CNN, MSNBC and NPR darling gets arrested

[monovillage]

Lol and you will keep doubling down on dumb. Her spray painting the signs pink to allow the signs to be readable demonstrates her desire to leave them legible. Otherwise a nice black would have been used.

It was an illegal protest, that's the sum total. Your desire to infer she was electing to remove speech from the sign owners is false. She was intending to use the sign to illegally protest it's message not remove its message.

We already know you are an intellectually dishonest partisan hack.

Who will use dishonesty to force your viewpoint. That's proven

You are a liar and a troll and you're trolling this thread right now.

 

[lotus503]

You are a liar and a troll.

And your are a disingenuous partisan piece of shit.

 

[Geosurface]

She stated this specifically that's how.

She heard about the signs and planned on doing this specifically, the pink paint was chosen as to not cover the signs.

I spent some time reading her twitter where she outlines exactly her intent.

Fair enough.

I would still argue though that if you are breaking the law to vandalize someone else's political poster, you may indeed be making a statement but you are also attempting to prevent THEIR statement from being seen and taken on it's own merits by people in the way those who paid for it intended.

You are also clearly sending the message that you think they shouldn't be saying what they're saying, and so you are in fact trying to shut them up. You're trying to intimidate them and bully them out of the public square.

But in the end the most important thing is that she was breaking the law. I'm glad you acknowledge that (then again how could you not?) still... I remain surprised that she herself didn't want to acknowledge it. Did she on her twitter?

I think the proper way for her to respond to their free speech was to go on those networks that apparently bring her on from time to time and speak her mind there, or pay for posters of her own refuting them.

I'm guessing that if she saw some white dude spray painting over a poster that said "Arabs are your friends, America. Islam is a religion of peace." she'd consider it an out and out hate crime.

 

[lotus503]

Fair enough.

I would still argue though that if you are breaking the law to vandalize someone else's political poster, you may indeed be making a statement but you are also attempting to prevent THEIR statement from being seen and taken on it's own merits by people in the way those who paid for it intended.

You are also clearly sending the message that you think they shouldn't be saying what they're saying, and so you are in fact trying to shut them up. You're trying to intimidate them and bully them out of the public square.

But in the end the most important thing is that she was breaking the law. I'm glad you acknowledge that (then again how could you not?) still... I remain surprised that she herself didn't want to acknowledge it. Did she on her twitter?

She stated it was protesting when I read her twitter I did not see her state she had broken the law which she obviously did. What she did was wrong, uncalled for and she should have and was arrested for it.

I don't condone her actions, I also don't condone the OPs desire to make this more than what it was. Illegally protesting.

Thing is in other stations there were signs that were tore down or damaged so they could be read. That is factually trying to prohibit free speech, what she did however was not.

 

[Geosurface]

Lotus did she say she didn't intend to actually cover the words with paint before or after she was arrested?

 

[lotus503]

Lotus did she say she didn't intend to actually cover the words with paint before or after she was arrested?

After, which definitely could mean she is full of shit.

But the contention from the OP is that she meant to cover them, fact is she did not cover them. Then OP states she did, I asked for any proof of that, OP melts away into personal attacks.

 

[monovillage]

After, which definitely could mean she is full of shit.

But the contention from the OP is that she meant to cover them, fact is she did not cover them. Then OP states she did, I asked for any proof of that, OP melts away into personal attacks.

Again with your intellectual dishonesty.
I even gave you an example of how a message can be changed without hiding it, but you just keep on with your dishonesty.

 

[Geosurface]

My suspicion is that she went down there with intent to cover it, paint wasn't as fast or effective as she hoped, and then more importantly she got interfered with by that lady and then the cops.

Later, some of her followers probably disagreed with the tactic of squelching other peoples' free speech and she probably defensively bullshitted up the "I didn't intend to actually obscure the words" after the fact to cover her ass with those supporters and to just generally reduce her guilt level.

 

[waggy]

My suspicion is that she went down there with intent to cover it, paint wasn't as fast or effective as she hoped, and then more importantly she got interfered with by that lady and then the cops.

Later, some of her followers probably disagreed with the tactic of squelching other peoples' free speech and she probably defensively bullshitted up the "I didn't intend to actually obscure the words" after the fact to cover her ass with those supporters and to just generally reduce her guilt level.

possible. I find it hard to beleive she chose pink because it "didn't cover it up' yeah,. ok sure.

if that was the case there are other ways to protest the sign then vandalism. While i agree with on the thought i disagree with how she went about it.

 

[lotus503]

Again with your intellectual dishonesty.
I even gave you an example of how a message can be changed without hiding it, but you just keep on with your dishonesty.

Yes I read your example and dismiss it as partisan bullshit to support your disingenuous OP.

You stated she was trying to prohibit the free speech of the sign owners.

That's incorrect, she was protesting the sign, leaving it readable.
You are left with two messages, the signs and her protest.

Had she meant to prohibit the sign owners speech she could have tore it down, painted it black , poured acid on it or any number of things that make it unreadable, Yet she didnt.

Rather than rail about the illegal protest you attempt to make this something it isn't. But that was the entire purpose of this OP, to take a situation and twist it to fit your partisan bias. Because you are a hack

 

[ch33zw1z]

lol, those two ladies were arguing like children.

 

[lotus503]

My suspicion is that she went down there with intent to cover it, paint wasn't as fast or effective as she hoped, and then more importantly she got interfered with by that lady and then the cops.

Later, some of her followers probably disagreed with the tactic of squelching other peoples' free speech and she probably defensively bullshitted up the "I didn't intend to actually obscure the words" after the fact to cover her ass with those supporters and to just generally reduce her guilt level.

That very well could be the case, if we had a sign that was covered and couldn't be read it would prove it, absent of that we just have her word on her intent and the fact no sign was illegible that she painted.

just so were clear, I don't agree with what she did at all.
I also think the signs are in bad taste and insinuate Israel only has issues with savages.

What I personally would have done is paid for a sign next to it, that called it out for what it was.

 

[William Gaatjes]

There are always people that hate free speech, hate political speech and want to silence those they don't agree with, that's what the 1st Amendment is all about. Free political speech has nothing to do with decency, sympathy, common sense or any other loaded term you care to use, free speech can and will offend some people, deal with it.
You hate free speech because you want to control what other people are allowed to say.

"You" will always be controlled as long as you cannot responsibly handle freedom. Deal with it.

 

[monovillage]

"You" will always be controlled as long as you cannot responsibly handle freedom. Deal with it.

What you mean by "responsibly handle freedom" is that people knuckle under to what you want. Screw you, deal with it.

 

[rpanic]

Dumb bitch is a nut vandalizing property. I’m sure there was spray paint all over the other lady and her equipment, hope she does some time. Whats even worse is she thinks what she did was ok.

 

[William Gaatjes]

What you mean by "responsibly handle freedom" is that people knuckle under to what you want. Screw you, deal with it.

It is not what i want. I am just fortunate enough that my view of life is similar in the sense that i want best for all. But best for all is not the same as that anybody can do what they want(Including me).
And i am just one of many. No matter where people have been born, all want in principle the same. It is not my fault that you are one of those that enjoy hurting other people. I am all about compassion. But if there is one thing i learned through all events i have experienced, is that when people are given a choice after informing them... They still deliberately choose to hurt others, for example me. I no longer give forgiveness.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It is a bad metaphor :

A star can burn bright, live fast and volatile and explode spectacularly destroying everything near. Or a star can burn less bright, live long and create an entire solar system with life.
However, both stars seem to be needed. Since some elements only created in fast burning stars are also needed...
The big question is of course... What elements are needed to support life ?

 

[monovillage]

It is not what i want. I am just fortunate enough that my view of life is similar in the sense that i want best for all. But best for all is not the same as that anybody can do what they want(Including me).
And i am just one of many. No matter where people have been born, all want in principle the same. It is not my fault that you are one of those that enjoy hurting other people. I am all about compassion. But if there is one thing i learned through all events i have experienced, is that when people are given a choice after informing them... They still deliberately choose to hurt others, for example me. I no longer give forgiveness.

This is pretty much what I thought. You hate free speech and if anyone says something that offends you, you would feel justified to ..............not give them forgiveness. Nice way of putting it.

 

[William Gaatjes]

This is pretty much what I thought. You hate free speech and if anyone says something that offends you, you would feel justified to ..............not give them forgiveness. Nice way of putting it.

Only people who lack empathy, think like you ?
Mind you, i am just expressing my free speech.

 

[William Gaatjes]

You see, freedom is relative. As is freedom of speech. Only people who think in absolute terms do not understand that in a society where we all have to live together, we all have to chip in and adjust a little bit to a common set of reasonable standards. People who think in absolute terms only, are bound to hurt others in any way possible. This we can see all over the world.

Hypothetically :
If you want to live in a world of absolute thinking, prepare for the downfall of humans and except that hell as you think you know it, is nothing compared to what reality can be.

Current reality :
If you want to think in absolute terms only, prepare to realize that you may be nothing more then a mindless drone. Religious extremists, for example only think in absolute terms. Hence the violence and destruction.

 

[EXman]

Dumb bitch is a nut vandalizing property. I’m sure there was spray paint all over the other lady and her equipment, hope she does some time. Whats even worse is she thinks what she did was ok.

yup you got it

 

[Perknose]

You see, freedom is relative. As is freedom of speech. Only people who think in absolute terms do not understand that in a society where we all have to live together, we all have to chip in and adjust a little bit to a common set of reasonable standards. People who think in absolute terms only, are bound to hurt others in any way possible. This we can see all over the world.

Hypothetically :
If you want to live in a world of absolute thinking, prepare for the downfall of humans and except that hell as you think you know it, is nothing compared to what reality can be.

Current reality :
If you want to think in absolute terms only, prepare to realize that you may be nothing more then a mindless drone. Religious extremists, for example only think in absolute terms. Hence the violence and destruction.

Bingo. Sad that those who most need to hear and understand this either cannot or will not.

 

[monovillage]

"Try Hanging "Piss Mohammed" Next to "Piss Christ" "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...dquot_next_to_quotpiss_christquot_291274.html

 

[William Gaatjes]

"Try Hanging "Piss Mohammed" Next to "Piss Christ" "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/20...dquot_next_to_quotpiss_christquot_291274.html

I despise extremists just as much as you do.

But you have to look at the problem in a more complex way. There are Muslims followers and there are religious hooligans. The religious hooligans are always out for a fight. The religion is just a handy way of getting there. Also do not forget that people with rigid thinking patterns or with a paranoid mind are most likely the most orthodox believers in any kind of faith : Christian, Catholic, Hindi, Jewish, Islam... I am sure that that there are even Buddhists extremists.

If you dissect any group of people with a given religion, you will always find that there is a small specific group that ignites the whole problem. These are usually also the people that like to be in power. Funny thing is that in religions, often there is warned about false prophets (false messengers are the same). Yet, how often do we not see Imams or priests or Rabbi with extreme views. When presenting these views and finding followers, gives them power. How often is it not the case that psychopaths stir up a group of people who have been indoctrinated all their life to think in a certain way ? Their prophet is important and is their source of hope and a guide in an often difficult life. It does not help that a mediocre way of life and the usual political and geological issues shape the thought of a given group of people together with someone stirring up the mass.

You can also see this with demonstrations or small groups of people looking for trouble. There will always be a central person (maybe 2 or three) that is the one that ignites the whole escalation.

Have i not written often that the first thing religious extremists do is to take away any form of enjoyment or education from the people to ensure to keep them under control, to prevent them from rioting while the extremist religious leaders enjoy a luxury life filled with lust and sex and extreme luxury ? While they themselves tell their followers "Do what i say" and forget to mention : "Do not do what i do" .As we can see often ?

I am amazed that all these people kill an American ambassador because of some offensive movie made in the USA. While i do not see those same people in the street when it becomes known that there is mass scale rape going on going on with young innocent Muslim girls and women. Where are those angry men on the streets in all those Islamic countries now ? Where are the demonstrations and where is the outrage ?

I can give you a clue : Imams...