Code Pink shuts down Rove Book signing event in L A. Per CNN

[opihimoimoi]

Armed w handcuffs,,,tried to make citizens arrest,,,,lol....Rove goes on offensive with empty language...had to leave...see the re run

Rove was heckled and his widdle book deal had to stop...LOL

The Heat is ON....

[NJmaverick]

1. This sort of undermines the message that the right is the ones that

are disruptive and a threat to civil liberties

[tekisui]

3. It was effective in getting a criminal's PR shut down.

Disruptive is one thing. Violence is another. It is a right wing meme to suggest that "both sides are doing it".

[NJmaverick]

8. win the battle but lose the war

code pink does not do me or any other liberal any favors

[paulsby]

10. exactly. just like the thugs in canada that shut down coulter

you counter bad speech with good speech. you do not shut down the speech of those you disagree with. that's thuggery pure and simple, regardless of ideology.

[tekisui]

14. I can't believe you are defending rove.

Taking his side over COde Pink? Pity.

[NJmaverick]

18. You need to take a class on ethics so you can understand

the idea that bad behavior is not justified because a person shares your ideology

[tekisui]

26. Civil disobedience.

Take a class in American history.

[NJmaverick]

28. That's what the militias and tea baggers are using as an excuse

with out good guidelines and rules it's a dangerous banner to operate under.

[tekisui]

30. Civil disobedience and free speech on the one hand are

appropriate exercises of our rights.

Violence and threats of violence are not. It shouldn't be hard to understand, even for you.

[NJmaverick]

33. You can't talk free speech when you are depriving others of that liberty

[tekisui]

36. Sure you can.

It is a competition in the market place of ideas. One wins out over another.

The government cannot limit your speech, but you are not protected from getting shouted over.

[SusanaMontana41]

236. 100 percent correct. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

383. If you're articulating an idea and I'm shouting random noises so loudly that no one can hear you

what idea is winning in the marketplace of ideas?

[KonaKane]

416. What ideas does Karl Maggot articulate?

We know them all too well. And almost a million people are dead because of them.

You may think that's worth hearing out, but we've already lived those. So, no thank you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

76. That is an uninformed argument offered by right wingers who don't understand the constitution

I am a teacher. It's time for Constitution 101!

Free speech is a right that cannot be taken away by our GOVERNMENT. Code Pink is not the government.

If what you are claiming is true, then it would be illegal for anyone in this country to ever tell anyone to shut up. It might be rude but it's certainly not a constitutional violation.

[NJmaverick]

77. You are badly confused and woefully misinformed.

[proud2BlibKansan]

81. Read the Bill of Rights again

And the preamble as well.

Maybe you should watch the Schoolhouse Rock videos.

The constitution outlines how our GOVERNMENT operates; it does NOT dictate the behavior of citizens to each other. So if I want to tell you to shut up, I can without fear of being arrested:)

Unless I represent the government, I have the right to prevent you from speaking. This country was founded by patriots who had spoken out bravely against a government that didn't want them to have free speech rights. There's a good reason this is the first right in the Bill of Rights.

[Scruffy1]

175. Some du'ers simply don't get it

Being nice to these murdering pigs will get you George W. Bush and Carl Rove. This is the great failure of liberalism. The fascists know that they will just lay down and whimper no matter how egregious their actions are. It's like being nice to Adolf Hitler. Rove is a big time criminal with political protection. It boils my blood to think of this cowardly man making money off of his book while others are doing time for petty crime. I believe if we had more like Code Pink we would
be better off. Strange how some are so ready to condemn those with moral clarity. Nothing in the Constitution requires us to "be nice" to these war criminals that have left over a million dead and a wrecked economy. As a matter of fact I'm sending them some dollars. Go Girls. You are the front line on the war between freedom and fascism.

[creeksneakers2]

193. If you are concerned about results

you should compare the amount of harm a Rove book signing would do to the amount of harm fouling up a good national message this week that the right wing is crazy did. Code Pink made Rove look reasonable and good. They made the left look just as crazy as the right.

I wish Code Pink would get its free speech rights interfered with. Then we'd see how much they like "civil disobedience."

[Raksha]

194. THANK YOU!!!

Re "Being nice to these murdering pigs will get you George W. Bush and Carl Rove. This is the great failure of liberalism. The fascists know that they will just lay down and whimper no matter how egregious their actions are. It's like being nice to Adolf Hitler. Rove is a big time criminal with political protection. It boils my blood to think of this cowardly man making money off of his book while others are doing time for petty crime. I believe if we had more like Code Pink we would be better off."

There is nothing in the Constitution that requires members of the general public to be nice or even polite to war criminals. Worse than that, it perpetuates the conservative image of liberals as weak and spineless and easily bullied--an image that in many cases is all too true. ALL that accomplishes is to encourage still more bullying, because they think (know) they can get away with it.

Violence or the threat of violence are never acceptable, but a little aggressiveness in our own defense is very welcome. I've been wanting to see it for a long time. I'm glad you donated to CodePink--I'd do the same if I could afford it.

[Enthusiast]

362. Some nice sentiments, Scruffy1.

And they are murdering pigs. That is the truth.

In a thoroughly informed society Rove (and Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz & Rumsfeld) would be hiding in the shadows afraid to show his face because he would be hunted down by vigilantes. I won't play nicey nicey with those that perpetrated the greatest act of treason the U.S. has ever seen.

[laughingliberal]

214. If this was not true they'd be arresting people on cable news every day

for keeping others from speaking. Thank you for this post.

[SDuderstadt]

228. " I have the right to prevent you from speaking"

Isn't that what the teabaggers say? I'm sorry, I disagree wholeheartedly on this.

[tekisui]

106. LOL! Should Rove sue Code Pink for a 1st Amendment violation?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[laughingliberal]

215. Funny

Perhaps he should just sue for a new pair of underwear.


:rofl:

[Greyhound]

191. Another product of the American educational system.

BTW, you are about as wrong as it is possible to be, but I suspect you've been told that so many times that you are aware of it already.

[Enthusiast]

361. How many of us have you

proclaimed "woefully misinformed"?

[EOTE]

433. P2BLK is quite right. And you calling someone misinformed and confused doesn't make it so.

Do you have a particular issue with the comment? This is very common knowledge typically learned in middle school.

[laughingliberal]

188. Thank you. Nothing I see in the 1st amendment says I, as an individual,

can not the speech of another individual. WTH is with people? For God's sake, we wouldn't have the civil rights' act in this country were it not for targeted acts of civil disobedience. This group would have said Rosa Parks just made us all equal to the teabaggers.

[ArcticFox]

171. Dude, you're so completely wrong

The "Freedom of Speech" is not infringed by a private actor, only by the Government. Code Pink is not an arm of the government, and therefore cannot violate anyone's free speech rights.

[Atman]

183. Thank you. A voice of sanity.

Wow. This thread is swirling like a giant turd down the bowl. At least someone has a clue.

.

[laughingliberal]

189. There are some here with a bias against Code Pink, I believe. nt

[Silent3]

304. But a private citizen can violate another person's civil rights.

And a private citizen can certainly be guilty of harassment and worse against another private citizen. It all depends how far one person goes trying to shut another person up. I'm not saying Code Pink went too far (I'd have to read the details of their protest) but categorically insisting that it isn't possible for them to have gone too far because they aren't the government is absurd.

[LiberalFighter]

217. How would that be different form encouraging others not to patronize products

because they advertise on Glen Beck or Windbag?

[Mojeoux]

412. So, The Teens who bullied the Irish girl to suicide were your style "free speach."

WTF?

[Autonomy]

185. Civil disobedience only refers to a citizen against the government

Rove is not a part of the government, thankfully. Code Pink is part of the Left Wing that shouts down any private citizens with which it disagrees.

Also, criticizing Code Pink is in no way "defending Karl Rove". That's an obvious false choice fallacy.

[Silent3]

229. +1 n/t

[JackBeck]

243. -1 for misinformed support of a bad post. n/t

[Autonomy]

376. oh god lol

[JackBeck]

233. Your definition of civil disobedience isn't limited to how you perceive it.

You left out the whole part where it's also a refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust.

Rove participated in aiding and abetting a policy that he has yet been held accountable for.

Do you have the same disdain for ACT-UP and their tactics?

[Silent3]

298. So lynching was a form of "civil disobedience" too?

"You left out the whole part where it's also a refusal to obey a law or follow a policy believed to be unjust."

Would it have helped if the lynch mobs waited to be arrested? Would that have made it "civil disobedience"?

The KKK clearly thought (and still thinks) letting black people run free with equal rights to whites was "unjust", so refusal to acknowledge black civil rights, or even black human rights, was a justified form of protest by your reasoning?

Just so you know, I haven't read the details of what Code Pink did in this particular protest of Rove. And no, I'm not at all comparing the magnitude of lynching to anything Code Pink has done -- not that making that disclaimer will help on the internet, where there's always a sizable number of idiots who don't get the idea of using an extreme example to sharpen contrast, who can't understand any analogy as anything other than a proposed equivalence.

I merely chimed in because of the bullshit I was seeing in this thread about what constitutes reasonable civil disobedience, and I like what the poster I "+1"-ed said about criticizing Code Pink not being the same thing as supporting Rove, another one of those "subtleties" which unfortunately is too complex to be understood online.

[JackBeck]

385. According to your limited definition of civil disobedience, no.

But if you also took the time to read this entire thread you'd realize that I've already established that civil disobedience must be informed as well as non-violent.

[Silent3]

386. Who decides who is "informed"?

Any political protester motivated enough to carry out an energetic form of protest probably thinks they're informed. As for "non-violent"... Does someone have to cause actual bodily harm to be considered violent? Can damage to property be considered violence? Are intimidation and harassment of private citizens, so long as you just scare people but don't actually hurt them, violent or non-violent acts?

[JackBeck]

388. The person or collective group which acknowledges that facts are indisputable.

When you are informed, your outrage comes from being armed with facts, not Koch Industry funded talking points like the tea baggers.

[Silent3]

390. Again, everyone thinks they have the facts.

It's the other guy who is misinformed and listening to propaganda. Who ever thinks their own outrage isn't justified and righteous?

At any rate, this is getting a bit far from the original point about freedom of speech. It's true that not restricting free speech is primarily a limitation on government, but what does that limitation mean? It means that the government can't jail you, fine you, or in any way use police, military, judicial, or any of its other powers to prevent you or restrain you from, or punish you for, freely expressing yourself (with exceptions like slander, libel, and reckless endangerment, where the government certainly can step in).

Whether you call it an issue of "freedom of speech", however, it's certainly possible for a private citizen to attempt to restrict another citizen's free expression. Trying to burn down a printing press that's printing things you don't like would be one example. If the government doesn't make that sort of thing illegal, however, then the government isn't protecting your right to free speech. If that weren't part of government's responsibility in protecting free speech, what protection would we have a against a government simply encouraging thuggery to suppress free speech the government doesn't approve of, then hiding behind the excuse that it "That wasn't your government restricting your freedom of expression, that was your fellow citizens. Sorry, we can't get involved."?

Censure is not censorship, of course. If all Code Pink or any other protesters do is loudly let the world know their disgust with Rove and what he's written, that's certainly their right. It's certainly not part of government guaranteeing free speech that they guarantee a warm reception from your fellow citizens for anything you say.

But if protesters go far enough to actually prevent someone they are protesting against from expressing themselves, it's hard to imagine a method for effectively blocking someone else from having their say that isn't, to at least some extent, violent. If you slap your hand over my mouth so my words can't get out, that's certainly a form of violence.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

58. That's correct

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. You are actually comparing Code Pink to anti desegregation racists??

Good grief. :crazy:

[Paladin]

139. Yeah, He Is. Trust Me. (n/t)

[laughingliberal]

186. In a related story, Up remains down in some locations. nt

[Enthusiast]

364. Amazing nt

[sabrina 1]

94. Too bad Code Pink wasn't around during that period.

So what you're saying is that if Code Pink had disrupted the thugs who were interfering with the rights of black students to participate in this democracy, it is THEY who would be at fault? You do know that Carl Rove is the modern day version of those thugs, don't you? You know he orchestrated 'caging' from the WH to prevent even black veterans from voting? Nice defense of the modern day version of the thugs you mentioned.

I do know how the right and the rightwing of the Democratic Party have always hated liberals who actually stood up to the Bush Administration.

We need more like them. Good for them, they expose the crimes of the Bush Crime Cartel without breaking any laws and are among the few on the left with the guts to do so.

[tekisui]

107. paulsby *hearts* rove.

:loveya:

I have a right to shout anyone down in public. Especially a public figure. THat is my 1st amendment right. THe government can't take it from me or rove. But, I am free to challenge him or you with speech.

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

162. Are you another rove defender?

Or just moaning about this site?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

178. Is the ACLU a wing of the Nazi Party?

For defending their right to hold a parade?

Just wondering what the color of the sky is in your world.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tekisui]

180. I want to follow your analogy.

Where do those whining about a war criminal getting shouted at fit in?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

225. No you don't

If you did, you would, since the parallel is rather obvious to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse.

What you really want to do is engage in juvenile name calling, which I suppose is entertaining for you,
but boring for me.

So good day to you. I hope one day you grow up a little.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Forkboy]

168. "Proud Member of the Reality Based Community"

Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back there. :rofl:

[Daemonaquila]

170. Saying that while touting your CONSERVATIVE credentials...

... is not going to get you taken seriously. That attitude let Bush, Cheney, Rove, and company get away with murder for 8 years, with barely a peep from the overly well-behaved (chicken) Dems. The only people who put up any resistance so that we merely got a police state vs. totalitarianism, were true patriots like Code Pink, the National Lawyers Guild, Reverend Billy, ANSWER, various IndyMedia locals, etc. who literally put their butts on the line. You ought to be thanking them every day. But of course not - that would require acknowledging that the Democratic Party isn't all about being kinder, gentler, QUIETER rethuglicans.

[creeksneakers2]

203. Look at this wild self importance deception.

Your crowd isn't the only one who did anything. Democrats retook the majority without trying to handcuff Karl Rove at a public appearance. Code Pink and the rest of them only help the GOP. They make all the people who care about more than their own fantasies of knighthood look bad. Radicals also spend much of their time trying persuade Democratic voters to stay home. They are Rove's allies.

In spite of the radicals, Bush/Rove are no longer in power. That is an accomplishment. Embarrassing stunts aren't.

[tekisui]

377. THere we go.

You are a conservative defending rove, and denigrating liberal. You should have just started there Mr.Conservative.

[creeksneakers2]

384. I don't think you know what a liberal is.

[SDuderstadt]

435. I stand with the ACLU

Q: I just can't understand why the ACLU defends free speech for racists, sexists, homophobes and other bigots. Why tolerate the promotion of intolerance?
A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s.

The indivisibility principle was also illustrated in the case of Neo-Nazis whose right to march in Skokie, Illinois in 1979 was successfully defended by the ACLU. At the time, then ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier, whose relatives died in Hitler's concentration camps during World War II, commented: "Keeping a few Nazis off the streets of Skokie will serve Jews poorly if it means that the freedoms to speak, publish or assemble any place in the United States are thereby weakened."

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/hate-speech-campus

You're trying to argue that you have a free speech right to shout down the free speech rights of someone else. You couldn't be more mistaken.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumpy]

85. Evidently these doodoo gooders were not around during the

civil rights and Vietnam War struggles. There come a time when you can't turn the other cheek and you have to get tough with filth like Carl Rove.

[valerief]

163. +69 trillion!

[newtothegame]

205. Civil disobedience is choosing to do without or face consequences for what you believe.

It is not inspiring or brave to sit in intersections when people are trying to get to work, or to shut down someone else's books signing. That's just being a dick because you think you're right and that everyone else should have to listen to it.

on edit, I do like Code Pink alot. It's amazing how many on DU think John Stewart/KO/Rachel Maddow are heroes, yet they're annoyed by Code Pink. John Stewart and the like sit in front of an audience that WORSHIPS them and laughs at their every FACIAL EXPRESSION; not exactly brave. Code Pink goes into the Lion's Den and speaks truth.

[sabrina 1]

129. Do you disagree then that he is a war criminal?

They called him a war criminal. Do they not have the right to free speech? He chose to leave, coward that he is. If he had any guts, he would have stayed.

Did you see the video? Rove tried to shut them up. He called them names. He failed. Two groups exercising their free speech rights, Code Pink won. What's not democratic about that?

Btw, your defense of Rove is disgusting. I just went to a few rightwing boards and they are defending his right to free speech and ignoring Code Pink's right also. I'm sure you don't wan to be repeating rightwing defenses of Rove. No liberal would be caught dead doing that.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

160. People MUST stand up to those assholes and tell them to shut the fuck up

and let them know in no uncertain terms that their ugliness and criminal behavior is not wanted or condoned by the MAJORITY of the people in this country!

Silence is complicity and that is what you advocate all the time around here by telling people not to criticize the President or Congress and now Code Pink. :thumbsdown:

Your constant suppression of free speech shows that you need to go back and read the Constitution and get some lessons from the founding fathers.

[spoony]

331. Ethics and manners are not the same thing.

Maybe you should take an English class and learn the meaning of words.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[adigal]

100. I can't believe I am getting involved in this discussion

but the right to an attorney is in the constitution. So is the right to assembly. I can assemble outside of a Karl Rove event, and not be in violation of his constitutional rights.

I can see an argument being made that this makes us look bad, like the other side, but they have actually threathened violence against Democrats. Unless the protestors were yelling threats at Rove, none of his rights were violated.

[creeksneakers2]

209. They tried to carry out a citizens arrest and handcuff him.

They also went beyond protesting. Their intent was to shut down Rove's event. That should at least be disorderly conduct, and they should have been arrested.

[Enthusiast]

365. Rove should have been arrested. nt

[Cid_B]

222. Just to be clear...

I'm fairly confident none of his "rights" were violated as well.

I might go with disorderly conduct on private property (if i cared enough to find out who owned the property etc..)

My overall point is that CP is a detriment to its own stated goals. IOW they hurt their cause far more than they help it. They only serve to make people who already believe in "the cause" feel warm and fuzzy.

I could give two shits about Rove and I've made this same argument about other idiotic CP activities. (i.e. the Berkeley recruiting fiasco.

That reminds me, I'm going to watch the daily show bit on that one again. Cracked me up.

[rbixby]

102. I think code pink is well-intentioned

But I think their methods go a bit too far at times. At least they're nonviolent though, that's all I ask.

[tekisui]

105. Why are you against Code Pink's free speech, then?

You can't have it both ways.

[laughingliberal]

190. Just all depends on whose ox is being gored for a lot of people

Principles are applied unequally.

[sabrina 1]

145. When are you going to defend a Liberal's right to free speech?

Watching the video this was a beautiful example of democracy at work. A public figure exercising HIS right to free speech ('You're a moron'!) and ordinary citizens doing the same thing (You're a war criminal').

Rove had the advantage being that he had a hundred fans there.

He could have stayed and signed his book. No one was assaulting him. But coward as he has always been he ran.

So, with both sides exercising their rights to speak freely, Rove lost. And he lost because he is a war criminal and there is just no defense for that. Too bad that the 1st Amendment applies to Code Pink also.

I have no doubt that Rove agrees with you that only he should have that right.

[Bluebear]

166. you can't?

[NJmaverick]

19. Exactly

[WinkyDink]

117. "Thuggery" is associated with physical force.

[grahamhgreen]

177. They were arresting him - not shutting him up! He can tell it to the judge!

[tekisui]

11. "Other liberals"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=388&topic_id=17936

"You know there is a reason that the liberals only make up 20% of the population while conservatives make up twice that at 40%. Liberals have a bad habit of being self destructive. I suspect a major reason for this is that they are younger and lack the wisdom that comes with life experience. "

I stand with Code Pink. They at least stand for something.

[NJmaverick]

20. Code Pink undermines liberal causes like PETA undermines the animal right's causes

radicalism and acting like thugs does not do any cause a favor

[tekisui]

25. Don't try to lump yourself in groups of liberals.

That may explain your discomfort. The objectives of those groups are to raise attention and awareness. In that they are effective.

[NJmaverick]

27. Sorry but last I checked you were not elected to be king of the liberals

so you don't get to tell anyone who is or isn't a liberal

[tekisui]

29. No, but I can tell you are not a liberal.

Would a liberal say this?

"You know there is a reason that the liberals only make up 20% of the population while conservatives make up twice that at 40%. Liberals have a bad habit of being self destructive. I suspect a major reason for this is that they are younger and lack the wisdom that comes with life experience."

[paulsby]

52. free speech is, should be, and hopefully always will be an issue

that ALL can agree on.

unfortunately, there are thugs who are liberals, just like there are thugs who are conservatives who defend the right only when they agree with the speech.

interfering with others right to speak is thuggery whether it comes fron liberals, conservatives, or fascist communitarian vegan anarcho insect illuminati

[NJmaverick]

60. You're correct some people are so blinded by their rigid ideology

that they fail to understand the implications of their actions

[tekisui]

114. The First Amendment is a restrtiction on government action.

It is NOT a restriction on an individual's action. An individual exercises that right. Individuals can exercise that right by opposing each other.

The freedom of speech is freedom FROM government restriction. It is not freedom FROM other citizens shouting at you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

121. A+

[laughingliberal]

221. True. If it meant freedom from citizens shouting at you, there'd be arrests on cable news every day.

I can't believe there's even any discussion about that.

[tekisui]

378. This 'discussion' is really about denigrating true liberals

like Code Pink. It has nothing to do with anything else. The conservatives on this board love to bash liberals.

[G_j]

96. not the words of a liberal

obviously

[sabrina 1]

95. Are you a liberal? It's an easy question. You certainly

don't support liberal ideas from what I've seen of your posts.

[mitchum]

135. He's a Concern Liberal

[laughingliberal]

192. +1 nt

[G_j]

53. sorry but

in all respect, you are the one undermining liberal causes at every chance you get.

[NJmaverick]

59. What you fail to realize is that code oink's

and your misguided actions and positions are the ones actually undermining liberal causes. See the problem is you live in a bubble. You don't discuss politics with a wide swath of the political spectrum. If you did you would have a better understanding of what helps and hurts progressive causes.

[G_j]

61. thanks for the lecture

:rofl:

[NJmaverick]

65. In root cause analysis this response

would indicate the closed mind that results in flawed positions and beliefs

[G_j]

68. you get funnier

by the post

now you can hang your mail order psychiatrist diploma back on the wall.

[NJmaverick]

71. I am sadly reminded of dealing with a drunken relative that has

gone off on their favorite cause. Time to stop wasting my time

[Dr.Phool]

356. Better idea. Stop wasting ours.

[Name removed]

409. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[instantkarma]

75. By "this response" do you mean yours?

or are you just projecting? Considering the additional demonstrations you've offered in this thread, I'm guessing the latter.

[sabrina 1]

97. Well, I don't know about the other commenter at whom your lecture

is directed, but I discuss politics 'with a large swath of the political spectrum' and have yet to find anyone who doesn't support the right of citizens to expose criminal activity by elected officials.

Even my Republican friends now agree that the Bush administration 'crossed many lines' and if they committed crimes ought to be prosecuted for them. Absent the government doing its job, most agree it is the duty of citizens to raise awareness of those crimes. That is exactly what Code Pink does.

Sorry you are so protective of the rights of Rove, but not of the rights of the people to expose his crimes. It doesn't matter though, things have changed a lot since people like you attempted to silence liberals. Even Republicans are aware that the Bush mob probably stole at least one election so they don't get as upset as they might have four or five years ago when someone like Code Pink goes after them even if they are not exactly fans of the group.

[creeksneakers2]

210. There is a difference between

getting your message out and preventing others from getting theirs out.

[JackRiddler]

238. Yeesh, everyone was going to vote all Republicans out of office, but THEN...

Code Pink went and ruined it by making a ruckus at some book-signing by an unindicted war criminal. Drat!

[Chemical Bill]

56. It is a common, but false, trap...

to identify people by labels rather than beliefs. For example, FAIR puts much effort into examining the actual reporting of the media instead of the "liberal" label that Rush Limbaugh pins on the media. I suspect that the "fact" that 20% of the population is liberal while 40% is conservative has absolutely nothing to do with peoples beliefs, and everything to do with the labels in favor at the moment. Where did that statistic come from, anyway?

I'm with you, tekisui, I think people who lie should be challenged. I also think there should be a different standard for paid speech as opposed to free speech, but that's another story.

Bill

[laughingliberal]

196. Thank you. Labeling is the lazy way out. nt

[One of Many]

12. +1

Not impressed

[pocoloco]

48. Code Pink rocks!!

Care to compare your balls to theirs??

[NJmaverick]

55. Some people are led by their minds and moralvalues

it's funny the Parkison's disease patient that was the target of Teabagger's scorn had an observation that would also fit code pink

<<I could wish that abdication responsible and courteous citizenship is not part of Mr. Reichert’s politics. But the whole episode left me with an impression that Tea Bagger politics is a politics of simplistic and hostile assertion.>>

[sabrina 1]

99. So, you're comparing the man with Parkison's desease

to Karl Rove? Why am I not surprised. This tactic of attempting to blur lines grew old long ago. Try something else, you're not making much headway in your defense of Rove.

[laughingliberal]

197. I never realized Rove had so many fans on DU. This has been quite an eye opener. nt

[kas125]

415. It isn't that they are fans of Rove, it's that they hate CodePink.

Personally, I think it's because they feel guilty for sitting behind their computers complaining while we CodePinkers are out there on the front lines making sure history records that we weren't all "good Germans" but they can't admit it.

[SDuderstadt]

417. Fucking unbelievable....

I haven't seen a single person here argue that CodePink doesn't have a free speech right to protest Karl Rove. However, when someone crosses the line from merely protesting to shutting his speech down, that is not permissible. I seriously can't understand how someone can argue that someone has a free speech right to shut down the free speech of someone else. There is a HUGE internal contradiction there.

What is even more troubling is when someone makes an argument in favor of free speech, only to have someone totally twist that argument into support fot Rove. Again, fucking unbelievable.

[kas125]

418. Nobody "shut down" his free speech, they tried to arrest him

for committing war crimes AFTER he was finished speaking. He was the one who chose to leave, he could have stayed if he wanted to but ran away like the little coward he is.

[SDuderstadt]

419. Look at the title of the OP.....

duh....

[kas125]

421. So because someone chose that for the title of the OP,

someone who had nothing whatsoever to do with the people who did the action, you think that it was the protesters who shut it down? You need to go watch the video - it shows plain as day that he ran away of his own accord like a little coward.

[SDuderstadt]

422. I HAVE watched the video, dude...

and that is precisely how the reporter describes it. Duh.

[kas125]

426. DUDE??? I've been here all this time saying I'm a CodePinker,

and posted videos showing me in them, and you call me Dude? LOL!! Who cares what a reporter says? The video clearly shows that he ran away like the little coward he is, nobody prevented him from speaking if he had chosen to stay. Your defense of a slimy, cowardly proven liar and war criminal is truly laughable and pathetic.

[SDuderstadt]

427. And you don't understand the difference between...

defending free speech and defending the speaker. You should really learn the difference.

Do you honestly think if the roles had been reversed, we wouldn't speak out against it?

I'll ask you one time politely to quit accusing me of defending Rove. It's a cheap rhetorical trick.

[kas125]

429. But that's exactly what you're doing. You are claiming that

Jodie and Dede "shut down" the free speech of a person who was finished speaking and left because he chose to do so. He could have chosen to stay, but he was cowardly and left. Did you even read what I posted on the other thread, what Cindy Sheehan's sister, Dede wrote about it? She was in the video. In case you didn't, here it is again -

"What I said to Karl Rove that you could not hear...

Tue at 2:14pm
Karl began his talk by saying that one of the hardest things he had to do was meet with families of the fallen with Bush. Honestly…I didn’t hear much of what he said after that…

We waited patiently. I continually raised my hand to ask my question. He never looked our way. When it became apparent that he was not going to acknowledge us Jodie took matters into her own hands and tried to handcuff Rove. At first I thought she would be escorted out so I sat waiting for my opportunity.

Then things got crazy…when Jodie began to yell that he was responsible for so many deaths I took that as an invitation to join the fray. I walked straight up to Karl holding Casey’s picture. I told him that my nephew was killed in Iraq and he and his boss would never meet with my family or any other families who did not agree with his agenda. I had his total attention. He told me that wasn’t true. I told him it was…I got closer to him…pretty much toe to toe and told him to look at Casey’s picture and I held it closer..he put his hands on it and asked me if he could have it. I told him no and that I didn’t even want him to touch it. I told him that I felt dirty even standing so close to him. I then told him as the self-proclaimed architect of the New World Order that he was responsible for Casey’s death..he repeated a few times..”I am responsible”..not sure if he was being facetious or if I was scaring him. I said, my question is…with all the death, destruction and bloodshed you have caused, how do you sleep at night??? Things got suddenly very quite…and that’s when I yelled..I only take comfort in the fact that you will rot in hell…as I started to walk out he was saying “this is over” I went outside and cried…"

NOBODY infringed on his rights or shut him down, he chose to leave like the coward he is.

[SDuderstadt]

430. I'm certain you're well-intentioned....

but you need to educate yourselves on CA law and the laws governing a "citizen's arrest".

First of all, I'm all for your right to demonstrate, I'd like nothing better than to see Rove indicted, prosecuted and convicted for his role in the outing of Valerie Plame. But, that doesn't give me (or you, for that matter) the right to take the law into our own hands.

First, the people in the audience had the right to hear Rove speak, no matter how much you might disagree with that. I've watched the video repeatedly and I don't find your version of the events all that compelling. Rove is trying to speak and you guys are shouting him down.

CAL. PEN. CODE § 403


Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character, other than an assembly or meeting referred to in Section 302 of the Penal Code or Section 18340 of the Elections Code, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/11/s403

United States
Each state, with the exception of North Carolina, permits citizen arrests if the commission of a felony is witnessed by the arresting citizen, or when a citizen is asked to assist in the apprehension of a suspect by police. The application of state laws varies widely with respect to misdemeanors, breaches of the peace, and felonies not witnessed by the arresting party. American citizens do not carry the authority or enjoy the legal protections held by police officers, and are held to the principle of strict liability before the courts of civil- and criminal law including but not limited to any infringement of another's rights.<30>

Though North Carolina General Statutes have no provision for citizens' arrests, detention by private persons is permitted and applies to both civilians and police officers outside their jurisdiction.<31> Detention is permitted where probable cause exists that one has committed a felony, breach of peace, physical injury to another person, or theft or destruction of property.<32> Detention is different from an arrest in that in a detention the detainee may not be transported without consent.

I then told him as the self-proclaimed architect of the New World Order...

This "New World Order" bullshit is really embarrassing.

I don't know if Code Pink has a legal advisor but, if you do, you need to listen to him/her. Above and beyond that, you need to engage a public relations advisor. You don't have a free speech right to shut down the free speech of someone else and you certainlu don't win us friends by your tactics. There are any number of ways to deal with Rove. What you're doing isn't it.

P.S. Are you really accusing me of defending Karl Rove again????

[sabrina 1]

431. His speech wasn't shut down, the little cowardly war criminal

ran away after he was shown a photo of one of his victims, by a family member. He was allowed to spew his lies, about the families of dead soldiers. Unfortunately for him, one of them was there. She confronted him, with a photo of one of the victims, a U.S. soldier, and exposed the lies he told that audience, which no one prevented him from doing. He couldn't take it. He couldn't defend what he has done. So, rather than stay like a man and defend his reasons for lying, he ran away. That was HIS choice.

Sad for him that when you choose to be a lying war criminal and facilitator of torture and a denier of the voting rights of minorities, in the 'reality based world' there will be consequences. Your victims might come face to face with you one day. He's a lucky little war criminal as he lives in a country that no longer abides by the rule of law, so the only consequences he faces is being reminded of his crimes while he has the gall to sell a book lying about history. Very lucky indeed.

Troubling is what you are doing. You assumed he was prevented from speaking, when that did not happen at all. Next time you want to attack Code Pink or anyone else, get the facts first so you don't make a fool of yourself.

[SDuderstadt]

434. Here we go with the bullshit....

"you're not defending free speech, you're defending Karl Rove" nonsense.

I have watched the video repeatedly and it still looks to me like he was shouted down. You guys can yammer all you want, but it really troubles me when we use RW tactics to achieve liberal aims. I absolutely applaud and agree with Code Pink's aims. I do not agree with Code Pink's tactics.

Liberals are better than RWers. You can take the exact same argument you're making, insert Obama for Rove and "Guardians of the Free Republic" for Code Pink. Please tell me you wouldn't condone them doing it to Obama.

While there may be wrong ways to do the right thing, there is no right way to do the wrong thing.

[kas125]

436. If Obama were a lying war criminal who was responsible

for the needless deaths of thousands of people and was on tour promoting a book filled with his lies, and the people "doing it" to him included relatives of the people who died, then yes, I'd condone it. War criminals should be in prison, not running around giving speeches.

Free speech can only be infringed by the government, not by four women, by the way.

[SDuderstadt]

437. That's the problem....

you think you get to decide. Do you honestly think your free speech rights trump those of everyone else? What if I followed you around with a bullhorn and drownwed out all your words? Would that be okay? Your "the ends justify the means" reasoning is troubling and, in fact, undemocratic. Did it ever occur to you that you actually turn people away from your position? You might have the opportunity to recruit someone in that audience. Failing that, does it help to harden their beliefs about the left?

What if everyone adopted your position?

[kas125]

438. What the heck is with you? We've told you that he spoke for

over an hour and he was FINISHED speaking, but you still somehow claim that we think our free speech rights trump his. I KNOW that free speech can't be infringed upon by anyone but the government, so I have no idea what you're still yammering on about. If we turn away people like you, that is probably a GOOD thing. Sheesh.

[SDuderstadt]

441. I see...

so, free speech can only be infringed upon by the government? Really? Would it be okay of I followed you around and kept you from speaking? How would I not be nfringing upon your right to free speech? Do you really want to argue that I wasn't?

The difference between you and me is that I am consistent on free speech and you're not.

[kas125]

442. No, the difference between you and me is that I've read

the Constitution. You CANNOT infringe on my rights to free speech unless you are the United States Government.

[SDuderstadt]

443. Wrong again....

I can only be deemed to infringe on your 1st AMENDMENT rights if I'm the government. Are you really claiming free speech rights only flow from the 1st Amendment? Do you see the difference? Interesting theory.

So, again, if I followed you around with a bullhorn and prevented you from speaking, are you really claiming I am not infringing upon your free speech rights? And, if you answer that I am, would it stand to reason that those rights extend to everyone? Please tell me how you have a free speech right to shut down the free speech of others. Do you see the inherent contradiction?

[kas125]

444. Once again, since you seem to be unable to read, NOBODY

stopped that war criminal from speaking. He had spoken for over an hour and was FINISHED speaking. HE was the one who chose to leave when he did after being confronted by the aunt of someone for whose death he was responsible. That you keep defending his "rights" is absolutely ridiculous.

[SDuderstadt]

445. That's not what the video shows...

amd that's not what the news coverage says. How did you manage to botch that so badly?

And, of course, you accuse me of defending his rights when I am defending everyone's rights.

Simple question: do you claim a free speech right to deny free speech to Karl Rove?

[kas125]

446. Do you really think that video shows the entire 90 minutes?

Have you no clue that a video may be edited? Geez, why am I wasting time talking to someone who is so clueless as to think that a two minute video shows EVERYTHING that happened at an event and doesn't even know that nobody can infringe on free speech but the government? I don't know, but here is where it ends. You are absolutely not worth another second of my time.

[SDuderstadt]

447. Look at the post where I asked if....

Code Pink had video of the entire event. It would seem to me you would want to help your cause.

[sabrina 1]

439. The video did not cover his speech. It was after his speech

that he was approached. How would you react to someone who was lying right in front of you about something you were very personally involved in? Did you read what actually happened? What promped Casey Sheehans aunt to interrupt him?

What right way is there to approach a criminal like Rove?

You object to people assuming you are defending Rove, fair enough. But YOU are making a comparison between Code Pink and the teabaggers when there is absolutely none there. CP let him speak, his audience heard what he had to say. Then, they had their say. He needs to stay home if he doesn't want to be reminded of what he did. And consider himself lucky that he is not in jail for treason. But if he insists on flaunting his crimes, in profiting from them, then he should expect a reaction from those whose lives he ruined, and those who care about the rule of law.

The teabaggers were not talking to war criminals, they did not allow members of Congress to have their say, as CP allowed Rove. But the biggest difference is the injustice of this man, who refused to answer a subpoena from Congress, not being held accountable for the part he played in the destruction of this country. He was the architect of the politics of confrontation and dirty tricks. For him to complain about it is beyond words. NOT to confront such corruption is a dereliction of duty.

[SDuderstadt]

440. Wrong again...

I am not comparing Code Pink to the teabaggers. I am asking you how your argument is different than theirs. Do you understand that distinction? Somehow, I don't think you do.

Simple question: where do your free speech rights derive from? Do you think they only derive from the first amendment? Another simple question: do you have a free speech right to deny those rights to someone else? Who elected you? Do you see the circular logic involved in your position?

Are you arguing that the teabaggers did not have a free speech right to confront members of Congress? Did you think it unfair the way they did it? I do. How is what you did different?

Here'a another question. Precisely what did you guys intend to do if you somehow managed to get those handcuffs on Rove? What was your next step? Do you understand what false imprisonment is? Do you understand the concept of strict liability?

Wouldn't your time be better spent convincing someone to indict and prosecute Rove? Have you done anything like that? As far as your claim that Rove was finished speaking, why did he still have the microphone in his hand? If you had decided to confront Rove after the event was actually over, I'd be all for it. However, I keep trying to understand how what you did is different than teabaggers trying to shut down debate on HCR.

See, the difference between you and me is I value free speech and you don't. I also extend it to everyone, including people and speech I don't like. You seem to think your rights trump those whose speech you disagree with.

As far as your claim that Rove is lucky he's not in jail for treason, do you actually understand that treason is defined in the Constitution? Do you know what that definition actually is or do you just casually throw the word around? I'd love to see the video of the entire event. Did you guys shoot any?

Do you believe democracy is served well through undemocratic means?

[sabrina 1]

449. I think you have me confused with someone from Code Pink.

Who is posting in this thread btw. I am not a member of CP, just to clarify. But I totally agree with what they do.

I notice you've shifted your argument from 'they wouldn't let him speak' now that you have been informed that you were wrong.

Karl Rove, according to most Constitutional experts, committed treason. Vincent Bugliosi, one of the country's most successful prosecutors, is among those would like to prosecute him. Clearly you have not been following his 'career':

Rove was an active participant in disclosing the identity of a covert CIA agent in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, an act of treason damaging national security by compromising the lives, safety, and operational capacity of covert agents, and thereby damaging ability to recruit human intelligence assets necessary to prevent terrorism. All U.S. citizens, including Oregonians, were endangered by these acts.

This disclosure was committed to discredit testimony by Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, who revealed the Bush administration deception regarding supposed “yellow cake” purchases from Niger by Saddam to support the invasion of Iraq.

He made a deal and got off the hook after justice was obstructed by Libby and the prosecutor was unable to pursue the case. The main criminal in that case of course, was Cheney. In the opinion of many, many constitutional lawyers, treason was the charge he should have faced and may yet if this country ever returns to the rule of law.

The teabaggers have the right to free speech, as does Rove. I don't know why you asked me that question since I never said they did not. I just don't like the fact, that unlike Code Pink, the teabaggers do not allow members of Congress to speak at all. Members of Congress can yell back if they want, Barney Frank eg, handled them very well and shut them up actually. Rove otoh, is too much of a coward to face a few women. He could have apologized to the aunt of a fallen soldier whose death he has a responsibity for. But, a draft-dodging weasel like him could never be expected to do that.

You will never get it, will you? Shouting down Senators without listening to what they have to say first, and letting a war criminal tell his lies for an hour or more before exercising their citizens' right to free speech, letting him know that while our government refuses to prosecute criminals in high government positions, the public will never forget or allow them to forget. do not even compare.

No one who understands the magnitude of Rove's crimes against this country, going back years, would dare to try to compare those who publicly challenge him to a bunch of brain-dead rabble-rousers who have no point to make other than attacking members of Congress, none of whom have been accused of crimes.

[SDuderstadt]

450. I did have you confused...my apologies....

and frankly, I have lost track of this entire thread.

The one thing I will take exception to, however, is trying to draw a distinction between teabaggers shouting someone down and Code Pink shouting someone down. Anyone shouting anyone down is in no position to justify unjustifiable behavior. I'm too big a fan of free speech.

Again, my apologies.

[Mojeoux]

410. he's still at it? n/t

[Orsino]

62. The war was already lost, long ago.

As long as we stay relatively peaceful, we can't lose it any worse.

And I appreciate their reminder--hope it got some airtime.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. Their purpose is not focused on doing you favors

:crazy:

[sabrina 1]

92. You're a liberal?

[Raineyb]

104. Only in Bizzaroland

In the real world? I'd say no.

[tekisui]

122. Not even close.

I don't know why he tries to speak on our behalf.

[goclark]

112. I agree ~ they will use this

and I can't say I blame them.

[Raineyb]

127. I think that too many people spend way too much time caring about what a bunch of right wing

thugs think.

They use this tactic all the time. KKKarl Rove hasn't had any rights violated. That he is scared of what the women of Code Pink are exposing about HIM ought to say something about THEM not bring on fretting about what Code Pink looks like TO them.

[sabrina 1]

146. Who cares what a bunch of wacko rightwingnuts does or thinks?

It sure doesn't make Rove look good. Running away from a few women dressed in pink, he left his 'fans' without their signed editions of his lying diatribe ~ that was well worth watching. Free speech in action!

No wonder his fans are angry about it.

[Enthusiast]

366. I especially liked

"You ruined this country!" because that is the damned truth. One false presidential election and this nation has never been the same. The rule of law (election law) was violated on a grand scale.

Respect for "the law" is now at an all time low. Or maybe respect for "justice". This is apparent.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eridani]

136. Code Pink is nonviolent. Huge difference

Get back to me when they start carrying signs with Rove's face centered in a gunsight.

[Political Heretic]

423. I didn't think I had anyone on my ignore list, but I guess I do.

Whoever you are responding to.

I'll have to go check, but from the looks of this one sided conversation, I can imagine why.

[opihimoimoi]

5. If there is a time for these sort of things...this should be one of them....:o)

jus saying

:bounce:

[lunatica]

9. A threat to civil liberties? Code Pink?

Nope.

Rove a threat to living things everywhere? Yup.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lunatica]

39. And evidently to defend the right of a proven liar to continue

making money pushing those lies. Poor Rove is being denied his civil liberties! Doesn't that just break your heart?

[tekisui]

40. I'm going to lose sleep over it.

Funny it is the blind defenders of the current administration most defending poor karl's rights.

[NJmaverick]

22. Ever hear of free speech? It's not Code Pink's right to take that away from anyone

[tekisui]

31. Are you claiming rove's right to free speech has been violated?

LOL!

It is not the GOVERNMENT'S right to take away free speech. It is also the right of COde Pink to challenge rove where ever he goes.

[NJmaverick]

34. What you fail to understand is free speech is EVERYONE's right

not just those you like or agree with

[tekisui]

38. And rove is going back to national television.

His speech is not encumbered. But, I can see whose voice you value. Interesting.

[paulsby]

54. voltaire said it best

"i may not agree with what you say, but i defend to the death your right to say it"
(quoting from memory, so spare me if i got a word wrong)

how sad so many here disrespect the basic tenets of free speech and the marketplace of ideas.

our protection of free speech was/is the great experiment, it was radical at the time, and in a world where "hate speech" and other such laws are popular worldwide, it's STILL radical

and there are still plenty here and elsewhere who abandon the 1st amendment when the speaker is one they disagree with

i support the right of scumbag criminals to get defense attorneys and trials.

i support the right of scumbag presidential advisers to speak their mind

it doesn't mean i support what either DO or stand for.

i just respect their rights.

hth

[NJmaverick]

57. You nailed it with intellectual clarity

sadly Code Pink and it's supporters are more about simple ideas and thuggish enforcement.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Daemonaquila]

173. Another person who has apparently never read the constitution...

Rove has no constitutional right to spew except when it's government curtailing his speech. Code Pink ain't the government. The First Amendment guarantees their right to heckle the hell out of Rove without government interference as well.

[paulsby]

354. you clearly didn't understand what you read

i didn't say that code pink was committing a civil rights violation, by violating rove's civil rights, and that this was criminally actionable as a first amendment violation

i never claimed they were a govt. actors, for instance.

i said rove had the right to speak, and they were interfering with that.

if you are standing at a war protest holding a sign, and i come up and steal your sign, i am not going to get prosecuted under various federal civil rights codes, since i didn't do it under color of govt. authority

i am still interfering with your right to free speech

hth

(try a little more study next time. your understanding of the constitution fits in a thimble. with room left over)

[sabrina 1]

101. So Rove has a right to free speech (actually his book-

selling enterprise is commercial and an attempt to cover the crimes he was involved in) but that aside. You defend HIS right but do not defend Code Pink's right to free speech?

See, it works this way. He has a right to try to sell his drivel, and Code Pink has the right to draw attetnion to his lies. If money is speech, if Corps are 'persons' then making a citizen's arrest of a suspect in some major crimes is also free speech. It's simple, I don't know why you don't get it. Unless liberals have less rights than anyone else in your opinion, which you are also entitled to btw.

[paulsby]

165. i don't respect anybody's "right"

to shut down other's free speech, whether it's thugs in canada shutting down coulter, or this incident.

[sabrina 1]

182. Code Pink were exercising their 1st Amend. rights

Apparently law enforcement agrees. 'No arrests were made'!

Rove's speech was not shut down. Like the cowardly little rightwingnut draft-dodging freeper that he is, first he called names and then he stomped off with his fingers in his ears. No one was stopping him from responding. He just can't deal with the truth. He should have thought about that before he aided and abetted the war crimes that killed over 1.3 million human beings.

[Enthusiast]

367. Did you complain when

Teabaggers shouted down legitimate discussions at the town hall meetings last Summer?

[lumpy]

78. Here's some free speech for ya'. You are full of it.

I suppose you are one of those who believes that free speech gives one the right to use racial slurs, cowardly lies, getting on other peoples faces, spitting etc etc....

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. Yes Code Pink also has free speech rights

That's what they were exercising by speaking out about a war criminal.

[sabrina 1]

131. What you are forgetting is that it is also Code Pink's right.

Even though you don't like liberals exercising their free speech, you need to remember that they too, have the same rights as Rove.

[laughingliberal]

198. Thank you! WTH is wrong with people? nt

[sabrina 1]

223. I never thought I'd see the day when someone on a democratic

board would defend this pos war criminal.

[Enthusiast]

368. Many DUers are

in reality long-time stealth Republicans. They take these obvious GOP positions in an attempt to steer the thinking/conclusions.

[sabrina 1]

381. Well, they need some new tactics. This one, the attempt

to try to equate what Code Pink does to what rightwingnuts do and 'we shouldn't want to be like them' nonsense, completely ignoring the war crimes, isn't working anymore.

To remain silent in the face of those crimes, now that we know there will be no justice, would be the equivalent of what the German people were accused of.

Oh yes, and I don't care about 'Godwin's Law'. I prefer 'when the shoe fits, wear it', before any of them arrive with THAT talking point also.

[LaydeeBug]

159. And that Right to Free Speech applies to CODE PINK TOO. nt

[laughingliberal]

199. Perhaps they should have stayed in a 1st amendment zone

You know, six blocks from the target of their protest. :sarcasm:

[Raksha]

207. You seem a lot more "concerned" about Karl Rove's right to freedom of speech

than to CodePink's right to freedom of speech. And you wonder why people think you aren't a liberal!

I put the word "concerned" in quotation marks for a reason, which will be obvious to anyone who has been around DU for any length of time at all.

[lunatica]

41. Code Pink is practicing free spreech

They aren't denying Rove's free speech. He can and does spout lies every single day and in our faces. Code Pink didn't arrest him or endanger him. You're full of hyperbole and obviously unable to understand that free speech isn't an issue here. Denying free speech means taking that right away. Rove's 'free speech' is perfectly safe.

If I go into a minority neighborhood and start speechifying self-serving lies about the minority who live there and they picket me and drive my audience away are they denying me my free speech rights. No. They're simply making my audience leave.

Your argument is specious and erroneous.

[proud2BlibKansan]

70. A+

[Common Sense Party]

84. So, if a group of teabaggers barges into one of Pres. Obama's speeches

or public events, and they shout over him and drown him out so that no one can hear him, that would be okay with you?

[tekisui]

125. THey would be removed.

And, yes they have that right.

Just as people used to shout at chimpy.

[laughingliberal]

201. I seem to recall at Notre Dame, they simply removed the protesters.

I seem to recall him taking it with good grace and acknowledging them with a nice, 'that's ok.' I believe the President recognizes the rights of the people to protest.

[Common Sense Party]

224. That's fine if you have secret security protection to forcibly remove

the protesters.

Most people don't.

What if you are giving an anti-war speech at your local community center and a bunch of rabid, pro-war chickenhawks mobbed the podium and drowned you out?

Is that a valid exercise of their right to protest?

[laughingliberal]

355. I actually believe some of those protesters were removed by Notre Dame's security

and, regardless, any business can call the police to have disruptors removed.

As for the chickenhawks if they touch me they will be charged with battery. And I imagine they would be charged with disturbing the peace.

It is a valid exercise of their right to protest. It would, likely, violate some local ordinances and, if they touch me, state laws but it is not a violation of the first amendment which restricts the power of Congress to pass laws abridging the exercise of free speech.

I didn't say they didn't break some laws but they did not violate a first amendment right. Many people throughout history have violated laws in order to protest. The sit ins at the lunch counters during the civil rights movement resulted in arrests sometimes. Rosa Parks violated the current law when she refused to move to the back of the bus. I can live with that.

[Raineyb]

69. Apparently it's up to YOU to deny it to Code Pink.

Or to anyone else you don't care for.

Code Pink has as much right to protest as Mr. Rove (who ought not be defended on this board) does to push his swill. If he is unable to handle the truth and face criticism and feels the need to run off because he's a coward. That's certainly not the fault of Code Pink.

[tekisui]

115. Authoritarians have a hard time understanding that.

Such strong defense of rove tells me more than I need to know about the above posters.

[paulsby]

181. such weak reading comprehension tells me more than i need to know about you

NOBODY defended rove

they defended his right to speak

i don't defend scumbags. i defend their rights

huge difference

[Raineyb]

187. His rights weren't violated. There was nothing to defend.

Code Pink was doing exactly what Mr. Rove was doing. Exercising their rights to free speech. If Mr. Rove can't take the accusations and feels the need to leave that's his problem but has nothing to do with anything Code Pink did to him.

[laughingliberal]

204. I'm certain his rights were violated. They should have been in a 1st amendment zone.

Remember those? WTF is wrong with people?

[creeksneakers2]

212. Do you have any idea what a principle is?

[proud2BlibKansan]

123. Unless Medea Benjamin is an elected official you couldn't be more wrong

And if she is then rock on Medea!!!

[Ignis]

132. To take a page from your playbook:

Take a class in Civics and another in American History, because you do not understand how the 1st Amendment protects the practice of free speech.

:hi:

[mitchum]

134. "Free speech" does not mean whatever you want it to mean

You have been lectured time and time about the constitutional definition of "free speech", yet you persist...

Sorry, but you come off like a particularly thick child.

[Xenotime]

63. Bullshit. The less this guy is allowed to speak the better.

People have had enough with his hate speech.

[proud2BlibKansan]

66. You're defending a war criminal?!?!

Jeez this place is just nuts some days.

[Generic Other]

80. That's what they told my grandmother when she demanded the right to vote!

She used to disrupt meetings too.

[arcadian]

89. It's too bad,

There was a lot of unity around heree with the all the violence on right last week. Then you gotta go around making statements like that. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

91. Rove is a threat to civil liberties. He is a criminal on so many

levels, particularly on voting rights, the political prosecution of Don Siegelman, the Plame affair just for starters, and has, so far, managed to escape justice.

Unless you equate this criminal with elected Democrats whose events are disrupted by the right, I see no comparison between the two.

[WinkyDink]

116. It's called "civil disobedience" and has a long and respected history.

[grahamhgreen]

176. Thread hijacker! Who pays your salary?

[Warren Stupidity]

230. The very first response. Congratulations.

tool (tl)
n.
1. A device, such as a saw, used to perform or facilitate manual or mechanical work.
2.
a. A machine, such as a lathe, used to cut and shape machine parts or other objects.
b. The cutting part of such a machine.
3. Something regarded as necessary to the carrying out of one's occupation or profession: Words are the tools of our trade.
4. Something used in the performance of an operation; an instrument: "Modern democracies have the fiscal and monetary tools . . . to end chronic slumps and galloping inflations" (Paul A. Samuelson).
5. Vulgar Slang A penis.
6. A person used to carry out the designs of another; a dupe.

[ClayZ]

241. Bravo, Code Pink

K and R

[spoony]

330. Big surprise.

You taking a hard right of center stance, and falsely equating this with the violent terrorist plotting we're seeing from the right.

[Mojeoux]

413. Code Pink Code Pink Yeah Yeah Yeah!!!

go play in the basement "maverick."

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I do admire and respect those in Code Pink. They are doing incredible things!!!

I am in awe of their courage and tenacity.

[tekisui]

4. knr! Good job Code Pink! THe Obama Administration wants

to ignore the crimes of the previous WH occupants, we won't forget.

[lpbk2713]

6. I don't know why that little weasel is not in prison.

Good going Code Pink.


:thumbsup: :dem: :thumbsup:

[opihimoimoi]

7. He deserves HOUNDING for giving us 8 Bush years.....

[tekisui]

15. Because Obama and Holder would rather sweep their

crimes under the rug.

[mmonk]

16. Recommended for Code Pink. Those that walk the walk.

[mstinamotorcity]

17. My hat is off to CODE PINK

Karl Rove is as mean and hateful as they come. They should have told me they were going, i would have given them a pair of tweezers so the could pull those three hairs off the top of his big head,because every time i see that waterhead sucker i just want to walk up to him with tweezers in hand and start plucking.The brain.more like the B---h.!!!!!I am just saying :P :P :P

[Cid_B]

21. Free advertising for Rove...

A few hundred thousand people more will know he has a book than would have otherwise... Also CP solidifies the idiot liberal stereotype in the mind of the public.

By all means keep it up :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

24. Sadly you are correct

[arcadian]

90. Oh wait.

I thought it was a Code Pink denying Rove his 1st amendment right, now it's Code Pink doing PR for Rove? Make up your mind why you hate Code Pink.

[tekisui]

126. lol.

He should just come out and say why he hates CP: They are liberals.

[sabrina 1]

156. Lol! n/t

[Forkboy]

169. He hates them because they're to his left.

As he can't, or won't, ever admit that, he has to bounce around from reason to reason to make it look like he's not just pissed off that Lefties acted up.

[laughingliberal]

208. +1000

Keep your eye on the bouncing ball

:bounce:

[laughingliberal]

206. Human pretzel. nt

[Dr.Phool]

357. Well, nobody ever heard of Rove before this.

A fucking traitor, trying to profit from his crimes and clean up his image. And we should just go on merrily and ignore him. Not.

[Mojeoux]

411. What Tea Baggers did at Health Care Rallies WAS NOT free speech! n/t

[chill_wind]

32. The Rove zombie legions who would read a Karl Rove book already know

Karl Rove has a book. Those that don't can't afford cable and/or internet, and probably can't afford his book either, or could care less.

[mmonk]

35. People often call people who are correct idiots.

That's no excuse for what both parties have allowed to take place. It's why this country's moral compass has died. It's why BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES are responsible for this person's success and finally, that is the wrong Code Pink addresses.

[Cid_B]

42. And they address these issues by....

running around in frilly pink tiaras and fuzzy hand cuffs?

Is that really the way that the issue should be addressed ?

Do you really believe that more people see these idiots and say

a) "Gosh, they have a solid point. I think I'll support their cause"

or

b) "Lordy, who let the lunatics out of the asylum. Whatever they are involved with is obviously nuts"

In other words, they only preach to their own choir and turn everyone else off.

[tekisui]

44. The issue should be addressed by Obama and Holder.

But, they refuse.

Their inaction leaves a vacuum for all others to try and fill.

[mmonk]

46. Since there is no political party that will listen or do what is right,

one person's nut is another person's person of action.

[EFerrari]

74. They have no interest in turning you on, is that your problem?

[sabrina 1]

110. Well, they got your attention and the two other

Rove defenders in this thread. If they are not effective, then don't worry about them, just ignore them. Clearly they ARE when some feel the need to make so many comments to try to discredit them (a failed exercise btw). I love what they do. They DO make people ask 'what are those people dressed up like that for, and what are they doing'? And that is why they do it. So many times they've given me the opportunity to explain what they are protesting and that informs others of crimes they were not aware of.

So, from your posts and a couple of others here, they clearly have accomplished their goal. It's called marketing in case you didn't know. Mickey Mouse works too. And you apparently bought what they wanted you to buy. Attention to the crimes of the Bush administration is all that is needed to get the people to demand justice. Code Pink as you pointed out, are very good at getting attention. Your objection to them, gave the rest of us the opportunity to explain why Rove deserves to be hounded until he is properly convicted for his crimes. Now there are more educated lurkers who might not have known about his specific crimes.

[Daemonaquila]

174. This can also be said of people like Kerry, Gore...

... and other DLC weenies who were too chicken to say a harsh word about BushCo's burning of the Constitution, their election theft, etc.

You don't like Code Pink. Fine. They got closer to bringing Rove to justice than any "solid" Dem has had the guts to even attempt.

[Dr.Phool]

358. It used to be called guerilla theater.

Non-violent, outrageous, and to the point.

Fuck Rove. Ostracize him to the point that he spends the rest of his life in his basement sucking his thumb, and cuddling his security blankie.

[NJmaverick]

45. No they don't. Who told you that?

[mmonk]

51. Nobody tells me what to think.

I pretty much can determine reality on my own. From Kucinich and Grayson to Galileo, it's not hard to see it.

[CBR]

93. I agree re: free advertising. Just let him do his stupid booksigning. nt

[sabrina 1]

103. And even more than that will know he is a criminal. It's a good

trade-off. Money won't help him much when this country gets around to actually applying the law to war criminals and to people who deny others the right to vote. We don't yet have an administration with the guts to do that, but hopefully one day we will.

Criminals in South American countries who participated in crimes against their people thought they had gotten away with it also. But times change, many of them can no longer walk the streets as arrogantly as they used to without encountering the victims of their crimes, and some of them, even after 30 years are finally being brought to justice.

Rove and his band of criminals should never have thought that there would be NO consequences for their crimes. If they did, I hope they are finding out that while even a Democratic adminstration will cover for them, they still have to answer to the people. It is our right to let them know they did not fool the people. If you don't want to pay the price of your crimes, then don't commit them.

[proud2BlibKansan]

128. LOL Rove has been all over the teevee promoting his book

Code Pink is reminding the American people that Rove is a war criminal.

[90-percent]

23. No prosecution for GWB Traitors

This precedent is one of the worst things Obama could be doing to the future of America.

This is codifying the Nixonian Doctrine of "If the President does it, it's not illegal."

If we elect another man-child "War President" that is not as wise and benevolent and "Christian" as GWB was, our future is in real trouble. We may literally end up going to war over dandruff!

Actually, our future will be over the tipping point to the end when all the Corporate funded politicians get elected this November! Every non-incumbent Republican will be interchangeable with the likes of the useful idiot Palin!

And we're all so stupid we'll get all these right-bots Corporation-worshiping drones elected! The Campaign with the most money wins. How are us working types with our $10 and $20 dollar donations going to keep up with the likes of Exxon-Mobil or General Dynamics?

You heard it here first.

-90% Jimmy

[Tsiyu]

37. Thank You

there is quite a difference between trying to arrest a criminal in public (wasn't a Rapper arrested during his show this week? Were the cops just "rabble-rousing disruptors" destroying free speech? Wasn't the show's interruption merely Collateral damage in making the arrest?) and running innocent people off the road because they voted for someone you don't like.

[JSK]

83. Yes! Watch the video!

http://cbs2.com/local/book.signing.karl.2.1598578.html

This was a mild "demonstration" by Code Pink standards; the citizens arrest was the main event.

The video is very enjoyable! Rove looks like a scared little boy, especially when he slaps the woman's hand and says, "You get away!!"

Someone also questioned him about the Downing Street Memo, which he called a "complete fabrication" as well as calling the questioner a "lunatic."

[Enthusiast]

370. Well said, 90% Jimmy!

If we would happen to elect another man-child "War President" it is possible they could finally go to war for territorial ambitions leaving no doubts for the rest of the world what this country has become. Frightening prospects.

[The Wizard]

43. The trick is to engage

the likes of Rove, Coulter, et al so as to waste as much of their time as possible. We should also contact Republican campaigns and request campaign materials that we can use to line dumpsters.

[gratuitous]

47. We haven't forgotten Karl

Maybe you're thinking because the Obama administration has made a horrible decision not to prosecute you, there's no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. We haven't forgotten, and we will hold you responsible in a court of law.

[proud2BlibKansan]

64. Awesome! Code Pink rocks!!!

I got a bunch of emails about these plans and was hoping it would go well for Code Pink.

This is great news!!!!!

[EFerrari]

72. Damn those disruptive uppity women.

:woohoo:

[Echo In Light]

73. Good to hear! k/r

[lonestarnot]

87. CP ROCKS!

:yourock:

[EFerrari]

88. The pig is in Fresno tonight!

[marions ghost]

98. In this pseudo-Democracy

where people have no power to stop evil masterminds like Karl Rove from perpetrating unholy wars and then flaunting their dubious "accomplishments," the Code Pink protest is very mild indeed.

Good going, Code Pink. :thumbsup:

[old mark]

108. Good! I hope they follow him around for the rest of his life.

I hope he never has a peaceful day again.
Leftists are too fucking polite for our own good - get mad at these criminals and get back at them.


mark

[opihimoimoi]

109. From Ole Opi to Ole Mark: I'm with ya... + 99 trillion :o)

[sabrina 1]

111. Go Code Pink! There is no statute of limitations on war crimes!

[Oceansaway]

113. K&R...n/t

[GReedDiamond]

118. Congatulations to CODE PINK...

...for a job well done. The war criminal Rove ran away like the coward he is.

His PR event promoting his latest self-aggrandizing pack of bullshit lies in book form was brought to an early end.

To run away like a scared child was Rove the coward's choice.

It was not an infringement of his "free speech" as some defenders of Rove (the usual suspects, I notice) would have it believed.

KKKarl will be on to his next PR stop (because CODE PINK did NOT take away his "free speech rights"), and hopefully, the same scenario will occur (because CODE PINK and anybody else who disagrees with Rove - or John Yoo, or Bybee, for example, ALSO have those same rights). And for those spewing the right-wing talking point that CODE PINK is a bunch of "violent thugs," bent on shutting down the free speech of others, the term "FReeper" comes to mind.

Fuck the blood-soaked torturers and war criminals!

THANKS to CODE PINK!

[upi402]

119. Congress take note! Spine is good - Investigate now!

:patriot: Heroes!

[WinkyDink]

120. "Thugs" and "thuggery"?? We should respect and give audience to liars and traitors?

They should be harried out of the land [tm King James I).

[laughingliberal]

220. Thank you! nt

[hughee99]

124. Good for them, a sure way to end the war is to shut down a Rove book signing.

Before the election, my freeper brother predicted that if Obama wins, the wars will continue and the only time you'll hear from Code Pink is when they're protesting repukes. I wouldn't say this is 100% the case, but despite the fact that Democrats are the ones with the power to end the wars, they seem to save their "A game" for the repuke protests.

[proud2BlibKansan]

130. That's not what is happening though

Code Pink has continued protesting against the war and is in front of the White House as they were before Obama was elected. Last weekend they were part of a large anti-war march that outnumbered the teabaggers in town protesting against HCR.

The difference is the media focused on the teabaggers and has largely ignored Code Pink since a Democrat moved into the White House.

[opihimoimoi]

133. EVEN Good Projects can run astray occassionaly...CP should look at ways to Promote Best Ways

to Help Obama achieve Big Picture...a HEALING PROCESS via POSITIVENESS...

"Rise Above and Ye Shall see the SOLUTIONS" KahunaOKaneohe

[Hissyspit]

157. Yes, Rove has POSITIVELY gotten away with war crimes

And has crimes and any accountability are POSITIVELY being brushed under the rug and he is POSITIVELY getting away with his revisionist lies in the mainstream media.

Meanwhile, Code Pink, apparently, are always POSITIVELY wrong to try to draw attention to it, no matter how they do it.

[EFerrari]

143. Wrong. Go to their site for a list of their actions. n/t

[hughee99]

179. If I have to go to their site for a list of their actions

they're not really doing their job, are they? Yes, I'm aware of their protests, but if raising awareness to affect change is one of the goals of their protest, the only time they get any publicity these days is when they protest repukes. They shut down the Rove book signing, have they "shut down" any Democrat-related events yet? Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% supportive of anything that makes Rove's life more difficult, but I don't see this same sort of dedication from Code Pink when protesting Dems these days.

[EFerrari]

195. Code Pink doesn't own the media. n/t

[Hissyspit]

148. Code Pink had consistently protested the continuation of the wars.

Try again.

[Hissyspit]

155. "has"

[hughee99]

184. If their goal is to end the wars,

how does the protest of Rove a means to that end? If their goal is to bring the criminals to justice, how does a protest of Rove help? The people that can end the war and can prosecute the war criminals are in Washington. Yes, I realize that they have been protesting at other venues, but why is it that only this one gets publicity? I haven't seen these this level of confrontation with the administration for either the continuation of the war or the failure to prosecute the war criminals.

[walldude]

137. So people are defending Karl Rove?

What are you fucking kidding me? First of all lets get this free speech thing out of the way. Rove could have stayed, no one was "taking away his rights" the protesters were within their rights to speak as loudly as they wanted as Rove would have been within his to stay and make up some more lies had he not been suck a FUCKING COWARD and ran away.

Now the rest of the issue. Karl Rove like Bush and Cheney is a WAR CRIMINAL. He has the blood of of thousands of INNOCENT CHILDREN on his hands. Let that sink in for a moment. THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CHILDREN ARE DEAD BECAUSE OF THIS LYING PIECE OF SHIT COWARD.

And now I have to come on here and see pathetic attempts to paint this man as having his 1st amendment rights taken away from him? He should be in prison not on a fucking book tour.

[GReedDiamond]

200. Yes, the defenders of Rove's "free speech" are fuckin' amazing,..

...in a bad way, and they apparently consider themselves to be enlightened thinkers, and experts on the First Amendment.

I had to double check the URL I was on to make sure I hadn't accidentally clicked on a link to the FreeRepublic sewer.

[KG]

202. it warms my heart to see karl rove get a fair shake at DU.

:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

211. In your worst nightmare of world upside down would you ever have predicted that? nt

[KG]

218. been here since 2001, nothing surprises me anymore.

:P

[Enthusiast]

371. +1

[JackBeck]

138. Non-violent civil disobedience has a rich history in our democracy.

Whenever I witness or hear about a Code Pink action, I'm reminded of ACT-UP and how much attention they brought to a disease that the government was ignoring, while thousands of people were dying.

[opihimoimoi]

140. For CP...its an Iconic Photo...they did good exposing the war crimes of the BUSHITES

[JackBeck]

144. I have the whole series of photos saved. The moment has been seared into my soul.

I remember sitting at my work desk crying when this happened. I was just so utterly blown away by these photos.

[opihimoimoi]

150. It was a very important CLEANSING MOMENT FOR THE NATION...

The Pubs are starting to FEEL THE "LOVE" LOL

[blogslut]

141. Ha!

Good for them.

All Karl Rove knows how to do is manipulate and lie. If he had any sort of leadership qualities he could have engaged those people in a real discussion. But no, he just attacked their patriotism and whined to the audience that they were mean. And then he ran off like a spoiled child.

The man is nothing but a snake.

[Hubert Flottz]

142. K&R

Karl belongs on Death Row for murder.

[opihimoimoi]

387. CARL Needs to be a POW on Death Row For WAR CRIMES

in a dungeon where they got whips, cuffs, and lezzies too..

That'll teach um

Then they hack ir OFF with the cigar thingy....

[walldude]

147. ..

[Greyhound]

151. Good on them.

You only got two of the Corporate Corps to come out on this one.
:kick: & R

[Blue Owl]

152. Turdburglar on the run

Let's make the only safe place for Karl be the inside of a prison cell!

[laughingliberal]

216. +++1000 nt

[earth mom]

161. Go Code Pink! Expose those criminals for what they are!

:yourock:

[H2O Man]

167. Beautiful! n/t

[pundaint]

172. Two snaps up with a loop!

[laughingliberal]

213. K & R!!! nt

[patrice]

219. Thank you Code Pink!!! Please keep calling that Lying Sack of Shit out wherever he goes.

[Nikki Stone1]

227. +10,000

..

[Liberty Belle]

226. Amen. He comes to San Diego next. Hope he gets a helluva welcoming committee.

[SDuderstadt]

231. I kinda like what Voltaire (allegedly) had to say....

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

[omega minimo]

232. Yes, millions of people have died in order for him to lie, commit treason and profit from it

:evilfrown:

[SDuderstadt]

234. And the teabaggers would make the same argument about...

WJC or BHO. I find this strain of "the end justifies the means" on DU very troubling.

[laughingliberal]

235. I see no reason why the teabaggers' arguments are any concern of mine.

This isn't the ends justify the means. This is his actions deserve to be brought to people's attention.

[SDuderstadt]

237. That doesn't mean disrupting his presentation.....

we scream bloody murder when the circumstances are reversed and Code Pink"s actions don't reflect well on us. It's like when those "We are Change" idiots follow Bill Clinton around and harass him.

If you can't see the "the end jusifies the means" element of this, that's where the problem starts.

[JackBeck]

239. I'm intersted in hearing your feelings about ACT-UP?

[SDuderstadt]

242. Same thing...

I would also apply the same principle to any RW group acting similarly.

[JackBeck]

245. You think that ACT-UP's civil disobedience was ineffective?

You do realize that RW groups act out from a place immersed in misinformation?

[SDuderstadt]

246. And who decides?

This is what I mean when I say "the end justifies the means". Shouldn't we apply the same standard to both sides?

I am really distressed at some of the undemocratic ideas that circulate here.

[JackBeck]

249. There is nothing undemocratic about INFORMED civil disobedience.

You are denouncing the tactics used by ACT-UP during a time when thousands of American citizens were dying?

[SDuderstadt]

254. Show me where I "denounced" them....

silly strawman.

[JackBeck]

260. I'm asking you if you agree with their tactics.

So far, you don't appear to think they were effective.

Just to be clear, we're talking about ACT-UP and their acts of civil disobedience.

[SDuderstadt]

264. I'm hardly opposed to civil disobedience...

I am talking about certain undemocratic actions of CP or any other group, for that matter.

[JackBeck]

275. What undemocratic actions did CP engage in when disrupting Rove's appearance?

[SDuderstadt]

278. Is shouting someone down....

democratic???

[JackBeck]

284. Informed dissent will always be democratic.

[SDuderstadt]

287. Dissent doesn't mean shouting someone down, dude....

no matter which side does it.

[JackBeck]

290. Rove continues to have a platform to promote his ill-informed beliefs.

I have a hard time understanding where his civil rights were violated.

[SDuderstadt]

291. Again, dude....

who decides?

[JackBeck]

297. Your jurisdiction.

Which is why it's ultimately important to become familiar with your local laws if you want to engage in civil disobedience.

You've strayed, btw, from what we were originally talking about in this thread: ACT-UP.

Do you agree or disagree with ACT-UP's tactics?

[SDuderstadt]

299. I don't answer all or nothing questions, dude....

I have explained my position. I support anyone's tactics as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. What is so hard to understand about that?

[JackBeck]

306. Alright. If you were in charge of ACT-UP, identify successes and areas for improvement.

[SDuderstadt]

309. You know what, dude?

I already made my position clear. I am going to exercise my free speech rights to withhold my opinion.

[JackBeck]

311. You never made your position clear about the civil disobedience that ACT-UP utilized.

[SDuderstadt]

313. Dude...

I don't care.

[JackBeck]

314. You've made that abundantly clear not only to me

but to those that will read this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

319. And, what, specifically, have I made clear, dude? n/t

[apocalypsehow]

324. That's vague code for "I'm done with coherent replies to your posts since I can't refute them"

:thumbsup:

[JackBeck]

389. That you don't care. eom

[SDuderstadt]

394. Dude...

it's off-topic. Start another thread.

[Enthusiast]

372. Dang, are you the Dude?! nt

[Name removed]

432. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

250. There is no Faux "both sides" argument here. That is a load of crap.

Karl Rove should be in prison and if no one in the government has the fortitude to indict and arrest him, I'm very happy these women are willing to try. :hi:

[SDuderstadt]

252. I'm not making a "Faux" argument....

I'm standing on principle. I didn't say I opposed Code Pink's attempt to effect a citizen's arrest. I just think there are better ways to do it that don't interfere with the right of the people in the audience to hear Rove, no matter how disgusting he is.

[EFerrari]

256. Yes, you tried to make a faux "both sides" argument.

The man is a criminal. And the Code Pinkers at that event are just as much part of that community as any of the other attendees.

[SDuderstadt]

261. No, I didn't, dude....

this is getting stupid.


Let me ask you a question. I have attended several events at which Daniel Ellsberg spoke. If teabaggers unilaterally decided that Ellsberg was a criminal for his role in the Pentagon Papers, would you be okay with them preventing me from being able to listen to him by shouting him down?

[EFerrari]

282. More of your "both sides" strawman.

It wouldn't happen. They'd be jeered out of the venue, "dude".

[SDuderstadt]

285. You're the one with the strawman, dude....n/t

[laughingliberal]

258. Oh, E, you know what one friend of ours around here said...

"There are some on Du who think activism is manning phone banks while they watch their 401k accounts grow."

[SDuderstadt]

270. Dude....

you're talking to/about a guy who almost got beat up by a crowd of Freepers when they were demanding that Gore abandon his recount bid and that he should vacate the VP's mansion. Don't presume to lecture me about activism, okay?

[EFerrari]

277. LOL. That's a keeper.

:)

[SDuderstadt]

267. Didn't you miss a couple of steps in there?

I kinda like our judicial processes.

[EFerrari]

286. Now, that *is* a strawman.

"Dude", you're defending a war criminal and putting words in my mouth.

[SDuderstadt]

288. You just did it again....

please show me where I am "defending a war criminal".

Isn't this much like Liz Cheney's trying to prevent DOJ appointees from taking their position based on their defense of Guantanamo Bay detainees? PLease explain the difference.

[laughingliberal]

253. I was disrupting things long before teabaggers, Code Pink, or Karl Rove had ever been heard of

right along with some of our leaders on the left who were there in the days when obeying the established rules wasn't considered activism.

And, btw, Code Pink was raising a ruckus about this war before any of us ever heard of a teabagger or saw their misspelled signs. I can't see the meme that activist groups have to change what they've done all along cause now it makes them look like some geriatric rednecks who just figured out how to put a sign together and show up at a protest? Please.

[Presidentcokedupfratboy]

240. Asking Rove pointed questions

Would have been a better way to show displeasure with his awful ideas. In the marketplace of ideas and in the history books, Karl and his ilk will be shown to have been on the wrong side.

[SDuderstadt]

244. Excellent response....n/t

[JackBeck]

247. Rosa Parks should have pointedly voiced her displeasure with the bus driver.

And then walked herself back to the last seat of the bus, comforted in the warm glow that she just totally told him off.

[EFerrari]

251. LOL

[SDuderstadt]

257. Another stupid strawman....n/t

[EFerrari]

259. That's not a strawman, it's a parellel and yes, stupid.

[apocalypsehow]

266. Yes, it is. Odd how you post so much while having so little actual apparent knowledge of basic

concepts grounded in a four-year college education - things like logic & rational thinking, for one.

[SDuderstadt]

268. It's a strawman, dude....n/t

[laughingliberal]

262. Excellent! I had similar thoughts.

And, God knows those lunch counter sit ins back in the day were just too too radical. After all, how did behaving badly help our cause?

[apocalypsehow]

263. That's intellectually dishonest piffle, gussied up as "humor": Parks was arrested for her act of

Civil Disobedience, and never pretended that it was anything otherwise than an act outside of the scope of the law which she was proud to defy. That immoral law was later overturned, but it didn't hinge on Park's defying anyone else's rights, but in asserting her own.

You bray here in your silly reply for being the anti-Rosa Parks: the peron willing to see another person's rights curbed to satisfy a censorious urge of your own.

Please try again.

[laughingliberal]

269. And do you think the Code Pink members were not willing to be arrested there today had it come to

that? Cause I've never attended a protest in my life where I wasn't prepared for that should it happen. No one violated Karl's rights. If shouting someone else down was illegal, there would be arrests on cable news every day.

[SDuderstadt]

273. And the organizers of the event would have a perfect right to remove those....

doing the shouting down. I don't care which side they're on.

[laughingliberal]

280. Yes, they did have that right

Just as the owners of the lunch counters had the participants of the sit ins arrested. It is part of this type of protest to be willing to risk arrest or worse for what you believe in. Something of an old fashioned value but I had friends who gave their lives for their beliefs. Some are more committed than others.

[SDuderstadt]

283. Do you see the difference between the Rosa Park/lunch counter circumstances and...

shouting someone down?

[laughingliberal]

302. We shouted plenty of people down during the years of the civil rights' battles and used all manner

of forms of protest. Yes, we did. And we had disruptions from opposing groups show up at events to try to shut them down. And it often erupted into two sides shouting at each other.

And people showed up to disrupt the events of politicians and supporters of the Viet Nam war all the time. Yes, we did. And people got arrested for disrupting events and some people were beaten by the police and some died. And others carried on and continued to show up and use whatever forms of protest were available to us because the point was to draw attention to the issue and make the public aware and let our leaders know where we stood.

[SDuderstadt]

305. "And it often erupted into two sides shouting at each other"

Do you see the difference between your examples and a book signing?

[laughingliberal]

353. I see that the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Unless Code Pink is now Congress and passing laws to abridge Rove's right to free speech, this is not a first amendment issue. The first amendment prohibits the government from passing laws to abridge a person's right to free speech. It doesn't guarantee no one will interrupt you. There may be other laws that would apply but they aren't federal and they aren't about the first amendment.

[SDuderstadt]

399. Dude....

as I stated before, read the constitutions of the various states. I believe in MORE free speech, not less. I don;t follow an argument that claims anyone has a free speech right to prevent the free speech of someone else. If you cannot see how undemocratic that it, I can't help you.

[apocalypsehow]

279. That is irrelevant - when the Brownshirts broke up communist meetings with thuggish force in Weimar

Germany, they, too, were "willing to be arrested" - as their leader in his most famous work proudly testified.

Quite a moral common denominator you're appealing too!

The bottom line is that shouting down someone else at an organized event for them is a violation of their free speech rights - whether it be Karl Rove or Rachel Maddow. Period.

[SDuderstadt]

281. Well said again....n/t

[laughingliberal]

289. It's not a violation of their free speech rights but there is obviously no use arguing that with you

The right to free speech is the right to be free of the government's interference with speech. Private citizens interrupt the speech of other private citizens all the time. The constitutional issue here is the right to protest. The organizers of the event could have had Code Pink arrested for trespassing or disturbing the peace, I suppose. But I guarantee you they would not have been arrested for violating Rove's civil rights.

[SDuderstadt]

293. I assume you fully support Fred Phelps and the WBC to...

disrupt soldier's funerals, right?

[laughingliberal]

303. That is working its way through the courts, now

I suspect they will find in favor of Phelps. It's heinous but it is probably their right.

[SDuderstadt]

307. I struggle with it because I am pretty much a free speech...

absolutist, but it's hard to conjure up much sympathy for them.

[apocalypsehow]

295. It *is* a violation of someone's free speech when they are shouted down - sorry you can't see it.

But I guaran-fucking-tee you that you would no doubt be the first to "see it" were the roles reversed, and you'd managed to muster up the intellectual virility to write a book, and were at an event for you when a bunch of Sarah Palin's musty hordes showed up to shout you down - your first stop would be here, at DU, to screech world-without-end how you'd been "shouted down" and your "free speech" suppressed.... and you'd be RIGHT.

It works both ways, my friend.

[laughingliberal]

308. It does work both ways. It always has

There were those who showed up at Notre Dame to protest and disrupt President Obama's speech and it was dealt with appropriately. They were removed by security and President Obama handled it with great grace saying, "That's OK." And he would be the first to tell you they had a right to have their say. If the organizers of today's event were unaware that Karl Rove might face protests, that was shortsighted.

[SDuderstadt]

310. So you agree that Rove had a right not to be shouted down? n/t

[laughingliberal]

391. It's not a first amendment issue. nt

[SDuderstadt]

393. I'm sorry, dude...

you're trying to argue that Code Pink has a free speech right to prevent Rove from exercising his right to free speech. You need to read the constitutions of a numbers of states before you argue this must be a 1st amendment issue. We're never going to agree on this becaise I think the issue of free speech trumps any attempt to deny Rove his, no matter how offensive his message. Sorry.

[laughingliberal]

395. I'm not a dude.

And we're not going to agree.

[SDuderstadt]

397. Well, you have a free speech right to say that and....

dude is now unisex. Nonetheless, I am troubled by your double standard for free speech.

[laughingliberal]

400. I'm sorry you're troubled. nt

[SDuderstadt]

401. I'm sorry you're not.....n/t

[laughingliberal]

404. I'm not sorry I'm not. nt

[SDuderstadt]

405. Well, good for you...

you can't see the internal contradiction in your argument.

[JackBeck]

272. CP could have been arrested for their civil disobedience at any moment.

If you have been involved with any action, any police officer can simply invoke the lack of permit to arrest anyone who organized the demonstration. The convenience of this invocation depends on who is on shift and their politics, unfortunately.

[Cid_B]

316. Ha,...

Just had an image of 'ol Rosa wigging out on a bus driver, waving a pink boa in his face and then trying conduct a citizen's arrest. Wonder how that would have gone..

[Enthusiast]

373. LOL

[EFerrari]

248. We had eight horrible, deadly years of his ideas and now he's rewriting history.

I don't think Code Pink was showing "displeasure" and I hope they keep hounding him at his every criminal step. Hopefully, this felon will come here so I can join them.

[Enthusiast]

374. I can relate. nt

[apocalypsehow]

255. Teabaggers shut down Rachel Maddow signing event in Dallas per FOX News.

One can only imagine the 2,000+ reply thread of complete & utter OUTRAGE! here on DU were my subject line an actual factual OP, of something that had actually happened.

I much doubt we'd hear technical parsings of the First amendment - government "actors" and all that - and free speech rights then.

And no, it's not "different": you either believe in free speech, or you don't.

It continues to appall me, the number of so-called "liberals" and "progressives" who continue to think they are either, all the while embracing the Right-wing doctrine of "free speech for me, but not for thee."

If you believe it is justified to shut Karl Rove up using thug tactics, then you have no complaint coming when the Freepii/Teabaggers use whatever means is necessary to do the same to Rachel Maddow, or any other progressive voice.

Edit: spelling.

[laughingliberal]

265. Sad. There was a time when the left believed in the right to protest

And if one of our own was targeted like this, our response would have been to show up in force at all their future events in a counter protest. And, yeah, we defended the right of those who disagreed with us to protest, too.

Guess we need to get Bush to let us know where he put all that chain link fencing they used to construct those first amendment zones they used during his reign.

[apocalypsehow]

271. What pains me most is that many of us seem to have morphed into Bush & his crew,

at least when it comes to our respect for free speech.

You are 100% correct: it saddens, greatly.

Thank you for your kind reply. :toast:

[laughingliberal]

294. As I have said, if interrupting the speech of another person was a violation of free speech

they would be arresting people daily on cable news.

The applicable right here is the right of Code Pink to protest. Or you want the 1st amendment zones set back up? Is that what you think protest is? I seem to recall most of us here were of the opinion that the entire country was a first amendment zone and it was a violation of our rights to lock us behind a fence six blocks away.

[apocalypsehow]

300. That's not what you've said. Nor is it what is being debated. Sorry you can't grasp it. n/t.

[laughingliberal]

312. I grasp it just fine

Interrupting a speech is not a violation of a person's right to free speech. Throwing them in prison and denying them the right to speak or publish. That would be a violation of the right to free speech. This was just a disruption. And there are charges which can be brought like trespassing or disturbing the peace but have you ever heard of any individual charged with a violation of another person's right to free speech. Cause I'd be glad to hear about the case if you have.

[apocalypsehow]

315. You grasp it not at all - as you have consistently proven in this thread to date. n/t.

[laughingliberal]

320. What is obvious is you can not answer me with a single case of a private citizen who was ever

charged with a violation of another private citizens right to free speech. And the reason you can't is because there had never been a case because the 1st amendment protects us from the government abridging our right to free speech. People who show up at a private event and disrupt a speech are subject to be charged with any number of violations of the law but they aren't going to be charged with violating another person's right to free speech.

[apocalypsehow]

325. No, what is obvious is that you cannot answer the straightforward question of whether shouting a

person down is a violation of their free speech rights - you parse and pick and equivocate, but never seem to be able to answer the question directly.

Try.

[laughingliberal]

I have answered it. Shouting another person down is not a violation of the right to free speech

It's rude and if it's on private property it may violate some laws but, no, it is not a violation of their right to free speech. I have not equivocated at all about that.

Let me repeat that: It is not a violation of their right to free speech. A violation of their first amendment rights would be if law enforcement came in and arrested the person for what they are saying. That would be a violation of a person's right to free speech. It would be a first amendment violation if a person was arrested for writing an editorial or voicing their opinion. Another person arguing with them and being rude is not a violation of the first amendment. If it was, as already pointed out earlier in the thread, saying "shut up" would be a first amendment violation.

If I'm wrong, please enlighten me as to when a private citizen was ever charged with violating another citizens right to free speech. Just give me the case and that will settle it.

[apocalypsehow]

328. You have not. At least not honestly. Please try again. n/t.

[laughingliberal]

340. Here is the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please tell me how Code Pink is in any position to violate a law that limits the power of Congress.

And I'm still waiting for you to cite a case where a private citizen violated another citizen's right to free speech. You can not because it has never happened. The first amendment is about being free from prosecution for speech.

[SDuderstadt]

332. Check out California Penal Code §403 n/t

[laughingliberal]

341. Addressed in #337.

That law concerns disturbing the public peace.

[SDuderstadt]

343. No, it doesn't....

read it again.

[laughingliberal]

346. I did. First off, it is misdemeanor

It is in the CA penal sections which address the public peace.

Civil rights violations are federal crimes. The charge would not be 'violation of another person's right to free speech. There is no such law that an individual can be charged with. The first amendment says nothing about a right to speak without being interrupted.

[SDuderstadt]

276. Please show us where any of us are "opposing the right to protest"...

take your time.

[laughingliberal]

292. Then perhaps you're arguing for having protest limited to forms of protest you deem acceptable?

Or you want the first amendment zones of the Bush era resurrected?

[SDuderstadt]

296. Nope...

but you seem to think rights are only one way.

It reminds me of debates I've had with RWers who claim that HS students have their right to free association abridged if they can't have an all-white prom. My response is that those students CAN exercise their free association rights because the school cannot compel them to attend and they are free not to. Beyond that, do you see the contradiction in the white students denying the right of blacks to the same free association by having an all-white prom? Do you see which position should prevail?

[apocalypsehow]

301. Spot-on.

:thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

317. Yes, but it is not the same thing

There was no first amendment violation here. It does work both ways. Heinous groups like the KKK get to hold protests and make speeches about their crap and the government can not stop that. Other groups often show up to oppose them. When arrests are made it is generally about the disruption of the peace or to keep the peace. Not because the group's free speech rights have been violated. The organizers at today's event had every right to call and have the police remove the protestors but it is not a first amendment that they violated.

[SDuderstadt]

321. The right to free speech doesn't rest solely on the 1st amendment....n/t

[laughingliberal]

322. Perhaps you would like to enlighten from where the right to free speech arises. nt

[SDuderstadt]

326. First of all, check out.....

California Penal Code §403.

Secondly, I'm having a hard time following the argument of several people here, possibly including yours, so let me ask a clarifying question.

Are people arguing that people have a free speech right to interrupt or even shut down the free speech of another? How does that work? If, as a judge, you had to decide that, which side would you come down on? I have a hard time understanding how someone has a right to deny that same right to someone else.

[laughingliberal]

337. Exactly! And I have said repeatedly there are charges which can be brought under local ordinances

and, in this case, state law but it is still not a violation of the right to free speech. This law notes it is a misdemeanor. I would imagine the charge is disturbing the peace which is not a violation of a person's right to free speech. So, if I was the arresting officer called to a situation like the one today, I believe the charges would be disturbing the peace which is what the CA penal code 403 addresses-the public peace, also trespassing if this was private property, and if they touched Rove, battery. And I would imagine if I were the judge I would find these charges valid and find them guilty of them.

Here is the text of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is plain to me the first amendment prohibits Congress from making a law which would restrict a person's right to free speech. It is about not being allowed to arrest people for speaking out against the government. It is about the people's right to speak out against the government without fear of prosecution. And it is not protection of any speech in any setting as I am sure you know. Municipalities do not protect your right to yell 'fire' in a crowded building. Employers have the right to restrict certain types of speech at work. There is no absolute right to say anything you want anywhere you want to say it without any interference.

People may not have a right to shout another person down depending on the venue but it is not a violation of the person's right to free speech. Some crimes that this could be would be the ones I cited above. There could also be charges of harassment. I have not said there were no violations of the law. I have said there was no violation of Rove's right to free speech.

Have you ever heard of a private citizen charged with violating another citizens right to free speech? And what exactly would the charge be? A violation of a person's right to free speech would be a law enforcement officer coming in and arresting a person for a speech or an editorial or something of that nature.

[SDuderstadt]

342. I'd advise you to read it more carefully....n/t

[laughingliberal]

348. I'd advise you show me where the first amendment guarantees a person the right to speak without i

interruption. The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Unless Code Pink is now Congress and they passed a law forbidding the exercise of free speech, it's gonna be a little hard to prove they violated his right. There's nothing in the Constitution that says no one may interrupt you when you speak.

[apocalypsehow]

327. Perhaps you would like to enlighten yourself where the right to express ones self in a forum/place

dedicated to viewing/talking about/performing/honoring ones work has been specifically set aside at a certain time or date exists...

By your silly standard, Broadway Plays could be "shouted down" at the whim of an audience participant because they didn't like a particular line in the play Cat on a hot-tin roof, or any other expressive/artistic work going on there. Or someone walking through a Museum could freely deface a work of Picasso's or any other artist because they disliked their work...

Your position is to laugh at, when one even lightly peruses it. I would suggest you try harder to peruse it.

[laughingliberal]

345. Here's the first amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People may not have a right to shout down a play on Broadway but if they were arrested for it the charges would be something in the nature of disturbing the peace or causing a public disturbance. It would not be a charge of abridging the right to free speech. If the government came in and arrested the actors and directors for the content of the play, that would be a violation of their first amendment rights.

[apocalypsehow]

392. Non-responsive. You lost on the facts and the debate, but keep trying to pull out that "last word"..

:eyes:

Now you're just posting tautologies that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

[laughingliberal]

396. We won't agree

I see nothing in the constitution that gives anyone the right to talk without interruption. You do.

[apocalypsehow]

398. Another Strawman - keep having fun batting them down. But does all that flying straw ever get itchy?

:shrug:

[laughingliberal]

402. Just calling something a straw man does not make it so.

I don't see this as a violation of Rove's right to free speech. I see it as a misdemeanor on the part of Code Pink for disrupting a public event.

I see no reason to keep arguing it. You think you;re correct and I think I am.

[apocalypsehow]

406. The scholarly world which you are unacquainted with doesn't care what you type - a Strawman is the

precise definition of what you engaged in above (among other numerous times in this thread), whether you "acknowledge" it or not.

"I see no reason to keep arguing it"

Then stop; you've lost. The embarrassment is yours, but motivated from that primal passion to have the infamous "last word."

"You think you;re (Sic) correct and I think I am"

Except the facts support my claim, not yours - so what you "think" is really immaterial. You are wrong.

Own it. You'll feel better even despite the chafing your pride has taken, I promise. :thumbsup:

[laughingliberal]

407. I believe a reading of the first amendment from which the right to free speech derives proved my

case and it's obvious you don't. My pride has not been chafed by a someone else's simplistic, incorrect interpretation of Constitutional rights. If it make you feel better to think you're correct, then think that.

[Name removed]

408. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

448. Then you don't understand much about the First amendment - or free speech.

But, then, you've made both of those observations perfectly clear - and repeatedly clear, at that - already.

[SDuderstadt]

274. Well said.....n/t

[G_j]

318. not "thug tactics"

why must people insist on making CP sound violent? They are strictly nonviolent.

[laughingliberal]

323. It's about an agenda. nt

[G_j]

329. and that is, doing gymnastics attempting to cast CP with violent RWingers

it's dirty, it's disgusting, it's an agenda alright.

[SDuderstadt]

333. Point to anyone who did so.....n/t

[G_j]

334. there are comparisons made to teabaggers throughout the thread

in case you hadn't read it. The repeated use of words like "thuggery" also plays into it.

[SDuderstadt]

335. No, the question is why it would be right for Code Pink but not for...

teabaggers. And, thuggery doesn't necessarily mean physical means.

[G_j]

336. "thuggery" is the implied threat of violence

CP has NEVER participated in such tactics.

[SDuderstadt]

339. Point taken, but I think whoever described them that way thinks...

thuggery includes shouting someone down.

But, you're right. They should not have used that term.

[G_j]

349. you see, IMO, that is where

the line gets crossed. In forgetting that CP is dedicated to nonviolence, there are some who will make Fox News points for them.
And most of us should know what their agenda is.
People attempt to blur the lines.
There are many obvious thugs in the TB movement. I know of none in CP, nor have I ever met a progressive activist in all my years who was a thug. The FOX/cable mentality will attempt to lump their RW thugs w/ nonviolent groups like Code Pink and say: "SEE?"
Don't fall for it!

[suffragette]

338. Hurrah to Code Pink. Reminds me of Georgetown students protesting Gonzales

Remember that:
http://www.democracynow.org/2006/1/25/ag_gonzales_defense_of_u_s

Students stood up and turned their backs on him. Some held up banners. One walked out, displaying the sign "Tap this" on her backside.

And DU had numerous positive threads applauding the protest.

Here's just one of the many threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x226673#229433

[upi402]

344. Brave during these times!

Patriots :patriot:

[suffragette]

347. Yes, both then and now. Rove and his fellow criminals have not been held to account

officially.

I applaud those who still strive to hold them accountable for what they have committed.

[upi402]

351. Investigate NOW!

I should just change my sig line to that, I say it too much.

[suffragette]

352. If you change it, just add it

Love your sig line; listened to that song many a time.

[jeanpalmer]

350. Good for them

Someone needs to confront the war criminals. If Obama had done his job, they'd be behinds bars and Code Pink wouldn't be needed.

[Hubert Flottz]

359. I never read the book, but I saw the movie and loved it!

On YouTube. Looked like Karl was getting the shitty end of the stick as he should. LOL!

[opihimoimoi]

375. yo....this is nuts...i never knew there was this much traffic...nearly 6000 hits in one day is very

unusual...hmmmmmm

[Agony]

360. Code Pink Rocks!

[Vidar]

363. Kudos to Code Pink.

[femrap]

369. Kick Ass,

Code Pink! That LA contingent knows how to get their message across.

[Ignis]

379. Man, this thread is a "gimme" for Ignored list volunteers.

If you don't understand how free speech works, read the freakin' Constitution. :banghead:

CP has every right in the world to protest Rove. Any sane member of a free and open society that values liberty and justice shoulddo the same.

I think some of you Rove supporters don't remember what he did during Shrub's first term. Do a little research before you defend this bumhole.

[SDuderstadt]

414. Maybe you need to read the constitution....

you're essentially arguing Code Pink has a free speech right to keep Rove from exercising his. Do you see the contradiction?

For whatever it's worth, it's really annoying to defend free speech, only to have someone come back with "Why are you defending Rove?". Hint: I'm not...I'm defending free speech, even that I totally disagree with.

This is getting dumber and dumber, by the moment.

[Ignis]

424. The Constitution doesn't say "wait your turn to speak."

Stopping protest through artificial means (e.g., "free speech zones" under the Shrub admin) while giving lip service to the idea of free speech isn't what the 1st Amendment intends, does it?

[SDuderstadt]

428. We're not in the Bush admnstration now....

are we. Do you understand the logical contradiction of claiming a free speech right to shut down the free speech right of another, no matter how much we disagree with them?

Liberals stand up for the free speech rights of everyone. We're in favor of more free speech, not less. This undemocratic streak of some here are DU is quite troubling.

[JackRiddler]

380. Oh no! No one should ever protest anything, because teabaggers do that too!

[opihimoimoi]

382. Real Democracies are supposed to be self cleansing..Free speech to protest is the Basic Foundation

Rove et al is canceresque....should not be tolerated

[laughingliberal]

403. 124 Recs for Code Pink!

:bounce:

[Hubert Flottz]

420. I think Karl could have used the handcuffs at the bondage bar...

Check out the GOP's new theme song for 2012...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGGgkGGgVlo&feature=related

[opihimoimoi]

425. Happy Daze R Here AGAIN......da da da deah

Amazing thoughts on this thread...