President Obama at Notre Dame protest

celticlord said:

Sounded to me that he was more hacked about the venue of the protest. The only credible First Amendment response to that is "Deal with it."

Click to expand...

There have been a few issues in this thread, but I agree with the response in bold.

celticlord said:

No, they are not. If you support the right to protest you earn the privilege of shutting up when someone chooses to do it at a time and place you find unpleasant.

Click to expand...

The RIGHT to protest and the actual protest are two separate things.

I will support the rights of PETA to protest, but I don't Support their actual protests (meaning I don't believe in what they are protesting).

Two seperate issues here people.

celticlord said:

Sounded to me that he was more hacked about the venue of the protest. The only credible First Amendment response to that is "Deal with it."

Click to expand...

No,l I don't agree with their views. Again that is what is meant by believing in their right to protest, but not their actual protest.

Meaning I don't agree with what they are protesting so I don'g agree with the actual protest, not that I don't agree with their RIGHT to protest.

celticlord said:

I said he should do something right for a change and not show up. As a staunch advocate of aborting babies he has no place being within earshot of anything Catholic.

As he is there by invitation and thus the pleasure (and error) of the University, not having him there poses no crisis for the 1st Amendment.

Click to expand...

Just when you think you have seen everything, some one comes up with something more insane than you could imagine. You are so desperate to find something to complain about, that you have now moved from complaining that President Obama uses a teleprompter, to President Obama actually dares actually accept an invitation he was offered. How dare he go where he was invited.

This is why you guys on the right are viewed as "the party of no". You have zero message except to complain.

Guys when you say you AGREE with a protest you are saying you agree with their views. When you say you disagree with their protest, you say you are disagreeing with their views.

Now if you can show me examples where that is not the case feel free.

But not supporting a protesting yet supporting the RIGHT to protest are two separate things that I have said from the start.

Moon said:

There have been a few issues in this thread, but I agree with the response in bold.

Click to expand...

Yes, I used my 1st amendment right in saying the shouldn't have (i.e. chose not to themselves) to protest at the graduation. THEIR CHOSE, not forced.

That isn't a 1st amendment violation, that is saying they should have chose not to at the graduation.

Again I fail to see how wanting them to CHOOSE to do something (their own free will) is against the 1st amendment. Care to show me how?

TheNextEra said:

No,l I don't agree with their views. Again that is what is meant by believing in their right to protest, but not their actual protest.

Click to expand...

A protest is an exercise of the right. You cannot support the right if you do not support the exercise. The two positions are antithetical to each other.

You don't think it's wrong for Dear Leader to be polluting the Notre Dame campus with his presence. Fine and dandy. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. There are a number of Catholics who hold the opposite opinion, and they are entitled to it. There are a number of pro-life types who are opposed to Dear Leader receiving any type of acknowledgment from a pro-life institution, and they are entitled to it.

As they are entitled to their opinions, they should protest if they hold those opinions with requisite passion--as it appears they do.

Let me repeat for emphasis: If they hold their opinions with that much passion, they should protest. That is the path of conscience; that is the right thing to do.

I disagree with your views here. I have not protested you posting here nor have I invited you to shut up about them. I support you posting here, even as I take the time and trouble to explicate at length the egregious errors of your ways.

Likewise, you should support the protesters at Notre Dame, and refrain from inviting them to shut about their views.

THAT is how you defend the First Amendment.

celticlord said:

A protest is an exercise of the right. You cannot support the right if you do not support the exercise. The two positions are antithetical to each other.

Click to expand...

there is a difference in supporting the right to protest and supporting the actual view or meaning of the protest.

Protesting the view doesn't mean you are protesting the right.

Since you have a trouble understanding the concept of what I am saying I will give you an example.

I am sure you agree with the RIGHT to protest for gay marriage, but you don't agree with the view that gay marriage should happen.

So you support the right for people to protest for gay marriage, but you don't support the protest for gay marriage.

See the difference now?

When you say you support the ACTUAL protest for gay marriage, you are for gay marriage. If you support the RIGHT for people to protest for gay marriage you support for the RIGHT to protest for gay marriage.

Redress said:

How dare he go where he was invited.

Click to expand...

How dare he do anything other than resign and slouch his way back to Chicago?

Ok, I confess....that is what I hope for daily. Big surprise, I know.

Actually on point, however, is that as much as he advocates aborting babies, even to the point of throwing the ones that survive abortion procedures in the medical waste bin, it may be credibly argued that accepting an honor from an institution which condemns abortion is disingenuous in the extreme.

A man of integrity with his views on abortion would not accept the invite. Not that Dear Leader was ever confused with a man of integrity.

TheNextEra said:

there is a difference in supporting the right to protest and supporting the actual view or meaning of the protest.

Protesting the view doesn't mean you are protesting the right.

Since you have a trouble understanding the concept of what I am saying I will give you an example.

I am sure you agree with the RIGHT to protest for gay marriage, but you don't agree with the view that gay marriage should happen.

So you support the right for people to protest for gay marriage, but you don't support the protest for gay marriage.

See the difference now?

Click to expand...

Yeah. The difference is you're completely wrong about the gay marriage bit. I'd go into the reasons why but that would be a most unwarranted thread hijack. I will invite you to research the comments I have made elsewhere on DP specifically on that topic.

celticlord said:

Yeah. The difference is you're completely wrong about the gay marriage bit. I'd go into the reasons why but that would be a most unwarranted thread hijack. I will invite you to research the comments I have made elsewhere on DP specifically on that topic.

Click to expand...

Whatever, you know what I meant by my comments and any further hijacking on this thread of my meaning other than I support the rights to protest, but don't support the actual protests would be a hijack on your part, don't do it again ok?

I support the right of the Catholics to protest, but don't agree with their views, thus don't agree with the actual protest (Which doesn't mean I don't support their right to).

Any further hijacking of my point that I stated will go on report Celti.

celticlord said:

How dare he do anything other than resign and slouch his way back to Chicago?

Ok, I confess....that is what I hope for daily. Big surprise, I know.

Actually on point, however, is that as much as he advocates aborting babies, even to the point of throwing the ones that survive abortion procedures in the medical waste bin, it may be credibly argued that accepting an honor from an institution which condemns abortion is disingenuous in the extreme.

A man of integrity with his views on abortion would not accept the invite. Not that Dear Leader was ever confused with a man of integrity.

Click to expand...

He does not advocate aborting babies, he advocates a woman having the right to have the option to have an abortion. You are not so dumb as to not be able to see the difference.

On whether he should or should not accept an invitation, there is nothing morally wrong with accepting an invitation. The people who should make the choice as to whether President Obama belongs there are the people who run the place, and they decided that having president Obama there was appropriate. If they had not invited President Obama, this controversy would not exist. Trying to spin this as President Obama is somehow in the wrong, or lacking integrity for accepting an invitation is incredibly petty.

celticlord said:

Likewise, you should support the protesters at Notre Dame, and refrain from inviting them to shut about their views.

THAT is how you defend the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

I totally support their right to protest. Just keep in mind the following:

1) Don't trespass on private property.:stop:

2) Don't use children in an inappropriate manner.:naughty

3) Keep your clothes on.:moon:

Follow these simple rules and you won't get arrested.:alert

19 Obama protesters arrested at Notre Dame

OK, I am going to play a little Devil's advocate here...... Well, not really, because I believe that, in a free society, people have the right to protest openly any grievances against their government, as long as they do it peacefully. Seems to me that those protesting were doing so peacefully, but were arrested for tresspassing. So we are actually looking at several issues here.

1) First of all, the protesters were anti-abortionists. I might not agree with them, but I defend their right to protest. How about the Liberals who were arrested protesting Bush events? Would they support a group they are opposed to protesting a president that they generally support? I hope so. This is what makes America.... well, America.

2) They were arrested on "private property" - Well, yes, I guess a university could be considered private property, but since it IS open to the public, I would say that protesters are not doing anything wrong by protesting at a university. Lord only knows how many Liberals have protested on college campuses over the years. Again, I would hope that they would agree that they would support the same "right to protest" for those who have different views than they do.

3) Once more, I bring up the right to protest in a peaceful manner for redress of grievances against the government, and in order to do so, those who protest need to be able to do that within earshot of the government. Obama is a very hard man to get hold of, as busy as he is. So, when you can catch him at one of those rare times he IS within earshot, there is nothing wrong letting him hear your voices, right? Or would you rather we go back to the Bush era of so-called "freedom zones" that were miles out of hearing range of the president? So again, to the Liberals, what say you?

Honest answers only please. If you say "yes", that anti-abortionists have the same support from you to protest, even if you don't like their message, then kudos to you, and I will buy you a beer at the Tavern. If you say "no", then IMHO, you have some 'spainin' to do.

I would also like to hear opinions from the right, as well as the left, on this issue.

NOTE: I am not attempting to stir the pot, so to speak, but would like to have a good discussion, and see if Liberals and anti-abortionists can find some common ground - You know, like on the issue of a right to a peaceful protest without being harassed by the government. If there is agreement, then guess what? We may not all be as different as you think, because the Constitution is neither right nor left, but American, which encompasses both sides.

What do you think?

Article is here.

hazlnut said:

I totally support their right to protest. Just keep in mind the following:

1) Don't trespass on private property.:stop:

2) Don't use children in an inappropriate manner.:naughty

3) Keep your clothes on.:moon:

Follow these simple rules and you won't get arrested.:alert

Click to expand...

Alan Keyes took his clothes off?

Re: 19 Obama protesters arrested at Notre Dame

1) I have no problem with the protesters in this case. This is a free country, and if Nazi's have the right to assemble, I would hope that abortion protesters can too.

2) Depends entirely on the owner of the property, in this case the heads of Notre Dame. If they asked for the protesters be charged with trespass, that is fine with me. If they did not, then arresting the protesters on that charge is probably not the best idea.

3) I agree with you with one thing to add. This is a graduation. The center of attention should be the graduates and the ceremony. This did not happen in this case, and that is sad to me.

American said:

Alan Keyes took his clothes off?

Click to expand...

I don't think Alan Keyes takes his clothes off even at home. Probably sinful.

American said:

Alan Keyes took his clothes off?

Click to expand...

No, but it's been a long time since that dude streaked at the oscars, so I figure we're overdue.

BTW--I've been at two high school graduations where someone streaked. June in California...

hazlnut said:

I totally support their right to protest.

Click to expand...

I don't. Protestors rarely solve anything and only serve to antagonize the issues. In the end, protestors are merely making themselves feel better about something they have no control over by behaving badly. Something tells me that if their favorite celebrity was offerred to speak at their graduation, he would be welcome no matter his opinions on such things. The worst protestor is the campus veteran not yet seasoned by real life. Look at a college protest and you will find a percentage that is merely following the crowd.

GySgt said:

I don't. Protestors rarely solve anything and only serve to antagonize the issues. In the end, protestors are merely making themselves feel better about something they have no control over by behaving badly. Something tells me that if their favorite celebrity was offerred to speak at their graduation, he would be welcome no matter his opinions on such things. The worst protestor is the campus veteran not yet seasoned by real life.

Click to expand...

Boston tea party, Selma, Hippies in DC. Just saying. Protesters in America have a long history of getting what they want.

GySgt said:

I don't. Protestors rarely solve anything and only serve to antagonize the issues. In the end, protestors are merely making themselves feel better about something they have no control over by behaving badly. Something tells me that if their favorite celebrity was offerred to speak at their graduation, he would be welcome no matter his opinions on such things. The worst protestor is the campus veteran not yet seasoned by real life. Look at a college protest and you will find a percentage that is merely following the crowd.

Click to expand...

So, how would you suggest we restrict the right to free speech and assembly?

Also, the Notre Dame protestors have nothing to to with the University. Most of them look like they've been out of college for several decades.

Expect the children being made to wear garbage bags and hold 'baby killer' signs. I don't believe they've been to college. I'm not sure about their parents.

Hatuey said:

Boston tea party, Selma, Hippies in DC. Just saying. Protesters in America have a long history of getting what they want.

Click to expand...

Hippies in D.C.? The Vietnam War went on for years and years. And I suppose the protestors of Iraq are to be commended for bringing Iraq to its close? Protestors in America haven't had a successful history since the days when unions were in this nation's best interests. Ever since they have merely been a pain in the ass as policy and decision makers did their jobs.

hazlnut said:

So, how would you suggest we restrict the right to free speech and assembly?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't. But I fail to see where I'm supposed to support protestors or their half assed earnest feelings on matters.

hazlnut said:

Also, the Notre Dame protestors have nothing to to with the University. Most of them look like they've been out of college for several decades.

Expect the children being made to wear garbage bags and hold 'baby killer' signs. I don't believe they've been to college. I'm not sure about their parents.

Click to expand...

More reason to roll your eyes at them. They aren't even the educated morons.

Re: 19 Obama protesters arrested at Notre Dame

I saw this mentioned in various places/articles----

Notre Dame warns TV networks that they will "cut the feed" of any network that covers disruption of Obama Speech on Sunday.

Click to expand...

18 More Anti-Abortion Activists Arrested at Notre Dame on Saturday; More Arrests Planned for Sunday

Now its one thing to arrest protesters who do not have a license or whatever.

Its an entirely different thing to be telling NEWS organizations that you expect them to censor the news or have their ability to report it cut off.

Whoever it was that decided even giving Obama this venue does not seem to have the interests of Notre Dame its students/faculty or anyone else at heart. Seems whomever it is is more interested in framing perceptions no matter what the cost.
There are plenty of Far Left campuses--Obama should have gone to one of those.

Good side of that though is that maybe all TV networks will have their feed cut. Its not like you can't read what the teleprompter has to say in a newspaper.

Re: 19 Obama protesters arrested at Notre Dame

Notre Dame warns TV networks that they will "cut the feed" of any network that covers disruption of Obama Speech on Sunday.

Click to expand...

Now that would just be wrong.