Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He didn't speak, he didn't say anything, he merely stood their quietly.
I just find the whole point that during a speech on freedom of speech, tolerance and the right to protest in the Middle East, this occurs and to a veteran in America.
disgusting
Standing there quietly isn't disruptive? Everyone else is seated, listening to the speaker. His stance is intended to be disruptive. He intends to interrupt the proceedings. That is his point. He achieves nothing unless he captures everyone's attention.
While I empathize with Mr McGovern's point of view, and that he is peacefully trying to get that point of view across, the fact is that he was being disruptive, however quietly. And that the disruption had to be dealt with. As I said before, I don't think it was dealt with appropriately, not in light of what the speech was about. I also think that after looking at the pictures of his injuries, it would appear that he incurred those bruises as a result of his own actions, resisting the officers as they tried to escort him out of the auditorium. I don't think that the officers' actions to subdue him rise to the level of him being "beaten". I think he's trying to make the incident much worse. He wasn't thrown in prison, he was booked into jail briefly. I've spent the night in jail before. It's not prison.
And again, what is his agenda? Because he's enjoying a moment in the limelight right now, and I don't hear him talking about the wars and why we need to bring our soldiers home. I hear him talking about how he's been victimized. Is that his agenda?
Standing there quietly isn't disruptive? Everyone else is seated, listening to the speaker. His stance is intended to be disruptive. He intends to interrupt the proceedings. That is his point. He achieves nothing unless he captures everyone's attention.
While I empathize with Mr McGovern's point of view, and that he is peacefully trying to get that point of view across, the fact is that he was being disruptive, however quietly. And that the disruption had to be dealt with. As I said before, I don't think it was dealt with appropriately, not in light of what the speech was about. I also think that after looking at the pictures of his injuries, it would appear that he incurred those bruises as a result of his own actions, resisting the officers as they tried to escort him out of the auditorium. I don't think that the officers' actions to subdue him rise to the level of him being "beaten". I think he's trying to make the incident much worse. He wasn't thrown in prison, he was booked into jail briefly. I've spent the night in jail before. It's not prison.
And again, what is his agenda? Because he's enjoying a moment in the limelight right now, and I don't hear him talking about the wars and why we need to bring our soldiers home. I hear him talking about how he's been victimized. Is that his agenda?
So then can they start to arrest the teachers and union thugs in WI?
And again, what is his agenda? Because he's enjoying a moment in the limelight right now, and I don't hear him talking about the wars and why we need to bring our soldiers home. I hear him talking about how he's been victimized. Is that his agenda?
RAY McGOVERN: I was standing up in silent witness to the fact that Hillary Clinton is responsible or partly responsible for the countless thousands of Iraqis, Americans, Afghans, and God help was, Iranians—I hope not—and that she should not get the idea that everyone is going to sit down and applauded politely when there are so many of us that are usually excluded from these sessions who are feeling very, very sad and very angry at the foreign policy of our government
I believe his agenda is to raise awareness that America is still embroiled in two wars and occupations and that the bulk of this country doesn't really care.
I have no issue with him being arrested, but does an old man standing silently have to be tackled like he is some suicide bomber? I mean he was wearing a shirt that clearly said, "Veterans for Peace" and allowed inside in the first place.
As to the limelight, I beg to differ as I haven't seen him on one single CNN or MSNBC program being interviewed as of yet, let alone Fox.
I understand this man's anger and frustration as nearly the entire nation has simply forgotten or quietly accepted that America is forever in a constant state of war now and a government that feels it is in a state of war holds these views even towards its own citizenry.
RAY McGOVERN: I was standing up in silent witness to the fact that Hillary Clinton is responsible or partly responsible for the countless thousands of Iraqis, Americans, Afghans, and God help was, Iranians—I hope not—and that she should not get the idea that everyone is going to sit down and applauded politely when there are so many of us that are usually excluded from these sessions who are feeling very, very sad and very angry at the foreign policy of our government
I believe his agenda is to raise awareness that America is still embroiled in two wars and occupations and that the bulk of this country doesn't really care.
I have no issue with him being arrested, but does an old man standing silently have to be tackled like he is some suicide bomber? I mean he was wearing a shirt that clearly said, "Veterans for Peace" and allowed inside in the first place.
As to the limelight, I beg to differ as I haven't seen him on one single CNN or MSNBC program being interviewed as of yet, let alone Fox.
I understand this man's anger and frustration as nearly the entire nation has simply forgotten or quietly accepted that America is forever in a constant state of war now and a government that feels it is in a state of war holds these views even towards its own citizenry.
I think that some of the video does not show him being tackled "like some suicide bomber." I saw video showing an officer trying to address him, and him stoically ignoring the officer. The officer taps him on the shoulder, he ignores it. The officer tells him he is disrupting the speech, he needs to leave. He ignores the officer. The officer tries to take him into custody, and he resists, struggling all the away against the officers as they try to remove him from the auditorium.
As I said, I empathize with this man. I don't think that his protest was handled well or appropriately. But he was disruptive, he intended to be disruptive.
I think Mrs Clinton could have addressed him, but from the video I saw, he wasn't facing her, he turned his back to her, which makes such an address difficult. She could have interceded with the officers and asked Mr McGovern what he wanted to say, and possibly defused the entire fracas. She didn't make that choice, though. Possibly because she thought it was her message that the audience wanted to hear.
I have nothing but the most profound respect for our soldiers who have served, and to the many people who have supported those soldiers, both in public service and private service. I have nothing but the most profound respect for the people who are willing to stand up and be heard, who try to exercise their freedom of speech in this country. I am entirely respectful of the fact that Mr McGovern was trying to exercise his freedom of speech in a manner that was peaceful and passive. He stopped being passive when he fought the officers trying to remove him. He made choices in this incident as well.
The teachers and AstroTurf Union thugs unfortunately are exercising their right to assemble in the proper setting.
This man was being disruptive in this setting.
There is NO law for standing there quietly. Disruptiveness is a matter of opinion. Now there IS a law that says teachers CAN'T strike and they are also being much more disruptive than what that guy did.
There is NO law for standing there quietly. Disruptiveness is a matter of opinion. Now there IS a law that says teachers CAN'T strike and they are also being much more disruptive than what that guy did.
Go to school, choose a seat and desk with all the other students. When the teacher begins to lecture, and all the students are attentive to the teacher, stand up, turn your back to the teacher, and just stand there. It's disruptive because it's intended to attract attention to YOU, and away from the speaker. It's not a matter of opinion. The focus of the audience in an auditorium is the person on stage or at the podium. Trying to redirect that focus is disruptive.
And I think the union protests have plenty of threads of their own. YOU are being disruptive in your attempts to hi-jack Hilltopper's thread.
There is nothing to justify this. Nothing. It shocks me that this was allowed to happen. Now if this isn't an example of us losing our freedom - seriously this is something that the 'bad' 'evil' did- not too long ago- What the hell is going on here in America and why in the name of God are we letting it happen?? Any Answers?????????????????????
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,352 posts, read 54,513,644 times
Reputation: 40819
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
Whether you agree or disagree with Ray McGovern, this is America today and the draconian police state that gained momentum under the Bush administration is alive and well, and thriving under Obama.
This is America
I believe that draconian police state started gaining momentum at least as far back as the Nixon administration, Kent State being a perfect example.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.