After watching the video of Mrs.Obama handling the heckler..

[HipChick]

FLOTUS was like "You must not know 'bout me. But you 'bout to find out."


http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2013/06/05/lead-michelle-obama-heckler-cnn-exclusive.cnn.html

The disruptor..

[img][/img]

[NYC_SKP]

1. Just plain rude.

The disruptor was disruptive.

[LonePirate]

2. Civil disobedience by its nature is rude and disruptive.

Do you not approve of using civil disobedience to further a cause or to achieve a goal?

[patrice]

4. It was private property; where do you draw the line? & What if the issues were reversed? nt

[LonePirate]

6. What difference does it make that it was on private property? She was removed from the premises.

It wouldn't matter to me if the issues were reversed because once we start clamping down on civil disobedience with extreme punishments or consequences, then we become a police state which is exactly what the Republicans want. Is that what you want?

[patrice]

10. I think it's highly unlikely that there will be extreme consequences & I don't think there should be

but a consequence I would like would be for the group's, and all such other groups', funding sources to be public information.

I don't understand why this happened, as I have seen that EO is in the final drafting stages now.

Just clarifying here: are you saying it's okay to do things for principles on other people's property, as long as the person doing so is removed?

[LonePirate]

11. Did she do anything illegal, destructive or harmful? No. She interrupted a speech. So what?

If she had done something illegal, then by all means she should face the consequences of her actions or principles.

[patrice]

18. Does that mean that you think private property should not be under the control of its owners?

[LonePirate]

20. She was removed from the premises. Were you wanting her drawn and quartered?

[patrice]

23. That kind of exaggeration causes people to mistrust your intent. I'm trying to support &

I said the only consequence that I'm interested in is in knowing who is funding these PACs. Are you at all concerned that a corporate person could attack PO's economic justice agenda by driving a wedge into his base over this issue?

I am.

[patrice]

25. & I'd still REALLY like to understand your limitations when it comes to private property, please.

[patrice]

19. What if the owners don't want you to do something? & If there wishes can be over-ridden "for princip

le" does that mean that they can also be compelled to do certain things "for principle"?

[LonePirate]

21. Then the property owners should contact the authorities on a trespassing charge.

It's pretty simple to do.

[patrice]

28. So, I was correct above, it's okay, even good, when it's for a principle, for people to use other

people's property however they deem necessary as long as they are removed.

[LonePirate]

33. You said that, not me. I said call the cops. Maybe you prefer vigilantism in these instances.

Or do you prefer a Second Amendment solution? I do not advocate violence as a means to resolve issues; but then again, I actually support and advocate progressive ideals.

[patrice]

48. You seem to be deflecting & re-directing. Removed by the police, of course. & People's right to defe

nd their private property, IF NECESSARY, with a gun is one aspect of the 2nd Amendment that I support, though my definition of defend and necessary are probably quite a bit more narrow than some people we hear about in the news.

I do hope that our definitions of support and advocate are similar. Mine date from the mid-70s, before all of this became so fashionable, and include nuclear freeze, arms control, environmental publishing and activism, anti-war, including the war on Iraq BEFORE we invaded, racism resistance, and the occupy. My time and money have gone in support of Liberal economic and social policies, before this most recent resurgence in the use of the word "progressive".

[treestar]

47. So what about Westboro Baptist Church?

suppose they started up at the same house at the same time?

[NYC_SKP]

5. Who gets to decide when the disruption is just? Or is it always just?

Maybe we should just heckle both Obamas constantly, all day long, wherever they speak.

Would that be OK just because it's civil disobedience?

Is it always OK, then?

What would be accomplished? Probably, there would be fewer and fewer public appearances.

I disapprove of trying to hijack Michelle's presentation when this presidency has been so (comparatively) yielding to audience disruptors.

[LonePirate]

8. If he won't keep his promises or listen to his voters, then yes, we should heckle them everywhere.

There was nothing violent in this protest. It was a tame act of civil disobedience, all things considered. Just or unjust is irrelevant in this instance given the ridiculously minute scale\scope of this heckler.

If this leads to fewer and fewer public appearances because the president refuses to honor his campaign promises or because he is afraid of someone speaking out against him, then so be it. He's the president. After everything the Republicans have said and done, if he can't handle a progressive heckler, then maybe he should seriously give some thought to his lack of support for issues of concern to the Democratic base.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. One must ask what happens to public discourse if everyone with a cause starts heckling?

We can all take solace in Saint Joe Wilson and his example at the State of the Union for showing how things should be done?

Or the teabaggers that disrupted forums to point that the only people showing up anymore for awhile were teabaggers?

[LonePirate]

27. If heckling becomes commonplace, then maybe he should re-evaluate how he treats his base

Forgive me for expecting a Democratic president to cater more to his base than to Republicans.

[Liberal Veteran]

32. What does that have to do with the working conditions at Foxconn?

Don't you realize that people are killing themselves so you can enjoy cheap computer equipment?

What do you have to say about that?


(Note: I decided to take your advice and talk about my own pet cause rather than the one being discussed.)

[Scootaloo]

26. Both? Why not all four? Don't forget Malia and Sasha!

After all, fathers listen to their daughters too, right? So they're "valid targets" as well!

[frylock]

36. most everyone here would agree that the kids are off limits..

It's something that was *mostly* honored here during shrub's reign of terror.

[Scootaloo]

39. If you're going to adopt spurious reasoning, you might as well go all the way

If Michelle is a valid target because she's the president's wife and thus "has influence," as you and so many others insist, then there is no reason for you to draw a line for the children. After all, they have influence as well, and their father has even said so.

[frylock]

44. i think that FLOTUS is a legit political figure..

She campaigned for him, and is out promoting his policy. I agree without about everything you post on this board. I'm just going to have to beg to differ on this one.

[bluedigger]

7. What makes you think this was an act of civil disobedience?

Where was the Challenge to the State?

At least Thoreau spent the night in jail for not paying his poll tax, which was neither rude nor particularly disruptive, I might add. This was just a case of drawing attention for a cause by being rude. I don't find anything noble in spending $500 for the opportunity to heckle the First Lady while facing no repercussions other than the disapproval of much of society. It's just trollery in RL.

[LonePirate]

9. She violated expected public decorum, custom and behavior. That is civil disobedience at its essence

Personally, what I find rude is the President not honoring his campaign promise to sign the EO. Which is worse? The heckle or the lie?

[bluedigger]

14. I guess we will have to disagree on our definition.

I set the bar a little higher than you do.

[jberryhill]

17. Civil disobedience

Is refusal to obey unjust laws or to passively interfere in the administration of unjust laws.

[patrice]

22. There are some things that need to happen to protect that EO once it gets out there, otherwise

it can be over-written by another EO, from a different president, and states can design legislation specifically to counter the EO.

Now that I think about it, depending upon who the funders are behind the group that put the heckler there, perhaps the group's intended message in this is that the EO would survive a Republican president, so that leaves only the states who could use the EO to defeat LGBT rights to marry.

Perhaps, by waiting, Obama is fishing for a foundation to get DOMA over-turned by Congress . . . ? That would mean more than an EO, which everyone gripes about anyway.

[LonePirate]

24. Why are fears or hypotheticals of presidential actions in 2017 preventing certain actions today?

I do not understand that cowardly excuse. It's the same one used to keep the filibuster in place and it's detrimental to achieving progress right now. Any EO the next President may sign that could overturn an EO he signs should be of no concern. That is merely catering to the Republicans and their obstructionism and do-nothingness.


If the President doesn't want to lead and do what's right, be it signing this EO, closing Guantanamo, or whatever else, then why did he want to be President?

[frylock]

37. it's also tacit admission of expecting a republican to win the presidency..

and soon.

[patrice]

42. He's not a king. It would be FAR worse for LGBT for him to sign an EO & then it's gets fucked with

after he leaves office. I appreciate that he doesn't want to take chances with other people's lives any more than he can avoid doing so. It could still happen, because some people are very busy destroying his political support, but at least he himself would have made the effort to do the right thing and over-turn DOMA.

Disregard for hypotheticals is what resulted in 9/11 and Iraqis greeting us with IED instead of roses. Not all hypotheticals are equally significant, but part of what I'm paying my taxes for is for responsible persons to identify the nature, likelihood, and significance of the ones that I and people like the LGBT community might be concerned about. Do you really want to be so cavalier about the effect of a failed EO on people who are TRYING to put their lives together?

I'm pretty sure that you know why Guantanamo isn't closed & that Congress is trying to make a Catch 22 out of that.

"lead"? Your critique of PO suggests that you have a more authoritarian definition for that word than I do. If everything that happens comes only from one branch of government, solutions may be quite a bit less durable, not to mention quite a bit more dysfunctional.

I'm not happy about the filibuster reform. NOT. The consequences have been huge. But I also must yield to people who know extremely much more about the myriad complexity of details, personell and situational, that are part of that calculation than I do. And even though it is tremendously much harder, I have to agree with the concept of not just tinkering with this and that, not enabling a bad system to make itself look better, letting the full dysfunction display itself and hopefully activate those who need to change themselves and what they are doing in order to change Congress.

[treestar]

49. It takes the steam out of any bills pending in Congress

[LonePirate]

53. You actually think this Congress is going to pass ENDA?

Exactly how is the bill going to pass the House?

[treestar]

54. Well, I'm glad someone realizes Congress has some power

The one elected in 2014 might. That is if people can quit blaming the President for Congress not being very liberal at this time.

As for the EO, Obama has a strategy. Not liking that is one thing, but being a jerk to the FL is stupid.

[alphafemale]

13. No it is not always rude. It can be quiet, respectful and dignified.

That is really the only time it has worked.

Shouting and rudeness will not cause people to listen.

It has the exact opposite result.

[patrice]

3. I have seen that the EO for this issue is written, but not signed, so WHAT was the point?

[Tx4obama]

46. What the White House said just hours before Michelle's speech, below

-snip-

The heckling happened a bit after 6 p.m. under a white tent in the backyard of the residence of Karen Dixon and Nan Schaffer in Northwest DC. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, also was in attendance at the event, which benefits the DNC.

The incident came hours after White House press secretary Jay Carney reiterated the president’s focus being on legislation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, that would ban most private employers from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and not the proposed executive order

-snip-

http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/michelle-obama-heckled-for-presidents-inaction-on-proposed-l

[patrice]

52. Thanks for that course correction! She heckled over federal contracts; I knew, but forgot that

, just focusing, instead, on heckling on private property, which seems like such an obvious non-starter to me.

[BeyondGeography]

12. The interrupter isn't very people-smart

Or she doesn't spend enough time getting to know the people she's messing with. First time I've seen the clip, but having watched Michelle Obama for years, what made Sturtz think she wouldn't get major pushback? She not only interrupted, she was trying change the subject and take the focus off of kids, which is the First Lady's passion.

[alphafemale]

15. People like that disruptor do not really care about the issue they claim to support.

They care only about their own egos and camera time.

They are causing real harm to the issue they claim to support with this self serving crap.

[KT2000]

34. Yes and the result

is that President Obama will immediately sign that EO - NOT.

That woman harmed her issue badly.

[alphafemale]

35. Maybe she can scream at Neil Patrick Harris and his husband and children tomorrow.

She doesn't really care about the issue.

She cares about the minutes her face is on camera.

[JI7]

43. like the code pink heckling obama

she kept interrupting him from speaking about the issue she claimed to care about . like WTF is that ? oh, you can't have attention go to the issue , it has to be on ME ME ME .............

[alphafemale]

51. It is never effective. Ever.

It alienates people that might have been brought to support the cause, if only these shouters had acted like a decent human being.

[Zen Democrat]

29. This was a private fundraiser where attendees PAID to hear FLOTUS speak.

She deserved to be thrown out for disrupting. She had a right to say it and get thrown out. What's the problem?

[frylock]

38. pretty simple really..

not understanding the beef here.

[Apophis]

30. Yet everyone here would cheer anyone who heckled Laura Bush.

[KT2000]

31. I get the sentiment

but why the slang? She is a very articulate woman who does not speak like that.

[Poll_Blind]

45. Yeah, I...uh...you know, it's interesting how people are. I've never heard her speak like...

...that, either.

PB

[flamingdem]

40. This was a bs move and even Code Pink called it out

Poorly conceived and inelegant, and clearly an epic fail

Save it for the real jerks who deserve it in congress

[treestar]

50. Exactly. I'd like to know if this person would ever go to

a place where she could heckle Newt Gringich or Pat Robertson or such persons on the subject.

[GoCubsGo]

56. "Epic fail", indeed.

Instead of getting people to discuss her cause, she has them discussing whether or not it's appropriate to heckle the First Lady. Nice job, Ms. Heckler!

[Common Sense Party]

41. It's kind of funny how many who feel the protestor was not rude or disruptive and had the right

to interrupt and talk about her own agenda...

...are DUers who will throw a conniption fit if someone dares to hijack a thread on a message board with an off-topic discussion.

[Atman]

55. Michelle is awesome.

We had two of our dearest friends over for dinner last weekend. And got to meet the new addition to their family, a beautiful, happy 1 year old. This lesbian couple could not be happier with the Obamas. Fortunately, we're all New Englanders, where gay marriage is normal. They certainly weren't doing so well under the Republican administration. I think this heckler was rude, obnoxious and out of place.