Presidential candidate Rick Santorum made time to come and speak to Washington citizens in Tacoma Monday night, and many citizens traveled hundreds of miles to hear him speak.
How disappointing to arrive and find a group of President Obama’s supporters disrupting the peace of this event. This college-aged group shouted in unison nonstop during Santorum’s speech in an attempt to suppress his voice and to prevent a political opinion different from their own from being presented.
The signs held by these Obama supporters, about “freedom from religion,” ought to warn Americans that the movement Obama leads attacks their Bill of Rights, for Obama cannot legally secure “freedom from religion” unless he first abolish America’s Bill of Rights that currently safeguards religious freedom for America’s people.
Santorum warns Americans of the danger when politicians use government power to attack citizen freedom. He reminds us that although America is made up of people who represent different racial, ethnic, religious, and political groups and ideas, the people’s Bill of Rights is the cement that binds all American citizens together as one nation and a free people.
This next presidential election will determine whether political power is placed back into the hands of citizens or whether it remains in the hands of those who are dictating and forcing laws that the majority in America disapproves of and rejects (federal health care, for example).
Santorum is the right man for these times to be elected as the next president of the United States.
“Santorum is the right man for these times to be elected as the next president of the United States.”
Even the constituents of Pennsylvania knew better.
Now Shelly, we realize you are probably a paid Santorum hack, but try to come up with less convoluted statements than this:
“The signs held by these Obama supporters, about “freedom from religion,” ought to warn Americans that the movement Obama leads attacks their Bill of Rights, for Obama cannot legally secure “freedom from religion” unless he first abolish America’s Bill of Rights that currently safeguards religious freedom for America’s people.”
I’d expect Santorum to have low budget writers.
I am actually pretty sure that it is Santorum that is attempting to attack my freedoms. I don’t care about this nutjobs view on religion but I would appreciate it if he kept it more to himself.
Where exactly does your religion require you to prevent people who aren’t members from doing things that you disagree with?
Shelly should check under her bed for the pinko commie that is probably hiding there.
There could be a Marxist in her garden or a socialist behind one of her doors. They are everywhere according to some here who have a difficult time with reality.
Santorum would take us back about 60 years if he could. We have worked too hard to put up with his kind of nonsense.
“Obama cannot legally secure “freedom from religion” unless he first abolish America’s Bill of Rights that currently safeguards religious freedom for America’s people.”
You see, in Shellyspeak that means: the Bill of Rights guarantees you cannot be free from religion.
While there are concerns about Obama and the reduction of Habeas Corpus rights and removing posse comitatus protections, this noise the right is making about freedom of religion is just that – noise.
And – just so we are clear here – there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that prevents others from shouting during a public speech on public grounds. Santorum’s right to free speech isn’t abridged by the actions of private citizens – the Bill of Rights only protects us from actions of Congress.
I don’t think it was a mistake that Santorum’s rally was held close to the protestors.
You’ll notice his attempt to get national news failed.
He is on a low budget campaign. Get ready to watch Romney bury him in expensive ads.
a group of President Obama’s supporters
How do you know that they were supporting Obama? Were they shouting out Obama slogans?
Just because people are anti-Santorum doesn’t mean that they are pro-Obama.
Those protestors should be charged with disrupting the peace and fined to the fullest. A political speaker (or any speaker) should have the right to speak without fear of being shouted down – especially when invited to do so. This was his event and those who came to see him had the right to hear what he had to say.
That being said – his run at the Presidency will be short-lived. It’s only a matter of time before Romney sets his sights upon him and begins showing the voters of this land what Santorum is really all about. It’s not the Obama people that Mr. Santorum needs to worry about.
It will be interesting to see what the libertarians of the party have to say about Santorum when he very clearly has spoken out against the libertarian view of wanting government not to intrude on private lives.
“Those protestors should be charged with disrupting the peace and fined to the fullest. A political speaker (or any speaker) should have the right to speak without fear of being shouted down”
Then Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) should be in jail, shouldn’t he? http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-09/politics/joe.wilson_1_rep-wilson-illegal-immigrants-outburst?_s=PM:POLITICS
There is a difference between what Congressman Wilson did – which is abhorrent – and what these protestors did. They are not equivalents and should not be treated as such. Please understand – I am not a supporter of Santorum. I just believe that if I spend my time and money to go see the candidate either to support him or learn more about him then I should be able to do so without disruption such as what occurred in Tacoma regardless of the political affiliation.
There’s a HUGE difference. What Wilson did was MUCH worse.
I wont agree that Santorum may be the best candidate, but the rest of the letter, describing the liberal left obamaloons, and their behavior resembling kindergarten children, nails it right to a “t”.
How anyone can take seriously these imbecilic twits and their constant disruptions of anything not fitting their views amazes me.
After reading through this thread, all that I seem to hear from the people who agree with the writer is ‘how dare their liberal free speech rights stand in the way of my conservative free speech rights!’ Boo hoo. And, commoncents, really? Punished for what, aggravating you? You are obviously too thin skinned to attend any political event if that is how you feel.
“After reading through this thread, all that I seem to hear from the people who agree with the writer is ‘how dare their liberal free speech rights stand in the way of my conservative free speech rights!”
Amber, no one is denying anyone their right to free speech. However when liberals, as they oft do, behave like tantrum throwing little idiots when someone voices opinions that differ from or threaten their mantra, they will be seen as what they are.
Simple civility goes a long way. Which is why liberals cant get much support from the majority of people who recognize that. They act like braying donkeys they’ll be seen like the donkeys they are.
Unfortunately, they don’t seem to cover that idea in college these days.
“And – just so we are clear here – there is nothing in the 1st Amendment that prevents others from shouting during a public speech on public grounds. Santorum’s right to free speech isn’t abridged by the actions of private citizens – the Bill of Rights only protects us from actions of Congress.”
Nothing prevents them except for decency, maturity and respect.
These private citizens demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left regarding tolerance. Clearly the call to tolerance is waived when it comes to permitting a conservative to give a public address.
To many social groups and people copy and paste the 1st Amendment to suit their purpose and goals. And so does the author of the letter to to the editor.
“Nothing prevents them except for decency, maturity and respect.”
TEA Party 2009
“They act like braying donkeys they’ll be seen like the donkeys they are.”
TEA Party 2009
commoncents
Where were you a few years ago when Hillary Clinton spoke in Seattle the the right wing nut jobs yelled “kill the b*tch”? It goes both ways. I also was gon gto ask, how does the letter writer come up with Obam supporters? The Occupy group seems to be on no ones side.
“How anyone can take seriously these imbecilic twits and their constant disruptions of anything not fitting their views”
TEA Party 2009
OH sozo…you are sooooooo dripping with an air of superiority. I wonder how you can stand being in the same room with yourself.
What I wrote was in response to idiots (on both sides of the aisle) who somehow think the Bill of Rights has anything to do with anything but restricting what kind of laws can be passed.
Anyone on either side of the great divide who proclaims that their side is morally superior or classier or smells better or whatever is just contributing to the giant ditch and is demonstrating their small little fragile egos that has to claim that they are better than the other guys because the other guys are just awful human beings who should just go in a cave and die.
sozo – I never stated that I supported yelling, nor that I supported the demonstrators. I don’t support Santorum (or any of the remaining Republicans…..sigh…too bad Huntsman didn’t have more money behind him) but you are taking a huge leap to suggest that by pointing out that the Bill of Rights doesn’t ensure civil discourse I am somehow behind those folks.
Too bad more folks can’t be like the letter writer who points out that bad behavior is not uncommon to either side of the aisle.
I was really sorry to have missed the gathering. I was going to give Mr. Santorum a rainbow-colored sweater vest so he could celebrate Gov. Gregoire signing the Marriage Equality Act. I know he would want to have been properly dressed for the happy occasion.
Santorum was here? What a non-event.
Santorum is better as the definition. google it. it’s a fitting for rick.
Not to split hairs, Santorum is NOT a presidential candidate and is not running for that office. He is running to be the GOP’s presidential candidate.
Santorum’s agenda was set up and advertised (but not endorsed) by state and local GOP officials because he did not have a local staff to do so. Someone should have told Santorum that he was to speak across the street from the most liberal UW campus in the state, and less than a block away from the local OWS camp.
The major difference between tea-party and liberal protesters is that the latter do not exercise their Second Amendment Rights.
Wouldn’t it be better to search for common ground, rather than focusing on small differences of personal belief? We all share the same BASIC needs, can’t we let our needs take priority over personal beliefs?
Are we still that primitive, that our personal superstitions can take precedence over our real needs? Can’t we come to an agreement that it’s okay to do and believe as you wish, provided you harm no other?
“Too bad more folks can’t be like the letter writer who points out that bad behavior is not uncommon to either side of the aisle.”
I’ve said the same thing myself, bBoy and YOU made a giant leap in presuming that I was suggesting no one on the other side of these issues ever displays immaturity and disrespect.
Would that all the rabble rousers would stay home and permit the various candidates to make their cases.
“Would that all the rabble rousers would stay home and permit the various candidates to make their cases.”
Did that apply in 2009? Nope. The TEA Party ruined town hall meetings for many.
Norman Goldman speculated today on his radio show that the GOP has recognized that they don’t have a chance on the presidential race, thus they have softened their act (payroll taxes, unemployment, medicare doc) to save Congressional seats. He thinks the GOP is going to try to make middle class America think they are on their side.
Santorum is disposible and they never wanted Romney from the beginning.
Good research.
Thank you concernedtacoma7. I’m just trying to be fair here.
muckibr,
I think the fairest action for the majority of us would be to quit worrying about who’s really who going by what name today, and instead just focus on the issues – regardless of who is doing the commenting.
Looking at it, I feel Rick Santorum’s stop in Tacoma was very poorly planned from the start.
I’m pretty sure the people who planned the event had to be aware of the Occupy camp that has been sitting in the same spot for several months now and had seen the signs around the camp that were clearly in opposition of many of Sen. Santorum’s issues. Yet, they chose to place Sen. Santorum’s rally in an outdoor venue in the property directly beside where the encampment sits.
Add to that, the planners failed to provide adequate lighting and (based on the video footage sound) an adequate sound system for that outdoor nighttime mid-winter venue. One has to wonder about the logic behind all that.
It does tend to lend some credence to ManualMartini’s assertion that Sen. Santorum’s rally was deliberately placed next to the Occupy encampment in an attempt to garner national attention…
Personally, I’m with beerBoy. I wish Jon Huntsman had been able to keep his campaign running.
Norman Goldman speculated today on his radio show that the GOP has recognized that they don’t have a chance on the presidential race…
WOW, revelation of the century; liberal talk show host, veteran of airheads America, and Ed Shultz lackey Norman Goldman has a theory that Republicans don’t have a chance at keeping 0bama from 4 more years of vacation time!!! Shocking.
And we should be surprised by this because…
Gee Kardy, have you heard or read anything to the contrary? I mean, given your radio is as locked on 1090 as your address bar is to the huffpo. But do you suppose every conservative talk show host out there would disagree?
Really, Kardy, you need to realize that Constant Comment is a brand of tea, not a lifestyle.
“iberal talk show host, veteran of airheads America, and Ed Shultz lackey Norman Goldman”
Once more time. When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.
I am chuckling here, reading the rants of conservatives against people shouting and disrupting candidate forums and liberals defending it.
How quickly we forget that in the 2010 elections, the Tea Party used the tactic of disruption, protest and out shouting candidates to great applause by conservatives.
The public arena is open to all, especially for political speech. Deal with it and get over it. If you don’t want a rambunctious public, then don’t hold a rally in a public space.
Sozo, unfortunately the Tea Party’s tactics of disruption during the 2010 elections were so successful that both sides think it is the best way to deal with politics now. There hasn’t ever been much decency, maturity and respect in partisan political campaigns, but it hit a new low when the tactic of disruption was so successfully engineered (and paid for) by the Koch brothers. Bussing thousands of demonstrators around the country to disrupt Democratic candidate forums made it look like there was some kind of majority viewpoint.
If the government gets involved and tries to limit just one side’s political speech rights, like this Santorum supporter’s letter calls for, then we would be no better than North Korea.
This guy whats to outlaw birth control – have politicians make medical decisions – put the government in our bedrooms and doctor’s office and now…supporting the Republicans in Virginia who want to “probe” a woman’s private parts for no medical reason at all….please explain to me what this has to do with “freedom”….the Republican Party is moving this election year to a study in mass mental illness….
I am completely opposed to anyone trying to stifle free speech, even rude free speech.
I am in favor of people, regardless of their POV politically, behaving as mature, respectable, reasonable people.
alindasue: “I think the fairest action for the majority of us would be to quit worrying about who’s really who going by what name today, and instead just focus on the issues…”
But sometimes you have to consider the source to determine the intent. Not all comments can be taken at face value.
Vox_…: “realize that Constant Comment is a brand of tea, not a lifestyle.”
Good line!
tuddo: “The public arena is open to all, especially for political speech. Deal with it and get over it. If you don’t want a rambunctious public, then don’t hold a rally in a public space.”
Santorum’s advance team could have chosen a better venue, or did they specifically choose that location hoping for an incident an the additional media coverage it might gain?
sozo: “I am in favor of people, regardless of their POV politically, behaving as mature, respectable, reasonable people.
I agree, in both public and cyber forums!
Muckiber – Are you on some moniker crusade? Get over it. I’ve seen so many transformations for many on both sides of the political and religious divide. Focus dude.
As per Santorum (the guy not the other) I think he was looking for a confrontation of some kind just to get more attention. So he got what he some of what he wanted but it’s too bad the national media didn’t really care! Poor Santorum. He’s stuck being the google thing. lol
Fibbonacci – I wasn’t on the board then. But that doesn’t change my feelings – I would have actually expected and supported a directive that the person be arrested and charged. To me, that would be a direct threat that I would feel was credible had I been her. And, I don’t believe that it’s a stretch that someone would actually act out on a threat once the idea of heckling/booing/shouting down loses it’s impact.
BTW..I supported Hillary in her run for Presidency. I think she would have been a better choice than President Obama.
Hey Vox – it was me that submitted Goldman’s supposition. I don’t spell my moniker “Kardy”. But anything for your paranoia I guess. You can even suggest that ehill is my son, although, I think he is older than me. There are a couple of other participants that share your paranoia. Maybe a private blog is in order? Nevertheless….
Back to the issue. Goldman speculated something. That didn’t make it gospel as anything that it spoken on FOX News. It was a thought, a suggestion. A damned good one, from where I see it.
Why did the Republicans suddenly cave on their pet issues of only two months ago? You’ll note that Boehner is somehow trying to make it sound like they are taking care of the people and protecting them from the big bad Democratic Government. Now maybe some people are ignorant enough to buy that pile of manure, but Goldman looked beyond it.
Here is MY SPECULATION. Early in the race, the Religious Conservatives (read Evangelical Christians) gathered in Texas to decide what they were going to do about this Romney fellow and his funny religion. You are watching it play out right now. They actually stooped as low as Santorum, because he will carry their water, regardless of winning the election. Mitt just can’t seem to sell it, and besides….THE DON’T WANT HIM (for obvious “cult” reasons).
Try as they might, the GOP can’t field a candidate that will satisfy the religious and the TEA Party and the Paulites (other than Paul) and the mainstream GOP (Rove and Friends) so they’re going to pass on this election and focuse on local races to shore up their base and find the Golden Child in 2016 (hint: Bush)
“But sometimes you have to consider the source to determine the intent. Not all comments can be taken at face value.”
Someone once said “listen to what I say, not your mind reading act”
LOL
“If there were a way to try to shout down the real debate of the issues on these blogs, posting numerous seemingly unrelated comments might be one way of conducting cyber-shouting”
Who is it that is obsessed about an off topic issue?????????
LMAO
Hello Pot, this is Kettle speaking!
Kinda funny how the whole context of the “call each other Kardy” has been edited out – (the story about “at” in middle school) to create another online drama (where IS that dang tiara????)
Right out of the VoxK (Vox will know what that means) playbook.
Someone has been creating a faux personality for a few months here. Quite entertaining, but all things come to an end. Can’t hold your breath forever.
Can we go back to the thread topic now?
Hey…mucki…(I know how you like that name and I’ve avoided it until now)
Maybe in your sluething about monikers, you might add to your list of reasons why anyone would change their moniker on this forum….
Harassment. It would appear to be easier to just change names and ignore online harassers than continue to play a “I know who you are” game, especially when people attempt to bring family members into the game. Maybe, and I’m just guessing here, if certain people would stick to the thread topics and not try to bring up personal isses, there would be less temptation for someone to change monikers to avoid the ridiculousness of the attack game
Just a suggestion…..because we know that never happens here…
Back to our regularily scheduled programming….
Tuddo says, “If the government gets involved and tries to limit just one side’s political speech rights, like this Santorum supporter’s letter calls for, then we would be no better than North Korea.”
You are SO wrong on that comment………….
We still have McDonalds and Burger King! North Korea never will!
“If there were a way to try to shout down the real debate of the issues on these blogs, posting numerous seemingly unrelated comments might be one way of conducting cyber-shouting, similar to the real vocal shouting the protestors were doing to attempt to silence Rick Santorum.”
Well said MBR.
And that is exactly the intent, and they are very successful.
Another tactic that I’ve seen on other boards is to repost the article several times in different languages to make it difficult for readers to follow the conversation. Either way, the result is the same. The intent is to disrupt any meaningful exchange.
I have to say that I really respect the integrity you’ve shown. It would be much easier to join in with the troll’s agenda simply because you may agree with them more often than not. The encouragement he gets from others here simply because they agree with them is downright disappointing.
On to the topic:
Santorum is a nightmare for the Republican party. If he gets the nomination, then I will be convinced that the Republicans are taking a “bye” on this election cycle. For whatever reason.
Yep.
I’m trolling you…..back.
And you deserve it.
Why u mad?
There are many subjects that you and I agree on. You wouldn’t know that because you’re too busy with your attention seeking behavior.
“that is exactly the intent, and they are very successful”
Another mind-reader. LOL
MoD…deja vu…this is all bringing back bad dreams of the Kardnos crapola.
Yea Sozo. Any minute now there will be a post by someone accusing you of being a hypocrite. Why they take an especial delight in antagonizing you, I couldn’t say….
Well, I think we have achieved bipartisan agreement on one issue!
Topic- I also agree Santorum is a bad bet for the republican party. That does not mean his opinions should not be heard. I predict he will lose, and once Mitt has the nomination he will move back to his more traditional center views. The republican primary force these candidates far right (to secure funds/base), and I think the process is bad for the party.
sozo, just so you know, I am completely in agreement of your 7:55 AM comment.
I agree Ct7. Mitt will get the nod, but it will be an uphill battle for him to win the election. He is too much of a moderate for many in the party, and Romneycare is his albatross for many others.
Personally, I couldn’t vote for any of them, save for Ron Paul.
Interesting…
It seems that alleged adult Christian conservatives can be pretty darn disrespectful as well…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9To30Hz7A
Muckibr what happened to you?
Did you have an extra special valentines day?
Choice vs Mandate. Keep ignoring it.
wildceltic…..but…but…but…that is their “belief”
“But many Catholic institutions in New York — and in more than two dozen other states — already are complying with similar state mandates.
New York began requiring prescription contraception coverage in 2002, over the objections of Catholic groups, which sued and lost in the state’s highest court.”
http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article727121.ece
Keep ignoring it.
Meanwhile, the difference between choice and mandate when you claim it’s against your belief….is STILL hypocrisy.
muckibr, as I’ve said before, I frequently agree with you. Scary. But when we don’t agree, the polls could not be more in opposition. But I like your spunk.
soszo and MoD, you two have Martini Music nailed dead to rights. Love it.
Once more time. When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.
Gee, wouldn’t that be the strategy of the the leftist soap dodgers who were trying to shout down Santorum?
But then, since you agree with them…
“Once” more time, hypocrisy is bliss, right “e”?
Jimm’s pulling a Santorum…….
Two of the most reasonable, and usually polite, posters ever at the TNT – MoD and wcr – are back posting on this very unreasoned and impolite thread…..
Welcome back.
Unfortunately, I Googled Santorum.
Good thing I did it before I ate….
Looks like Cuz… may have posted on the wrong thread. This one here is about Candidate Rick Santorum the protestors in Tacoma who tried to shout him down when he came here to speak.
People should give Santorum a break and let him speak. How else are we going to know what he thinks and believes and if he’s someone we can support or not.
When the original group of eight Republican candidates started on the debate trail I never thought Rick Santorum or Ron Paul had a ghost of a chance to ever become viable candidates. But, since then I have heard enough from the others (Romney, Gingrich and those who dropped out) to know I personally could never support them.
For a while it looked like Romney had the nomination in his pocket. Not so anymore! Santorum has risen up to be even, in many polls, to Romney.
So, give the man a chance to tell us why we should vote for him. Why not?
muckibr – I misread your post at first – saw “Cardinal Rick Santorum”. Based upon his social conservative stances that sort of fits – however – on several issues the Catholic Church is far to the left of even the so-called “liberals” in Congress so it doesn’t really work.