Today’s Des Moines’ Register headlines immediately sent TRS touring the halls of nostalgia.
Karl Rove is coming to the University of Iowa next Sunday. Rather than merely highlight the visit itself, the DMR headlined “Activists to protest Rove speech at U of I”.
Karl Rove is coming to the University of Iowa next Sunday. Rather than merely highlight the visit itself, the DMR headlined “Activists to protest Rove speech at U of I”.
Campus radicals have always protested Republicans. The current crop appears to be mostly the children of the same supercilious adolescents who protested the Republican and conservative speakers at the birth of the Reagan era, back when a far more hirsute TRS roamed the campus freely.
Much like the most repulsive badly aging hippies that have been screeching in Berkley about the Marines, these intellectual children ignore the social compact part of the First Amendment-everybody gets to put their ideas in the market place. The current generational iteration of the self-loathing American that is organizing Sunday’s impolite disruption undoubtedly are already well versed in Marx, Lenin, Mao, Fidel and their latest political icon and role model, Hugo Chavez. Perhaps a Che poster or two remains on an apartment wall, above the unwashed dishes and burned out bowl.
Rather, campus radicals rely on mere mob power to disrupt public debate and silence competing thought. On other campuses the radicals typically shout down conservative speakers or attack them on stage. Sometimes entrances are blocked so that conservative audiences are prevented from entering and hearing conservative thought. Like most leftists, the young liberal evaluates their conduct by no standard other than its success in preventing honest debate.
Hopefully the U of I protesters will permit Karl Rove to speak and the audience to listen.
13 comments:
As for "silenc[ing] competing thought," mobs have nothing on the police.
Police establish Free Speech Zones to keep competing thought contained.
Bush kept competing thought contained even during his campaigns by throwing people out of the room if they wore the wrong buttons. He got Cindy Sheehan thrown out of the State of Union address because she wore a forbidden shirt.----Spotlight
sporie, sporie, sporie:
Much like the most repulsive badly aging hippies that have been screeching in Berkley about the Marines, these intellectual children ignore the social compact part of the First Amendment-everybody gets to put their ideas in the market place. The current generational iteration of the self-loathing American that is organizing Sunday’s impolite disruption undoubtedly are already well versed in Marx, Lenin, Mao, Fidel and their latest political icon and role model, Hugo Chavez. Perhaps a Che poster or two remains on an apartment wall, above the unwashed dishes and burned out bowl.
Do I detect a bit of the ad hominem in that paragraph?
I also remember nothing in the First Amendment about "everybody gets to put their ideas in the marketplace", nor anything about a "social contract". The First Amendment disallows the government, more specifically, the Congress from denying free speech. There are no warm, fuzzy promises that everyone has to shut up and listen.
Typical conservative whining and crying. If Rove wants a peaceful podium let him go back to work for Georgie.
"A peaceful podium"..
Layman.. You have no idea that people have FOUGHT AND DIED so that ANYONE in our country has the RIGHT to speak freely without fear or threat of harm.
An invited guest giving a lecture is entitled to give his/her speech without being shouted down..without being disrupted or otherwise prevented from speaking.
Ted..We out here in Johnson County know full well what these fools are planning on doing on Sunday.. We're bringing camera and plenty of people to witness what will occur.
I fully expect these people to act the fool on Sunday..and once again prove the hypocrisy of the left.
Liberals love to proclaim they the defenders of "tolerance" and that people should "accept" those who hold different views or lifestyles..
Yet, I'll bet anything they will be anything BUT tolerant on Sunday..
8:57 - try wearing a pro-life shirt at an Obama event and see what happens to you.
Dear 6:36pm,
Did you do it? Tell us what happened. Did the staff come and throw you out? I bet not.
---Spotlight
I think Art is wheel chair bound so there's no way he ever understands any "FOUGHT AND DIED" arguments.
cedar:
I doubt Mr. Rove has to fear any harm. Some catcalls, hissing, booing, perhaps, but he is free to speak even though his message is nothing but bullshit.
Those who FOUGHT and DIED did so for a hell of a lot more than just allowing some lamebrain the opportunity to spew venom.
An invited guest giving a lecture is entitled to give his/her speech without being shouted down..without being disrupted or otherwise prevented from speaking.
You are entitled to your opinion but nowhere in the First Amendament was anyone guaranteed the entitlements you assert in that sentence.
The Framers, long before they wrote the First Amendament, spoke out facing the fear of imprisonment and death, surely Mr. Rove can handle a little heckling without peeing his pants.
As one instrumental in bringing us the Bush/Cheney fiasco, best described as the administration of buffoonery, maybe he needs some enlightenment.
Historical renditions of the Congress of the Framers would depict no polite exchange of ideas free from interruption and condemnation. Even with a little heckling we've come a long way from the Burr/Hamilton method of settling speech debates.
Though not necessarily illegal, amassing "witnesses with cameras", tends to suggest Hitler or Stalin tactics rather than American standards.
Best to always keep in mind the wisdom of Pogo.
Yawn...Blah Blah Blah, Art sure is a smart guy everyone bow down to him and thank God he's around to show us the error of our ways.
anonymous 9:37:
You don't need to attend Mr. Rove's speech, you have already grasped his message: Forget reason; forget logic; forget truth; when faced with disagreement derision, sarcasm and lies are the only tools.
Given my relationship with God, best not to mention my name, else the wrath may come and it will be more than just heckling.
What the heck is this guy talking about when he writes the part about wrath because of his name? Is he claiming to be Jesus or something?
anonymous 11:32:
Damn! Could it be that you're thick headed? Nah! No conservative could be considered thick headed?
It was a subtle reference to the fact that God and I are not on speaking terms.
Hey Art who lays men:
Gee, why aren't we surprised?
That's funny Beavis - got any other clever comebacks?
Post a Comment