[Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Then Gary, you are choosing to stick to a belief that I have never 
supported.  The only thing you are proving is that you don't know squat 
about me or my beliefs.  Your position is the written version of covering 
your ears and shouting "La la la," but have at it, it's still a free 
country.  For now.

You just told Andy to find support for his statement about you in your last 
hundred or so posts.  I challenge you to find me supporting state action to 
squelch political speech in my posts.  Good luck and pack a lunch.  You have 
nothing but your wish to pin a belief to me, one that I don't hold.  You 
want people to support what they say about you, but you don't hold yourself 
to the same standard when it comes to others.

I am talking here about a person who was engaged in political speech.  It 
was not accompanied by violence.  This doesn't have to be construed as 
political speech in 'some vague way .'

The Yippees in Chicago in '68?  I was 6, Gary, I must have missed the 
footage while I was riding my bike, so I'm not talking about them.  Not 
interested in bait-and-switch.

Sunil


>From: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>To: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>CC: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered
>Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:56:42 -0700
>
>I understand perfectly well that you're unhappy with Theresa's boy
>and I'm skeptical about your assertion. Would you have extended your 
>argument to the Yippies in Chicago in '68? Violence as speech in a 
>political setting. I do not believe that the constitution gives a person 
>unlimited license to act the fool as long as what they say (or do) can in 
>some vague way be construed as a political statement.
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 10:49 AM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered
>
>
> > Wrong.  I absolutely would make the identical argument.  I'm talking 
>about
> > the Constitution, not my own preferences.  And isince you missed it, 
>most of
> > my condemnation here is for the person I voted for in the last election, 
>not
> > Bush.
> >
> > Sunil
> >
> >