"Randi shut up, Cindy shut up, Kucinich shut up,

[cboy4]

Conyers shut up, moveon.org shut up," etc., etc.

I'm definitely noticing a pattern around here.

[ProSense]

1. Kerry shut up!

Me too.

[KaptBunnyPants]

12. He said he wanted to ask Kerry three questions.

He was arrested as he asked the third, so for all we know he was about to be done. He did wait for his turn to speak, after all, and Kerry did call on him. Maybe he wasn't entitled to the extra time (he spoke for about 1 minute and 10 seconds before the police intervened), but I don't recall ever hearing him tell Kerry to shut up.

[The Count]

18. In fact, Kerry still have his mike on, while the kid's was cut off (Dildo Really style)

So, yeah...who was silencing whom exactly?

[cboy4]

20. I think he probably livened up an otherwise boring

forum with his passion/enthusiasm (even if he may have gone a little overboard).

And by boring...I don't mean I disagree with Kerry, because I like him. I just think his speaking style leaves a lot to be desired.

It almost looked like a funeral before the student made things interesting. LOL

[ProSense]

22. No, he was arrested for ranting, you

can even hear Kerry ask him what's the question, twice.

He told Cindy Sheehan to shut up? My response is to the OP, what are you responding to?

[cboy4]

29. I'm responding to the DLC-leaning moderate, even right of

center segment of DU this is not very tolerant of other views.

Think about it.

[ProSense]

30. Are those the ones constantly telling

Kerry to shut up? Intolerant of other's views? That's what I'm interested in knowing.

[cboy4]

33. ProSense, why are you having difficulty understanding this

when you'll notice others in this thread get it?

Do you not accept the fact that there's a vocal number of the "we shouldn't impeach," or "Cindy Sheehan hurts the Democratic Party" crowd here at DU?

And by the way, where in my OP do I mention Kerry's name? So I don't know why you're drawing that conclusion.

[ProSense]

42. Nowhere!

Yet there are always people here telling Kerry to shut up. Why leave him out?

[robinlynne]

68. because he is not really part of the leftwing the dlc is trying to silence, whihc is what this Op is

about.

[redqueen]

75. People are always telling Kerry to shut up?

Seriously?

[cgrindley]

64. But you're not... the DLC types are the only ones defending the kid here

you see that don't you? the only ones defending the kid are the moderates. there's nothing the extreme radicals hate more than open dialogue. with open dialogue, they'll always lose.

without a police scene, the kid would have been a hilarious little punctuation mark to a whole page of pablum and his outburst would have been funny for a week and then forgotten. maybe he would have lived on in youtube's vaults, but that would have been that.

the only ones who want to silence extreme voices are other extremists.

[OzarkDem]

2. If they all "shut up"

who are we supposed to listen to?

Faux News and CNN?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Bingo

[muntrv]

4. What, everyone is now copying bill o' loofalafel?

[piesRsquare]

10. Bill O'Loofalafel

:rofl:

[RufusTFirefly]

5. Don't worry. Everything will be just fine

Pretty soon there will be a smooth transition to a Democratically controlled White House and the Bush Administration will willingly relinquish all the power it has accumulated over 8 years, happily handing over extraordinarily lucrative and intrusive laws to some lucky Democrat.

[Capn Sunshine]

17. :whew: That's a relief

I was worried there for awhile.

[Gold Metal Flake]

39. Aw, man! -SIG!

:toast:

[Maat]

84. That picture there says it all, in my humble opinion.

This law school graduate is with Mo Def - the Clintons and the Bushes intend to pass the presidency back and forth like a doobie.

[idgiehkt]

6. I swear to god

have you ever gone to buy something, a big purchase, and had the salesperson try to deliberately confuse you when you start to ask questions about it? There is a name for that sales tactic I just can't remember it, and all this confuse, divert, distract, detract, demoralize garbage that goes on in here is why I mostly stay in the lounge. My theory about why it's allowed to go on is because it hooks people in emotionally, when their egos are wounded in debate, grudges begin to grow, rivalries develop and pretty soon folks have huge ego investment in wasting time, er, debating, here.

[cboy4]

11. Don't allow them to banish you to the lounge idgiekt!

Obviously, you're not completely allowing them, since you're in GD right now.

But silencing a smart, articulate person like yourself is exactly what they want.

[idgiehkt]

41. I'm too busy pissing off all the right people in the lounge

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Seriously some folks were trying their damnedest to run me out of there in the beginning of the year. Because, you know, they own it or something. :)

Thanks for the very kind words. I feel the same way about you. :hug:

I just feel that GD is really crawling with obvious trolls...sometimes I even wonder if they are roboticized responses because they are so predictable.

[stimbox]

60. It's the A.I. bots

A.I. as in Artificial Ignorance.

[Nite Owl]

7. Yeah, sit down, be quiet and

don't ask any questions. Just agree with everything or you'll upset the apple cart, follow the leader.

So much for democratic discourse.

[MalloyLiberal]

21. Several of your Edwards supporters think the tasering is funny too

[scarletwoman]

8. 2008 will be the year of the "purge".

"You are not of the Body."

sw

[The Count]

19. yeah! Star Trek reference! Made my day!

[scarletwoman]

28. Glad to be of service.

:D

[scarletwoman]

9. Oh yeah -- k&r (nt)

[Individualist]

13. A very obvious pattern.

[Catamount]

14. I shut up too

[Cha]

15. I don't tell anybody to

"shut up" even in jest.. It's basic.. we all to spout off except in the fascists' view.

We don't have to turn on cable we don't like or go on shows where there's bushbots(thank you, Barry Manilow).

Cindy Sheehan can run for Congressperson from Cal and randi can rant even when she doesn't know what's she's talkin' about.

[The Count]

16. Yup. Don't be "hysterical" or "attention whore" - just send in money and STFU

Them party people know better than you, so mind your own business!

[Greyhound]

87. ...and vote every other year, don't forget that part.

If you forget to vote for us, it makes it harder to claim we represent you.

Now, STFU!




:rofl:

[sandnsea]

23. tombstones are for disruptors

which is significantly different than having a post removed for being out of line.

The kid had a post removed. He chose to take it to the tombstone place... and then some more.

[cboy4]

26. What kid had a post removed? I honestly don't know what you're

talking about in relation to my OP.

Can you elaborate?

[sandnsea]

34. making comparisons

Disruptors at DU to disrutpors in the real world. There are consequences. At DU, it's a post removal or a tombstone.

In the real world, it's removal or arrest.

Nobody is silencing anybody. They're simply saying people need to be more selective of the time and place they choose to speak. And if they choose to disrupt, be prepared to be removed. That's the way it works.

[cboy4]

38. No, you're completely misunderstanding my point.

I'm not talking about the taser incident.

I'm essentially talking about the DLC-Cindy Sheehan hurts the Democratic Party-impeachment would be a bad idea-Kucinich is too far left crowd.

And I'm not suggesting they be silenced. I'm arguing that lots of threads/posts, if not directly, indirectly are telling other DUers to shut up and I find that disturbing.

I'm convinced these are the same people who think Democrats should ignore LGBT civil liberty issues, like equal marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell because it will cost Dems the election(s).

[Zodiak]

43. and you would be right

I noticed the pattern about 6 months of reading DU, and only six onths ago I decided to do something about it. The obnoxious ones are on my ignore list, and the more sensible ones I debate with to show the thinness of their arguments.

To me, their strategy is loser-talk for wimps.

[tyedyeto]

46. I agree.....

It's not just about LGBT issues.....it's about the corporate DLC and why they want to silence the majority of their party.

[sandnsea]

47. Choosing your venue isn't being silenced

Or, choosing your words carefully. With the General betray-us thing. They should have done it the way Keith did it, will he betray us. Make the pun, but don't insult the general directly with it. Funny how nobody said a word about it when Keith did it. With Cindy, stick to the war and stop straying into even more controversial issues, like Chavez. And yeah, don't beat the hell out of people who are fighting for civil unions because that's all that is going to pass in most states. Live in reality. That's a damn sight different then being told to shut up.

[cboy4]

48. Are you kidding me? That was a nice little lecture, but those are

your opinions.

And you see what I'm talking about? Look at how condescending you are:

"Live in reality."

I don't have to accept your version of "reality" and I do not accept it.

But thank you for providing an excellent example of what I'm talking about in my OP.

[sandnsea]

49. Oh, so I should shut up

Is that it?

[cboy4]

50. No, you don't have to shut up. But how about being a little less

arrogant and a little less condescending regarding other people's feelings?

Do you know how extremely insulting it is to tell a gay person to quit whining and settle for civil unions because, oh you know, that's all you're going to get anyway in most states?

How do you know that? Times are changing. Who would have thought New Jersey would grant equal marriage (a supreme court decision, by the way, before the November 06 elections) that quite a few DUers were screaming was going to cost Democrats congress.

And look what happened. Democrats took congress.

You people need to stop acting like you're right about everything and that everyone else who disagrees doesn't know what the hell they're doing.

[sandnsea]

52. I live in Oregon

and I'm a little damn sick and tired of people telling me the civil union rights that were won through legislation here don't matter. That the people who fought for them are belittling gays. That's what's insulting.

And I am right about it. Left up to the people, the people will pass civil unions and not gay marriage. I don't know why you deny it. It's plain as day.

And people will pass subsidized health insurance over single payer.

And favor a paced withdrawal over immediate abandonment, and abhor defunding.

And think Hugo Chavez is moving closer to dictatorship every day, and discredit people who associate themselves with him.

I'm right. I'm sorry it doesn't meet your approval. It just is.

And you damn right it pisses me off that we are stuck in a quagmire in THIS country because nobody can move two inches from their ideoligical base for the benefit of the whole.

Condescending doesn't come anywhere near describing how infuriated I get at people.

[cboy4]

53. Nobody is saying that civil unions don't matter. But the bottom line is

they do not afford over 1,000 federal right that traditional marriage does, including:

* Social Security survivor and pension benefits
* Hospital visitation rights
* Medical decision making rights
* Inheritance rights
* End-of-life decisions (burial)
* Family leave under the federal "Family Medical Leave Act"


Those are some damn important rights, especially hospital visitation rights.

Sorry, civil rights are non-negotiable.

Civil unions are a start, but they're not good enough, and Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for insinuating that the greedy gays should be happy they even get civil unions when they could have nothing.

That's bullshit.

Again though, I'm pleased that you're so vividly proving the point of my OP by declaring, "I'm right about it," I'm right, I'm sorry it doesn't meet your approval. It just is," et al.

Sandnsea is correct and everyone to the left of the DLC is wrong.

Right Sandnsea?

[sandnsea]

54. You're making things up

and then attacking people for what YOU made up. You put words in my mouth and then attack me for them.

Society doesn't support gay marriage. You're mad about it.

But somehow or other, when I point out the same reality that you're mad over, I'm wrong.

That doesn't even make sense.

Civil unions are a start, they're not good enough, and that is where the majority of Democrats are at. Fighting for civil unions.

Or we could just shut up, since it offends you so much when we try to help fight for your rights.

[cboy4]

55. Nothing I said about the benefits of marriage versus civil

unions is a lie sandnsea.

This sums it up nicely if you're willing to allow your brain to receive information:

It's from the ACLU.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:6361kgDQ4pAJ:www.aclu-wa.org/library_files/WhyMarriageEqualityMatters.pdf+equal+marriage+over+1,000+federal+rights&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=18&gl=us&client=firefox-a


And yes Sandnsea, I am mad that society doesn't support gay marriage.

In fact, the only thing that makes me more mad is when Democrats don't support gay marriage.

We appreciate the help with civil unions, but the bottom line is separate is not equal, as was argued in Brown v. Board of Education.

[sandnsea]

57. The lie was putting words in my mouth

and then beating me up for stuff I didn't say.

That has happened to me on numerous occasions, particularly over the last month. I don't think you realize how hurtful and insulting you can be, for instance. Others are much much worse.

I'm sure it is hurtful to have people willing to sell you down the river because gay marriage is unpopular. But you don't realize how hurtful it is to me to be told my very life doesn't matter when you sell me down the river making me wait for the utopian single payer that is never going to come. It's as real to me as marriage is to you.

Nobody is saying shut up and never open your mouth again. We are saying, how about we fight for this issue in this manner, because we think more people can hear it.

Do you know how many times I said we should push for "military disengagement" instead of "out now". Oh no, I was a traitor and every other awful thing. But when Murtha said it, well all hail what a glorious day.

Just because people don't line up right behind you, it doesn't mean they aren't fighting for the exact thing you are. It just means that they're talking to people with a different life experience than you have and know how to phrase things to make them understand.

[cboy4]

59. Sandnsea, I can't speak for everyone who agrees with the

premise of my OP.

But speaking for myself, I mainly have a problem with the arrogance and condescending comments that are associated with certain topics.

We can disagree on how the Democrats should get things done, but I notice a definite elitist attitude when I hear a number of people articulate your position on issues.

We should be working together, instead of allowing further division.

[sandnsea]

61. And I notice

a definite smugness and denigration when I hear a number of people articulate your position on issues.

so now what.

Do you know I am called a loony leftie as often as I'm called a DLC sell-out bigot?

[cboy4]

77. I don't condone the type of behavior you're describing on

either side.

So why are you insinuating that it's okay to do it, because the other side does it?

You are familiar with the expression, "two wrongs don't make a right," correct?

[sandnsea]

90. No

It's only wrong when I do it. I'm quite aware. Cheers.

[cboy4]

93. Yes, it is wrong when you do it. I'm glad to see we're

making progress!

[RufusTFirefly]

56. What's all the fuss, cboy4? After all, it's only your rights.

Sheesh. How uppity can you get?

Listen to Hillary's supporters and be patient. Your time will come. Just like Kerry was playing possum before striking to blow the lid off of an illegal election. That's why we now have President Kerry. Because he was prudent and patient.

Kind of like that.

Please don't spoil it over something as trivial as your basic civil rights and your happiness. OK?

[cboy4]

58. LOL. Just call my Mr. Uppity!

;)

[Greyhound]

89. Thousands of warehouses, full to the rafters with bone-dry powder.

And boy, you better believe when we decide to use it things are gonna be different from then on.

[stranger81]

62. what more appropriate time or place to question a political candidate about political questions

than at a public forum at which that candidate is speaking?

Even the Supreme Court hasn't yet gone so far as to allow time/place/manner restrictions on free speech in the context of an explicitly political public forum. While DU is a different case as a private forum, this "disruptor" was fully within his constitutional rights.

[sandnsea]

63. That was a disruptive rant

He didn't want to listen to any answers to any questions. He interrupted when Kerry tried to answer him and continued to rant. He used foul language. He went on and on. The crowd cheered when they hauled him out. He was a disruptor. His run-in with the police started long before he got the mic. This had nothing to do with asking questions.

[stranger81]

76. sorry, but protection under the First Amendment has nothing

to do with whether or not one is "disruptive" -- unless you're yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, which this guy clearly didn't do. He was still wholly within his rights, even if you personally think he was rude or unproductive.

[sandnsea]

79. Yes it does, you can't rant anywhere you want

Go attend a meeting today, commandeer the mic, rant for 2 minutes, use foul language, and see how quick security is called.

[stranger81]

81. that's why the 1st amendment only applies to speech in a public forum --

so private forums can regulate their own activities as they see fit. But an open forum at a public university which a political candidate is speaking and to which the public is invited is NOT a private, self-regulating forum, and First Amendment guarantees must be respected.

That's first year law school black letter law, not just my opinion.

[sandnsea]

83. Well he's not a political candidate

in Florida, he was a guest speaker. And if a freeper had commandeered the mic at an ANSWER rally, you'd be calling the freeper a jackboot thug who was trying to shut down the free speech of the rally speaker.

No. You can't disrupt events, not anywhere. That is not protected free speech.

[stranger81]

86. Active candidate or not, he was a political figure speaking about political issues

and 1st amendment guarantees apply in that context.

There is no exception to the First Amendment for "disruptors." You're (fortunately) dead wrong about this.

Free advice from a practicing attorney. Don't say I never gave you anything for free.

[sandnsea]

88. Attorneys are often wrong

As you are in this instance. There is a difference between speech and disruption, and he crossed the line the second he said "blow job".

[stranger81]

91. With this post I'm done beating my head against the wall. . . . .

The First Amendment does not restrict "disruptive" speech, and that's the end of the story.

Done arguing with the flat-earthers now. Back to reality.

[sandnsea]

92. Read

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/topic.aspx?topic=campus_speakers

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in ACLU v. Mote (2005) and courts within the 5th Circuit have found college campuses to be limited public forums. This means that they are not traditional public forums such as public streets or parks available for anyone to use at any time, but have been opened to the public for limited use. Usually in such instances an individual or group must reserve time to speak and may speak only in designated areas. When a speaker does not follow the institution’s policy concerning uninvited speakers, he can be prohibited from speaking and asked to leave the campus.

AND

in a case concerning an uninvited speaker, Bowman v. White. The court ruled that specific parts of the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville campus were considered an unlimited public forum.

The auditorium was not an unlimited public forum, like a quad or other open space. The college can mak rules regarding conduct in the auditorium, and even an invited speaker can be asked to leave. Most certainly an uninvited one can as well.

[stranger81]

94. in the hopes we can have a rational discussion, I'll bite one more time . . . .

Thanks for the link -- from a terrific organization that does first rate work.

But the Bowman and Mote cases are critically different from the tasing incident in this salient respect: neither one dealt with political speech -- speech that's been characterized as "at the heart of the First Amendment" and that is given a special and more privileged status in any First Amendment calculus. Limits on expressly political speech, particularly in a political forum, are much more stringently scrutinized. Even "disruptive" political speech is still protected by the First Amendment.

Setting all that aside, neither Bowman or Mote stands for the proposition that "disruptive" speech outside the ambit of the First Amendment (whether in an unlimited OR a limited public forum), and neither has any precedential value in the 11th Circuit (Florida).

If you're really interested in reading cases that discuss the special status of political speech, in the context of a public forum dedicated to political discussion, let me know and I'm happy to post some links. Some of them (IMHO) are actually fun reads.

[moodforaday]

65. Orwell would be proud

of this sentence you wrote:

Nobody is silencing anybody. They're simply saying people need to be more selective of the time and place they choose to speak.

Really, really proud.

[KoKo]

24. Yep...SHUT UP GRASS ROOTS...you KNOW NOTHING!!!

We have our "Eyes on the Prize" time for you t o GET OFF THE BUS!! After all that "thing could run Over YOU!"

[Synnical]

25. No shit

And it's really pissing me off. Hoping it will settle down soon!

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

27. I'm confused. There is a "SHUT UP" thingy going on here? *shrug* eom

[DemoTex]

31. "Shut Up" from that faction at DU almost always gets me into a donor mood.

We have a plethora of real freepers, pseudo-freepers or freeper-enablers here (and I use the term freeper generically .. ergo lower case). But WTF. I've been here since May 2001 and I've seen it all. Any old-timers remember the first "freeper"? LONSTAR. What an asshole.

[GeorgeGist]

32. There is a shut up button ...

included with DU, at no extra charge.

[cboy4]

35. Everybody, I understand that there's an ignore feature.

It's the principle of the matter, in my opinion.

[bear425]

36. cboy4 ...

Do not ever shut up.

[cboy4]

40. Don't worry.

:)

[Edgeoforever]

37. You forgot "Gravel, shut up!"

[Malikshah]

44. Shut up!... Or, rather...

Zip it!

[wildbilln864]

45. cboy4..........

shut up!
:hi:
just kidding! K&R!

[NuttyFluffers]

51. shhhh... nothing to see here, look away, "respect my authoritah!"

:smoke:

[motocicleta]

66. I'm noticing another pattern.

cboy4's posts get K n Rd by me.

K n R

[renie408]

67. Is it just me, or is there a difference between the MoveOn ad, Randi's show, Cindy Sheehan and the..

the heckler kid?? Cause I support the MoveOn ad and Randi's right to express her opinion and Cindy Sheehan's right to say whatever she thinks...but I don't support some attention hungy kid screaming his brains out at a peaceful gathering, refusing to step down when he is asked and resisting arrest.

These incidents have nothing in common. It seems like a big problem to me that a lot of people cannot see the differences.

[cboy4]

71. Just for the purposes of clarity, this OP does not have

anything specifically to do with the Kerry incident.

But it sure seems like there are a lot of guilty consciouses out there!

[Lorien]

69. Toe the line!

Speak only when spoken too. Don't rock any boats-the system is perfect the way it is.

[Kelly Rupert]

70. Jesus, shut up already. n/t

[cboy4]

73. Let's hope you forgot to put a sarcasm smiley next to

your "Jesus, shut up already. n/t" comment.

[IndianaJones]

72. troublemaker...zip it. t.

[cboy4]

74. Oh no you di'int

:popcorn:

[Bandit]

78. So is mine, must be the salt air.

:silly:

[Senator]

80. Shut Up And Impeach Already

It's the only thing that can unify the Dem Party and our once-great nation.

--

[Gonzo Gardener]

82. I take it all baaa aaa-ck!

:rofl:

[Maat]

85. I get very suspicious, and people lose their credibility with me ..

when anyone is told to shut up.

What is it that I'm not supposed to hear?

Your point is well-taken, Cboy4.