happen at the Tancredo event.

See the difference? You were trying to equate the two. They are not even close to the same thing.

my original point was that tancredos "free speech" was not squelched because you dont have a right to free speech with other private citizens.......


i dont condone this groups actions and hope they had been arrested for causing the trouble, but my point remains that tancredo had no right to free speech.......


and it doesnt matter wether the speaker was shouted down with accuatations of racism or the revving of motorcycles or profanities shouted....... your free speech is not being squelched......

[DaGooseMon]

my original point was that tancredos "free speech" was not squelched because you dont have a right to free speech with other private citizens.......


i dont condone this groups actions and hope they had been arrested for causing the trouble, but my point remains that tancredo had no right to free speech.......


and it doesnt matter wether the speaker was shouted down with accuatations of racism or the revving of motorcycles or profanities shouted....... your free speech is not being squelched......

See, this is where you and I differ.

You're working from the impression that the right to free speech imminates from somebody. Your argument is that Tancredo has no right to free speech "with" other citizens. In other words, "from" other citizens.

But see, it does not work that way. The gooberment does not grant you free speech. Private citizens do not grant you free speech.

Free speech is inherent in all of us, as an inaliable right, endowed by our creator.

So just because others don't legally have to honor that right to Free Speech, and they in fact did squelch his speech through their actions. They admitted as much with thier victory shouts.

[E7ALR]

See, this is where you and I differ.

You're working from the impression that the right to free speech imminates from somebody. Your argument is that Tancredo has no right to free speech "with" other citizens. In other words, "from" other citizens.

But see, it does not work that way. The gooberment does not grant you free speech. Private citizens do not grant you free speech.

Free speech is inherent in all of us, as an inaliable right, endowed by our creator.

So just because others don't legally have to honor that right to Free Speech, and they in fact did squelch his speech through their actions. They admitted as much with thier victory shouts.Further, when another private citizen(s) tries to deny another the right of free speech it almost always involves criminal acts of intimidation. Things like trespass, disorderly conduct, provoking speeches and jestures, verbal assault, physical assault and destruction of property. As individuals, we have the right to walk away and not listen to what others have to say. We do not have the right force our way into their venues and disrupt their speech just because we disagree. Sound ideas can survive the test of critic and debate, only weak ideas need protection from dissenting opinions.

[DaGooseMon]

Further, when another private citizen(s) tries to deny another the right of free speech it almost always involves criminal acts of intimidation. Things like trespass, disorderly conduct, provoking speeches and jestures, verbal assault, physical assault and destruction of property. As individuals, we have the right to walk away and not listen to what others have to say. We do not have the right force our way into their venues and disrupt their speech just because we disagree. Sound ideas can survive the test of critic and debate, only weak ideas need protection from dissenting opinions.

Exactly right.

So, while technically, Congressman Tancredo's First Amendment rights were not violated, they were squelched through criminal activity. And it shows that those that perpetrated these acts don't really care about Free Speech, only their speech. They are a disgrace to my country and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

[Vaard]

Exactly right.

So, while technically, Congressman Tancredo's First Amendment rights were not violated, they were squelched through criminal activity. And it shows that those that perpetrated these acts don't really care about Free Speech, only their speech. They are a disgrace to my country and they should be punished to the full extent of the law.

i would argue the same point if someone shouted down these people as well........

and no, you dont have a right to speak anything you want and force people to listen to you........


if i knew of a neo nazi rally, i would.. as a private citizen... go down to their rally and try to shout them down.. i would not throw things and i hope those who did were arrested.......


as much as the neo nazi have a "right to free speech" i have the same right to drown out their speech with mine.........

[DaGooseMon]

i would argue the same point if someone shouted down these people as well........

and no, you dont have a right to speak anything you want and force people to listen to you........


if i knew of a neo nazi rally, i would.. as a private citizen... go down to their rally and try to shout them down.. i would not throw things and i hope those who did were arrested.......


as much as the neo nazi have a "right to free speech" i have the same right to drown out their speech with mine.........

Where did I say at any time I had a right to force anyone to listen to anything?

Don't put words in my posts Vaard. You absolutely know I never said anything of the sort.

And we're not talking about "shouting" anyone down. That was never the issue. These people used criminal activity in order to prevent a Congressman from speaking. Nobody said they had to listen to his speech. They didn't have to be there at all.

But I will say, I don't think it's right to even shout down someone else's speech. As much as I disagree with it, I actually respect the right they have to speak it. I will debate them. I will prove them wrong, but I would give my life to ensure they have the right to speak their mind. And from my vantage point, shouting them down is a punks form of eliminating free speech.

If you don't like what they're saying in the public square, you are every bit as free to leave, as they are free to say what they believe.

That's what it's all about man.

ETA: And I find it very disappointing that you admit a willingness to prevent a neonazi from speaking his mind in this country. Not because I would ever agree with a neonazi. But because in this country, even the neonazi has a right the right of Free Speech.

[Vaard]

Where did I say at any time I had a right to force anyone to listen to anything?

Don't put words in my posts Vaard. You absolutely know I never said anything of the sort.

And we're not talking about "shouting" anyone down. That was never the issue. These people used criminal activity in order to prevent a Congressman from speaking. Nobody said they had to listen to his speech. They didn't have to be there at all.

But I will say, I don't think it's right to even shout down someone else's speech. As much as I disagree with it, I actually respect the right they have to speak it. I will debate them. I will prove them wrong, but I would give my life to ensure they have the right to speak their mind. And from my vantage point, shouting them down is a punks form of eliminating free speech.

If you don't like what they're saying in the public square, you are every bit as free to leave, as they are free to say what they believe.

That's what it's all about man.

ETA: And I find it very disappointing that you admit a willingness to prevent a neonazi from speaking his mind in this country. Not because I would ever agree with a neonazi. But because in this country, even the neonazi has a right the right of Free Speech.

i never said neonazis didnt have a right to free speech.....

dont put words in my posts goose. you absolutely know i never said anything of the sort..........

once again, you dont have a "right to free speech" when it concerns other private citizens......

as long as the government is not arresting or fining the person speaking, their free speech violations are not being violated........

i have every right to use my free speech to shout over their free speech....... and they have every right to try and shout over mine.......

[SFC(R)L]

Well.

Seems that the weak and pathetic attempts of leftists to defend the thuggish behavior of their friends has fallen flat.

Free speech was squelched and they're proud of it.

[DaGooseMon]

i never said neonazis didnt have a right to free speech.....

dont put words in my posts goose. you absolutely know i never said anything of the sort..........

once again, you dont have a "right to free speech" when it concerns other private citizens......

as long as the government is not arresting or fining the person speaking, their free speech violations are not being violated........

i have every right to use my free speech to shout over their free speech....... and they have every right to try and shout over mine.......


Read my words Vaard. I didn't say you don't have a right to shout them down. I said I think it's wrong to do so.

And I didn't claim that you said you believe a neonazi doesn't have the right to free speech. I said I don't like that you would try to prevent him from speaking. See the difference?

See, I think you're a bleeding heart commie lib, that has everything this country stands for upside down and back to front. But, if we were at a bar, arguing politics, I would kick anyone's ass that tried to prevent you from speaking your mind.

Even if you were spewing the most Anti-American, commie liberal hippie crap you could think of. I'd defend your right to say it.

And then you'd be buying the beers the rest of the night. :D


But that's how I roll...

[DaGooseMon]

And how exactly does my speech concern "other private citizens?" You keep saying I don't have a right to free speech when "it concerns other private citizens." What does that mean?

[DaGooseMon]

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to get started on my long drive home so I can watch the Penguins beat the Flyers in game 1...

I'll be back later hippie.

[Lost Soul]

I see vaard still refuses to address his form of free speech.

Same as most liberals....cowards when faced with facts.

[Vaard]

And how exactly does my speech concern "other private citizens?" You keep saying I don't have a right to free speech when "it concerns other private citizens." What does that mean?

it means you have a right to free speech and the government cant squelch it.......

it doesnt mean you have the right to speak out without being shouted back at by other citizens...........

[ThinkingMan]

Is Obama asking local law enforcement officials to intimidate free speech again?

[Vaard]

Read my words Vaard. I didn't say you don't have a right to shout them down. I said I think it's wrong to do so.

And I didn't claim that you said you believe a neonazi doesn't have the right to free speech. I said I don't like that you would try to prevent him from speaking. See the difference?

See, I think you're a bleeding heart commie lib, that has everything this country stands for upside down and back to front. But, if we were at a bar, arguing politics, I would kick anyone's ass that tried to prevent you from speaking your mind.

Even if you were spewing the most Anti-American, commie liberal hippie crap you could think of. I'd defend your right to say it.

And then you'd be buying the beers the rest of the night. :D


But that's how I roll...

if i attended a neo nazi rally to protest it.. or a phelps rally to protest it...... i would have every right to shout as loud as i wanted over them...... however, if the police tried to arrest to neo nazis or phelps to stop their free speech.. i would protect the neo nazis or phelps from the oppresive governemnt.........

so i would defend their right to say it, but i would also use my right to free speech to try and drown it out..........

if we were in a bar and arguing politics and someone was trying to shout me down, i would either let them wear themselves out or punch them muyself...... and then i would buy the beers, but you would be buying the shots of tequilia........

[Vaard]

Now, if you don't mind, I'm going to get started on my long drive home so I can watch the Penguins beat the Flyers in game 1...

I'll be back later hippie.

yeah, my cat is demanding i play with him.. and ever since his brother went missing, he hasnt had anyone to play with.........


catch you later, warmonger........