Forum Post: Why is this "movement" preventing free speech?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 6:27 p.m. EST by thomasmiller
(163)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I really don't like Bachman, however, as a Presidential candidate she has a right to free speech. Why does "Occupy" not allow our candidates to speak freely? Is this what Democracy looks like where we disrupt elections by preventing our candidates from speaking.
Every candidate for office should be allowed to speak without interuption. Even if that candidate is a Nazi Skinhead then I would still prefer they speak without interuption.
We do not live in Africa where elections are traditionally interrupted...we live in the USA and the Occupiers should start holding their heads up and acting like Americans versus taking a shit on the American flag like they are doing in this picture.
http://toddkinsey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/crapping-on-flag.jpg
Oh god not the fake picture again.
Yah, its not OWS, its anti-war protesters like OWS from 2007. That's why it feels so OWSey. That guy is probably roaming around Zuccotti right now.
Should OWS people coddle her and not make her feel uncomfortable. Should they hold back their free speech rights
You know her and her husband's churcn heal the gay. Mabye they could just heal the OWS people and problem solved
Michele Bachman, has television ads, corporate donors, and endless times slots on Fox news channel.
I'm skeptical that her voice is being silenced by people trampling on her free speech.
Certainly not by the same people who have to camp-out on concrete for months just to have their message suppressed (and repeatedly declared "unclear") and to have propaganda flood the corporate media claiming they are all simply drug-addled Marxists bent on public-defecation. No, people simply want
theirvoice to be heard.And so we create our own rules and cry foul at every turn.
Its cool that people want their voice to be heard. I support that, but these are candidates running for a high office. Those Occupiers are essentially trying to disrupt an election by not letting the candidates speak.
If you support the Constitution of the United States...if you are an American...then you will let the candidates running for office speak. However, if you do not let them speak then you are ruining this country by disrupting an election. We need to hear what the candidates have to say so we can make an informed decision.
If I want to hear the occupiers speak, then I know where to go....where to tune in. If I went to Bachman's speech, then I would want to hear her and not get a rebuttal from the Occupiers.
I would appreciate if Occupiers respected our Democratic process by letting the candidates speak freely.
So does this theme really work out for you?
Do people really buy that the multi-million-dollar-Bachman-media-giant is being silenced and her free speech trampled because she got heckled?
I wouldn't try to sell that one.
Also, I'm curious, do you genuinely believe that the United States is a democracy?
Do you think the United States is a heavy handed dictatorship that leans on its people? I feel its important for candidates to not have their free speech interupted. I dont like Bachman, but will defend her right to free speech. I also defend our right as a nation to a free election without disruptions.
Again who is buying this idea that a media giant is is having their free speech denied?
Go back to the public shitting routine. seriously
Their free speech is the only one that they would like protected
What makes you think WE(the true 98.9999) haven't heard and dismissed you? Most of us don't care what you think or do. We all want big money out of politics (corps and UNIONS), but what new ideas are you bringing that is worth our time. Earn your place at the table. Work, pay taxes, vote, and consider serving this country. Then and only then will you be able to join the adults in an intelligent conversation about the direction and corrections needed in this country.
There is not a single message coming out of OWS that wasn't already being addressed. Name one.
Abolish Plutocracy.
I know new words are fun and all, but guess again. That's been called for WAY before you took that poli-sci class last year. Got a real one?
That "was being addressed' ?
By whom?
I know Jefferson was warning people about the "aristocracy of moneyed corporations" not too long ago.
However, who (to your mind) has been addressing this problem?
Why have they been doing such a shitty job?
You've got nothing.
You're just flailing now.
Must suck having to speak from the other side of this conflict. We've got no leader for you to spread sexual rumors about. We don't belong to a political party that you can undermine. I wouldn't want to be the propagandist responsible for coming up with these talking points/smears. Must be a pretty hard job.
I'd go back to the public-shitting narrative. That seems to jive with at least a few foxnews viewers.
It does, and you don't. My family works and enjoys our harvest, you don't work and want ours. Your poor choices do not entitle you to anothers reward. Please work, YOU have crippled our system!
That's right. We are going to tax your family, so that we can fund our sex-orgies in public. And we are going to sacrifice animals to Satan, teach evolution to your kids, and poop on the side walk. There is nothing you can do to stop us. We are ACORN.
Please read more. Please. Google "end plutocracy" and "abolish plutocracy". You think this idea just happened?
Public shitting? What does that even mean??
You are shifting goal posts. First it was: "a single message coming out of OWS that wasn't already being addressed."
Now you are looking for something different.
Your new question is something to the effect of "Name something you believe in, that no one else has/does"
I don't think we do.
How is this relevant, again?
What? I asked the question. You gave your answer. I told you you were incorrect, that it has been addressed many times, by very intelligent people . Glad you woke up. Now Nighty night.
although I still don't understand why you are talking about public shitting...
"been addressed" in this context, implies that the problem has been resolved.
Try again.
Perhaps in your context. I meant addressed as in bring attention to. Addressed as in acknowledge a problem. Why would you think the context in this instance would have meant resolved? I would have said it's been resolved if that's what I meant.
Now back to the public shitting. What does that mean??
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. All in love and war is fair.
Keep it up libs. You are only ensuring greater losses next year. People are tired of this cult-like sickness.
Uh... I think your confused. We don't support Obama---we are protesting him. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/11/can_ows_be_turned_into_a_democratic_party_movement/
Maybe you could at least try and gain some small measure of understanding, before you decide to hate something?
Any conservative knows this is not a mixed bag. Any sane person knows it is not a mixed bag.
What?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RabCAUl73zc&feature=relmfu
You should read the link above. The democratic party would love to hijack us like the republican party hijacked the Tea party. They can't.
Understand that it is not a mixed bag--- OWS is overwhelmingly against the democratic party. The democrats are (well documented) corporate tools. I for one support Obama's prosecution for war-crimes.
Please try to exercise some skepticism regarding these conspiracy theories/propaganda.