Is it my imagination?

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 12:49 pm

Does anyone else remember during any of the recent administrations as much suppression of political speech as I seem to be seeing examples of on Youtube, news reports ect.?

Here is an example. I have seen several more but can't find the links right now sorry.

In further research I did while composing this post, I see examples of Dems and GOP suppression.

However nothing near as violent as I have seen recently. (Current administration) Or maybe I am just paying more attention now?

Here is another example of suppression though of a religous nature. (Not a political event but it was in a public setting)

In the past there was Kent State. That was terrible. Then a relative calm. Your thoughts?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:05 pm

During the Bush administration there was way less suppression. Nothing was to trivial to print and promote as long as it made GW look bad.

Now we have Barack \"We Just Luv Ya Man\" Obama in power and the masses that hated Bush are now doing their best to control what is said about Obama. Those who are doing the suppression know very well how to go about it as they were very good at doing just the opposite. Can't have their hero look'n bad now can we?

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:12 pm

You mean like this.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:22 pm

In the first video, the \"officer\" was not a policeman. He was just a school security guard that was preventing someone from erecting a sign on school property and rightfully so. I know for a fact that we never were allowed to post any signs on school property for any event unless we had permission. We were also responsible for removing them when the event was over. Since the people at the school had posters it was obvious they had permission to do so for their event. The guy in the video did not.

There is no free speech issue here for a closed event and the comment the security guard made about \"not being america any more\" was wrong, but he has a right to say it.

The other videos were already mentioned in another thread on the subject and it was agreed the boy deserved what he got whether he was at a Kerry, Palin, or any other political event.

What I'm witnessing in these events are planned disruptions and name calling instead of meaningful debates. Those should be stopped.

Bee

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:26 pm

I think politicians have always felt they were elite and above the law. So now that they don't even bother to finish writing a law or understand what is in it before they decide to vote for it their motives of securing power for themselves and their respective party's are becoming extremely transparent.

Their position has become so untenable that they can't even twoface their way through a press conference anymore so they resort to their instinctual defense mechanism which is to silence, by the presumed authority of their elite status, any dissent.

Here's a notice for all politicians:

If you can't even BS the average American who has the attention span of a young child and less education on U.S. domestic policy than the average European tourist then you no longer have what it takes to be a bottom feeding, feces spewing politician, and should seek employment at the local used car sales lot or Direct TV customer service department until Satan finds an opening for you.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 2:35 pm

Bet51987 wrote:In the first video, the "officer" was not a policeman. He was just a school security guard that was preventing someone from erecting a sign on school property and rightfully so. I know for a fact that we never were allowed to post any signs on school property for any event unless we had permission. We were also responsible for removing them when the event was over. Since the people at the school had posters it was obvious they had permission to do so for their event. The guy in the video did not...

Bee

Bee, how do you know who had permission and who didn't and if that was the reason why did the guard offer the picture on the video guys poster as the reason?!? I think you are trying to construct a reasonable motive for what appears to be a very unreasonable act.
The guy didn't like the Obama picture and most likely would have chuckled with glee if it had been a Bush picture.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:05 pm

W.R. wrote:Bee, how do you know who had permission and who didn't...

and then....

W.R. wrote:The guy didn't like the Obama picture and most likely would have chuckled with glee if it had been a Bush picture.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:20 pm

Please see this thread as to why this is happening and why some people want this to go on is beyond me. viewtopic.php?t=15809

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:02 pm

The “officer” in the first video…gets the you need to be fired award for this…

“I can charge you with whatever I want to charge you with”

The Hardball video is just typical crap…the main story is about a tasering at some Kerry meeting, and the idiot uses the entire session to bash Bush…lol. (even with his colleague stating that the Dems. Do it too)

That one with the “sharia law”…well I don’t care what people think…but those people need a little visit from the Hells Angels!

As far as the UN crap…we need to get out of that useless organization, move it off the US and stop paying for that waste of time.

To the OP…Things haven’t really changed.

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 4:13 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I think politicians have always felt they were elite and above the law. So now that they don't even bother to finish writing a law or understand what is in it before they decide to vote for it their motives of securing power for themselves and their respective party's are becoming extremely transparent.

Democratic "Transparency" at work, LOL.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:10 pm

Bet51987 wrote:In the first video, the "officer" was not a policeman. He was just a school security guard that was preventing someone from erecting a sign on school property and rightfully so.

Thats pretty selective interpretation Bet. As I saw it, there was a townhall meeting on that occasion. That makes it a public venu or should anyway. He was not trying to "erect" a sign, just hold it up so it could be seen, like others were doing which he pointed out.(assumed pro healthcare/Obama)

Bet51987 wrote: I know for a fact that we never were allowed to post any signs on school property for any event unless we had permission. We were also responsible for removing them when the event was over.

Irrelevent to this post, see above.

Bet51987 wrote:Since the people at the school had posters it was obvious they had permission to do so for their event. The guy in the video did not.

Big assumption on your part Bet. Are you saying that adults need permission to express there right to free speech at or outside of a townhall meeting? The cop/security guard stated he was not going to allow it because it had a picture on it. It was not obscene so there was no public decency issue.

Bet51987 wrote:There is no free speech issue here for a closed event and the comment the security guard made about "not being america any more" was wrong, but he has a right to say it.

Your wrong here. It is a free speech issue. It was at a town hall meeting which should be an open forum. His statement "not being America any more" Is indicative of the attitude of many Obama supporters. Yes he has the right to say it.

Bet51987 wrote:The other videos were already mentioned in another thread on the subject and it was agreed the boy deserved what he got whether he was at a Kerry, Palin, or any other political event.

Still shows a heavy handed police reaction.

Bet51987 wrote:What I'm witnessing in these events are planned disruptions and name calling instead of meaningful debates. Those should be stopped.

Bee

Another obviously biased interpretation.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:34 pm

Where you lose me, is the extrapolation of these events to any type of GOP or Democratic philosophy.

It would be like saying Dr. George Tiller was assassinated on Obama's watch, so this administration is clearly having a negative impact on abortion rights. (I don't believe there were any on Bush's watch).

On first take all of these videos seem to be people in authority making poor decisions. I want to emphasize the \"on first take\" because with the exception of the \"dont taze me bro\" video I only have one side of the story; with some very clear and obvious editing.

In the first video, if they would of left the guy alone, people would of said \"look at that dumbass.\" Now he is a Youtube star. If it is true that all of these security guards were trying to advance an adgenda....boy did they fail!!!!!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 6:58 pm

Gooberman wrote:
W.R. wrote:Bee, how do you know who had permission and who didn't...
and then....

W.R. wrote:The guy didn't like the Obama picture and most likely would have chuckled with glee if it had been a Bush picture.

It's no reach if you recognize the 'officer' was so pro-Obama biased that he created law to allow him to protect Obama from the video-guy's expression of dissent.
Any one who is willing to behave so irrationally as to do what the 'officer' did is most likely anti-Bush by the same extreme he was pro-Obama....

Of course if you find the 'officers' behavior normal then it might not make sense to you but if that is where you are coming from then I'll rest my case and stand by my assessment on that one!

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:26 pm

Or he could of objected to a black man in white-face. Hell we had a two page thread on that issue that you started!

It could of also been the only negative poster and knew it would cause a scene. If this was a predominently black neighborhood then \"yelling fire in a crowded theater comes to mind.\" (again, because of the makeup not the political beliefs).

Or his supervisor could of told him to make the guy take it down.

Or he could of been pro-Obama and not been political during Bush. (Obama did get alot of new votes).

The bottom line is, to accuse someone of making assumptions, only to then throw out a list of your own-- makes you look ridiculous.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:36 pm

VonVulcan wrote:Another obviously biased interpretation.

I can say the same.

The officer could have simply been doing what he was instructed to do. To keep out people who are there to cause a disruption. This guy with the offensive poster fits that description considering what the GOP protesters have been up to lately.

Bee

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Gooberman wrote:Where you lose me, is the extrapolation of these events to any type of GOP or Democratic philosophy.

Well, I suppose that's my fault, poor choice of words. I was not trying to say GOP is better then Dems or vice-versa or that it was a party philosophy. Now what I am wondering, given the tactics we are witnessing being employed by whatever groups during this administration. Do you see an increase of violence/oppression?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:08 pm

I don’t really see any increase or such, but what I do see is the typical denial/defense/excuses, from the side that thinks they are the good guys.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:08 pm

Bet51987 wrote:
VonVulcan wrote:Another obviously biased interpretation.
I can say the same.

Sorry about that, now address the rest of my reply.

Bet51987 wrote:The officer could have simply been doing what he was instructed to do.

Suppressing free speech?

Bet51987 wrote:To keep out people who are there to cause a disruption. This guy with the offensive poster fits that description considering what the GOP protesters have been up to lately.

Bee

So what your saying is that if you disagree with the Obama platform you are a disruptor and not allowed free speech? Just trying to clear this up.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:13 pm

Spidey wrote:I don’t really see any increase or such, but what I do see is the typical denial/defense/excuses, from the side that thinks they are the good guys.

LOL, sounds like your referring to this thread, not the topic.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 9:06 pm

VonVulcan wrote:So what your saying is that if you disagree with the Obama platform you are a disruptor and not allowed free speech? Just trying to clear this up.

Not at all. You have a right to be there with questions as long as it's civil and professional. This is your absolute right as long as the forum or town hall meeting was set up as a debate and not a fund raiser. This man came there with an offensive sign for starters which may have indicated what his motive was.

Before you cry free speech....

In one of the John McCain "town hall meetings" I watched (I didn't know what side I was picking yet) I saw a women take the mike and call Obama a terrorist. John McCain grabbed the mike away from the women and scolded her. You know the rest. McCain gained a lot of points with me and he still has my respect for limiting the free speech some people think they have a right to.

I'm not against free speech. I'm against people using it for the sole purpose of causing disruption. If you can't be professional, stay home.

Bee

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Sun Aug 30, 2009 10:09 pm

I guess all us amateurs just have to keep our mouths shut.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:08 am

Gooberman wrote:...

The bottom line is, to accuse someone of making assumptions, only to then throw out a list of your own-- makes you look ridiculous.

Bee made assumptions...created out of whole cloth.
I asserted the guard was wrong and had partisan motivations to selectively repress the video-guy's poster...an assertion that is highly probable to be proven true based on my understanding of the constitution and his lame answers on the video. I also said the guard would "likely" be in favor of an anti-Bush poster...that was my opinion I offered. I was not declaring, like Bee did, that some set of circumstances known only to me explains the guards actions, what I saw on the tape was the impetus of my reasoning.

I don't think it s ridiculous but opinions vary....

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:16 am

I want to know where the ACLU is. Why are they not defending the guy with the sign?

Also, how do you define offensive? Is it like you know porn when you see it? Any politically inspired sign will be offensive to some and \"Right On, Right On\" to others. While burning the flag is very offensive to most everyone, the courts have upheld the act as a means of free expression. What is offensive is a police officer replying to the question, \"This used to be America\" with, \"It ain't no more\". Does this not bother you Bee?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:21 am

Back to the original question, \"Has suppression gotten worse?\": I don't believe it's changed much. It's naive to think it didn't happen as often before.

What I think has changed is our awareness. Internet technology has given us the ability to publicize and discuss these things in a way we never have before.

I often get frustrated by the pre-conceived notions people display in threads like this... but I think there's often value to such discussion despite the uproar. Places like the DBB E&C are a great example of what our freedom of speech is all about.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:52 am

Actually Foil, you are right. One only needs look back at the McCarthy era to see another fine example of suppression.

flip · Post by **flip** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 10:38 am

What is offensive is a police officer replying to the question, \"This used to be America\" with, \"It ain't no more\".

Sounds like he's ahead of the curve to me.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 11:35 am

got a new one for ya Wood, President Barack Obeyme

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:26 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I asserted the guard was wrong and had partisan motivations to selectively repress the video-guy's poster...an assertion that is highly probable to be proven true based on my understanding of the constitution and his lame answers on the video.

And I asserted the guard was not partisan and was simply instructed to make sure the town hall meeting was not disrupted by those who are there just to disrupt. His poster makes his motive highly probable to be proven true especially if you take into consideration some of the emails that the GOP have sent to voters.

If you look at the video you will see the man was never denied entry. He just had to leave the offensive sign behind which he didn't want to do. The guard was right although his comment about america was mindless. The poster man was wrong.

Bee

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:35 pm

Bet51987 wrote:....
And I asserted the guard was not partisan and was simply instructed to make sure the town hall meeting was not disrupted by those who are there just to disrupt....

Bee

1) You asserted something that you simply created! There is nothing in the tape to suggest that and the guard himself did not offer your reason as his excuse. He was constantly reaching for an answer to why he was doing what he did...just as you are morphing your own reasoning. Both of you trying to shape it into a logical response as the discussions evolve!

2) The guard didn't prevent the meeting from being disrupted he prevented the guy from displaying his poster OUTSIDE the venue!

And by the way, even if your psychic perception is true it certainly shines as an example of what this post is all about because it would be classic repression if the party's to the meeting sent him out into the crowd to selectively challenge and eliminate people with views they don't want to be made heard. As you called him 'someone who is wrong'... he isn't right or wrong he's bringing his viewpoint to the public! A town hall meeting is supposed to be where a variety of viewpoints are entertained not repressed!!

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 4:36 pm

Did anybody watch any of the other videos?

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:34 pm

Will Robinson wrote:...he's bringing his viewpoint to the public! A town hall meeting is supposed to be where a variety of viewpoints are entertained not repressed!!

Exactly, and I agree, but the offensive Obama sign he carried leads me to believe he had other motives.

Sorry Will, but this guy wasn't there to exchange viewpoints.

Bee

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:33 pm

He wasn't there to exchange view-points? It looks to me like he was there with his view-point, however crude it may have been. Whether he's right or wrong I don't think he was there just for kicks. Anyone could easily think of something better to do with their spare time.

The truth is just what the guard said, that he was doing \"his job\", and absolutely nothing more. I can appreciate that kind of honesty. He wasn't trying to defend the constitution, he was doing \"his job\". He couldn't even give the guy a real reason, which makes it obvious that he didn't really know why a sign like that shouldn't be allowed, other than to avoid a perceived/predicted/assumed negative effect on the decorum or order of the proceedings.

I'm no revolutionary, and I'm not your most astute student of history, but I was listening to something that Thomas Pain wrote, the other day, and I'm pretty sure it's possible to draw some surprising comparisons between the direction that socialist-minded elitists are taking this country in, and some of the infringements made by King George prior to the American revolution. Primarily that both infringe on protected freedoms while robbing us of too great a portion of our livelihood. There comes a point when a man who is a man cannot tolerate the consuming of his life, no matter the inventive and complex pretense. These arrogant people are stepping on my toes and the toes of my children (my childcare's children?) because they're convinced that they have the answer for humanity. They would be afraid to come out and say it but they would reduce the liberty that our fore-fathers envisioned and fought for to merely the common right to choose your own adventure within the constructs of their idyllic book.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:55 pm

Sergeant Thorne wrote:...

The truth is just what the guard said, that he was doing "his job", and absolutely nothing more. I can appreciate that kind of honesty...

I was willing to go there when I first started watching but the video guy asked why other posters were allowed and the guard said because his "had a picture".

His reasons were as follows:
"It can't be up on school board property"

He was asked why that was...

"Because it just can't be up there"

He was asked where in the constitution and/or his job description/directive it says this poster is not allowed...then it was pointed out to him that there many many other posters all around that he wasn't disallowing....

His response was:
"Because you got this with a picture, that's the difference"

So if he's just honestly doing his job there must be a directive or law that prohibits posters with pictures on them. Do you believe that?!? I guess it is possible but I find it highly unlikely.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:14 pm

The way I see it he might have been using his own reasoning/interpretation regarding whatever he was supposedly enforcing, at that point. Either that or he was dressing up criteria for ejection/barring as if they were statutes. Based on my perception of the guard's character and behavior, I'm not inclined to believe he was being autonomously arbitrary.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:15 pm

No pictures allowed up in here.

Sergeant Thorne · Post by **Sergeant Thorne** » Mon Aug 31, 2009 7:22 pm

Watching it again, I could be wrong. Maybe he is just being autonomously arbitrary. It's pretty ridiculous to restrict pictures at any political event. That just doesn't make any sense outside of just not liking the content.

Is it my imagination?

Is it my imagination?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: