Liberal demonstrators scream "racist" and "fascist" and rip Santorum signs

[Oddball]

I don't understand why you guys can't understand that "free speech" is a two-way street, though.

Every day, I see Conservatives posting threads on how "liberals" "hate" "free speech", using things like this as an example.

But this isn't "hating free speech" - this is people using their right to free speech.

I'm giving 10:1 that won't penetrate the bubble.

Any takers?

Yes, yes, yes..."Free speech" also means that you get to be aggressively disruptive of the peaceable assembly, of people wishing to hear someone else speak.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't understand why you guys can't understand that "free speech" is a two-way street, though.

Every day, I see Conservatives posting threads on how "liberals" "hate" "free speech", using things like this as an example.

But this isn't "hating free speech" - this is people using their right to free speech.

Don't be dense, they might be "using their free speech", but their only PURPOSE is to take away someone else's free speech.

They're not "taking away" anyone's "free speech".
Rick Santorum isn't in prison. He hasn't been "silenced".

He got shouted down by protesters. That's all.

The right to "free speech" doesn't include a right to be heard.

But the right to free speech does bear the responsibility to be civil to other speakers even if you disagree with them. Otherwise, we quickly lose that right.

 

[Cuyo]

I don't understand why you guys can't understand that "free speech" is a two-way street, though.

Every day, I see Conservatives posting threads on how "liberals" "hate" "free speech", using things like this as an example.

But this isn't "hating free speech" - this is people using their right to free speech.

I'm giving 10:1 that won't penetrate the bubble.

Any takers?

Yes, yes, yes..."Free speech" also means that you get to be aggressively disruptive of the peaceable assembly, of people wishing to hear someone else speak.

Shut up. You're only speaking out against them because you hate free speech!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

That goes for the violent malcontent assholes, disrupting a peaceable assembly....Also covered by the 1st Amendment.

What "violence" occurred at this protest?

If blatant disorderliness and disruption of and destruction of signage at a peaceable assembly isn't aggression, if not outright violence, what would be?

Well, I think there would have to be violence for it to be called "outright violence".

Being loud, obnoxious, and rude isn't "violent". Hitting someone is. It's pretty simple.

 

[Avatar4321]

I lived the 60's. By the time the Dem Convention rolled around no one was protesting peacefully anymore.

Bernadette even more than Bill at the time was into violent revolution. We had the Panthers, Karenga's crew, Weathermen the violent offshoot Bernie headed from SDS, and so many other groups.

But it wasn't about protesting. It was about rioting. Hell's bells cities burned.

And our nation wasnt nearly as fractured and overwhelmed then as it is now. We are looking at a bloody summer.

bloody summer? Shut the **** up..Is this all you do now? Fear fear fear!

Im not afraid in the least. Im sad, more than anything. Im hoping people will become prepared for what is happening.

I am acknowledging what they are promising. If you want to ignore it, you can. Doesnt mean I am going to be silenet.

 

[occupied]

Who thinks protests should be polite? Well they are shouldn't, they should be as disruptive and irritating to the target as possible.

Disruptive and irritating will get you pepper sprayed or worse, folks aren't going to put up with this kind of shit much longer...

Real protests always carry the risk of official retaliation, goes with the territory. Think about the results of any protest movement that has been strengthened by police brutality against them. Police beatings are to be expected, camera phones are going to make their usual claims of the mob starting it kind of thin this time around, all police brutality will be recorded.

 

[Avatar4321]

I lived the 60's. By the time the Dem Convention rolled around no one was protesting peacefully anymore.

Bernadette even more than Bill at the time was into violent revolution. We had the Panthers, Karenga's crew, Weathermen the violent offshoot Bernie headed from SDS, and so many other groups.

But it wasn't about protesting. It was about rioting. Hell's bells cities burned.

And our nation wasnt nearly as fractured and overwhelmed then as it is now. We are looking at a bloody summer.

Seriously, I hope you guys are joking. This fear-mongering nonsense is getting RIDICULOUS.

Fearmongering? How the heck is it fearmongering when the Occupy people are promising a violent summer? Are you suggesting we should ignore them? We should ignore history because you don't want to be afraid?

Stick your head in the sand all you want. I hope you arent one of the people effected. But I have no intention of ignoring events in the world around me and no intention not to warn people.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Who thinks protests should be polite? Well they are shouldn't, they should be as disruptive and irritating to the target as possible.

Disruptive and irritating will get you pepper sprayed or worse, folks aren't going to put up with this kind of shit much longer...

Real protests always carry the risk of official retaliation, goes with the territory. Think about the results of any protest movement that has been strengthened by police brutality against them. Police beatings are to be expected, camera phones are going to make their usual claims of the mob starting it kind of thin this time around, all police brutality will be recorded.

I'm not talking about the police.

 

[tinydancer]

Have you made the mistake of equating these people with the peace and love hippies of the 60s? Different group here. OWS and the associated populist movements are more similar in temperament to the socialist/populist/labor movements of the 20s-30s. In reality they are not like anything we have ever seen with their tech savvy social networking skills. I can't say where it all will go but someone has to do something about the boomers trying to take it all with them when they die.

I lived the 60's. By the time the Dem Convention rolled around no one was protesting peacefully anymore.

Bernadette even more than Bill at the time was into violent revolution. We had the Panthers, Karenga's crew, Weathermen the violent offshoot Bernie headed from SDS, and so many other groups.

But it wasn't about protesting. It was about rioting. Hell's bells cities burned.

And our nation wasnt nearly as fractured and overwhelmed then as it is now. We are looking at a bloody summer.

And we now have in our midst travelling anarchists who will go to Chicago. We had them riot in Vancouver and Toronto. I'd love to know who's funding them.

Any peaceful protestors were just used as shields and then pushed aside.

I hope Rahm's really prepared.

 

[Avatar4321]

Who thinks protests should be polite? Well they are shouldn't, they should be as disruptive and irritating to the target as possible.

Gandhi, MLK Jr., many people in fact.

There is power in non-violence and self-suffering.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Assault"? "Obstruction"?

They didn't "assault" anyone, and there's no such crime as "obstruction".

Ripping signs out of people's hands can be charged as assault, yes.

I think you'd have a pretty hard time making that case.

Not to mention, I didn't see any of that happening in the video.

Not in a court of law, he wouldn't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Don't be dense, they might be "using their free speech", but their only PURPOSE is to take away someone else's free speech.

They're not "taking away" anyone's "free speech".
Rick Santorum isn't in prison. He hasn't been "silenced".

He got shouted down by protesters. That's all.

The right to "free speech" doesn't include a right to be heard.

But the right to free speech does bear the responsibility to be civil to other speakers even if you disagree with them. Otherwise, we quickly lose that right.

In a perfect world, sure.

I agree with you in theory, and that's the way I strive to be. (You might have noticed I don't generally include personal attacks in my posts here).

But, as I'm sure you know, we don't live in a "perfect world".

To continue my metaphor to this board, I'm sure you've noticed that an equal number of people from both sides of the aisle can't seem to post more than a sentence without getting personal and rude.

The fact of the matter is - as much as I personally dislike rudeness, "freedom of speech" includes the freedom to be an asshole - and there are no shortage of assholes in this country.

 

[Oddball]

What "violence" occurred at this protest?

If blatant disorderliness and disruption of and destruction of signage at a peaceable assembly isn't aggression, if not outright violence, what would be?

Well, I think there would have to be violence for it to be called "outright violence".

Being loud, obnoxious, and rude isn't "violent". Hitting someone is. It's pretty simple.

Ripping signs out of the hands of people who've peaceably assembled is an act of aggression and violence.

But you g'head and pimp for no-life ruffians.

 

[Avatar4321]

I lived the 60's. By the time the Dem Convention rolled around no one was protesting peacefully anymore.

Bernadette even more than Bill at the time was into violent revolution. We had the Panthers, Karenga's crew, Weathermen the violent offshoot Bernie headed from SDS, and so many other groups.

But it wasn't about protesting. It was about rioting. Hell's bells cities burned.

And our nation wasnt nearly as fractured and overwhelmed then as it is now. We are looking at a bloody summer.

And we now have in our midst travelling anarchists who will go to Chicago. We had them riot in Vancouver and Toronto. I'd love to know who's funding them.

Any peaceful protestors were just used as shields and then pushed aside.

I hope Rahm's really prepared.

He's aligned with them. Of course he's prepared. He's prepared to make them look like victims and stir them up even more.

 

[Syphon]

Liberals only believe in their free speech. They are Bigots and prone to violent and outrageous outbreaks. Anyone Identified in the Video should be charged with Assault and Obstruction. I don't know why they think, only themselves entitled to Civil Rights. It seems the more things heat up, the less the Law matters to them. They seem to know no shame.

"Assault"? "Obstruction"?

They didn't "assault" anyone, and there's no such crime as "obstruction".

Ripping signs out of people's hands can be charged as assault, yes.

actually they could be charged with battery, not assault. read a tort law book.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the fear of such contact.

 

[Lakhota]

Van Jones on America's Uprising: It's Going to Be an Epic Battle | Truthout

 

[Oddball]

In a perfect world, sure.

I agree with you in theory, and that's the way I strive to be. (You might have noticed I don't generally include personal attacks in my posts here).

But, as I'm sure you know, we don't live in a "perfect world".

To continue my metaphor to this board, I'm sure you've noticed that an equal number of people from both sides of the aisle can't seem to post more than a sentence without getting personal and rude.

The fact of the matter is - as much as I personally dislike rudeness, "freedom of speech" includes the freedom to be an asshole - and there are no shortage of assholes in this country.

Yeah...Except that hundreds of people haven't gone out of their way to hear a stupid **** like rdean speak.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And our nation wasnt nearly as fractured and overwhelmed then as it is now. We are looking at a bloody summer.

Seriously, I hope you guys are joking. This fear-mongering nonsense is getting RIDICULOUS.

Fearmongering? How the heck is it fearmongering when the Occupy people are promising a violent summer? Are you suggesting we should ignore them? We should ignore history because you don't want to be afraid?

Who is "promising" a "violent" summer? Link?

The "Occupy" people - or at least the large-scale organizers of the "Occupy" protests are mostly personally known to me. They're friends and former co-workers, and contacts of mine from work. None of them are planning anything "violent".

Stick your head in the sand all you want. I hope you arent one of the people effected. But I have no intention of ignoring events in the world around me and no intention not to warn people.

What exactly are you so afraid of? What do you think is going to happen?

 

[Oddball]

"Assault"? "Obstruction"?

They didn't "assault" anyone, and there's no such crime as "obstruction".

Ripping signs out of people's hands can be charged as assault, yes.

actually they could be charged with battery, not assault. read a tort law book.

In common law, assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact.

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the fear of such contact.

Both are acts of violence.

 

[occupied]

Disruptive and irritating will get you pepper sprayed or worse, folks aren't going to put up with this kind of shit much longer...

Real protests always carry the risk of official retaliation, goes with the territory. Think about the results of any protest movement that has been strengthened by police brutality against them. Police beatings are to be expected, camera phones are going to make their usual claims of the mob starting it kind of thin this time around, all police brutality will be recorded.

I'm not talking about the police.

Sure you are, who else? private citizens? Now who's advocating for political violence here?