[Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered

[Sunil Ramalingam]

I'm not talking about any other incident.  This incident right here was a 
political speech with questions invited.  This was a violation of the 
student's rights.

It's obvious your only problem with the state action is that they didn't use 
large enough goons.  I guess we differ.

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 16:06:09 -0700
>
>Now I'm afraid it's you that is deliberately misconstruing a point. I am 
>"choosing" to stick to nothing. I most assuredly did not accuse you of 
>"supporting state action to squelch political speech." I was attempting to 
>determine where you think the line is to be drawn. You might note the 
>question marks sprinkled through out my posts.
>
>You apparently believe that the kid who was tazered had every right to not 
>follow the rules set out at the event Kerry spoke at. By your standard 
>should he have been allowed to go on for another 15 minutes? An hour? Till 
>the cows came home? What about if instead of a topic that is near and dear 
>to your heart he had elected to carry on about repealing the 13th and 14th 
>amendment? That would still fall under the umbrella of political speech 
>after all. Or does that take the discussion that extra centimeter and 
>become the dreaded "Hate Speech." Abhorred by all and protected by none.
>
>Candidates at a debate have rules laid out in advance stipulating time 
>limits. If they egregiously exceed these limits the moderator will cut them 
>off and if ness kill their mike. Is this a constitutional travesty?
>
>How about the AARP event that Ms. Hovey announced earlier today. If I jump 
>up and commence a 90 minute conservative rant about the evils of the 
>current Mayor and council, even though the event schedule has been clearly 
>laid out, will that be just ducky by you? Political speech at a political 
>event after all.
>
>Nice try on the "I was six" dodge. I was 10. At least a dozen years before 
>I started to be aware of anything that didn't involve girls and debauchery. 
>We've both been to school. You write as though you may have been paying 
>attention. It's not as though the events surrounding the 1968 democratic 
>convention in Chicago were an obscure, seldom mentioned event. The whole 
>Chicago 7 situation revolved around the notion of violent demonstration as 
>political speech at what was a decidedly political event. Still diggen' the 
>all's fair speech wise at a political gathering?
>
>Just so there's no mistaking my intent this time around, the point I am 
>making, and the question I am asking is where do you draw the line? Oh, and 
>for the record I did not tell or challenge "Andy to find support for his 
>statement," I told him flat out there was none to be had. Subtle difference 
>I know and, I suspect, you know as well. It just wouldn't have made your 
>case quite as well to have been accurate.
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 12:16 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered
>
>
> > 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >               http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >