Bachmann says free speech is ignorant and disrespectful

[The T]

Not one intelligent answer to why you thought is was great then and now claim its rude

thats the only way one can communicate with you.....at one time everyone tried intelligent with you.....did not work.....

It's the only thing TDM understands...and seems to thrive on.

 

[Caroljo]

Not one intelligent answer to why you thought is was great then and now claim its rude

And not one intellegent answer to why YOU thought it was ok what they did to Bachman.
It's always rude to interrupt people when they're speaking. It's not right if the Tea party does it, it's not right if the libs do it, it's not right if anyone does it! Are we adults? (maybe not).....because one group of people are ignorant enough to do these things, it doesn't mean the entire group of libs or conservatives think it's ok.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Free speech is being able to shout down anyone who opposes the leftist view. Ask Ann Coulter.

If I were Bachmann, I would have asked the people in the audience to join me in shouting the protesters down until they left. Just out scream them, and see how much they really like free speech.

Oh, I love it. It's "freedom of speech" for the leftists to have ACTUALLY shouted down Michelle Bachmann, but it's a great outrage for Ann Coulter to SUGGEST that the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR be exhibited toward them.

Can you people BE any more whining and hypocritical?

"You people"? Which people? Could you generalize any further? Is this not exactly what the left do? Yes. Oh my. The right apply the same (lack of) standards as the left. Wait there... I'll go get my faux outrage.

Um, did you read my post, or the one I was responding to? It's pretty clear which people I mean.

 

[The T]

Not one intelligent answer to why you thought is was great then and now claim its rude

And not one intellegent answer to why YOU thought it was ok what they did to Bachman.
It's always rude to interrupt people when they're speaking. It's not right if the Tea party does it, it's not right if the libs do it, it's not right if anyone does it! Are we adults? (maybe not).....because one group of people are ignorant enough to do these things, it doesn't mean the entire group of libs or conservatives think it's ok.

That's because it's not OK, on any level.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not one intelligent answer to why you thought is was great then and now claim its rude

And not one intellegent answer to why YOU thought it was ok what they did to Bachman.
It's always rude to interrupt people when they're speaking. It's not right if the Tea party does it, it's not right if the libs do it, it's not right if anyone does it! Are we adults? (maybe not).....because one group of people are ignorant enough to do these things, it doesn't mean the entire group of libs or conservatives think it's ok.

And, of course, pointing out that someone is rude and ignorant is NOT saying that they don't have a Constitutional right to be rude and ignorant if they really must.

 

[Katzndogz]

This entire concept is going to get worse. We are dealing with people basically completely ignorant. Free speech is only their speech. They feel the same way about elections. It's only democracy if they win.

The OWS shitters either will learn their lessons, or they will throw a bigger tantrum when they start losing at the ballot box. Naturally they will try to shut down elections the way they shut down speakers.

 

[The T]

Not one intelligent answer to why you thought is was great then and now claim its rude

And not one intellegent answer to why YOU thought it was ok what they did to Bachman.
It's always rude to interrupt people when they're speaking. It's not right if the Tea party does it, it's not right if the libs do it, it's not right if anyone does it! Are we adults? (maybe not).....because one group of people are ignorant enough to do these things, it doesn't mean the entire group of libs or conservatives think it's ok.

And, of course, pointing out that someone is rude and ignorant is NOT saying that they don't have a Constitutional right to be rude and ignorant if they really must.

Oh they can...but it's rude and intolerant from those that are supposed to be the 'tolerant ones' among us...it shoots thier credability all to Hell, doesn't it?

 

[jillian]

Story here

I'm wondering how many votes she thinks she gained with this. The thing I think about is the contrast between the way she's handled this and the way Cheney handled this kind of thing several years ago when he was interrupted by protesters while speaking to Congress. Cheney's response was to point out that what was great about America is that we have the freedom to say what we want. On the other hand, Bachmann tacitly implies that people should not engage in exercising their freedom of speech, and seems scornful for it. Cheney at least respected it, even though I'm sure he wasn't happy over the incident. I guess it's just another piece of the bat-shit crazy Bachmann puzzle.

well, what she's whining about wasn't.

but truth is, it doesn't matter if it was. free speech can be as disrespectful and ignorant as the speaker wishes.

if it was something warm and fuzzy, it wouldn't need protection.

 

[The T]

This entire concept is going to get worse. We are dealing with people basically completely ignorant. Free speech is only their speech. They feel the same way about elections. It's only democracy if they win.

The OWS shitters either will learn their lessons, or they will throw a bigger tantrum when they start losing at the ballot box. Naturally they will try to shut down elections the way they shut down speakers.

They can claim Democracy all they like...fact is? We aren't one.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I think most people completely missed the train on the point I was trying to make. It's not about whether these people were wrong for interrupting her, or whether they were indeed rude. What people will come away with from this is that if you speak out, Bachmann will NOT hear you. She'll insult you and walk away. It's the way she's handled it. Again, I contrast this to Cheney, who instead of blasting people who interrupted him, praised the constitutional protections of free speech we have. One is a Presidential reaction. The other is pissy and moany.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I think most people completely missed the train on the point I was trying to make. It's not about whether these people were wrong for interrupting her, or whether they were indeed rude. What people will come away with from this is that if you speak out, Bachmann will NOT hear you. She'll insult you and walk away. It's the way she's handled it. Again, I contrast this to Cheney, who instead of blasting people who interrupted him, praised the constitutional protections of free speech we have. One is a Presidential reaction. The other is pissy and moany.

Perhaps the point YOU should have walked away with is one MOST of us learned before we hit adulthood: no, people will NOT hear you, or even listen to you, if you can't behave like a mature, civilized human being . . . nor do you have any right to expect them to. No, not even elected representatives, who are human just like the rest of us. The natural human response to children throwing tantrums is to walk away and ignore them, especially if they aren't YOUR children. I suggest that you and the spoiled, juvenile trash you champion should learn not to act like children.

Free speech means the right to say whatever stupid shit you want in whatever rude, uncultured way you choose. It does NOT mean the right to be paid attention to. THAT is a privilege that must be earned.

 

[conner700]

They were disrespectful in interrupting her speaking. I don't blame her. All they were there for was to disrupt and try to squelch her.

So she's correct.

Get it ACE?

I guess someone moved aside and made you the dictator of whos free speech is more important.

Bachman right to give a speach does not negate anothers right to yell during her speach.

People don't want to hear Republican propaganda anymore. I guess the people have to keep reminding them until they get it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They were disrespectful in interrupting her speaking. I don't blame her. All they were there for was to disrupt and try to squelch her.

So she's correct.

Get it ACE?

I guess someone moved aside and made you the dictator of whos free speech is more important.

Bachman right to give a speach does not negate anothers right to yell during her speach.

People don't want to hear Republican propaganda anymore. I guess the people have to keep reminding them until they get it.

Well, now we know why we keep seeing such an upswing in trashy, uncivilized behavior. These ignorant little twats have no realistic idea of the law or the concept of "rights".

Rights are not unlimited. Every single one of them has boundaries, at the point where they become an infringement on other people's rights.

Bachmann was speaking on the USS Yorktown. She was invited there by the people with the direct legal authority over the USS Yorktown, who also paid the expenses accrued in bringing her there to speak.

The protesters, by contrast, had no legal "right" to be there at all. They were there at the courtesy and sufferance of the people who arranged and paid for Bachmann's visit. They disrupted the gathering and disturbed the peace, infringing on the rights of the other attendees, who had shown up to hear Bachmann speak and were unable to, and most especially on the rights of the people who went to the trouble and expense of arranging the visit because they wanted to hear her speak, people whose rights certainly take legal precedence over any apocryphal "right to shout everyone else down anywhere we please" that you mistakenly believe exists.

 

[conner700]

In the Bachman v OWS protesters, I am sure that the OWS speech is protected speech under the constitution.

You keep protecting your Republican cult that is fading fast.

 

[daveman]

I think most people completely missed the train on the point I was trying to make. It's not about whether these people were wrong for interrupting her, or whether they were indeed rude. What people will come away with from this is that if you speak out, Bachmann will NOT hear you. She'll insult you and walk away. It's the way she's handled it. Again, I contrast this to Cheney, who instead of blasting people who interrupted him, praised the constitutional protections of free speech we have. One is a Presidential reaction. The other is pissy and moany.

The disturbance drowned out the Minnesota congresswoman's remarks, and she briefly left the stage until it was over. When she returned, she praised the group's right to protest.

"Don't you just love the First Amendment? It's great, we have a great country and I want to thank you all for your understanding," she said.​

You lied. So your point is worthless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In the Bachman v OWS protesters, I am sure that the OWS speech is protected speech under the constitution.

You keep protecting your Republican cult that is fading fast.

Well, to paraphrase Reagan, that's the thing about leftist twerps: they're "sure" of so many things that just aren't so.

Look up "disturbing the peace", and contemplate the fact that if such behavior was "protected Constitutional speech", such laws wouldn't be able to exist at all. Just because communities often decline to enforce such laws through political cowardice doesn't mean they don't still have the legal right and ability to do so.

But you keep right on defending your right to infringe on everyone else's rights, while the rest of us gradually get more and more tired of it and move closer to the NEXT stage of dealing with spoiled, tantruming children.