[Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered

[Sunil Ramalingam]

Since you say it, it must be so.  Or maybe it's case-dependent, and I'm not 
talking about other cases.

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 20:05:43 -0700
>
>And once again you are in error. I would have been more then happy enough 
>to let the young idiot go on all night long. My question for you was simply 
>where the line is. Clearly, a question you don't have an answer for.
>
>Remember that this was a function of, by, and for democrats. For you and 
>yours to rant and rail because I agree with one of those three strikes me 
>as laughable.
>
>g
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Sunil Ramalingam" <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com>
>Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 6:45 PM
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Kerry speech/student tasered
>
>
> > 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
> >> > =======================================================
> >> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > 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
> > =======================================================
> >