Crowd Booos Commencement Speaker Who Criticized Arizona Law

reply to post by prionace glauca


Why on earth did this speaker bring up such a subject for a commencement speech? It was totally out of line as it has absolutely nothing to do with these graduate's futures except to know that the state of Arizona has devised in writing laws enabling law enforcement to proceed against criminals.

She was very unwise and thoughtless to address this subject when this graduation class deserved better, a glimpse into their future, and obviously, they do not want their future to be hampered with problems of living without due respect to the laws of America.

Shame on her!

reply to post by LiteraryOneTwo


Now I’m playing the other side of the fence it seems, but just maybe she was giving them a heads up on just one of the large pieces of crap that they as future workforce / law makers / citizens will be cleaning up.
Just a thought, but I really dunno.

reply to post by LiteraryOneTwo


The only reason I can assume is she was trying to incorporate her speech on civil liberties by injecting this legislation .. unfortunately, she turned a good message into .. something it shouldn't have been. You should never talk about specific politics, especially high lighting specific legislation in a commencement speech.

I'll never understand the "liberal" mindset, nor the "conservative" mindset.
It's not all that "black and white".

If someone is given the platform to speak, or just takes the platform to speak, does that mean everyone else just needs to remain silent. No.

I am thinking of an artist who is currently placing large paintings upon buildings in Cincinnati and across the river in Kentucky. He loves his paintings. And many people enjoy his paintings. He erected a painting on a building across the street from an elementary school. The painting depicited an Asian child holding an automatic rifle. Customers complained, the school complained, and the owner also wasn't happy with the image.
And so the painting was obliterated.

Am I not happy? Yes, and no. The artist got to express his idea. I liked the painting and thought it was harmless. And afterwards, other people expressed their ideas. It all came down to economics. We of us who don't care for this, against those that liked it.

Cool. The artist had his say. The rest of the people had their say. Free speech was allowed.

Just like someone says something I don't care for, I am free to boo. Not forced to sit in silence.

A speech is immediate, and the audience is welcome to react immediately.
A work in progress is finally finished, the artist has his say, and others react.

The artist is not harmed. Got his time. The owner of the building, well, he succummed to economic pressures. Fine, too.

Isn't this what the U.S. is all about? Someone starts giving a speech and you disagree and you boo? Like, "You Lie!" lol Forget protocal, that's just old PC gone wild. But, don't throw overripe fruit, and don't demand someone shut up. Maybe yell louder, or put you fingers in your ears and yell. "Nanny nanny boo boo." But dissent is good.

Stopping free speech when it is happening is bad. Reacting to it while it is happening, isn't bad, unless you actually force a person to stop speaking.

reply to post by kyred


Few things are ever Black and White, that is why I loves my Doggies.
No matter how I may be good mood or bad they still loves me the same.
I also have coffee too, but much like cash, it always leaves me.

I think some of the readers and "posters" need to re-read the constitution, and focus on a little something called the Bill of Rights! Maybe you've heard of it~ That lil paper thingy that states

1. Freedom of speech?!
2. Right to Bear Arms...etc

Once you have figured out how to decipher #1, then maybe you'll understand that those who Boo'd ( which I applaud them for that) were utilizing the first amendment of free speech, and freedom of OPINION!

God you people are just DUMB!

An important thing people seem to forget sometimes is the whole purpose behind freedom of speech being protected by the constitution: the fact that it is protected implies that it NEEDS to be protected, which implies the speech is likely going to be either rude or even offensive when hot-button topics are discussed. Pleasant speech would need no such protection. I seriously doubt anyone in the world has ever been imprisoned for saying glowing things about their current administrations.

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by kyred

 

Few things are ever Black and White, that is why I loves my Doggies.
No matter how I may be good mood or bad they still loves me the same.
I also have coffee too, but much like cash, it always leaves me.

I think it's simply a matter of perspective. All things are black and white if you choose for them to be. Something is good or it is evil; you are either for me or against me; you either serve your God or someone else--never both. And so on...regardless of religious leanings, I think this the greatest philosophy that's ever been.

Everyone that has critized the AZ law has not bothered to read it, just like they didn't bother to read the disasteri=ous healthcare bill first befoire voting for it, the country is now run by elitist idiots.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Oh I was just pointing out the irony.

I love how everyone is so focused on the borders, yet a sizable portion of the issue is people who came in on one visa or another that has since expired, thus jumping right over the proverbial fence, but lets not think to much about that shall we...

reply to post by Atomic Honey


If we had an adminsitration worthy of glowing praises then that adminstration would surely get it, unfortunately for the country this adminstration is not worthy of anything but the scorn and distaste of the American people.

For the speaker “BOOOOO”

Gone are the days when rotten fruits and vegetables being thrown, how lucky she is.

Oh well at least she was allowed to speak her view, no matter how ignorant of the law she is. Allowing her to speak only proved her ignorance.



Raist

reply to post by Raist


You know I was thinking she was being ignorant to the Arizona Law SB 1070 also, but if a person has not even read the actual bill are they being of the law or just being ignorant period.

I was waiting for the tomatoes to be
thrown like those old vaudeville shows,
but it didn't happen.

I'm sick and tired of having someone
tell me how I should think and that I should
adapt to political correctness.

And I laugh and think
I've lived all my 40+ yrs
without political correctness,
why should I start now.

This speaker needed to be booooed.

For those who do not live in Arizona or indeed the USA wouldn't it be wise to tell others what exactly The'Arizona Law' is, that way more members can join in with the debate.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by prionace glauca
Are you going to compare what was stated in that thread to how Coulter was treated by students & faculty that did not let her speak. I don't agree with coulter but to compare outright ignorance of stated laws with the religious fights in the thread you posted is of no value.

Nope, got the wrong thread. I meant the Muslim STUDENTS(same thing here) that were thrown out for booing the Israeli ambassador. Seemed OK to many members here at the time. Now it's not? Hmm.

Conservatives values have always allowed free thinking, not drown it out. The speaker here was a talking point propaganda tool who had not read the laws her self and was bood for ignoring the facts.

Do you realize what an oxy moron that is. You support free speech as long as the message is what you want to hear. Sorry, that's not free speech.

Tell that to your boys girl, or thing rather Kagan.....because she seems to think it is free speech. as to your assertion, it is patently false...coservativism is for a lack of federal control and for individual liberty...

Jaden

reply to post by boondock-saint


Political correctness has gone overboard. A little is somewhat nice but we used to just call that being polite and having manners, those seem to be gone from most people today as well. Come to think of it common sense seems to be lacking more often than not too.

I miss the days when people actually said what they felt and were allowed to do so and they actually made sense.

OP sorry to go off topic but I wanted to let this poster know I agree with them completely.

Raist

Political correctness is a tool for division. Its meant to divide people who believe in the right to freely express themselves from the population who do not believe in free expression.

Raist, you are not off topic. PC is what this speaker was trying to preach and the 1st amendment prevailed.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by prionace glauca]

Originally posted by Eagleheart56
Everyone that has critized the AZ law has not bothered to read it, just like they didn't bother to read the disasteri=ous healthcare bill first befoire voting for it, the country is now run by elitist idiots.

AMEN Brotha! Call it as you see it!

Originally posted by Raist
reply to post by boondock-saint

 

Political correctness has gone overboard. A little is somewhat nice but we used to just call that being polite and having manners, those seem to be gone from most people today as well. Come to think of it common sense seems to be lacking more often than not too.

I miss the days when people actually said what they felt and were allowed to do so and they actually made sense.

OP sorry to go off topic but I wanted to let this poster know I agree with them completely.

Raist

And I wanted you to know I agree with you full heartedly! What ever happen to the meaning of shaking a mans hand, and that shake be a binding agreement? Man I was born in the wrong era~