How quiet do you think a very conservative Rep. audience would remain if I were to starting speaking of allowing abortions up til the third trimester and taking all the guns away from private citizens etc.?
A lot of them wouldn't be so noisy that they would prevent the speech from happening. Those that would be so loud and would intrude on to the speech should be handled by security or police. In any case the original point that started this whole line of discussion was not that Republicans don't seek to censor or shout down but rather that they where not alone in this. All sides in politics want to make the other side shut up.
If you think that a booer or heckler should be thrown out, then I think its incumbent upon the speaker who knows his/her agenda will be controversial to the audience to evaluate the security set up before he or she speaks.......especially when the speaker is not required to speak but chooses to do so on his/her own volition.
There is a time and place for loud shouts and denunciation, and a time when differing opinions should have a chance to get heard. An appropriate protest would be to be at the speech and then to turn your back and walk out when he is starting to talk. Or you could get the school to allow someone who disagrees with the speaker to talk after him, or march outside the speech with protest signs. I find it unfortunate that people from all over the political spectrum , yes including conservatives, but also including liberals and others want to silence dissent from their dogma rather then listening to it, debating it, refuting it, or at worst just avoiding it but letting others listen.
Its an unfortunate instinct to not want to hear the other side. Like I have said before, I am surprised at how deep the divisions run in this country.
Sorry, big difference between speaking and getting booed down, and not being allowed to speak at all.
If you get booed but people can hear you anyway then there is a big difference. If no one can hear you then there isn't one.
Even with the latter, you still have a chance. However, when you are excluded, there is little possibility.
I don't give a hoot if the H of F is private.....if it is at all..........its unAmerican to exclude someone from a key event becuase you don't like who he voted for for president.
I'm not sure how you reconcile that statement with "And if you choose to walk into the opposition's camp......that you have to expect some serious objections."
You are assuming that the Hall of Fame is a haven for conservative thought and very pro war. That's not true. Petroskey is conservative and very pro war, and he is imposing his values on the rest of the organization. In reality, there are some directors who are pro war and others who are not. Still others are pro war but they don't want the Hall of Fame to be making a political statement. Even Petroskey realizes he may lose his job over this one.
Should the NRA invite Clinton to its next annual meeting? Should NARAL ask the Pope to give the keynote speech next time they meet? If they don't would they be un-American? Sure the HoF is not officially a political organization but neither is Berkeley. I don't really think that the HoF made the best decision in their case but I also don't think it should be called un-American.
Baseball is an all inclusive sport that goes to the heart of what is right about this country. To make it into a political venue I think is inappropriate.
Some friends in San Diego just had the back window of their car smashed in because they were flying the peace flag just below the American flag. Great message being sent to their kids. And how is this any different from early 1930's Germany?. Frankly, its the conservatives who are noted for stopping dissent in this fashion, not the liberals.
All sides do. The liberals proclaim their tolerance but they are just as intolerant as anyone else.
Sorry, Tim, but liberals are not known for threatening people with force when they disagree.....that's more the bailiwick of conservatives.....assuredly conservatives who have run amok but conservatives nonetheless.
The issues of slavery and affirmative action as presented by the people in your links can be very offensive
It wasn't the issue of slavery. Its the issue of throwing billions of dollars at people who where never slaves, after taking it from people who have never owned slaves, and in many cases didn't even have ancestors who owned slaves, or who had ancestors that died to free the slaves.
Sorry I thought one of the other links mentioned slavery and its impact on modern day blacks.
But fine lets say they are offended by it. I'm offended by the idea that I should have to pay reparations but I don't try to make the people who say we should shut up. If you argued for reparations I would try to counter your argument with my arguments not try to hack in to SI to delete your posts or push people to put you on ignore, or even put you on ignore myself.
I don't agree with the concept of reparations. Too much time has a elapsed. I was surprised when the Israelis went after the Swiss.
ted |
