Say Anything Blog

Wrong, wrong and wrong again Jadegold.

By following Rob’s logic we can deduce that speakers of any political stripe have good reason to exclude potential individual troublemakers from their events because of idiots like the story above.

Unfortunately for you, most Jews do not do idiotic things like throw pies or salad dressing, therefore Pat Buchanan would not exclude all Jews (although you would love to see that story).

Most people who offer themselves up to speak in front of huge crowds love addressing their ideological rivals (notice Pat was taking questions from a college crowd in a blue state). However allowing morons to disrupt this great forum for debate ruins things for everyone.

It is for that reason that some speakers want to weed out these individuals who blatantly refuse to participate in mature debate about the issues, and instead want to cause a scene and ruin things for those on both sides of the debate.

Let’s see if we can follow Rob’s logic here.

A lone protester disrupts a speech by Pat Buchanan.  Thus, Rob believes it’s ok for AWOL George to exclude Americans from his appearances because they have committed the heinous crime of having anti-Bush bumperstickers on their autos.

M’kay.  Then let’s be consistent about this.

Throughout Pat Buchanan’s career, he has been accused of anti-semitism (with good reason).  On more than one occasion, Buchanan has had his appearances disrupted by Jewish protesters/activists.

Should Buchanan be allowed to exclude and/or forcibly remove Jews from his appearances?

By Rob’s logic, the answer is yes.

Damn dirty Jews.  Right Jadegold?

But regardless of Buchanan’s views on Jews, he is still to be afforded a right to free speech.  He should be allowed to deliver a speech without getting salad dressing in the face.  Right Jadegold?  I certainly hope you feel that way because from the way you’re going here you seem to be in favor of silencing those you do not agree with through any means neccessary.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Still wrong, Joshua.  As I noted, Buchanan has had his appearances disrupted a number of times by Jewish protesters/activists.

Both of the times Buchanan declared his candidacy for President--his announcement was broken up by Jewish protesters.  At a National Press Club appearance, his speech was interrupted by several Jewish protesters.  There are`several other instances where Buchanan’s appearances have been disrupted by Jewish protesters.

You said it, not me.

You’re the one going on at-length about the Jews and their tactics against Buchanan.

Buchanan has repeatedly had his speeches/appearances disrupted by Jewish protesters/activists. My own belief is that Buchanan’s views warrant such protests.

So you’re anti-freedom then.  What of “I may disagree with what you’re saying but I will defend your right to say it?” That’s what freedom of speech means.  It doesn’t mean “What you say is ok as long as I agree with it.  If I don’t agree with it I’m free to heckle you and throw salad dressing in your face until you shut up.”

Though I’m not surprised at all that this is the stance you take.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Damn dirty Jews.

You said it, not me.

Again, your logic drives to this conclusion.  Buchanan has repeatedly had his speeches/appearances disrupted by Jewish protesters/activists.  My own belief is that Buchanan’s views warrant such protests.

OTOH, AWOL George has had very few of his appearances disrupted---yet he (and you) believe he has the right to exclude American taxpayers and citizens from his appearances--not because of their behavior, but because of their beliefs.

Don’t you just love leftist intolerance?

Joshua: It’s Rob’s logic, not mine.

He believes American citizens can and should be excluded from AWOL George’s public appearances based not on their behavior or conduct at such appearance--but based on their views.

Thus, it follows (again using Rob’s logic) that Jews should be excluded from Buchanan appearances because there exists a history of Jewish activists/protesters disrupting his speeches.

So if you were trying to give a speech at a rally but couldn’t because I kept throwing pies in your face you’d support my right to do that?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So if you were trying to give a speech at a rally but couldn’t because I kept throwing pies in your face you’d support my right to do that?

Here’s the difference: if you throw a pie or otherwise disrupt the appearance--you’d be subject to arrest and prosecution.

But do I have the right to arrest you *prior* to the appearance because you *might* disrupt me? No.  Do I have the right to prevent you from being in attendance at a publicly-funded event because I disagree with your views? No.

I think you see the difference.

You’re deliberately missing the point.

You have defended AWOL George excluding taxpaying Americans on the basis of what they *might* do.  OTOH, you’re not being consistent when I’ve pointed out that Buchanan has had many instances where a certain group *has* disrupted him.

Protest is an American right.  You’re the one who has deemed the 1A not applicable to AWOL George.

Do I have the right to prevent you from being in attendance at a publicly-funded event because you *might throw salad dressing at me*?

Do I have the right to prevent you from being in attendance at a publicly-funded event because you *might throw acid at me*?

Even assuming your assessment of Rob’s beliefs is correct, your conclusion doesn’t logically follow.

You say Rob believes people can be excluded based on their views.

You conclude that this means Rob should believe that people should be excluded because of their race since some people in that race have certain views.

The only way that your conclusion logically follows is if you believe that all members of a group must think alike.  I realize that’s a standard liberal belief (witness how angry they get when a member of a minority race or sexual orientation doesn’t “toe the line"), but it’s simply not true.

JG- What you are doing with your assumptions about Jews is called stereotyping. You are assuming that all Jewish people are represented by the protesting/pie-throwing crowd. You then conclude (via a stereotype) that Pat Buchanan must ban all Jews from his appearances according to Rob’s logic.

The truth is that not all Jews are represented by the protesting crowd, therefore not all Jews (or even a large %) need to be witheld from an event as you hypothetically suggest.

I defenitly have to agree w/ Jadegold on this one.  If Bush(or any other politician) bars any taxpayer from a publicly funded event simply due to their ideology, he’s way out of line.  That’s facism my friends.  As a Republican, I believe everyone should enjoy the benefits of their tax dollars.  Forcing Americans to pay for these public events and then denying them access is slap in the face to everything our party is supposed to stand for.

The truth is that not all Jews are represented by the protesting crowd, therefore not all Jews (or even a large %) need to be witheld from an event as you hypothetically suggest.

Well isn’t it safe to say that not all Democrats are represented by the protesters?  Not everyone with a Democrat bumper sticker or t-shirt needs to be witheld.

No matter how you slice it, its wrong to ban someone for something they haven’t done.  Actions like this help further divide the left from the right.  Now the left does a pretty good job of dividing on their own, but I expect more mature behavior from the right.

Jadegold- What I am saying is that your application of Rob’s reasoning doesn’t hold water.

You try to apply his stance (a stance I agree with) to say all Jews be banned from Pat Buchanan events. I am saying your application is based on a stereotype that all Jews are likely to cause problems based on the actions of a small number. A stereotype that is incorrect.

Therefore Rob’s stance does not imply what you say it implies. If it did then there would not be 1 single liberal in the audience at a Bush event. Having attended several Bush events I can tell you that there are many liberals there.

Andrew hit the nail directly on the head and Kudos to him for being the better person. I agree whole heartedly. Throwing pies and dressing do NOT constitute free speech. I also believe it’s intimidation and just plain wrong. That being said I do not think it represents the beliefs of most liberals and for those that do believe this is ok I’d respectfully request you think long and hard about what’s right and wrong. I also do not believe it should fall under the guidelines of terrorism but I bet some conservatives believe it should. It’s time to reality check our partners on the left and let them know this is not the way to go about rectifying our differences or making a valid point.

What I am saying is that your application of Rob’s reasoning doesn’t hold water.

You’re admitting you don’t understand logic.

Let’s take it out of the political realm for a moment.  Let’s say you wished to visit a public park in your town.  You’ve paid your taxes and you believe you’re entitled to enjoy the park you help fund.  But before you get to the park, the police detain you and prevent you from visiting the park.  The police say they’re barring you from the park because they believe you might litter or otherwise trash the park.

Well, that’s what AWOL George is doing.  He’s barring citizens not on their actions but on their views.

"Well isn’t it safe to say that not all Democrats are represented by the protesters? Not everyone with a Democrat bumper sticker or t-shirt needs to be witheld.”

You’re absolutely right Andrew. And that is why there are liberals and Democrats at Bush events as I stated prior.

“He’s barring citizens not on their actions but on their views.”

Not so JG. If that were the case, no liberals would be allowed in.

[...] http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004210.php"> Captain’s Quarters Say Anything







[...]

Not so JG. If that were the case, no liberals would be allowed in.

I’m certain if AWOL George could identify all liberals, he’d bar their entry as well.

Face facts, Joshua--you support a fascist.

Face facts, Joshua–you support a fascist.

No, that’s what the rest of us non-moonbat types consider an opinion.

And a very ill-informed one at that.

Not an opinion, Brandon; a fact.

The fact is AWOL George is using federal agencies to exclude American citizens from public events based solely on their views or perceived views.

During the campaign, AWOL George required American citizens to sign loyalty pledges in order to attend public campaign rallies.

Fascism at its finest.

Once more, Rob.  These are taxpayer-funded events.  They are public events with public servants.  American citizens have a right to attend these events.  If I go to one and behave badly or illegally--I should expect to be removed or arrested.

OTOH, I should not be excluded because of my views.  That’s Orwellian.

Loyalty pledges:
http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/07/30/news/wyoming/63b4fcb928fe8e6987256ee10054e715.txt

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/09/bush_backers_only_policy_riles_voters_at_rnc_rallies/

we have seen people equired to sign loyalty pledges in order to attend public events.

I actually think that this is a hoax. I’ve never seen one of the pledges and nobody has ever been able to produce a copy.  Not that I’ve seen anyway.

We have seen people excluded from public events for the crime of weaing the wrong t-shirt or having the wrong bumpersticker of their car.

Again, we never get the full story.  But look at your political movement Jadegold.  Hate.  Suppression of speech through thuggish tactics.  Your side reminds me of the sheep in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the one’s who begin chanting “four legs good, two legs bad” any time someone tried to say something that might be contrary to what the rest thought.  In fact, that same image comes to my mind when I read a lot of your comments here.  A lot of the time you don’t even make sense, you’re just here to muddy the waters.

Why are you surprised?  Maybe if you all raised your level of political discourse a notch or two we wouldn’t have these problems.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

I can’t help but laugh when I think that, should the tables be turned, Jadegold would be saying “Of course these Republican thugs were kept out, they’re fascists.

Gee, it’s easy to make an argument when you get to choose your opponents words for him or her.

Again, we haven’t seen that happen.  OTOH, we have seen people equired to sign loyalty pledges in order to attend public events.  We have seen people excluded from public events for the crime of weaing the wrong t-shirt or having the wrong bumpersticker of their car.

The fact is AWOL George is using federal agencies to exclude American citizens from public events based solely on their views or perceived views.

I can’t help but laugh when I think that, should the tables be turned, Jadegold would be saying “Of course these Republican thugs were kept out, they’re fascists.

Also, we all seem to be assuming that the only reason some of these people were kept out was because of their shirts, etc.  Yet the only side of the story we ever get from the articles are the people’s.  We have no details about their behavior or other factors that may have come into play.  For instance, when people were kept out of the Bush event here in Fargo it turned out that all of the people banned had been part of a message board where they had posted plans to protest/disrupt the speech.  So of course, when some of their names showed up on the list to get in, they were kept out.  They don’t have a right to disrput anything.

This is just another instance where left-wing thugs get themselves into trouble with their own thuggish behavior but then turn around and cry “Fascism” when they aren’t allowed to be thugs any more.

You want Bush to stop being so selective about who he does and does not let into his events?  Tell Howard Dean to stop calling Republicans evil.  Tell congressional Democrats to quit sending operatives into his speeches to disrupt things.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

So…you’d have no problem if the police arrested you as you stepped out of your home because they’re worried you *might* violate the law at some point during the day?

Of course I’d have a problem with that, but that situation at hand here.  People who are aiming to disrupt political events involving the President are being stopped before they get a chance to do any such thing.

It’s a huge conspiracy–the left wing media obviously created these stories out of thin air using quotes from fictional people.

No, they’re merely stories based on nothing other than testimony form political operatives perpetuating a myth.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Once more, Rob. These are taxpayer-funded events.

Yes, events paid for by citizens so that the President can address the population.  They are not paid for by taxpayers so that the President can be presented as a target for the rantings and shenanigans of political malcontents.

As for your links, not one of them provide a copy of this mythical loyalty oaths.  Also, the only people who have ever been asked to sign one have been Democrats.  People less inclined to be biased to the President have never been asked to sign one.

Now when we see that the only people who have ever seen this “loyalty” oath are partisan politicos on the opposite side of the President what can we conclude?  That is an urban myth drummed up by the president’s enemies?  Yup, I think so.

And in that last link the people turned away from the Bush speaking event were part of a scheme by America Coming Together to disrupt the event.  Just more support for my stance on this issue.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Yes, events paid for by citizens so that the President can address the population. They are not paid for by taxpayers so that the President can be presented as a target for the rantings and shenanigans of political malcontents.

So...you’d have no problem if the police arrested you as you stepped out of your home because they’re worried you *might* violate the law at some point during the day?

As for your links, not one of them provide a copy of this mythical loyalty oaths.

You’re right, Rob.  It’s a huge conspiracy--the left wing media obviously created these stories out of thin air using quotes from fictional people.  They also were shameless in creating phony GOP campaign managers to admit the GOP was using loyalty pledges.

People who are aiming to disrupt political events involving the President are being stopped before they get a chance to do any such thing.

And AWOL George’s thugs know this how?

Mindreading?

No, they’re merely stories based on nothing other than testimony form political operatives perpetuating a myth.

It was particularly diabolical when these ‘political operatives’ created a fictional GOP campaign manager and RNC spokesperson to admit the RNC was using loyalty pledges.

Link to what, Rob?  The ‘fictitious’ RNC spokesperson?  They were in the the links I provided earlier.

Link, Jadegold?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ok, this must be what you’re talking about (from the last link):

RNC spokesman Yier Shi said RNC campaign rallies are not official visits, but party events designed to energize the Republican base . He said everyone is welcome at the rallies as long as they support President Bush.

‘’I think the Democrats are just disappointed we thwarted their plans to disrupt our event,” he said.

That was at a campaign event, paid for by campaign contributions.  Not at all relevant to the current discussion.

And, as you see, the forms did seem to thwart yet another attempt by the left to silence speech they do not agree with.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Jade Gold: Arguing With Out Logic

[...] symptoms of liberalism may include pie throwing Floating in her latest column, about six inches below the surface of the requisite bile (equal parts hostility and sarcasm) that is mother’s milk to über-bitch Ann Coulter is a very pertinent question: What the hell is up with the food-slinging on college campuses?I mean, let’s keep this in perspective. We’re talking pies and salad dressing but as this guy points out it could have been a lot worse. One of them apparently shouted “Stop the bigotry!” while dousing Pat Buchanan with salad dressing which, to the devil in me, is hi-freakin-larious. Hi-freakin-larious to imagine someone who takes himself as seriously as Pat Buchanan doused with creamy Italian and hi-freakin-larious that this stupid punk thinks dousing someone with salad dressing makes a statement about bigotry. Clearly, these kids aren’t terribly bright. The only statement about intolerance assaulting conservatives with food makes is that these college liberals aren’t very tolerant.Predictably, Coulter and others take this as an opportunity to make a point about liberalism, as if this pie flinging somehow makes a statement about what liberals are like. This is utterly dishonest and reprehensible. If liberal minded college kids flinging pies at conservatives speaks to the heart of liberalism, then conservatives flinging bombs at abortion clinics speaks to the heart of conservatism. Of course, neither is true, but Coulter is far too lazy to pass up the easy road and acknowledge that the obvious motivation behind these pie snipers is humiliation and that has nothing to do with liberalism. [...]