Let's do a mind exercise: Pretend that Ray McGovern was a teabagger

[cali]

heckling Clinton and was pulled out in the same manner as McGovern. Do you think people here would be outraged about it? Would Swanson make claims that he/she had been brutalized in front of Clinton?

Look, I don't like seeing McGovern dragged out of there, but I see no evidence on the video that he was "brutalized". It's rhetoric used to demonize and inflame. I have no use for those kinds of games.

Unrec away.

[Bonobo]

1. Standing quietly is "heckling"?

And in answer to your question, I still would be against a 71 year old "Teabagger" being dragged out and bruised up for exercising his constitutional rights to freedom of expression.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Bonobo]

3. Your house? My ass?

Weird and inappropriate example.

Showing you my ass in your home would not have anything to do with expressing a political opinion toward a representative of the US government.

That's the difference between private and public. The difference between private expression and political expression.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Bonobo]

8. "Meet the slammer"?

Would it be impolitic of me to ask you your age?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[Bonobo]

16. Sadly Ricky, I think our short relationship is over.

I don't see our discourse rising above the level that can be just as easily found of 4-chan or YouTube.

Good luck with your continuing education.

I hope you can learn some things while visiting here at DU.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[Ignis]

34. Here you go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=388
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=433

You'll find things far more to your liking in those two forums, I'll wager.

[sudopod]

42. At least 4chan seems to get shit done, eh? ;) nt

[leftynyc]

31. I think some kids in California

(Irvine?) just got the same lesson. Free speech doesn't mean you get to interrupt a private event.

[mmonk]

7. I believe George Washington University accomodates the public.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

13. Like the 1960 Greensboro lunch counter sit in?

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

23. I believe "private property" was the same argument used against

those protestors. It's not about who I like or don't like. This seems to be more about who you like or don't like. What I like is peaceful protest. What I don't like is violence against peaceful protest either collectively or individually.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

41. How so?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[mmonk]

46. I still don't get your point that it is ok for someone to lose their right

to be secure in their person and be roughed up because they protested on private property ( a university which fits under public accomodation).

[Ignis]

35. Thank you. I've been sitting on my hands to avoid using that example.

I'm amazed how quick some on the Left are to forget history...if they ever learned it.

[mmonk]

4. I can't imagine a tea bagger silently protesting without a weapon

nor arrested. Can you use another analogy?

[truth2power]

6. Touche!..

:rofl:

[Skip Intro]

10. Shhh. Don't inject logic or reason into this. More fun to just bash Hillary. nt

[mmonk]

11. It really isn't about Hillary.

It was about a man beaten in jail or on the way to jail for peaceably protesting. It is about hypocrisy.

[Bonobo]

14. Here is a counter mind exercise:

Imagine you are watching a broadcast of a speech given by the President of China at a large Chinese university.

A well-known、elderly political protester stands up and silently faces away from the President.

The man is forcibly removed from the speech and is later found out to have suffered many bruises on his body.

Would you not conclude that he was living in a country that used the police force to suppress political opposition?

[Junkdrawer]

17. +1000 BTW: Video Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x554548

[howard112211]

19. Umm, what? If he was a teabagger this wouldn't have happened.

Had the guy been carrying a sign saying "Obama is Hitler" and a M16 strapped over his shoulder, he probably would have been asked to contribute his opinion.

[HughBeaumont]

21. +2000. Right Winger protestors NEVER get touched.

They're police protected and can get stupid as humanly possible and not be touched. Why? Because many authoritarians in the police force agree with them. Can you imagine what would happen to any of us if we disrupted town halls or congressional meetings? They arrest protestors on our side for walking in the wrong place.

[JoePhilly]

20. Hillary is secretly in charge of all of the University Police all across the country.

Everyone knows that!!

And when speaking, she has a secret button she can push to get them to beat the crap out of anyone in the audience at any time she wants.

You have to look real close at the video to see how her left arm twitches just the tiniest amount right before the University Police "pounce" on that guy and beat him to a pulp (off camera).

I'm not sure how Hillary's secret police were unable to stop some one else from video taping what happened. They usually do a much better job when they beat up protesters.

:sarcasm:

[BeFree]

22. Seriously

Hillary saw what was happening, she should have at the very least remarked that the officers should just leave him be. That she did not and stood there allowing them to go freeper on the poor old guy says a lot.

Still, it was a jolly good show and Ray and his anti-war activities are making the rounds.

[JoePhilly]

32. The speaker at such an event should never insert themselves into

a situation like that one.

The speaker is not part of law enforcement and could easily make a situation like this escalate or become unmanageable.

Let's imagine that the speaker decides to tell the police officers to back off ... and they listen to her (which would be a mistake on their part) and then the protester pulls a weapon, shoots the police, and then begins firing into the crowd or towards the stage.

The fact that the speaker can see the police taking some action does not mean the speaker knows why.

One of the things you have to learn to do as a public speaker is to ignore movement in the crowd, things like people standing up, or walking in, walking out, so on. When you speak to a crowd, you shift your line of sight around the room in an intentional manner intended to engage the people in the various sections. What you try very hard not to do is to suddenly look in the direction of movement in the crowd because you don't want the audience to start looking around at the movement too causing them to shift their focus away from your remarks. You are trying to keep them locked on you, not each other.

[dflprincess]

36. And when you're giving a speech on the supression of free speech

be sure to ignore any that goes on in your own audience lest you be expected to make your actions match your words.

[JoePhilly]

37. Doesn't matter what the speech is about. The speaker is not law enforcement.

The speaker does not direct local law enforcement, regardless of what they are talking about, even if they are Secretary of State.

[dflprincess]

38. The speaker also has the right to peaceful protest

and I would say she had a duty to do so given the topic of her talk. By saying nothing all she did was underline the hypocrisy of our government.

It's a sad day when standing in silent protest is considered "disorderly conduct" in the United States.

[JoePhilly]

39. The argument you make is one you can take up with LAW ENFORCEMENT ...

YOU have come to the conclusion that LAW ENFORCEMENT did something they should not have done.

You may be RIGHT.

Where you are WRONG is in claiming that the SPEAKER is the one who needed to prevent it, or even make it stop. YOU think that the speaker should have come to the same conclusion you have.

YOU, watching the tape AFTER THE FACT, have concluded something BAD was happening.

The SPEAKER ... who is trying to give a good talk, in REAL-TIME, does not SEE WHAT YOU SEE.

Moreover, I have seen what you've seen in the tape, and I can't tell if the guy deserved to be removed or not. And if you are honest, neither did you. Watching that tape, you nor I can't see ANYTHING he did prior to when the UNIVERSITY POLICE removing him.

Given your use of the phrase "hypocrisy of our government" I get the sense you are starting with that premise as a FACT, and then using the video as your PROOF of that same "fact".

[dflprincess]

40. All reports are that the speaker stood up and stood silently in protest

Clinton chose to ignore the actions of the police who removed the protester. If she was truly concerned about the supression of dissent she would have asked the police to leave the man alone as he has a right to protest in that manner.

But doing that would have meant standing up for something and the last thing I would expect any member of the "new Democrat" crowd to do. She can claim she cares about the right to political dissent but until she is willing to protect it in the U.S. & espeically during her speech on the right to dissent, she is a hypocrite.

[JoePhilly]

43. Clutch pearls and then off to the fainting couch, I guess.

Have you EVER spoken in front of a large group??

I have. Many times.

All kinds of things can happen "out in the audience" but from the podium, you don't really see it, or even if you see "something", you usually can't really tell what it is that you are seeing.

But no, apparently, Hillary and Obama are "anti-free-speech" ... :shrug:

[BeFree]

45. So

McGovern did not bother the speaker one bit?

He just bothered the cops? Did someone complain? Was there a sign before you entered that said 'no standing' allowed? Or did they just make up the rules on a whim?

Anyway, just like you claim: He wasn't disruptive.

[Little Star]

24. Bogus Outrage....

This is what I said in the political video's thread on this subject and I stand by it:

Name me one Dem who stops their speech because a demonstrator is removed.

Ray was not beaten in front of her.

She quite simply did what Obama, Kerry, Kennedy and others have done when a demonstrator is removed. Why be hypocritical and act like she is the only one who continues on with their presentation?


This is the most bogus outrage I've ever seen and it's bullshit!

[mmonk]

25. For many, the outrage has nothing to do with Hillary.

It was the roughing up of a protestor.

[Little Star]

26. But yet those "many" did nothing to correct the ones that wanted to...

have it be about Hillary.

[mmonk]

27. Maybe because we didn't think it to be the main issue.

IMO, US officials need not criticize other governments until they get their own house in order.

[Little Star]

28. I agree with what you are saying about the US needing...

to get their own house in order. However, your argument got drowned out when the focus became about Hillary, no?

[mmonk]

30. Maybe. I'm trying to take personalities out of it. That's difficult sometimes

to accomplish due to human nature. People have their own agendas. Mine is different I suppose.

[Bonobo]

29. The issue is not Hillary. I am not following that red herring.

I think Hillary is now being used as a way to avoid looking at the real issue.

Political repression and a lack of freedom combined with a fear-induced tendency to accept this kind of thuggery.