Us vs Them WRT protesters: Consistency? What's consistency?

[Maeglin]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Yea, except the national news article I quoted was two days old when I posted my OP and there wasn’t a peep from anyone on the boards about it. Last election cycle the outrage over the Republicans doing the same thing was monumental and immediate. You (royal you from here on out) can say after the fact…
[/QUOTE]

Ok, this is not fair. There is a lot more going on now than there was during the midterms. There was really only one story: the Republicans were going to lose substantially. There was no presidential election to overshadow nearly everything. I am far more engaged with that than I am with the conventions, which are at best an exercise in collective retardation.

This isn’t just a matter of whose ox is getting gored. Two years ago, it was believed by many that the Republicans had abused their majority and were about to be delivered a comeuppance. The convention regulations played quite nicely into that story. Now, it’s just not much of a big deal. So yeah, I didn’t notice it. Sorry.

[Weirddave]

I’m talking about 4 years ago, the last presidential election cycle.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It would be helpful if you’d dig up a single thread from that time so we could have something to look directly at, instead of relying on your and our vague memories of how folks posted about incidents back then.

It’d also help if you didn’t imply that people were lying about their motivations or compare them to depraved sexual practices. Maybe you meant for that post to be in the Pit?

Daniel

[Maeglin]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m talking about 4 years ago, the last presidential election cycle.
[/QUOTE]

Ok. That is probably a more straightforward question. 4 years ago, to my recollection, it was the first time “free speech zones” were imposed. Almost four years ago today, they were upheld by a federal judge. If this is the new reality, do you really expect people to get as worked up over it?

[Bosstone]

“You believe this.”
“…No, I don’t.”
“Well, of course you’ll say that after the fact.” :rolleyes:

Lame.

[woodstockbirdybird]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m a conservative Democrat, never made any bones about it. Party affiliation /= political philosophy.
[/QUOTE]

No, it doesn’t, but a lot of times it seems like you play the “Democrat” card to have it both ways - you can claim to be not toeing the party line, when basically you are, just not for the party you’re claiming membership of.

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Yea, except the national news article I quoted was two days old when I posted my OP and there wasn’t a peep from anyone on the boards about it. Last election cycle the outrage over the Republicans doing the same thing was monumental and immediate. You (royal you from here on out) can say after the fact “Oh, yea, we don’t like that either” after I’ve called you on it, but you’d be full of shit, as usual. You don’t give a shit about anything but what your partisan political masters tell you to think, and will roll naked through broken glass to suck a diseased dog’s cock to ensure that “your guys” get elected, completely ignoring that in their gratitude they promptly roll you over and fuck you up the ass with great enthusiasm.
[/QUOTE]

Right. It’s because we (“royal we”, 'cause whatever you’re describing has nothing to do with anything I believe or anything I’ve posted on these boards) notice these stories and just hope they’ll blow over and no discerning conservative will find out about them, thus exposing us for the partisan hacks we are. It couldn’t possibly be because we never came across the story in the first place - even when it was a Yahoo news item that was 2 days old! - but only because we are so obviously full of shit. Nice tactic of negating our opinions by assigning them merely reactionary value, too - they couldn’t possibly be sincere, but simply a way to save face after the all-encompassing “Gotcha!” you’ve leveled. That seems fair. It’s great how you accuse the other side of being blindly loyal to their party, yet you paint with the same kind of broad brush you’re denouncing.

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I don’t believe you. Not one little bit. When Republicans do something it’s unmitigated evil. When Democrats do the same thing it’s common sense, and a few weak denials after the fact when your hypocrisies are pointed out won’t change that. Want to change my mind? Stop being a party whore and apply your standards to both sides equally. Stop pretending that one side is “good” and the other “evil” and admit that they both sides want nothing more than power and money and will do anything to get it. Stop being a toady and start thinking for yourself, drop blind loyalty to any party and judge each issue and candidate on it’s/their individual merits. You want to be a liberal, be a liberal, but be loyal to your ideals and not to one party or another.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I assume you’re using the royal “you”, though why you’re using this dodge when addressing me specifically is suspect. I defy you to find where I’ve been loyal to my party over my ideals. Especially since I’m neither a Republican or Democrat (see? You’re not the only one who can have their cake and eat it too on this bullshit level of debate), and haven’t been for as long as I’ve been on these boards, I believe. I have never said one side is good and the other evil, and I’d be a fool to believe such 18-year-old-level claptrap (and there are plenty of fools in both major parties who are guilty of such). However, you seem to me to be guilty of everything you’re accusing liberals (Democrats? I can’t even tell who your hatred’s directed at at this point) of doing. You just give yourself the out of not self-identifying as a Republican when you go on your anti-Dem tirades and think it makes you untouchable. In reality, it’s pretty transparent.

[MaxTheVool]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
You don’t give a shit about anything but what your partisan political masters tell you to think, and will roll naked through broken glass to suck a diseased dog’s cock to ensure that “your guys” get elected, completely ignoring that in their gratitude they promptly roll you over and fuck you up the ass with great enthusiasm.

[/QUOTE]

Calling people names is a lot more fun than actually responding to things that they said, isn’t it?

[El_Kabong]

[Quote=Weirddave]
Yea, except the national news article I quoted was two days old when I posted my OP and there wasn’t a peep from anyone on the boards about it.
[/Quote]

Bwah? I’m supposed to comb the news for articles on all sorts of subjects, and compare them to coverage on this board of similar news items from years ago, then post on them? And if I don’t I’m some kind of hypocrite? Sorry, I don’t have the time to waste on that shit. Maybe you do. Better yet, maybe you have someone in mind as designated thread-opener on a given subject. If so, please don’t keep us in suspense.

A better tactic might be to just go ahead and post on the subject you think needs to be treated to a debate, and if someone who actually posts shows signs of hypocracy, call 'em out on that.

Sheesh.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I don’t know. Actually, I have no idea why you would want to read that rag in the first place. I’m kinda missing whatever point you think you’re making here.
[/QUOTE]
My point is that your post #57 is total bullshit.

My point is that while I can’t prove to you what I have or haven’t been reading (and your claims to know, absent your having gotten a new job in Homeland Security, which has gotten everything else wrong, are of course bullshit as well), there seems to be no question that if I had been getting my news from a typical middle-American, non-elitist newspaper like the Baltimore Sun, this story wouldn’t be old news to me.

And finally, I picked the Baltimore Sun because I figure it’s the newspaper you’re most likely to read, and if they had printed a story on this some time ago, you actually might have seen it and would have been able to tell me I was wrong. I figured I could afford to tilt the board that much in your favor.

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m a conservative Democrat, never made any bones about it.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe you. Not one little bit.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m a conservative Democrat, never made any bones about it. Party affiliation /= political philosophy.
[/quote]
That’s funny, just recently you were saying:

if I didn’t live in a Democratic state, with closed primaries where which Democrat is chosen to run by said primary is the only real race, I’d register independent in a heartbeat.

IOW, “I’m not really a Democrat, but I register as one in Maryland because otherwise I don’t really have a say in things.”

If that’s not a fair interpretation, please explain why.

And in the same post:

Let’s just say that I’m tired of all the partisan idiots on these boards attacking me as a “DINO” or something worse because my Democratic roots go back to when the party made sense and stood for something other than [1] pandering to each individual’s desire to make government give them something that other people pay for, or [2] promise to favor their particular race/creed/color/orientation over everything else.

[My numeration, hence the brackets.]

It’s time to ask the musical question: when was this mythical time, and just how old were you then?

Because I’m several years older than you, Weirddave, and I don’t see a time between my early teens and now that the Dems were less vulnerable to your second charge than they are now, and plenty of times when they’ve been more vulnerable to it. I think I’m on solid ground when I say your second criticism was more true before Clinton’s “Sistah Souljah” moment than it has been since. And that was 16 years ago.

And the first one? If you were old enough to remember the Democratic Party as it was before FDR, you might have a point. You’re not.

[Mtgman]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
It would be helpful if you’d dig up a single thread from that time so we could have something to look directly at, instead of relying on your and our vague memories of how folks posted about incidents back then.

It’d also help if you didn’t imply that people were lying about their motivations or compare them to depraved sexual practices. Maybe you meant for that post to be in the Pit?

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

In an attempt to be helpful, here are some threads I found.

Baldwin’s original Free Speech Zones"; WTF country is this? in the Pit from 2002, talking about the President’s use of selective criteria to determine whose messages should be removed to another zone and which could stay.

Liberal’s 2004 thread Democratic National Convention to have Free Speech Zone

This is probably the thread Weirddave is drawing his memories of members of this board defending the practice of sequestering dissenters. I’d recommend reading Baldwin’s thread first because it is referenced a lot in this one. Liberal’s thread is listed as four pages, but the last two pages are largely sidetracked into a discussion of Libertarianism, so I’d recommend skimming them to get to the contents which are relevant to this discussion. A few selected quotes, generally targeting those who have a reputation on the boards as “left/democrat”, from this thread may be apropos here.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
If they keep up with this kind of crap, I’m voting for Nader in protest.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Otto]
I condemn the idea of free speech zones and I think you’ll find a careful reading of my posts on the subject will reveal that my condemnation of them is omnidirectional and without regard to political party or affiliation.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
Crowd control is going to be a nightmare under the best of circumstances. The location of the protest site isn’t a matter of stifling dissent; it’s a matter of simple physical impossibility to host any huge demonstrations. I’m way more pissed at Mayor Menino for (a) not settling his city’s labor problems before going after the convention, and (b) siting it in the FleetCenter rather than in the city’s spanking new Convention Center, which has the room around it to accommodate large protests, and isn’t sitting smack dab athwart a major transportation hub.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Mehitabel]
I lived in Boston half my life, I’m a Democrat, and I must agree that there really ARE no spaces to protest around the Fleet Center. The cops are not being obstructive, the layout of the city is. I don’t envy the cops or Menino or the DNC in finding a solution to this.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Gadarene]
I agree that it’s reprehensible, if only for the Orwellian name, no matter who does it: Republicans, Democrats, police, Secret Service.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A political party convention is a private event, not a public one. I can start my own “Cynic’s Party” right now and have a convention in my living room. That doesn’t mean I left to let a bunch of howling, jackass protestors into my house.

A presidential appearance is an official public appearance on the state dime. It’s different. There is no hypocrisy. Sorry.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jayjay]
I don’t see anyone defending the FSZ because it’s the Democratic convention. The closest we’ve come to that is the “private party” argument, which was, indeed shot down. But the majority of the arguments against roundly condemning the DNC are about the fact that it’s physically impossible to have any kind of orderly protest anywhere in close proximity to the venue. There’s just no room.

That’s not an excuse. That’s an explanation.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Revtim]
How did we manage to have conventions and speeches and such in the past without ‘Free Speech Zones’? What’s changed so that they are suddenly necessary, and it’s more important than at least the spirit of the 1st amendmant?

I’m with Gadarene, I don’t give a fuck who’s doing them, it’s morally wrong, even if it is somehow judged Constitutional.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
This type of thing stinks no matter who does it.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=rjung]
What he [Hentor the Barbarian]said. I’m just waiting for the conclusions as to who to flame for these FSZs, either the DNC or the BCPD.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=mhendo]
I’m gonna have to partially disagree with some of my erstwhile fellow leftists on this one.

Dio, even assuming that you can make the case that a convention like this is a private party rather than a public event, i don’t think it changes the problem associated with free speech zones. For what it’s worth, i believe that protest should be allowed in public places, whether or not the event itself is public or private.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Zoe]
As a Democrat I feel comfortable saying that I think that the DNC should have actually taken into consideration the need to provide space for peaceful protestors of divergent opinions.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Who_me?]
Free Speech Zone, is a repugnant term. There should only be one “Free Speech Zone” in the 48 contiguous states, and the boundary of that zone should follow the boundaries of those same 48 states. There should also be two separate zones, called Alaska and Hawaii.

It is my recollection that protesters have been given their own area to protest for a lot longer than Bush has been in office. But again, the wearing of T-shirts with slogans have not been before a target of site security. I object to having my freedoms taken away, whether it is from the Republicans, the Democrats, or anyone else for that matter.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
[T]he most important point concerning “free speech zones” is that, if they are applied equally to protestors holding all opinions, then they are not some Orwellian nightmare, they are just the logistics of crowd control. It’s when they are applied only to those holding one opinion that they become something that needs to be pitted. My understanding is that the first case applies to the DNC, whereas the second case applies to the Bush appearances where pro-Bush crowds line his route, and anti-Bush crowds are somewhere else out of sight. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
The area being prepared for protestors is shocking the hell out of me. I thought it would be a recently created, large open space where the elevated expressway used to be, smoothly paved over, and plenty big enough to hold a few thousand folks, with several routes for people to move in and out of the area without clogging access to the FleetCenter itself.

‘Tain’t so. That area, it turns out, is where the delegates’ buses will arrive and be parked. The “free speech zone” is going to be mostly under abandoned elevated light rail tracks, fenced in, and ridiculously small. Protest groups are seeking federal court relief, and I don’t blame them. As one who passes by that area every weekday, I am appalled. Why the hell don’t the buses come in, drop off the delegates in front of the FleetCenter (where protestors won’t be allowed, so the road will be clear), then be driven to a parking area out of the way? There’s sufficient parking fairly nearby to do that.

This is a recipe for disaster.
[/QUOTE]
barton’s 2004 GQ thread When exactly did these free speech zones first appear? with some factual info about the practice and history.

Something from the left. Reeder’s opus, Repugs insist on oath for demos to hear Cheney speech.

And from the right, Mr. Moto’s opus, So is this what we can expect if leftists are allowed into Republican events?

Enjoy,
Steven

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
I’m a conservative Democrat, never made any bones about it. Party affiliation /= political philosophy.

Yea, except the national news article I quoted was two days old when I posted my OP and there wasn’t a peep from anyone on the boards about it. Last election cycle the outrage over the Republicans doing the same thing was monumental and immediate. You (royal you from here on out) can say after the fact “Oh, yea, we don’t like that either” after I’ve called you on it, but you’d be full of shit, as usual. You don’t give a shit about anything but what your partisan political masters tell you to think, and will roll naked through broken glass to suck a diseased dog’s cock to ensure that “your guys” get elected, completely ignoring that in their gratitude they promptly roll you over and fuck you up the ass with great enthusiasm.

I don’t believe you. Not one little bit. When Republicans do something it’s unmitigated evil. When Democrats do the same thing it’s common sense, and a few weak denials after the fact when your hypocrisies are pointed out won’t change that. Want to change my mind? Stop being a party whore and apply your standards to both sides equally. Stop pretending that one side is “good” and the other “evil” and admit that they both sides want nothing more than power and money and will do anything to get it. Stop being a toady and start thinking for yourself, drop blind loyalty to any party and judge each issue and candidate on it’s/their individual merits. You want to be a liberal, be a liberal, but be loyal to your ideals and not to one party or another.
[/QUOTE]
This nonsense is way out of line for this Forum. And don’t give me any crap about a “royal” or “editorial” you; it is a direct attack on posters in this thread in language that you can leave in the Pit or stop posting in GD.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
In an attempt to be helpful, here are some threads I found.
[/QUOTE]

This is very helpful; thanks! I will take Weirddave’s abject and shamefaced apology as implicit.

Daniel

[crowmanyclouds]

[QUOTE=MaxTheVool]
… Similarly, there are plenty of legitimate restrictions on free assembly, although they’re discussed less often so I can’t as easily enumerate them.
[/QUOTE]
The big three; time, place, and manner. When such restrictions meet the rational basis test, but never simply because of content unless that content will cause, or has as its purpose, “imminent lawless action” (see Brandenburg v. Ohio), same as speech.
Some of the relevant case law here.

CMC +fnord!

[Weirddave]

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
This nonsense is way out of line for this Forum. And don’t give me any crap about a “royal” or “editorial” you; it is a direct attack on posters in this thread in language that you can leave in the Pit or stop posting in GD.

Knock it off.

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Wait a minute, how does this work? I wrote a post, reviewed it before hitting submit, realized “Hey, some of this this sounds like a personal attack, I better make clear that it’s not”, yet you somehow know better? Do moderating hats come with mind reading devices now?

[Fear_Itself]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
Do moderating hats come with mind reading devices now?
[/QUOTE]
And don’t you forget it!

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
This is very helpful; thanks! I will take Weirddave’s abject and shamefaced apology as implicit.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]

But not yet explicit.

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’

No law abridging. No law. None.
[/quote]

That’s incredibly naive. There are plenty of laws abridging free speech, with lots of case history. Read the decisions in the cases US v. Schenck and Brandenburg v. Ohio. I think you’ll find that speech is limited. There are cases regarding limitations on the other rights enshrined in the 1st Amendment as well. The 1st Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law”, and since it’s been incorporated the states are bound by that as well, but the Supreme Court is not, and they have put limitations on all of the provisions of the 1st Amendment.

I trust we can count on the complete support of the recently-victorious Second Amendment fans, who rejoiced when the Supreme Court found that the “well regulated militia” clause did NOT restrict an absolute right to bear arms? This reading seems equally clear and simple.

That decision left “reasonable restrictions” on the table, so it wasn’t absolute, either. The Court did not nullify the National Forearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, or the Firearm Owners Protection Act (ha!) of 1986. There are plenty of restrictions on gun ownership.

You didn’t really think that the 1st Amendment was absolute, did you?

[Mtgman]

[QUOTE=Weirddave]
You (royal you from here on out) can say after the fact “Oh, yea, we don’t like that either” after I’ve called you on it, but you’d be full of shit, as usual. You don’t give a shit about anything but what your partisan political masters tell you to think, and will roll naked through broken glass to suck a diseased dog’s cock to ensure that “your guys” get elected, completely ignoring that in their gratitude they promptly roll you over and fuck you up the ass with great enthusiasm.
[/QUOTE]
I’m lost here. I’ve never heard of the usage “royal you”. I looked online at usage guides and googled for it, but I can’t find anything helpful. Could you explain what it means here? The only thing I can think of is using it as the reverse of the royal “we.” The Royal “We” usage implies all the people personified in one. Thus one could speak for many. The reverse usage would be to speak of one person but have the words be meant to apply to many, at least to my mind. I’m not sure why this would be necessary since English has grammar forms capable of addressing the second person plural(you all, all of you, etc.) and the “royal you”, as I understand its usage, would be entirely redundant. If you meant to use the second person plural, surely you could have used it, so I’m confused. Since the “royal you” doesn’t seem to have a defined usage in the common language we’re all using, I’d like to know how you meant it. Is it an exact analogue to the second person plural, or something else?

Enjoy,
Steven