Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Man arrested at 9/11 memorial for speaking out. Follow

#52 Sep 14 2011 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bleyat wrote:
You're a god **** mongoloid lolgaxe. You can't just call any random person who uses a meme an 'internet hipster'. This is not how words work you stupid fuck.

You're very touchy about the whole "hipster" thing.


Proof?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#53 Sep 14 2011 at 5:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Driftwood wrote:
I stopped listening after this guy said "9/11 propaganda event" a second time. True, his arrest seems to be somewhat unjustified, but I'd have been happy to see him silenced if I was there. Those "truther" tinfoil hats have no class, no tact, and have no respect for those who died.

Also, posting an Alex Jones video, that's a paddlin'.


The guy who was shouting back at the guy arrested had no class or tact for that matter. As for respect of those that died, you're naive if think that just because someone doesn't buy the official 9/11 story that it somehow shows they have no respect for the dead. I speak from experience when I say the truth matters on how our loved ones or friends are lost. It doesn't dishonor their memories if the attack was an inside job. If anything, the truthers want to honor these people further by risking personal attacks and bigotry to push the truth.

A good example is how the military is known for misleading the public and family about how their loved ones died in combat. I'd rather know the truth than be given a propaganda story so I could lay them to rest. I have many friends who died during the Iraqi war invasion. As a supervisor, it sucked to have to write letters to the families and explain why their loved ones perished when it could of been their own fault. That fine line of integrity was always my guide and I never faulted no matter how rough it was to write a letter. I'm sorry my friend, but you got it wrong. A person who goes all out for the truth for honorable reasons has more class and respect than those that don't.
#55 Sep 14 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What a hipster thing to say. Go drink your PBR and hush.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Sep 14 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
If anything, the truthers want to honor these people further by risking personal attacks and bigotry to push the truth.
You have any evidence this particular truther isn't lying about what really happened?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 6:02 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't think he's lying about being arrested, no. Unlike some people, all I'm saying is that he was arrested because he was causing a disturbance. I'm not implying that he was arrested because 9/11 is an inside job. I feel it's important to know the difference between the two perspectives.
#59 Sep 14 2011 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Sage
**
599 posts
It amuses me that you would talk at all about being mature in any fashion, as I have yet to see any kind of reply to any post where you don't insult who you are replying to. Even if they don't insult you or anything, you always come back with **** like "You obviously aren't smart enough to understand" or "bet you didn't go to college" and other ****. You've never actually backed up anything you've ever said with...well anything outside of "It's obvious" (and you're lucky Gbaji hasn't sued you) and "you wouldn't understand so I'm not going to bother explaining it."
#60ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 6:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm guilty of treating others like I've been treated. I posted this topic to raise awareness, not so people could try to discredit it without even thinking about the possibility. It wasn't until half way down the page did anyone even attempt to agree with me that cops can ***** over innocent people. I'm not pretending I have absolute proof either way, but **** at least people could argue against police corruption in general. I'll be the first to admit I need to retain a more professional attitude on these online forums, but that goes both ways. Those that try to make smart *** comments or live to discredit others for their own amusement are who my resentment is aimed at. I don't wish to berate anyone for not having the same level of experience as I do. I'll try to be the bigger man in the future, but no promises.
#61 Sep 14 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Unlike some people, all I'm saying is that he was arrested because he was causing a disturbance. I'm not implying that he was arrested because 9/11 is an inside job.
Okay, so by your own words you believe he was arrested because he was creating a disturbance (Which is described as "When a person's words or conduct jeopardizes others right to peace and tranquility, he or she may be charged with disturbing the peace." Also "However, if a person's non-violent actions are likely to incite violence or public disorder, criminal liability may apply." Which, in NYC it is possible his actions could have gotten his own *** kicked.) and it had nothing to do with 9/11. He was held for what appears one day, when the normal sentence for this would be up to 90 days and a possible $400 fine.

What I'm failing to see is this huge "miscarriage of justice" you were talking about on the last page.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#62 Sep 14 2011 at 6:24 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:


I won't bash him because I don't agree with him. I will, however, bash him for being a jerk, and for believing things that are patently false.

For all your indignation, you don't even realize that you're preaching to the choir. Pretty much everyone here errs on the side of freedom of speech, with the exception of a very select few. I mean, nobody here has tried to prevent you from making your stupid, childish rants. Heck, you haven't even been rated down.


Where is your proof that the truthers are pushing false info?


We all did that song and dance years ago. I'm not masochistic enough to rehash it to indulge some Smiley: tinfoilhat in pseudo-scientific debate. If the extent of expert debunking that's already been done wasn't enough to convince you, why on earth would I think that I could? What's been said be sufficient for anyone who isn't desperately wishing that there's a conspiracy there to reinforce their extant opinions.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 8:24pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#63 Sep 14 2011 at 6:26 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Those that try to make smart *** comments or live to discredit others for their own amusement are who my resentment is aimed at.


I hate to break it to you, but that's pretty much the point of the Asylum, bud.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#64ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 6:28 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You realize the difference between freedom of speech and a disturbance? Sure both can be annoying, but one is protected and the other is not. A drunk that is yelling at everyone in public is disturbing the peace. A protester that is expressing his views is freedom of speech. As for getting his *** kicked, anyone could get their *** kicked in NYC just walking though the park so that's moot.
#65 Sep 14 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
You realize the difference between freedom of speech and a disturbance? Sure both can be annoying, but one is protected and the other is not.
Freedom of Speech doesn't rescind disturbing the peace charges.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#66 Sep 14 2011 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:


I hate to break it to you, but that's pretty much the point of the Asylum, bud.


Thanks for the kind reply. I'm sorry, I guess I'm so passionate about things I forget that sometimes. I'm curious who this expert was at debunking the 9/11 truther accounts. I wouldn't mind hearing more theories on 9/11. Ironically, even if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, it was caused due to bad foreign policy. So it's either bad foreign policy or a false flags event like the Gulf of Tonkin incident designed to start an illegal war.
#67 Sep 14 2011 at 6:54 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Freedom of Speech doesn't rescind disturbing the peace charges.


"While debate continues over when and where speech is free, and the limitations on those freedoms, the First Amendment protection remains a critical guiding principal for Americans. With Cohen v. California, the Supreme Court seemed to reinforce that speech, even when it is distasteful, crass, unimaginative, or even ugly, is an inalienable right."

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-lisa/2011/jun/7/june-7-anniversary-supreme-court-ruling-free-speec/

Freedom of speech supersedes a disturbing the peace charge as noted above. It all goes back to why there is freedom of speech in the first place. After all, there was never a need to censor popular speech. It goes to reason that unpopular speech like protesting wrongs in our country that others might disagree with would apply. What better example than the civil rights movement with MLK. You want to talk about a disruptive person to the status quo, MLK's movement was the greatest disturbance of the peace in the last 150 years. However, the freedom of speech amendment was law and all those petty charges were rescinded against MLK.
#68 Sep 14 2011 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
You want to talk about a disruptive person to the status quo, MLK's movement was the greatest disturbance of the peace in the last 150 years.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested for disturbing the peace in 1955. Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#69 Sep 14 2011 at 7:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm not arguing what the guy was protesting. If 9/11 was an inside job or not is not the question for debate. My point was to show a miscarriage of justice to our first amendment rights. Some people seem to imply this guy had it coming for speaking out on 9/11. I hope you're not intending to put a spin on this thread by implying that the arrest is my attempt at proving 9/11 was an inside job. I have a feeling that's where you're going here, but I'll give you the benefit of doubt.


Given that this was exactly the take on this in the second video you linked, you'll have to forgive me for assuming that you are selectively applying the concept of freedom of speech.

Quote:
However, I do think that police are more inclined to arrest a troublemaker than deal with the aftermath of said troublemaker if trouble ensues.


Yes. As they should. If they believe he's specifically and deliberately "causing trouble", then they should step in. I'll repeat my statement that freedom of speech doesn't mean that you get to make someone else pay for your microphone Any event (even a public one) has a purpose and a cost. The people attending are there for a given reason. Regardless of what we think of those reasons, they also have a right to attend and participate without undue disruption. They "paid" for the event. A troublemaker is basically taking more than his fair share. Everyone else is being polite and respectful while he's shouting and making a scene. I don't really care why he's doing it, but if he's causing a disruption, he can be arrested.

He's perfectly free to make that same speech on a normal public street at any time. But he's *not* free to do so inside an organized event. When he does so, he's using a microphone he didn't pay for.


Quote:
That's not the same thing as the conspiracy as some people will attempt to imply. I also feel it's wrong for those that have bashed this guy just because they don't agree with his speech.


Who did this? I think that most of the posters here have gone out of their way to avoid taking the bait and turning this into a debate about whether there was some conspiracy around 9/11. I may have missed a post or two, but the overwhelming response here has been that he was treated the same as anyone else screaming at people in the middle of an event would be and that it wasn't what he was saying, but how he was saying it that got him in trouble. Several people have further mentioned that if the police did over react that he had plenty of legal options available to him.

You seem to be the only person making a case about him based on what he was trying to say.


Quote:
You should be supportive of his rights of freedom of speech regardless if you agree or not. Any less than that is un-American.


So should you. Would you have raised the same argument if this guy had been shouting something different? Would you even have heard about him? How many other people do you think were arrested that day for unruly/disruptive behavior? I just can't get past the assumption present in your post that this guy was singled out somehow for his views. I know you claim repeatedly that you aren't doing that, but it kinda rings hollow given the selective nature of the case you randomly choose to highlight as an infringement of free speech.


What's funny is that I fully accept the idea that groups of people can and should focus most on defending speech that they care about. It's normal and natural in fact. It's your kind of obvious attempt to pretend that this isn't what you're doing that I find a bit dishonest.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 7:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) For the last time, I'm ****** he was arrested for his speech, nothing else. Your arguments are nothing more than a ploy to discredit my statements. As for unpopular speech that I don't agree with, I deal with it all the time. I've had to deal with racists like the KKK, Neo ****'s, Panthers, Al Sharpton and his racist buddy Jesse Jackson. I don't agree with all of those groups/people and I still stand by their right to protest even though I would like to punch them out. Stop putting words in mouth, would you please?
#71 Sep 14 2011 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,278 posts
Quote:
The guy who was shouting back at the guy arrested had no class or tact for that matter. As for respect of those that died, you're naive if think that just because someone doesn't buy the official 9/11 story that it somehow shows they have no respect for the dead. I speak from experience when I say the truth matters on how our loved ones or friends are lost. It doesn't dishonor their memories if the attack was an inside job. If anything, the truthers want to honor these people further by risking personal attacks and bigotry to push the truth.


I just don't condone the idea of these people going to the memorials and making a huge scene. I've seen videos where these people will actually harass the families of the victims. Their claims don't have any scientific foundation, and yet they still won't shut up. I put them right up there with Holocaust deniers and the Westboro Baptist Church. All these people need to stop existing, or learn to do real research. Also, bigotry has nothing to do with it. If they truly want to respect the dead, they would put together a viable argument, and publish it, not go yelling through a bullhorn trying to force their ideas down everyone's throats.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#72 Sep 14 2011 at 7:16 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,278 posts
Quote:
There are posters that think the guy deserved to be locked up just because he was a kooky truther.


For clarification, I don't think he should be locked up, I feel that he should have been simply removed from the area of the memorial. The arrest was ********* but his removal from the area is fine by me.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#73 Sep 14 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Freedom of Speech doesn't rescind disturbing the peace charges.


"While debate continues over when and where speech is free, and the limitations on those freedoms, the First Amendment protection remains a critical guiding principal for Americans. With Cohen v. California, the Supreme Court seemed to reinforce that speech, even when it is distasteful, crass, unimaginative, or even ugly, is an inalienable right."

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/life-lisa/2011/jun/7/june-7-anniversary-supreme-court-ruling-free-speec/

Freedom of speech supersedes a disturbing the peace charge as noted above.


No it doesn't, and that's not what the court ruled on. The question was a matter of whether the use of a vulgar word changed the speech from free to not free. The issue of whether a political opinion written on a shirt was legitimate free speech was not in question, just whether that included using profanity on the shirt.

The difference is that I may choose not to look at or read someone's shirt. Or, upon reading it once, I can choose to ignore it and it doesn't bother me. This is not the same if someone is shouting those same words repeatedly at an event I'm attending. That action is forcing me to choose to either put up with hearing the speech or leaving the event. Thus, spoken (shouted in this case) speech can be infringed when it occurs in an area in which some other activity not related to the speech in question is going on.

If I go to a concert at the park, the fact that it's a public park doesn't mean that the guy shouting profanities next to me can't be removed for disturbing the reason the rest of us are there.


The case in the OP is no different. As I've said a few times now, he doesn't own the microphone of that event. Now, if he and a bunch of truthers want to create an event, get a permit, block out a section of the city dedicated to people speaking about their positions on that issue, then they can eject people who show up and shout at them as well. That's what I mean by "owning the microphone".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#74 Sep 14 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
Driftwood wrote:


I just don't condone the idea of these people going to the memorials and making a huge scene. I've seen videos where these people will actually harass the families of the victims. Their claims don't have any scientific foundation, and yet they still won't shut up. I put them right up there with Holocaust deniers and the Westboro Baptist Church. All these people need to stop existing, or learn to do real research. Also, bigotry has nothing to do with it. If they truly want to respect the dead, they would put together a viable argument, and publish it, not go yelling through a bullhorn trying to force their ideas down everyone's throats.


I'm just curious, would you listen if 9/11 could be proved scientifically that it was an inside job? As for this guy, he wasn't attacking anyone there or their deceased families. I'm offended that you throw this guy into the same group as Westboro church. This guy is asking for the truth to be heard out of respect for the fallen and that church is attacking fallen soldiers and calling them ******** That's a fundamental difference in scope to say the least. As for the Holocaust, who is denying that besides Iran? lol Oh wait, you mean that old geezer that went into the museum with a gun. Again that's not freedom of speech when you hurt others though violence so the point is moot.
#75 Sep 14 2011 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
For the last time, I'm ****** he was arrested for his speech, nothing else.


No. You're using the fact that he was arrested just as anyone else would have for doing what he was doing as a platform to proclaim those who believe as you do as victims being singled out for discrimination. You get that every other person on this forum see this, right? It's pretty darn obvious.

Quote:
As for unpopular speech that I don't agree with, I deal with it all the time. I've had to deal with racists like the KKK, Neo ****'s, Panthers, Al Sharpton and his racist buddy Jesse Jackson. I don't agree with all of those groups/people and I still stand by their right to protest even though I would like to punch them out.


But you don't start threads about how their right to free speech is being infringed if/when one of them is arrested for doing exactly what this guy was doing. Which is my point.

Quote:
Stop putting words in mouth, would you please?


/shrug

I call em like I see em. While I suppose it's possible that you're just an altruistic person who happened upon this violation of rights and choose to start a post about it. But I'm going to go with the odds which say that you agree with the opinion of the guy in question and are hyping his arrest as as means to draw attention to said opinion and even to suggest that said opinion has more weight because the police are trying to prevent the rest of us from hearing it.


Let me clue you in. The reason very few people agree with the truther theories isn't because they haven't heard them. So yelling louder isn't going to accomplish anything.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76ShadowedgeFFXI, Posted: Sep 14 2011 at 7:31 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I suppose I lost all respect for the event once it was announced that the first responders like the police/firefighters were denied to be able to speak. Now it could be that a lot of those responders "believe" it was an inside job and that's why they were locked out, but that's just a conspiracy theory, right?
#77 Sep 14 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
There are posters that think the guy deserved to be locked up just because he was a kooky truther.


For clarification, I don't think he should be locked up, I feel that he should have been simply removed from the area of the memorial. The arrest was bullsh*t, but his removal from the area is fine by me.


Nor do I think that, in case he was referring to me. I'm fine with them catch & releasing the guy.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#78 Sep 14 2011 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm just curious, would you listen if 9/11 could be proved scientifically that it was an inside job?


It's not a question of listening. It's a question of being forced to listen again and again and again after you've already listened, researched, learned, and studied everything about the subject you care to learn and have already come to a conclusion. And it really doesn't matter what the conclusion is either. If someone was shouting that the sun revolves around the earth and not the other way around, at the top of his lungs, while I'm trying to attend an event unrelated to said topic, the question of whether I agree with what the person is saying is really irrelevant. It's the fact that he's shouting it over and over and disrupting what I'm at the event for is all that matters.

[quote]This guy is asking for the truth to be heard out of respect for the fallen and that church is attacking fallen soldiers and calling them ****************

That's not what he was doing though. He wasn't "asking" anything. He was forcing everyone within earshot to hear what he wanted to say whether they wanted or needed to hear it or not. He could have passed out pamphlets and no one would have bothered him. It was about his disturbing other people. That's it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#79 Sep 14 2011 at 7:37 PM Rating: Good
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
would of x too many times to count


Stop doing that. It's "would have"; I hate to be a grammar ****, but, goddam that is annoying. LERN2ENGLISH


Edited, Sep 14th 2011 7:38pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#80 Sep 14 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm offended that you throw this guy into the same group as Westboro church.
Why would you be offended by anything involving the Westboro Church? They exercise their freedom of speech and their freedom of religion.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Sep 14 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,289 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
would of x too many times to count


Stop doing that. It's "would have"; I hate to be a grammar ****, but, goddam that is annoying. LERN2ENGLISH


Edited, Sep 14th 2011 7:38pm by Bijou

This.

It's "would've" or "would have".
#82 Sep 14 2011 at 7:41 PM Rating: Excellent
ALSO: In this case gbaji is rrrr....gbaji is rrrrrruuuurrr....gbaji is right.





ALSO: ALSO: Did the BLOO BLOO guy get banned? I don't see any of its' posts.









____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#84 Sep 14 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
Snoopy knows grammar, yo!! Smiley: nod
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#85 Sep 14 2011 at 7:44 PM Rating: Decent
KurwaCzytam wrote:
He can spell it however he wants, you twats. Grammar is totally arbitrary and useless. This is just part of his unique personal identity, stop being so fascist.


That's not a matter of spelling, douchenozzle, it's a matter of usage.Smiley: mad
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#87 Sep 14 2011 at 7:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Sigh... Stupid double post.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 6:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Sep 14 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sigh... Stupid double post.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 6:52pm by gbaji


Smiley: confused

Did gbaji just out himself as the sock?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#89 Sep 14 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I suppose I lost all respect for the event once it was announced that the first responders like the police/firefighters were denied to be able to speak. Now it could be that a lot of those responders "believe" it was an inside job and that's why they were locked out, but that's just a conspiracy theory, right?


Or it might have had to do with the fact that there aren't enough hours in the day to allow every single person who was there that day to speak.

Quote:
As for your example, there are times when MLK and other Americans used public gatherings to spew their rhetoric. Was it ok when they did it?


They never pretended that they were doing anything other than deliberately getting arrested in order to raise awareness for their cause. Remember when I said I don't have a problem with people doing this as long as they are honest about what they're doing?

You're trying to pretend that he didn't deliberately create a scene so he could get arrested, so his buddies could film it and use it to try to get others to believe in their conspiracy theories, and that you didn't post it here as the end point in that series of actions. It's pretty transparent that this is exactly what he was doing, what his buddies were doing, and finally what you are doing.

Why be coy about it then? Why pretend that your only interest in this is one of protection of the right to free speech? If you want a debate about the truther theories, why not just freaking start one? It would be honest at least.

Quote:
But that's just it, those groups I mentioned aren't arrested for their controversial opinion because of the protection of freedom of speech. That's my point chief.


Um... They were. But not because of their expression of speech. MLK was not arrested for giving a speech at a venue dedicated to giving such speeches. He was arrested several times for various protests and marches though. You do see the difference, right? If you show up at someone else's event and start drowning out that event with your speech, you are going to be arrested. This is nothing new.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#90 Sep 14 2011 at 8:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:

That's not what he was doing though. He wasn't "asking" anything. He was forcing everyone within earshot to hear what he wanted to say whether they wanted or needed to hear it or not. He could have passed out pamphlets and no one would have bothered him. It was about his disturbing other people. That's it.


He was handing out pamphlets though. I'm not sure exactly, were you the person who couldn't watch the video yet? If so, check out the second one with the audio.

It doesn't really matter though. Our forefathers fought for freedom of speech and some of you guys want to find loopholes to prevent it. That's all I see here and it makes me quite sick to my stomach. If the guy was ranting on about something I disliked, I'd ignore him like so many others were doing in the video. That's how freedom works my friend. Would you prefer fascism?
#91 Sep 14 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sigh... Stupid double post.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 6:52pm by gbaji


Smiley: confused

Did gbaji just out himself as the sock?


Uh... No. It technically wasn't a double post either. My browser crashed while I was clicking the "post" button. When I restarted it, I was back at a blank post screen. I responded a second time to the same post. Then after posting it, realized that the original response I'd given was already there (and several posts old by that point). I figured I'd look more neurotic than usual if I left basically two different responses to the same post (but saying basically the same thing), so I edited it out.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#92 Sep 14 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
gbaji wrote:

That's not what he was doing though. He wasn't "asking" anything. He was forcing everyone within earshot to hear what he wanted to say whether they wanted or needed to hear it or not. He could have passed out pamphlets and no one would have bothered him. It was about his disturbing other people. That's it.


He was handing out pamphlets though. I'm not sure exactly, were you the person who couldn't watch the video yet? If so, check out the second one with the audio.


He wasn't arrested for handing out the pamphlets though, was he? You're correct. I can't hear the audio. But I could see him holding a stack of papers and shouting and pointing at people, so I imagine he wasn't just politely holding the pamphlets out for people to take. Was I wrong?

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 7:05pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#94 Sep 14 2011 at 8:10 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
Our forefathers fought for freedom of speech and some of you guys want to find loopholes to prevent it.
I'm glad you believe freedom of speech is more important than everyone's freedom of assembly. Unless you want to retract your previous claim that he wasn't there causing a disturbance to get attention.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#95 Sep 14 2011 at 8:18 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
4,770 posts
gbaji wrote:

They never pretended that they were doing anything other than deliberately getting arrested in order to raise awareness for their cause. Remember when I said I don't have a problem with people doing this as long as they are honest about what they're doing?

You're trying to pretend that he didn't deliberately create a scene so he could get arrested, so his buddies could film it and use it to try to get others to believe in their conspiracy theories, and that you didn't post it here as the end point in that series of actions. It's pretty transparent that this is exactly what he was doing, what his buddies were doing, and finally what you are doing.

Why be coy about it then? Why pretend that your only interest in this is one of protection of the right to free speech? If you want a debate about the truther theories, why not just freaking start one? It would be honest at least.


For the last time, I have no motive to talk about the truther debate here at this time. The reason for this is crystal clear. I don't have all my evidence lined up to present it for a formal discussion. I despise conspiracy theories, I only back theories that can be proven so will you please stop with the accusations. Now you might be right about this guy in the video. It could of been done for publicity, I don't know because it's not me. I've been 100% honest in my responses to you so I ask that you accept that. I can only speak for myself bud.

I like to add that my main reasoning for not buying the official 9/11 story is my distrust of the government. I began my military training in the RIP(Rangers) program after Airborne school in Fort Benning, GA. Later on as I picked up my security clearance, I was offered a shot with the Special Forces(Rambo guys aka Green beret) in which I was exposed to real world missions that replicate situations similar to the attack of 9/11. I'm talking about false flag attacks if you're familiar with that term. I'm sure you heard about Seal team 6 being blown up right after they supposedly killed Bin laden a few weeks prior. Coincidence, eh?

Quote:

Um... They were. But not because of their expression of speech. MLK was not arrested for giving a speech at a venue dedicated to giving such speeches. He was arrested several times for various protests and marches though. You do see the difference, right? If you show up at someone else's event and start drowning out that event with your speech, you are going to be arrested. This is nothing new.


MLK was arrested at these protests and marches because his opinions weren't in line with the status quo. I understand your point, but you need to understand mine.


Quote:
I'm glad you believe freedom of speech is more important than everyone's freedom of assembly. Unless you want to retract your previous claim that he wasn't there causing a disturbance to get attention.


No offense, but you're just looking to mess around with me. I'll research a response and you'll just respond with one sentence putting zero thought into a reply and offering nothing more than a soundbite. I don't know if this guy was there to cause a disturbance or not, I'm not him so I'll never know for certain. Regardless, he shouldn't of been arrested and that's my point.


Edited, Sep 14th 2011 9:24pm by ShadowedgeFFXI
#96 Sep 14 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm curious who this expert was at debunking the 9/11 truther accounts.

You're getting it wrong. It's not our job to "debunk" the accounts, it's the Truther's job to convince us that their theories are the most accurate.

So far, they've all failed miserably due to flaws that even non-experts see as glaringly obvious.

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 9:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Sep 14 2011 at 8:37 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I don't know if this guy was there to cause a disturbance or not, I'm not him so I'll never know for certain. Regardless, he shouldn't of been arrested and that's my point.
The point is this guy was (incorrectly, mind you) holding his own freedoms above everyone else's freedoms, and that's why he was arrested. That is **** disgusting.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#98 Sep 14 2011 at 8:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I don't know if this guy was there to cause a disturbance or not, I'm not him so I'll never know for certain. Regardless, he shouldn't of been arrested and that's my point.


Smiley: facepalm

I don't know either honestly. But seriously, you'd think this would be something you'd research before making the post then defending the guy all day. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#99 Sep 14 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
For the last time, I have no motive to talk about the truther debate here at this time.

...

I despise conspiracy theories, I only back theories that can be proven so will you please stop with the accusations.

...

I like to add that my main reasoning for not buying the official 9/11 story is my distrust of the government.

...

I'm sure you heard about Seal team 6 being blown up right after they supposedly killed Bin laden a few weeks prior. Coincidence, eh?


This is like pure genius!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#100 Sep 14 2011 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ShadowedgeFFXI wrote:
I'm curious who this expert was at debunking the 9/11 truther accounts.

You're getting it wrong. It's not our job to "debunk" the accounts, it's the Truther's job to convince us that their theories are the most accurate.

So far, they've all failed miserably due to flaws that even non-experts see as glaringly obvious.


What!? But you could clearly see the flashes of light in the windows as the building was collapsing! And we all know that you collapse a building by detonating explosions inside it after it's already started to collapse. What's wrong with you? You're just a hater of the TRUTH!!! Smiley: bah

Edited, Sep 14th 2011 7:42pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#101 Sep 14 2011 at 8:43 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
The two planes seen by thousands of people live at the scene were just weather balloons.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 29 All times are in CST
Samira, Anonymous Guests (28)