Well, this is interesting ...On Sept. 17, 2007, a college student attempting to ask Sen. John Kerry a question using a microphone at a podium at a public event was descended upon by police and eventually tasered. Two days later, you took great pride in posting video of this, calling the student a "moron" and lecturing potential rabble-rousers on the imperative of obeying power: When you resist arrest the cops will escalate force until you come into compliance. You don't get to offer to "just walk out" once you have already wrestled with the cops and they have you on the ground.So now we have a journalist, this Phelim McAleer, who attempts to confront power with a question, using a microphone at a podium at a public event, UN officials try to shut him down (and pretty quietly, at that) and the implication of your little headline, "Nothing to see here," suggests you're pissed about it. Seems to me you think this gentleman with the microphone has a right to speak and needs to be heard.I'm also thinking back to another video you posted some years back, from one of your "illegal alien" protests, where a police officer asked you to move across the street or some such thing, and you stood your ground and argued about it, insisting that you (unlike the student trying to question Kerry, apparently) had rights. I can just imagine the stink you would have made if he'd tasered you. Lars would have had enough material for an entire afternoon. God, Daniel, you make it so, so easy. When it comes to shameless, preening hypocrisy, you are a champion among champions.
Another brick in the wall of Miglavian Hypocrisy. What else is new?
Million Dollar Man- evidently you are okay with censorship if the situation is agreeable. And you're different then Daniel how?
Bobkatt, since I obviously didn't make it clear, let me make it so now: I think both the student AND the reporter should have been left alone so they could ask whatever questions they had of whomever they wished. The authorities should have left BOTH of them alone. THAT'S how I'm different from Daniel, who cannot make the same claim: He offered not one word of support or solidarity with, in terms of the free speech issues involved with the student. He was bothered only that a reporter whose political agenda he shares was mistreated (and far less so than the student!) Daniel's support for freedoms of speech is highly selective, subjective and conditional. In other words, he cannot be counted as an genuine, principled advocate of free speech. On that count, he's a liar and a spineless fraud. And I suspect that at some level, he knows it.
Post a Comment