Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Code Pink Heckles Obama

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 2:25:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
President Obama gave a speech yesterday about drones strikes and national security. He didn't say too much new. He announced new rules for using drone strikes that would appear to virtually end their use -- they can be used only if there is no chance of civilian casualties, a seeming impossibility. However, the decisions for use will be handed off to a committee, so if anything goes wrong he can say he knew nothing about it. The committee can order drone strikes, and Obama can later denounce them as mistakes inconsistent with policy.

Obama restated the policy to treat the Benghazi terrorist attack as an ordinary crime, so nobody can be arrested until there is enough evidence to bring them to trial in the United States. The FBI did not get to the site until two weeks after the murders, and there is little chance of gathering enough evidence in Libya for a US trial.

The most interesting thing was the continuing interruptions of his speech by Medea Benjamin, the ubiquitous nutcase Code Pink lady. She was allowed to rant on and on about the evils of drones. The interesting question is why the heckling was allowed. Rest assured that the audience for the speech is screened ahead of time, and if an undesired heckler should get through, some very large gentlemen are available to assure the person is removed in about a nanosecond. So why was the event scripted as it was?

Obama kept saying that the nut lady was well worth listening to, although he, of course, didn't agree with everything she said. I think the general idea was to reassure the far Left they he was still on board with a radical agenda. Also, he needed to create some news to distract people away from the numerous scandals plaguing the Administration, and the incident made the generally content-free speech more newsworthy. Still, the whole think was so dopey, I wonder if there some other intent.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 3:12:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I saw this on CNN yesterday. IMHO the event wasn't scripted, and large men did take her down eventually.

Obama's response was IMHO really weak. Then again, I didn't listen to the entire speech, just that whatever journalists were pointing out as Obama's response was just not at all impressive.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 5:26:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Laughing like that bully kid on the simpsons
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 6:43:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 3:12:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I saw this on CNN yesterday. IMHO the event wasn't scripted, and large men did take her down eventually.

So you think that if the heckler were denouncing Obama for the DOJ phone record scandal and demanding his impeachment, that it would have taken them just as long to remove the person? Not a chance. The nut lady was eventually led away by a staff woman, not by Secret Service security guys. I'm sure the nut lady was not given a script, but the decision to let her into the event and to allow the rant was likely a conscious choice. Everyone knows that she always interrupts events with her rants.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I like your analysis.

I think Obama tries really hard to impress different groups at the same time.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:18:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm a little disappointed that none of you at least appreciated the attempt to reach out to the arguments against this aspect of his foreign policy. I'm not sure I Bush making a speech like that, or even attempting to seem like a reasonable, informed, and receptive person.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:19:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 7:18:14 PM, 000ike wrote:
I'm a little disappointed that none of you at least appreciated the attempt to reach out to the arguments against this aspect of his foreign policy. I'm not sure I Bush making a speech like that, or even attempting to seem like a reasonable, informed, and receptive person.

True, that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2013 7:37:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 6:43:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/24/2013 3:12:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I saw this on CNN yesterday. IMHO the event wasn't scripted, and large men did take her down eventually.

So you think that if the heckler were denouncing Obama for the DOJ phone record scandal and demanding his impeachment, that it would have taken them just as long to remove the person? Not a chance. The nut lady was eventually led away by a staff woman, not by Secret Service security guys. I'm sure the nut lady was not given a script, but the decision to let her into the event and to allow the rant was likely a conscious choice. Everyone knows that she always interrupts events with her rants.

Well, heckling with impeachment has a lot more of a threatening tone than what I heard that woman saying. I think her position on GITMO is similar to Obama's, just that Obama is not going to something as irresponsible as just "closing it tomorrow" just because he is our CINC...yeah, I know it's been years since he made that promise, but that still doesn't make this woman's proposal feasible. I don't think the Secret Service saw her as a threat to the President.

The CNN piece had her present at the RNC, at Rumsfeld's testimony, at an NRA press conference...I remember Code Pink all over the 2008 financial crisis. They get around, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 5:59:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 6:43:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/24/2013 3:12:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I saw this on CNN yesterday. IMHO the event wasn't scripted, and large men did take her down eventually.

So you think that if the heckler were denouncing Obama for the DOJ phone record scandal and demanding his impeachment, that it would have taken them just as long to remove the person? Not a chance. The nut lady was eventually led away by a staff woman, not by Secret Service security guys. I'm sure the nut lady was not given a script, but the decision to let her into the event and to allow the rant was likely a conscious choice. Everyone knows that she always interrupts events with her rants.

Who cares?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 2:56:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 5:59:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/24/2013 6:43:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/24/2013 3:12:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I saw this on CNN yesterday. IMHO the event wasn't scripted, and large men did take her down eventually.

So you think that if the heckler were denouncing Obama for the DOJ phone record scandal and demanding his impeachment, that it would have taken them just as long to remove the person? Not a chance. The nut lady was eventually led away by a staff woman, not by Secret Service security guys. I'm sure the nut lady was not given a script, but the decision to let her into the event and to allow the rant was likely a conscious choice. Everyone knows that she always interrupts events with her rants.

Who cares?

Thank you royalpaladin for your trite, meaningless, and ultimately petty contribution to this thread.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 9:44:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/24/2013 2:25:54 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
President Obama gave a speech yesterday about drones strikes and national security. He didn't say too much new. He announced new rules for using drone strikes that would appear to virtually end their use- they can be used only if there is no chance of civilian casualties, a seeming impossibility. -However, the decisions for use will be handed off to a committee, so if anything goes wrong he can say he knew nothing about it. The committee can order drone strikes, and Obama can later denounce them as mistakes inconsistent with policy.

Obama restated the policy to treat the Benghazi terrorist attack as an ordinary crime, so nobody can be arrested until there is enough evidence to bring them to trial in the United States. The FBI did not get to the site until two weeks after the murders, and there is little chance of gathering enough evidence in Libya for a US trial.

The most interesting thing was the continuing interruptions of his speech by Medea Benjamin, the ubiquitous nutcase Code Pink lady. She was allowed to rant on and on about the evils of drones. The interesting question is why the heckling was allowed. Rest assured that the audience for the speech is screened ahead of time, and if an undesired heckler should get through, some very large gentlemen are available to assure the person is removed in about a nanosecond. So why was the event scripted as it was?

Obama kept saying that the nut lady was well worth listening to, although he, of course, didn't agree with everything she said. I think the general idea was to reassure the far Left they he was still on board with a radical agenda. Also, he needed to create some news to distract people away from the numerous scandals plaguing the Administration, and the incident made the generally content-free speech more newsworthy. Still, the whole think was so dopey, I wonder if there some other intent.

This is really good news actually.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:06:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Now, that I actually look into this...

This is AMAZING.

Now, the president and special courts must personally approve each drone strike and they will be carried out by the US military rather than the CIA.

Strikes will, purportedly, by curtailed in areas that are not overt war zones, such as Yemen and Pakistan.

New steps will be taken to close down Guantanamo, so they say.

Although, I'm not sure if these are just proposed plans or if this is already how it's going to be.

This is also on top of the promise he made last election season that he would end the war in Afghanistan by the end of his term.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:14:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Now, that I actually look into this...

This is AMAZING.

Now, the president and special courts must personally approve each drone strike and they will be carried out by the US military rather than the CIA.

Strikes will, purportedly, by curtailed in areas that are not overt war zones, such as Yemen and Pakistan.

New steps will be taken to close down Guantanamo, so they say.

Although, I'm not sure if these are just proposed plans or if this is already how it's going to be.

This is also on top of the promise he made last election season that he would end the war in Afghanistan by the end of his term.

Obama's track record has been fabulous. He ended the patriot act, prevented data snooping on US citizens, ended wars, and prevented terrorism. ALSO HE KILLED OSAMA. Eric holder has really helped the american citizen and tried to expand the rights of all citizens.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:21:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:14:49 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Now, that I actually look into this...

This is AMAZING.

Now, the president and special courts must personally approve each drone strike and they will be carried out by the US military rather than the CIA.

Strikes will, purportedly, by curtailed in areas that are not overt war zones, such as Yemen and Pakistan.

New steps will be taken to close down Guantanamo, so they say.

Although, I'm not sure if these are just proposed plans or if this is already how it's going to be.

This is also on top of the promise he made last election season that he would end the war in Afghanistan by the end of his term.

Obama's track record has been fabulous. He ended the patriot act, prevented data snooping on US citizens, ended wars, and prevented terrorism. ALSO HE KILLED OSAMA. Eric holder has really helped the american citizen and tried to expand the rights of all citizens.

How did he end the patriot act? It was reauthorized.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:24:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:21:53 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:14:49 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:06:24 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Now, that I actually look into this...

This is AMAZING.

Now, the president and special courts must personally approve each drone strike and they will be carried out by the US military rather than the CIA.

Strikes will, purportedly, by curtailed in areas that are not overt war zones, such as Yemen and Pakistan.

New steps will be taken to close down Guantanamo, so they say.

Although, I'm not sure if these are just proposed plans or if this is already how it's going to be.

This is also on top of the promise he made last election season that he would end the war in Afghanistan by the end of his term.

Obama's track record has been fabulous. He ended the patriot act, prevented data snooping on US citizens, ended wars, and prevented terrorism. ALSO HE KILLED OSAMA. Eric holder has really helped the american citizen and tried to expand the rights of all citizens.

How did he end the patriot act? It was reauthorized.

The entirety was sarcasm.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
flaskblob
Posts: 68
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:52:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:27:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ah, yes. All the more reason this is good news.

It's definitely not a coincidence that it comes on the back of the IRS targeting conservative groups, Eric Holder seizing AP phone records to find out who the whistleblower was at the behest of Obama, unwarranted searches of every house in boston, the FBI assassination of a greencard holder associated with Tamerlan, the FBI, miranda rights not being read, the federal government still continuing the war on drugs despite colorados legalization, Guantanamo bay never being closed, etc.
Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." - f3ffy
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2013 11:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 11:52:45 PM, flaskblob wrote:
At 5/25/2013 11:27:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Ah, yes. All the more reason this is good news.

It's definitely not a coincidence that it comes on the back of the IRS targeting conservative groups, Eric Holder seizing AP phone records to find out who the whistleblower was at the behest of Obama, unwarranted searches of every house in boston, the FBI assassination of a greencard holder associated with Tamerlan, the FBI, miranda rights not being read, the federal government still continuing the war on drugs despite colorados legalization, Guantanamo bay never being closed, etc.

Unfortunately, that seems the case. Like I said, I think he tries hard to appeal to different groups. It's all about propaganda.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 6:23:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Such behaviour should not be tolerated. It sends the message that it is OK to do this sort of thing. She, like everyone else, is guilty. Obama more so, since it is immoral to use black magic.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 7:25:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I didn't really get FREEDO's interpretation from the code pink lady, but apparently something in CNN corroborated his perspective:

Much of the coverage of the speech has centered on the measures the president outlined to impose greater constraints on CIA drone strikes and to try to hasten the eventual closing of Guantanamo.

But the most significant aspect of the speech was the president's case that the "perpetual wartime footing" and "boundless war on terror" that has permeated so much of American life since 9/11 should come to an end.

Obama argued that the time has come to redefine the kind of conflict that the United States is engaged in: "We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us."


Interesting piece. Thanks for the perspective FREEDO.

http://www.cnn.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:23:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/25/2013 2:56:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/25/2013 5:59:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 5/24/2013 6:43:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/24/2013 3:12:07 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
I saw this on CNN yesterday. IMHO the event wasn't scripted, and large men did take her down eventually.

So you think that if the heckler were denouncing Obama for the DOJ phone record scandal and demanding his impeachment, that it would have taken them just as long to remove the person? Not a chance. The nut lady was eventually led away by a staff woman, not by Secret Service security guys. I'm sure the nut lady was not given a script, but the decision to let her into the event and to allow the rant was likely a conscious choice. Everyone knows that she always interrupts events with her rants.

Who cares?

Thank you royalpaladin for your trite, meaningless, and ultimately petty contribution to this thread.

I suppose there must be a few ways to interpret royalpaladin's comment. I have no more idea than you of her intentions, of course, but here's how I interpreted her comment when I first read it.

First, some background. Code Pink is a women's NGO that, according to wikipedia "is primarily focused on anti-war issues, but has also taken positions on gun control, social justice, Palestinian statehood, green jobs and health care issues. The organization advertises itself as women-initiated and mainly composed of women." From the very little I know about Royalpaladin, I would assume that her sympathies align with Code Pink's. She might even be a member.

According to this news item, interrupting speeches is a favorite tactic of Code Pink.

http://www.rawstory.com...

In the OP, Roylatham used the words "nutcase", "rant", "dopey". Also, he implied that the event was allowed and scripted, a patronizing and disempowering interpretation of Code Pink's activities.

Royalpaladin and Roylatham have both been on this site for a long time. I don't know much about either of them, but at first glance, their political views couldn't be more opposed. It's possible that they have a history of this kind of discussion and even that Roylatham had Royalpaladin in mind when he started this post.

If that's the case, then royalpaladin's response could be interpreted as indicating that she thinks Roylatham's remarks are meaningless, petty and provocative, and that she is not going to respond. In which case, her comment is succinct, restrained, and meaningful.

Of course I need to stress again that I can't read her mind, and I don't know what she meant. But that's how I interpreted it when I read it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2013 9:34:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/26/2013 9:23:54 PM, rross wrote:
At 5/25/2013 2:56:03 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/25/2013 5:59:02 AM, royalpaladin wrote:

Who cares?

Thank you royalpaladin for your trite, meaningless, and ultimately petty contribution to this thread.

I suppose there must be a few ways to interpret royalpaladin's comment. I have no more idea than you of her intentions, of course, but here's how I interpreted her comment when I first read it.

First, some background. Code Pink is a women's NGO that, according to wikipedia "is primarily focused on anti-war issues, but has also taken positions on gun control, social justice, Palestinian statehood, green jobs and health care issues. The organization advertises itself as women-initiated and mainly composed of women." From the very little I know about Royalpaladin, I would assume that her sympathies align with Code Pink's. She might even be a member.

According to this news item, interrupting speeches is a favorite tactic of Code Pink.

http://www.rawstory.com...

In the OP, Roylatham used the words "nutcase", "rant", "dopey". Also, he implied that the event was allowed and scripted, a patronizing and disempowering interpretation of Code Pink's activities.

Royalpaladin and Roylatham have both been on this site for a long time. I don't know much about either of them, but at first glance, their political views couldn't be more opposed. It's possible that they have a history of this kind of discussion and even that Roylatham had Royalpaladin in mind when he started this post.

If that's the case, then royalpaladin's response could be interpreted as indicating that she thinks Roylatham's remarks are meaningless, petty and provocative, and that she is not going to respond. In which case, her comment is succinct, restrained, and meaningful.

Of course I need to stress again that I can't read her mind, and I don't know what she meant. But that's how I interpreted it when I read it.

Your post, which I agree with to a large extent except for your conclusion, wholly invalidates Royal's comment.

Of course there's reason to care. That's why we are commenting. That's why you are commenting. Trite, meaningless, and petty crap like "who cares" denigrates the purpose of this discussion, and of Code Pink's purpose.

You are making ridiculous assumptions as to what is going on in Royal's head. I am taking her words at face value, which are indeed trite, meaningless, and petty. Without any explanation, taking her words beyond face value are simply inappropriate. In fact, it is the lack of explanation that makes her comments trite, meaningless, and petty, and it is your explanation that makes YOUR comments (minus the x-files mind-reading attempt) anything BUT trite, meaningless, and petty.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?