posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:13 AM
ok Code pink went down there to interupt a speech that was against their point of view, they were loud and disrupted. It is there duty as Americans
to do this, I can explain why with this example using pro bunny and pro turtle as examples.
If people only see pro bunny speeches. If the media only speaks in pro bunny terms. If corporate media selectivly covers things with pro bunny spin.
If congressional hearings and politions avoid pro turtle topics and speak in pro bunny ways of thought, then the responsibility and actions of pro
turtle people are now different in a free society.
If the pro turtle people do not have a viable out let to freely question the pro bunny agenda then for the good of our democracy, for free thought and
the fostering of critical thinking it is the duty of every American to interupt pro bunny speeches and give the counter pro turtle arguements.
Although interuptions are precieved as rude, the need to have an informed citizenary and to give people the information to make decisions and not just
follow what they have been told is more important then formalities of decorum. If after hearing both pro bunny and pro turtle arguements the
citizenry make a pro bunny decision that is fine, but that is not the point.
If you have a debate and only one side is at the podium, and the other podium is empty don't you think someone from the audience should yell out
counter points? But our information is not formed as a debate, it is formed as a point of view to be packaged and sold to the masses so they will do
what the controllers of media, and those in power want them to do.
The only requirement for this is the pro turtle opinion must represent a logical belief or a belief shared by a signifigant segment of population.
lets say 15% for arguement.