NationStates Jolt Archive

How tolerant is the left? An appearance (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBR6D00.html) by Ann Coulter at UCONN makes you wonder. She was forced to cut short a planned speech after heckling became too loud to continue. She may not be everyone's favorite, but she sure gets more than her share of poor treatment from the very people that are supposed to be champions of tolerance and diversity.

Coulter's appearance prompted protests from several groups, including Students Against Hate and the Puerto Rican/Latin American Cultural Center. They criticized her for spreading a message of hate and intolerance.

Nearly 100 students gathered inside the Student Union for a rally against Coulter. About a half-dozen people held protest signs outside the auditorium. . . .

Last April, the president of the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota denounced a speech on the campus by Coulter, calling it hateful. In October 2004, University of Arizona police arrested two men who ran on stage and threw custard pies at Coulter; one of the pies glanced off her shoulder. . . .

Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major at UConn, didn't attend the speech.

"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Knudsen, head of Students Against Hate.



Translated into non-PC jargon, Mr. Knudsen is saying that "We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, as long as we agree with you". And what the heck is a social welfare major?

We already had a thread about this. The answer to your question, as was determined by the discussion in that thread, was "no less than the right."

Heh. She makes millions out of bashing liberals, and then goes to a university? What did she expect?

How tolerant is the left? An appearance (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBR6D00.html) by Ann Coulter at UCONN makes you wonder. She was forced to cut short a planned speech after heckling became too loud to continue. She may not be everyone's favorite, but she sure gets more than her share of poor treatment from the very people that are supposed to be champions of tolerance and diversity.

Translated into non-PC jargon, Mr. Knudsen is saying that "We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, as long as we agree with you". And what the heck is a social welfare major?
As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.

snip
I've been planning to write a book for a while where I correct one of Ann Coulter's books. My working title is, "Libel."

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.

Not really. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from heckling.

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.
It could also be that Ann Coulter is a ridiculous hack.

Coulter treats people the same way, so why should anyone be surprised when she herself receives such treatment?

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.

Freedom of speech does not include freedom from disagreement. She was more than welcome to continue her speech. They did nothing to violate her ability to say whatever she wanted.

The pie incident at Arizona, however, is different.

She may not be everyone's favorite, but she sure gets more than her share of poor treatment from the very people that are supposed to be champions of tolerance and diversity.
Maybe she should stop lieing and out-and-out insulting the entire "left."

Silly troll topics. This was discussed to death in another topic and seeing who created it, his commentary, and other commentary, it is obviously inflammatory. Actually, any defense of Anne Coulter is an obvious attempt at trolling.

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.

Does it give you an erection to make stupid generalisations about leftists?
C'mon, you can tell me, I won,t judge you...a little woody, some chub?

Judging by the fact that, in most of your posts, you seem to fairly level headed and intelligent, I can only assume that your constant generalising about leftists has to some sort of fetish.

:fluffle:

Yes, it's similar to anti-racists heckling Nazis. How DARE they! Mocking intolerance...well...it's just plain intolerant!:rolleyes:

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.
Bullshit. The left doesn't go around trying to put people in free speech zones (and I'm distinguishing between the left and the Democrats here, for the record--we get just as pissed at them for it) so as to diminish their ability to protest. If anything, this kind of protest is the ultimate of freedom of speech--Coulter talks, she gets yelled at. Both sides are speaking.

How tolerant is the left? An appearance (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBR6D00.html) by Ann Coulter at UCONN makes you wonder. She was forced to cut short a planned speech after heckling became too loud to continue. She may not be everyone's favorite, but she sure gets more than her share of poor treatment from the very people that are supposed to be champions of tolerance and diversity.


Translated into non-PC jargon, Mr. Knudsen is saying that "We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, as long as we agree with you". And what the heck is a social welfare major?
So you're complaining that Mrs. Coulter's free speech was countered by the student's free speech? Free speech doesn't guarantee that people will agree with or welcome your comments. The protestors were just exercising their own rights.

So you're complaining that Mrs. Coulter's free speech was countered by the student's free speech? Free speech doesn't guarantee that people will agree with or welcome your comments. The protestors were just exercising their own rights.

Well put!

Yes, it's similar to anti-racists heckling Nazis. How DARE they! Mocking intolerance...well...it's just plain intolerant!:rolleyes:
PRECISELY! Two wrongs have never one right made! :p

So you're complaining that Mrs. Coulter's free speech was countered by the student's free speech? Free speech doesn't guarantee that people will agree with or welcome your comments. The protestors were just exercising their own rights.
Not at all. Just as your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, so your freedom to "expression" ends where it drowns out my right to have my views heard. :p

Not at all. Just as your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, so your freedom to "expression" ends where it drowns out my right to have my views heard. :pNot so--you have the right to speak. Nothing more. Nothing guarantees that you will be heard.

PRECISELY! Two wrongs have never one right made! :p

As opposed to certain parties actions which bear startling resemblance to this one, only that it happened to involve Micheal Moore?

Easiest solution. Don't like it? Don't listen. Freedom of speech doesn't give you any rights to my ear.

How tolerant is the left? An appearance (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/07/D8EBR6D00.html) by Ann Coulter at UCONN makes you wonder. She was forced to cut short a planned speech after heckling became too loud to continue. She may not be everyone's favorite, but she sure gets more than her share of poor treatment from the very people that are supposed to be champions of tolerance and diversity.

coulter is a proto-fascist that routinely calls for the killing and physical intimidation of 'liberals' (here defined as everyone annie doesn't like). 'tolerance' does not mean giving fascists a free pass.

Not at all. Just as your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, so your freedom to "expression" ends where it drowns out my right to have my views heard. :p
The hecklers may have been out of line on grounds of rudeness and school regulations, but the protestors weren't. They can lobby the university all they want to keep her out.

Not so--you have the right to speak. Nothing more. Nothing guarantees that you will be heard.
Spoken like a true leftist.

Spoken like a true leftist.

You just came in your pants, didn't you?

The pie incident at Arizona, however, is different.

indeed. the bastards missed. i'm still a bit pissed about that.

Spoken like a true leftist.
But his point is valid.

If Ann Coulter had the right to be heard, everyone would have that right as well. Which means you'd have to patiently wait and politely listen to anyone who has something they want you to hear. Which includes leftists. Probably lots of them.

What do you prefer: leftists not wanting to hear what Ann Coulter has to say, or you spending all your precious time listening to Michael Moore because he has the right to be heard as well? ;)

As opposed to certain parties actions which bear startling resemblance to this one, only that it happened to involve Micheal Moore?

Easiest solution. Don't like it? Don't listen. Freedom of speech doesn't give you any rights to my ear.
I am unaware of any situation where the corpulent Mr. Moore was deliberately drowned out by mobs of screaming conservatives.

"Not listening" is a perfectly acceptable alternative.

indeed. the bastards missed. i'm still a bit pissed about that.
Ah. Another pefect example of leftist "tolerance." :rolleyes:

But his point is valid.

If Ann Coulter had the right to be heard, everyone would have that right as well. Which means you'd have to patiently wait and politely listen to anyone who has something they want you to hear. Which includes leftists. Probably lots of them.

What do you prefer: leftists not wanting to hear what Ann Coulter has to say, or you spending all your precious time listening to Michael Moore because he has the right to be heard as well? ;)
The "right to be heard" is different from any "obligation to listen," as I am sure you will be aware should you pause to think.

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.
By making ludicrous generalisations of this nature, you're agreeing to be called a Neocon. See if you can get your head around that one: if all of the left can be tarred with the same brush, then there is absolutely no difference between Libertarians, Neocons and Nazis. They certainly have more in common with each other than (say) Class War does with the SDLP.

I am unaware of any situation where the corpulent Mr. Moore was deliberately drowned out by mobs of screaming conservatives.

"Not listening" is a perfectly acceptable alternative.
I'm not surprised. For all your supposed moderation and open-mindedness, you still manage to let us know how much of a right-wing hack you are at heart. Try looking at this (http://www.thisdividedstate.com/) for examples of what you're talking about.

Ah. Another pefect example of leftist "tolerance." :rolleyes:
Says the man who once gloated about Jane Fonda being spat on (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413765&highlight=Jane+Fonda). Hypocrite.

I can't say I have any problem with this. Nor would I have any problem with it if it were a leftist being heckled by a bunch of right-wingers. I always assumed that when you decide to make a public speech, you do so with the knowledge and acceptance that you are making yourself a potential target for being heckled.

I am unaware of any situation where the corpulent Mr. Moore was deliberately drowned out by mobs of screaming conservatives.

He has recieved several death threats.

Spoken like a true leftist.

So you think that the right to free speech brings with it an obligation for others to listen?

Personally, the whole tolerating intolerance argument doesn't make sense to me. The point of pushing tolerance is to make sure people don't get shit on, and, in this situation, Coulter can't open her mouth without shitting on someone. So tolerating her would undermine the whole movement for tolerance.

While I support the laws that no one can legally shut her up, I applaud those who seek to use their rights to be louder than her.

Says the man who once gloated about Jane Fonda being spat on. Hypocrite.
I'd forgotten about that. What say you, Eutrusca?

Ah. Another pefect example of leftist "tolerance." :rolleyes:

as long as we hold back to merely pieing people who have brought eliminationist rhetoric about how the best way to talk to 'liberals' is with a baseball bat (for example) to the more mainstream proto-fascists, i'd say that makes us bastions of tolerance.

The "right to be heard" is different from any "obligation to listen," as I am sure you will be aware should you pause to think.
*sigh* But I guessed you missed the point of my post, even if the distinction you make is sensible as well.

There is no right to be heard. If there was, everybody and their dumb cousin could have ready access to every TV and Radio station out there, in order for their opinions to "be heard" by the most people possible.

The right to free speech doesn't entail the right to be heard. If a nazi or a KKK member comes into my neighbourhood and start talking, I'll bloody hell protest and shout "la-la-la" loudly over him to counter his message of hate, and I will probably succeed because most members of my community would join their voices to mine.

Likewise, if I were to be dumb enough to go make a speech in a KKK or Nazi club preaching tolerance and acceptance, I will probably be silenced by the majority voices there.

Free speech is a chaotic jungle; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be "free", just "speech".

Personally, the whole tolerating intolerance argument doesn't make sense to me. The point of pushing tolerance is to make sure people don't get shit on, and, in this situation, Coulter can't open her mouth without shitting on someone. So tolerating her would undermine the whole movement for tolerance.

yup

I am unaware of any situation where the corpulent Mr. Moore was deliberately drowned out by mobs of screaming conservatives.


Well, it certainly seems like they were trying to drown him out. Or perhaps simply just make noise.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/28/loc_michaelmoore28.html

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/53115
This one, not so sure what the unidentified object is in the story. If it was a weapon though, I would say that said person is doing a very poor job of upholding freedom of speech. Otherwise, not much to be said.

http://www.independentcollegian.com/media/paper678/news/2004/10/28/News/Moore.Holds.A.slackers.Event-784641.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.independentcollegian.com

And so there we go.

I look at this situation the same way I look at any heckling situation. It is rude, regardless of the fact that Ann Coulter is a Nazi-Neoco-Robot who really doesn't even have her own opinion.

A few months ago, she came here for an open discussion with Janet Reno. Since it was Town Hall format and her responses weren't prepared, she came off the worst since all she really responded with was comments like, "That's what you would expect the liberal types to say."

She is an idiot on par with Ruch Limbaugh. The difference is, Rush is an actor, she really believes this shite.

Anyone want to lay a wager on how many pages it'll be before Eutrusca comes back in the thread and acts like no one laid a glove on him?

Anyone want to lay a wager on how many pages it'll be before Eutrusca comes back in the thread and acts like no one laid a glove on him?
I'll wager a blowjob on Eutrusca ;)

We already had a thread about this. The answer to your question, as was determined by the discussion in that thread, was "no less than the right."
My apologies. I looked for it and didn't see it in recent days.

I'm not surprised. For all your supposed moderation and open-mindedness, you still manage to let us know how much of a right-wing hack you are at heart. Try looking at this (http://www.thisdividedstate.com/) for examples of what you're talking about.
I'm not surprised either. For all your constant carping about "freedom of speech," you still manage to let us know how much of an advocate of "freedom of screech" you are. Try looking in the mirror.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone as decisively demolished as Eutrusca was on this thread. It's rather gratifying, considering the noxious tirade about "leftists."

Free speech is a chaotic jungle; if it wasn't, it wouldn't be "free", just "speech".
I honestly don't understand this position. The right to speak your mind includes the right to be capable of being heard. To deliberately drown someone out is not only a reprehensible lack of manners and common courtesy, it's a bald-faced attempt to silence those who have every right to speak.

Says the man who once gloated about Jane Fonda being spat on (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413765&highlight=Jane+Fonda). Hypocrite.
So now I can't gloat? Tsk! :D

He has recieved several death threats.
As has the vociferous Ms. Coulter. And your point?

I'm not surprised either. For all your constant carping about "freedom of speech," you still manage to let us know how much of an advocate of "freedom of screech" you are. Try looking in the mirror.
So, I've got a question. If my friend is making fun of my political viewpoints, and I shout LALALALA really loudly so I don't have to hear him, should the government come and arrest me? Because that's what your interpretation of free speech justifies. The people making fun of Coulter were not government actors. I challenge you to find me a single piece of jurisprudence extending the right of free speech to a private convesation or lecture rather than government interference or protests of government action. If someone doesn't want to listen to me or you, it's not the government's place to get in the middle.

I'm not surprised either. For all your constant carping about "freedom of speech," you still manage to let us know how much of an advocate of "freedom of screech" you are. Try looking in the mirror.
Have I suggested that protestors ought to be shut up? Nope. Have I suggested that people I disagree with ought to be told that they can't say what they want? Nope.

To the contrary--I am in favor of more speech, not less. Let every view been shouted from the rooftops. Let every idea be screamed on the street corner, no matter how offensive I find it personally. You're the one who wants to shut down protestors. I welcome them, whether they're protesting Ann Coulter or Michael Moore or anyone in between.

So you think that the right to free speech brings with it an obligation for others to listen?

Personally, the whole tolerating intolerance argument doesn't make sense to me. The point of pushing tolerance is to make sure people don't get shit on, and, in this situation, Coulter can't open her mouth without shitting on someone. So tolerating her would undermine the whole movement for tolerance.

While I support the laws that no one can legally shut her up, I applaud those who seek to use their rights to be louder than her.
You seem to have the inability to actually comprehend that which you claim to have read. Show me where I have said that "the right to free speech brings with it an obligation for others to listen" and I will immediately retract it. :p

The point of, as you so contradictually put it, "pushing tolerance," is to drown out those with whom you disagree ... pure and simple, and totally unacceptable, whether it undermines your pet project or not.

So now I can't gloat? Tsk! :D
It's called a contradiction. It's bad when liberals spit on Ann Coulter, but good when conservatives spit on Jane Fonda. I'm waiting for the difference.

So now I can't gloat? Tsk! :D
Not if you're going to call people on the opposite side of the political spectrum names for doing something you obviously approved of when it happened to someone you disliked. Or are you saying that spitting on Ann Coulter would be okay, as long as no one hits her with a pie? :rolleyes:

I don't think I've ever seen anyone as decisively demolished as Eutrusca was on this thread. It's rather gratifying, considering the noxious tirade about "leftists."
Wishful thinking on your part.

I honestly don't understand this position. The right to speak your mind includes the right to be capable of being heard. To deliberately drown someone out is not only a reprehensible lack of manners and common courtesy, it's a bald-faced attempt to silence those who have every right to speak.
Yes well, and to pretend that leftists alone heckle, or that somehow they should be above it, is ridiculous. I'll heckle a neo-nazi speech any day. Freedom of speech means that the speaker can not be arrested for his hateful words (unless he incites genocide). Freedom of speech means I can protest and be a loud-mouthed bitch...until I get too loud, at which point, I'd likely be removed by police. As a leftist, I don't think it's my duty to promote tolerance by silently listening to idiots...or letting them think that people don't oppose their idiocy. And frankly, I don't think you do either.

I honestly don't understand this position. The right to speak your mind includes the right to be capable of being heard. To deliberately drown someone out is not only a reprehensible lack of manners and common courtesy, it's a bald-faced attempt to silence those who have every right to speak.

Not really. Fred Phelps is often drowned out by counter-protestors. Protestors themselves are considered to still have free speech, even when they are sitting alone in jail cells.

Heckling public figures is considered by many to be an expression of free speech.

Wishful thinking on your part.
Read later.

You (like me) will never admit you're wrong on a forum. That doesn't meant it's not true :p.

Personally, I think she should have the right to go to the school and say what she wants. But then those who attend can go and say what they want, they could have done it in a more polite manner, such as waiting until the end of her speech and asking questions.

I mean, we have this group at my school called the Campus Crusade for Christ and they are an incredibly stupid group, to be honest. They had a campaign last year that was "do you agree with Dave" Dave being one of their members and they vandalized the entire school and broke several poster rules as well as harassed a number of people. I attended their speech, found it to be a recitation of evangelical beliefs more than someone's own personal beliefs and asked a question that was answered in an unsatisfactory manner...

At any rate, I agree that this group should be allowed to exist.

However, I also have the right to form a group that opposes them.

So, I've got a question. If my friend is making fun of my political viewpoints, and I shout LALALALA really loudly so I don't have to hear him, should the government come and arrest me? Because that's what your interpretation of free speech justifies. The people making fun of Coulter were not government actors. I challenge you to find me a single piece of jurisprudence extending the right of free speech to a private convesation or lecture rather than government interference or protests of government action. If someone doesn't want to listen to me or you, it's not the government's place to get in the middle.
Straw man. At no time did I advocate any sort of government intervention ... ever!

You seem to have the inability to actually comprehend that which you claim to have read. Show me where I have said that "the right to free speech brings with it an obligation for others to listen" and I will immediately retract it. :p

The point of, as you so contradictually put it, "pushing tolerance," is to drown out those with whom you disagree ... pure and simple, and totally unacceptable, whether it undermines your pet project or not.
Here you go. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10064545&postcount=17) If there's a meaningful difference between "the right to have my views heard" and "an obligation for others to listen," I don't see it. "To have my views heard" implies that there must be an audience.

So now I can't gloat? Tsk! :D
You did more than gloat, Eut. You advocated the physical act of spitting in someone's face as a valid political tool. How is that different than shoving a pie into someone's face? Both actions are reprehensible, but committed by people with different ideologies...so pretending that somehow you are above 'leftists' is pure hypocrisy.

However, you're complaining not about pies, but about heckling. And evidence has been given you showing that 'leftists' are not alone in this. And your definition of freedom of speech...the freedom to spew hatred, unopposed, is frankly, vomitous.

It's called a contradiction. It's bad when liberals spit on Ann Coulter, but good when conservatives spit on Jane Fonda. I'm waiting for the difference.
You are wasting your time. Eutrusca has +10 Anti-Hypocrisy Accusation armor.

Straw man. At no time did I advocate any sort of government intervention ... ever!
Swing and a miss. Try reading that again, big guy. That's not what was being said.

You are wasting your time. Eutrusca has +10 Anti-Hypocrisy Accusation armor.
Hilarious! It seems so. I just tire so of his constant sniping (and often pointless) comments about 'liberals' and 'leftists'.

How long until he starts saying we're discriminating against him because he's a vet/old/USian/other?

To deliberately drown someone out is not only a reprehensible lack of manners and common courtesy
To that I do agree. It's highly impolite to heckle someone. But it's also highly impolite to openly put down and incite to hate a particular person/group of persons.

I tend to be polite to those with manners. I have no desire to be irrespectful to someone who merely states a political opinion respectfully, even if I do not agree with said opinion.

But when someone, like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, etc. launches in a hateful and depising tirade about groups of people I might be a part of, my manners take a hasty exit and I answer in kind.


it's a bald-faced attempt to silence those who have every right to speak.
Well, in a way, no. She could have continued with her speech; nobody tried to silence her. They simply impressed upon her that her message would find no sympathy there, and that they held views diametrically opposed to hers. They were simply using their own right to free speech to openly and loudly disagree with her. She chose to flee rather than face them with the conviction of her beliefs. Which says a lot about her.

I'm sticking with my 'generalising about leftists gives Eutrusca an erection' theory.

You seem to have the inability to actually comprehend that which you claim to have read. Show me where I have said that "the right to free speech brings with it an obligation for others to listen" and I will immediately retract it. :p

The Nazz (I believe) stated that one has no right to be heard, to which you derisively replied "Spoken like a true leftist", which I took to mean that you disagreed with the comment.

Now for someone to have a right to be heard, the others must have an obligation to listen. So either Nazz is correct and there is no right to be heard, or there is an obligation for others to listen.

The point of, as you so contradictually put it, "pushing tolerance," is to drown out those with whom you disagree ... pure and simple, and totally unacceptable, whether it undermines your pet project or not.

Instead of restating what I responded to, how about you counter what I said. You can't really prove something by stating it over and over.

Straw man. At no time did I advocate any sort of government intervention ... ever!
Nice try, but...you invoked the discourse of rights. If someone has an affirmative right to "be heard," someone has to protect that right. Given that right is a juridico-political term that denotes government protection from a particular action, you're in a bit of a bind:
Either:
A. You meant "right" when you said it, and my "straw man" becomes directly responsive to your post, in which case even you would probably agree with me
OR
B. You didn't mean "right," and what you actually meant was that it was bad that Ann Coulter was heckled. We all agree with that. The people doing the heckling were doing something pretty stupid. But that doesn't mean they should be stopped from doing it, which is what you've been consistently saying throughout the thread and have provided no defense of.


And, cannot think of a name was correct about your response. It doesn't answer the central claim of my post - namely, that there are no rights connected to discussion between two individuals.

You are wasting your time. Eutrusca has +10 Anti-Hypocrisy Accusation armor.
Somebody here has been playing too much D&D lately... and for once, it isn't me! :D

I mean, we have this group at my school called the Campus Crusade for Christ and they are an incredibly stupid group, to be honest. They had a campaign last year that was "do you agree with Dave" Dave being one of their members and they vandalized the entire school and broke several poster rules as well as harassed a number of people. I attended their speech, found it to be a recitation of evangelical beliefs more than someone's own personal beliefs and asked a question that was answered in an unsatisfactory manner...

'kyle' was the go to guy in idaho. much better than 'dave'. and yeah, agreeing with kyle was not exactly the most intellecually satisfying thing i could think of doing.

Wishful thinking on your part.
No, you did get pwned.

'kyle' was the go to guy in idaho. much better than 'dave'. and yeah, agreeing with kyle was not exactly the most intellecually satisfying thing i could think of doing.
There were a lot of them. It was funny because I went to a couple of their websites and the genders, names and hometowns were pretty much all that was different in their stories.

She chose to flee rather than face them with the conviction of her beliefs. Which says a lot about her.

maybe she just didn't have her trusty talking-to-liberals-action baseball bat™ with her and she went to go find one. or perhaps she was going to find some terrorists to ask them to blow up the student protesters instead of the oklahoma federal building.

maybe she just didn't have her trusty talking-to-liberals-action baseball bat™ with her and she went to go find one. or perhaps she was going to find some terrorists to ask them to blow up the student protesters instead of the oklahoma federal building.
Could be. But I still say she's a stupid coward neocon-nazi-robot spewing hate against everyone who doesn't defend themselves, and when they DO defend themselves her little bully facade crumbles and she shows the world what a scared, lonely little girl she is.

But that's just my theory.

Here you go. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10064545&postcount=17) If there's a meaningful difference between "the right to have my views heard" and "an obligation for others to listen," I don't see it. "To have my views heard" implies that there must be an audience.
Sigh. Let me spell it out for you:

* I have an absolute right to speak my mind, so long as what I say does not incite to violence or the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government.

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard.

* No one can be reqired to listen to what I have to say.

* No one can prohibit my saying what I want to. This means that they do not have the absolute right to prevent my being heard, either by forcibly removing me, stealing my microphone, or drowing me out by screeching. To do so obviates my freedom of speech ( in addition to being childish, irresposible, and downright rude ).

No, you did get pwned.
Heh! Your proof?

Sigh. Let me spell it out for you:

* I have an absolute right to speak my mind, so long as what I say does not incite to violence or the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government.

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard.

* No one can be reqired to listen to what I have to say.

* No one can prohibit my saying what I want to. This means that they do not have the absolute right to prevent my being heard, either by forcibly removing me, stealing my microphone, or drowing me out by screeching. To do so obviates my freedom of speech ( in addition to being childish, irresposible, and downright rude ).
That bolded part is where you go wrong, and here's why--if you are on a deserted street, you have the right and the ability to speak your mind, but if no one is there to hear you, then you are not heard. Does that impinge upon your right to speak? Not at all. The ability to be heard and the ability to speak are two separate entities which generally go hand in hand, but do not d so specifically. They are exclusive, and one does not necessarily follow the other.

Heh! Your proof?
This entire thread is the proof, whether you choose to see it or not.

Sigh. Let me spell it out for you:

* I have an absolute right to speak my mind, so long as what I say does not incite to violence or the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government.

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard.

* No one can be reqired to listen to what I have to say.

* No one can prohibit my saying what I want to. This means that they do not have the absolute right to prevent my being heard, either by forcibly removing me, stealing my microphone, or drowing me out by screeching. To do so obviates my freedom of speech ( in addition to being childish, irresposible, and downright rude ).
Freedom of speech gives other people the right to speek over you. Rudeness is not against the law.

I've met Ann Coulter on a number of occasions, the last time being in line for Ronald Reagan's viewing.

She is strident in her opinions, holds back nothing, and revels in the abuse she receives from liberals as a result.

While it's unfortunate that she can't seem to give a speech without something being thrown at her, the fact of the matter is that she has brought that upon herself - and she doesn't have a problem with it. Each time this happens, her profile goes up and she becomes more of a hero to her base.

If those who hate her truly wished to bring her influence to an end, they would simply ignore her. Being heckled, having pies thrown at her - all that does is increase her public profile.

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard.

Show me why this is true, and explain why a right to be heard does not imply an obligation to listen.

No one can prohibit my saying what I want to. This means that they do not have the absolute right to prevent my being heard, either by forcibly removing me, stealing my microphone, or drowing me out by screeching. To do so obviates my freedom of speech ( in addition to being childish, irresposible, and downright rude ).

Does this mean that we cannot allow private media?

EDIT: Don't respond to that last question, it was rhetorical and off-topic, but I don't want to remove it for some reason.

That bolded part is where you go wrong, and here's why--if you are on a deserted street, you have the right and the ability to speak your mind, but if no one is there to hear you, then you are not heard. Does that impinge upon your right to speak? Not at all. The ability to be heard and the ability to speak are two separate entities which generally go hand in hand, but do not d so specifically. They are exclusive, and one does not necessarily follow the other.
The problem here is that Eutrusca is using the word "heard" incorrectly. What he means is people have a right for their speech not to be drowned out, which is not a correct use of the word. Essentially, it's the difference between a right to unobstructed speech and "right to be heard."

I disagree, however, that anyone has a right to unobstructed speech by private actors when not engaged in political protest with a protest permit (Note: that doesn't mean I think permit-less protest is illegitimate. On the contrary, the very power of permit-less speech is that it will be obstructed. But that's off-topic).

Heh! Your proof?

Retarded posts like this.

That bolded part is where you go wrong, and here's why--if you are on a deserted street, you have the right and the ability to speak your mind, but if no one is there to hear you, then you are not heard. Does that impinge upon your right to speak? Not at all. The ability to be heard and the ability to speak are two separate entities which generally go hand in hand, but do not d so specifically. They are exclusive, and one does not necessarily follow the other.
Oh for God's sake! What part of this are you failing to comprehend? How about this:

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard by those who wish to hear, free of undue interference by others.

Retarded posts like this.
Ah, the inimitable Sdaeriji! Your irrelevant insult has cut me to the quick! Ieee! Dying, dying! :p ( which is about as irrelevant as your statement )

Oh for God's sake! What part of this are you failing to comprehend? How about this:

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard by those who wish to hear, free of undue interference by others.

No it does not. That's what you're failing to comprehend. There's neither explicit nor implicit protection against "undue interference by others." As long as they are not preventing you from speaking your mind, they are doing nothing wrong.

Ah, the inimitable Sdaeriji! Your irrelevant insult has cut me to the quick! Ieee! Dying, dying! :p ( which is about as irrelevant as your statement )

And posts like this.

Oh for God's sake! What part of this are you failing to comprehend? How about this:

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard by those who wish to hear, free of undue interference by others.

Not in public situations. The free speech of one person does not override the free speech of another. You are correct that those involved were rude, but I appreciate their rudeness.

Oh for God's sake! What part of this are you failing to comprehend? How about this:

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard by those who wish to hear, free of undue interference by others.
The speech in this instance did not violate that particular "right." Ann Coulter and the people who wish to hear her could have gone somewhere else. She appeared in a public place, and got a public reaction (frankly, what she deserved). If people want to hear her in an "unobstructed manner," then go to a private place where they have the authority to exclude the people that wish to disrupt her lecture.

You also seem to ignore my earlier post, where I pointed out to you that no such right exists, as you are wont to do when proven wrong.

If those who hate her truly wished to bring her influence to an end, they would simply ignore her. Being heckled, having pies thrown at her - all that does is increase her public profile.
Which is precisely what I was told in reference to the dishonorable Ms. Cindy Sheehan, by someone participating in THIS thread, who has taken the exact opposite position about this issue, thus confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree. :D

Which is precisely what I was told in reference to the dishonorable Ms. Cindy Sheehan, by someone participating in THIS thread, who has taken the exact opposite position about this issue, thus confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree. :D
That's massively irrelevant to the issue at hand and goes nowhere in proving the tolerance or lack thereof in "leftists."

Heh! Your proof?
Well, lets start with the assertation that this is a phenomenom of the left-
As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.
and yet here-
I'm not surprised. For all your supposed moderation and open-mindedness, you still manage to let us know how much of a right-wing hack you are at heart. Try looking at this (http://www.thisdividedstate.com/) for examples of what you're talking about.
we find a film about that not being the case and here-
Says the man who once gloated about Jane Fonda being spat on (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=413765&highlight=Jane+Fonda). Hypocrite.
we find you cheering similar behavior. Here-
Well, it certainly seems like they were trying to drown him out. Or perhaps simply just make noise.

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/10/28/loc_michaelmoore28.html

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/53115
This one, not so sure what the unidentified object is in the story. If it was a weapon though, I would say that said person is doing a very poor job of upholding freedom of speech. Otherwise, not much to be said.

http://www.independentcollegian.com/media/paper678/news/2004/10/28/News/Moore.Holds.A.slackers.Event-784641.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.independentcollegian.com

And so there we go.
we find actual same behavior by those on the right, thus desimating the notion that it is a phenom of the right. It is worth noting that this last one, that demonstrates mirrored behavior was completely ignored by you.

And rather than point out the number of times you've had to worm around this new found notion that freedom of speech suddenly means freedom from criticism, I'll just point out one of the tighter locks, by Vitto, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10065001&postcount=67)

That, as a primer, would be the proof.

Which is precisely what I was told in reference to the dishonorable Ms. Cindy Sheehan, by someone participating in THIS thread, who has taken the exact opposite position about this issue, thus confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree. :D

This doesn't make any sense.

This is about the point where I leave a thread because I feel sorry for the poster taking the beat down.

Which is precisely what I was told in reference to the dishonorable Ms. Cindy Sheehan, by someone participating in THIS thread, who has taken the exact opposite position about this issue, thus confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree. :D
Actually, it wouldn't be the exact opposite, as this thread wasn't started to bring attention to Coulter as an opposition, as where your repeated threads on Sheehan where, nor where the responses to your Sheehan rants that you where trying to infringe on her free speech but rather to refute your notion that she was dishonorable. So in fact, the situations are vastly different.

Heh! Your proof?
This thread.

I revel in the free speech that allows both groups, right and left, to be seen as the idiot gasbags they are. It's like watching a game of tug-o'-war at the Special Olympics.
*grabs nachos*

...confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree. :D

Warming up for another round, you naughty boy, you!!

The speech in this instance did not violate that particular "right." Ann Coulter and the people who wish to hear her could have gone somewhere else. She appeared in a public place, and got a public reaction (frankly, what she deserved). If people want to hear her in an "unobstructed manner," then go to a private place where they have the authority to exclude the people that wish to disrupt her lecture.

You also seem to ignore my earlier post, where I pointed out to you that no such right exists, as you are wont to do when proven wrong.
Well, it's just the one "me" trying to respond to the approximately twelve of you, so it's easy to miss the occasional post. In addition to which, I've been trying to get ready to leave home. My most humble apologies.

The right to free speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution. I am simply saying that, if a mob prevents someone from speaking, that's a violation of their right to free speech. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? I really would like to know that.

And, by the way ... this should apply across the board, regardless of political leanings, religous affiliation, race, sex, sexual orientation, or previous condition of servitude.

So you're complaining that Mrs. Coulter's free speech was countered by the student's free speech? Free speech doesn't guarantee that people will agree with or welcome your comments. The protestors were just exercising their own rights.
This is just one of the many posts that seem to confuse freedom of speech with how a guest should be treated. Wouldn't a more civil response from the audience be appropriate toward an invited guest? Sure, she's getting a fee, but still some part of UCONN invited her to speak and should be entitled to get what they paid for.

Well, lets start with the assertation that this is a phenomenom of the left-

and yet here-

we find a film about that not being the case and here-

we find you cheering similar behavior. Here-

we find actual same behavior by those on the right, thus desimating the notion that it is a phenom of the right. It is worth noting that this last one, that demonstrates mirrored behavior was completely ignored by you.

And rather than point out the number of times you've had to worm around this new found notion that freedom of speech suddenly means freedom from criticism, I'll just point out one of the tighter locks, by Vitto, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10065001&postcount=67)

That, as a primer, would be the proof.
I have never said that anyone should be free from criticism. Show me that, please!

Would it help if I said that there are those demented souls on the right who attempt to stifle the free speech of those with whom they disagree? Let me remind you that this thread was ABOUT Ann Coulter and the fact that her right to speak was being abridged, not about anyone on the right attempting to do the same. I will happily concede that point if it will make you happy.

As I have stated above, there is only ONE of me and about TWELVE of you, which makes it rather difficult for me to respond to every post.

... or previous condition of servitude.
Eut, you really are the champ at pissing off the PC-minded members here. I could see you grinning in front of your monitor as you typed that last line. :D

Well, it's just the one "me" trying to respond to the approximately twelve of you, so it's easy to miss the occasional post. In addition to which, I've been trying to get ready to leave home. My most humble apologies.
Fair enough.

The right to free speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution. I am simply saying that, if a mob prevents someone from speaking, that's a violation of their right to free speech. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? I really would like to know that.
That still is not responsive to my claim. You've conceeded a couple of crucial points:
A. Modern jurisprudence defines the right of free speech as protecting individuals from the government and more broadly defines the Constitution as applying only to the states and federal government (that's why it's ok for Bob Jones University to discriminate: they aren't federally funded). Legally, you're on the wrong side of this issue.
B. Rights are empty without enforcement. If this protest was a violation of the Constitutional right to free speech, you would be mandating that police would shut the people protesting Coulter up, which even you has explicitly conceeded is a bad idea.

Therefore, the speech of the protesters is actually the one protected by the Constitution.

And, by the way ... this should apply across the board, regardless of political leanings, religous affiliation, race, sex, sexual orientation, or previous condition of servitude.
Irrelevant.

Eut, you really are the champ at pissing off the PC-minded members here. I could see you grinning in front of your monitor as you typed that last line. :D
Shhhh! Most of them don't realize how much fun I have doing this! If they knew, they would stop responding and then were would I be? Heh!

That still is not responsive to my claim. You've conceeded a couple of crucial points:
A. Modern jurisprudence defines the right of free speech as protecting individuals from the government and more broadly defines the Constitution as applying only to the states and federal government (that's why it's ok for Bob Jones University to discriminate: they aren't federally funded). Legally, you're on the wrong side of this issue.
B. Rights are empty without enforcement. If this protest was a violation of the Constitutional right to free speech, you would be mandating that police would shut the people protesting Coulter up, which even you has explicitly conceeded is a bad idea.

Therefore, the speech of the protesters is actually the one protected by the Constitution.

Irrelevant.
LOL! What ... EVER! I would dearly love to continue this "discussion," but reality intrudes. I'm off to give my ex her birthday present. If I don't return until in the morning ... applaud! :D

I love how the conservatives pull out the "Gee you liberals are supposed to be tolerant" whenever we vocalize our disagreement.

It's a convenient jab, since the conservatives who think that way are the kinds who can dish it out but can't take it.

I have never said that anyone should be free from criticism. Show me that, please!

Would it help if I said that there are those demented souls on the right who attempt to stifle the free speech of those with whom they disagree? Let me remind you that this thread was ABOUT Ann Coulter and the fact that her right to speak was being abridged, not about anyone on the right attempting to do the same. I will happily concede that point if it will make you happy.

As I have stated above, there is only ONE of me and about TWELVE of you, which makes it rather difficult for me to respond to every post.
You asked for proof that you got nailed in the thread, I provided it. You want to worm out of your earlier statements like we can't still see them, that's up to you.

Ann Coulter was allowed to speak, that she stopped is on her. The protests where criticism. Loud, and in droves, and sudden. The only abridgement of freedom of speech is if one side was not allowed to speak-both spoke, freedom universally exercised. To say that the protestors could not do what they did is to say that they cannot critisize. They did not tape her mouth or run her out on a rail. She spoke, they spoke, everyone spoke freely.

You asked for proof that you got nailed in the thread, I provided it. You want to worm out of your earlier statements like we can't still see them, that's up to you.

Ann Coulter was allowed to speak, that she stopped is on her. The protests where criticism. Loud, and in droves, and sudden. The only abridgement of freedom of speech is if one side was not allowed to speak-both spoke, freedom universally exercised. To say that the protestors could not do what they did is to say that they cannot critisize. They did not tape her mouth or run her out on a rail. She spoke, they spoke, everyone spoke freely.
I think we get to claim victory.

Ah, my country. Love it or hate it, you can't like it.

Shhhh! Most of them don't realize how much fun I have doing this! If they knew, they would stop responding and then were would I be? Heh!

I knew it. He is getting sexually aroused at this.:eek:

Oh for God's sake! What part of this are you failing to comprehend? How about this:

* The fact that I can speak my mind implies that I have a right to be heard by those who wish to hear, free of undue interference by others.
I comprehend exactly what you're saying--I'm saying that you're wrong, as is practically everyone else on this thread.

You asked for proof that you got nailed in the thread, I provided it. You want to worm out of your earlier statements like we can't still see them, that's up to you.

Ann Coulter was allowed to speak, that she stopped is on her. The protests where criticism. Loud, and in droves, and sudden. The only abridgement of freedom of speech is if one side was not allowed to speak-both spoke, freedom universally exercised. To say that the protestors could not do what they did is to say that they cannot critisize. They did not tape her mouth or run her out on a rail. She spoke, they spoke, everyone spoke freely.
My real complaint is that the hecklers are tremendously bad mannered. I'm certain that there were people that wanted to hear the prepared speech and possibly paid for the privilege. Don't they deserve consideration? What's their remedy, more yelling? Fist fights?

My real complaint is that the hecklers are tremendously bad mannered. I'm certain that there were people that wanted to hear the prepared speech and possibly paid for the privilege. Don't they deserve consideration? What's their remedy, more yelling? Fist fights?
I don't know how things work in other areas, but I know when I went to University, you were sometimes tossed out even if you were silently holding a protest sign. Hell, in Canada, we've gone as far as to completely bar protesters from the area a conference has been held in, so that the delgates don't even have to SEE, much less HEAR them. In my country at least, freedom of speech definately favours the speakers, over the protesters.

By the way, I've heard this woman's name bandied about often, because there are many USians on NS, and I know from what people have said that she's really conservative, and so on...but DAMN! NONE of you mentioned how smoking she is! I mean...she's friggin' hot! A bit on the skinny side in that picture (the OP's article)...but wow!

Still sounds like a c*nt though. I guess I expected someone like Momma from Throw Momma From the Train.

I don't know how things work in other areas, but I know when I went to University, you were sometimes tossed out even if you were silently holding a protest sign. Hell, in Canada, we've gone as far as to completely bar protesters from the area a conference has been held in, so that the delgates don't even have to SEE, much less HEAR them. In my country at least, freedom of speech definately favours the speakers, over the protesters.
As I recall, we have developed that technique around political conventions. Protesting is a healthy thing. I think that the protested deserve to see the protests, as well. I just think that a guest lecturer deserves a little more courtesy that what was given on account of the fact that there may be folks that want to hear the lecture. Save the heckling for intermission or post lecture. Of course, it's not really heckling then ...

By the way, I've heard this woman's name bandied about often, because there are many USians on NS, and I know from what people have said that she's really conservative, and so on...but DAMN! NONE of you mentioned how smoking she is! I mean...she's friggin' hot! A bit on the skinny side in that picture (the OP's article)...but wow!

Still sounds like a c*nt though. I guess I expected someone like Momma from Throw Momma From the Train.
You think so? Ugh. Maybe it's because I've heard the ugliness coming out of her mouth so much that it's tainted the way I see her, but I don't find her attractive in the least. I said on the other thread that I wouldn't fuck her with my ex-wife's dick.

My real complaint is that the hecklers are tremendously bad mannered. I'm certain that there were people that wanted to hear the prepared speech and possibly paid for the privilege. Don't they deserve consideration? What's their remedy, more yelling? Fist fights?


Meh.

She spews crap so manners aren't an issue. The people that wanted to hear her crap probably agree with her so why?

By the way, I've heard this woman's name bandied about often, because there are many USians on NS, and I know from what people have said that she's really conservative, and so on...but DAMN! NONE of you mentioned how smoking she is! I mean...she's friggin' hot! A bit on the skinny side in that picture (the OP's article)...but wow!

Still sounds like a c*nt though. I guess I expected someone like Momma from Throw Momma From the Train.
She could stand to eat once in a while. Maybe it was last Christmas, maybe the one before, there was a Ann Coulter doll advertised. The shipping weight was 0.0 oz. That's less than a gram for all you metricists.

Which is precisely what I was told in reference to the dishonorable Ms. Cindy Sheehan, by someone participating in THIS thread, who has taken the exact opposite position about this issue, thus confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree. :D
Again: the left is a hive mind composed of identical liberal pod people, and all Christians agree with Fred Phelps and want to burn JK Rowling at the stake.

As I recall, we have developed that technique around political conventions. Protesting is a healthy thing. I think that the protested deserve to see the protests, as well. I just think that a guest lecturer deserves a little more courtesy that what was given on account of the fact that there may be folks that want to hear the lecture. Save the heckling for intermission or post lecture. Of course, it's not really heckling then ...

A guest lecturer does deserve courtesy.

Somebody how makes a business spewing hatred does not.

Would you say Michael Moore should never be heckled?

As I recall, we have developed that technique around political conventions. Protesting is a healthy thing. I think that the protested deserve to see the protests, as well. I just think that a guest lecturer deserves a little more courtesy that what was given on account of the fact that there may be folks that want to hear the lecture. Save the heckling for intermission or post lecture. Of course, it's not really heckling then ...Then again, if they really wanted to protest, they've could've protested until the lecture was dropped...it seems plenty of Universities refuse to have her speak. Then again...maybe they did do that...who knows.

You think so? Ugh. Maybe it's because I've heard the ugliness coming out of her mouth so much that it's tainted the way I see her, but I don't find her attractive in the least. I said on the other thread that I wouldn't fuck her with my ex-wife's dick.
Yes, well the more I learn about her, the uglier she becomes...but I admit I'm a bit shocked at how she looks. Like I said, because of the things I'd heard about her, I'd assumed her exterior matched her interior.

A guest lecturer does deserve courtesy.

Somebody how makes a business spewing hatred does not.

Would you say Michael Moore should never be heckled?
I wouldn't attend a Michael Moore lecture, any more than I'd go to see Ann Coulter. But, the people who do find him worth seeing should be allowed to hear him.

Personally, I'd be very disappointed if I went to see Peggy Noonan speak and had her heckled to the point where continuing to speak was futile.

By the way, I've heard this woman's name bandied about often, because there are many USians on NS, and I know from what people have said that she's really conservative, and so on...but DAMN! NONE of you mentioned how smoking she is! I mean...she's friggin' hot! A bit on the skinny side in that picture (the OP's article)...but wow!

Still sounds like a c*nt though. I guess I expected someone like Momma from Throw Momma From the Train.

Wow you canuckians really don't get out much.

Hot is never a word I would apply to her.

Now this is what I would call hot

http://www.missworldcanada.com/

Wow you canuckians really don't get out much.

Hot is never a word I would apply to her.


Now now, if you just bumped into her on the street, not realising who she was...admit it...she's hot.

I'm not partial to blondes of either sex, but I'm willing to make exceptions for people who are not full of hateful bile...but unless she opened her mouth, you wouldn't know...

Now now, if you just bumped into her on the street, not realising who she was...admit it...she's hot.

I'm not partial to blondes of either sex, but I'm willing to make exceptions for people who are not full of hateful bile...but unless she opened her mouth, you wouldn't know...
I sat next to a TV celebrity at lunch one time. I don't her name, but she was one of the prinicpal actresses on a silly sitcom from the early nineties that starred Bronson Pinchot and some other goof. She was one of the girlfriends.

Point is that she looked atrractive on the TV, but in real life the girl was so skinny that she looked like a refugee from a concentration camp. Not attractive at all.

As I have been at pains to point out in the past, the left loves freedom of speech, as long as the freedom and the speech are their own. When it involves those with whom they disagree, both go right out the window.
Who is the left?

PRECISELY! Two wrongs have never one right made!
Stop trying to talk like Yoda.

Spoken like a true leftist.
Typical rightist fascist/freeloader! (i can do it too!)

seriously though, does "Spoken like a true leftist" actually mean anything at all. Are you a troll? You're not writing logically.

Who is the left?


Stop trying to talk like Yoda.


Typical rightist fascist/freeloader! (i can do it too!)

seriously though, does "Spoken like a true leftist" actually mean anything at all. Are you a troll? You're not writing logically.
He's also ignoring this poiint whenever it's raised. Haven't you noticed?

So now I can't gloat? Tsk! :D
You can, but don't attack others for doing the same. Hypocrite.

....thus confirming my hypothesis about leftists being tolerant only of those with whom they agree.
Why should leftists not heckle if others can do so?

I revel in the free speech that allows both groups, right and left, to be seen as the idiot gasbags they are. It's like watching a game of tug-o'-war at the Special Olympics.
*grabs nachos*
The left and the right are not all idiot gas bags. Besides, you're right-wing (i.e. capitalist), so don't attack yourself!

This is just one of the many posts that seem to confuse freedom of speech with how a guest should be treated. Wouldn't a more civil response from the audience be appropriate toward an invited guest? Sure, she's getting a fee, but still some part of UCONN invited her to speak and should be entitled to get what they paid for.
I thought we were talking about rights, tolerance and legality. Most people here agree that heckling her was stupid and impolite.

By the way, I've heard this woman's name bandied about often, because there are many USians on NS, and I know from what people have said that she's really conservative, and so on...but DAMN! NONE of you mentioned how smoking she is! I mean...she's friggin' hot! A bit on the skinny side in that picture (the OP's article)...but wow!
Again proving my hypothesis that women can't identify another hot woman, no matter how good at it this culture* has trained them to think they are. She has the face of a man, so I'm not surprised that a woman would consider her to be hot!

*ever notice how it is much more socially acceptable for women to rave about how hot members of their own sex are than it is for men?

Again proving my hypothesis that women can't identify another hot woman, no matter how good at it this culture* has trained them to think they are. She has the face of a man, so I'm not surprised that a woman would consider her to be hot! Oh hush you...the face of a horse? Please. And did I say "I think she's hot, therefore you must as well"? I don't care if you share my perception of hotness. In fact, I'd prefer you didn't...it'll leave more people for me to screw.

*ever notice how it is much more socially acceptable for women to rave about how hot members of their own sex are than it is for men?That's your problem...you men should work on that.

The left and the right are not all idiot gas bags. Besides, you're right-wing (i.e. capitalist), so don't attack yourself!
Economically speaking, yes. Socially, no. Economics alone doesn't determine my complete political spectrum. Of course, I'm sure it helps to grossly simplify things, as if money were the only thing that matters, but it doesn't work for me.

Not at all. Just as your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins, so your freedom to "expression" ends where it drowns out my right to have my views heard. :p

No one has a right to have their views heard, merely to speak them.

Hitler spoke to a crowd of... nevermind.

Economically speaking, yes. Socially, no. Economics alone doesn't determine my complete political spectrum. Of course, I'm sure it helps to grossly simplify things, as if money were the only thing that matters, but it doesn't work for me.
Hey...why don't you have a post count or a title? I've never seen that before!

Hey...why don't you have a post count or a title? I've never seen that before!
Because I'm special, dammit! :D
Or there was some kind of weird database error and now I'm ghosting.
I also can't hit the edit button real fast like I usually do, so I have typos all over the place whenever I post now. Kinda sucks.

I wouldn't attend a Michael Moore lecture, any more than I'd go to see Ann Coulter. But, the people who do find him worth seeing should be allowed to hear him.

Personally, I'd be very disappointed if I went to see Peggy Noonan speak and had her heckled to the point where continuing to speak was futile.

Ahhh but Peggy doesn't go out of her way to insult people, make up history and call people traitors.....

Now now, if you just bumped into her on the street, not realising who she was...admit it...she's hot.

I'm not partial to blondes of either sex, but I'm willing to make exceptions for people who are not full of hateful bile...but unless she opened her mouth, you wouldn't know...

No not really. I saw one of her book covers before I knew who she was and she didn't do anything for me.

She just seems a little plastic too me.

I sat next to a TV celebrity at lunch one time. I don't her name, but she was one of the prinicpal actresses on a silly sitcom from the early nineties that starred Bronson Pinchot and some other goof. She was one of the girlfriends.

Point is that she looked atrractive on the TV, but in real life the girl was so skinny that she looked like a refugee from a concentration camp. Not attractive at all.

I had the same experience with Lindsie Wagner(6 million dollar woman for those that don't know). Not attractive as she had the used too much makeup look and she was extreamly bitchy on top of it.

One of my wifes great-uncles litterally bumped into Audry Hepburn on the street. He said she was just drop dead georgious.

One of my wifes great-uncles litterally bumped into Audry Hepburn on the street. He said she was just drop dead georgious.
I have a terrible crush on her. I fell in love with her when I saw "Sabrina".

I have a terrible crush on her. I fell in love with her when I saw "Sabrina".
Now there is something we can agree on. Audrey Hepburn is dreamy. Those eyes...

As has the vociferous Ms. Coulter. And your point?

My point is that people on both sides of the political spectrum have their views shouted down, have death threats made against them and have pies flung in their direction.

Asshattery is a human trait. Not a leftist or a rightist one.

This means that they do not have the absolute right to prevent my being heard by drowing me out by screeching. To do so obviates my freedom of speech ( in addition to being childish, irresposible, and downright rude ).

So you agree that in the cases provided, the republican protestors were childish, irresponsible and downright rude? Either they are, or you're showing your "rightist" bias.

As has the vociferous Ms. Coulter. And your point?

Ok I call for proof of the claim.....

*CanuckHeaven streaks the thread whilst delivering a shit load of humble pies. :D

We already had a thread about this. The answer to your question, as was determined by the discussion in that thread, was "no less than the right."

Exactically!

Now now, if you just bumped into her on the street, not realising who she was...admit it...she's hot.

I'm not partial to blondes of either sex, but I'm willing to make exceptions for people who are not full of hateful bile...but unless she opened her mouth, you wouldn't know...

I'd think of her as the rail-thin she-skelleton she is.... I find her no hotter than most of the nasty looking women they have doing modeling these days... [which I do not consider "hot" either by any stretch of the imagination]...

I like women who actually LOOK LIKE WOMEN, not adolescent boys....

I'd think of her as the rail-thin she-skelleton she is.... I find her no hotter than most of the nasty looking women they have doing modeling these days... [which I do not consider "hot" either by any stretch of the imagination]...

I like women who actually LOOK LIKE WOMEN, not adolescent boys....

That could be her new name... SKELETOR!! :D

That could be her new name... SKELETOR!! :D
No, that's already been taken by Kate Moss...

So you agree that in the cases provided, the republican protestors were childish, irresponsible and downright rude? Either they are, or you're showing your "rightist" bias.

Forrest has consistently proven to be a disingenuous Bushevik hack on this forum. His worship of Shrub goes beyond comprehension.

No, that's already been taken by Kate Moss...

Kate Moss has vacated the title of Skeletor in favor of Snowblower.

Forrest has consistently proven to be a disingenuous Bushevik hack on this forum. His worship of Shrub goes beyond comprehension.

For a minute I thought you were talking about me. I actually went looking through the thread.

Hey it's early! :)

For a minute I thought you were talking about me. I actually went looking through the thread.

Hey it's early! :)
I've had those moments before too, those "did I write something incredibly stupid when I was drunk off my ass last night?" moments.:D

Forrest has consistently proven to be a disingenuous Bushevik hack on this forum. His worship of Shrub goes beyond comprehension.
GAUTHIER!!! :fluffle:

:D

Actually, I only voted for Bush because I couldn't ABIDE John "Seared-into-my-brain" Kerry! :p

Kate Moss has vacated the title of Skeletor in favor of Snowblower.

Damn! I had a similar comment!

Damn! I had a similar comment!
ROFL! That sounds like a line from that movie about a robot who acquired consiousness: "Yer momma was a snowblower!" :D

GAUTHIER!!! :fluffle:

:D

Actually, I only voted for Bush because I couldn't ABIDE John "Seared-into-my-brain" Kerry! :p
So you chose incompetence and dishonesty over personal dislike. Thanks a lot.

So you chose incompetence and dishonesty over personal dislike. Thanks a lot.
Well, I wouldn't personally put it QUITE that way, but yes ... I made a conscious decision that the lesser of two "evils" was preferrable. :p

Well, I wouldn't personally put it QUITE that way, but yes ... I made a conscious decision that the lesser of two "evils" was preferrable. :p
Uh huh--*looks around at the state of the country and our foreign policy*--lesser of two evils, huh? And you wonder why I treat you the way I do on this forum?

GAUTHIER!!! :fluffle:

:D

Actually, I only voted for Bush because I couldn't ABIDE John "Seared-into-my-brain" Kerry! :p
So you vote for whichever side throws the most mud? Good consistency at least, though I would suggest voting on issues.

Uh huh--*looks around at the state of the country and our foreign policy*--lesser of two evils, huh? And you wonder why I treat you the way I do on this forum?

Kerry would have been a terrible president. At least Bush is limited in the harm he can do by being a lame duck.

Kerry would have been a terrible president. At least Bush is limited in the harm he can do by being a lame duck.
Maybe he would have--he was an unknown quantity in that position--but we know this much for certain. Bush is a terrible president. He has been from Day One. So what did we have to lose by trying out someone else? Kerry certainly couldn't have been worse, that's for damn sure.

Maybe he would have--he was an unknown quantity in that position--but we know this much for certain. Bush is a terrible president. He has been from Day One. So what did we have to lose by trying out someone else? Kerry certainly couldn't have been worse, that's for damn sure.

How I wish ye had tried Nader or Badnairk.

Uh huh--*looks around at the state of the country and our foreign policy*--lesser of two evils, huh? And you wonder why I treat you the way I do on this forum?
"Lay on, Macduff, And damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!''" - Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act 5, Scene VIII

Kerry certainly couldn't have been worse, that's for damn sure.
Kerry is a proven liar, totally without honor, and had no discernable plan of action on anything of importance to me.

Kerry is a proven liar, totally without honor, and had no discernable plan of action on anything of importance to me.
Politicians are liars, so that's a bullshit argument. Face it, Eutrusca--you decided that you'd rather support an incompetent person over someone from the other party. It really was that simple. You put party over country, and worked to re-elect a person you knew was unfit for the job for partisan political reasons.

No, that's already been taken by Kate Moss...
It's been taken by Victoria Beckham, actually: that's what popbitch always calls her...

Kerry is a proven liar, totally without honor, and had no discernable plan of action on anything of importance to me.

And the shrub is honest? A personal war is honorable? And what plan for the peace has the shrub shown? Give them democracy and we will all sing happy happy joy joy!

A bit fanatical in your support of the shrub are we?

A bit fanatical in your support of the shrub are we?
Beg pardon, but I'm not aware of anything or anyone called "the shrub." :p

Beg pardon, but I'm not aware of anything or anyone called "the shrub." :p
Aw, I understand. Sand does keep your head warm, doesn't it?

Kerry is a proven liar, totally without honor, and had no discernable plan of action on anything of importance to me.
Of course he is, if your only sources of information are sound bites, FOX News, and any other sort of mud slinging and bullshit propaganda

Of course he is, if your only sources of information are sound bites, FOX News, and any other sort of mud slinging and bullshit propaganda
Ah! TPH, you never cease to amuse. :D

Ah! TPH, you never cease to amuse. :D

I'm still waiting for your answer Eut.

I'm still waiting for your answer Eut.
I think you got all the answer you're going to get. Eutrusca follows the advice of all good politicians--never answer the questions you're asked or the charges you're accused of. Answer the questions you wish you'd been asked, or the charges you wish you'd been accused of.

I think you got all the answer you're going to get. Eutrusca follows the advice of all good politicians--never answer the questions you're asked or the charges you're accused of. Answer the questions you wish you'd been asked, or the charges you wish you'd been accused of.
Circle gets the square.

I think you got all the answer you're going to get. Eutrusca follows the advice of all good politicians--never answer the questions you're asked or the charges you're accused of. Answer the questions you wish you'd been asked, or the charges you wish you'd been accused of.

Then it is time to hound this politician and chase him to the ground. Everyone gives up sooner or later. Even those who don't want to be caught.