Giuliani Rattled, Cancels Remarks as Pro-lifers Disrupt Sunday Bus Tour Stop

Where is the misrepresentation? You keep claiming this. Show me the posts.

You can see for yourself the history of my posts. I took the trouble to set them out.

Who was the first to address the “interrupt” comment to me?

Nicmarlo.

Who was the next person to address, and address multiple times, the “interrupt” comment?

You.

You concede that the “interrupt” comment was neither made by me, nor my point. Nor did I EVER bring it up first, to you or anyone else.

Show me the posts that prove that I am misrepresenting the fact that YOU, not me, are the one who was “focused” on old whatzhisname’s comment.

completely ignoring the heart of the disagreement initially between KeithCu and nicmarlo (and others)--engaging in the argument nonetheless and misrepresenting others words

Yes, I ignored the initial disagreement between whatzhisface and nicmarlo. I thought it was petty and obvious that, if anyone took whatzhisface as saying there was no free speech at rallies, that nicmarlo was right.

Why go on and on about the obvious: we all know each person has the right to protest at political rallies.

Further, if you and nicmarlo did not want to engage my point, why didn't you ignore it or state your opposition to my view and move on, as I did? I'm am not going to demand, as you do, that you not ignore my argument.

Who are you to dictate which points on a thread I engage or ignore?

I repeatedly agreed that a person has the right to protest at a rally. Show me where I said otherwise or take back your accusation that I somehow "twisted" the debate.

Indeed, you have given not one example of something you think I "twisted."

You deny that you, not me, was “focused” on whatzhisname’s “interrupt” comment.

I set out the links to the posts for you previously.

Do you deny that nicmarlo was the first to post to me on that comment?

Do you deny that he demanded that I respond to it?

Do you deny that it only came up again because YOU then posted to me on it?

Do you deny that, regardless that you found my answers unsatisfactory, that YOU are the one who kept coming back and back to rehash the issue and restate your points?

Do you deny that the persons who initiate a discussion and who continue to post on it and demand that others respond to their posts are the ones “focused” on the issue?

By the way, nicmarlo was the first one to use the word “ilk.” I have time to look it up for you, if you won’t. I thought you would find “ilk” perfectly acceptable, as nicmarlo does.

ME: I have ONLY responded to the "interrupt" concept when you and your ilk kept asking me to.
"Ilk"? What a quaint term./s Nice rewrite of history, too.

Just a reminder: nicmarlo used "ilk" first, so thank him for the quaintness.

As for "nice rewrite of history, too": Show me.

You continually make this accusation and yet have not provided one example.

For your convenience, I set out a list of posts in a recent post to nicmarlo. In a recent post to you, I set out and provided you the links to the ONLY times I have addressed the "interrupt" concept, as well as the links to posts showing how you and nicmarlo were the ones who ASKED me to address that concept.

So for me to state "I have ONLY responded to the "interrupt" concept when you and your ilk (thanks for the word, nicmarlo!) kept asking me to" is completely accurate.

I was not interested in your central point

Then you should have ignored it. That's pretty much what you do on threads.

But what you can't do is claim that I have to address YOUR point.

The fact, however, is that I did address your/nicmarlo's point. I agreed that people have a right to protest. I agreed, as in the "yelling fire in a theater" example, that that right does have some limits.

Please tell me what else I should have done in your eyes to address the "central point" of the disagreement between whatzhisname and nicmarlo. What did I miss?

or posts you made that preceded my question, are pretty superfluous.

No, they're not because they prove that I NEVER raised this issue and that I ONLY responded to it because you and nicmarlo kept on and on it. And you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

You found yourself qualified to comment on the protest against a presidential candidate, why not against the Pope?

I wouldn't comment on surgical procedures of the brain either.

You've spent quite a lot of time expounding on constitutional law issues and claiming that you know for a fact that the question you repeatedly asked on the "interrupt" comment was a "simple" "yes" or "no" question about which the law would not require the contemplation of any nuances, exceptions, factual pre-requisites, variances by venue and type and content of speech and so on.

How do you find commenting on protest causing a world leader (the Pope) to cancel a speech "commenting on surgical procedures of the brain," while you are perfectly comfortable commenting on protest causing a politician to cancel a speech?

Please explain. Because it really comes off as you wanting to avoid the fact that if your line of reasoning were applied to the Pope's situation, you wouldn't like the result nearly as much. But you tell me.

bttt

I was not interested in your central point but notwithstanding I did respond to your two posts directed to me about your central point (My post #497 responded to your #384/#494).

My goodness, I don't think you are reading very well.

Your #497, which I have copied below, was largely about the "interrupt" concept raised by ole whatzhisname. You did, in your last paragraph, address my central point, which was about the effectiveness of the protest. In my next post to you, I told you I respected your opinion on my point.

You said you were directing your comments to my central point in your posts ## 384 and 494.

I agree that you did so in #384. And thank you for that! As I posted to you subsequently, I "respect your opinion" on whether the protests were effective.

As for responding to my #494, however, that post was wholly about the "interrupt" concept raised by whatzhisname and I posted it in response to YOUR # 485, which was wholly about your thoughts on the "interrupt" concept raised by ole whatzhisname.

YOUR #485 was a response to my #454," which was wholly about the "interrupt" concept and only posted in response to YOUR #387.

So, yes, you did briefly engage my central point raising the need to evaluate the effectiveness of the protest. And for that, I thank you and, again, as I posted thereafter, I "respect your opinion."

However, as you can see, the vast majority of your energy posting to me was spent on a your rant (which was a good one, but irrelevant to my point) on the "interrupt" concept" raised by whatzhisname.

Again, you have no obligation to discuss my point.

But you have no right to claim I have an obligation to discuss, and keep discussing, your point (about the disagreement on the "interrupt" concept").

Clearly, you were the one who insisted on engaging me on oldwhatzhisname's "interrupt" concept. And that's okay.

But then why claim I was the one raising it and "focusing" on it and using it to "twist" the debate? Why is making that accusation so important to you?

I answered you when you raised it. I answered it when the other poster raised it. Period. It was never mentioned anywhere else by me.

Here's your #497, which was largely about the "interrupt" concept raised by whatzhisname, NOT my central point, as you claim, for your reading convenience in light of the above:

#497 -

(Responding to YOUR ##387 and 485) I agree with KeithCu’s statement to the extent that if the “interruption” meets the threshold for constituting an interruption that keeps the speaker from exercising his right to free speech, then that interruption is not allowed.

And yet that scenario of "interruption, was not what was described in any of the media reports.

That is why-—as happened even in this case-—protestors who continually “interrupt” (to the point of taking away the speaker’s right to speak or to the point of being disorderly) are hauled off by police.

HUH? Show me that report, would ya? I can't find that he was "interrupted" anywhere, let alone creating an environment where Rudy was unable to speak. The guy was riding in a parade! For every person yelling "baby killer," there were probably dozens more yelling "Go Rudy" (or whatever).

I happen to think this was not an effective protest and, in fact, that it is likely to backfire and actually strengthen Giuliani, not weaken him. Others think it was great.

You're entitled to your opinion, as are those who disagree with you. Frankly, I don't think it helped or hurt the pro-life movement but probably served to enlighten some voters as to Giuliani's support for abortion and funding thereof. I seriously doubt it would "strenghten Giuliani" except maybe he got a few more votes from pro-abortionists. I would guess he lost at least an equal amount from pro-lifers who were not familiar with his positions.

When I used the phrase "big victory," I was referring to one of the points in discussion throughout the thread, not to anything specific you said.

Many seemed to approach these protests as if they were the be-all and end-all of the pro-life movement. Indeed, as if even questioning whether this was an effective way to protest this candidate would spell the end to the First Amendment and the pro-life cause.

So, while I engaged that point as part of the larger context of the discussion, I was not attributing it to you.

Your main point in this post was:

But Giuliani stiffing the entire crowd is the real story here, IMO.

I agree with you on that, but have a little different take on it than most people here. I'm a long-term pro-life advocate and I constantly have dealt with how the opposition spins things.

As I've said elsewhere on the thread, it wouldn't surprise me at all that what we might view as "Giuliani stiffing the entire crowd" comes off to the opposition as Giuliani standing up to the "kooks" (their word) and refusing to give them national media exposure.

Clearly, there are two ways of looking at this. I'm just suggesting let's look at it from the pro-life perspective and the perspective of our political opponents---for the purpose of evaluating the effect of various methods of protest in meeting certain goals.

Here's an example:

The title of this article, put out by a Christian news organization, is Giuliani Rattled, Cancels Remarks as Pro-Lifers Disrupt Sunday Bus Tour Stop.

The title of an article with similar facts posted recently is Pope Cancels Visit "La Sapienza" University in Rome (Leftist Hecklers' Veto) [here].

One of the reasons given in the latter article for the Pope cancelling his speech was the desire to avoid giving the hecklers international media coverage.

IOW, both speakers here could be seen as standing up to the hecklers by saying, essentially, "I'm not going to let you use me to advance your cause and obtain publicity."

In addition, when campaign events are abruptly cancelled because of "disruptions" (the description used in the Giuliani headline), frankly, there is always the implication of a *possible* security threat.

I'm not suggesting there was a security threat in either case; I have no knowledge of anything like that. I'm simply pointing out that this question crosses people's mind in a case like this. And that inclination to wonder "was there more going on here that caused the speaker/police to pull the plug" gets played into very well by the opposition.

Hi, Syncro.

Based on some of the points you and I had been talking about back and forth, I wanted to copy you on this post, but couldn't find yours at the moment.

So here's a link, if you don't mind. [ #712 ]

Basically, I was responding to this idea, as you said, that "Rudy fled."

His actions don't make sense for any New Yorker, much less a New Yorker who made his reputation as a hard-scrabble tough guy. Ha.

So it makes people wonder if the authorities told him to close it down. No one will ever know because they'll never say that.

Anyway, my point is: IMHO, under all the circumstances, these type of disruptions cut both ways.