Thread: Freedom of speec--, Oops.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I guess I was wrong for being pro-democrat in the past. Republicans, democrats, all the same aristocrats.

Welcome... to the real world.

It is a world where our "betters" believe they have a born privilege to rule us. Right and left, liberal and conservative are all ruses, useful only in keeping a conquered people divided and distracted.

We are peasants in the eyes of our leaders, nothing more. The deepest fears of our founding fathers have come to pass - that a government Of, By and For the People would break free of its Constitutional limitations and turn into a powerful, wealthy monster beyond the control of the governed.

The U.S. was the last, best bastion of hope for human liberty. Sadly, we failed over a hundred years ago. Now it is just a matter of history playing out and us keeping the slide down the slippery slope happening a slowly as possible.

Have a lovely day!

Originally Posted by Neruo

I guess I was wrong for being pro-democrat in the past. Republicans, democrats, all the same aristocrats.

Of course they are. In case you never noticed, neither party has an underlying principle or philosophy, and they really aren't any different. They have agreed to split up the voters in a certain way and share power, meanwhile keeping everyone else out. They've designed the system so no one else has a chance.

They could vote in the Soviet Union too, right, but there was only one party. Here we have two--not much better. Stupid Party vs. Evil Party, take your pick.

Who do you want as president. A member of skull and bones. Or a member of skull and bones. Either way skull and bones wins. How on earth did 2 members of skull and bones get into the 2 positions you are allowed to vote for? What are the chances?

And yes 911 caused a greater slide into the police state. Now terrorist laws are going to make everyone a terrorist for no reason and no more basic rights. 911 was such a unfortunate 'accident'. But a pretty profitable one for those gaining from all this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwTNuucgtuo

This is why I don't get out much. I am too dangerous. Anyone tries to taze me and they lose an eye at least. Those pigs had no cause to attack someone who was obviously harmless.

stupid fucking 'peasant' doesn't he know how much money there is to be made? the cops fought and he lost. no one can stop it. don't even try. give up...and instead go to church or watch celebrities on tv and forget about it.

liberal, conservative, communist, counterculture hippies.. fuuck that. don't get caught up in the opposition of the spectacle, kill the spectacle.

I think the guy who got tazered is a schmuck rotten punk who should be in jail right this second. He is such a typical example of personality disordered far leftists who were raised to believe you can get your way by being a loud cry baby and screaming, "I want that toy! I want that toy! You are repressing me! Waaaaaaaaaa!!!! " I despise people who act like that guy. He had his turn to talk to John Kerry about his Flying Spaghetti Monster ideas concerning the Illuminati and the Loch Ness Monster. He went over the time EVERYBODY was given to talk. He was politely asked to give somebody else a turn, but he was too narcissistic and sociopathic and histrionic to give a damn. He grabbed the microphone back when it was not his turn to talk and acted very obnoxious with it. He was politely asked to stop his tantrum. He would not do it. So security put their hands on him and calmly asked him to step away. He would not do it. So they physically drug him away. He resisted and started trying to make even more of a spectacle of himself and moved in that unstable and out of control state toward a senator. That cannot just be allowed. Then several security people got on him and tried to drag him out. He just resisted and screamed even more. THEN he got tazered. And he overreacted and acted hysterical about that and made it obvious that he is a selfishly obnoxious attention craver. Screw that punk. He deserved much worse than that.

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/c...full/39/1/25-a

http://www.ptypes.com/histrionicpd.html

http://www.fortunecity.com/campus/ps...81/bpd-dsm.htm

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

He had his turn to talk to John Kerry about his Flying Spaghetti Monster

You are officially in love with the flying spaghetti monster.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

You are officially in love with the flying spaghetti monster.

I don't believe in things like that. I'm not you.

haha, I do, I've been touched by his noodly appendage!


no, really, at first I was like "what the hell" like everyone else, but Universal Mind has made a very good observation...I admit I didn't notice that.

It's only reality if we accept it, we accept each and every freedom getting taken away piece by piece and it happens so slowly we don't even see it coming. This ought to outrage us, 10 years ago this would have caused idictments but they change has been so slow all it causes is a mere, "welcome to reality" response.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I think the guy who got tazered is a schmuck rotten punk who should be in jail right this second. He is such a typical example of personality disordered far leftists who were raised to believe you can get your way by being a loud cry baby and screaming, "I want that toy! I want that toy! You are repressing me! Waaaaaaaaaa!!!! " I despise people who act like that guy. He had his turn to talk to John Kerry about his Flying Spaghetti Monster ideas concerning the Illuminati and the Loch Ness Monster. He went over the time EVERYBODY was given to talk. He was politely asked to give somebody else a turn, but he was too narcissistic and sociopathic and histrionic to give a damn. He grabbed the microphone back when it was not his turn to talk and acted very obnoxious with it. He was politely asked to stop his tantrum. He would not do it. So security put their hands on him and calmly asked him to step away. He would not do it. So they physically drug him away. He resisted and started trying to make even more of a spectacle of himself and moved in that unstable and out of control state toward a senator. That cannot just be allowed. Then several security people got on him and tried to drag him out. He just resisted and screamed even more. THEN he got tazered. And he overreacted and acted hysterical about that and made it obvious that he is a selfishly obnoxious attention craver. Screw that punk. He deserved much worse than that.

I agree. Since the first time I saw this(these) clips on the news, I wasn't at all surprised that he got tasered. Believe me, I am definitely not one to side with an abuse of power, but this guy was a complete overact. He (according to subsequent newscasts) has a history of disrupting events, playing pranks and causing scenes to make a statement. His screaming out and flailing around (not to mention the complete rape of the concept of "freedom of speech") is evidence of that. He was wrong to dismiss when people (cops or otherwise) asked him to give up the mic after, obviously, having taken more than his share of time, he provoked his own physical removal from a public mic that EVERYONE is supposed to have time to share, and his screams for "help" were completely overacted attempts for sympathy. If he would have had the time, I'm sure he would have stood up there for an hour and asked Kerry every question he'd spent the last five days compiling.

That being said, I think that the cops MIGHT have been able to handle the situation without tasering him. With there being so many cops there, they probably could have gotten him out of the building without resorting to all that. However, he was jumping around, fighting and flailing like a nutcase, and it was a taser, it was not a lethal weapon. They didn't exactly shoot him in the knee cap with a Berretta.

I'm on the fence on this one. It could have been handled without the taser, but it was completely that guys fault for provoking their decision to use one.

He's only protesting his society. The cops arbitrarily arrested him, I would be freaking out if I got arrested for asking a question, too. What, are you trying to tell me he was just being escorted outside before he started freaking out? That's still unjust.

Universal mind makes a very good point. I was like "This is unacceptable" when I first saw it, but now I do not think it was bad at all. The video only gives us so much information. If it is true that he went way over the time, then there is obvious reason to arrest him. He did NOT get tazered and arrested for asking a question. He got tazered for reacting hostiley when asked politely to stop, because he went over the allotted time (if this is not true, then my opinion would change), and then tazered because he resisted arrest and - more importantly - acted like a threat to the senator in the room.

It's important to realize why the police did what they did. It is not a matter of freedom of speech, it's simply him being a jackass and escalating that to a level of being a threat by acting hostily. They asked him to let others speak -- this wasn't simply a request. It was a polite demand. He refused to leave, so they escorted him, but he resisted. It escalated from there.

As he says in the clip "Clinton was impeached for what, a blowjob?" Seen in this (fallicious) viewpont, it is obvious absurd. Just as it is unacceptable looking at the video as being arrested for a question. But Clinton was not impeached for a blowjob. He was impeached for lying about a blowjob. It is definitly a big difference. I'm not sure if adultery is a crime, but purjury sure is! That is what he was arrested for.

In regards to Oneironaut's concern: is tazering really necessary? I think the key factor here was him struggling to get away, flailing and making threatening movements towards a senator. He resisted multiple cops. Though I suppose I should note that it is not as if the man punched any of the cops or anything like that, but he certainly made threatening movements. I think the point of the tazering was to get him into a position where he could be handcuffed. The other way would be tripping him and put him on the ground, or slamming him against a wall, or holding him tight and twisting his arms into position, which would not work very well (why do you think they make people get against a car to be handcuffed). However, this leads them open to be attacked when the man realizes he is being handcuffed. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but tazing does not cause any long term damage. All it does is hurt like a bitch and paralyze you temporarily. This seems like a very good method of subduing him in a safe way both for the man (painful -- but safe) and more importantly the innocent people, cops, and senator there.

Nonetheless, my opinion would completely change if I found out he had not yet passed the maximum time limit for speaking, or he was indeed arrested (as in, the cops testify to this) for what he *said.*

Before making any thoughts on this, though, even if he was not over the time limit... realize that he had a very hostile tone. He was asked to step down, and became inreasingly hostile. This only escalated.

I appreciate the support I have here. I thought I might be alone on this.

I didn't know the guy had a history of obnoxious public outbursts. It doesn't surprise me at all.

I think we need more obnoxious people like him that are willing to be instigators. Abbie Hoffman was doing the exact same thing as this guy pretty much and he ended up becoming one of the Chicago 7 which actually catalyzed a change in society. Until the few that are willing to get themselves in trouble can prove to the masses its fight now or wait until its too late, we're just going to keep drifting.

you can convince people better if you are calm and peaceful. people will be amazed at how peaceful and kind you are, and wonder why. that will have a more profound effect than anger and violence. Omnius, I'm surprised, if not shocked that you said that. you were the one who told me that you have to learn to not be attached, you have to care without caring, which means influencing people in the area around you. you said so yourself, it can cause a ripple and have a profound influence even to the other side of the planet. Buddha himself stayed in place, and meditated, and look at the effect he had on the world. you've just contradicted yourself. what happened?

Haha, America, land of hypocrites... Let's just face it, democracy (especially representative) isn't freedom, it's just an illusion of freedom.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Haha, America, land of hypocrites... Let's just face it, democracy (especially representative) isn't freedom, it's just an illusion of freedom.

I challenge you to counter my first post in this thread.

Mere speech is legal, with certain exceptions, such as encouraging the breaking of laws and defamation. However, disrupting a forum is not legal. Do you think it should be legal to show up at a Dave Matthews concert and blare some speakers you brought with you? What about taking Dave Matthews' microphone and yelling into it while refusing to give it back? Hogging a microphone that does not belong to you is not legal. Resisting arrest is not legal. He was not arrested merely for speaking what he believed, and it is dishonest to suggest that he was.

While I agree with UM in that the guy is a schmuck, and was totally in the wrong, I also think the cops didn't handle it correctly. Their job is, first and foremost, to ensure the SAFETY of everyone there. If they would have let him run his mouth, and ticketed him afterwards for his behaviour, things would not have escalated the way they did, and overall, things would have been safer. Instead, 5 cops teamed up on him, which made him panic, and ultimately made it necessary to resort to something more brutal... but I don't think any of that was necessary, and the fact that they let it escalate to that point means more people were endangered.

Originally Posted by Replicon

While I agree with UM in that the guy is a schmuck, and was totally in the wrong, I also think the cops didn't handle it correctly. Their job is, first and foremost, to ensure the SAFETY of everyone there. If they would have let him run his mouth, and ticketed him afterwards for his behaviour, things would not have escalated the way they did, and overall, things would have been safer. Instead, 5 cops teamed up on him, which made him panic, and ultimately made it necessary to resort to something more brutal... but I don't think any of that was necessary, and the fact that they let it escalate to that point means more people were endangered.

The cops don't have an obligation to let somebody disrupt a presentation. I am also convinced that the guy's #1 goal was attention every step of the way. I don't think he panicked. He was being like those toddlers who lie on their backs and beat their hands and feet while screaming because they want their ways. I bet he was one of those toddlers earlier in his life, and I bet his parents rewarded that behavior.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xm4OwPd7xc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUV2jCFwuk4

Yes, they have an obligation to allow a guy to ask a fucking question, Um, sorry to disappoint you.

Originally Posted by Neruo

I guess I was wrong for being pro-democrat in the past. Republicans, democrats, all the same aristocrats.

The American 2 party system right here
Guy 1 - "I think the puppet on the left shares my beliefs."
Guy 2 - "The puppet on the right is more to my liking"
Both - "HEY! Both puppets are being held by the same guy!"

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I challenge you to counter my first post in this thread.

First of all, I wrote a good reply to this just before my computer crashed ... *take 2*

I don't believe that what I posted had much to do with what you said, but I'll humour you anyways...

If you are arguing that the guy was a jerk, then I agree. The only thing you posted that I don't agree with is when you said that he was a leftist (A leftist complaining about oppression? Yeah right... (no pun intended)), he was as right-wing as they get.

I'll also take the time to explain my previous post a little further. What is America's view of itself on the world? The land of opportunity, free of any form of oppression and bursting at the seams with freedom, right? Well, when the rest of the world (which is pretty tired of America's righteous, high and mighty attitude, by the way...) sees something like this, it doesn't think "Wow, that loudmouth asshole disrupted a well organized political speech, how dare he surpass his allotted time!". No, instead it thinks "Wow, officers of the law violently subdued a man for speaking his mind!". So you can't blame us for finding it a little hypocritical when the US criticizes every little human rights violation that takes place abroad (which you generalize in the same out of context way that we generalize this incident).

As for why I don't believe in democracy, that's another topic for another time (but I'd be more than happy to present my arguments if you started a thread about it)...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The cops don't have an obligation to let somebody disrupt a presentation. I am also convinced that the guy's #1 goal was attention every step of the way. I don't think he panicked. He was being like those toddlers who lie on their backs and beat their hands and feet while screaming because they want their ways. I bet he was one of those toddlers earlier in his life, and I bet his parents rewarded that behavior.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4xm4OwPd7xc

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lUV2jCFwuk4

They don't have an obligation to allow someone to disrupt a presentation, but they DO have an obligation to maintain public safety, and I feel they violated it by escalating it. Yes, he's like a toddler, which means his reaction was predictable, and yet they chose to cause things to escalate to the scene we see in those videos. That poor judgment endangered people a lot more than letting him disrupt the presentation. If he had taken out a sword and started waving it around frantically, then sure, zap him, but this was just taken to a point where it didn't need to go.